how to respond. Perhaps you could return to this book or check our Love and Logic website at www.loveandlogic.com for ideas.
Many people have been taught that the best time to respond is immediately because they feel the impact will be lost if time passes. But haven’t you ever heard about a two-year-old remembering a promise made a week ago about getting something she wanted the next time Mommy took her to the store? Don’t worry! Your kids have a good memory too. And often in the time between problem and consequence, either they’ll find a solution to the problem for themselves, or the perfect consequence will present itself to you so that the children will get optimal learning out of the situation!
The key is to keep the ball in the kid’s court and model taking care of yourself. Then, even if the kids think they have gotten away with it, when the consequences come they will be more meaningful because you took the time to find the best response.
when she got off the bus. She missed the afternoon throw-and- retrieve game. When she investigated further, she found that her dog was nowhere to be found.
“I’ve taken Snuggles to her new home at Betty’s place,”
Emily’s mother said.
“To Betty’s house?” asked Emily.
“Right,” Mom said. “But there’s bad news and good news.
The bad news is that Betty is already falling in love with Snuggles and may never want to give her up. The good news is that Betty gave us three days to decide if Snuggles can come back here.”
“Snuggles is at Betty’s house?” Emily screamed. “Why?”
“Well, frankly,” Mom said, “I got tired of seeing Snuggles’
ribs showing. I don’t like looking at skinny, malnourished dogs that are being abused. Their whining bothers my ears and their ribs disturb my eyeballs, so Snuggles needed a new home.”
“B-b-b-but how do I get Snuggles back?” Emily stammered.
“Will you take me to Betty’s house?”
“You must be kidding,” Mom said flatly. “I just took the dog over there. Now I’m supposed to bring her back? Do I look like an idiot?”
So Emily phoned a neighbor who happened to drive near Betty’s house on his way to work. (Kids can be very resourceful when they have to be.) Mom had phoned the neighbor earlier in the day to explain what might happen.
“Sure, I’ll take you by there on my way to work,” the neighbor said. “And I’ll pick you and Snuggles up on my way home. You’ll have to call Betty and see if you can spend the day at her house.”
“Oh, I will,” Emily gushed. “I will.”
Snuggles is safe at home now — happy, loved, appreciated, a n d well fed. Emily learned an important lesson about responsibility.
We sometimes worry that this approach sounds too tough, taking the pet out of the home with the possibility it may never return. But we also know that life offers much tougher consequences. The message we want to convey to our children is that neglecting responsibilities presents serious consequences. Poor personal health habits, for example, can lead to illness and, ultimately, death. Children need to learn that lesson. The question is this: Will they learn it on goldfish or hamsters or dogs, or on themselves?
This is tough on us. Our guilt nags us; our insecurity bugs us to death.
What will our friends think when our son is the jerk of his school? How will we be viewed at church when it’s our daughter who never remembers the name of the boy who slew Goliath? How can parents who love their child stand back and watch him or her blow it time and time again without stepping in with help? Our intervention into our children’s problems demonstrates a selfish love. We must rise up in a higher love — a love that shows itself in allowing our children to learn on their own.
Standing at her kitchen window, Robin watches son Josh slug neighbor boy Parker, after which Parker, unhurt, flees home in tears. Is this a child’s problem? Of course it is. If Robin allows her own emotions to control her reaction, she can rob Josh of the chance to grow in responsibility. For example, if she reacts with embarrassment — “What will people think?” — Josh receives the message that she doesn’t care about how he feels; she cares only about how others feel. If she is angry and authoritarian — “Don’t do that! Apologize to Parker!” — Josh will rebel. Parents who make a child do something their way find that the child tries all the harder to do it his or her way. If she throws up her hands in helplessness — “What will I ever do with you?” — she assumes ownership of the problem. Josh will probably think, I don’t know, but you figure it out.
Each of these possible responses is based on Robin’s own emotions.
Each denies Josh the chance to tackle his own problem. It would be better for Robin to focus on Josh. She could either say nothing or offer her ear
for listening if Josh wants to talk about it. Or if she is so troubled she feels she must express her disapproval, she could say, “Josh, I saw what you did to Parker. Do you approve of that? What would be the right thing to do now? How do you think Parker feels? I hope next time you’ll find a better way to solve that kind of problem.” Such comments put the burden of resolving the problem as well as the future response on Josh’s shoulders.
What should Robin do if Parker’s mother, Kelly, comes over spitting nails? How would she keep this Josh’s problem? If that happens, it is best for Robin to say, “Well, Kelly, I can understand your being upset. If my son had been hit, I’d be upset too. I think it would be great for you to tell Josh exactly how you feel. In fact, I’ll call him down and you can talk to him now.”
Robin must emphasize to Kelly that she cannot control her son’s behavior when he is away from home but, on the other hand, understands if Parker is angry and wants to hit Josh back. Robin tells Kelly that she will let Josh know that this threat is a distinct possibility and that such consequences would be sad for him. Throughout this whole episode, Robin should realize that Kelly may not be helping her son Parker by moving in and taking care of Parker’s problems. On the other hand, she also realizes it might help Josh a lot to let him know that the neighbors are upset and will not let him get away with such an act.
Allowing children to solve their own problems presumes an implicit, basic trust that their behavior will change as they learn from their experiences. For example, Josh might learn that hitting another person usually results in bad news for the provocateur.
To repeat: The best solution to any problem lies within the skin of the person who rightfully owns the problem.