Archive for May, 2009
May 8, 2009
Don’t try to solve problems for your children, but teach them how to solve problems themselves.
Conflicts are inevitable in children’s lives and therefore children should learn as early as possible how to problem solve. Unless a child is in danger, parents need to let the child try to figure out options to handle their problems. Our task as parents is to listen and not try to solve their problems for them.
To deal with these behaviors, a parent has a number of choices. The action of choice for most parents is punishment. My mom used to wash out our mouth with soap when we used “dirty” words. A second choice would be to reward or bribe a child to address the behavior. This would be a parent who says, “If you will pick up your toys, you can have some ice cream.” A third choice of parents would be to ignore the behavior and pretend it didn’t happen or to pick up the toys for the child to avoid a fight.
Punishment, although needed at times, runs the risk of damaging the parent/child relationship. Rewards set up the expectation that bad behavior has benefits and will not change unacceptable behavior, in fact, it may increase it. Denial and/or picking up after a child encourages irresponsibility, since the child does not experience the consequence of his behavior.
“Parent Effectiveness” author and psychologist Dr. Thomas Gordon teaches parents to use “I Messages” to deal with unacceptable behaviors. An “I Message” has four parts. The first component is a non-blameful description of the unacceptable behavior. The second part is the feelings of the parent. Third is the tangible concrete effect the behavior has on the parent and lastly, is a request to the child.
Here is an example of an “I Message.” Parent A is disturbed when the children fail to close the outside doors in the middle of the hot summer. Parent A takes the children outside to the electrical meter box and says to the children, “When the doors are left open (a non-blameful description of the problem), it causes the hand on this meter to turn more quickly and every time this hand makes a circle, it costs us money (tangible concrete effect). When we have to pay a large electrical bill, I am afraid (feelings) I will not have enough money to pay our bills and still have money for all the fun things we like to do. I need for both of you to remember to close the doors each time you come out or go in” (request).
Try an “I Message” this week as an alternative to punishment, reward or denial. See what happens!
Thanks to Dr. Bill Mitcham, the Director of The Marriage Maintenance Center in Davidson, North Carolina, USA for today’s tip!
Do you have a tip you’d like to share? Please let us know below.
[contact-form]
May 8, 2009
Insights [download PDF] is a Save the Children commissioned study into children’s perspectives on family discipline. The findings of the study, conducted by child advocate Terry Dobbs, show an alarming rate of physical punishment used in ordinary Kiwi families and supports the current Child Discipline Law. The research was launched in 27 September 2005 prior to the law reform that made New Zealand the first English speaking country in the world to have banned the physical punishment of children. The findings published in Insights are still very relevant today – and send a strong message to parents that physical punishment does not work.
More than nine out of ten (92%) of the 80 children aged between five and 14 years interviewed for the study said they had been or that they believed children were smacked. Some reported being hit around the face and/or head and with implements and many described it as the first line of discipline the parent used, rather than a last resort. They reported parents were often angry or stressed when they smacked– and would later express regret or offer ‘treats’ to compensate. Children said smacking made them feel angry, upset and fearful – and was not an effective form of discipline.
“The information contained in this study is crucial for every parent and caregiver of children in New Zealand,” Save the Children New Zealand executive director Phil Abraham says.
“Children’s voices are often missing from the debate around family discipline and effective parenting. The level of physical punishment reported in the study is shocking and delivers crucial information for the debate around the repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961. Children need to be listened to in discussions about issues that affect them. They have some important messages which challenge the assumptions of many parents out there”.
The study also found children were more often hit by fathers and male members of the household and were more often physically punished for hurting others.
“This sends a contradictory message to children,” Terry Dobbs says. “Children are told that it is wrong to hurt someone else and yet they are hurt in response to hurting others, this is a confusing message for children”
Children suggested that parents should stop being angry, and talk to children explaining what the child had done wrong before administrating any family discipline, as this would have better outcomes for both children and parents. They said that talking with children about the rules the child had broken would assist the child’s understanding, rather than using physical punishment, which did not. They said using ‘time-out’, having privileges removed or being grounded were more effective means of discipline.
The research formed the basis of Ms Dobbs’s thesis for her Master of Arts in Childhood and Youth Studies, supervised by Otago University’s Children’s Issues Centre.
The children were chosen from 10 different schools – ranging from decile one to 10 – across five geographical locations in New Zealand.
To fit the criteria for the study, the children had to have no known or alleged history of abuse or neglect and sufficient verbal skills to participate in focus group discussions. They were questioned using a storybook methodology about their experiences and understanding of family discipline and their views of the effects of various disciplinary techniques.
May 7, 2009
The Youth Week website is running a poll on the question:
Should children and young people have the same legal protections from assault as all other citizens have?
This is a much more clearly worded question than the one we’ll be voting on in August, put forth by a group with much more sincere motives the the folks who brought you the current referendum.
We suggest that you consider a Yes Vote on this poll too – go and vote in it!
May 7, 2009
Science Daily reports that children who can stay focused and aren’t prone to stress have a better shot at good health in adulthood.
“This longitudinal study [download] provides more evidence that behavior and emotions generally linked to certain temperaments play a crucial role in long-term health,” said lead author Laura D. Kubzansky, PhD, of the Harvard School of Public Health. Fortunately, early childhood characteristics can be shaped and guided by social, family and peer interactions. Interventions can focus on altering certain ways of responding and behaviors that frequently accompany particular traits to prevent certain diseases.”
Given that hitting children can cause long-lasting anxiety, social withdrawal, night terrors, and severe depression, we can say with some confidence that smacking children is bad for their long-term mental as well as physical health.
May 7, 2009
Be deliberate and intentional about the baggage we bring to our children’s upbringing.
As parents we often find ourselves doing the same things to our children as our parents did to us — including things we didn’t like when we were children.
That’s because we bring things from our own childhoods into our role as parents. Most of the time that’s fine, but sometimes it means we end up treating our children in ways that are negative and destructive.
Conscious parenting means becoming deliberate and intentional about what we want for our children. It means making choices about what we bring from our own childhoods, and what we choose to leave out.
One of the challenges to conscious parenting is the belief that parenting comes naturally—that it’s automatic and you should just know what to do. This belief doesn’t always allow us to learn from our own experiences, or from the experience of others.
Becoming conscious about parenting practice involves learning from what we do, and changing our behaviour as a result. When you find something that works, add it to your parenting strategies—then start thinking about another area of parenting you could change.
Remember, parenting is a journey, not a destination, and for every journey you need to be prepared.
Thanks to Plunket for today’s tip!
Do you have a tip you’d like to share? Please let us know below.
[contact-form]
May 7, 2009
As a Paediatrician at Hutt Hospital for the last thirty plus years, I have seen a lot of abusive treatment of children by their caregivers and accordingly I strongly supported the repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act. This action has been glibly labelled as “the anti-smacking” bill, but in fact is not that at all. It removed the excuse that physical punishment with resulting injury could be a defence in court as being part of acceptable disciplining of a child. This is in line with our respect for adults and with the UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child to which our government has agreed.
Unfortunately, I have been in a situation where a caregiver escaped punishment in spite of hitting a 14 year old girl with a broomstick so hard that she was unable to stand, sit or even lie down for 5 days without pain because of the bruising on her buttocks and thighs. As this happened nearly 20 years ago one might hope that attitudes have changed and no jury would make a similar decision now. That has not been the case and a number of similar decisions over recent years show that our children still need the protection of the legislation as it currently stands.
The wording of the forthcoming referendum is akin to the trick question of “have you stopped beating your wife?” To ask for a “yes” or “no” answer to the question “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?” is impossible as none of the basic terms are defined. What is a “smack”? What is “good parental correction”? What does a “no” vote mean and what is the likely outcome of such a vote?
It is noteworthy that the world has not fallen apart since the repeal of Section 59 two years ago and, even though child abuse continues to occur as expected, our children at least do have one more small piece of protection that they so sorely need. It also declares unequivocally to us all that hitting children for whatever reason is unacceptable.
Archie Kerr,
Paediatrician (Retired)
May 6, 2009
Like all of us, children learn about the world through everyday conversations.
When we discipline our children, we need to make sure they understand the message.
Talk to your child as much as you can and listen to what they say to you. Be realistic about what they can and can’t do. For example, you can’t expect a one year old to eat without making a mess, or a two year old to sit still for a long time.
To talk to your child successfully, attract their attention, direct their attention to the object or topic under question, and give a specific explanation about what you expect—and why.
Take time to think about how you communicate with your children. How effective is it? What would you like to change? Select something you would like to change and work on it for a week.
You will be rewarded for your efforts!
Thanks to Plunket for today’s tip!
Do you have a tip you’d like to share? Please let us know below.
[contact-form]
May 6, 2009
Barbara Lambourn at Unicef NZ has put together the following Powerpoint presentation, called “What’s it all about? Section 59 of the Crimes Act”. It’s a good general overview of the issues suitable for presentations.
You can also download the presentation, so you can load it onto your laptop and show it round everywhere.
May 6, 2009
In the second article in our series on religious attitudes to child discipline, Rev Dr Margaret Mayman explains why she strongly supports a YES vote.
—
Two years ago, our congregation, St Andrew’s on The Terrace, supported the law change that removed the defence of reasonable force for the purposes of correction of children. Now we are arguing that the law change be retained and that citizens should vote “Yes” in the referendum.
Prior to the law change, there had been terrible cases of child abuse that had not resulted in an assault conviction because of the use of this defence. New Zealand has appalling rates of lethal and non-lethal child abuse and there is strong evidence that abuse often occurs as an escalation of physical punishment. The law needed to be changed to ensure that the children received equal protection.
The engagement of religious groups in public policy matters is controversial. Our view follows that of twentieth-century German theologian, Deitrich Bonhoeffer. Bonhoeffer rejected the idea that faith was something inward and private with no relevance to society or politics. He wrote as a Christian engaged in profound opposition to Nazism and in criticism of Christian withdrawal from politics. He believed that the Church had a prophetic imperative to speak out for those who could not speak. In his case, for the Jewish people who were being brutally persecuted by the German state. Bonhoeffer believed that the witness of the Bible, and particularly the life and teaching of Jesus, required public advocacy. In his Letters and Papers from Prison, he wrote: We have for once learned to see the great events of world history from below, from the perspective of the outcast, the suspects, the maltreated, the powerless, the reviled – in short, form the perspective of those who suffer.
Our faith community, located in twentieth century Aotearoa, is engaged in supporting the law change, and in voting ‘Yes’ in the referendum, because we believe that suffering children are the ones whose perspective should be the basis our public response. We do not expect that our voices, as religious people, should be given more weight than any other group participating in the public discourse, but we nevertheless have an imperative to speak out and a right to be heard.
Progressive Christian voices are needed to balance those of religious conservatives who advocate for the continuing use of physical force to discipline children.
Biblical Interpretation
We believe that the Bible “contains the inspired word of God.” This word is mediated to us through the words of human beings who were subject to their culture, religion and history. We read it now with the guidance of the Holy Spirit (the aspect of God that is present within and among us all) in light of our cultural and scientific knowledge. The Bible was written down over a period of 1500 and covers a historical period even longer than that.
As followers of Jesus, we see a clear mandate toward non-violence in all aspects of our lives. We believe that the recorded interactions of Jesus with children in the New Testament call us to a radical respect for the personhood, and therefore the bodily integrity of children.
Key biblical passages for our understanding of our responsibilities towards children include passages such as Matthew 19: 13-15. When the disciples tried to rebuke people who brought their children to Jesus. Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of heaven belongs. And he laid his hands upon them and went on his way.”
Jesus clearly felt love and compassion for children, adding that his disciples should “Take care that you do not despise one of these little ones; for, I tell you, in heaven their angels continually see the face of my Father in heaven. …So it is not the will of your Father in heaven that one of these little ones should be lost.” (Matthew 18:10, 14)
Reading the stories of Jesus teachings about children, and his interactions with them, in the gospels, we find no justification for physical punishment, let alone any directive for it.
It is true that there are biblical verses that might suggest that physical punishment is endorsed. They consist of a smattering of verses, primarily from the Book of Proverbs. The commonly quoted “spare the rod and spoil the child” is not actually from the Bible, though Proverbs does include “Those who spare the rod hate their children, but those who love them are diligent to discipline them.”
Thousands of years of physical violence and assaults have been justified by this proverb and a number of others. However, twenty-first century Christians are bound to interpret the Bible contextually and in light of knowledge developed since the scriptures were written. This includes knowledge about child development and of the damage caused by physical punishment.
No one today interprets the Bible literally on this issue, despite the claims of conservative Christians that they do so. For example, in the book of Deuteronomy, Moses told the people of Israel that “If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. They shall say to the elders of his town, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. So you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel will hear, and be afraid.” (Deuteronomy 21: 18-21).
For those Christians who insist that the Bible requires parents to use physical punishment, they must account for this instruction that parent is required to put to death the persistently disobedient youth.
Within Christianity, the teachings and actions of Jesus, and his consequent understanding of the person and will of God, transformed the systems of violence and punishment. The religious narrative changed from an authoritarian God to a God who relates to Jesus and to all people as a loving parent.
Progressive Christians believe that Jesus teaching about love, forgiveness, and reconciliation compel us toward a path of non-violence in all aspects of our lives, including the way we raise children in families and communities.
The only words attributed to Jesus that could be construed to justify punishment can be found in Revelation, which relates a vision recorded by John long after the death of Jesus. In Revelation 3: 19, he said: “I reprove and discipline those whom I love. Be earnest, therefore, and repent.” It contains nothing specific about children and reproving and disciplining are not necessarily physical.
Another text cited from the New Testament is Hebrews 12: 5-11. The author justifies physical punishment by drawing upon an understanding of ancient history filled with divine punishment. He refers to his own experiences of childhood punishment as “painful at the time.” Nowhere does the author invoke the teaching of Jesus to confirm his beliefs. His words have been used to justify much suffering. His is a theology of an abused child.
Other New Testament sources include Paul’s epistle to the Colossians. Paul commanded children to obey their parents, but added an important injunction to parents, “Fathers, do not provoke your children, or they may lose heart.” In Ephesians 6: 1-3, Paul again urged children to obey and honour their parents, but he again added the instruction: “And, fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.” (Ephesians 6:4).
In other passages in his letters, it is clear that Paul accepted the institution of slavery while at the same time seeking to soften it. Nineteenth century Christians realised that to take seriously the teaching of Jesus about the dignity of all people, required that slavery be ended. Our interpretations of the Bible do not stand still.
Breaking Wills
It has been an assumption of Protestant theology, since its inception, that children are born sinful and disobedient and that parents must use physical discipline in order to save them from their depravity. This understanding was developed in detail in Christian parenting manuals from the nineteenth century and continues today in parenting material written by some evangelical Christians.
Progressive Christians are reclaiming a new theological anthropology that stresses the blessing of children, not their sinfulness. We have particular responsibility to guide them into a mature relationship with God and we cannot do that by fear or violence.
Parents, like all Christians, are required to show compassion and gentleness, including in the way they discipline their children.
Christians have contributed negatively to a culture of violence in the home. It has been reinforced by inadequate biblical interpretations and inadequate ethical reflection. As a faith tradition, we bear responsibility for the damage done to so many children in the name of our faith. In advocating for repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act, and in supporting a ‘Yes’ vote in the forthcoming referendum, we are beginning to redress that injustice.
Creating a Good Society for Parents and Children
I am concerned pastorally for parents and children in Aotearoa. Many of our congregation have children of our own, and we understand the enormous challenges that parenting presents. We sympathise with parents who in times of great stress lash out violently towards their children. We believe that the law change sends a clear message to parents so that in times of stress they will be able to curb the emotional response to hit their children. Rather than increasing the burden of parenting, it will provide a very strong message that there are other, more effective ways of disciplining their children.
We also respond to those who claim that physical punishment did them no harm as children, and that they are able to control the delivery of violence in such a way that children will not be injured. This claim is contestable in that there is increasing evidence that harm is caused even when physical injury does not result. Given the very high incidence of child abuse and death in New Zealand, we all have a moral responsibility to protect children from parents who are clearly unable to limit physical punishment to a non-injurious degree.
In the end, violence is violence wherever it occurs. In a civilised society, we should not refuse to protect those most vulnerable. Our statistics, on international scales, are truly a cause for shame. We must do better to protect and cherish children, who are like all humans, created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27; 5:2).
Conclusion
Religious groups do not have a right to compel government to adopt their understanding into law. However, we have a responsibility to speak up for those who cannot speak, those who are vulnerable and powerless. In this case, we speak for the rights of children to bodily integrity and spiritual well-being, believing as we do that that the law change benefits adults as well. Inflicting violence on others damages the spirit of the one who perpetrates violence.
The law is working well. The wording of the referendum question is misleading and misguided, ignoring the discretion that the police have in regard to prosecution. I strongly support a “Yes Vote.”
Rev Dr Margaret Mayman
St Andrew’s on The Terrace
Tags: bible ,biblical interpretation ,christian ,christianity ,colossians ,deitrich bonhoeffer ,ephesians ,genesis ,margaret mayman ,matthew ,new testament ,old testament ,physical punishment ,presbyterian ,progressive christian ,proverbs ,religion ,religious attitudes to child discipline ,st andrews on the terrace ,wellington
May 5, 2009
Set clear expectations for your child’s behaviour, and explain why you want them to behave that way.
By the age of one or two most children can understand more words than they can say. That means they can start to learn from the explanations you give them.
All of us can think of times when we have gained someone’s co-operation by providing them with an explanation.
Managing children’s behaviour is no different. Explanations tell children what, why, or how. Be clear about what you want your children to do—and what you don’t want them to do.
Explain to your child how their behaviour affects others, or why you want a request to be followed.
Reflect on a recent incident with your child, and what you said to them. Did you give a clear explanation? Did your child understand? Did you behave in a way that maintained a warm relationship between the two of you?
Thanks to Plunket for today’s tip!
Do you have a tip you’d like to share? Please let us know below.
[contact-form]
