Please settle this disagreement

amother

Lime

Thu, Nov 17 2016, 4:58 pm

So when one parent says they're going to follow through on a consequence, that parent should be the one to do it at that moment. Say I say ok, if you don't stop, I'm taking away x. So I will be the one to take x away; if dh said it, he should be the one to take x away. Fine, we agree on that. Here's where we disagree: let's say taking x away doesn't go so smoothly. The child pitches a fit and takes out anger either on another toy, a sibling, or parent. Or maybe they try to climb up to the place where I just put x. If dh is around, I think he should help me handle the situation if I need it. He thinks since I'm the one carrying through with the consequence, it's all on me and he doesn't need to participate. This has nothing to do with whether or not he agrees about taking away x. He may be in 1000% agreement that it needs to happen, but if I was the one who first said I'm doing it, then I must see it through to the end and he shouldn't help even if I clearly could use it. Wdyt?

amother

Lime

Thu, Nov 17 2016, 5:38 pm

So he argues that we are always a team. After all, he agrees with my methods and backs me up. He will not let the child off the hook. The problem is, when discipline is not going so smoothly, he will not assist if I was the one who made the initial call to do time out or take something away or what have you.

imasinger

Thu, Nov 17 2016, 5:39 pm

amother wrote:

He says it's principle, but I suspect it's laziness. Somehow, he's not so keen to chase me away when he's in that situation.

Are you tempted to give him a taste of his own medicine? Mr. Green

I don't think principle makes any difference. When one parent needs help with a child that is misbehaving, and asks the other one to help, there's no principle involved, just basic courtesy.

I'd sit him down later in private, and state very clearly, "This kid belongs to both of us, and it's vital that we present a united front. Would you like to sign up with me for some parenting classes, to learn why this is so important, or are you willing to take my word for it? OK, so, next time, please help out when I need it. Thanks, honey. What should I make for Shabbos dessert?"

amother

Aquamarine

Fri, Nov 18 2016, 6:08 am

Discipline is a team sport. So, I actually disagree with your basic premise - I believe that if my husband or I give a consequence, sometimes we have to have the other person follow through. On the level of theory, the kids will know that we are a team with a united front and we back each other up. On the level of practice, this is sometimes necessary too just for practical reasons - someone is also dealing with a baby or other child, someone has their hands full of raw meat, someone got that cup of milk spilled all over them and has to change, one of us is about to blow our top so it would be much better for the child and upset parent to have the calmer parent give the consequence. Etc. So I don't believe that the person who gave the consequence has to be the only one to follow through, as sometimes it is the best interest of one or more people in the family to have the other parent give the consequence in the first place. Even more so, for what your saying, if one parent needs help giving out a consequence, the other parent should always help, otherwise it's just making the discipline less effective for the child and more difficult for the disciplining parent.

seeker

Fri, Nov 18 2016, 9:02 am

amother wrote:

"Not letting the child off the hook" means that you put your foot down if they're giving the other parent a hard time. If he doesn't want to directly step in and join the fray I get that but he should at least be telling the child firmly that he expects them to listen to you - and enforce that.

amother

Indigo

Fri, Nov 18 2016, 9:20 am

Parenting is a team effort but to some extent I agree with him. I choose my battles. I don't say no all the time. I only say no when I know that I have the physical and emotional strength the carry through that no. For example if I'm stressed out and a kid wants a lolly I might say yes eventhough I don't want him to have it, just because I know that I don't have the strength to stick to a no if he will argue or tantrum or kvetch.

So if you decided to pick that battle and your husband is not up to it then I can see how it's unfair for him to have to step in.

Miri7

Fri, Nov 18 2016, 10:36 am

Once one parent has established a consequence both parents have to enforce it. A parent who does otherwise is showing the child that they may disrespect the parent's authority. This goes against kibud av v'em.

DH and I have had to work on this and now always enforce the consequences the other established even if it's hard or we don't agree 100% or think we would have handled it differently.

ETA: I'm only talking about reasonable consequences here - not where one parent is abusive or anything like that.