Psychologist recommends bathroom time out as punishment. Thoughts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I spoke to a psychologist with expertise in parenting and she gave this advice:

Give child 3 rules: 1) obedience, 2) respect, 3) no arguing. Parents have three rules when responding to child's breaking of these rules (child not told this but parents know): 1) be consistent, 2) no second chances, and 3) no warning before consequences.

If child breaks one of the rules, they are put in bathroom for timeout, for six minutes, and they must think and be quiet. Presumably if they are not quiet they stay longer or something.

Psychologist also said she doesn't recommend discussing/reasoning with child as it just promotes arguing and doesn't yield much compliance/harmony in the household. She also said kids don't feel guilty enough and her method is designed to foster healthy guilt (not shame).

My gut reaction is no to the bathroom punishment. I had reactions to the rules she gave as well but am curious about what others think.

This may work with a very complaint child but will backfire spectacularly with a different child.

Some kids are not "disobeying" when they break a rule, they just don't have the skillset yet to follow them. It's your job as a parent to teach them, not to "punish" them for not having those skills yet!

For some kids, these skills come more naturally and easily, but for other kids it takes longer (years sometimes) and they have to be taught.

The best way to teach -- emotional regulation, clam disposition, respect of people and property -- is by modeling.

Locking your kid in a bathroom is a slippery slope. What happens when they continue to "break" rules after their timeouts? Or they are not quiet inside but scream? Lock them in longer? And when they get physical, i.e. try to get out of the bathroom, are you going to physically restrain them? Where does this end?

Again, with a super compliant kid this might work (although I still think it is cruel) but with lots of kids you are setting up power struggles that will destroy your family's peace.

Thanks. Just to clarify what do you mean by 'clam disposition'? I agree modeling what you want to see is really important. But what would you say are reasonable consequences for misbehavior (i.e., where the child knows what to do but fails to do it because they've decided not to). I could use some ideas here beyond sending to room. I also don't want to do things in a reactionary way and I don't think giving threats is useful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends on the child and situation. A child with oppositional defiance disorder type behaviour needs a very different approach from a just typical bad behaviour kid. Is there a disorder connected to why you are seeing the psychologist?

OP. I could see that. But no, my child is not at risk for ODD. I decided to talk to this person because of family stress and some concerns about child's behavior but nothing major. Was just looking for some good parenting advice to share with partner that came from the "outside" so that we could both get on board and be accountable.

You talked to a professional about problems in your family and with your DC and don't like the advice you got, the changes that were recommended. Okay. Then you will continue to have problems with your family and your DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I spoke to a psychologist with expertise in parenting and she gave this advice:

Give child 3 rules: 1) obedience, 2) respect, 3) no arguing. Parents have three rules when responding to child's breaking of these rules (child not told this but parents know): 1) be consistent, 2) no second chances, and 3) no warning before consequences.

If child breaks one of the rules, they are put in bathroom for timeout, for six minutes, and they must think and be quiet. Presumably if they are not quiet they stay longer or something.

Psychologist also said she doesn't recommend discussing/reasoning with child as it just promotes arguing and doesn't yield much compliance/harmony in the household. She also said kids don't feel guilty enough and her method is designed to foster healthy guilt (not shame).

My gut reaction is no to the bathroom punishment. I had reactions to the rules she gave as well but am curious about what others think.

This may work with a very complaint child but will backfire spectacularly with a different child.

Some kids are not "disobeying" when they break a rule, they just don't have the skillset yet to follow them. It's your job as a parent to teach them, not to "punish" them for not having those skills yet!

For some kids, these skills come more naturally and easily, but for other kids it takes longer (years sometimes) and they have to be taught.

The best way to teach -- emotional regulation, clam disposition, respect of people and property -- is by modeling.

Locking your kid in a bathroom is a slippery slope. What happens when they continue to "break" rules after their timeouts? Or they are not quiet inside but scream? Lock them in longer? And when they get physical, i.e. try to get out of the bathroom, are you going to physically restrain them? Where does this end?

Again, with a super compliant kid this might work (although I still think it is cruel) but with lots of kids you are setting up power struggles that will destroy your family's peace.

Did the psych say lock in or just put in?

I don't see why this has to be a slippery slope. Just like any other parentung method, if one strategy doesn’t work, the only option isn't to escalate. A parent can try a different approach.

Didn't say lock in but I assume that would be the case. I think the psychologist would say that if child disobeys (yells, tries to come out) then you increase the duration, but I could be wrong. Would be odd for her to recommend this as the consequence and then say oh, your kid doesn't like it and yells? Tries to get out? Then this consequence is not for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends on the child and situation. A child with oppositional defiance disorder type behaviour needs a very different approach from a just typical bad behaviour kid. Is there a disorder connected to why you are seeing the psychologist?

OP. I could see that. But no, my child is not at risk for ODD. I decided to talk to this person because of family stress and some concerns about child's behavior but nothing major. Was just looking for some good parenting advice to share with partner that came from the "outside" so that we could both get on board and be accountable.

You talked to a professional about problems in your family and with your DC and don't like the advice you got, the changes that were recommended. Okay. Then you will continue to have problems with your family and your DC.

Oh, ok. Thanks! Words of wisdom on DCUM: If you talk to a professional you must take their advice, even if it's bad/not a good fit, else continue to have problems. Genius.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends on the child and situation. A child with oppositional defiance disorder type behaviour needs a very different approach from a just typical bad behaviour kid. Is there a disorder connected to why you are seeing the psychologist?

OP. I could see that. But no, my child is not at risk for ODD. I decided to talk to this person because of family stress and some concerns about child's behavior but nothing major. Was just looking for some good parenting advice to share with partner that came from the "outside" so that we could both get on board and be accountable.

You need a new therapist. She or he sounds nuts.

[Anonymous]

I would find a new psychologist. Listen to your gut.

[Anonymous]

OP, have you ever watched What Not to Wear? They give the person some rules and send them off. The rules give them a framework and a new way forward.

Your psychologist has given you 3 new rules, a new way forward. You can implement the rules in various ways but they should be in line with the rules.

"Give child 3 rules: 1) obedience, 2) respect, 3) no arguing. Parents have three rules when responding to child's breaking of these rules (child not told this but parents know): 1) be consistent, 2) no second chances, and 3) no warning before consequences."

Those are reasonable rules. They're about consistency, predictability, and reliability. For everyone. Stability and predictability is great for kids. They will test rules and boundaries, that's what they do, but they are a lot happier and more confident when they know where the rules and boundaries are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I spoke to a psychologist with expertise in parenting and she gave this advice:

Give child 3 rules: 1) obedience, 2) respect, 3) no arguing. Parents have three rules when responding to child's breaking of these rules (child not told this but parents know): 1) be consistent, 2) no second chances, and 3) no warning before consequences.

If child breaks one of the rules, they are put in bathroom for timeout, for six minutes, and they must think and be quiet. Presumably if they are not quiet they stay longer or something.

Psychologist also said she doesn't recommend discussing/reasoning with child as it just promotes arguing and doesn't yield much compliance/harmony in the household. She also said kids don't feel guilty enough and her method is designed to foster healthy guilt (not shame).

My gut reaction is no to the bathroom punishment. I had reactions to the rules she gave as well but am curious about what others think.

This may work with a very complaint child but will backfire spectacularly with a different child.

Some kids are not "disobeying" when they break a rule, they just don't have the skillset yet to follow them. It's your job as a parent to teach them, not to "punish" them for not having those skills yet!

For some kids, these skills come more naturally and easily, but for other kids it takes longer (years sometimes) and they have to be taught.

The best way to teach -- emotional regulation, clam disposition, respect of people and property -- is by modeling.

Locking your kid in a bathroom is a slippery slope. What happens when they continue to "break" rules after their timeouts? Or they are not quiet inside but scream? Lock them in longer? And when they get physical, i.e. try to get out of the bathroom, are you going to physically restrain them? Where does this end?

Again, with a super compliant kid this might work (although I still think it is cruel) but with lots of kids you are setting up power struggles that will destroy your family's peace.

Thanks. Just to clarify what do you mean by 'clam disposition'? I agree modeling what you want to see is really important. But what would you say are reasonable consequences for misbehavior (i.e., where the child knows what to do but fails to do it because they've decided not to). I could use some ideas here beyond sending to room. I also don't want to do things in a reactionary way and I don't think giving threats is useful.

PP here. what I mean is if you scream, yell, belittle, storm off etc, that is what you are teaching your child to do when they are upset. If a kid is shouting or erupting, let them finish. Remove people pr objects so no one gets hurt but don't engage and add fuel. When they are calm you can talk about what happened. But just because you are bigger and louder doesn't mean it's a good idea to use your full strength. You will not be modeling emotional regulation.You kind of have to learn to be neutral and unflappable.

The reality is that some kids are not developmentally able to not do some things -- like draw on the sofa. They are not "misbehaving" they literally don't have the skillset to control that impulse to draw and they don't have the skillset to take a moment and realize this could get them into big trouble. Punishing them for drawing on the sofa will not teach them this skillset. They may "know" that drawing on furniture is wrong -- but their impulse control is so weak that is of virally no use. They are not purposely misbehaving.

Of course you can and should take away the marker, and when everyone is calm, talk to them about why they did what they did. Be prepared for a lot of "I don't know" b/c they probably don't!

Instead of punishing them for being "bad" and breaking a rule, you might brainstorm with them about what to do now -- like maybe the two of you scrub the sofa and try to clean it? And he works with you side by side.

In the future you know he cannot have markers unsupervised etc. but not as a punishment, as a precautionary measure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I spoke to a psychologist with expertise in parenting and she gave this advice:

Give child 3 rules: 1) obedience, 2) respect, 3) no arguing. Parents have three rules when responding to child's breaking of these rules (child not told this but parents know): 1) be consistent, 2) no second chances, and 3) no warning before consequences.

If child breaks one of the rules, they are put in bathroom for timeout, for six minutes, and they must think and be quiet. Presumably if they are not quiet they stay longer or something.

Psychologist also said she doesn't recommend discussing/reasoning with child as it just promotes arguing and doesn't yield much compliance/harmony in the household. She also said kids don't feel guilty enough and her method is designed to foster healthy guilt (not shame).

My gut reaction is no to the bathroom punishment. I had reactions to the rules she gave as well but am curious about what others think.

Please don’t follow any of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, have you ever watched What Not to Wear? They give the person some rules and send them off. The rules give them a framework and a new way forward.

Your psychologist has given you 3 new rules, a new way forward. You can implement the rules in various ways but they should be in line with the rules.

"Give child 3 rules: 1) obedience, 2) respect, 3) no arguing. Parents have three rules when responding to child's breaking of these rules (child not told this but parents know): 1) be consistent, 2) no second chances, and 3) no warning before consequences."

Those are reasonable rules. They're about consistency, predictability, and reliability. For everyone. Stability and predictability is great for kids. They will test rules and boundaries, that's what they do, but they are a lot happier and more confident when they know where the rules and boundaries are.

This is the definition of authoritarian parenting, which studies have shown lead to poor outcomes.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/authoritarian-parenting

Children reared by authoritarian families tend to depend more heavily on their parents (especially girls), be more submissive, less socially adept, less confident, less intellectually curious, and less committed to achievement in comparison with children reared in authoritative homes. Furthermore, children reared by authoritarian parents often exhibit hostility and shyness toward peers and show higher levels of aggression (Casas et al., 2006).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK568743/

"Furthermore, this parenting style can result in children who have higher levels of aggression but may also be shy, socially inept, and unable to make their own decisions.[1] This aggression can remain uncontrolled as they have difficulty managing anger as they were not provided with proper guidance. They have poor self-esteem, which further reinforces their inability to make decisions.[2] Strict parental rules and punishments often influence the child to rebel against authority figures as they grow older."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, have you ever watched What Not to Wear? They give the person some rules and send them off. The rules give them a framework and a new way forward.

Your psychologist has given you 3 new rules, a new way forward. You can implement the rules in various ways but they should be in line with the rules.

"Give child 3 rules: 1) obedience, 2) respect, 3) no arguing. Parents have three rules when responding to child's breaking of these rules (child not told this but parents know): 1) be consistent, 2) no second chances, and 3) no warning before consequences."

Those are reasonable rules. They're about consistency, predictability, and reliability. For everyone. Stability and predictability is great for kids. They will test rules and boundaries, that's what they do, but they are a lot happier and more confident when they know where the rules and boundaries are.

This is the definition of authoritarian parenting, which studies have shown lead to poor outcomes.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/authoritarian-parenting

Children reared by authoritarian families tend to depend more heavily on their parents (especially girls), be more submissive, less socially adept, less confident, less intellectually curious, and less committed to achievement in comparison with children reared in authoritative homes. Furthermore, children reared by authoritarian parents often exhibit hostility and shyness toward peers and show higher levels of aggression (Casas et al., 2006).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK568743/

"Furthermore, this parenting style can result in children who have higher levels of aggression but may also be shy, socially inept, and unable to make their own decisions.[1] This aggression can remain uncontrolled as they have difficulty managing anger as they were not provided with proper guidance. They have poor self-esteem, which further reinforces their inability to make decisions.[2] Strict parental rules and punishments often influence the child to rebel against authority figures as they grow older."

No, it's authoritative. As opposed to OP's current permissive parenting that is not working.

[Anonymous]

It seems to me that if you’re seeking professional advice and not utilizing it then you really have little room to bash it. Why not try it for a month, see what happens, and report back?

[Anonymous]

Get a new Psychologist. This is damaging and completely nutty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, have you ever watched What Not to Wear? They give the person some rules and send them off. The rules give them a framework and a new way forward.

Your psychologist has given you 3 new rules, a new way forward. You can implement the rules in various ways but they should be in line with the rules.

"Give child 3 rules: 1) obedience, 2) respect, 3) no arguing. Parents have three rules when responding to child's breaking of these rules (child not told this but parents know): 1) be consistent, 2) no second chances, and 3) no warning before consequences."

Those are reasonable rules. They're about consistency, predictability, and reliability. For everyone. Stability and predictability is great for kids. They will test rules and boundaries, that's what they do, but they are a lot happier and more confident when they know where the rules and boundaries are.

This is the definition of authoritarian parenting, which studies have shown lead to poor outcomes.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/authoritarian-parenting

Children reared by authoritarian families tend to depend more heavily on their parents (especially girls), be more submissive, less socially adept, less confident, less intellectually curious, and less committed to achievement in comparison with children reared in authoritative homes. Furthermore, children reared by authoritarian parents often exhibit hostility and shyness toward peers and show higher levels of aggression (Casas et al., 2006).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK568743/

"Furthermore, this parenting style can result in children who have higher levels of aggression but may also be shy, socially inept, and unable to make their own decisions.[1] This aggression can remain uncontrolled as they have difficulty managing anger as they were not provided with proper guidance. They have poor self-esteem, which further reinforces their inability to make decisions.[2] Strict parental rules and punishments often influence the child to rebel against authority figures as they grow older."

No, it's authoritative. As opposed to OP's current permissive parenting that is not working.

Wrong. in the bolded above the rules are obedience and no arguing. That is the definition of authoritarian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, have you ever watched What Not to Wear? They give the person some rules and send them off. The rules give them a framework and a new way forward.

Your psychologist has given you 3 new rules, a new way forward. You can implement the rules in various ways but they should be in line with the rules.

"Give child 3 rules: 1) obedience, 2) respect, 3) no arguing. Parents have three rules when responding to child's breaking of these rules (child not told this but parents know): 1) be consistent, 2) no second chances, and 3) no warning before consequences."

Those are reasonable rules. They're about consistency, predictability, and reliability. For everyone. Stability and predictability is great for kids. They will test rules and boundaries, that's what they do, but they are a lot happier and more confident when they know where the rules and boundaries are.

This is the definition of authoritarian parenting, which studies have shown lead to poor outcomes.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/authoritarian-parenting

Children reared by authoritarian families tend to depend more heavily on their parents (especially girls), be more submissive, less socially adept, less confident, less intellectually curious, and less committed to achievement in comparison with children reared in authoritative homes. Furthermore, children reared by authoritarian parents often exhibit hostility and shyness toward peers and show higher levels of aggression (Casas et al., 2006).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK568743/

"Furthermore, this parenting style can result in children who have higher levels of aggression but may also be shy, socially inept, and unable to make their own decisions.[1] This aggression can remain uncontrolled as they have difficulty managing anger as they were not provided with proper guidance. They have poor self-esteem, which further reinforces their inability to make decisions.[2] Strict parental rules and punishments often influence the child to rebel against authority figures as they grow older."

No, it's authoritative. As opposed to OP's current permissive parenting that is not working.

Maybe implemented perfectly, it would be authoritarian, but OP is constitutionally unable to implement this perfectly. She's already arguing, in her head, with the psychologist and with the rules. If she tries to follow them, though, it would be better than what she's doing right now. She has seen that it's not working, she asked for help. She hasn't connected the dots yet.