Need ideas for "logical consequences" for hitting

[Anonymous]

My 7 yr old DS has taken to hitting me when he gets angry/frustrated. It has happened 2x in the past 1.5 wks. I like to apply logical consequences approach - but what is a LC to hitting mamma? Please help. I am in shock and disbelief. But I gotta stop it now before he gets any bigger!

[Anonymous]

I think the logical consequence for hitting is to separate yourself from the child, in a way that is punitive. By punitive I mean the child goes to their room, rather than say out for ice cream for Dad. The message needs to be "I don't want to be around someone who is hitting me". This is about the only thing I'd use confinement to their room for, because it's such a huge deal.

I also think you want to be very clear that whatever your child was seeking to gain from hitting didn't happen. So, if he's hitting because he wants you to buy him a specific toy, that toy's not an option, ever (not on the Christmas list, not something he can save up for). I think too often we say to our kids, "Oh no, that's now how we do it, let's make a plan" and then the plan ends up with them getting what they want (e.g. you can earn X by not hitting for a week or something), and basically the kid learns that if they want a plan they just have to hit. If they're hitting to get out of a shopping expedition, then maybe you go home, but you go back and redo the trip the next day. Kid is confined to their room in the meantime, and knows the only way to get "out" of that confinement is to behave on the second trip.

[Anonymous]

I seem to recall this coming up at PEP when I took the class a few years ago. Obviously, while the LC/NC for hitting would be hitting back, that's not really what you want. If this has happened now twice, I would talk to your son and make clear that you believe it is unacceptable, and I'm sure he'll agree it's wrong. Then you can agree on a reasonable consequence (suggest a choice of two things that would be "painful" to him -- like giving up cherished computer time, or having to do an extra chore, or whatever). In this case you've made the point (hitting is unacceptable), gotten his buy-in, and given him input into the decision making for what the consequence should be in that case.

Personally, my kids seem to respond to my limit setting for totally unacceptable, over the line things like that (like a punishment of my choice), because for them that's like a cry for limits. But that's just my kids.

Good luck! It's probably just a phase.

[Anonymous]

When that 7 yr old turns into a 14 yr old and hits some guy after the basketball game, you know what the natural consequence will be? That's right, he'll get punched in the face.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When that 7 yr old turns into a 14 yr old and hits some guy after the basketball game, you know what the natural consequence will be? That's right, he'll get punched in the face.

I'm pretty sure the OP knows that the world isn't a forgiving place for a teenager who still hits, which is why he/she is being proactive about coming up with solutions to turn this behavior around. I'm also pretty sure the reason why the OP is asking for "logical" and not "natural" consequences is that she realizes that in this case the latter would be abusive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When that 7 yr old turns into a 14 yr old and hits some guy after the basketball game, you know what the natural consequence will be? That's right, he'll get punched in the face.

I'm pretty sure the OP knows that the world isn't a forgiving place for a teenager who still hits, which is why he/she is being proactive about coming up with solutions to turn this behavior around. I'm also pretty sure the reason why the OP is asking for "logical" and not "natural" consequences is that she realizes that in this case the latter would be abusive.

I've also been heard to say -- "hey-- I don't hit you when I'm mad." That tends to stop it.

[Anonymous]

OP, I'm sorry, but this is a perfect example of the BS that is the "logical consequences" theory of child rearing and why, quite frankly, you are well on your way to raising a first class brat.

The "logical consequences" of a seven-year-old hitting Mommy?

He gets a good spanking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, I'm sorry, but this is a perfect example of the BS that is the "logical consequences" theory of child rearing and why, quite frankly, you are well on your way to raising a first class brat.

The "logical consequences" of a seven-year-old hitting Mommy?

He gets a good spanking.

So we teach not to hit by hitting? Doesn't make sense to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, I'm sorry, but this is a perfect example of the BS that is the "logical consequences" theory of child rearing and why, quite frankly, you are well on your way to raising a first class brat.

The "logical consequences" of a seven-year-old hitting Mommy?

He gets a good spanking.

I couldn't agree more!!! I also agree with the PP that said the natural consequence for him hitting another kid is that he'll get punched in the face back. No, I wont do that, but I will smack the ass if I need to in order to get the point across or if it saves him from a broken nose in the future.

If you "separate yourself" from your kid when he hits you, you've taught him that HE WINS....and that other people should back down from him. That's not realistic at all. If he has to get the shit beat of of him by a classmate to learn that lesson, so be it.

[Anonymous]

OP, take away something huge to him. Immediately, no warning needed for such an egregious offense. My son spit at me when he was six. I donated his beloved Leapster to charity the next day. If it hadn't been a school day, I would have made him come with me.

After the tantrum from hell settled down, I told him why spitting was bad, how it was disrespectful, and how he knew full well he wasn't allowed to hit or otherwise disrespect his parents. I reminded him that he can always be mad or be sad, but that he has to be polite when displaying these emotions. If that's not possible, he needs to go to his room until he calms down.

He's never spit or hit since.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, I'm sorry, but this is a perfect example of the BS that is the "logical consequences" theory of child rearing and why, quite frankly, you are well on your way to raising a first class brat.

The "logical consequences" of a seven-year-old hitting Mommy?

He gets a good spanking.

Problem with this approach is, what if it doesn't work? the 7 year old doesn't learn not to hit, and you just have to keep beating him more and more to make him stop?

[Anonymous]

I take something away. For my son, it would be access to legos for some amount of time, or no computer time for a week. It would depend though, was this hitting with intent to hurt or hitting out of frustration? I think intent matters and I'd up the punishment in that case. Maybe take away something permanently. I also explicitly say "you chose to do x and now y happens" and I remind him each day for the duration. I.e. No legos taday because you chose to do x. (my son is also 7.)

[Anonymous]

Hmm, this one is a bit tough to string up the logical consequence for. I might try something along the lines of, we don't hit people, you can be mad but that's not an acceptable way to express it. You are showing me you have not been mature/responsible enough to control yourself, and so for now you are not responsible enough to do x (play with your friends, something important to him). I'd probably make him earn back the privilege of whatever through some good works of some sort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the logical consequence for hitting is to separate yourself from the child, in a way that is punitive. By punitive I mean the child goes to their room, rather than say out for ice cream for Dad. The message needs to be "I don't want to be around someone who is hitting me". This is about the only thing I'd use confinement to their room for, because it's such a huge deal.

I also think you want to be very clear that whatever your child was seeking to gain from hitting didn't happen. So, if he's hitting because he wants you to buy him a specific toy, that toy's not an option, ever (not on the Christmas list, not something he can save up for). I think too often we say to our kids, "Oh no, that's now how we do it, let's make a plan" and then the plan ends up with them getting what they want (e.g. you can earn X by not hitting for a week or something), and basically the kid learns that if they want a plan they just have to hit. If they're hitting to get out of a shopping expedition, then maybe you go home, but you go back and redo the trip the next day. Kid is confined to their room in the meantime, and knows the only way to get "out" of that confinement is to behave on the second trip.

I agree, except that I would consider removing myself (going to *my* room to get away from him), after having set the expectation/understanding in the first place that this is what will happen if he hits me.

I also agree that whatever he was hitting about, will not happen/be given to him.

I think the spanking idea is absurd. Don't hit or I will hit you? WTH?

[Anonymous]

Yes, don't hit or spank back. PPs who say he'll grow up to hit other kids--probably not. He's hitting mom b/c he's betting on her not hitting back.

I think people were also picking apart the wording too, "logical" could have been replaced by appropriate, commensurate...

I agree with PPs that don't let him get what he was trying to get from hitting you. I also find taking away tv viewing goes a long way.

If it keeps up, maybe see if something's going on at school. You don't have to mention the specific hitting, but if DC is having trouble of some kind, it might be showing up in this way.