One thing that often works if a child is just smacking their sibling, and they have not been provoked, is to require the hitter to take one of the victim’s chores for the week, or to make their lunch for a week (under adult supervision), or something else that makes them atone. They hate it. They can be required to forfeit some of their allowance to the other child. You need to be sure of the dynamic, but sometimes kids just hit and can control it, if motivated.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting… so no one feels like they need to be super strict about not hitting in the house. I wonder if it should be enforced as a very clear boundary never to cross, regardless of the situation.

Generally I would say that I'm very no-tolerance about hitting. But with siblings, you have to be careful because the dynamic might be more complicated. If you taunt and tease your brother until he snaps and hits you, and then you play the victim, I don't want to encourage that behavior. Yes, the hitter needs to learn to control themselves. But sometimes the provoker needs a consequence, too.

Ok. So both get a consequence. What is it? I don’t want to teach my kids that if they are provoked they can hit. It seems like even if both get a consequence hitting should still be taken more seriously. It’s definitely a move that escalates the conflict.

We punish hitting if we see it. Time out; there’s no excuse for hitting no matter what. We actually also do time out for name calling but that’s not for everyone I know.

If we didn’t see it they are separated not as punishment but because they aren’t being safe.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting… so no one feels like they need to be super strict about not hitting in the house. I wonder if it should be enforced as a very clear boundary never to cross, regardless of the situation.

Generally I would say that I'm very no-tolerance about hitting. But with siblings, you have to be careful because the dynamic might be more complicated. If you taunt and tease your brother until he snaps and hits you, and then you play the victim, I don't want to encourage that behavior. Yes, the hitter needs to learn to control themselves. But sometimes the provoker needs a consequence, too.

Ok. So both get a consequence. What is it? I don’t want to teach my kids that if they are provoked they can hit. It seems like even if both get a consequence hitting should still be taken more seriously. It’s definitely a move that escalates the conflict.

Anonymous wrote:Interesting… so no one feels like they need to be super strict about not hitting in the house. I wonder if it should be enforced as a very clear boundary never to cross, regardless of the situation.

Generally I would say that I'm very no-tolerance about hitting. But with siblings, you have to be careful because the dynamic might be more complicated. If you taunt and tease your brother until he snaps and hits you, and then you play the victim, I don't want to encourage that behavior. Yes, the hitter needs to learn to control themselves. But sometimes the provoker needs a consequence, too.

Anonymous wrote:Interesting… so no one feels like they need to be super strict about not hitting in the house. I wonder if it should be enforced as a very clear boundary never to cross, regardless of the situation.

My two sons are 17 months apart. They are fairly evenly matched. I do not spend time refereeing petty battles. When I intervene because they are working my nerves, I get the “Moooom, we are just playing. We are having funnnnnn”.

Anonymous wrote:Interesting… so no one feels like they need to be super strict about not hitting in the house. I wonder if it should be enforced as a very clear boundary never to cross, regardless of the situation.

There's hitting and there's hitting. You'd have to figure out what you want to do. I have three boys (not that the gender is relevant, girls do it too) and when super frustrated, one can wack another on the arm or aim a kick in their direction. It's technically hitting but no one is hurt. And never once have they hit anyone in any capacity outside of their brothers. We talk about self-control and keeping hands to themselves, etc., but then move along with our day. Better regulation comes with age and our oldest has very good regulation now and the others will catch up.

If it was real fighting - actual punches that land. That's a completely different story and there would be swift and immediate consequences. It's unclear if OP is talking about mild annoyance scuffles or real fighting. Only twice has there been real fighting in my house and that was not dealt with lightly at all.

Interesting… so no one feels like they need to be super strict about not hitting in the house. I wonder if it should be enforced as a very clear boundary never to cross, regardless of the situation.