Anonymous wrote:DS, 12, was very irresponsible (in a situation in which many times previously he had been responsible, and in which he knew he needed to be). As a result, we will have to spend many thousands of dollars (roughly 7K give or take). It did not involve anyone else, no one was hurt, and it wasn't anything at all risky/dangerous. Also, it wasn't a case of active irresponsibility, it was a case of negligence. (In other words, he didn't actively DO anything wrong, but he was thoughtless/careless.) We are struggling as to an appropriate consequence. It's not like he can reimburse us out of his allowance, LOL. Thinking of explaining to him that now we can't do a trip he would have gone on, and that now he can't go to camp, since we now have to use that money to pay for his mistake. (That is all true, although theoretically we could cover the cost and wouldn't literally have to cancel those items, but I think we should.) OTOH, he is only twelve, [b]mistakes happen, he feels terrible, and if he doesn't go to camp, he won't really have anything to do over the summer. Hoping that someone out there has been in a similar situation and can offer some suggestions? TIA.

OP, I don't really support your plan to punish him in any manner. Isn't a child making mistakes part of growing up to being a responsible adult? If your DS is remorseful, why would you punish him? Kids mistakes cost parents a lot of money sometimes. This is one of those circumstances. If you want to cancel the trip you planned for him, okay. But your DS is showing remorse, and you said yourself that he previously was always responsible. Let it go.

I figure he backed cookies with the white powder, only it was not flour, and Dad (or mom) sells it for work....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hopefully if OP actually lets us in on what it was, it won't be as disappointing as the HAIR BRUSH thread.

Seriously.

I want to know what the HAIR BRUSH thread was.

COME ON OP, we are DYING out of curiosity here!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did he leave a faucet running and flood something?

OP here. Prefer not to be specific for privacy reasons, but something along these lines--it was a case of forgetting something--again, in a situation where under no uncertain terms he knew he had to be responsible about it.

"privacy reasons"? Did you blab the real story all over FB and now can't post it here?

I so don't get this reasoning. Do people keep their use of DCUM a secret from their friends? I don't, so if they see a post and know it's me (and I'm not complaining about them), so what? esp if it's about something I posted on FB!

Anonymous wrote:Hopefully if OP actually lets us in on what it was, it won't be as disappointing as the HAIR BRUSH thread.

Seriously.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did he leave a faucet running and flood something?

OP here. Prefer not to be specific for privacy reasons, but something along these lines--it was a case of forgetting something--again, in a situation where under no uncertain terms he knew he had to be responsible about it.

"privacy reasons"? Did you blab the real story all over FB and now can't post it here?

I think we must have scared OP away when we figured out her role in the incident.

Hopefully if OP actually lets us in on what it was, it won't be as disappointing as the HAIR BRUSH thread.

I think this post if from up the road -- west baltimore.

Obviously, 12YO was handling the money on a corner... one of Avon Barksdale's corners... you know... slinging, hustling, touting...

Now, one of those dope fiends came and grabbed the cash stash, and DS, well, he wasn't fast enough to catch up with them. $7k gone! Boom.

You need to keep the young ones on the cash and the dope - the Knocko can't really lock them up.

OP, that is just the cost of doing business... call it overhead.

I would say that if you put a 12 year old in charge of something that would cost 7K to replace, you are a fool. I would not punish him, he already has guilt. I would rethink what I think my 12 year old should be capable of doing and if what I want him to do is worth the risk.

Anonymous wrote:Like I have always read, the consequence has to be immediate so taking away vacation or camp is too far off to make an impact.

Why not make him really step up chores or responsibilities? Like every night he clears table and loads dishwasher, runs vacuum, and somethng else. That becomes his new reality. It has to be something he can do on his own so that if you are working late, going to other dc activities he knows to do it and does not need to be supervised. We do something similar when grades fall, as it is more about structure, being responsible. We notice when things get to lax there is the tendency to do even less, if that makes sense.

When there are chores, specific study goals, etc., our dc seem to be more reponsible with everything.

+1

I would try to tie the additional chores back to the original negligence somehow. With additional (painful) reminders to prevent negligence.

Anonymous wrote:So by this logic, a teenager who causes a car accident shouldn't be punished because the car is insured? Insurance isn't the issue. The issue is that the child was irresponsible and OP's question was what consequence would be appropriate. I think the dollar amount only shows that this was something more serious.

First off- a teenager driving a car is at least 16. That's a big stretch from making a 12 year old boy responsible for a $7000 uninsured item. The insurance is an issue because-
1) OP asked for punishment to fit the "crime" and is based on the $7000
2) a 12 year old boy shouldn't be responsible for something worth $7000 (imo)
3) OP should have something worth $7000 insured, whether or not it is in the care of a 12 year old boy
4) insurance is OP's responsibility, therefore a lack of insurance means that OP is just as irresponsible as her 12 year old she wants to punish

QED

As to your question on punishment for an accident, if my son causes a car accident, he will be punished. But it has nothing to do with the value of the car or whether its insured. It's because he was driving recklessly and could have DIED. This past summer, a friend of my son (16) was driving too fast, rushing between job sites, ran a stop sign, hit a car, his truck rolled, sustained a serious head injury, and was taken by medflight to a hospital. Do you think the value of the car or whether it was insured is the real concern here?

You must not have a teen driving yet.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am guessing that the OP has a collection of high end strollers and the DS forgot to close the stroller porch and they got stolen.

HAHAHAHAHAH!

I don't think that stroller was quite $7,000 but it was close!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the son was playing ball in the house and broke a $7000 vase. Mom always said, don't play ball in the house.

Honestly, without facts it is hard to answer the question. The more foreseeable the consequences, the greater the penalty. If you asked him to turn off the water in you vacation home, he forgot and a pipe ruptured causing damage, I could see how a 12 year old would not have foreseen the possible damage and I would have a hard time holding him responsible. If, however, he was tossing a ball in the house and destroyed a piece of art, I would expect him to foresee those consequences and I would want him to re-pay the money, no matter how long it took.

So, in short. If you think he should have known better, then hit him hard. But I would not make something up, like we can't go on vacation if it is not true.

Wasn't this a Brady Bunch Episode? Or did the ball hit Marsha's nose?

I think that was a lamp? I think Greg threw a football that hit Marsha's nose. Ah, my misspent 70's youth.

No, it's a vase. You need to brush up on your BB! It's about midway down the page. http://www.thegregbradyproject.com/2008/05/06/the-brady-six-ready/