Bipolar or just undisciplined?

Keep in mind, when you read this, that 1) he's not saying bipolar kids
don't exist, and 2) being open to his methods would save a lot of
parents tons of money in the cases where the kid is NOT bipolar.
Bottom line: Why don't the authors of "The Bipolar Child" recommend
this free discipline test BEFORE going to the doctor?

http://www.kansas.com/living/family/story/215384.html


Lenona.

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 11:27:15 -0700, wrote:

Keep in mind, when you read this, that 1) he's not saying bipolar kids
don't exist, and 2) being open to his methods would save a lot of
parents tons of money in the cases where the kid is NOT bipolar.
Bottom line: Why don't the authors of "The Bipolar Child" recommend
this free discipline test BEFORE going to the doctor?

http://www.kansas.com/living/family/story/215384.html


Lenona.

Funny, but I do send my kids into their rooms and they can come back when
they feel better. They come down to apologize and then resume whatever
activity they want. It works very well. If I have to drag them there,
they have to stay in with the door locked (for about 5 minutes), which they
get very upset about, so they almost always go willingly.

http://www.kansas.com/living/family/story/215384.html

Posted on Thu, Nov. 01, 2007

Rosemond: Problem 6-year-old boy is just a 'schmipolar child'
BY JOHN ROSEMOND
McClatchy Newspapers
From the Happy Endings Department: A little over a month ago, the
parents of a 6-year-old boy asked my advice concerning his daily,
sometimes violent tantrums, which had been ongoing since he was 3.
They had removed nearly everything from his bedroom including his
dresser and lamp because they were often the objects of his
destructive rages.

When he threw one of his fits, they confined him to his room for the
day, but if he tried to hurt one of them when being escorted there
(i.e., digging his nails into his mother's arm), or kicked the walls
or some article of furniture along the way (he had done considerable
damage to his bedroom walls), they confined him to his room for a week
other than church and school.

When his mom wrote me, by e-mail, she said he was "currently upstairs
kicking his walls and screaming his head off." She asked if one week
of confinement was unreasonable, adding, "I have put up with this for
far too long."

Whether "reasonable" or not by whatever standard, one week of
confinement in a Spartan but otherwise pleasant room was accomplishing
nothing, obviously. More of the same was surely destined to accomplish
more of the same. I told them to sit down with Demento (not his real
name) at the first calm moment and tell him that "the Doctor" had said
they were going about this all wrong (passing the disciplinary "buck"
to an absent authority figure is often strategic).

He was old enough, the Doc said, to go to his room on his own. So,
from then on, when he pitched one of his fits, that's what they were
to do: simply tell him to go to his room. If he obeyed, right away, he
only had to stay there until he'd gotten himself back under control.
When he came out, however, he had to apologize to everyone who
witnessed the outburst.

If, however, he refused to go to his room, requiring that one of his
parents take him, he had to remain there the rest of the day and go to
bed immediately after supper. If a tantrum occurred after supper, and
he refused to go on his own to his room, then he had to go to bed
immediately. The Doctor also told the parents that until they were
able to fix -- spackle, paint -- all damage to Wild Thing's room they
could not buy him anything other than what was absolutely necessary.

I recommended that they finish the conversation on a upbeat note, as
in, "So, we promise to do what the Doctor says from now on!"

A month later, this update: "He has had three tantrums in the last
month -- a huge change from one to three per day. He is more helpful
at home, is reading to his little brother, and has a much sunnier
attitude." The repairs to his room were almost finished, and the
return of his dresser was imminent.

It's a fairly safe bet that Janice and Dimitri Papolos, the authors of
"The Bipolar Child," would have said this child was in the throes of
what they call early-onset bipolar disorder. The parents' description
of his often erratic behavior fit the Papolos' description like hand-
in-glove.

According to them, EOBD is caused by as-yet-unknown physiological
abnormalities, as in the still-theoretical (but widely thought to be
established beyond question) "biochemical imbalance." I will deal with
the Papolos' treatise in greater detail in an upcoming column, but
suffice to say for the present that my general take on this latest
childhood behavior disorder amounts to "bipolar, schmipolar."

I may someday be proven wrong, but until there is as much proof that
things like wild tantrums at age 6 are caused by biochemical glitches
as there is that bacterial pneumonia is caused by identifiable
bacteria, I'll stick with schmipolar. (By the way, I know that my
comments in this paragraph and the next are going to cause controversy
in the lay and professional communities. I am wide open to discussing
the issues I raise with anyone who can discuss them without
personalizing them and becoming emotional.)

At this time, I'll simply point out that physical anomalies capable of
sustaining violent emotional upheavals and a generally surly attitude
for three years cannot be cured by simply telling the child in
question that when such an upheaval occurs, he can either go to his
room on his own or be taken there, that his choice determines his
length of stay, and that he must apologize afterward.

Yet this "therapy" worked, so one can only conclude that this little
boy's physiology is without defect. But his "symptoms" conformed to
the Papolos' criteria for EOBD. He is, therefore, a schmipolar child.

Family psychologist John Rosemond answers parents' questions on his
Web site at www.rosemond.com.

In article . com,
wrote:

Keep in mind, when you read this, that 1) he's not saying bipolar kids
don't exist, and 2) being open to his methods would save a lot of
parents tons of money in the cases where the kid is NOT bipolar.
Bottom line: Why don't the authors of "The Bipolar Child" recommend
this free discipline test BEFORE going to the doctor?

http://www.kansas.com/living/family/story/215384.html

The parents of a 6yo can't think of any punishment for their kid apart from
confining him to his room for a week at a time, and they obviously think this
is reasonable and have persisted with it for some time despite the fact that
it isn't working.

And all the writer does is go off at a tangent about bipolar disorder? What
about the lack of parenting skills?

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

http://chookiesbackyard.blogspot.com/

Chookie wrote in
news:ehrebeniuk-79CE24.17345402112007@news:

In article
. com,
wrote:

Keep in mind, when you read this, that 1) he's not saying
bipolar kids don't exist, and 2) being open to his methods
would save a lot of parents tons of money in the cases
where the kid is NOT bipolar. Bottom line: Why don't the
authors of "The Bipolar Child" recommend this free
discipline test BEFORE going to the doctor?

http://www.kansas.com/living/family/story/215384.html

The parents of a 6yo can't think of any punishment for
their kid apart from confining him to his room for a week
at a time, and they obviously think this is reasonable and
have persisted with it for some time despite the fact that
it isn't working.

And all the writer does is go off at a tangent about
bipolar disorder? What about the lack of parenting skills?

the writer is a well know fundemental Christian that doesn't
believe any type of childhood mental illnesses or brain
misfuctions exist. there are no mentally ill children, only
wilful ones. there are no autistic children, only badly raised
ones, etc.
he generally promoted using the rod rather than anthing so
reasonable as this particular article.
still, lots of people think he's clueful.
lee



--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if
there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of
blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson

In article ,
enigma wrote:

And all the writer does is go off at a tangent about
bipolar disorder? What about the lack of parenting skills?

the writer is a well know fundemental Christian that doesn't
believe any type of childhood mental illnesses or brain
misfuctions exist. there are no mentally ill children, only
wilful ones. there are no autistic children, only badly raised
ones, etc.

He's missing some of the fundamentals of Christianity then: the human brain
and mind is not exempt from the consequences of the Fall. What a very
peculiar version of Christianity he must have.

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

http://chookiesbackyard.blogspot.com/

"Chookie" wrote in message
news:ehrebeniuk-798B24.23282702112007@news...
In article ,
enigma wrote:

And all the writer does is go off at a tangent about
bipolar disorder? What about the lack of parenting skills?

the writer is a well know fundemental Christian that doesn't
believe any type of childhood mental illnesses or brain
misfuctions exist. there are no mentally ill children, only
wilful ones. there are no autistic children, only badly raised
ones, etc.

He's missing some of the fundamentals of Christianity then: the human
brain
and mind is not exempt from the consequences of the Fall. What a very
peculiar version of Christianity he must have.

What's frustrating is that he holds near-diety status in this area.

He's also a strong advocate of, pretty much, whatever is convienent for the
parent. According to him, you're not supposed to spend a lot of time playing
with your child, and parent-child programs for babies and toddlers are just
a sign of overinvolved, over-committed parents. Potty train early, so it's
easy for you (even though he then says that 6 months of accidents aren't
normal, while most people I know who waited until their child was a bit
older had almost no accidents within about a week). Gifted children aren't
really any different and should be treated exactly like every other child
their age. Humiliation, especially for teenagers, is an appropriate way to
parent.

There used to be a section of his website where parents sent in their
letters and kudos to him-and some of the things which he published, and gave
his stamp of approval to were things that would have gotten any teacher or
daycare provider fired and possibly facing criminal charges.

It's all "My way or the highway" parenting. Heaven forbid you try to figure
out WHY the child is doing what they're doing!

In article , enigma says...

Chookie wrote in
news:ehrebeniuk-79CE24.17345402112007@news:

In article
. com,
wrote:

Keep in mind, when you read this, that 1) he's not saying
bipolar kids don't exist, and 2) being open to his methods
would save a lot of parents tons of money in the cases
where the kid is NOT bipolar. Bottom line: Why don't the
authors of "The Bipolar Child" recommend this free
discipline test BEFORE going to the doctor?

http://www.kansas.com/living/family/story/215384.html

The parents of a 6yo can't think of any punishment for
their kid apart from confining him to his room for a week
at a time, and they obviously think this is reasonable and
have persisted with it for some time despite the fact that
it isn't working.

And all the writer does is go off at a tangent about
bipolar disorder? What about the lack of parenting skills?

the writer is a well know fundemental Christian that doesn't
believe any type of childhood mental illnesses or brain
misfuctions exist. there are no mentally ill children, only
wilful ones. there are no autistic children, only badly raised
ones, etc.
he generally promoted using the rod rather than anthing so
reasonable as this particular article.
still, lots of people think he's clueful.
lee



He's also very "seen-and-not-heard", which makes him a favorite of this
particular O.P. who is a childfree regular. She posts Rosemond articles, and
references to Rosemond, frequently.

Banty

On Nov 2, 5:54 am, enigma wrote:
Chookie wrote innews:ehrebeniuk-79CE24.17345402112007@news:





In article
. com,
wrote:

Keep in mind, when you read this, that 1) he's not saying
bipolar kids don't exist, and 2) being open to his methods
would save a lot of parents tons of money in the cases
where the kid is NOT bipolar.


the writer is a well know fundemental Christian that doesn't
believe any type of childhood mental illnesses or brain
misfuctions exist. there are no mentally ill children, only
wilful ones. there are no autistic children, only badly raised
ones, etc.

lee

Um, see above.

It's not true that he "doesn't believe any type of childhood mental
illnesses or brain malfunctions exist." So far as I know, he does not
believe in ADHD, but that's the only disorder whose existence he
scoffs at, to my knowledge. He freely admits that Asperger's Syndrome
exists in children, but like any responsible family columnist, he's
not about to diagnose a child he's never met.

For those who wonder why I harp on him, it's because he's more liberal
than some would believe. Examples: He's said more than once that Dr.
Spock got an bad rap, because Spock said "trust your instincts" and
not "trust your stupid instincts." Therefore, it was unfair to blame
bad or wimpy parenting on Spock. Also, in 2000, Rosemond made Dr.
Laura furious when he told the mother of a four-year-old to stop her
son from complaining about Mom's working outside the home and his
being in an after-school program, unlike the other neighborhood kids.
(Rosemond feels 3 is quite old enough for kids to start catering to
parents.) He added that even if she WERE a stay-at-home mom, the boy
should revolve around her, not the other way around. (Not exactly in
line with Dr. Laura's mantra "I am my kid's mom"!)

In short, he reminds me of the old-fashioned liberal parents who
didn't divide chores by gender or act shocked when their kids say they
don't plan to go to college or have children (he's cool with all of
the above) but at the same time, never allowed their kids to address
parents or adults by first names without permission, yell at parents,
or wear white shoes after Labor Day. Though he'd never call himself a
liberal.

Lenona.

BTW, one old-fashioned liberal (not a parenting expert) is religious
skeptic and ACLU board member Wendy Kaminer, whose books I love.
(She's also made Dr. Laura mad at times - the latter did a Freudian
slip with her name a few years back by confusing her with Wendy
Shalit.)

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Nov 2, 5:54 am, enigma wrote:
Chookie wrote
innews:ehrebeniuk-79CE24.17345402112007@news:





In article
. com,
wrote:

Keep in mind, when you read this, that 1) he's not saying
bipolar kids don't exist, and 2) being open to his methods
would save a lot of parents tons of money in the cases
where the kid is NOT bipolar.


the writer is a well know fundemental Christian that doesn't
believe any type of childhood mental illnesses or brain
misfuctions exist. there are no mentally ill children, only
wilful ones. there are no autistic children, only badly raised
ones, etc.

lee

Um, see above.

It's not true that he "doesn't believe any type of childhood mental
illnesses or brain malfunctions exist." So far as I know, he does not
believe in ADHD, but that's the only disorder whose existence he
scoffs at, to my knowledge. He freely admits that Asperger's Syndrome
exists in children, but like any responsible family columnist, he's
not about to diagnose a child he's never met.

For those who wonder why I harp on him, it's because he's more liberal
than some would believe. Examples: He's said more than once that Dr.
Spock got an bad rap, because Spock said "trust your instincts" and
not "trust your stupid instincts." Therefore, it was unfair to blame
bad or wimpy parenting on Spock. Also, in 2000, Rosemond made Dr.
Laura furious when he told the mother of a four-year-old to stop her
son from complaining about Mom's working outside the home and his
being in an after-school program, unlike the other neighborhood kids.
(Rosemond feels 3 is quite old enough for kids to start catering to
parents.)



"Catering to?" I wonder if you meant that particular phrase?



He added that even if she WERE a stay-at-home mom, the boy
should revolve around her, not the other way around. (Not exactly in
line with Dr. Laura's mantra "I am my kid's mom"!)



Thats' horrible! Not to say that Mom should "cater to" a child, but I
definitely don't think that that means a child should "cater to" or "revolve
around" a Mom. I think the needs and wants of both people need to be
addressed. And in that way you teach a child how to address the needs and
wants of another human, by seeing yourneeds met and by contributing to
someone else's needs being met. Give and take. Teamwork. Yadda yadda.



In short, he reminds me of the old-fashioned liberal parents who
didn't divide chores by gender or act shocked when their kids say they
don't plan to go to college or have children (he's cool with all of
the above) but at the same time, never allowed their kids to address
parents or adults by first names without permission, yell at parents,
or wear white shoes after Labor Day. Though he'd never call himself a
liberal.




Thank God! Because he sure has never seemed so to me.

Lenona.

BTW, one old-fashioned liberal (not a parenting expert) is religious
skeptic and ACLU board member Wendy Kaminer, whose books I love.
(She's also made Dr. Laura mad at times - the latter did a Freudian
slip with her name a few years back by confusing her with Wendy
Shalit.)