A teenager question

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 17:14:17 GMT, Wendy Marsden
wrote:

I still don't think it's punitive. In fact, my whole interest in
exploring this subject is to think about exactly how we *DO*
handle the transition from "child under my authority" to
"fledgling adult".

Well, here is my take on that.

You begin early to give your children choices and let them
experience the consequences when the choice turns out badly.
This begins even with 3 year olds.

If he falls down, you help him up, but you don't say *you have
to get back on the bike* or *you can't ride the bike* afterwards.
You encourage him, but you let this be his choice.

Later as she is older, you give her an allowance and let her
make choices about what she buys. If she buys something
that falls apart, you can talk about it, but you don't replace the
toy and you don't chastise her for making a bad decision,
you help her learn from the process. And you allow her to
experience the fact that if she wants to replace the toy with
something better, she may have to save for a bit to do
that.

As they grow, you require them to help keep the household
running, but you don't assign chores, you brainstorm with
them about what needs to be done and help them choose
chores that are compatible with their age and interests, and
ones that contribute for real to the running of the house. You
let them do these chores on their own schedule not on yours.
If you have more than one child, you let them work out switching
chores when they have other activities that are important to
them.

You consult, communicate, brainstorm solutions to problems
with your children rather than expecting *obedience* to your
rules. When problems happen, you make sure the kids have
a say. You don't, however, give in to solutions that don't fit
your own needs. You make sure solutions fit the family
including the adults.

As kids grow into the teen years, you keep loosening the reins
gradually. If they do fail a class in school, it is their
responsibility, not yours. You support them, you look for
solutions (again you brainstorm with them about the problem,
rather than saying you will take this course of action). If they
need academic help, you provide it through tutors, through
one on one help from you, through perhaps getting some
specific help for learning disabilities they may have.

It's *hard* to let go, but you have to do it and it is best if it is a
gradual process beginning from toddlerhood.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits

Wendy ) wrote:

I believe that is what she's trying by telling him - he can't keep living
the life of a kid at home if he is actually an adult. In your experience,
in my experience and in their experience, adults don't live with their
parents.

Well, my family must suffer from seriously arrested development, then. We've
had adults (and spouses, and kids) living at home at various times for years.

--Helen

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 19:05:13 GMT, Wendy Marsden
wrote:

But I would have said that the family we're discussing is pretty high
functioning. They're at an awkward time, but it's really stretching the
term to suggest that they're disfunctional because they insist that their
kid finish high school OR ELSE.

But what *is* the or else? They aren't just letting him go at this
point and they have no leverage.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits

toto wrote:
Well, here is my take on that.

I really appreciate your post. It gave me a lot to think about - I think
I'm being too dictatorial about chores for example. (They can pick their
chores from a very narrow list of choices but I specify when chore time
is. Then again, my kids are only 4, 10 and 12.)

You consult, communicate, brainstorm solutions to problems
with your children rather than expecting *obedience* to your
rules. When problems happen, you make sure the kids have
a say. You don't, however, give in to solutions that don't fit
your own needs. You make sure solutions fit the family
including the adults.

I agree in principle, but don't you still have some non-negotiable
standards? Someone else mentioned that all they required was basic hygene
for health purposes. I would put basic level math and English as just as
important for their over-all well-being.

A solution where the kid says, "I'm dropping out of school" does NOT fit
the entire family's needs - specifically, the CHILD'S needs. At least not
in this case, where he wasn't dropping out with a plan. I mean, if he
wanted to drop out because it was keeping him from starring in a big
skateboarding tournament and he wanted to follow his dream, well, I can
see letting him make his mistakes (or grab for the brass ring.) But if
he's dropping out because he doesn't want to study (and doesn't want to do
anything else, either) then I just can't see supporting him (literally) in
this decision.

I'm not sure why you think the child has undiscovered learning
disabilities when his mother has worked closely with him for many, many
years. I know she has availed herself of professional referrals for some
of her children. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I think it isn't
a good assumption. I think he isn't studying because he doesn't
want to. I've proofread the kid's papers - he needs to work on his
grammar, but I'd say he isn't particularly deficient in ability.

Wendy

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 15:02:18 GMT, Wendy Marsden
wrote:

"fine, leave, we only provide housing to children who are under our
authority." I don't see how that can be construed as overprotective.

My God!! They said that???

My mother would never, ever, ever, ever say that to me. I always have
a home with my mother. If I am 75 and she is 97, I have a home with
my mother. I haven't been under her authority since I was a
youngster.

--
Daye
Momma to Jayan
EDD 11 Jan 2004

toto wrote:
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 19:05:13 GMT, Wendy Marsden wrote:

But I would have said that the family we're discussing is pretty high
functioning. They're at an awkward time, but it's really stretching the
term to suggest that they're disfunctional because they insist that their
kid finish high school OR ELSE.

But what *is* the or else? They aren't just letting him go at this
point and they have no leverage.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand. The "or else" in the above
paragraph was "or else move out of this house because we don't support
adults." She then had to let him move out and spend the rest of the
summer outside her influence. That WAS just letting him go.

You're right that they don't have any leverage (did they ever?)
unless he WANTS to return. It's his choice and he knows the terms.

Are you saying that it is bad to withhold support if he doesn't attend
school? I think that's what Barb was saying. I don't disagree - it makes
me uncomfortable as I don't think the kid is ready to be on his own. I
supported the mother in this because she thought it was the best way to
convince the kid that he really had to finish high school - she just can't
chain him to the desk, nor can she punish him for bad marks. She was
desperate for something to get him to understand the consequences of not
doing his work.

Wendy

toto wrote:
Then let him do it and stop trying to pressure him to come home
and finish school. When he does decide what he wants, he will
go after it.


I totally agree with Dorothy. After seeing what happens to teens (ages
15-19) who are told what to do and basically doing things only because
their parents said so (the authorative approach), it seems best to let
the teen decide when and how he/she will finish high school.

If they can't get a decent job without a high school diploma, let them
experience that instead of being told. I've seen several people who did
graduate from high school but didn't go onto college per parents'
expectations. Same thing, different education level. What happens is
the parents will "strongly encourage" the child to attend college who
then drops out. Then, the child usually finds a career path that
interests them and then realizes college is necessary and is eager to
go.

Yes, in this case I think it is overprotective. I think that he
should have gone himself. His mom could have come along as
backup, but there is no reason to shelter him from the beauracracy.


Yep. At 17, you need to be able to negotiate a bureacracy because
whether you're on your own at 18 or you decide to go to college -
there's bureacracy to deal with. When I wanted to take college courses
as a high school senior, my parents didn't tell me how to go about it
(they didn't know any more than me). If I wanted to do it, I had to get
the application from the college, talk to the HS guidance counselor (who
also knew nothing) and principal and then figure out an acceptable
schedule. No parent intervention.

The point being *I* wanted to do something so I went after it. On the
other hand, if taking college courses were my parents' idea you bet I
wouldn't have been able to tackle the bureacracy.

Jeanne

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 21:33:55 GMT, Wendy Marsden
wrote:

toto wrote:
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 19:05:13 GMT, Wendy Marsden wrote:

But I would have said that the family we're discussing is pretty high
functioning. They're at an awkward time, but it's really stretching the
term to suggest that they're disfunctional because they insist that their
kid finish high school OR ELSE.

But what *is* the or else? They aren't just letting him go at this
point and they have no leverage.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand. The "or else" in the above
paragraph was "or else move out of this house because we don't support
adults." She then had to let him move out and spend the rest of the
summer outside her influence. That WAS just letting him go.

But she is keeping up the pressure for him to return. And a summer is
not enough time for him to realize anything, imo, especially if he is
living with friends..

Btw, what do the parents of these friends think? Why should they
provide his room and board?

He has yet to experience the real consequences unless he is truly
paying his own way.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits

toto wrote:

Hopefully the older kids at least get an allowance and they can
learn to budget using that if you make it appropriate and give
them responsibility for some of their own expenses. For example,
my ds got his lunch money and bus money for the week. He
often saved the bus money by walking or biking to school and
used it to buy baseball cards. My dd took the bus, but sometimes
packed a brown bag lunch and saved her lunch money to spend
on music or jewelry.

This is a really nice idea. I'd prefer that my 10 year old pack a lunch
from home, so maybe this is a subtle way to encourage it! :-)

By the way, my kids get $5/month for each grade they're in. The 4th
grader gets $20, the 7th grader gets $35. It's sufficient to save and/or
spend on things they want for themselves or to give as gifts. It's not
given for chores. It's given on the day of the month that their Daddy
gets paid. (He gets paid once a month and I effectively get paid once a
year - we're experts at cash flow budgeting in our house.)

Consider this, not what you
think may be true. If he is willing, ask him to get tested or to talk
to a specialist about his academic problems.

I can do that next time I see him. He's a 17 year old kid who doesn't
hang out much with fuddy-duddy friends of his mother's, though, so it may
not come up very soon. :-)

By the way, I think it was you who asked what the parents of his friends
thought about this. I don't know - I don't have any access into that
scene. I'm not sure his mother knows, either.

Wendy

In article ,
Wendy Marsden wrote:

Throughout this thread people have made it clear that they are comfortable
with having some requirements of their adult children who live at home -
most have said they have to pay rent. Why not have the requirement that
they have to be in school? To me this makes a WHOLE lot more sense: they
can pay rent anywhere. Who else is going to allow them to waive the rent
while they spend their work-days pursuing education?

I think the point *is* that you can pay rent anywhere. That is, they are NOT
being given special treatment -- they are being treated just like any other
adult. The young man has been given these options:

(a) Study (successfully) and contribute around the house and live here
rent-free; or
(b) Push off

I think most posters consider that (c) Pay rent and contribute around the
house, is a preferred option.

The reason is that he is not currently being offered a real choice. His
previous behaviour indicates that he has already rejected (a), so (b) is the
only alternative. It would be like my parents asking me to either commit to
playing in the Australian women's cricket team or push off. I don't like
cricket and have no skill at it, so I really don't *have* a choice, even
though it *looks* like one.

Now, why do I think (c) push off, is the best option? (You will remember I
thought it was a good idea for him to leave home in the first place.) I think
it would be better for the young man to pay rent to a non-relative. If he
can't find a job after Labour Day, or gets the sack for being unreliable, the
landlord will evict him. IME most parents will not boot out an unemployed
child, nor one that doesn't meet his tudy/rent commitments. If the young man
is unreliable, he needs to find out about the results of unreliability. If he
is reliable, he needs to find out that an unskilled wage doesn't leave you
much after the rent. This is a good thing to know! It might even prompt him
to return to study, and to apply himself when he gets there. OTOH he might
well find another path in life that he loves -- study doesn't automatically
mean good wages, nor does a lack of study necessarily condemn you to poverty.

The worst-case scenario is to end up like my friend's brother. He is in a
steady job, but his sister has had to set up a direct debit of board from his
account because he cannot be trusted to pay her otherwise. You see, he knows
he is important and that he must have expensive gadgets... even ahead of his
proper responsibilities, and well out of step with his income. If he were 17,
he would just be a young fool, like the subject of this thread... but he is 10
years past that stage and now is just a fool.

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

"...children should continue to be breastfed... for up to two years of age
or beyond." -- Innocenti Declaration, Florence, 1 August 1990