Troubled neighborhood *family*

In article .com, Chris
says...

Based on the principal of the situation, no excuse was necessary. I
weighed the situation and consulted with a few other neighbors, who
also agreed that I owed her nothing. The people closest to me were
well aware of how long it took me to set up and arrange my sale, and
we also had it the weekend after, after having donated the remaining
first batch and filling up the tables a second time. I advertised for
my own sale, so it was not necessary for me to contribute to
advertising for their sale. Either way, advertising drawing attention
to our neighborhood had been accomplished.

I still don't get quite what was going on. There was a neighborhood sale, and
you had yours just the weekend after? If so what's the 'first batch' and
'second time'? If your sale is separate, of course you needn't have paid for
advertising for the neighborhood sale. But I would have waited at least a
couple of months to have my sale. It's kinda 'in their face' to up and have
your sale the very next weekend. It's strictly within your rights, but it's a
bit miffing.


Way off, and if you believe that listening to her outrageous ramblings
with me responding with "I'll call right away and check on that." and
actually doing so and having the City Clerk make some pretty funny
comments on what she shared with me as me having an attitude, then so
be it. lol.

I was not listening to her - I only read what YOU wrote (somewhat
incoherently). And I'm on her side in this. You were inconsiderate
and you had no good excuse (except that there was no law about it).

Chris's son and his two friends don't want to play with this boy.

Chris' son and the 2 other boys were playing down the street at one of
the other 2 boy's homes. The troubled child approached them and when
he couldn't join in the playing activities in the woods out back
(poison ivy issues), he decided to throw his bile helmet at the 3 boys
and spit at them. They then retaliated, and wrongly so, which I've
already discussed, at attempting to hurt his feelings to make him go
away and leave them alone. On his way home, which requires he pass our
house, he pulled into our driveway and smashed items in the driveway
and alongside the driveway with *his* bike.


Nobody purposely plays in poison ivy in the woods, but it is there, so
if it is an issue for you, you are not apt to wander in, and yet, most
people, will not threaten those who do because they cannot.

(See I'm having to break this up for you - you're running on, and I had to
figure out what follows this is about toys in the driveway, not the poison ivy)

What's surprising is that only a few people are not bothered by poison ivy.


What's not
my call? I had nothing to do with the activities or goings on at the
other person's house. I had to deal with what happened here. The boys
bounce their play from my house to the boy's next door, to the boy's
in the cul de sac down the street, as they often do. What is so hard
to understand for you about there being toys in my yard and driveway?

It had sounded to me (and Rosalie) that the toys were in someone else's
driveway. What's hard to understand is how you're presenting things here.



Why was anyone playing in poison ivy? In any case, this wasn't at
your house, so it wasn't really your call. And if the 3 boys were
playing at someone else's house, what were the toys doing out in your
driveway?

If 3 children play together without issue, then why on earth would you
prevent it? On occasion, there are other 2 other visiting neighborhood
boys who also join in on the fun without issue.



It sounds as though all the boys need supervision when they are
together. Generally I feel that three children playing together is a
bad idea because one of them will almost invariably be ganged up on.



My own rules that I followed with my kids was - if you can't play
outside with the neighborhood children, then come into the house. I
didn't have the neighborhood children come into my house, so if my
children came in, they'd have just themselves to play with.

Not only is preventing my children from playing with every other child
in this neighborhood that they do get along with, which happens to be
all of them, by telling them to come inside without their friends
because there is 1 troublemaker they can't make it work with, no
matter how hard they've tried, not an option, it is completely
unreasonable.

Yes, but the more I think about it. Why on earth does this woman feel
it necessary to push her child into what is obviously not a good
situation for him? I don't get it. If that were my child, I would most
definitely not continue to put my child out there and I would most
definitely tell him that he has to learn to play appropriately so he
would be more likely to be invited over. I also don't consider telling
me someone is being destructive or physical or spitting to be
tattling. I consider all 3 to be disrespectful to not only the other
children, but to the homeowner as well.

Why does she think it 'necessary'? Maybe she wants her kid out of her hair and
doesn't really care.

Not that you don't care, but wanting the kids outside and out of your hair is
part of your motivation in this, too! That's a reasonable ideal for some part
of the day, but sometimes it just doesn't work out that way for reasons you
can't help. Sounds like this is one of those situations. You can't fix people
like that. You can change what *you* do.

Banty

On Sep 26, 8:20?am, Banty wrote:
In article . com, Chris says...







Chris's
problem is apparently that she doesn't want to tell her son that he
can either play nicely with all the neighborhood children or he can
come in and play by himself.

Well Rosalie, you are a little off, as I don't have a problem. I
probably should not have tried to cram that into a short post when I
was short on time. My son, nor 2 of the other neighborhood boys are
having difficulties playing with the problem child. Rather, it is the
other way around. My son and the 2 other neighborood boys do not WANT
to play with this child. At this point, after a few years of it
actually, I have to throw up my hands and actually say that I can't
blame them. They have all tried, and sometimes successfully so, to
include him in their activities. The issue now is that I'm wondering
just when is it enough to stop coercing, lecturing on the importance
of understanding and compassion, etc. in order to see to it a troubled
child, who can get physical, if not against the person, then against
their belongings, into playing with said child? I feel bad that this
child will inevitably feel left out, but I honestly feel at this point
he only has his own behavior and actions to blame for it. He spits,
hits, destroys, swears, etc. just as his older sister did. The kids
want to have fun, not cater to a needy child who throws fits or gets
physical every time he doesn't get his way, and I don't blame them. At
any rate, I have decided that the child will get one verbal warning
that he must be able to play nicely, and just as I did the other day,
when a problem arises, as it inevitably will, I will tell them they
must separate, and THAT happens to mean the troubled child needs to go
home.

One teaches many things to their kids - self-respect as well as compassion.

You and I, at least like to think, we have compassion. But do you invite over
for a barbeque at your house, the most irritating person at your workplace? Out
of compassion? Of course not. I sure as heck don't.

Kids, like adults, have social preferences, and these need to be respected. And
their need not to have their stuff broken and their fun quashed by their
behavior of this kid needs to be respected, too. Indeed, you need to teach them
not to put up with this stuff and to respect themselves. You can teach them to
be *civil* to everyone, but they do not have to associate with everyone as
friends.

Compassion would go as far as, say, an awkward child, who is basically a good
kid, being a good playmate even if some of other kids tease him. This isn't the
case here.

There's only a point to which one can go to help a kid like this. You simply
don't have the strings to pull, or the training, or the time and energy to
devote (which would pretty much be on the lines of becoming a foster parent) to
do it.

Banty- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's the feeling I'm starting to get about it. There are children in
this neighborhood with varying degrees of disabilities, from Down
syndrome to autistic children who have frequent overloads/meltdowns,
but my kids go out of their way to help them out and include them the
best they can. Of course, these other children don't purposely destroy
their belongings or hit them or spit at them.

I initially felt bad for this one boy who obviously has "issues", but
I am not entirely convinced they are due to "conditions" rather than
passive parenting. I don't care if he had a legitimate "eat my fist"
condition resulting in him wanting to punch everyone else in the face
- that is dangerous and one accommodation I am unwilling to make and
one that I am unwilling to make my children deal with.

Chris wrote:
On Sep 26, 2:06?am, toypup wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 21:05:06 -0700, Chris wrote:
Chris's
problem is apparently that she doesn't want to tell her son that he
can either play nicely with all the neighborhood children or he can
come in and play by himself.
Well Rosalie, you are a little off, as I don't have a problem. I
probably should not have tried to cram that into a short post when I
was short on time.
I don't think the problem is the length of your posts. You just don't use
paragraphs. Is there a reason you don't use paragraphs?

It's faster. Is this a grammar/style/punctuation board in cognito?

IME Yes.

Tori

On Sep 26, 9:48 am, Banty wrote:
In article om, Beliavsky
says...

On Sep 26, 8:33 am, Banty wrote:

snip

And it can have consequences far down the line. We had a disturbed child in our
neighborhood; his parents wouldn't do anythign about his neighborhood behavior
(indeed the father took a little pride in his being 'tough').

He probably was a "disturbed" child, but more importantly, he was
"disturbing", to put it mildly. Nowadays, there are no "juvenile
delinquents" or "hoodlums", only "troubled" youths, at least if one
uses politically correct terminology found in (for example) the New
York Times. I think part of the reason we may have more troublemakers
than in the past is that the therapeutic approach to discussing them
and dealing with them is less effective than an approach focusing on
deterrence.

There, I feel better now.

I don't think there are more. Although I do think things get allowed to get out
of hand more now.

I don't think it has anything to do with the ephithets, though. But it does
have to do with a hestitancy to deal directly with the problem. Although in the
past, the 'problem' was anybody who was different, so there were costs there,
too.

It's a matter of balance.

You wrote regarding the youth,
"But they didn't supervise the way one who takes that sort of thing on
would have needed to, and there were severe problems - at the
end involving his swinging aluminum bats at the little kids, and
taking a smaller kid to the back wood to try to teach him fellatio."

Would calling the youth above a delinquent, hoodlum, or troublemaker
be using "epithets" in your opinion? I think it's telling the truth,
and using the right words can lead to the right actions -- putting him
in a juvenile detention center so that he does not harm other
children.

Wow, that is heartbreaking and terrible. Even if nobody understood my
OP, it helped me see things a little more clearly. I've told the
children that if they are at my house, then they need to come to me to
help diffuse a problem and they can always go into the backyard. They
asked what they should do when at the other homes, and I told them to
talk to the parents there. The troubled child will simply be admitted
into my yard after assessing whether or not I can supervise in the
necessary manner his attendance requires. If I can't, then he will be
told by me that he cannot come into the yard because I am not able to
remain outdoors with him to ensure things go smoothly. Period.
Luckily, a reprieve of sorts is coming with winter.


Having a rule like Rosalie's is a last resort. Possibly you'll have to do it,
but it's hugely limiting.

And it can have consequences far down the line. We had a disturbed child in our
neighborhood; his parents wouldn't do anythign about his neighborhood behavior
(indeed the father took a little pride in his being 'tough'). He would come
down to our part of the neighborhood because one family encouraged their kids to
play there to 'help' him. But they didn't supervise the way one who takes that
sort of thing on would have needed to, and there were severe problems - at the
end involving his swinging aluminum bats at the little kids, and taking a
smaller kid to the back wood to try to teach him fellatio. So other families in
the neighborhood with kids started calling as to where the boy is, and each
house was a place to duck into and play for awhile until he goes away.

That's not pleasant and a hassle, and eventually most everyone had their kids
involved in other activities and arranged playdates outside the neighborhood.
But what was lost was the street games, the kids getting their bikes and meeting
each other which the kids were doing before the disturbed kid started coming
around - all the kind of stuff I enjoyed in the places where I grew up which had
a lot of neighborhood kids. We never got that back :-(

But possibly you can touch base with the parents of the other kids your kids
like to play with and see how they view the situation, and make arrangements for
the kids to play at one of the houses or take them all out to a park or
something once in a while so that they can play without this problem.

Banty- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

He is beyond my help. I've tried. The kids have tried. He requires the
supervision of his parents, not me. He either doesn't get "If you can
play nicely you are always welcome here, but if not, then I'm afraid
you cannot.", or he doesn't care, or he is incapable of controlling
himself or his actions, in which case we no longer need to put up with
it.


I think it is really OTT to ring a kid up to say that you never ever want to
see them again. "Possibly hurt this troubled child's feelings", eh?
POSSIBLY? (And if he hangs himself afterwards...?) Aside from being OTT
unkind, it's not actually helping him at all.


It is funny you mention suicide. I frequently tell my children what
name-calling and hurtful words and actions can do to a person, albeit
without graphic details. I frequently tell them that all it takes is a
smile to sometimes change the life of someone in need. I've already
shared that I tell them that name-calling, even out of pure
frustration, is never acceptable - that it is always wrong and always
very hurtful - and by doing so, you have stooped to a very low level.
It doesn't mean that it will never happen though.


The kids range in age with my son being the youngest at 10, one is 11,
and one is 12. The troubled boy I believe is 11, mabye almost 12; his
mother only tells me that he cannot play with children of his own age.
Our children are supervised appropriately for age. I don't hover and
direct their conversations or their play, but I do watch from a
distance and check regarding safety periodically from a distance. The
kids try to tell them that they do not want to play with him, which
brings about retaliation and destruction on the part of the "ousted"
boy. Just the play not going in the direction he wants it to is enough
to set him off on that path of destruction and retaliation and the
kids don't want to deal with it any longer.

When the kids play in the cul de sac, they have no back yard, just a
wooded lot, so their basketball hoop is set up in the cul de sac and
their play is in the large front yard. I no more expect that mother to
twin newborns, and 3 other children, to invite 3 boys into her home
for indoor play, than I feel I should be forced to.


You did not mention the ages of any of the children. I'm wondering if *your*
son is really old enough to play with so little supervision atm. If a child
is a pain, the rest of the kids tell him to get lost, and if he doesn't, they
retreat somewhere that he cannot follow them (like your house). If your DS
and his mates can't work this out, keep them closer to home.


I am intrigued by your belief that "we" should keep our kids closer to
home when they are in fact playing in our yards, versus the mother of
the troubled child keeping her child closer to home. Very interesting
indeed.

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

http://chookiesbackyard.blogspot.com/

On Sep 26, 8:37?am, Ericka Kammerer wrote:
Chris wrote:
I've just had enough of this child requiring so much of MY time and
attention. I made progress with another child, who happens to be one
of the 3 boys I speak about, but after 3 years, it is just not going
to make a difference with this other child. Yes, based on my
experiences with his mother, which have never been negative, I am able
to assess that inadequate parenting is a big part of the situation,
and yes, I am tired of having to answer to her, cater to her
child(ren), etc. Each of her 3 children has multiple "labels"
pertaining to why they cannot function in a group of peers. It is time
for her to tell her son that he cannot play with the other children
unless he can play nicely. Enough is enough.

You can talk to her, but in the end, the only person
you can control is yourself. Talking to her may or may not
result in her son staying away from the other kids. If he
still comes around looking to play, I don't really see how
it works out without some adult supervision. It doesn't seem
like most kids that age would be particularly good at turning
him away politely but firmly (and if he has issues, he likely
won't make it easy on them). So, I'm not sure how you get out
of this situation without some supervision, whether that's outside
or in your home.

Best wishes,
Ericka

Right, I've told the boys they can simply state "We don't want to play
with you right now because there is always trouble." If he promises to
play nice, then give him a shot. If he can't promise that, and he will
not leave, then us parents need to be notified so we can take the next
appropriate step, be it telling the other children to play in the
backyards of those of us who have them, be it deciding we can sit
outdoors and monitor every movement and word, or be it deciding we
cannot and that he just needs to go home because he cannot play today.
If the mother wants to make an issue of that, which would astound me
considering she has no problems sharing that he has these problems,
then she needs to decide if she wants to take time out of her schedule
to tend to her child's needs properly. We don't allow our kids to play
at their home.

In article .com, Beliavsky
says...

On Sep 26, 9:48 am, Banty wrote:
In article om, Beliavsky
says...

On Sep 26, 8:33 am, Banty wrote:

snip

And it can have consequences far down the line. We had a disturbed child in
our
neighborhood; his parents wouldn't do anythign about his neighborhood behavior
(indeed the father took a little pride in his being 'tough').

He probably was a "disturbed" child, but more importantly, he was
"disturbing", to put it mildly. Nowadays, there are no "juvenile
delinquents" or "hoodlums", only "troubled" youths, at least if one
uses politically correct terminology found in (for example) the New
York Times. I think part of the reason we may have more troublemakers
than in the past is that the therapeutic approach to discussing them
and dealing with them is less effective than an approach focusing on
deterrence.

There, I feel better now.

I don't think there are more. Although I do think things get allowed to get out
of hand more now.

I don't think it has anything to do with the ephithets, though. But it does
have to do with a hestitancy to deal directly with the problem. Although in the
past, the 'problem' was anybody who was different, so there were costs there,
too.

It's a matter of balance.

You wrote regarding the youth,
"But they didn't supervise the way one who takes that sort of thing on
would have needed to, and there were severe problems - at the
end involving his swinging aluminum bats at the little kids, and
taking a smaller kid to the back wood to try to teach him fellatio."

Would calling the youth above a delinquent, hoodlum, or troublemaker
be using "epithets" in your opinion? I think it's telling the truth,
and using the right words can lead to the right actions -- putting him
in a juvenile detention center so that he does not harm other
children.


"Troublemaker" is a description, "disturbed" is an inference, the others are
epithets. Where to draw the lines is subjective, of course, but that's how I
see it.

To me, it's not the labels, it's looking frankly at the situation and
understanding the boundaries.

Banty

On Sep 26, 8:37?am, Beliavsky wrote:
On Sep 26, 1:41 am, Rosalie B. wrote:

snip

I found that if I intervened with another parent regarding their child
that it ALWAYS led to trouble which was worse than anything that the
children could get into by themselves.

We share a duplex with our landlord, and he is more strict with our
son (when they are both outside) than we are, with our approval. In
general, if my children misbehave, I want to hear about it, whether
from adults in the neighborhood or his teachers.

Same here. My children know full well I have given my blessing for the
homeowners to ensure my children follow the rules of their homes.

In article . com, Chris says...


Wow, paragraphs - so much easier to read. And you've started to look at this
from the point of view of what *you* can do. Yay!

Huge kudos to you. Some folks never 'get it'.

He is beyond my help. I've tried. The kids have tried. He requires the
supervision of his parents, not me. He either doesn't get "If you can
play nicely you are always welcome here, but if not, then I'm afraid
you cannot.", or he doesn't care, or he is incapable of controlling
himself or his actions, in which case we no longer need to put up with
it.


I think it is really OTT to ring a kid up to say that you never ever want to
see them again. "Possibly hurt this troubled child's feelings", eh?
POSSIBLY? (And if he hangs himself afterwards...?) Aside from being OTT
unkind, it's not actually helping him at all.


It is funny you mention suicide. I frequently tell my children what
name-calling and hurtful words and actions can do to a person, albeit
without graphic details. I frequently tell them that all it takes is a
smile to sometimes change the life of someone in need. I've already
shared that I tell them that name-calling, even out of pure
frustration, is never acceptable - that it is always wrong and always
very hurtful - and by doing so, you have stooped to a very low level.
It doesn't mean that it will never happen though.


The kids range in age with my son being the youngest at 10, one is 11,
and one is 12. The troubled boy I believe is 11, mabye almost 12; his
mother only tells me that he cannot play with children of his own age.
Our children are supervised appropriately for age. I don't hover and
direct their conversations or their play, but I do watch from a
distance and check regarding safety periodically from a distance. The
kids try to tell them that they do not want to play with him, which
brings about retaliation and destruction on the part of the "ousted"
boy. Just the play not going in the direction he wants it to is enough
to set him off on that path of destruction and retaliation and the
kids don't want to deal with it any longer.

When the kids play in the cul de sac, they have no back yard, just a
wooded lot, so their basketball hoop is set up in the cul de sac and
their play is in the large front yard. I no more expect that mother to
twin newborns, and 3 other children, to invite 3 boys into her home
for indoor play, than I feel I should be forced to.


You did not mention the ages of any of the children. I'm wondering if *your*
son is really old enough to play with so little supervision atm. If a child
is a pain, the rest of the kids tell him to get lost, and if he doesn't, they
retreat somewhere that he cannot follow them (like your house). If your DS
and his mates can't work this out, keep them closer to home.


I am intrigued by your belief that "we" should keep our kids closer to
home when they are in fact playing in our yards, versus the mother of
the troubled child keeping her child closer to home. Very interesting
indeed.

She said that before knowing your kids' ages. Until you told us, for all we
knew, they were four or five years old.

Banty