Honey, I Wrecked The Kids Part 5

Her son already knows not to unroll the bags-that was the point of his actions. He doesn't need a lesson in "shopping behaviors"; he needs an experience of positive connection. Mom's distraction is the corrective measure, and that is sufficient. Anything more is overkill.

Save your energy.

Josh keeps kicking the back of Mom's car seat as they drive to school. Mom bites her tongue and instead of saying for the umpteenth time how she is bugged by his kicking, she turns her attention to Josh positively and distracts him from his kicking by asking if he wants to play the alphabet game. Josh says, "YES! And there is 'A' in Acura on that car beside us!"

The kicking stops and the game begins.

Let's pause for a moment. Are you thinking, "Good lord! Must I always be the one to engage him? Can't the little b.u.g.g.e.r just let me drive in peace? I don't want to play the alphabet game every day.

76.Sometimes I want to just listen to the radio. And I can't always drag out the shopping by waiting for my child to pick apples. Can't they just be patient for a change?"

My answer is, Yes! You are so right. A truly co-operative child will see that some situations in life require patience and coping with boredom. However, in order for children to be willing to be co-operative in these situations, they must have all their Crucial C's met. We are on the right path with these techniques, and in time, your children will develop patience. Hang in there while we nurse them back to being fully C-positive. It takes time, but you will get there.

REDIRECTION.

Distraction and redirection are similar, but slightly diff erent concepts.

Distraction is meant to hijack the child's attention from what he is doing and then focus it on something completely diff erent ("Oh, Yoo-hoo. Look over here!") Redirection, on the other hand, involves showing the child the proper way in which he can carry on with what he was doing.

Jordan is playing with the garden hose in the backyard. He turns the hose onto the lawn furniture and Mom lights into him: "No, bad boy, I told you before, not the furniture. We sit on those! Don't spray there; you're making a total mess of everything. How many times do I have to tell you that people are going to get wet pants if you spray the chairs? Don't do that again. Do you hear me?"

Compare that verbose excitement to a redirection response: "Can you come with your hose and water my vegetable garden, Jordan?"77.Jordan still gets to use the hose, but he is redirected to an activity that is useful and positive.

Now here are two questions for you: 1. If you were Jordan, and you wanted Mom's attention, which of the above responses would encourage you to water the furniture again? The longer, more dramatic response, right?

2. If you're a child who is struggling to overcome feelings of not belonging or of not being significant, which response is likely to help you overcome those discouraged feelings about yourself and your place in the family?

NATURAL CONSEQUENCES.

Natural consequences are a wonderful, impartial way for our children to learn about their behavioral choices. Let me explain what a natural consequence is, how children learn from them and how to use that wisdom in your parenting.

To understand what a natural consequence is, let's break down the term. In this context, "natural" refers to the laws that govern the natural world. It covers such things as gravity, thermodynamics, friction and inertia. "Consequences" refer to demonstrable outcomes.

If we want children to learn the natural laws that bind us on earth, then they need to experience how different actions result in different outcomes. It helps children put together cause-and-eff ect relations.h.i.+ps. They love learning that a large rock dropped in a mud puddle makes a bigger splash than a little rock, that if you let go of the string of your helium balloon it will float up and up and up, and that if you don't blow on your hot chocolate, you can burn your tongue on the first sip. They don't need to know that e = mc2 78.in order to operate according to that truth; they simply need to experience cause-and-eff ect relations.h.i.+ps.

The reason children learn so quickly with natural consequences is because the outcomes are 100 percent consistent. Gravity's laws are always in effect, so every time you let go, your toy falls to the ground.

The laws of thermodynamics always yield a burn if you put bare fi ngers on the gla.s.s of the oven door when the cookies are baking.

Natural consequences can teach our children, if we would just step back: If you don't eat-you get hungry.

If you don't wear a coat-you get chilly.

If you don't wear socks-you get a blister.

If you don't keep your fingers out of the way-you get a pinchy on the cupboard door.

If you pour the milk too fast-it drowns your cereal.

If you don't rinse the soap off your hands well enough-they feel sticky.

If you build your blocks too high-they fall over.

If you leave your snack unattended-the dog will eat it.

We tend to spend our parenting energies warning our children about the consequences, hoping that our nagging and reminding will help them avoid experiencing any nasty consequences. Th e trouble with our strategy is that it is actually the experiencing of a consequence that does the teaching. Getting a blister is what teaches you to wear socks, not Mom's lecture. In fact, Mom is interfering with little Tina's learning if she chases her around the room in order to get those socks on her.

Now that Mom has stepped in, Tina will not learn the sock blister connection. Instead, she will learn a nifty way to engage Mom: Chapter Four 79.Don't put on your socks and then Mom goes, blah-blah-blah, chase, chase, chase, and then she dresses you! It's awesome.

Instead, Mom can share her concerns and leave Tina to decide: "Sometimes when we don't wear socks we can get a blister that hurts, but I trust you to decide for yourself about your socks." Done. Finito.

You've put it out there for her, and she can weigh that information, which may may or may not sway her decision.

Donna sits on the side of the sandbox to keep an eye on Owen while he plays because he keeps trying to put the sand in his mouth. "Yucky," Mommy says each time. "Not in the mouth, Owen. Yucky-sand is for the sandbox. Put it down. Not for eating," and so on.

Owen is learning that every time he lifts his sand-fi lled fist to his mouth, his mother starts talking like a windup doll. Instead of learning not to eat sand, he is learning how to make Mommy talk! Mom could instead say nothing, let Owen experience a mouthful of sand, and he would quickly realize that it is indeed "yucky."

So when possible, why not take a load off and let Mother Nature do her thing? We work hard enough as parents. Let's enjoy being effective while doing nothing for a change. Of course, there are a few situations when using natural consequences is not advisable: 1.

W.

hen the consequence is too severe.

A little burn from touching the uninsulated side of the toaster is one thing, but I am not advising you to let your children play in traffic (I think that legally covers my b.u.t.t, right?).

Obviously, we must keep our children safe. However, I am suggesting you take them out of the bubble-wrap packing, and stop interfering with their learning. "Teachable moments"

80.will actually protect them in the long run, as they will learn a healthy respect for life and its risks and dangers.

W.

hen the consequence is too far in the future.

Natural consequences also won't work on youngsters if the time between the cause and effect are too far apart.

Cavities take years to set in, so I would not use natural consequences to deal with your toothbrush-avoidant tots.

They have to be able to connect the dots in their heads between cause and effect. Don't worry, when natural consequences aren't the right tool, you've got plenty more to reach for-read on!

W.

hen too many others are impacted.

If the tobogganing party is today, I would not use natural consequences to teach about the benefits of dry, warm legs. If one child is freezing, everyone's fun comes to an end. In this case, let the child know that snow pants are a requirement of attendance. She can leave them in the car and put them on if she gets cold later, but she has to have snow pants with her. No snow pants is not an option today.

LOGICAL CONSEQUENCES.

If our children learn so quickly from natural consequences, why not use similar methods to teach them about the social laws that govern people in a democracy? We can't all run around doing as we please. Chaos would reign! We need our children to learn the social conventions of our society. They need to learn that freedom comes with responsibilities: The freedom to eat sugary foods comes with the responsibility to take sugar off the teeth.81.Those unwilling to take responsibility for removing sugar from their teeth, lose the freedom of eating sugar.

or The freedom to ride a bike comes with the responsibility to wear a helmet.

Those who do not wear a helmet lose bike privileges.

After all, if our children can learn the cause-and-eff ect relations.h.i.+p "If I let go of the spoon-the spoon drops to the floor," they are also capable of understanding the relations.h.i.+p between freedoms and responsibilities.

Logical consequences teach exactly that relations.h.i.+p. Th ey are amazingly eff ective, if we create them correctly and apply them properly. But boy, oh boy, is there room for a lot of mistake-making with this tool! Let's make sure you get it all straight in your head so you can start using this technique.

To ensure that a logical consequence isn't punitive, the consequence must meet two criteria: It must be related to the behavior (hence the name "logical") and it must be revealed to the child in advance.

Related Consequences Your child needs to be able to see the cause-and-eff ect relations.h.i.+p as being logically connected. For example, children can understand that since meals are eaten at the table, if they get down from the table, their meal is fi nished. That seems logical. But, let's look at a common mistake with this technique. Compare these two approaches: Approach #1: "If you get down from the table, you'll lose your Nintendo DX for the night."

82.Approach #2: "If you'd like to eat dinner with us, you need to stay at the table. If you choose to get down from the table, that's okay too, but you will lose your Nintendo DX game for the night."

Hmmm. Which version is better? Th e first example is clearly a punitive threat, while the second one seems better on fi rst reading.

After all, version two is stated very nicely, and the child is given options. But read them both again. They are really both punitive. In each case, the parent wants the child to stay at the table, and she is letting him know she will punish him if he doesn't make the choice she would like him to make.

In both examples, the parent's motivation isn't to teach, or to maintain order in the family, but to "stick it to him" by doing something that will sting a little. These are just tidied-up versions of power wielding, and both are manipulative. We're trying to dress up that bovine in a party frock again.

Likewise, it's punitive to deny a cookie at the bakery because your little Mario Andretti drove his trainer grocery cart into that lady with the high-heeled shoes. A more logical consequence (one that your child will understand as logical) is that the cart is taken away if he can't accept the responsibility of pus.h.i.+ng it carefully. Freedoms and responsibilities go together. Cause and effect: if you don't accept responsibility, you lose your freedoms.

Revealed in Advance In a democracy, people are free to make choices, but every choice has an outcome or consequence. Our children are free to choose their behaviors. However, in order to make an informed decision, they need to know what options they have, and they need to understand the consequences of each option. "If I choose A, B will happen; If I choose C, D will happen. What will I decide?"83.In action, it looks like this: "If you would like to walk, you have to stay beside Mommy. If you run ahead, you'll have to go in the stroller."

Walk-stay out of the stroller Run-go back in the stroller This way, your children can make their choice with full knowledge of what lies ahead.

Parenting Alert Now let me just give you a quick heads-up on something to expect that might snag you. Chances are you will be faced with a child who says, "I'll walk, I'll walk," but while saying one thing, she's doing another. She says she chooses to walk, but in reality she starts to run! This sort of thing happens all the time. The mouth and the feet are in disagreement.

When this happens, it's the action that indicates your child's decision, not the words. When she takes off, you pop her in the stroller and say, "I see you have chosen the stroller." Yes, she'll probably cry and protest that she "said" she would walk. That's okay. You can be empathetic. "I am sorry you're disappointed with your choice; you can decide diff erently next time." However, when a child makes a decision, please let the decision stand.

Does this sound like something you're ready to try? Let's look at some more examples to make sure you've got it.

Social Law: We draw with our crayons on paper only. We draw with our crayons on paper only.

Logical Consequence: If you choose to draw on the table, walls or something other than paper, the crayons will have to go away. You can try again in the aft ernoon. If you choose to draw on the table, walls or something other than paper, the crayons will have to go away. You can try again in the aft ernoon.

84.Social Law: We don't bang our cups on the table; we keep them still. We don't bang our cups on the table; we keep them still.

Logical Consequence: If you choose to bang your cup on the table, it will have to be removed. You can try again at the next meal. If you choose to bang your cup on the table, it will have to be removed. You can try again at the next meal.

Social Law: We need to feel safe in our home. We need to feel safe in our home.

Logical Consequence (if child is. .h.i.tting or kicking): If you can calm yourself, you can stay here with us; if not, you need to be alone. If child keeps. .h.i.tting: I see you need to go, come back when you are ready to play safely. (Note: this is essentially a non-punitive form of a time-out. I never use the word (if child is. .h.i.tting or kicking): If you can calm yourself, you can stay here with us; if not, you need to be alone. If child keeps. .h.i.tting: I see you need to go, come back when you are ready to play safely. (Note: this is essentially a non-punitive form of a time-out. I never use the word "time-out" when talking to children.) If your child won't stay in this "time-out," or if he comes right back and hits again, you have a power struggle on your hands and attention tools will no longer work. More on "power tools" (I just had to say that once in this book !) in the next chapter.

Common Parenting Pitfall: Stating the Consequence After the Action There are two major pitfalls with Logical Consequences that trip up nearly everyone. Th e first is to state the consequence without warning, aft er the action has taken place: * "That's it, mister; it's back in the stroller for you!"

* "I've had it! I'm taking away that cart since you can't push it safely."

* "No more crayons for you; you're writing all over everything."

Yes, these are logical, but the child was not given the information ahead of time, while she was in the process of deciding whether Chapter Four 85.she would walk or run, push the cart safely or whack it into people.

The child with the crayons might have decided to keep the drawing limited to the paper if he knew that by choosing to write on the table he would lose his opportunity to color for the rest of the morning.

Common Parenting Pitfall: Failing to Follow Through I can hear your exasperated protests: "But I did tell him not to run.

But I did tell her not to crayon. I've been telling them that a thousand times! They won't listen. That is why I am reading this book!"

Nagging your kids and reminding them provides undue attention. Instead, you need to follow through with the consequence.

This is what is tripping you up. Our children learn from what we do, not from what we say. If we reveal the consequence in advance and then don't follow through, we are teaching our children that we don't really mean what we say. They become "mother deaf."

Worse, when we do finally muster the will to follow through, they perceive the consequence as erratic punishment. Th e child thinks, "Hey, yesterday you said if I ran with my cart you'd take it away, but you didn't. Why should I think you would today? Th at's unfair!"

In order to make logical consequences effective, we have to replicate the properties that make natural consequences work so brilliantly by being both consistent and non-judgmental.

Be Consistent If children are jumping on the couch, the "natural law" of gravity teaches that they could fall off and b.u.mp their heads. True, but let's be real. It's not their heads we are worried about: it's ruining the upholstery on the new couch. (Sorry kids, your heads are tough; fabric isn't.) No natural law of fabric deterioration is going to help us teach children about why they shouldn't jump on it.

86.So how can we best teach the "Leon's Law" of no-jumping-with-grimy-street-shoes-that-will take-years-off -the-springs-and-ensure-the-couch-is-ruined-long-before-you-make-the-last-of-the-ho-ho-ho hold-the-payments?

If we nag and remind, we risk teaching our children how to engage our attention negatively. Instead we can create a logical consequence.

To be effective, we need the cause-and-effect relations.h.i.+ps to be related as well as revealed in advance, and we have to follow through 100 percent of the time, consistently and without judgment, just as it is in a natural consequence.

If we want our children to learn that couches are not for jumping on, then every time they jump on the couch, we must remove them.

Not just when we feel energetic enough to get up, go over there and put them down on the floor. Did you catch that? EVERY TIME. Aft er all, gravity doesn't sometimes take a holiday and leave that dropped spoon suspended in the air. How confusing would that be?

We have to actively follow through with carrying out the consequence each and every time. Yes, it takes energy, and we can get all b.u.mmed about that (oh no, more parenting work to do!) but I promise you this: a child who experiences a well-constructed and consistently implemented logical consequence will learn quickly.

If you only nag and remind about consequences, the behavior will continue on and on and on. Your nagging will continue on and on and on. Comparatively speaking then, over time, you'll spend less energy dealing with misbehavior if you're effective at implementing logical consequences. Trust me, ineffective nagging goes on forever.

Common Parenting Pitfall: Random Reinforcement When we stop doing the attention dance with our children, there are a few stages we tend to go through: Chapter Four 87.1. Initially, when we stop giving undue attention, children will usually re-double their eff orts. The behaviors get worse as they work harder to get us back into that attention dance that used to work so well for them.

2. If they consistently experience a lack of the payoff they used to get-even when they try harder-the behavior will begin to taper off .

3. Finally, they will abandon the behavior all together, satisfied that it's no longer useful, no matter how persistent they are or how hard they try. That is the day we are looking forward to!

However, if at anytime, in a moment of weakness you do provide the payoff , the children learn to hang in there, keep at it, be persistent, and occasionally they'll get that response that they are seeking. If you've been ignoring your child's repeated, attention-seeking calls for "Fluffy, a drink of water, and 'I gotta pee,'" on most nights, but every now and then caving in-uh-oh.

You can bet your child is now going to keep calling and trying for MUCH longer, hoping that tonight is another one of those nights where you have a lapse.

This occasional payoff is called "random reinforcement." It is the strongest enforcer of human behavior there is! Just take a stroll through any casino and you'll know how powerful it is. All those mesmerized people, pulling on slot machines, gambling away the family's grocery money and their old age security checks are entirely unable to leave. They have the same internal dialogue as your child: "This time I'll be lucky, just one more time. Maybe this is the one. I do hit the jackpot occasionally, so I just have to try again."

88.If you stop dancing in your old ways, and you no longer provide that payoff response, be adamant with yourself that you'll hold fi rm to your strategy until your children reach the conclusion that their behavior is no longer eff ective.

Be Non-Judgmental Have you ever noticed how Mother Nature doesn't lecture or moral-ize? When our children make their behavioral choices, we simply have to follow through with the consequence. We don't need to be dramatic over the choices they make.

If they color on the table and you have to take away the crayons, do it in a firm and friendly manner. No need to add, "I guess we won't be able to make his birthday card now. Poor Daddy, he'll be so sad."