# Accused of abuse



## thechuzzle (Apr 7, 2008)

First of all I just have to say that weuse positive reinforcement and natural consequences as much as possible at home and at work. I do not bark orders, I tell them what I would like them to do, instead of not do. We do not hit, we do not yell, and we use time out very sparingly, and only for big no no's. So on to today.
First I just have to say that as a nanny and a parent, who has her own son with her all day and 2 other children as well, I totally respect people older than myself and their opinions about child rearing. But today a lady crossed that line.

We were having lunch at Red Lobster, 2 adults and 6 kids. The kids were all being great, except then one of my 2 year olds decided he was going to stand up in his chair. I asked him nicely to have a seat, and he swung his arm in my general direction. Now he has been having an issue lately were if he does not like something he hits the closest thing to him, whether it be a person, the TV, or himself. His mom and I decided together that this was not going to be tolerated at all, as we do not allow hitting in any form. So I gave him a stern warning that he was not to swing his arm at anyone and that he needed to remain seated in his chair. Following that he proceeded to hit the little boy next to him as he was angry with what I had just told him. Well that meant timeout for him. So I calmly proceeded over to his chair, removed him from it and took him by the hand and led him from the restaurant, in a timely fashion. When we got outside I placed him next to the bench in the corner for timeout and I sat next to him, paying no attention to him, while I set my watch timer for two minutes.

Well next thing you know I am being accosted by an older lady, screaming at me that I was going to cause him permanent physical injury by leading him from the restaurant by his arm. I politely said "thank you for your concern, but that he was fine." Well she could not let it go at that, she accused me of ABUSING him but forcing him to hold my hand and walk out of the restaurant and stand in time out. Let me say right now, at no pint did I yank him by his arm, ever lift him off the ground by his arm, or do anything but lead him in a quickly fashion from the restaurant. I became quite enraged at her allegation of abuse. I still tried to be polite and told her that he was going to remain in time out for two minutes, no matter her feelings on the matter, and truly it was none of her business. I had not treated him in any way that was inappropriate, and I was not standing outside beating him, and that I had nothing further to say to her. Well that just ticked her off and she went back in and complained to the manager of Red Lobster who informed her he could do nothing about it, and she stormed out with her husband.

My little man finished his two minutes, we walked back inside and had a peaceful finish to lunch. But I am just enraged that someone would have the nerve to say that I was abusing him. Had it been my own son who did it I would have taken the same steps. I could understand someone saying something if I had been beating on him, or degrading him in any way, as I myself will say something to a parent or nanny that treats a child in that way. But to correct an unwanted behavior with timeout and stern polite words, and still be accused of abuse just sent me over the edge. I am not sure I handled it right or what I would do next time, but I thought I would see what the rest of you had to say.


----------



## beachcomber (May 11, 2005)

It sounds like you did well by the unruly little guy. Everyone's got an opinion and it sounds like this elderly woman is just particularly opinionated. Her opinion doesn't matter. Don't give it a second thought.


----------



## NotTheOnlyOne (Oct 23, 2006)

from your description, what you did was fine. If my almost 2 yr old is misbehaving in a restraunt I will take him outside for a few minutes. He gets bored easily. Was that this child's problem?

FOr next time, maybe you could pack some table toys for him to play with at the table.


----------



## thechuzzle (Apr 7, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NotTheOnlyOne* 
from your description, what you did was fine. If my almost 2 yr old is misbehaving in a restraunt I will take him outside for a few minutes. He gets bored easily. Was that this child's problem?

FOr next time, maybe you could pack some table toys for him to play with at the table.

We had plenty of toys to play with, his problem was that he wanted to stand up in the chair. At home I just would have put him down on the floor and allowed him back up when he was ready to sit down and eat, but that really wasn't feesable in the resturant.


----------



## chfriend (Aug 29, 2002)

You said "took him by the hand and led him from the restaurant, in a timely fashion"

Perhaps it appeared to the bystander that you were dragging the toddler by the arm?

Maybe she was concerned about "nursemaid's elbow?"

You don't mention the child's demeanor in your description. How did the child react to the sudden change in disciplinary tactics?

I worked in daycare for a while in my life. I have developed my own ways of thinking about living together with my children, but early on I decided against timeouts because I had seen them used in daycare. I came to believe that if one uses timeouts, one will eventually shove a child.

Certainly moms here have had a different experience, but I would caution you that it's a real possibility when you are talking about kids that aren't your own.

Neither of my kids could have managed the wait at a Red Lobster at 2 without my walking them around while waiting for the food. They would not have responded to a verbal instruction not to stand on the chair.

Maybe next time....call in the order before you get there, then hang by the fish tank until the food comes?


----------



## thechuzzle (Apr 7, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chfriend* 
You said "took him by the hand and led him from the restaurant, in a timely fashion"

Perhaps it appeared to the bystander that you were dragging the toddler by the arm?

Maybe she was concerned about "nursemaid's elbow?"

You don't mention the child's demeanor in your description. How did the child react to the sudden change in disciplinary tactics?


Well while we walked out quickly, it was not fast enough that he could not easily keep up with me. There was no pulling of him at all. And as for the wait, we eat out with the kids about twice a week, and they all sit extremly patiently as I bring plenty of things to entertain them, and fruit for them to eat while their food is being prepared. It wasn't that he was bored, it was that he was more interested in the table behind us. And even at 2, he responds well to just verbal instruction, and he sat down when asked, the timeout occured for the hitting, not the standing in the chair. And when I walked him out, yes he was angry and telling me no timeout, but by no means would I ever have dragged or shoved him in any manner. And I am not sure how any parent can go from administering a peaceful time out as a solution to pushing or shoving their child.


----------



## soybeansmama (Jan 26, 2006)

First of all, you are brave for taking SIX CHILDREN out to eat!!! I do not have the nerves for that kind of adventure.

I would have been really put off by the women who scolded you about handling things the way you did. I know with my oldest when he is being unsafe in public (hitting others, running from me, etc.) I have held him against his will to get him to a safer place. I admit that I have wondered what bystanders have thought of me holding my son screaming with flailing apendeges...I now do what I can to avoid being in those situations in the first place.

If someone did this to me I would ask sincerely how they would handle things better. Maybe it would inspire a little sympathy from them about what you are dealing with. I get frusterated when people are critical without offering helpful advice.


----------



## lovingmommyhood (Jul 28, 2006)

That woman was so out of line. I would've had to restrain my mouth if DS was standing right there but I would have had some choice words for her. Wow.


----------



## Tinker (Mar 1, 2007)

Ok I'm going to take a different tack here. I'm sorry that lady was rude to you, but bright side? Let's feel good that never will a child be abused in her presence without her speaking up. How many times do you hear people say they think a child was treated badly, but it was none of their business to say something?


----------



## CameronsMama (Apr 2, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chfriend* 
I came to believe that if one uses timeouts, one will eventually shove a child.


That is quite a leap! Almost every daycare I've been in has used timeouts, and I've never seen any shoving. Besides it sounds like this discipline tactic was agreed on with the kids mom.

OP I think you handled it all as best you could- that lady was way out of line, and when a person is that unreasonable, there's nothing rational you can say to get through to them.


----------



## snowbunny (May 25, 2005)

Quote:

I came to believe that if one uses timeouts, one will eventually shove a child.
That makes no sense to me. Can you explain why you came to believe this?

FWIW: I'm not a time-out user.


----------



## chfriend (Aug 29, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thechuzzle* 
Well while we walked out quickly, it was not fast enough that he could not easily keep up with me. There was no pulling of him at all. And as for the wait, we eat out with the kids about twice a week, and they all sit extremly patiently as I bring plenty of things to entertain them, and fruit for them to eat while their food is being prepared. It wasn't that he was bored, it was that he was more interested in the table behind us. And even at 2, he responds well to just verbal instruction, and he sat down when asked, the timeout occured for the hitting, not the standing in the chair. And when I walked him out, yes he was angry and telling me no timeout, but by no means would I ever have dragged or shoved him in any manner. And I am not sure how any parent can go from administering a peaceful time out as a solution to pushing or shoving their child.

I've only seen something I'd call a peaceful timeout once in my life. I believe you that you were completely calm and peaceful.

I wonder what upset the person so much she asked the manager to interviene.

ETA: It sounds like the 2 year old is no longer at the stage where he can wait patiently. I hope you are able to re-route your outings while he grows through this stage.


----------



## chfriend (Aug 29, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *snowbunny* 
That makes no sense to me. Can you explain why you came to believe this?

FWIW: I'm not a time-out user.

Because children, especially toddlers like two year olds, rarely comply with a requirement to sit (just the way this OP's charge did not sit when requested to while standing on the chair). This requires forcing them, then they defend themselves, which makes the adult angry, which lead the adult to require them to sit in any way they can....then the shoving happens.

Not saying anyone here does that or did that. Just a conclusion from working with typical and non-typical kids in daycare and respite care settings for a decade or so. It informed my own choices with my own kids.


----------



## barefootpoetry (Jul 19, 2007)

Geez, what a nosy old biddy. I wonder if she gets equally up in arms when parents are ignoring their kids in the restaurant while they scream and cry and throw food at other patrons. Cuz certainly that would be better than "abusing" them with discipline.


----------



## chfriend (Aug 29, 2002)

It bears repeating. Discipline is not synonymous with punishment.

Is there a child here who screamed and cried and threw food at other patrons? Or is this a hypothetical child? and a hypothetical parent?


----------



## allgirls (Apr 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Tinker* 
Ok I'm going to take a different tack here. I'm sorry that lady was rude to you, but bright side? Let's feel good that never will a child be abused in her presence without her speaking up. How many times do you hear people say they think a child was treated badly, but it was none of their business to say something?

This is a very good point.

It is very hard to be accused of something you didn't do. From where that woman sat she thought she saw something happening that wasn't happening. I completely trust that you were in no way harming the child.

I think what I have learned here is that if something like this were to happen to me I would say something like "He's ok and I wasn't hurting him, you misunderstood what you saw, however I have to give credit to you because it's good to know there are people like you who stick up for children" and turn it around that way. Thank you for this insight Tinker.

OP...I hope you feel better about his now.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

I wonder if that woman was the mom of the guy who yelled at the MDC mama in Ikea the other day because she got her son down from climbing on the high shelves?


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chfriend* 
I worked in daycare for a while in my life. I have developed my own ways of thinking about living together with my children, but early on I decided against timeouts because I had seen them used in daycare. I came to believe that if one uses timeouts, one will eventually shove a child.

This is what first steered me away from T/Os actually. My inability to gently enforce them.

However, I have some friends whose children quietly and gently go to T/O. These are also kids who almost never hit, too. Just not really physical. I think it can definitely be done.


----------



## barefootpoetry (Jul 19, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chfriend* 
It bears repeating. Discipline is not synonymous with punishment.

Is there a child here who screamed and cried and threw food at other patrons? Or is this a hypothetical child? and a hypothetical parent?









I assume you're referring to my post. I never said discipline and punishment were anything alike. And yes, I'm speaking about hypothetical parents...we've all seen them. Tuning out their kids who are screaming their heads off for whatever reason. I was referring to this kind of situation because perhaps the lady who accused the OP of abuse would prefer such behavior over tactfully and gently removing the child from the scene?


----------



## Kittymom (May 26, 2004)

This thread makes me feel extra bad about all the times I have half dragged my crying child to the bus or train when we really needed to get somewhere, but he didn't want to walk. Of course, most times he was insisting that I not let go, but just objecting to the pace. THank goodness we've both gotten better at judging the time it takes to get around and actually doing it.

However, your story reminds me of this one time I was out to eat with my son and a friend. It was a place I frequented, and it was when my son wasn't yet walking on his own, and was still strictly breastfed. We were having a nice dinner, and I let him get up and down from the highchair as he pleased. I let him crawl a bit if it was right by the table, and try to climb the highchair while an adult supported it, etc. All three of us were content.

Then, an older lady who had obviously been drinking came over and started accusing me of abusing him. She went on at some length, despite my calmly saying that he was safe and happy. The kicker was she then commented on his race (he is half Chinese and I'm white) and saying that it isn't his fault who his father was. So, not only did she think I was abusing my kid, but she thought it was because I was racist against him! Some people...

It sounds like you handled the situation as well as you could. I don't think there is anything wrong with taking kids to a restaurant for the whole experience, either, unless they really can't handle it at all. No one would ever suggest that an elderly person who talked too loudly or was suffering from dementia and not acting entirely "appropriately" be kept from the places from which we discourage children, and I really think keeping children and their caretakers separate hurts takes us farther being a more naturally structured society.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chfriend* 
Because children, especially toddlers like two year olds, rarely comply with a requirement to sit (just the way this OP's charge did not sit when requested to while standing on the chair). This requires forcing them, then they defend themselves, which makes the adult angry, which lead the adult to require them to sit in any way they can....then the shoving happens.

Not saying anyone here does that or did that. Just a conclusion from working with typical and non-typical kids in daycare and respite care settings for a decade or so. It informed my own choices with my own kids.

I have to agree with this, even if time outs are relatively "peaceful" at 2, I've seen many a child at 3 or 4 resisting a time out and then it turns into a physical struggle where the child is forced to wherever the spot is - and while the caregiver may be able to keep their cool emotionally, a child who is physically struggling with you is more likely to get injured. Which is one reason why I'm not a big fan of time outs. I've had a friend who did give her little girl a nursemaid's elbow over enforcing a time out at 3 yrs old, and she wasn't being particularly rough. It can happen *really* easily.

I would have _absolutely_ taken the child out of the restaurant for a bit, but probably would have picked him up instead of walking with his hand in mine.

I'm not against physical separation and firm addressing of aggression issues, I'm just not particularly _for_ traditional, "Supernanny-type" structured time outs.


----------



## chfriend (Aug 29, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *barefootpoetry* 







I assume you're referring to my post. I never said discipline and punishment were anything alike. And yes, I'm speaking about hypothetical parents...we've all seen them. Tuning out their kids who are screaming their heads off for whatever reason. I was referring to this kind of situation because perhaps the lady who accused the OP of abuse would prefer such behavior over tactfully and gently removing the child from the scene?

Since no one did that, there's no way of knowing that this person would have preferred that behaviour. Perhaps she would have preferred lovingly pulling the toddler onto the nanny's lap and interesting the child in another activity (redirection) or taking the child to see the fish tank (more redirection) or singing a song or ......

If the child hit, she might prefer all of the above or gently taking the child outside for a walk around or to the bathroom to play in the sink for a bit....

She wouldn't necessarily prefer neglect.

I'm not suggesting that children be kept separate....Both my kids went through a period where restaurants just weren't very much fun for us, so we switched to picnics from around 18 months to somewhere in the 3's. We hs and are out and around the world throughout our day.

If I read the OP correctly, the 2 year old hit after having to sit in a chair. That doesn't sound like the ability to wait patiently in a restaurant. Kids sometimes make these leaps overnight...it can be hard to keep up with the changes as they learn and grow!


----------



## PassionateWriter (Feb 27, 2008)

Im another who is against the traditional Super Nanny techniques. And it does tend to lend itself to less than peaceful discipline. My 2 yo was getting very very antsy last night at dinner out (I had already finished) and we left to go sit in the car and listen to music and wait for the rest of our party to finish. that wouldnt have happened at the beginning of the meal, but i have always found (in 17 years) an alternative to the time outs. time ins are productive but dont include clocks or "ignoring" a child.

the lady was out of line. but i dont consider time outs to be GD.


----------



## Equuskia (Dec 16, 2006)

Considering what I've seen lots of parents do when I go out, which is either ignoring the child while he/she disturbs the rest of the patrons, or smack them in public, or take them out for a spanking, I'd prefer the time-out.


----------



## chfriend (Aug 29, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Equuskia* 
Considering what I've seen lots of parents do when I go out, which is either ignoring the child while he/she disturbs the rest of the patrons, or smack them in public, or take them out for a spanking, I'd prefer the time-out.

The manner in which the child was removed disturbed a patron.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chfriend* 

I'm not suggesting that children be kept separate....Both my kids went through a period where restaurants just weren't very much fun for us, so we switched to picnics from around 18 months to somewhere in the 3's. We hs and are out and around the world throughout our day.
!

Oh, and this too. While they might be OK for 25-30 min in a restaurant, when the trend begins that they get wound up and antsy at the end and it's more work to keep them "managed" than it is enjoyable, we stopped going out to eat for a while. For DS that was about 18 months to 3 years. For DD, well, it's been since about 3 months ago, and she'll be 2 in late June. Going out to eat at a sit down restaurant just isn't valuable enough for us to be frustrated regularly with normal developmental behavior, and I'm not of the "they have to learn by experiencing it" crowd. From my experience, when they hit a developmental capability they hit it and will be able to handle things whether they've been 'practiced/trained' or not.


----------



## lovingmommyhood (Jul 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chfriend* 
The manner in which the child was removed disturbed a patron.

Sounds like this patron was already disturbed before the incident. Mentally, that is.


----------



## Breeder (May 28, 2006)

As the mother of a child who has never 'resisted' a time out other than crying or grumbling I have to say that it does not exactly follow that you will be forceful with a child if you use time outs eventually.

Once DS was old enough that redirection did not work, (around 2 1/2 or 3) we began using time out - ie: removing him from the situation to a safe place, allowing him time to cool down (we didn't and do not use a strict amt of time just noticed when he cooled off which was always visable and very quick - his has my quick but also quickly deflating temper) then we'd go in and talk to him about what happened.

Now at almost six when he's angry he removes himself from the situation (like going into his room when he's frustrated and coming out when he's ready).

He has never been shoved, hit, shamed, threatened or yelled at. Always consistantly gentle but firmly told to sit down in 'time out'. Of course I am his mother and if I were a daycare person and not so emotionally attached I might not be able to accomplish this... I have no way of knowing that.

Now actually ON TOPIC: It's nice to know that the woman has the interest of children at heart but I understand how incredibly hurtful it is to be accused of something you did not do. I think the word "abuse" is tossed around too much these days, and it is degrading to those who have truly suffered from abuse.


----------



## purple_kangaroo (Feb 20, 2006)

Wow. Whether someone would completely agree with exactly how you handled the situation or not, I can't imagine how anyone could feel that non-violently putting a child in time-out would be considered abuse. Even if they felt you should have handled it differently, there's a huge difference between less-than-perfect parenting and actual abuse!


----------



## ThreeBeans (Dec 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chfriend* 
I came to believe that if one uses timeouts, one will eventually shove a child.


Excuse me? Bit of a leap there, doncha think?


----------



## ThreeBeans (Dec 2, 2006)

Oh, and OP, I would have done the same thing.

I am one who believes that the judicious use of the time-out is quite beneficial to all concerned.


----------



## chfriend (Aug 29, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ThreeBeans* 
Excuse me? Bit of a leap there, doncha think?

Asked and answered.


----------



## chfriend (Aug 29, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lovingmommyhood* 
Sounds like this patron was already disturbed before the incident. Mentally, that is.

That's one possibility. But this child did not disturb patrons or throw food. Or any other disruptive behavior beyond his own table.

Am I understanding that it okay to disrupt other patrons to enforce a time out?


----------



## nova22 (Jun 26, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chfriend* 
Am I understanding that it okay to disrupt other patrons to enforce a time out?

It sounds like the little boy was disrupting at least two patrons before his mother decided (wisely, IMO) to remove him from the situation. He swung his arm at her, and then hit the boy next to him.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thechuzzle* 
I asked him nicely to have a seat, and he swung his arm in my general direction. ... Following that he proceeded to hit the little boy next to him as he was angry with what I had just told him.

She had toys for him, she gave him a gentle warning, and she quietly removed him from the situation. Frankly, if she were in a crowded restaurant, someone would have been offended with her no matter what she did. Someone would say she should have spanked him. Someone would say she should have left him at the table. Someone would say she should have stayed home with her kids. It's not always possible to avoid offending or disrupting EVERYONE.


----------



## momeg (Dec 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *barefootpoetry* 
_Geez, what a nosy old biddy. I wonder if she gets equally up in arms when parents are ignoring their kids in the restaurant while they scream and cry and throw food at other patrons. Cuz certainly that would be better than "abusing" them with discipline._










HAHAHAHAHAHAHA...that is so true.


----------



## KBecks (Jan 3, 2007)

I would love to let that lady loose on some other parents I see around town.

I'm sorry that you dealt with her though.


----------



## Janelovesmax (Feb 17, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *The4OfUs* 
Oh, and this too. While they might be OK for 25-30 min in a restaurant, when the trend begins that they get wound up and antsy at the end and it's more work to keep them "managed" than it is enjoyable, we stopped going out to eat for a while. For DS that was about 18 months to 3 years. For DD, well, it's been since about 3 months ago, and she'll be 2 in late June. Going out to eat at a sit down restaurant just isn't valuable enough for us to be frustrated regularly with normal developmental behavior, and I'm not of the "they have to learn by experiencing it" crowd. From my experience, when they hit a developmental capability they hit it and will be able to handle things whether they've been 'practiced/trained' or not.

Yes, we only just started bringing our son out to restaurants more frequently, he is almost 3. Every time we would go to a restaurant, it would be a fiasco. He could only handle quick breakfasts at the diner where everyone knows us and knows to bring our food and check quick.


----------



## Janelovesmax (Feb 17, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KBecks* 
I would love to let that lady loose on some other parents I see around town.

I'm sorry that you dealt with her though.

I second that.


----------



## Janelovesmax (Feb 17, 2006)

I have to ask something, perhaps a dumb question, but I feel like the OP removed her son from potentially even more diffucult situation, if she didn't remove him, he could have started crying or hitting even more and OP responded in the timely manner. Additionally, OP called it a "time-out", but she also walked out with a child outside (obviously) and sat next to him, to me that sounds more like a way to "cool-off", more of a "time-in", does anyone else see it that way?
I feel like "time-outs" is when you remove and separate your child from yourself in a certain part of the room, where he is separate from everyone, including the person who is giving the time-out.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with the way OP handled situation and I would have done the same thing, otherwise I would START YELLING which would be even more disturbing.


----------



## sunnmama (Jul 3, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nova22* 
Frankly, if she were in a crowded restaurant, someone would have been offended with her no matter what she did. .

IME, this is absolutely true.

And I agree with pp who noted that there is a difference between less than perfect (GD) parenting and actual abuse.

OP, if I took anything from this experience, it would be to realize that someone thought you were dragging the child. Whether you were or were not dragging the child behind you, I can't say. Dragging is definitely dangerous and not gentle. Although I have been in many situations were we needed to exit _immediately_ (because dc was quite definitely offending the entire restaurant, lol), and there is no gentle way to get the child to follow. In those situations, I scoop the child up and GO!

Of course, the best case scenario is to have the child follow along willingly. Playful parenting strategies can be great for that. You could remind "stay in you seat" and "arms to yourself" (or whatever you like to say), and if he is unable to cooperate with those expectations you could simply move on to "Hey, want to go outside for a game of 'I see something'?" or "How many fish do you think were in that tank, anyway? Guess and we'll go count them."


----------



## blessed (Jan 28, 2006)

First of all, I too am in sympathy and awe about dining out with six young kids. And I concede that dealing with that many kids is more complicated and ends up compromising parenting techniques just so that everyone can get through the day.

But from my standpoint, it seems as though things could have been handled differently, irrespective of whether you were criticized about your discipline. There's no question that you can _make_ a 2 yo sit down, or stop hitting, or be quiet, or what have you. So, in that sense, time outs 'work'. But at what cost?

If I spoke to dd sternly, forced her to sit, pulled her along by the arm, and did time outs with her, our relationship would be badly damaged. And the lessons she would learn would not be any that I care to teach. I would not allow any friend or relative to interact with her in that manner, and I would instantly discharge any childcare provider who did so.

A two year old standing up in his chair in the middle of dinner is developmentally and socially appropriate behavior for that age. Personally, I would have encouraged him to sit, getting out of my chair to good naturedly talk to him and help him. If he was frustrated and hitting, I would have shown gentle disapproval about the hitting, then quickly diverted back to pleasant, positive interaction, taking him for a walk or outside the restaurant for a short while. Not in a punitive or punishing way, but simply in recognition that a 2 yo has limited patience, attention span, and ability to cope with social situations.

I don't want dd to behave in a restaurant out of fear of my angry response, or the possibility of punishment, but because she's made a thoughtful choice about the rights and needs of others and how her behavior effects them. If I intervene with force and punishment to teach, these more mature and sensitive motivations arren't given a chance to develop.


----------



## ThreeBeans (Dec 2, 2006)

Blessed, that's great with one child. Not so great when you're playing zone defense.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

On the other hand, if you've got the ability to free a parent up to go sit outside with the kid for a time out, you've got the ability to free a parent up to take the kid outside to run around on the grass for a bit and help them get out some of the wiggles that make it so hard to sit in a chair.


----------



## monkey's mom (Jul 25, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan* 
On the other hand, if you've got the ability to free a parent up to go sit outside with the kid for a time out, you've got the ability to free a parent up to take the kid outside to run around on the grass for a bit and help them get out some of the wiggles that make it so hard to sit in a chair.

True.

I'm also confused by the whole time-out thing......if the child can be simply instructed to sit in time-out and obeys without physical coercion, why is the instruction to sit in the high chair different?


----------



## ThreeBeans (Dec 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
True.

I'm also confused by the whole time-out thing......if the child can be simply instructed to sit in time-out and obeys without physical coercion, why is the instruction to sit in the high chair different?

Because the high-chair is the center of attention, and it's FUN to be doing things youa ren't supposed to in a high-energy environment.

Remove the stimulus, and suddenly getting cooperation gets a hella lot easier


----------



## monkey's mom (Jul 25, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ThreeBeans* 
Because the high-chair is the center of attention, and it's FUN to be doing things youa ren't supposed to in a high-energy environment.

Huh. That hasn't been my experience....that my kids think it's "fun" to do things they're not supposed to.

I tend more toward the Peggy O' school of thought:

Quote:

Effective discipline presumes that children have reasons for their behavior and that cooperation can be engaged to solve shared problems.
So I would have assumed that a two year old was bored and restless confined to one spot/high chair. I like the visit the fish tank ideas. And blessed's entire post.


----------



## ThreeBeans (Dec 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
Huh. That hasn't been my experience....that my kids think it's "fun" to do things they're not supposed to.


Well, isn't that special.

Consider yourself...ah...blessed...that you have naturally compliant children.

Some kids (like my eldest) are limit pushers at every opportunity.


----------



## monkey's mom (Jul 25, 2003)

Ouch.

My kids are far from "compliant." I've read and reread Raising Your Spirited Child many times. (They're cooperative, but not so much compliant.)

But how I chose to see their behavior is up to me. So it really hasn't been my experience that my kids are just doing things they know are wrong b/c that's a fun thing to do. They might be *having fun* doing things that they know are wrong for various other reasons.....but not just for the fun of it.

Like I said, I'm generally looking past the behavior and toward the reason why. So a 2 yr. old standing in a high chair just doesn't strike me as a child willfully flouting the rules for fun.


----------



## purple_kangaroo (Feb 20, 2006)

One thing Alfie Kohn says in _Unconditional Parenting_ is that we should attribute the best possible motives to a child's actions--or at least the best possible motives that honestly fit the circumstances. It made sense to both DH and me.

I do this in the rest of life, too, as much as possible. Usually there is more than one possible interpretation for what a person meant by something or why they did it. There's really no good reason to constantly assume the worst possible motivation for a person's actions when there is a more benign motivation that is likely. "Love is not easily offended."

We found this really relevant in dealing with bedtime with our kids. We made a conscious decision to stop viewing their difficulty going to sleep through a lens of disobedience or rebellion and started viewing it, instead, through a lens of--well, difficulty going to sleep. We were then able to, at least for the most part, leave behind the power struggles and much of the frustration (for both parents and children) behind.

Suddenly, instead of focusing on how to make the kids lie down in bed and be quiet even though they weren't sleepy, we were focusing on _how to help the kids get more calm and sleepy_. It works so much better.

There was really no good reason to assume that the kids were not falling asleep because they were trying to make our lives difficult or because they enjoyed misbehaving, yet because of our culturally and experientially-ingrained views of children, that was our first impulse as parents. Really, it was so much more obvious and sensible to think that the kids were not falling asleep *because they were not sleepy*. Even adults have trouble falling asleep sometimes, and it's not because they are being rebellious. KWIM?

Personally, I have trouble sitting still. I fidget a lot, play with my hair, fiddle with stuff, etc. because it's hard for me to sit still and be inactive--I just have to be moving or doing something, even as an adult. I often have to get up and stretch my legs or back because of my pain levels, as sitting still for long periods of time becomes very painful for me due to back & neck issues and circulation problems. But I can guarantee you my difficulty sitting still is not for attention or because I think it's fun to disrupt others.


----------



## chfriend (Aug 29, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ThreeBeans* 
Well, isn't that special.

Consider yourself...ah...blessed...that you have naturally compliant children.

Some kids (like my eldest) are limit pushers at every opportunity.

Mine are not naturally compliant either.

Maybe it works this way: You set limits, your kids push them.

I work to find solutions that work for everyone. My kids work to find solutions that work. Not every time, but mostly. No one that knows them thinks of them as compliant.

Last night my 3 year old, who was crazy tired and overstimulated from stressful grandparent visiting and the homeschool science fair and an aggressive playmate was at dinner at Red Lobster with the grandparents et al., asked me to take her outside when she'd finished eating. Which I did. Even though I had not eaten my dinner. Even though the grandparents think that's insane. Because she had done everything she could reasonably pull off in one day.

It was intensely sweet looking at the death row lobsters and figuring out which benches outside were wet from the rainstorm.

I could have "set a limit" for her and told her to stay in her seat (actually she was eating on my lap) until I was ready to go. But we just approach things differently in our family.

You might make a different choice with a different result. Perhaps your result would not have disturbed any patrons either. And yet I would not find it necessary to sacastically say "Isn't that special" about your relationship with your children.


----------



## chfriend (Aug 29, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ThreeBeans* 
Because the high-chair is the center of attention, and it's FUN to be doing things youa ren't supposed to in a high-energy environment.

Remove the stimulus, and suddenly getting cooperation gets a hella lot easier









I'm confused about your use of the word "stimulus." Could you clarify what you see as a "stimulus?"

Can you explain what is fun about doing things "you aren't supposed to."

I'm having trouble understanding where you're coming from.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan* 
On the other hand, if you've got the ability to free a parent up to go sit outside with the kid for a time out, you've got the ability to free a parent up to take the kid outside to run around on the grass for a bit and help them get out some of the wiggles that make it so hard to sit in a chair.

Exactly. If the OP's "punishment" worked, I would guess it's because he got the chance to stretch his legs, even if it was by having to go outside and sit on the curb for two minutes.


----------



## ThreeBeans (Dec 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chfriend* 
I'm confused about your use of the word "stimulus." Could you clarify what you see as a "stimulus?"

Can you explain what is fun about doing things "you aren't supposed to."

I'm having trouble understanding where you're coming from.

Actually, I think you understand just fine, and are smugly circling around in a bizarre merry go round of parental superiority, but for a moment I'll play your little game.

The 'stimulus' is the restaurant, being the center of attention, having all eyes on you. Other patrons responses to your behavior. The responses of other children. Etc.

If you really have to ask why children think it's fun to do things they aren't supposed to do, I have to ask if you're raising children or automatons.


----------



## purple_kangaroo (Feb 20, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ThreeBeans* 

If you really have to ask why children think it's fun to do things they aren't supposed to do, I have to ask if you're raising children or automatons.

I'm not the person you were asking, but I think everyone agrees that sometimes it's fun for kids to do things their parents don't want them to do. But I don't think it's necessarily true, or fair to the kids, to automatically assume that they think it's fun *simply because they aren't supposed to do it*.

Did you see my example above about perceiving kids not falling asleep because they weren't tired vs. kids not falling asleep because they were choosing to disobey an order to fall asleep?

Do you truly not see a difference between a kid standing up in a chair because he's two and he's tired of sitting, and there are a lot of exciting things going on that he wants to be a part of, vs. because he knows you don't want him to stand up in the chair and he thinks it's fun to disobey you? Kids actually can do things like that for other reasons than because they are purposely trying to disobey or get under your skin.


----------



## ThreeBeans (Dec 2, 2006)

I am so not the person you want to accuse of being insensitive or blind to her kids' needs and moods. Really.


----------



## purple_kangaroo (Feb 20, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ThreeBeans* 
I am so not the person you want to accuse of being insensitive or blind to her kids' needs and moods. Really.

I certainly hope you don't think that was my intent. Because it wasn't.

I know that *I* have a tendency to attribute motives of desiring to be disobedient or wanting to rebel to my kids, because that's how our culture tends to view children. I'm learning that, in most cases, there are other explanations for the behavior that shed a much different light on their motivations. I'm trying to learn to give my kids the benefit of the doubt and not take their misbehavior as a personal affront to myself--or that my kids are "out to get me", trying to make my life difficult, or enjoying disobedience for the sake of disobedience.

I shared how this has affected my parenting because it seemed to fit into the conversation, and I thought someone (you, another poster, a lurker, whoever) might find it interesting and/or helpful or might wish to interact with the idea.

And I must admit that I found your implication that anyone who chooses not to attribute such motives to their children is trying to raise "automatons" to be slightly offensive. The fact that I think my kids are generally doing things I don't want them to do because they find them appealing _for other reasons besides that I don't want them to do them_, does not mean I am trying to raise atomatons instead of children.

Why does it bother you that someone would suggest there could be motivations other than that "it's FUN to be doing things you aren't supposed to do" for a child's behavior?


----------



## blessed (Jan 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *purple_kangaroo* 
Why does it bother you that someone would suggest there could be motivations other than that "it's FUN to be doing things you aren't supposed to do" for a child's behavior?

I think because the original contention was that our advice about handling the situation nonpunitively was not applicable to her child's case. Because her child was a misbehaving child, and needed/deserved to be punished.

Is that it?


----------



## monkey's mom (Jul 25, 2003)

Goodness.









I truly don't understand how one can view the two year olds' behavior as just being "bad" for the fun of it. There's surely something more going on there. How could there not be, is my thinking.

And that was my initial confusion....if you've got a child who can't comply with, "Sit, you're in a high-chair," but can with, "Sit, you're in time-out," that's confusing to me. My kids wouldn't "just comply" with either (b/c likely there would be other stuff going on, like needing to change scenery or being uncomfortable, etc.). If the underlying needs were met, then they'd *cooperate*--but that's different than complying just b/c I said so (and I can't imagine my kids doing a time-out just b/c I say so--especially if they were angry).

So, yeah, no automatons here. Willful, stubborn, regular ol' kids. Who I fully believe are doing the best they can and not trying to manipulate me or be deliberately contrary.


----------



## SimpleJoys (Sep 13, 2007)

I am a mom of five, three sons, one daughter, one stepson. I have a grandbaby that goes out to eat with me at times. I don't allow her to stand up in the high chair. It is dangerous. I don't allow her to hit either. Or scream or throw things.In the past, I have taken my children outside to sit on benches when they have misbehaved at restaurants and other places. I have stayed with them as the op did. When they were ready to come back in, we came back in. I have never dragged a child by their arm. I find these posts very unenlightening as they seem to assume wrongdoing automatically on the part of the op rather than giving her the benefit of the doubt that she was doing what she thought was right in a particular situation. I also always brought toys and games for the kids and tried to keep them pleasantly occupied.

I have also been accused of abuse and had the security guard called on me once when I took my niece to a public restroom to play in the water there (as a pp suggested might be a fun alternative to TO). I was splashing a little of the water up onto her lower face and neck as she was hot and sweaty and three guards with drawn guns burst in. They were very apologetic when they saw the real situation. There will always be those who do not have knowledge or appreciation of a situation that moms are going through at any one time. They will always say it wasn't handled properly or it wasn't done the right way. I have worked in child education my whole life and use TOs and see them as very valuable. Learning rules and ways of behavior that are socially acceptable are in the long run beneficial to us all. I had a friend once whose child was treated like some of the pps suggested, no time outs, just being entertained and cuddled and generally just allowed to do as he pleased, cause he was just a child and we adults needed to just gently guide him. At age 4 he brought a baseball bat down on top of my 6 month old child's head with all the force he could muster. Having good reflexes I was able to stop the bat about half an inch from his head. My hand was broken, my child could have been killed. I guess I'm old school, but children need and want limits and that includes when they are doing something dangerous like standing in a high chair, and doing something mean like hitting.


----------



## chfriend (Aug 29, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ThreeBeans* 
Actually, I think you understand just fine, and are smugly circling around in a bizarre merry go round of parental superiority, but for a moment I'll play your little game.

The 'stimulus' is the restaurant, being the center of attention, having all eyes on you. Other patrons responses to your behavior. The responses of other children. Etc.

If you really have to ask why children think it's fun to do things they aren't supposed to do, I have to ask if you're raising children or automatons.

No I honestly didn't understand what you were saying. Our views of children seem to be pretty far apart.

If I'm understanding right, you believe that children enjoy doing things they are not supposed to do because they enjoy getting attention from strangers. Do I have that right?

I wrote a response to your accusation that I am being smug and raising automatons, but I've erased it under the assumption that you simply misunderstood.


----------



## thechuzzle (Apr 7, 2008)

I wanted to say thank you all for your comments and advice. Part of my reaction I know was due to the fact that hormones levels are high and tend to make me quite emotional when pregnant. I was upset at her, but as many pointed out at least she was willing to stand upfor what she believed was a child being injured. Whether she was right or wrong, at least she was willing to take that step forward where many would not, and maybe one day she will truly be able to help a child who was in a bad situation.

Many have asked why I did not carry him out, well the more pregnant I become, the more I am encouraging the older two to walk when they need to get somewhere. Had he been hurt or truly needed consoling I would not have hesitated tp ick him up and carry him, but in this situation I felt it fine to have him walk from the restuarant.

As for all those worried about the amount of time that we ask children to sit still at the table, that day was 25 minutes from start to finish. We have a system and I find it works well. One of us keeps all 6 kids outside where they can run around in the grass and be noisy while the other goes inside, gets a table, orders drinks and meals, and puts out the kids toys, coloring books and fruit that we bring them to eat first. That way by the time we sit them down their food is usually never more than 10 minutes behind their arrival at the table. We left the resturant 25 minutes after we sat the kids down, and they had ample opportunity to run off energy as we went to lunch after having had them at the park for over an hour. I would never expect a child to sit longer than 30 minutes without a break and never would ask them to sit if they had not had the opportunity to expand their natural energy first.

For all of those of you that follow a very strict policy of not using "no" and do not use time outs and so on, congratulations to you. That does not stictly work here. We have 4 things that will earn you cool down time and one of those is hitting. Had his only problem been the standing in the chair, I would have just rearranged the rest of teh table to put him next to me so that I could constantly remind him that we sit in chairs, and that they are for our tush not our feet. But when he escalated it to hitting, that is when he needs to me removed. Following the fact that many look at it as a time out, I do seperate him from the situation, but at no time do I seperate him from myself. He just needed to cool down, and then he could talk about why he needed it and then he could tell me when he was ready to go back in, and that is all it took to calm him for the rest of the meal. No screaming, no yelling, no harsh words, or threats, and no breaking of his spirit, just a gentle reminder of appropriate behavior.

Also for those that felt that maybe he was hitting an age to not go out to eat anymore, I say bologna to that. How can you expect a child to know how to act somewhere if you are not willing to put them in that situation and show him how to act? Kids just don't one day wake up and know how to behave in public. If I never took the kids out to eat until they were older, they would do the same things they do now, as they would be testing new limits in a new enviornment just at an older age. We have taken them out from the time they are babies, and will continue to do so forever. And adding a new one to the mix will not change anything, as an unhappy baby can be easily consoled just by nursing ( which I have no fear of doing in public, no matter the stares)







.

Thanks all again, it was great to read all of your comments and really made me confident in the way I handled the accouser, and I was confident then and still am now that I did the right thing for my little man.


----------



## chfriend (Aug 29, 2002)

thechuzzle, I do want to say Welcome to Mothering. I hope that you enjoy your time here.

I've learned a lot from the incredible mothers here.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thechuzzle* 
How can you expect a child to know how to act somewhere if you are not willing to put them in that situation and show him how to act? Kids just don't one day wake up and know how to behave in public. If I never took the kids out to eat until they were older, they would do the same things they do now, as they would be testing new limits in a new enviornment just at an older age. We have taken them out from the time they are babies, and will continue to do so forever. And adding a new one to the mix will not change anything, as an unhappy baby can be easily consoled just by nursing ( which I have no fear of doing in public, no matter the stares)







.

I think it sounds like you're doing great and don't really need any advice.

However, I just want to say that I went out to eat probably three times between the ages of 0 and 6, and I have wonderful restaurant manners. I hardly ever took my dd to restaurants, but now when I do, she doesn't stand in the chairs. I say this because your exercise at the restaurant sounds unneccesarily stressful (at least for me). I just don't think kids and restaurants mix and saying that if you don't take toddlers out to eat they'll never learn how to behave is like saying if you don't make your 3 month old walk they'll never be able to. It's just so much easier to teach things to kids when they're ready.

So I guess that was advice;0


----------



## purple_kangaroo (Feb 20, 2006)

thechuzzle, I don't carry my kids either (unless it's REALLY necessary) as soon as they hit a point (around age 2 or 3) where they're too heavy for me to comfortably carry them. I have back problems. It's not worth me being in pain and therefore not as patient or as active unless there's a really good reason why the child needs to be carried. Instead, I'll hold their hand or go more slowly or try to meet their needs in other ways whenever possible. It's all about balancing everyone's needs, IMHO.

It sounds like you work very hard to have a system that works for the kids, and to be sensitive to their needs. I personally also have my kids take a break to cool down/calm down when they hit someone, too, although I know there are those here who don't agree with that.

I do take my kids to eat at restaurants at all ages, and we do a lot of going for walks and distracting. I do use seatbelts in high chairs if they won't stay sitting down. We have maybe once, if that, had a situation where we ended up needing to leave because we couldn't work with the child to help everyone be able to enjoy a meal out with minimal disruption to other diners. Some parents find it works better to not go out much when the children are at certain ages or developmental stages; others are able to work around it and still go out to eat without too much trouble.

It's great that we can all learn from each other and from all the differing approaches and ideas.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *blessed* 
I think because the original contention was that our advice about handling the situation nonpunitively was not applicable to her child's case. Because her child was a misbehaving child, and needed/deserved to be punished.

Is that it?

That's how it's reading to me, but that's not compatible with other things I've seen from ThreeBeans, so I'm going to assume I'm missing something.


----------



## blessed (Jan 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *purple_kangaroo* 
It's great that we can all learn from each other and from all the differing approaches and ideas.

Agreed.

thechuzzle, we have always eaten at restaurants with dd; about once or twice a week is our typical.

At age two we found it necessary for her to be seated next to me and she required my help to stay focused. We took lots of walks, brought diversionary toys, so forth. She stood in her chair plenty of times, and I tried to respond with understanding and redirection.

It would have broken my heart to punish her over something as natural and expected as that behavior was for a toddler. If I had punished her, I think her natural reaction would have been frustration. And pretty much, a frustrated two year old hits. They don't have much in the way of a repertoire of ways to express their needs or emotions at that age.

So it seems sort of predictable and unnecessary - and very sad - that the whole encounter went down the way that it did. Maybe it wasn't abuse (and I don't think that it was), but I'm just tossing out there that I understand why the women witnessing the event found it disturbing.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *angilyn* 
I find these posts very unenlightening as they seem to assume wrongdoing automatically on the part of the op rather than giving her the benefit of the doubt that she was doing what she thought was right in a particular situation.

I don't think anyone's saying that the OP was abusing the child. Actually, I know I posted first off that the person who yelled at the OP was horrible.

The discussion is now more general about "what can we do when (when not if) our kids act up in restaurants?" Which is very reasonable in a post to the Gentle Discipline forum. If the OP just wanted to vent about the obnoxious woman, the toddler forum or TAO would have been better options. This forum is aimed at discussing parenting strategies.

The correct response, as demonstrated in post #61 by the OP, to advice phrased politely is "thank you."
Might be "thank you, but I don't see that solution working for me."
Might be "thank you, that's perfect and I'll be sure to use it."
And yes, posting about a parenting issue in the GD forum is a request for a discussion, including things that can be perceived as advice, about the issue.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

I know that from the time my little brother was 2 until he was like 7 the four of us rarely had a full meal together in a restaurant. First mom would be out for 10 minutes with him, then they'd be back inside for 10, then dad would be out for 10, then back in for 10, and when I was older I would take a turn too. Not every time, but often enough that I can remember it happening even though I was all of 8 years old.

So 30 minutes feels like a long time to me.

ETA:
He wasn't climbing on chairs or throwing food or anything like that, just squirmy and needing physical activity. And at age 7, we'd often sit near a window so he could play on the grass in sight of the window for some time alone.


----------



## GooeyRN (Apr 24, 2006)

I don't think you did anything wrong. If he can't act appropriately in the restaurant, he can't stay in the restaurant until he can.


----------



## blessed (Jan 28, 2006)

Depending on your viewpoint, there's not anything 'wrong' with a swat on the bum. Or yelling. Or scolding. Or sending to bed without supper. Or time-outs. After all, a skinny 90 lb man can make a 2 ton elephant 'behave' and do what he wants it to do with similar types of methods. It's amazing how malleable the psyche of a living creature is.

But I think we can do better than that on a gentle discipline forum.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thechuzzle* 

As for all those worried about the amount of time that we ask children to sit still at the table, that day was 25 minutes from start to finish. We have a system and I find it works well. One of us keeps all 6 kids outside where they can run around in the grass and be noisy while the other goes inside, gets a table, orders drinks and meals, and puts out the kids toys, coloring books and fruit that we bring them to eat first. That way by the time we sit them down their food is usually never more than 10 minutes behind their arrival at the table. We left the resturant 25 minutes after we sat the kids down, and they had ample opportunity to run off energy as we went to lunch after having had them at the park for over an hour. I would never expect a child to sit longer than 30 minutes without a break and never would ask them to sit if they had not had the opportunity to expand their natural energy first.

I have to be honest, I'm kind of emotionally exhausted just reading that! I can't imagine going through all that just to eat out. I guess I'm lazy.









Quote:


Originally Posted by *thechuzzle* 
Also for those that felt that maybe he was hitting an age to not go out to eat anymore, I say bologna to that. How can you expect a child to know how to act somewhere if you are not willing to put them in that situation and show him how to act? Kids just don't one day wake up and know how to behave in public. If I never took the kids out to eat until they were older, they would do the same things they do now, as they would be testing new limits in a new enviornment just at an older age. We have taken them out from the time they are babies, and will continue to do so forever. And adding a new one to the mix will not change anything, as an unhappy baby can be easily consoled just by nursing ( which I have no fear of doing in public, no matter the stares)







.

Actually, I have first hand experience that it in fact can work like that (and my kid is not a pinnacle of compliance). We stopped taking my son out to eat when he was about 17 months - we were in a steakhouse and while he was fine for about 10 minutes, the next 10 minutes were excruciating trying to keep him from screaming and getting out of his chair while we gobbled our food and grabbed the check and ran out the door , etc. So we just stopped. Neither of us had the emotional reserves to do that with any regularity, as we both have pretty high expectations of public behavior (we don't let our kids down to walk around, or stand on chairs or booths to talk to other patrons, etc. ) The next time we went out to eat was after our daughter was born, it was our anniversary so that means that DS was then, um, 32 months. He hadn't been out to a restaurant in that entire intervening time (19 months total). He sat for the entire meal from appetizers to dessert, and didn't cause any ruckus. He asked a couple times if he could get up, and we just said no, and he stayed put. As I mentioned above, DS is not a calm child by nature. Since then we've been out to eat maybe 5 more times (over a span of nearly 2 more years), and every one of those times he's been fine. When your kid hits that developmentally appropriate age, he hits it whether he's been practicing how to sit in a chair out in public or not. And IMO it's way less aggravating to not have to bring bags of toys and preordering and running them around outside just to 'practice' eating out, or taking turns eating while the other entertains the kids (which I've also heard people say they do on other threads like this). We practiced table manners at home, and table manners are table manners, no matter where you are. I really have a hard time believing any 7-yo is going to stand on a chair and want to run around a restaurant, unless they weren't being taught any manners at *all*, and then that's a different issue that needs to be addressed, and it's not practicing eating out.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thechuzzle* 
For all of those of you that follow a very strict policy of not using "no" and do not use time outs and so on, congratulations to you.

Actually, I don't think anyone here has said they never say "no" to their children; most of us are just taking issue with the nature of traditional time outs where there is a timer sent and the child is ignored (both of which are things you specifically mentioned in your OP). I do physical separations and cool down times when we have aggression issues, but they're open-ended as soon as the child calms down they can rejoin play, and I don't ignore them, I am kind of calmly present in case they need help processing things. There is a distinct difference in the tone of a traditional time out and a "cool down" time IN kind of thing, and I think that's what many of us are taking issue with, especially since the child in question is 2 and this is so appropriate age wise. Many parents are concerned that if they're doing something at 2 and you don't extinguish it ASAP, they'll still be doing it at 6, 7, 8...but I've seen many times that so long as the child is being taught and guided to more apropriate behaviors, as soon as their brain catches up, the issue resolves on its own - so my idea is why not work WITH them through it to replace it with the more appropriate behavior, insted of working *against* them trying to extinguish it punitively.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah* 
I hardly ever took my dd to restaurants, but now when I do, she doesn't stand in the chairs. I say this because your exercise at the restaurant sounds unneccesarily stressful (at least for me). I just don't think kids and restaurants mix and saying that if you don't take toddlers out to eat they'll never learn how to behave is like saying if you don't make your 3 month old walk they'll never be able to. It's just so much easier to teach things to kids when they're ready.

So I guess that was advice;0


----------



## dubfam (Nov 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Janelovesmax* 
I have to ask something, perhaps a dumb question, but I feel like the OP removed her son from potentially even more diffucult situation, if she didn't remove him, he could have started crying or hitting even more and OP responded in the timely manner. *Additionally, OP called it a "time-out", but she also walked out with a child outside (obviously) and sat next to him, to me that sounds more like a way to "cool-off", more of a "time-in", does anyone else see it that way?
I feel like "time-outs" is when you remove and separate your child from yourself in a certain part of the room, where he is separate from everyone, including the person who is giving the time-out.*


A "Time In" requires you to interact with the child. Not ignore them. She seperated herself by ignoring him, even if she was physically "right there".

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thechuzzle* 

So I calmly proceeded over to his chair, removed him from it and took him by the hand and led him from the restaurant, in a timely fashion. When we got outside *I placed him next to the bench in the corner for timeout and I sat next to him, paying no attention to him, while I set my watch timer for two minutes.*



Quote:


Originally Posted by *thechuzzle* 
Following the fact that many look at it as a time out, *I do seperate him from the situation, but at no time do I seperate him from myself.* He just needed to cool down, and then he could talk about why he needed it and then he could tell me when he was ready to go back in, and that is all it took to calm him for the rest of the meal. No screaming, no yelling, no harsh words, or threats, and no breaking of his spirit, just a gentle reminder of appropriate behavior.


By "Paying No Attention To Him" You are separating yourself from him.

.


----------



## Janelovesmax (Feb 17, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dubfam* 
A "Time In" requires you to interact with the child. Not ignore them. She seperated herself by ignoring him, even if she was physically "right there".

By "Paying No Attention To Him" You are separating yourself from him.

.

I was hoping someone will reply. I think I missed the part where she wrote" I didn't pay attention to him". Yes, in that case, it is a time-out.

Also - I think I understand OP about bringing children to restaurant. Although I agree with everyone else that when a child is ready for restaurant, he is ready - but what if you have more then one child. Do you not go to restaurants when you have older children because the younger ones are not ready? Isn't it kind of unfair to older children especially if they enjoy the trip and enjoy eating out?


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Janelovesmax* 
Do you not go to restaurants when you have older children because the younger ones are not ready? Isn't it kind of unfair to older children especially if they enjoy the trip and enjoy eating out?

I guess since we go out to eat so rarely in sit down restaurants anyway (we do it maybe 4-5 times a year), it's not that big a sacrifice/unfair in my eyes....and we can eat in places that aren't sit down now, like Mall food courts and fast food places







:







I guess I figure we do so many enjoyable, fun things that for the year or so we have to stay away from restaurants until DD gets to a developmental stage where she can sit, we can do many other fun things that DS wants to do. He would NOT find it fun to be rushed through a meal, or to have me hav eto leave with DD to take her to the car and then finish the emal without us, so us going out with her when she's not ready to be in a regular restaurant wouldn't technically be enjoyable for him. So we take them to Chuck E Cheese, or to the mall, or to Wendy's. Not the most nutritious places, but he gets a little 'eat out' fun, without all the hassle.


----------



## chfriend (Aug 29, 2002)

My kids would rather go to the inflatable bouncy place than a restaurant...and picnicing *is* eating "out."

Food is many things: community, family, nutrition, tradition all bound up together. Ya don't need a restaurant for that!

And making a big pot 'o noodles and a salad and eating it somewhere beautiful is a great day. Kids and adults of all ages enjoy preparing it and eating it.

I've sometimes really enjoy taking my 7 year old out to dinner "just us" or sending her with dp "just them" for a special dinner out.


----------



## marybethorama (Jun 9, 2005)

That lady is totally irrational

ETA: I do understand that not everyone agrees with time outs but I think there is more than one way to discipline and I'm okay with the difference here.


----------



## j924 (May 17, 2005)

blessed said:


> It would have broken my heart to punish her over something as natural and expected as that behavior was for a toddler. If I had punished her, I think her natural reaction would have been frustration. And pretty much, a frustrated two year old hits. They don't have much in the way of a repertoire of ways to express their needs or emotions at that age.
> 
> She didn't punish for being bored or even for standing. She brought him outside after he hit her. He was cooling off so that the hitting would stop. OP I think you did a fine job with the original situation. Often when you have a group of children it is a differnt ball game than keeping one child happy at a restaurant. From your description of how your outings usually work, it sounds like you are doing a great job for all the kids.


----------



## SheBear (Aug 19, 2003)

Hugs to the OP! I'm sorry you had to deal with the situation--both the toddler and the stranger! I don't know about you, but I HATE being confronted in public, esp. by a total stranger who makes no attempt to be polite/quiet/discreet. Even if I feel totally confident that my parenting behavior has been flawless, I still get twitchy when confronted, and my mind goes blank, my face gets hot, my ears ring, and it is just so not pretty! I feel exactly the same way as I feel after narrowly avoiding a car accident!

Which, really, a confrontation like that between two adults is pretty much always a trainwreck, don't you think? I mean, if her intent was to protect the child from harm, but she was yelling and in the face of the child's care-giver, what sort of feelings did that arouse in the child? I doubt that he felt very protected or safe watching his protector being yelled at.







And if her hope was to get you to handle whatever she objected to in the situation differently next time, then I







as to how she thought being belligerant was going to accomplish that. If she truly felt the child was in danger of abuse, then IMHO, she had no business approaching you at all--she should have gone straight to the athorities and asked them to immediately deal with the situation. She should have known that confronting someone who is truly mistreating a child (or an animal, or elderly person!) is the very best/quickest way to make them escalate the abuse, in retaliation.

So, apparently she didn't *really* think abuse was occurring, but rather just thought that throwing the word out there would serve you right for not agreeing with her, or not reacting to her accusations in the way she expected.

Anyway, I think her behavior, as you described it, was appalling, and totally ineffective. Even if you had been literally dragging the child through the restaraunt, her behavior was not appropriate. Saying something, asking you calmly and quietly to treat the child gently--that would have been appropriate, and much more likely to be effective. OFFERING TO HELP would have been super helpful, understanding, and compassionate, showing that she has BTDT and understands that caring for children can be very frustrating at times. That would have put her in a position to offer advice in a kind, caring way, a way that would have allowed you to be safely vulnerable with her, and given you both the opportunity to bond while seeking a way to solve the problem with/for the child.

It seems to me a shame that she chose to just get angry at you instead. What a wasted opportunity!









Now, a bit off-topic, but I was thinking about the concept of a time-out.....it occurred to me that the term is a sports term. During a sporting event, the teams will occasionally take a time-out from the competition, then resume play. But in a real time-out, what happens? Every sporting event I've ever seen, no matter what game is being played, is the same: The whistle blows for the time-out, and all the players of the team run to their corner and huddle, where they talk about the play, decide what to do next, encourage and advise each other, regroup, pass around the water bottles, maybe pull in a fresh player, then motivate each other by clasping hands and yelling "GO TEAM!"

I've never witnessed a time-out in which the coach sent a team member off by his or herself, to sit alone for a time. I've never witnessed a player who didn't willingly, even joyfully, participate in the time-out. A real time-out is refreshing and uplifting. It pulls you away from the fight, the struggle, and gives you a new plan, a new perspective, a chance to reconnect with your teammates off the field, so that when the struggle resumes, you know that they have your back. It reminds you of what the ultimate objective is--victory for the TEAM, not just for one player. It also lets you gain perspective over your opponent, figure out their vulnerabilties and their strengths so that you can plan the next play accordingly.

I can't imagine anyone having a problem with this sort of time-out, and IMHO, it meshes perfectly into the concept of GD. It's just unfortunate that some people have forgotten the purpose and function of a time-out. Or maybe some parents have forgotten who their team is....maybe they've mistakenly come to the conclusion that _their children are actually their opponents?_ My goodness, how sad is that?









If we could keep in mind that our children are our teammates, we could perhaps see that the _real_ opponent is the struggle of the day--inappropriate behavior, hitting, frustration, tiredness, boredom, overstimulation, unrealistic expectations (ouch, that one hits close to home for me!), other people's disapproval or misunderstanding, etc.

And if we could clearly see our real opponent, and not mistake our children for the "enemy", how much easier it would be to grab the victory!









GO TEAM!!


----------



## pandora665 (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SheBear* 

It seems to me a shame that she chose to just get angry at you instead. What a wasted opportunity!









Now, a bit off-topic, but I was thinking about the concept of a time-out.....it occurred to me that the term is a sports term. During a sporting event, the teams will occasionally take a time-out from the competition, then resume play. But in a real time-out, what happens? Every sporting event I've ever seen, no matter what game is being played, is the same: The whistle blows for the time-out, and all the players of the team run to their corner and huddle, where they talk about the play, decide what to do next, encourage and advise each other, regroup, pass around the water bottles, maybe pull in a fresh player, then motivate each other by clasping hands and yelling "GO TEAM!"

I've never witnessed a time-out in which the coach sent a team member off by his or herself, to sit alone for a time. I've never witnessed a player who didn't willingly, even joyfully, participate in the time-out. A real time-out is refreshing and uplifting. It pulls you away from the fight, the struggle, and gives you a new plan, a new perspective, a chance to reconnect with your teammates off the field, so that when the struggle resumes, you know that they have your back. It reminds you of what the ultimate objective is--victory for the TEAM, not just for one player. It also lets you gain perspective over your opponent, figure out their vulnerabilties and their strengths so that you can plan the next play accordingly.

I can't imagine anyone having a problem with this sort of time-out, and IMHO, it meshes perfectly into the concept of GD. It's just unfortunate that some people have forgotten the purpose and function of a time-out. Or maybe some parents have forgotten who their team is....maybe they've mistakenly come to the conclusion that _their children are actually their opponents?_ My goodness, how sad is that?









If we could keep in mind that our children are our teammates, we could perhaps see that the _real_ opponent is the struggle of the day--inappropriate behavior, hitting, frustration, tiredness, boredom, overstimulation, unrealistic expectations (ouch, that one hits close to home for me!), other people's disapproval or misunderstanding, etc.

And if we could clearly see our real opponent, and not mistake our children for the "enemy", how much easier it would be to grab the victory!









GO TEAM!!










Thanks for this post. I so appreciate both the message and the wonderful way it was presented. Time outs as a team effort instead of the "penalty box".


----------



## dubfam (Nov 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SheBear* 

Now, a bit off-topic, but I was thinking about the concept of a time-out.....it occurred to me that the term is a sports term. During a sporting event, the teams will occasionally take a time-out from the competition, then resume play. But in a real time-out, what happens? Every sporting event I've ever seen, no matter what game is being played, is the same: The whistle blows for the time-out, and all the players of the team run to their corner and huddle, where they talk about the play, decide what to do next, encourage and advise each other, regroup, pass around the water bottles, maybe pull in a fresh player, then motivate each other by clasping hands and yelling "GO TEAM!"

I've never witnessed a time-out in which the coach sent a team member off by his or herself, to sit alone for a time. I've never witnessed a player who didn't willingly, even joyfully, participate in the time-out. A real time-out is refreshing and uplifting. It pulls you away from the fight, the struggle, and gives you a new plan, a new perspective, a chance to reconnect with your teammates off the field, so that when the struggle resumes, you know that they have your back. It reminds you of what the ultimate objective is--victory for the TEAM, not just for one player. It also lets you gain perspective over your opponent, figure out their vulnerabilties and their strengths so that you can plan the next play accordingly.

I can't imagine anyone having a problem with this sort of time-out, and IMHO, it meshes perfectly into the concept of GD. It's just unfortunate that some people have forgotten the purpose and function of a time-out. Or maybe some parents have forgotten who their team is....maybe they've mistakenly come to the conclusion that _their children are actually their opponents?_ My goodness, how sad is that?









If we could keep in mind that our children are our teammates, we could perhaps see that the _real_ opponent is the struggle of the day--inappropriate behavior, hitting, frustration, tiredness, boredom, overstimulation, unrealistic expectations (ouch, that one hits close to home for me!), other people's disapproval or misunderstanding, etc.

And if we could clearly see our real opponent, and not mistake our children for the "enemy", how much easier it would be to grab the victory!









GO TEAM!!








































FANTASTIC post

This is one of the best things I have read here in a while

.


----------



## lovingmommyhood (Jul 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chfriend* 
Am I understanding that it okay to disrupt other patrons to enforce a time out?

How is it any more disruptive to pick the child up to go "run around outside" as others have suggested?? The way she left with the child didn't sound disruptive to me. Also, my own children and their needs come before the comfort of perfect strangers.

If someone is CHOOSING to be disrupted by something completely normal than that's their problem. I suppose next you'll tell me that if it's disrupting "other patrons" to see a woman nursing her toddler than she should stop immediately.


----------



## chfriend (Aug 29, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lovingmommyhood* 
How is it any more disruptive to pick the child up to go "run around outside" as others have suggested?? The way she left with the child didn't sound disruptive to me. Also, my own children and their needs come before the comfort of perfect strangers.


The way she described it, it is very hard to understand the reaction of the bystander I agree.

Getting upset seeing a child being pulled by the arm out of a restaurant while the child is visibly upset doesn't strike me as equivalent to getting upset seeing a child nurse.

My question was to the people who said that it is better than the child disrupting the patrons (which this one wasn't). I don't understand why one way of disrupting patrons is better than another way of disrupting patrons.


----------

