# Consequence questions again - trying to figure this out



## ejsmama (Jun 20, 2006)

Usually redirection works with my DS (2.5) when he is throwing hard objects - we'll give him a pillow or stuffed toy to throw, etc. But tonight, he was clearly testing the boundary, and after several throws and several redirections, he threw a toy very deliberately and hard at our cat. My DH promptly took the toy away and put it on the top of the fridge, and in a calm and loving way told DS that hard toys were not to be thrown, that the kitty could have been hurt, and that he could have the toy back tomorrow.

He had a huge meltdown following. I guess my question is was that punishment, or a natural/logical consequence? I still am having a difficult time distinguishing the two. I felt like we needed to have some sort of consequence at that point because redirection just was not working, and his throwing behavior was really escalating. But, the heartbreak following lasted a good 30 minutes, and even though we comforted him and never got angry, it was still difficult to see him that upset. Interestingly, as he calmed down, on his own he asked the kitty if he was ok and wanted to give him a kiss. Would you at that point have given him the toy back? We decided that we would give it back to him in the morning because that is what we had originally said, and he seemed to move on at that point anyhow.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

I would think it was a logical consequence. You have a responsibility to keep everyone in the house safe- animals included. The way to do that was to take away the things that could hurt them.

-Angela


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Logical consequence is a pretty name for a punishment that's related to the action it's intended to punish. Logical consequences are those that happen on their own, without interference (like if you hit the cat, the cat may scratch you).

dar


----------



## SneakyPie (Jan 13, 2002)

It's not a *natural* consequence - the natural consequence of throwing a hard toy is a hurt cat. It's a "logical" consequence, in that it's related to the action that provoked the "consequence". (You might be able to tell I'm not a huge fan of "logical" consequences - just because it's still something we dream up that the kid doesn't get any say over. I know some families make this work though.) We don't take the toy away; we take the kid away from the cat. He adores the cat so much that this stops the behavior right away! We have figured out that when he does this kind of thing, he's really just so enthusiastic about his relationship with the cat that he wants to express himself physically. So if he throws a favorite hard toy, he just wants to share it with her (and we have to show him how to do it). If he tries to step on her, he's just trying to be close and huggy with her (and we have to show her how to do that, too, over and over, "Not with feet!")

I mean I'm sure you do all that stuff too, and maybe your son's motivation is different from mine. We try not to state a time limit at this age - the toy being put up "until tomorrow" is WAY too long for our guy, and a v. short removal is usually effective. Half an hour of heartbreak, for our guy, would no way have been worth it - if he's that hysterical, he's not learning anything, the incident becomes way more important than it needed to be, and he's unable to communicate with us anymore. So for us that does become punishment, for everyone, although I can't presume to make the call in your case. I sympathize with the situation, though!


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Definitely NOT a natural consequence, because it didn't happen on its own.
I'd call it a logical consequence. (punishment-lite?)

It sounds like there was another level there, to the interaction. Something ELSE that needed to be addressed. Did you redirect him to something related to his reason for throwing? Was there something that he was trying to express that he wasn't able to express well? Had it become some sort of power struggle to him?
I find it very helpful, if ds is doing something I don't want him to do, and he is having trouble stopping, to ASK him if he'd like me to put it away to remove the temptation to do it. In those situations, he almost always is ok with, even HAPPY with, me putting it up. Since he was part of the decision to put it up (and not a coerced decision, an honest one), he would also have the say in when it came down. I don't view this as punishment, because its his choice. If he didn't choose to have me put it up, I'd probably take him to another room and try to find something fun, or just do something to chill us both out, and reconnect.

I personally don't think that punishment is ever the ideal (even logical consequences) BUT I can see how it could be the best solution one can come up with at the moment. I wouldn't judge anyone, or even myself, for doing what you/your dh did. Sometimes, you just do what you have to do to keep others safe.

IF I had taken the toy away, and then ds apologized to the animal, I would have gotten the toy down, but not in an obvious way (probably because I would have felt not right about having punished him). That way, he could play with it when he found it, but he wouldn't be reminded that he had been punished through it. kwim?


----------



## mamaduck (Mar 6, 2002)

I think you did fine. Whatever you want to call it! The way I think about it, by removing the object you are setting your son up to act well. Maybe it was too hard to resist throwing it just then.

I agree that the time limit was not neccessary. I usually try (when I remember) to say, "Until you are ready to stop throwing." After he was sweet to the cat, I might have said, "Oh, are you ready to try this again?" and returned to toy. Or I might have just taken it down and put it with the rest of the toys without saying anything.

Of course, reality is different than ideology I guess, because yesterday my kids were fighting really horribly with each other over the computer, and it escalated into pushing/shoving/hurting each other. I turned off the computer, told them we'd "try again tomorrow," and suggested they play separately for awhile.

Sometimes we just need to maintain some sanity and mininimal safety!


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

I guess I'd call it a logical consequence or punishment. "Logical consequence" usually seems to be just another word for a certain type of punishment, but I think you could see them as different. You could call it a logical consequence (but not a punishment) if you're doing it just because - well, because it's logical, not (or not primarily) because you hope it will teach your child to act differently in the future. If you put the toy up and your child just moves on to something else without caring about what you've done, and that's fine with you, then you could say it was meant as a logical consequence. If the child doesn't care and you're annoyed because it was supposed to teach him a lesson, then you could say it was meant as a punishment. I'm not sure whether people who are in favor of logical consequences actually make that distinction, but to me that's the only way to make sense out of the idea that a logical consequence is not a punishment.

Anyway, I would have taken the toy away too, saying something like, "It's not safe for you to have that if you're going to keep throwing it, so I need to put it up for now." But I wouldn't set a time limit, and if my kid seemed really upset over what I'd done, I might take the toy down again right away. (But I'd be ready to pick it up again if it seemed like she just couldn't play safely with it.)


----------



## mistymama (Oct 12, 2004)

I'd say it's a logical consequence, or punishment.

We do something similar with my son, who is almost 4. If he's throwing a toy, we ask him to please not throw it .. you can roll it, etc, but not throw because someone could get hurt. If he does it again we tell him if he throws again, we will have to put the toy away to keep everyone safe. Then if he throws again, we follow through. We don't put any time limit on it or anything, just take it away and redirect. And if he asks for the toy back and understands he is not to throw it, I'll give it back right away.

I don't see anything wrong with putting a toy away to keep everyone safe, but I do think putting a time limit or refusing to give the toy back if the child says they will not throw is too punitive for my taste.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mistymama* 
I don't see anything wrong with putting a toy away to keep everyone safe, but I do think putting a time limit or refusing to give the toy back if the child says they will not throw is too punitive for my taste.









:

And it could be done in a non-punishment way if you're careful. Wait until the child has gone on to something else, then pick up all of that type of toy and put it away for awhile.

-Angela


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daffodil* 
I'm not sure whether people who are in favor of logical consequences actually make that distinction, but to me that's the only way to make sense out of the idea that a logical consequence is not a punishment.

Are you referring to me? (if not, ignore this part)
If I put something up because ds AGREES that it will be the most helpful thing, I don't consider that punishment (or even a logical consequence. I just consider it working WITH him. I guess because its consensual, and I don't see how "logical consequences" could be consensual.). In those situations, he'd even help me put it up. And its not because he thinks I'll do it anyways, because I wouldn't. (the times I would take a toy away as a consequence/punishment, I didn't have enough patience to start out realizing that he would do the socially acceptable thing if he could).
I don't put it up to make him regret throwing it (or whatever), I put it up because HE realizes that the temptation to throw it is too strong, and he wants help to stop throwing it. It's a choice for him, a real choice. Not a "there is one right answer so choose wisely" choice.
It's like taking him to bed when he's tired. I ask if he wants to go to bed, he says yes. I take him to bed because he wants to go, not as a "consequence" of being tired. kwim?


----------



## Momma Aimee (Jul 8, 2003)

totally logice -- if you can't play with a toy correctly you can't play with it.

It is excatly what I would have done.

I think a lot it made by the differnce in how an act is carried out by the parent -- ie is the toy riped from the child and throw in a closet with no explantion? is the parent mad? or is the toy taken and the child told something like "you are having a hard time not throwing, i know it is exciting, so to help you not hurt the cat i will remove this untill later". I think a lot of the diffence in punitive vs logical is the parent attidue.

a meltdown does NOT mean the action taken by the parent was punitive or the wrong action -- if anything the meltdown shows dc was tired, or wound up or already tense for some reason.

Natural consequences are best, but not always realistic. you would not want the cat to have to BE hurt to show dc that throwing things at the cat hurts the animal. You do not want dc to be burnt by a hot oven to "lean" not to touch it.

It is hard to accept reality -- that we don't throw toys and that the kitty could have been hurt -- and while that is upsetting to a child to have to face -- it doesn't mean it isn't the right "outcome" of the behavior.

Again, it is what I would have done.

for me GD doesn't mean there aren't rules and consequneces of our actions -- it just means momma tries to understand and be respectful -- you may still loose the toy but i will agree that i know no throwing is a tough rule to follow sometimes, but it is still the rule and we still can't play iwht the toy in an incorrect and dangerous manner.

Aimee


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy* 
Are you referring to me? (if not, ignore this part)

Oh, no, I wasn't referring to you. I guess I mainly had in mind the people who write books recommending logical consequences, and who say that they're not punishments.


----------



## karlin (Apr 8, 2004)

Something that I do to help DS see the actual consequenses of his actions is pay attention to what has been hurt, and not the person that did the hurting. If DS throws something at the dog, then I run to the dog with loads of concern. I ask him if he's okay and tell him I'm sorry he was hurt. Sometimes DH or I will "give voice" to our dog, so he can tell DS how hurt he is and to please not throw things at him. It works like a charm. DS loves "talking" to our dog, even though he knows it's DH doing his voice. More often than not, DS will come over and apologize to the dog (or the cats). I've never asked DS to say he's sorry for anything. I also see this is an excellent way to model and to role play appropriate behavior with people as well.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daffodil* 
Oh, no, I wasn't referring to you. I guess I mainly had in mind the people who write books recommending logical consequences, and who say that they're not punishments.

Oh, THOSE people. lol.
Yes, I agree with what you said then!


----------



## ejsmama (Jun 20, 2006)

Thanks all! Very helpful feedback. You are all a blessing. I was letting DH take the lead on this one...and all in all I think he did very well. Remained calm, loving, etc. But yes, there was other stuff leading up, and DS was VERY tired. I agree with not setting a time limit, and will discuss that with DH for the next time.


----------



## Roxswood (Jun 29, 2006)

To be honest, I think even if you end up doing something that isn't a natural consequence/logical consequence as long as you haven't done it in a mean or nasty way then its really not worth worrying over. Obviously when looking for what to do in the future then we try to come up with the best way of dealing with a particular circumstance but truthfully no matter how hard we try to be gentle disciplining unless we have years of practice or were brought up this way ourselves it is going to take some time of trial and error and some of our decisions made in the heat of the moment are going to be less than perfect. I don't believe this actually causes any problems though if the atmosphere in your house is one of loving, not judging and there is no harsh discipline going on then children can cope with parents not knowing exactly how to handle a certain situation.

I think what you did makes a lot of sense and the distinction for me between whether it was a positive or negative way to deal with it comes simply from the way it is handled. If the message your child gets is that you've taken the toy away because it caused a danger to the cat, but that you're not angry or disappointed in him and you are ready to trust him again with that toy after the moment has passed then I can't see what harm it can do.
If he gets the message that you're very angry at him for throwing the toy and you're taking it away to teach him a lesson then that is a punishment and not really acceptable. (I have moments where I react in anger to dd, its what I have to work on from my own upbringing, but I always apologise and use the same gentle discipline on myself to her that I would do if she had done the same thing iyswim).


----------



## Dal (Feb 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Aimee21972* 
totally logice -- if you can't play with a toy correctly you can't play with it.

a meltdown does NOT mean the action taken by the parent was punitive or the wrong action -- if anything the meltdown shows dc was tired, or wound up or already tense for some reason.

I think it depends. If the child is crying and sad, s/he may not feel punished. But if the meltdown is a more classic tantrum, I take that as an indication of rage: the child is pissed off at the adult and feels that s/he has been treated unjustly. This is more likely to happen when other needs aren't met, but I don't think the rage would occur if the child was not angry at her/his parents and don't think children are angry with their parents when they understand (in their own way) what was done and feel it was respectful of their dignity &c. Whenever Simon has been angry with me, it has been easy for me to spot how I've been disrespectful to him. I've been really amazed throughout his life that he seems to have an inbuilt sense of justice, and one that makes total sense to me.

Putting a toy away without a punishing tone and without trying to cause pain to one's child, for us, has also been agreeable to ds. We sometimes go together and somewhat dramatically toss an offending toy into a closet (typically it's just an inappropriate toy that he really likes, but has trouble using so he ends up frustrated). We get it out of the way with the attitude of "Phew! That was frustrating! Let's find something else to do!" He's apt to learn when things are kept relatively pleasant, and just apt to suffer if the same thing were done without his agreement and with a punishing approach.


----------



## ejsmama (Jun 20, 2006)

Dal, I hope you won't take this the wrong way, because I have tremendous respect for you, but sometimes I feel like I could never measure up to you as a parent - you are just way too good at this, and I mean that. You really are good at this. But I guess I need to disagree with you on meltdowns.

My son has meltdowns regularly, no matter how loving, gentle, on top of his needs, noncoercive, etc. I am. It is not about disrespecting him, or somehow failing him as a parent. It is about him learning to express his emotions. There are times in life when I feel anger or rage at others when they really have done me no wrong...I'm just in a bad frame of mind (tired, hungry, stressed). I think it is the same for a child. To always blame oneself when my child is angry or expressing frustration or even rage to me seems pretty self defeating, and certainly not a burden I need to take on right now. I set limits, and sometimes Elijah is not happy with the limits I set, especially if he happens to be hungry or tired. The only predicable factor for meltdowns is that he is tired and hungry...and when it comes to staying on top of those needs, I would honestly give myself an A+...but children still get tired and hungry, no matter how hard you try to be on top of those needs, especially as they gain more autonomy.


----------



## nextcommercial (Nov 8, 2005)

That is what I call a logical consequense. And I would have taken the toy away too.

I like logical consequenses... sometimes more than the natural ones. Since the natural consequense of letting him throw whatever he feels like throwing, is that the cat gets hurt...which the natural consequense of you allowing the cat to be hurt by your son, would be that the cat no longer feels safe around your son. The naturall consequense of THAT is that your son doesn't get to have a healthy interaction with a family pet.

SO, taking the toy away was a much better choice than allowing him to hit your cat.

There are many other natural consequenses. He could have broken a window. The natural consequense of a broken window is that it can get very cold inside. It is also not safe to have an open window. Then Daddy must get up, go to Lowes, (hopefully it is open) buy some Plywood, and make the window safe.

So, was it a "sortof" punshment? Sure. But was it the best choice at that moment? Yes, I think so.

In the future, when he is testing the boundries, you might try total redirection. Take a walk, go build a tent in the living room. Take the cushions off the couch and let him jump in the cushion pile. Get a big blanket, and pull him around the house. Do something very fun, active and different. Even if you and Daddy start doing this without him. I promise, if Daddy is pulling you around the house on a Blanket, he will want to be a part of that. (besides, it makes your butt very hot very soon, so you will want to trade places)


----------



## nextcommercial (Nov 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dal* 
But if the meltdown is a more classic tantrum, I take that as an indication of rage: the child is pissed off at the adult and feels that s/he has been treated unjustly. This is more likely to happen when other needs aren't met, but I don't think the rage would occur if the child was not angry at her/his parents and don't think children are angry with their parents when they understand (in their own way) what was done and feel it was respectful of their dignity &c. Whenever Simon has been angry with me, it has been easy for me to spot how I've been disrespectful to him. I've been really amazed throughout his life that he seems to have an inbuilt sense of justice, and one that makes total sense to me.

.

To a point, I agree with this. But, some kids just really NEED to have a meltdown. Maybe they have had a tough day. Maybe they are over tired. Maybe they have had a BLAST that day, but they just finally reached their breaking point.

My daugter and I traveled a lot when she was little. SO, she was often shlepped along well beyond her limits. I worked VERY hard at making it an easy trip for her. Heck, sometimes it was Disneyland. We would go back to the hotel for a nap. But, every few days, for no apparent reason she would just start balwling, and kicking. Her "reasons" would be the tag in her shirt is touching her. Her doll's hair was messy... on and on. But in reality, she was just worn out. She had had a great day, no unhappiness, and now it was a let down.

She did have the occasional tantrum because she was mad at me, but it almost NEVER happened. 99% of her meltdowns were from fatigue of some sort.

I guess you could say, I allowed her to become fatigued. But, I think it was a fair trade off for having been able to have those experiences.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

To the OP~if you are asking whether your response was in line with GD, the answer is yes. If you are looking at whether it was natural or logical, I think the consensus is "logical".

As someone else said, in that situation, I would actually prefer your logical consequence over a natural consequence involving the cat getting hurt or the child scratched. While I wouldn't have put a time limit on the toy, I think putting it away is something I would have done in that situation too, after trying redirection, explaination etc.


----------



## Rainbowbird (Jul 26, 2004)

A natural consequence could also be that your son was bitten or scratched by the cat. Not one you want to let occur! Sometimes "natural" consequences are just not practical or desirable. I think you did the right thing by gently removing the toy. Maybe the time limit was a bit too much, but next time you could change that part of the equation.

I have at times had to quietly remove all heavy toys from the play area til DS learned to use them appropriately.

I also agree with asking the child if removing the toy would help him. My son has actually asked ME on his own to do this, because he seems to realize that he cannot always control himself.

Don't beat yourself up, mama, I think you did pretty well!


----------



## skueppers (Mar 30, 2005)

I would have either taken the toy away, or gone and done something totally different with my kid. Which solution seemed more appropriate would have depended on the circumstance.

I wouldn't have set a time limit on the toy, and if my daughter asked for it back, I would have asked her if she was going to use it the way it was intended to be used and given it back to her when she said yes. If she threw it again, I would have taken it away again, and I wouldn't have given it back until some time later when the original "mood" had passed.

I would also have interpreted the entire thing as an indication that she was tired, because she only does stuff like that when she's tired.


----------



## piglet0712 (Oct 11, 2006)

All of this logical and natural consequences is CONFUSING! Where did these labels come from? Can someone direct me to some literature on this?

Now that I got that out, I can address your initial question. I don't think you or your DH did anything wrong. If your child got the point and you did it in a loving way, then I see no problems. As for the meltdown...well my kids do it all the time when they are disciplined. My DS is sensitive and is always in need of affirmation. So when he's disciplined or redirected I usually affirm him as well. I'm trying really hard to use gentle discipline, b/c that style is completely opposite from how my DH and I have grown up.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Bumping.

Pat


----------

