This is a mad thing to say isn't it?

I think a lot of the responses are failing to read the age of your kids. At 3 and even at 4 their brains aren't capable of reasoning whilst they are upset so most psychologists say you need to help them learn to calm themselves down when they lose it - I have a younger boy but i find I can tell quite clearly the difference between a "winge" where he is upset about the boundary (I wouldn't raise my voice ever at him but i would be more focused on the boundary and distraction) and when its escalated to the point where they don't remember what upset them, they are just spiralling (at which point the advice tends to be help them calm down by supporting your connection and validating their feelings - it doesn't mean giving up the boundary but they don't hear the "explanation" when they are that upset so there is no point being so over the top with reinforcing it). Once they've calmed down remind them of the boundary and redirect them.

You shouldn't be comforting your child for crying when you've just said no, Esoecially if it's your partner that has said it. You are undermining him.

He also shouldn't be launching into lengthy explanations after telling a child no while they are crying. He is making them more upset and stops them from being able to regulate themselves. He's haranguing them. And it's not helping their understanding so completely pointless. It's also getting into the territory of arguing with your child which is never helpful. "No you can't have a biscuit because you are about to eat dinner" is enough. No further explanation is required or needs to be given.

Well I am glad I'm not the kid of most of the parents on this thread!
I don't see any undermining going on, she's comforting her crying children, not overturning her DH's decisions or giving in to the kids demands.
Why should she leave her kids crying alone while they're getting a completely age inappropriate shouty lecture from their dad?
I wouldn't shush a crying kid though, it's not like you're cuddling a crying baby to sleep, kids need to be able to express their upset, not be shushed.
It's totally normal for a three year old to cry when they can't get what they want. Giving them a cuddle and saying "I can see you're upset by this, it's frustrating when we can't do/have what we want" helps them to learn to deal with their feelings in a healthy way

You are Team Parent and you need to forge a joint approach. Unless things are going badly wrong you need to let the other parent do their thing their way and if you disagree talk about it later.

You are undermining his parenting and confusing the children and setting them up to view him as the "bad' parent and you as the "good" parent - but he is also being unreasonable giving such young children long rationales for his saying no.

Funnily enough, unlike your username, it is not the appropriate adult thing to do to cuddle and calm a child by sshhhing them, while their other parent is giving them a row about something.

It's patronising to the other parent ("oh you big bully you, here's mummy to save the day again"), and it sends mixed messages to the kids, pitting the adults against each other in their eyes ("shh shh, there there, you're safe from daddy with mummy, it's ok")

It can all be fixed by OP and her husband communicating better about parenting styles and showing a united front to the children.

So he is telling them off and u r comforting them, no wonder he is annoyed, sound like u want them to become brats.

For what it's worth, OP, I don't think you're wrong. Affection and comfort should never be used as rewards for good behaviour, and nor should the withholding of them ever be used as a punishment. If you were giving in to their demands as soon as they started to cry, that would absolutely be undermining, but you're not doing that - you're holding your husband's line while still sympathising with their upset.

Ideally it would be your husband offering the comfort, but it sounds like he's too busy on his soapbox to do that.

They're very young.

I believe in always explaining the ‘why’. It should be age appropriate and done calmly.

sometimes the why can be meaningful, like dinner is in 10 minutes so we aren’t eating snack, sometimes the why can just be honest, because mommy is too tired to go to the park. Your children can quickly learn to recognize that there is an entire world revolving around their whims. They will still be guided by those whims at 2 and 4, but by giving a quick explanation, you give them context for why their demands aren’t always met and help them slowly grasp the idea that others have needs too.

One shouting while the other comforts sends very confusing and unhelpful messages. You need to agree with your H how your DC will be told no, in a way you're both comfortable with. So he gets to be firm and not undermined, you get assurance he will not raise his voice or be intimidating. If DC get upset when the agreed tactics are used, then the person who used them needs to follow that up, with explanation and hugs as appropriate. The other stays out of it.

OP, I don't think it's ever wrong to comfort a crying child. They are a child. They are full of emotions that they can't regulate or understand, which is developmental and I don't believe can be taught by being harsh to kids.

What I try to do is hold a boundary (e.g. no tv right now, no snack) but if they get upset (which I find reasonable tbh) I will sympathise and say I know its hard and you're sad you can't have xyz, give them a cuddle and help them work through their feelings but do not give in. Then maybe offer a distraction. I find my kids do tend to get over things quicker because they have processed the feelings. Not saying I get this right all the time, definitely not!

Maybe this is sort of what you are doing but your DH doesn't see it like that currently.

Could be be doing it as he’s faced with fhe kids playing uo and you undermining him?

You are both messing this up. How utterly confusing for little kids, one lecturing one cuddling and saying shhh as they are talking.

you don’t need to always agree with your husband nor him you, but you shouldn’t undermine each other.

he is right, explaining why it’s a no is good. But not in a lecture style. Crying because they don’t get their own way isn’t a positive.

i think I’m on your husbands side here. If I was explaining to my child why they couldn’t habe something and my husband was cuddling and going shhh. I’d be furious.

Agree with the majority.

You may not be meaning to, but you are undermining him.

And you are also not really giving them the opportunity to learn to deal with being told no in a sensible manner. They are going to hear "no" at school and no-one is going to be comforting them.

It must be undermining for your DH to see you comforting the children right after he's refused them something, as if he has been cruel rather than setting a boundary. If they are still crying fifteen minutes later you might give them a hug then and say that Mum and Dad love them but they can't always have exactly what they want.

You are both wrong.

Dh needs to give short explanations (crying kids aren’t listening because they can’t) and you need to encourage your kids to self soothe so that when they are upset away from you eg at school, they can emotionally regulate without cuddles.

It’s not bad for kids cry. 2/3 is the age where kids learn how to deal with their emotions and crying when denied a snack is normal. Just because they are crying, it doesn’t mean that they need immediate cuddles and smoothing. Your h is making things into a bigger deal with lengthy explanations but you hugging and soothing is sending the message that daddy is wrong.

It is disrespectful in this instance. He is talking to the child and you are talking over him.

Yes because the message you are giving them is that they don’t need to listen to your DH and it’s ok to ignore him / disrespect him as you immediately step in with attention and affirmation that crying is ok because they get positive attention from you.

Your DC are at the age where their development is to learn about cause / effect and consequences. At the moment they are learning if i get daddy to tell me off mummy steps in immediately with a positive behaviour so actually it’s ok to ignore / wind daddy up because I get rewarded with a cuddle.

It might be that your DH is going a bit OTT with very detailed explanations about why it’s a no but that is a separate conversation for you to have with your DH.

I just heard H tell me off for giving my kid a cuddle which seems mad to me but clearly I've got it wrong

Is he their father OP?
If not, ignore me - but if he is, referring the the DC as "my" kid says a lot

Otherwise I agree with most PPs; rather than playing good cop/bad cop, discuss this between yourselves and agree an approach you can both stick to

If I was parenting my child and they were upset about it and my husband breenged in to comfort them like I'm the bad guy... I'd lose the heid completely.

Sounds utterly insufferable.

He thinks you are undermining him. There should be a united front. Daddy says no TV or snacks, that’s end of discussion. Them crying is because they are frustrated so you comforting them makes them think that you agree with them that Daddy is mean.
You should really be trying to offer a “daddy said no TV/snack, so how about we do this activity instead…”. Then you are showing a united font, but not pandering to their crocodile tears.

I know you are doing it with the best of intentions, but I can completely understand why your DH feels undermined. You are treating them like babies (because they ARE your babies), whereas your DH is trying to reason with them - two completely different approaches. To comfort your kids whilst he is speaking and attempting to explain something to them says, "there there, don't listen to mean old daddy, mummy's here, it's ok". I know you probably don't mean it like that but you should be aware of how that could come across.

Sounds like you are being disrespectful. They should be listening to their dad not having a tantrum and a cuddle 🙄.
You are completely undermining his message.
Him saying no should be a completely non issue - you make it an issue by validating that it’s ok to get upset about something daft like turning off the telly or not having a snack. (A bit like when mothers rush over to a perfectly fine child that has fallen over in the park to cuddle them - funnily enough the kids without the helicopter mum don’t cry over the smallest thing and get in with having fun).

He is angry in his explanations!? To a three and four year old? When the topic is the TV?? Not hitting or spitting in people's faces. Is he aggressive in his manner? No and a reason why, sure, but it should be a) short and b) calm. If he's angry and going on and on then no wonder they cry and you want to comfort them.

Tbh the kids don’t need a massive explanation about why no telly, snacks or whatever but they do need a short explanation. I’d usually say ‘I understand you’re upset/frustrated/angry but …’ They don’t need comforting with cuddles imo, I think that sends the message that DH is in the wrong.