DH smashed DS's phone

[thiscountryfan]

So yesterday I walked in to the mother of all rows between DH and DS (14).

DS was screaming and raging at DH for stamping on his phone and more than likely fatally damaging it. According to DH, he had discovered DS had been stealing his beers (not for the 1st time), then lied about it, then smirked in DH's face when busted. DH just lost his shit at that point and grabbed the phone (possibly the only item that DS cares about).

DH has since apologised to DS and accepts
It wasn't his finest hour but point blank refuses to pay for replacement/repair - saying he is sick of DS's selfish rude attitude of late and that he needs to learn a lesson.

I'm torn. I certainly don't agree with what DH did (and he knows it) but quite frankly DS has been so utterly horrendous and perhaps needs to
Understand that parents are human too.

In the time we have been on this thread I bet well over a dozen parents have broken their children's phones for similar reasons.
The school my children went to had a sit in last week, a drugs bust and three girls are expecting, someone's arm got broken and it is getting a new head next year ..
Ten years ago it was a church school with an excellent rep, in a small town ... The other three school are worse than this one...there is security at the school door to protect the teachers, parents are no longer able to parent their children. Too scared to incase they get reported, or just don't know how to parent. ... Yet a parent who does make an effort even if he messed up is a monster...
In five more years many with children in primary will be worried about their children's safety. . As the teacher won't be able to control the children....

*Don't steal and lie.
Your phone won't get broken...

Would you apply this to adults or just children?

As much as I don't agree with smashing the phone, this is silly. I wouldn't apply "don't lie or steal or you're not allowed to go out at the weekend" to an adult.

A sit-in? That's surely to be applauded - non-violent direct action as a response to injustice shows clear thought and planning. Is it one of those schools with a new Head who is trying to transform it through humiliation and excessive sanctions, by any chance?

Because if you break something it doesn't exist anymore. I had a phone, my ex smashed it, now I have no phone because it's in phone heaven.

So what if the dad didn't destroy it but just confiscated it for good (locked away somewhere) or threw it in the bin? As far as the son is concerned he doesn't have a phone now as it's gone. Same outcome as far as "phone not existing" anymore.

Owlchemist: an adult who lies/steals might face sanctions for their behaviour such as restriction on their movements (banned from pubs/shops/the town centre or placed on probation) - or be fined, or indeed imprisoned, depending on the severity of the fraud/theft. But they don't get physically hurt, or have their property destroyed by legitimate authority.

*But surely that’s a good thing - that child didn’t know what smacking was. My children would be the same, they wouldn’t have a clue what ‘being smacked’ meant. Could you say the same about your children?

My three year old knows what smacking is. Because we make a game of it. She tells me off and says "mummy will get a smack!" And laughs, and I'll do it back... Chase each other around the house smacking each other on the bum (not hard obvs). It's a big joke.

“As far as the son is concerned he doesn't have a phone now as it's gone.”
But he didn’t see the most important role model in his life losing control to the extent that he stamped on and smashed a mobile phone.

Sorry, but children do need to learn that their behaviour has consequences or would you rather his behaviour escalates until he ends up in trouble with the police or excluded from school?

Are you suggesting that because the dad went nuclear the son will never, ever steal, lie, drink, stay out late, or smirk at his father again? You are offering as justification here the hope that this dramatic act of violence will do the trick and prevent all further problems.

I don't think that's how it works when a relationship between parent and teenage boy is on the rocks so early in the teen years, which this one is.

In fact, the likelihood of escalation by both parties is now quite high because someone has to come out on top here in your model of family relationships that is based on the law of the jungle; experience from nature indicates that it is the younger individual who will see off the older one.

Children of course need to learn that their behaviour has consequences. But there is a huge difference between imposing an appropriate and predictable consequence for an infraction of the rules* and going nuts over something that wasn't in the rules.

• If drinking beer is such a no-no that it causes such immense anger, don't give mixed messages about drinking and don't have beer anywhere the child can get it. If the loss of the beer is what triggered such anger, maybe examine your own relationship to alcohol too.

To look at a wider picture - beer is very much a symbol of adulthood, isn't it?
The privilege of drinking it is reserved for adults for many reasons, but essentially it remains associated with adulthood and is considered a privilege.

I have a suspicion that this fight was the opening round of a huge struggle between father and son as the son moves from child to adult. I don't think this fight would have happened over the son eating yogurt.

The house will be a battleground unless they can work really hard on establishing a relationship that is based on civilised behaviour and values. When I say that I of course expect the dad to take the lead because he is the adult here.

It behoves him to take the time to think about what it means to behave like a grown man in civilised society and to find within himself a better relationship model to show to his son than the one he showed in the phone incident.

“It behoves him to take the time to think about what it means to behave like a grown man in civilised society and to find within himself a better relationship model to show to his son than the one he showed in the phone incident.”
Yep. This.

The head has been there five years, she is leaving as she gets no support from parents and has decided to retire early ...
People found to get their children into this school a decade ago. ..

I don't think this is "violence".
'None so blind as those who will not see.'

What if he had punched a hole in the wall?
What if he had kicked the cat?
Smashed a teapot on the counter?
Picked up a frying pan and thrown it through the window?

Are these legitimate expressions of anger because you have somehow run out of words or broken your vocal cords from shouting?

Actually, all of those things as well as smashing of personal property are considered acts of violence with no quotation marks.
..........

Here's the thing:
If this man's aim was to permanently remove the phone then why not take the phone and put it in his pocket?

I suggest to you that this man smashed the phone because his masculine ego couldn't handle the smirk. It wasn't done as part of a measured and authoritative process of punishing the child. It was done in a fit of rage by a man who sensed his position as top dog was being threatened.

Maths
Did the man have a small John Thomas as well, seeing as you must personally know they to be so up on the their private lifes ...

You are a strange one, mummmmy

My three year old knows what smacking is. Because we make a game of it. She tells me off and says "mummy will get a smack!" And laughs, and I'll do it back... Chase each other around the house smacking each other on the bum (not hard obvs). It's a big joke.

WTF?

Yes, strange and proud of it...
But also the hate injustice.
Had a Barrister storm out of court as I made him look stupid, he is one of the top 100 in the country.... The one for us looked at me and said way to kill someone with logic....

I don't believe you, mummmmmmy

Neither do I Mummmy. I don’t think anyone will.

I am not making anything up here Mummmy.

The privilege of drinking beer is allowed to the son, son decides to help himself (because if there's nothing wrong with drinking beer per se when you're 14 the rule is only there to keep him in his place so he will assert his manhood by drinking), 14 yo and his father shout at each other when father finds beer missing and son lies about it, father smashes phone after son smirks at him during the shouting match.

It was the smirk and not some principled opposition to drinking or even to stealing or lying that precipitated the smashing of the phone.

WTF?

What's that for? She's aware a smack is being hit on the bum, we just make jokes about it. You know like play fighting.

You know there are consequences for barristers when they storm out of court, Mummmy?

Barristers know this.

That is why they don't do it.

That's what make it so funny as hand on Bible it is true...
Your being unfair to this bloke by not accepting there are reasons why it happened, one day you will do something like this and as I said I hope people are more forgiving towards you than you are towards this dad

Personally I wouldn’t want my 3 year old knowing about getting a smack for being naughty.

“That's what make it so funny as hand on Bible it is true...”

No it isn’t.

My bad, he storm out of the courtroom, not from Infront of the judge.

But he was livid as he always wins...

Your son was pushing the boundaries. Your husband showed him where they were. Not his finest hour, I am sure but sometimes I think teenagers need to understand that their behaviour can provoke extreme reactions. They need to understand how devastating to personal relationships lying is. Better to have your Dad crush your phone in a fit of rage than take that lying/thieving/provocative behaviour to the pub or streets where he might encounter an even more extreme reaction.