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.

'A really bad idea that shows zero evidence of consciousness of broader issues around body privacy'?

She doesn't seem confused to me, but OK. As for body privacy she is 3 she regularly runs around the house naked as do I.

Ok then Owl, I will explain why it is important not to make a game of touching your daughter's bum and letting her touch yours.

The game of touching private parts is one often played by people grooming children for sexual abuse. You would be extremely unwise to keep up this sort of game because if some pervert targets your child and begins to work on her this way she will accept it since it's familiar.

mummmy2017 Wed 03-Jul-19 20:01:14

If as someone said the son carried on like this with there never being any come back, and the son got hit in a pub, and witness said the son started the fight would you rather someone broke his nose, than his phone

You are seriously saying it's important to teach your son the life lessons he will need out there in the big bad world by inflicting violence on him in the home?

Weirdly, my 26 year old son has never started a fight anywhere despite never having his phone smashed.

Did I just get lucky? Is that what you are saying?

Mummmy I am saying this in all kindness - this is beginning to feel like shooting fish in a barrel now. .

Weirdly, my 26 year old son has never started a fight anywhere despite never having his phone smashed.

Does he lose his temper, get angry, curse, yell or name call instead?

It's so strange how posters seem adamant that what you experience at home leads you to replicate in your life outside the home. I was pushed up the stairs by mum and fell and split my eyebrow open when I was a pre schooler - I've never done that to anyone. She was controlling and unaccepting throughout my childhood and continues even now - I've not replicated that with my children or in my relationships.

mummmy2017
Wed 03-Jul-19 20:09:51

But the law says after 10 years old you are legally responsible for your own actions...
Therefore in law he knows he is prevoking a fight.....

You should know from your extensive legal experience that 'provocation' was only a defence to a charge of murder, reducing it to manslaughter instead if it was found that a reasonable man would have totally lost control and killed someone as a result of the provocation. Repealed recently I believe.

So we are left with smirking.
Where in the law does it say that smirking is illegal?

Have I ever flipped? Yes I have. Don't recall smashing things but I have chucked things like shoes when the kids have left them laying around despite being asked not to and I've fallen over them and hurt myself.
Decomposing

Since you're clearly an expert at splitting hairs here, can you say whether you tossed the shoes aside to get them out of your way, or picked them up and flung them forcefully across a room?

Because one is reasonable and a practical response to an irritating problem, and the other is violence designed to intimidate.

mummmy2017 Wed 03-Jul-19 20:38:09
Leatherflamingle. 100% I agree the law was wrong in the case you speak of.

What do you mean - "the law was wrong"?

Was the woman over 10?

Did she smirk at the man?

If she was over 10 and she provoked him then he was completely justified.

14 y/o allowed to drink alcohol??? He got a taste for it and "helped" himself to it from what's available in the house/fridge . This technically wasn't stealing, it's not money or personal possession - it's a drink he was given before. He knew full well he wasn't allowed but hey, ho - it's a rebellious 14y/o pushing boundaries we are talking about.. What he did was absolutely wrong but after all you have given him a taste for it. DH reaction however, way unproportional and immature. I'm all for teaching kid a harsh lesson but smashing phone? What does it teach apart from immaturity and aggression? I think a lot more painful and measured punishment would be for parents to actually sell the damm phone since they had provided it in the 1st place. Let him earn the money to buy another one.

Why are you all portraying this 14 year of as a wide eyed innocent who can do no wrong? Some 14 year olds are little shits, some are violent thugs, some are hardened criminals. You don't know what this particular 14 year old is like. Hopefully being taken down a peg or two might keep him on the straight and narrow and prevent him going off the rails
Decomposing.

The way to make him understand that there are consequences for his actions is not to keel over and give him back his phone when he kicks off after you have confiscated it.

The way to 'take him down a peg or two' is to not give him the adult privilege of drinking beer.

That is to say, don't let him rise up a peg or two in the first place.

Exploding at the monster you yourself have created by choosing the path of least resistance for years is the way to create a resentful, cocky, unteachable teen who will grow up thinking that displays of force are the way to solve all of life's little problems.

Picked the shoes up and threw them because I tripped over them.

mathanxiety

Honestly you are being ridiculous. Allowing a teen to have alcohol on a couple of occasions isn't creating a monster, and I don't know the circumstances of the return of the confiscated phone. Maybe he eventually calmed down, stopped showing off and agreed to behave except once the phone was returned he started again. Maybe that's what caused dad to do what he did. I don't know, I wasn't there.

What I do know is that one incidence is not indicative of a violent or abusive person.

You've said yourself that you've lost your temper - what makes you think that didn't scare your children or scar them emotionally? Surely loss of control is loss of control? How can you be certain that your loss of temper would never lead to an escalation to physically harm your children but you appear to know with certainty that this will happen in the dad's case?

Decomposing
Why are you all portraying this 14 year of as a wide eyed innocent who can do no wrong? Some 14 year olds are little shits, some are violent thugs, some are hardened criminals. You don't know what this particular 14 year old is like. Hopefully being taken down a peg or two might keep him on the straight and narrow and prevent him going off the rails (unlike the toe rags that are currently terrorising out town by mugging school kids at knife point on a daily basis)

I am sorry there are toe rags terrorising your town and mugging kids at knife point on a daily basis.

Is it at all possible that you are judging this situation through the lens of your experience. ?

Is it at all possible that exposure to violence, inconsistent parenting and unpredictable rage in their own homes is what created the toe rags?

There is no black and white, there are shades of gray....

That, right there, is why men get off with a tap on the wrist for crimes of violence against women.

Can you really not see it?

I have no idea because I don't know their backgrounds. They might be the Walton's for all I know.

Seriously, who knows? From my experience no family set up is immune - I've encountered children from two parent families, step families, single parent families, separated but co parenting families, adoptive families, gay parent families, and many other combinations - some we were informed of possible issues, some there were no apparent issues. There are many reasons other than parents as to why kids spiral out of control.

I would consider those mine (I would share them of course but I would be upset if I went to eat or drink them and there was none left).

You seem very territorial in relation to your family.
I can't think of an instance where I'd be tempted to smash any phones or even get into a shouting match because my son ate all my chocolates or kept borrowing my t-shirts.

I'd be much more worried he was drinking. And I'd do my best to understand why and help him stop.
Getting into a fight because he stole my drink won't help at all in that respect. But this is all about property, not raising a child.

Totally wrong to go smashing up a phone.. parents and teenagers are always having fall outs usually, but you may have arguments and shouting matches,but smashing up items is just not right.. I would agree with curtailing of some things for bad behaviour,but not breaking things in temper.

Lweji

But the taking of the possessions (beer) is just a focus isn't it? It's not so much about the missing beer as it is about disobeying simple rules, disrespecting someone else's property, lying, under age drinking in a risky way, and then taking a disrespectful attitude when you've been caught doing wrong.

And yes, I would be annoyed if someone used up a present that was given to me. If it was done unintentionally then I probably wouldn't say or anything or just mention it in passing but if it was deliberate then yes, I'd be annoyed because you should respect other people's things. I wouldn't just help myself to my kids clothes, money, cars, presents, make up etc so why shouldn't I have the same courtesy? I doubt their housemates would be impressed if they took their food or drink or clothes so they need to learn that it isn't polite to behave in that way.

this boy has also had issues with his mother. It is almost impossible to find a way to engage with a child who is taller stronger and unwilling to compromise.
Mummmy

There are no issues mentioned specifically with the mother. She mentions that treats/snacks disappear in two hours.

She freely admits she doesn't know what she is doing now that her son is a teenager. But she doesn't say she and he are locking horns on a regular basis.

Her approach so far, with a boy who has form for taking a mile when given an inch, has featured giving him the odd beer and caving when he 'plays the game' (which I understand from the context to mean he offers an apology) to get his phone returned.

(Nowhere did I see that he 'kicks off' and gets his phone back as Decomposing has posted, btw. That is something Decomposing made up).

Quite frankly, if you have left it until your son is bigger and stronger than you to get him to engage with you and respect your rules, you have been neglectful and incredibly short sighted.

Your goal in bringing up a boy should always be to emphasise that there are no grey areas at all, ever, when it comes to his physical strength and his size advantage, and his total and complete personal responsibility for how he uses it.

You've said yourself that you've lost your temper - what makes you think that didn't scare your children or scar them emotionally? Surely loss of control is loss of control? How can you be certain that your loss of temper would never lead to an escalation to physically harm your children but you appear to know with certainty that this will happen in the dad's case?
Decomposing

Not sure how you got the impression that I have lost my temper with my children. Fyi, I did not.

For this father and son, assuming the son ever gets a phone again, is he going to listen to any threat of taking the phone? Or will such milque toast consequences be something he will brush off because hey, worse things can happen to a phone? What can you threaten that can top physical destruction of a personal belonging? Beating the son up? Going nuclear is a huge strategic mistake. The problem with it is that next time you have to think of something even worse.

The son has a grievance he is very likely to nurse; he is not likely to sit down, shrug and tell himself, 'So my parents are human after all, who knew?'

They are likely to engage in trench warfare for months, maybe even years.

They are now in a situation where the father is sitting on the tiger's back. He has won the battle in some respects - he definitely showed the son what a real manly temper tantrum looks like - but he will lose the war if the DS decides to be snotty and not apologise. The DS is now in charge of the relationship. Well done dad.

And it appears from the OP's posts that the matter of secret drinking is going to continue to be ignored as a problem in and of itself. Apparently it only matters when the drink consumed belongs to the father and there is no concern mentioned by the OP or the H that the DS might be drinking outside of the home with friends.

Drinking is actually the problem here, and if the DS were a DD they would be taking that aspect of it far more seriously. There are many layers of double standards here.

*It's not so much about the missing beer as it is about disobeying simple rules, disrespecting someone else's property, lying, under age drinking in a risky way, and then taking a disrespectful attitude when you've been caught doing wrong.^
Decomposing

It is about the beer. And about the smirk.

They are not a bit concerned about the underage drinking and if they are they are going the absolutely wrong way to communicate that. Their approach is like saying 'Here's a little bit of fire to play with, and a wee small can of accelerant'.

The privilege of drinking beer whenever you feel like it is reserved for adults. This is a privilege the DS has apparently assumed for himself. He has thus put himself up there on a level with his father. He has, in his mother's words, been given an inch and has taken a mile.

I guarantee the father would not have been so angered if the DS had eaten all the chocolate chip cookies and lied about it. Actually the OP mentions that he regularly eats the treats, and there is no indication that anyone goes apeshit and smashes stuff when it is discovered.

Their response to infractions of the rules so far - including previous theft of beer - has been confiscation of the phone until the DS comes up with the correct verbal formula to satisfy the definition of an apology. The interaction about the stolen beer was under control until the smirk, according to the OP, so the lying and stealing are not the cause of the intense anger either. It was that smirk that the H couldn't handle.

There are many reasons other than parents as to why kids spiral out of control.

I don't know the circumstances of the return of the confiscated phone.

You were pretty clear that he got the phone back after kicking off.

mathanxiety

You are presenting so many possible outcomes as absolute fact.

You don't know how the family is going to behave following this. You cannot possibly predict the outcome as a definite.

And of course the concern about under age drinking is a big factor in the husband's reaction. It's all tied up together in the reaction to this row.

I don't see an escalation of punishment as being an inevitable outcome here. If the parents reflect on what has happened in this situation they can decide how to handle the sons behaviour going forward.

For what it's worth I think the dad needs to apologise for smashing the phone (the actual act of breaking it, not the deprivation of the phone) and apologise for losing his temper.

The removal of the phone, permanently, is the punishment for what the son did. Going forward he has to earn the privilege of having a phone, paid for by his parents. If he chooses to misbehave then he doesn't get a phone - that will be a choice that he is making.

The drinking alcohol with his parents is a red herring. He may well have chosen to steal the beer even if he had never tasted a single drop before. I bet there are loads of teens that are like this - their parents have never allowed them to drink but they've still done it. You're barking up the wrong tree there.

As for me saying the son had kicked off previously about them taking his phone away - I misinterpreted a post the op made at the beginning. She said how her son had ranted a raved about the loss of his phone - re reading I think she was talking about when the phone was broken but in my head I was attributing those comments to previous times of confiscating the phone - it's a long thread, I can't remember it all in minute detail.

And of course the concern about under age drinking is a big factor in the husband's reaction

How do you know? Are you privy to him?

Because I didn't see that concern anywhere by the OP.
She just shrugged off the underage drinking when confronted with it.

The loss of property was the key factor. And loss of an alcoholic property, which makes me suspect the dad has his own issues with drink. The lying and the smirk just made it worse.

The different scenarios presented are just illustrations of what can happen.
I don't see a good outcome of this as things stood, according to the OP, and many people don't, either.

I don't see anywhere a willingness to engage with proper parenting, and the OP has left the building (or found a sock).
All I see is a battle for control of junk food and of dominance. It's sad for the parents and their child.

The drinking alcohol with his parents is a red herring. He may well have chosen to steal the beer even if he had never tasted a single drop before.

It's not, because they lost the moral authority to say he can't drink.
He says he only took one bottle and they have allowed it before.
How is it different from taking a coke?