Natural consequences for toddlers

[hidinginthenightgarden]

I have been reading about this and am struggling to see how it is effective.
I get it for older kids - break your phone - no more phone, steal money -no more pocket money. I don't see how I can apply this to my toddler and I do not feel I can ignore her behaviour when her brother whould be old off for the same thing.
For example - DD emptied her juice this morning all over the floor. I asked her to clean it up and she said no. The natural consequence of this would be no more drink, but if she wanted the drink she would have drank it so this doesn't make sense and most likely won't stop her from doing it again.
If it had been DS he probably would have been told "please don't do that, it is not very nice and someone can slip and get hurt". Even at her age he would have apologised and clean it up.
DD refused to clean it up and laughed when I said someone would fall and get hurt.
Does this not work for toddlers? Is there something else I can try because my son thinks she is getting away with things because we take her to one side and talk to her about it (although sometimes I instinctively shout when I see her doing something in the moment) but not much else ever happens. She is much more stubborn than DS ever was, he just fixed whatever he had done wrong (apologised for hitting, cleaned up mess etc) but DD just turns her back to you in a strop.

Watching this, as we're having similar problems. No followed by laughter and I'm struggling to keep patient.

I think it is totally inappropriate for toddlers, as they are not developmentally able to understand the natural consequence. It is appropriate to teach as a life skill to much older children, I thought. I have never seen it recommended for a young child by any decent source. In fact I would say that it is extremely damaging for toddlers.
Where are you reading that it is a good idea?

Are you a member of the therapeutic parents Facebook page. If not look it up and request to join. If you post there you will get lots of great advice, including advice from trained therapeutic parenting advisers who are part of the national association of therapeutic parenting. I love this group and NATP, it is really helping me understand therapeutic parenting.

It is was on therapeutic parenting that I saw it. There are loads of posts about it but I couldn’t see how to apply it to a toddler. I guess the answer is you don’t!

It's so tricky at this age, isn't it?! Is it younger or older toddler?

I'm wrestling with this with my DD at the moment, who's 21 months. I've read mixed things about natural consequences - Janet Lansbury, for example, thinks they're just another word for punishment. And as you say above, they're a bit young to really understand.

In the situation you describe, I'd have said something like, 'oh, the drink is spilled on the floor, that means we have to clean it up now!' And then I'd start and offer DD a piece of kitchen roll to help. She sometimes will - she's weirdly keen on wiping and tidying - but often won't, in which case I don't make a big deal of it and just carry on cleaning. In either case, I'd throw in a reminder that we keep our drinks in our cups and I don't like drinks spilled on the floor.

At this age, I don't know how much further you can go, but I'm sure there are people who think I'm too soft.

And we have a big hitting thing going on at the moment, which I have no idea how to deal with, but that's a whole other thread.

SHe is 2.5. To be honest I am a little stuck because her speech isn’t great so it is hard to determine just how good her understanding is. She says yes to things but it doesn’t mean much!

Have you posted this query question on the page if you are on the page. I was having similar dilemmas on how to handle my two toddlers sharing and I felt a bit silly posting but got some terrific advice and encouragement when I posted. I have since joined NATP and am working my way through some of the online courses in therapeutic parenting.

Rain at night I would dispute that natural consequences is just another form of punishment, if applying natural consequences properly they are just that - the natural consequence not a punishment ie - the juice was thrown so it is on the floor and no longer drinkable. No punishment has been issued - or - you threw your mobile phone at the window and is it broken so no longer works. There is no additional punishment applied. The child with a broken phone has no phone and is not replaced. Gradually they learn cause and effect and link their own behaviour to outcomes. Sometimes people begin to create their own natural consequences, which is really logical consequences and yes this is a form of punishment. I.e. When you threw the mobile phone at the window the glass smashed - that will need replaced so I will have to take the cost out of your pocket money. This is not a natural consequence but a logical one.

I think the key of natural consequences is in the learning that the child gets in beginning to understand cause and effect. It will probably take numourous repeats of the natural consequence being explained before they begin to link the cause and effect of their behaviour and begin to realise there is no point in throwing my drink because I don't get a response I need and I end up with no drink.

Natural consequence is only one part of therapeutic parenting. An other part is being attuned to your child and empathise and understand what situations they can deal with and what they can't. I.e at the moment you can't handle being left with a cup of juice as it will only end on the floor. Mummy's job is to keep you safe and decide what help you need. For now I will stay with you while you are drinking or change your cup to a different cup that you can't throw and spill. ( a wee aside a munchkin 360 cup is very hard to spill or empty from - they are fab).

I am no expert and only beginning to learn but this is what I have taken so far. My lo's are 2&3 , although have brilliant vocabulary and understanding, and I am using natural consequences. It is the same natural consequences repeatedly but I am beginning to notice one or two behaviours are lessening. An example is breakfast used to be a fight over what he wanted so mummy took over deciding what he had as he could not handle choices in the morning and if he did not eat it that was ok. I did not engage in persuasive arguing. I simply empathised and maybe wondered how he was feeling and left it at that. He would be hungry until snack time ( only an hour later)! After repeated script breakfasts are virtually stress free now.

The excerpt below is from the National association of thereaputic parenting and explains there thinking on why TP should be applied from as young as possible:

You can absolutely use TP (if which natural consequences are an integral part!) with any age child- in fact it's prob better if you can start this as early as possible as this will

1. help create a stronger attachment
2. help develop pathways in your child's brain regarding cause and effect
3. strengthen the child's emotional resilience
4. strength the child's emotional literacy
5. teach them empathy from a young age
6. teach them the ability (or emerging ability) to self regulate

I think your problem here is expecting a 2.5yo to clear up. Natural consequence for 2.5 would suggest a) no more juice and b) mum unavailable for a while because she’s cleaning up juice. Logical consequence would be juice not allowed in living room or only drinking water or something.

As PP said maybe hand her a bit of kitchen roll and ask her to pitch in but I think your expectations are too high in terms of her actually cleaning it.

As I think as you say pinklady it depends on the understanding of the parent of the natural consequence whether it becomes punishment or not. A teenager destroying his phone and no longer having one is one thing, certainly a decision about replacement becomes a logical consequence, but a toddler making a mess and as a result they don't get a drink or get given the "wrong" cup is not a natural consequence, it is a parent imposed consequence. Limiting choices sometimes for a 2 year old and giving them an alternative cup sometimes is fine if that solves the problem, but sometimes with that age war would break out over the use of the "wrong" cup. Limiting choices might also work for early days of placement and difficult times when a child is in need of more support. Not so much if you are limiting choices for a 10 year old or even a 14 year old. Saying you need to keep a 2 year old safe so you won't let her have another open cup seems unnecessary... gripping hold of a 3 year old's hand while they try to make a break for it in a theme park is keeping them safe, a different cup to stop them making a mess is just a different cup to stop them making a mess?

As far as I know, what hiding and rain are doing now is about right and what is recommended by psychologists, although it would also be useful to look behind the behaviour to see what the child is trying to communicate, whether it be an immediate short term need or a long term need.

fatberg I think it would be damaging and not a natural consequence rather a parent imposed consequence/punishment to say that the parent will not be available for a while to a 2.5 year old.

Just in general terms about child development and NATP, I have read on mumsnet adoption before that you can find things to support almost anything in terms of theories of child development but I do not think that is true. There is a body of peer reviewed high level research by psychologists/psychiatrists and there is a great deal of consistency at that level (and everything i have read has been entirely consistent with therapeutic parenting). There are then people who may have some knowledge and experience who have theories. But there is no comparison between the two.

I think that NATP is super in terms of the support it gives but my impression is that it is very general and although the team have a great deal of personal experience in relation to lac and social care from what I can see there is very little high level education or expertise and for that reason I think caution is needed. The NATP approach seems to centre around these behaviour managing techniques referred to in this thread, and may be less helpful in relation to developing the child's unique potential and giving the child the skills they need to take charge of their own lives. I think NATP is good for emotional support for adults and also about general ideals of therapeutic parenting, but if you are looking to gain a really good understanding of therapeutic parenting and child development and affect of trauma you will need to supplement NATP with other expertise.

More to do with therapy than parenting, on another thread NATP are listed alongside Beacon House but if you look at the team at Beacon House it is chalk and cheese - at Beacon House there are some 20 or so clinical psychologists with expertise in trauma development (ie educated to a high level, trained, specialist, relevant expertise) and other therapists with similarly significant training and experience and they will do individual assessments for children funded by AF and advise on the sort of therapy which would be appropriate.

In terms of parenting, my personal favourite child psychologist for the toddler age was Penelope Leach a child psychologist with decades of experience though I don't know where her research stands now, but as far as I know it is still up there, and it is lovely to put into action as it is sensible, practical, therapeutic, child centred.

Just to clarify, when I said "from what I can see there is very little high level education or expertise" I meant they are not qualified psychologists or psychiatrists from what I can work out from their webpage, but if I am wrong about that then I am very happy to be corrected.

Oh I def don’t mean telling child you’re unavailable. I mean that you are actually temporarily unavailable for play because you’re actually wiping a spill.

“ I think it would be damaging and not a natural consequence rather a parent imposed consequence/punishment to say that the parent will not be available for a while to a 2.5 year old“

Really? Damaging? A parent is unavailable when having to clear something up. I’m often unavailable when doing the washing up or housework. My daughter realises that although she can talk to me, I actually do have to be busy at times in life. I’m so confused by how you could perceive wiping up a spill (and therefore being unavailable for a short time!) as damaging.

womble I think you are confusing what has been said. I was responding to the idea that a 2.5 would be told that their parent would not be available for a bit because they had spilled their drink, and fatberg then clarified what she meant. This is in the context about talking about "natural consequences" being used as a discipline method with 2 year olds. It isn't about parents doing chores sometimes while looking after children.

I think that standard advice about this is that as well as clearing up the drink, the parent should speak to the child about it, and also would try to find out why they were spilling their drink on purpose, ie what they were trying to communicate with their behaviour, and help the child with whatever it is.

As far as I know, 2 year olds will not make a meaningful connection with consequences as an older children would. AFAIK, chucking a drink on the floor as a way of communicating is developmentally normal for a 2 year old but IME if a child does it they are trying to communicate something, and it isn't something that happens all the time. And that it would be better to think about that rather than see it as an undesirable behaviour which the child should learn not to do.

An older child who has more control and is able to use language to communicate chucking a drink on the floor would be an entirely different situation.

The fact that she is refusing and laughing about it sounds like she possibly knows what she's doing. Give her the choice of cleaning or a 2 minute time out.
I found that worked for me. I will admit I am strict although I've also found I have been able to slack off more as my own got older. I now ask them to choose their own punishment which we will agree on together as it prevents melt downs.
Worst behaviour I get now is usually a strip in their bedroom because they've been told off or lost something.

Time out is not recommended.

Giving a child a cloth and expecting help wiping is a natural consequence.

OP- could your DD use a cup with a lid?

At that age my son was constantly throwing his drinks, plates, bowls etc. I found it really hard to deal with - I found that the best method was just to feign boredom and show v little reaction. I used to ask my son to clean up with me and I was never sure of the best thing to do when he refused - I would clean the floor v slowly and if he tried to get my attention/ask for something I would tell him he'd have to wait til I had finished cleaning. I can't say I always stayed calm - on the day I returned to work he threw a bowl of porridge which hit me on the head - that was a particularly bad day! He did grow out of it and doesn't do it any more.

My son is nearly 2 and really did this a lot with drinks in open cups. He would drink as much as he liked and then chuck the rest on the floor and act all "oh oh!" knowing I'd come along and tidy it up. Sometimes he'd help me tidy it up, but I think he began to enjoy it as a little bit of a game, you know, if I do this then mummy has to clean it and I can join in. I changed the open cup to a leak proof one and it's broken the habit. If he does get an open cup when we're out and about at a cafe or someone else's house he doesn't throw it on the ground when he's had enough any more. I also only put a little dribble in open cups now days so he should drink and all and not have any left to throw about. If any ends up on the floor I just clean it quickly and without drawing attention to it so it doesn't become a game again.

I know that's maybe not really discipline, but it worked for us and helped us get over that little phase.

Your post made me smile KLHL777 it reminded me of a phase dc1 went through at around I think 18 months of chucking his entire plate on the floor when he saw me preparing something else for him to it, like he was saying "enough of this, I want to try that in case it is a tastier morsel". I can't remember how I stopped it, I think just by saying "no". Or "nooooo" as I saw his hand move to his bowl with intent. He would look at me with interest when I wailed "noooo". Anyway, the phase stopped.

What I was thinking of here though was that about 6 months later he started chucking stuff on the floor but it seemed different. Everyone seemed to be saying it was just normal, but it felt different and it turned out he was becoming very ill with a chest infection, which his doctor kept insisting was just laryngitis, at the time without doing the right investigations. In the end they tested saturation levels and then did an xray and realised it was very serious.

So I guess sometimes it is just a normal phase and sometimes it is communicating something. Kids will act up more if they are ill or unhappy about something.

Either way, I don't think time outs or consequences are going to help!

something else for him to "eat" not "it"

I guess part of this is getting your head around what you mean by effective and what outcome you're looking for.
If you don't want juice spilt on the floor then you can keep putting responsibility on a child that might not be capable of it or you can give them a different cup etc.
I remember being told in training that we have to think of the child as being much younger than their physical age.
I get sick of people telling me that dd knows what she's done. Yes she does. She can see what's happened. She may react to what's happened in a way the world deems appropriate (sorry, upset) or may not (laughs, claps). What she isn't doing is some high level psychological decision making with the express purpose of defying or upsetting me.
Dd often acts up when she wants my attention. Probably attachment related. So i give her attention. It's really hard and i'm not saying it doesn't do my head in sometimes but hopefully will be worth it in the long run. And that thousands of itterations of "hold the cup, cup on the table" will have an effect.