to have removed DD when H was shouting at her?

[HarryDan]

DD is six, and can be provocative/challenging in her behaviour - deliberately will full, if you will.

At dinner she poured (quite alot) of salt over her food, even when asked not to. Dh snapped at her then told her not to eat it, she then dipped food in it and continued eating (i.e, ignored him).

I know how frustrating it is to be ignored by children, but he began shouting at her. I asked him to leave it, but he continued, so I left the room as I didn't agree with him, but didn't want to undermine him. He wasn't continuously shouting, but his voice was raised.

I went upstairs and heard him tell her to finish her dinner - she then went behind his back (while he was loading the dishwasher) and threw most of her dinner in the bin. The entire thing wasn't covered in salt, so it was perfectly edible, and we don't really take kindly to wasting food.

DH lost the plot and began screaming at her, really loosing his temper & at this point I felt he was taking it too far, came back in the room and intervened. I took her out of the room, and told him that he was being a bully, and that he shouldn't scream at anyone like that. You wouldn't scream at your family or colleagues like that, so it's not OK to scream at a six year old like that :(

He told me to fuck off, I was very calm and took her upstairs and told her that although she must listen to him (re: food etc) its not OK for anyone to shout at her like that. She was really upset (which she can play up when getting told off, as all children do) and DD1 was also in tears. I could see they were both frightened.

DH has gone out - I assume not talking to me, and is obviously vexed that I undermined him as he feels she doesn't respect him,

My question is, did I do the right thing?

I'm not advocating dealing with things in this way all the time, for all behaviour. I think you have to look at the reasons behind it, and trying to get that balance between positive and negative

"She doesn't get the salt though. The parents "win". She knows she's being naughty, the parents know she's being naughty but no confrontation happens in the process"

That is like trying to shoplift and being caught and the consequence being that you don't get the goods, and nothing else. The parents lose as she has been told not to do something, has tried to do it, and suffered no meaningful consequence. Next time her parents tell her not to do something, she will (very sensibly) try and do it and know that either she will get away with it or she will get caught and suffer nothing more than not getting away with it.

She won't get away with it though. Each time the parents will ensure she doesn't get it. Remember this is a child who has already been told she is not allowed salt.

Where is the positive here, Jamie?

She has misbehaved, been told off by her father (with just a slightly raised voice). Then, rather than being apologetic, she has seriously upped the ante by throwing perfectly good food away, something most parents would find outrageous.

I am not saying she has done anything evil or terrible. She has just been a very naughty little girl and needs to know she has been in no uncertain terms.

You would not continue shoplifting if you never got away with it.

But Larry - if you do what Hully is advocating then she still gets sent to her room so she still is punished, just in a much less confrontational way. I think if you come down like a ton of bricks on kids when they do minor misdemeanours then you have nothing left in your arsenal if they do something really bad.

lary - X post - I was just picking up on what hully said about another way her dad (or mum) could have dealt with the initial event, so that it didn't escalate into the child needing to up the ante.

Lady - it's not even about punishment, it's like the centuries old original use of ostracism to make a society possible: these are the "rules" and if you choose not to abide by them you need to go away and think about why not and the consequences of that for the pleasantness or otherwise of your life.

Another good one is to be sad and ask them what they would do in your position. Make them think, that's what you want.

Or rather, make them choose the plesant option of their own free will.

Lady,

I agree re minor misdemeanours. However, going against an instruction, then ignoring a parent, then throwing one's dinner in the bin is not minor in my book. And, I am not sure shouting loudly at someone is "coming down like a ton of bricks". At that age I would have had a severe hiding and then a further punishment such as no deserts for a week for something like that.

I know times change but are children happier and better behaved for it? It is all about results and what a particular child responds to, but I don't think loving and involved parents need to fear confrontation.

Have you typed pleasant many times then, hully? How ...pleasant

A frightening amount of times, James. I seem to have no other adjectives in my armoury at all.

nice?

I think, larry, that if you defuse at the earliest stage with humour etc, the other stages aren't reached.

Also, if you react with anger etc, you have lost, the child feels furious and resentful and the entire point is lost. It's about obeying, rather than the silliness of smothering your food in salt.

BTW - I am enjoying this debate. Very interesting

And nice

I keep saying diffuse instead of defuse though

No - I don't think it was a very valid analogy in the first place LeQueen. Of course I wouldn't be happy.

Nor would I, what a rubbish shoplifter - you wouldn't even get any gear.

LeQueen - sorry - got called away before I could expand further. I know the kind of parenting of which you speak, and that's not at all what's going on here. The approach advocated is for low-level boundary-pushing behaviour in a child thins age. It's done with a twinkle in the eye. The parent uses it judiciously. Not for immoral or illegal behaviour.

I think you need to have an armoury of resources as a parent.