To think that you shouldn't punish someone else's child indirectly if yours is naughty?

[user1477282676]

DD is 8. We're not in the UK....her best mate was meant to be coming to play today. We're on school holidays and she's been looking forward to this a lot. They usually see one another once or twice a week out of school....they totally love one another.

The Mum has called me to say that their DD has been naughty all morning so they don't feel they can "reward" her with a visit to my DD.

AIBU in thinking this is not right? If it were my DD I'd take her to her mate's house but let her know that she would be having screen time removed that evening or for however long was appropriate as a consequence of her behaviour.

DD is upset...it did cross my mind that perhaps the friend doesnt want to come...and that this is an excuse but they're the sort of people who'd just come out and be honest I think.

I take it you mean school?

My bkids have never been punished at school.

Kids.

Pretty standard for animals to be trained with treats (and inversely punished for the absence of wanted behaviour by denying treats).

bumsex that's pretty skewed thinking if you think the absence of treats is a punishment.
Do you go about your daily business in a state of punishment because no one is giving you treats?

I have trained several animals in my life and never used punishment.

SatsukiKusakabe the example you used of removing the light saber is a punisher. A natural consequence would be something that did not require your intervention e.g. playing aggressively with a balloon and the balloon breaks, jumping on the sofa and falling off and hurting yourself, touching a hot oven. These are also still punishers. A punisher is a negative consequence to a behaviour which reduces the probability of that behaviour occurring in the future. Even token economies like a sticker chart can be a punisher. If all the children in a group are asked to tidy up but only those who tidied are given a sticker, not getting a sticker can serve as a punisher as much as receiving the sticker can serve as a reward.

I agree that as much as possible consequences should be logical and part of the natural flow of life. I also use discussion to seek to understand and to help my daughter to understand the feelings and behaviour of herself and others, but if she has thrown a box of blocks across the room she will have to help me to tidy it up. Calling it something different like a consequence doesn't stop it from being punishment. I am asking her to tidy up in order to teach her that if you make a mess (in anger or while having fun) there is a consequence i.e. you will have to tidy it up. Living and learning involves a series of behaviours modified by positive and negative stimuli in your environment. As a child you hear the word hot! you touch the hot oven and learn not to touch things when associated with the word hot. You are at the same time being reinforced by the people around you for not touching that hot thing and perhaps also for saying the word "hot".
Sorry I went on a bit, but as a psychologist I find it hard when people misunderstand behavioural terms.

A very interesting question. There have been times that I have threatened my kids in advance of a highly-anticipated playdate that I wouldn't allow them to go if their behaviour didn't improve, and then I think well, shite, that's a bit hollow because it would be incredibly rude for me to cancel.

I think ultimately I'd do this only if I were good friends with the parents, and I'd make a phone call and explain. I don't think it's ideal for reasons cited here; it's a real let-down for the other side.

I've done this when ds was going through a particular difficult phase. It was an arrangement I'd had with SIL though, all quite casual, so no one out of pocket for our not turning up.

Ds had been a pain all morning and he had been warned that he wouldn't be visiting his cousins if his behaviour didn't improve, I followed through with the warning even though I was really looking forward to visiting SIL too. Ds was extremely upset but once he'd calmed down he understood why. We visited a couple of days later and all was calm.

So in this instance OP, I think YABU. It's the mothers call on how she disciplines her dd, bet it was the last thing she wanted to do believe me. I felt awful all day when I had to cancel but needs must.

Yes I said I didn't use arbitrary punishments, but that didn't mean there were no consequences, and that I didn't enforce those consequences where necessary. I never said I followed natural consequences absolutely either; sometimes this is ineffective or not possible, or not wise, depending on the circumstances, but in certain situations it is for the best and this needs to be judged.

The consequence of him hurting his sister with the lightsabre is not one that can be allowed to ensue. He would be warned first, and could have it straight back if he played with it properly. I wouldn't just remove a thing "as punishment" though, only for safety or other necessary reasons, or, mostly, to get the attention of a child who is so engaged with being Luke Skywalker they can't see outside the moment. The removal of the thing is not the end game. The goal is the child's better understanding of the situation, not to have the focus on the loss of an object.

I do not use behaviour charts or privileges earned, the school does, and I simply said it doesn't concern me if they take a different approach, as they have different needs, it does not mean that I personally agree.

It seems very reductive in the sense of the conversation here though to sweep everything into "but you do punish, because Xyz!" It is more complex than that, and all I am saying is that you have to be flexible and alert to the needs of the child and the requirements of different situations rather than have a system of punishments and rewards that have not much to do with either.

Of course the absence of a treat is a punishment. If a parent tells a child if they behave well they can have pudding after their tea as a treat and they then don't behave well so don't get the pudding the child will view that as a punishment regardless of the parents intention of it being a reward.

And that's why I don't do rewards! Could drive yourself mad with all this

I definitely don't take my dgd anywhere if she's playing up! I wouldn't trust that she'd behave whilst out. I have cancelled play dates.
I find delayed punishments are not effective

Meh, I think the other parent was right, to be honest.

My son is an only child, & when he was younger would really look forwards to play dates. I've had to see him broken hearted when he's been let down, so I'd say YANBU.

if she has thrown a box of blocks across the room she will have to help me to tidy it up. Calling it something different like a consequence doesn't stop it from being punishment. I am asking her to tidy up in order to teach her that if you make a mess (in anger or while having fun) there is a consequence i.e. you will have to tidy it up.

I don't think that tidying up after yourself is a punishment. Having to load the dishwasher isn't a punishment for eating dinner, having to fold laundry isn't a punishment for wearing clothes - they are just the things that have to be done. I expect my kids to contribute as much as is appropriate for their ages towards the smooth running of the house - if they have made the mess, then they help tidy it up, whether that's throwing blocks across the room or painting.

The difference, to me, is that they recognise that having to clear up blocks that they have thrown in anger is something of a waste of their time as the time spent tidying up is disproportionate to the mild satisfaction of flinging them in the first place , whereas cleaning up after a lovely afternoon painting is just what you do when you've fininshed so that your paint brushes are ready to use next time you want to paint.