Who is in the wrong? (Fussy eaters)

[LadyLothbrook]

2 children, 11 and 7.
Youngest has adhd and I suspect so does the eldest.

An example of what children will eat:

Most meats chicken, beef, and sausages.

Most vegetables with few exceptions one doesn't like sprouts so much, one doesn't like tomatoes.

They will eat eggs, olives, breads, potatoes, pasta as long as the sauce is smooth, cheeses. They will try cuisines from other cultures.

DC1 enjoys crisps as a snack and DC2 has a sweet tooth. Both will eat chopped salad veg and fruit and berries if prepared for them.

Tonight we had chilli made with a variety of beans. Parents enjoyed theirs but after a few mouthfuls, both children expressed a dislike.

Parent B says its fine to leave but let's them know its a pity because its a nutritious meal. Parent A says yeah leave but tells them no fast food, sweets, junk for 6 months and nothing else for the rest of the night. Parent A won't listen to Parent B when Parent B tries to explain that they probably just don't like it and are not doing it to be fussy. Parent B can sometimes project due to horrific childhood trauma so Parent A feels like they're becoming too 'woke' or 'snowflake' like.

Parent A - Believes children are 'getting worse' with their eating. More fussy, more wanting to eat junk food.

Parent B - Believes children enjoy a variety of foods but has common problems with strong tastes, textures. And believes it will get better with age if not berated.

Who is right in this situation? A, B or both? All responses welcome.

This 100%!

Interesting that you described yourself as Parent B.
Are you feeling second place?

My reading of your OP, you aren't in the wrong.

Parent A is a twat. Are they this controlling in other aspects? Are your children not allowed tastebuds?

Parent A is going to create a food issue that doesn’t currently exist. It doesn’t sound like they are fussy and they were willing to try something new.

Even if they were fussy, number one rule would be to take all emotion out of it and not get into a battle of wills. So he’s going completely the wrong way about sorting it out. And that’s before you add in using food as a punishment or ridiculous punishments that are way over the top and nobody will follow through on.

I HATE this undermining crap. It's perfectly ok to stand up for your children when they are being treated unfairly. Is there something he strongly disagrees with like smacking for example? Would he just stand there and accept his children being hit as not to undermine you?

Why does he get to make the final decision? You could equally say he is undermining you and your rules. Would he actually enforce 6 months of no treats? If so that's honestly unhinged. No pudding that night would be more reasonable.

6 months is far too long for a consequence at this age. Out of proportion, and also means that consequence isn't available another time. Depending on context, I might also be reluctant to offer nothing else that evening - perhaps just rice and peas, so no reward for not eating the main offering.

Chilli can be difficult because of the spiciness, which children often find too much. I only cope with very mild chilli, with plenty of rice. I used to help on a youth holiday, and we had chilli the night before the kids (12+) arrived, because experience showed that there were usually several kids for whom it was a problem - a pity as it was an easy one to do in huge quantities.

6 month punishment is ridiculous. Obviously an empty threat. But the kids should get nothing else that evening if they have refused their meal.

Depending on context, I might also be reluctant to offer nothing else that evening - perhaps just rice and peas, so no reward for not eating the main offering.

I agree. I guess it depends on age and what you offer or how you structure meals. Nobody’s going to win from a toddler going through a developmental fussy phase waking up ravenous at 4am because a parent decided to stick to their guns and offer nothing else all evening. Whereas if you always offer something they do eat alongside something new or always offer yogurt/cheese and/or fruit after a main you can make sure they have eaten something without seeing any particular part as a reward or lack of it as a punishment.

I’m quite uncomfortable with the idea of withholding particular foods as a punishment for not eating the healthy nutritious part of a meal. I don’t think it’s a very healthy message to be giving children. Or adults for that matter.

I eat nearly everything but I don’t like beans in chilli so a bean chilli would be a no for me and I am fifty. It may be a weird texture for a child unless you are vegetarian and your kids aren’t.

Parent A is a controlling twat.

I wouldn't punish them for not eating it but I wouldn't offer anything else other than toast or fruit. And obviously no treats in the aftermath of the meal if they don't eat it. My stance would be 'eat what you want but I'm not a restaurant'. I wouldn't see this as a punishment, just as a natural consequence.

So he gets to make a completely ridiculous and disproportionate punishment and then if you try be the voice of reason, then you're 'undermining' him? He sounds awful in this situation:(

If he is refusing to read up on matters, and won't entertain a debate about his approach.. I don't know how you'll solve this issue.

Your children will end up with disordered eating, though. My mum made me eat every last bite or I'd not get anything else for the day, or some other punishment. So I force fed myself every meal and had to ignore when I felt full. Didn't matter if I hated the food, or if my portion was huge. Now I'm overweight, always have been, and have an awful relationship with food. I'm still scared to leave any, age 32.

Unless parent A is doing all the cooking, they should butt out.

If they are doing all the cooking, parent B should step up and help with the cooking.

Provide healthy food. Let them take it or leave it.

They aren't fussy

They don’t sound fussy. Very few people like every single food on earth and will eat everything no matter how it’s cooked. Sometimes you don’t like things. There are lots of meals I don’t cook at home because we don’t like them!

It’s always a stupid idea to threaten ridiculous punishments such as ‘no sweets for 6 months.’ Because they are OTT, won’t actually be followed through, and are a ridiculous punishment for politely disliking a meal. I’ve never punished mine for not liking food. If they didn’t like it I’d say ‘okay, never mind. Do you want some toast?’ Just the same as how I’d react if I tried a food I didn’t like.

Parent A is being ridiculous. They’ve tried the meal and don’t like it. Why try and force them to eat something they don’t like with over the top threats of no sweets etc for SIX months? Total overreaction and terrible example to the kids.

The children’s diet also doesn’t sound that limited to me.

Id be wondering why on earth parent A thinks these sorts of silly threats to their children of insanely long punishments when the children haven’t even misbehaved is appropriate? What is parent A thinking this will teach their kids??

My parents were parent A's. My sister developed anorexia and I am obese and really struggle with eating in front of people

Given what you say the children will eat, I do not regard the as fussy eaters. Parent A, on the other hand, I regard as an abusive dickhead who is doing their level best to drive their children away from them and damage the relationship irrevocably.

Their complaints about Parent B undermining them is tosh. Their OTT "no fast food, sweets, junk for 6 months" should be countered as it is not a proportionate response.

Why? What is this silly idea some posters have on here that children are not allowed to dislike something. Would you do this? If you tried a new meal you’d made and thought ‘yuck, this isn’t nice’ would you sit hungry all evening as punishment for not liking it?

It isn’t morally wrong to dislike a food.

Parent A’s give children eating disorders

You don't have fussy children, the one wanting to ban treats for 6 months is unreasonable, and it's a bit odd given the known issues with textures to serve chilli. That sounds like it's creating an issue.

So the message some people want to give is eat something you don’t like or you get punished or go hungry . Quite a number of children would choose go hungry what are you going to do then? Food really shouldn’t be this huge issue, it’s there to fuel your body not as some moral battle ground. If kids genuinely have issues the approach is generally exposure therapy (which begins with just looking or smelling etc). These kids tried the food without issue they shouldn’t be bullied

Absolutely!!! I try new foods with my son here and there. Some he likes and some he gives it a go but doesn’t like. Mostly he finishes it if he’s not keen but let’s me know he wasn’t keen, sometimes he REALLY doesn’t like it so if he’s given it a good try then fair enough, he can have a sandwich or something else and I won’t cook that for him again.

Why should it be such a big deal?

Children are allowed to have their own tastes - love want you say about it not being morally wrong to dislike a food!

This

The whole concept of not getting something else if you don't like a meal is one of the reasons I don't try new things and I have a restricted diet. Because the sheer panic I feel when confronted with something I've never tried before is overwhelming. And it's because I have been forced throughout childhood to either finish food I absolutely hate or to go hungry. So now it's incredibly difficult for me to bring myself to try something new.

My DH and his siblings on the other hand arr very adventurous eaters who will try anything. His parents encouraged them to try new things and if they didn't like them they could have something else. So it was much easier to try something new if they weren't scared of being punished if they didn't like it.