Grandfather smacked DS bottom

[ranblungs]

DS can have meltdowns/big tantrums, usually when he's very tired. More so when he's at his grandparents' house (ex's parents). They have communicated to me that they found his behaviour very difficult at one point, but it seems to have resolved now.

ExDP did live with them but moved our two weeks ago.

DS (aged 4) told me yesterday evening that grandad had smacked his bottom because he was being naughty and that it "really hurt" he got upset as he was telling me and cried. I get the impression this wasn't necessarily recent.

DS also can play up at bed time when he is there and he told me that grandad pushes him back onto the bed for being naughty at bed time.

I'm not sure what to do next?

They are huge sources of childcare, ExDP is supposed to have him two nights per week but often works away so they will have him. They also help out during the week as/when needed.

The relationship between us was once very strained when DS was tiny.

I am furious that he has hit my child. Am I overreacting as it was just a smack on the bottom?

DS can be very challenging there.

Whilst I can't speak for others on this thread, I think that deliberately hurting a child is wrong, and that people who do it are bad.

I expect others feel the same.

For us there is no discussion.

When my middle boy was <2, he had an obsession with trying to put his finger into sockets. 'NO', taking him away, distracting him, covering sockets etc didn't work.

A loud 'NO' and a smacked hand every time he tried it stopped it dead in a week.

Your other argument would imply that any child who ever runs in the road and dies is the fault of the parent for not holding their hand at all times.

Are you honestly telling me that you were a perfect parent, whose child never left their side, never did something dangerous or unexpected they weren't supposed to do, and that you held their hand at all times, everywhere? If you said yes, then you are a liar.

Of course keeping your child safe involves predominantly prevention rather than punishment, but punishment, or threat of punishment is there to cover to 1% of times when they accidentally get out of your sight, or run off suddenly or unpredictably.

Define hurting though?

I have made the argument a few times now and nobody has addressed it that time outs, reflection spots etc are psychological torture, because they are.

You can dress them up any way you like but you are trying to mentally break a child into complying with an order. that is damaging, just not physically.

It can arguably cause more 'hurt' than a quick smack on the bum or hand ever could.

The moral high ground, 'I'd never hurt a child' argument falls down there i'm afraid.

To be clear I'm not against time outs etc, I just want people to be honest with themselves that most people are very happy to 'hurt' a child, but only in certain ways.

@ColonelDax I have never hit either of my kids. I have also never used time outs or anything like that. There are other methods than hurting or scaring your children but I don't think you want to hear that as your are very convinced that you are right which is obviously fine but again I disagree.

Have you ever taken away their toys, or restricted them access to something as a punishment? Or given them a consequence that caused them to suffer?

That's 'hurt' as well.

I'm not doubting that you are an excellent parent and your children are no doubt model citizens, but if you have brought them up for their entire childhoods with 100% no punishment or consequence, then you are either the best parent who has ever lived or incredibly lucky.

Most of us are average parents who simply do our best.

You must have been using some right shit socket covers if your under two year old could get them off and stick his fingers in before you were able to intervene and stop him. You couldn't have been keeping that close an eye on him if he was travelling across the room and getting close to sockets without you noticing soon enough to stop him.

As his only reason to stop it was you being there to hit him, he quite possibly carried on doing it in your absence. All you taught him was not to get caught.

Your other argument would imply that any child who ever runs in the road and dies is the fault of the parent for not holding their hand at all times.

Parents don't have a responsibility to keep very young children off the road?

Are you honestly telling me that you were a perfect parent

God, this old shite again. Anti-hitters think they're perfect. No, of course I'm not a perfect parent, but if a situation arises where I failed to safeguard properly, I recognised that was MY fuck up and hitting the kids for not knowing how to behave safely wasn't the answer.

My oldest once disappeared briefly, aged two and I luckily found him very fast. I did not hit him because it wasn't his fuck up. I bought reins a was more careful about holding his hand and keeping him in sight.

*A poster did answer above by saying that they think there are more effective discipline methods, which is consistent with holding an opinion (albeit one I disagree with) that smacking isn’t always wrong.

there is significant daylight between something being always wrong, and something being the best way. I assume those posters say that they think smacking falls in the middle. Not wrong to abuse, but not the best way either, hence they choose other better methods. I’ve genuinely been really confused why you keep asking that question.*

Thank you @SpideyCraw for providing a tiny voice of sanity in a sea of madness

@ColonelDax yes I've used consequences of no tv but never physical punishment no. I'm not sure that the two are comparable so again we may have to agree to disagree

@ColonelDax and no of course I'm not saying I'm a perfect parent. My kids are however very well behaved. I just think we know better so we should do better.

I'm not perfect, I've said on this thread I'm very average, but I've never had to use reins with any of mine. Make of that what you will.

He couldn't get socket covers off, but then I couldn't put covers on every socket in my house, nor guarantee that he never encountered a socket without one for the next few years until he was old enough to understand electricity.

More importantly though, he never went near a socket again once he made the association so that danger was prevented completely by a few sharp smacks on the hand that caused him to cry for less than 20 seconds each.

I'll take that over a dead or badly burned toddler who I tried to 'reason' with anytime.

My xMil smacked her daughter's son when he was around 3ish for crayoning on a wall...SIL was annoyed with her DM, told her and that was the end of it.
Not a huge drama. If the OPs PIL can't cope with the boy's behaviour without resorting to losing their rag and smacking him it's clearly time to have the same chat and rethinking childcare.

And I've never had to hit any of mine. Reins aren't a form of assault designed to hurt a child. They are entirely preventative. Once you hit a child, the behaviour has already occurred.

I couldn't put covers on every socket in my house

Why on earth not? Because you were using some? You weren't supervising closely enough to notice if he was going to unplug the TV?

nor guarantee that he never encountered a socket without one for the next few years

I guarantee that in in next few years, he would have been old enough to understand that he can't put his fingers in sockets because he will risk hurting himself badly if he does. Or he would, if you explained that to him. But you said yourself that your hitting wasn't designed to explain anything.

The more you talk, the more we are seeing that smacking is for the lazy and wilfully helpless (couldn't possibly cover all sockets, couldn't possibly take responsibility for proper supervision).

Your post accusing me of being insane for contradicting you was deleted. Just saying.

I guess we're not going to hear how your methods are an improvement on smacking?

Socket covers are not recommended as they can be dangerous.
Sanctimonious much....

It seems impossible to discipline kids these days without someone saying you're being cruel, whether a tap on the wrist or a time out. Sometimes you can't speak calmly at their level as they're headbutting you, pulling their baby sisters hair, running out into the road. Life isn't perfect and parents do the best they can.

As to the OP, explain your view on smacking, it's your child, let them change their ways. A smack on the bottom or tap on the hand is not abuse. It may not be ideal but it's not a strict no contact call the police scenario.

And I think demonstrating that the vehement 'smacking is evil' opinion is held by people who are ideologically motivated and wilfully choose not to think about things from an position of honesty.

My position is very clear, smacking isn't the best solution to every situation, or even a solution at all to some things, but it is a valuable part of a parents toolbag and you sneer at it from your moral high ground at your peril.

I also come back again to my point that other 'approved' methods of parenting are equally hurtful, if not more damaging in some cases, but because the hurt occurs internally, that's ok then and doesn't puncture the idea of 'I don't smack, therefore I'm better than you' mentality.

He couldn't get socket covers offWait a minute. You said covering the sockets didn't work?But it did?And you had covers he couldn't get off, but you still chose to hit him when he wasn't old enough to understand?You could have covered the sockets that were free and closely supervised him around the ones that weren't, intervening when he got too close. And explained to him, once he was old enough, why it was dangerous.And you still chose to hit instead?

In my head, the response would be a swift punch in the face, followed by ‘Sorry, I thought violence solved everything??‘.

However, thats obviously not advisable!

Report him for assault, let the police show up at his door to question him. Make it very clear that being a violent pos has consequences.

100% this.

In a perfect world, no child would ever behave badly, and all issues could be calmly explained to children who would then instantly understand and comply.

But we don't live in that world, we live in this one.

smacking isn't the best solution to every situation

It's never the best solution to any situation. It's always a failure. So why, if you're trying your best and you know this, would you not opt for the better solution?

My position is very clear, smacking isn't the best solution to every situation, or even a solution at all to some things, but it is a valuable part of a parents toolbag and you sneer at it from your moral high ground at your peril.

Unless, of course, you're in Scotland and Wales where it is illegal. In which case you risk being arrested or charged with assault, and you may get a criminal record.

Socket covers are not recommended as they can be dangerous.

Not heard that, but if it's true, fine. Supervise your child properly instead and maybe block the socket with something they can't move. Either way, just don't let your child move all around the room, head towards a socket, start reaching for it, and only then decide it's time to do something about it.

Sockets are only one thing that a child might hurt themselves on while going around a room. That's the whole point of supervision and intervening.

I think you are making my point for me. What you are describing is the absolute worst form of helicopter parenting where you hover endlessly over your child, removing any possible issue or barrier so they never have to face it. When do you stop doing that? Do you ever?

How does your method help a child in any way to learn how to adapt to the world or survive in it?

I'd argue that form of parenting damages children far more than a quick smack on the bum ever could! How many young adults do we meet in everyday life who have grown up in this manner and are completely infantilised as a result.

I'd rather live in a society built by people brought with my methods than yours I'm afraid. At least it would function.

Because I'm afraid I disagree. It's often the best solution to some situations.

What you are describing is the absolute worst form of helicopter parenting where you hover endlessly over your child, removing any possible issue or barrier so they never have to face it. When do you stop doing that?

This is actually amazing. Keeping your toddler off the road and away from sockets is "the worst form of helicopter parenting". But failing to prevent a disaster while they're too young to understand danger and then hitting them for it is brilliant parenting.

And you can't work out when you stop supervising them? How about when they're old enough to understand and so you no longer need to?