To think that being super strict with a 14-year-old will probably backfire?

[OneLovingHazelLemur]

I get that teenagers need boundaries but I feel like being overly strict with a 14-year-old is just asking for trouble. At that age, they’re naturally pushing for more independence, and if you try to control every little thing, they’ll just find ways to rebel or hide things from you.

Obviously, I’m not saying parents should let them do whatever they want but I think a balance of guidance and trust works better than rigid rules and punishments. We’ve all been 14 before - if someone tried to control your every move, did it make you more obedient or just more sneaky?

Yes they'll end up going behind your back. Or off the rails.

I've learnt the hard way that you are absolutely correct. And actually it allows them to mature. But they do still need boundaries, but they need autonomy and the opportunity to learn from their mistakes as well.

My child absolutely coveted anything forbidden. As soon as they were allowed it, they weren't interested. It was the actual act of rebellion they wanted, not the actual 'thing'.

I thought this about a relative. Their home was run like a boot camp, so strict with the children. God help the child who left a toothpaste cap off or didn’t fold trousers the right way ( from primary age) There was a rule for everything. They’ll rebel, I said, all hell will let loose when they’re teenagers.
Nope. Worked hard at school, both went to Uni, got jobs. But nice people with more sense of humour and personality than the parents. The son’s wife tragically died young and he brought up their two children while working, didn’t introduce another woman into their lives for years. So not always predictable.

Yeah, they will 100% hide things from you if you're too strict and - worse - they won't come to you for help when they need it if they know that you'll come down hard on them for every little thing.

With my teens we have an agreement that if they are ever in bother, ever unsure, ever realise they've fucked up then they need to call me and I will come get them, no questions asked. Once they're home and safe, then we can talk about what happened and why but I never want them to be sitting somewhere scared to phone me in case I kick off with them. My eldest (16) has used this twice, once when they were at a house party and someone brought alcohol and another time when they went two villages over with a friend instead of just to the next village like they'd said they were going (DC wasn't sure how to get back and last bus had been and gone at 6pm, which is why they were only meant to go to the next village as that one is walking distance).

I tend to take more of a consequences approach than a punitive one because the real world works on consequences related to actions. I keep grounding, removal of tech/phones, etc as my nuclear option so that if I do need to go down that route they know that they've really, really fucked up.

it depends what you mean by strict. My 15yo DD's friends think I am super strict because I won't allow her to stay out until 11pm like some of them do.

My mother tried to control everything with me and my sisters growing up i mean everything.
She was an awful person as soon as we could we ran for the hills and never went back.

I think there are a lot of variables. My mum was very easy going but my dad was very, very strict. I hated the strictness but I think it also balanced out any temptation to take the piss with my mum when he was working away and I was relatively responsible.

Completely depends what it is. I try and say ‘yes’ as much as reasonably possible- can I go shopping with friends, can they have a sleepover here, can I go into town after school. Things that don’t impact anything really. I’ve found it helps when dd asks ‘Can I go to a party until 11pm’ (she’s 13) and I say no as we all know I’m not an unreasonable parent.

I'm known as a strict parent.
There is a "screens downstairs" time, and it's enforced.
The kids do chores (for free).
Manners are enforced.
Homework has to be done.

I want to know the rough plan for where they are going, but will generally say yes to going out and about. I too am always prepared to be the "bad parent" and be blamed if he wants to come home - and will always collect.

Still got time for it all to go off the rails, but not regretting it yet.

It depends on the circumstances and what you mean by “strict”. If they arent your kids you dont know the full circumstances.

I'm a ton of bricks on the important stuff like bullying, respect, general attitude towards me and others but more relaxed on other things.

If they wanted to go out further than usual with friends, I let them but insist they take charged phone, emergency money and an underground map if its London.

Stuff like drinking, I just didn't forbid it and they tried it young, didn't like it and lost interest. I think my eldest tried some of my alcohol at about 6, proclaimed it disgusting and the same happened with smoking when he was 12. He tried a puff of his grandads cigarette, was absolutely appalled by the taste and showed no interest since.

Totally agree! The teenage years felt like a rollercoaster to me but on the surface I tried to remain laid back. My dc were always good at keeping in touch when out late (they know I worry). And a well raised child knows right from wrong by the time they’re a teen.

I think as your children reach their teens it becomes less of a 'do as you're told' and more of a negotiation. So for instance, I would say if you get your homework done tonight, you can go to that party tomorrow. Mine didn't really have a bedtime by the time they were 13, but they generally went to bed 10/10.30 during the week. Didn't really have screen time limits but were busy doing other things so weren't on the Xbox for hours. My expectation was that they spoke to me politely and on the few occasions that they were rude, they were just reminded that I do things for them (lifts, money for going out, phone) because I love them but that I don't have to do them, and won't if they speak to me rudely. They were honestly pretty good teens apart from the odd blip!

Totally understand. Trust and respect with my teens are so important to me especially because my own parents were very dismissive and "because I told you so" types. I try to be more conversational with my teens and include them in boundary-setting. x

It depends on what is meant by strict, and also what conversations are going on in the home around this.

Two things I have always made clear - one, that we are the adults, the parents and therefore ultimately in charge, and two) that it’s not always about trusting or not trusting DD, it’s about not trusting other people who I don’t know from Adam.

Wherever we fall on the strictness front we seem to be doing OK because DD isn’t interested at all in going clubbing or drinking or anything like that.

there are many different kinds of strict.

• consistently strict over every little thing (folding trousers)
• haphazard rules that are sometimes enforced
• irrational rules where minor things are enforced but major things are missed
• basic boundaries (stay safe, let someone know where you are) but no fussy over the small stuff
• no rules at all

and a lot of variants in between. I think consistency and rational rules are important for kids (and adults) at all ages. haphazard and irrational rules make people much more likely to push-back or ignore them.

You cant go too far one way or the other i think.

When you're too 'right on' and allow everything teens have nothing to rebel against and may push even further. If youre too strict theu rebel against everything

It depends on the kids, I think. Some need a lot of structure and feel safer with it. Others can't bear being restricted in any way and need a lighter hand on the reins (I have five and they were a complete mixture, but I think I was generally too lax, although they've all turned out very well I gained a LOT of grey hairs...)

I worked with someone whose children were 'managed' on an infinite scale. Me and other co workers would roll our eyes somewhat as she recounted how and what her children had to do and how she thought she was doing parenting 'right'. She now no longer sees either of her children; they were off as soon as they were legally able.

I think this is a good balance and sounds like good parenting.

It depends what 'strict' actually entails?

I think there are lots of sayings that cover this; "Give an inch, take a mile" would be a strict way to look at things...whereas "Pick your Battles" is my preferred approach. Who cares if they are incredibly messy and don't make their bed as long as they are managing to get to school and do most of their schoolwork. Yes they need to feel safe and by setting boundaries that might make them feel you are interested and connected but if the boundaries create distance and hostility the problems begin. "How dare you speak to me like that !"..isn't a good way to enforce a boundary. Not does it model politeness."

I still remember a mother of a DD’s classmate (they were about that age) telling me how she certainly didn’t allow this or that, in particular attending any teen parties. ‘Far too young!’
Dd told me later that the daughter used to go anyway, having told parents that she was on a sleepover at a schoolfriend’s house. And how a year or two later the same girl on a (mixed) camping trip got completely pissed and was running around yelling, ‘Somebody take me! I’m a virgin!’ 😂