Delayed punishment for a nearly 4yo

[cornflakegirl]

When I got home from work yesterday, my nearly 4yo DS told me that he'd wet himself at toddler group. He's normally pretty good about using the toilet, although he does have a tendency to jiggle about, swearing blind he doesn't need a wee, then rush off to the toilet two minutes later because he's desperate. Occasionally he has damp pants, but a full on accident is pretty rare.

Later on, DH (who is a SAHD) told DS that he wasn't allowed to use the CBeebies website. When I asked why, DH said it was his punishment for wetting himself. I had a small debate with DH about it not being a suitable punishment (in front of DS, who fortunately didn't pay any attention), but went along with it.

I discussed it later with DH, saying that I didn't think a delayed punishment was a good idea, as DS is too young. However, DH pointed out that DS clearly remembered what he had done and knew it was wrong (he had said to me that Daddy wasn't cross with him any more).

We don't often use punishment as such with DS - generally counting to three, or letting him know that his behaviour is making us cross is enough, although we do sometimes use timeouts. I still feel that it was a random punishment, and that punishing him for carelessness when it isn't an ongoing problem isn't really appropriate. But I'm thinking that I probably overreacted. What should I have done, and how should we handle it in the future?

We sometimes "punish" my DS (nearly 3) for wetting himself. If its a genuine accident and he's playing/forgot/cant get to a loo, we just change him, say its ok and get on with things (similarly to if he wets at night, he's still only young)

However, he used to have a habit of sitting holding it and holding it to watch TV or play - we'll ask if he needs to go, he says no. We tell him to go, he says no. (He'd be holding his willy and knowing he needed a wee at this point) 2 minutes later he would have wet through. In these instances he got whatever he was doing taken away (if he was watching TV its turned off and he's told to play, if he was playing with a car its taken away and he has to play with something else) for about 2-3 minutes. Worked well for us, (more like a consequence than punishment in my eyes - he didnt care about the wet pants or wet sofa) but at this age longer "punishments" dont tend to really work - kids of that age think in minutes not hours.

I have said on here I have known someone who has punished their child for wetting - full on havign to wear the pants on their head, stand in the corner, smacked repeatedly - and I dont think that is right. But IMO YANBU with how you deal with it - but the delay is a bit U

i think 3 or 4 is too young to expect them to think as an adult would regarding toilet and getting there on time

its new to them to go from nappies to learn to understand there bodies to get used to bladder control wetting is all part of learning bladder control and once this has been learnt whether they hold it or not they will still be dry

at this age there bodies are still too immature to get it right all the time and its not a punishable offense to have an accident regardless especially 3 or 4 there only just learning and part of learning is having an accident there minds and bodies couldnt possibly think as we do

and a 2 yr old i would definitely not punish there bodies are just not where they should be at this age there not able to think it out as we would there minds are still so young and they dont understand the meaning to get there on time thats where the parent comes in and just take as them regardless of a no answer every child i know including my ds will always so no i dont ask him i just take him

its how they learn if im out i dont ask ds i just take to nearest toilet asking and understanding comes at a later age at this age prompts and parents taking is perfectly normal

ChippingIn - I think I love you!

redsock - I will accept unreasonable and inappropriate. But cruel is not true, and to suggest that my DH is an unfit parent is very unpleasant.

seeker - I've already taken on board that most people think we're asking too much of DS. I do struggle to remember that he's only 3, and I'm going to work on that.

In the OP's DH's defence ,it sounds as if the boy knows he needs to go , wiggling about ,but is leaving it too late.
However I would give him a little reward for staying dry all day ,rather than punishing him for not !

I had this problem - the forgetting how young they are one - with dd. Looking back on her early years now I've had another child, I cringe when I think how much I expected of her how early!

My mother says that she thinks we should measure their ages in months until they start school to remind us what a short time they've been here - 36 months sound much younger than 3 years somehow!

I would have to disagree that this is a 'mumsnet answer'. I post on many parenting boards, UK and US, and I've never seen anyone encourage another parent to punish their child for wetting themselves.

I've actually started a poll on another parenting site and I'll be back with the answer!

And, for the record, very wrong to punish at all, very very wrong to delay punish.

katiestar - obviously, the reward for staying dry was the way we went when he was toilet training. But he's been dry for so long now that it's no longer something to reward - it's expected behaviour. We probably just need to temper that expectation.

seeker - he's 46 months, nearly 47 - sounds positively decrepit to me!

tee - I await the results with bated breath...

(can't actually believe this thing is still going!)

Delayed punishment - wrong.

Punishment for wetting himself - very wrong.

Seeker - could not agree more!

I agree that delayed punishment is wrong and I do think 3 (nearly 4) is young to expect a child to always get to the toilet. Playing can be all consuming at that age, he needs to be taught that waiting too long is not acceptable. He will learn best through positive reinforcment IMO, things like, when he does make it to the toilet in time telling him how clever he is and that you are really proud that he didn't leave it to long etc (kind of back to basics approach). However, there is nothing wrong with haveing consequences for his actions. I think punishments (especially delayed ones) are not fair at this age, however something like having to put clothes in washer etc (as long as the parent does not react in any other way) can work well. My approach would be Ok, you have had an accident, wash yourself up please and put the clothes in the machine. No anger or frustration just a consequence IYSWIM.

OP, I don't think you are meeting a Mumsnet effect here, I think most people are aware that punishing children for toileting accidents can cause real problems later on with withholding, bladder infections etc. It can also lead to distrust of the parent, if your child has to spend the day thinking oh no, I wet myself, I wonder what/when the punishment will be today then they are going to, eventually, become nervous and start to try to hide things from you, which is not healthy! FWIW, I don't think that this one thing makes you a tough or bad parent but every parent makes errors every now and then, IMHumbleO this is one of those errors.

In fairness there is a huge difference between a 25mo and a 35mo (for example) so I do see why people do it from that POV.

I say "nearly 3" as that is his age. There is a big difference between a 2yr 0m and a 2yr 10m in development and growth - I was trying to state his age when people cant see him. I suppose I could have just said 2yr 10m or 34m, but I say "nearly 3" in real life when people ask so thought I'd write it here too. I have no guilt about the way I bring up or treat my child, I posted to show the OP that not everyone here thinks the same.

I disagree with that Dittany, although I haven't spent much time checking it out. I think I have seen plenty of posts where behaviour was nothing to do with the point but people has still said "nearly X". Even in older children it is important, for example asking should my 11yo go to the shop is a different question to should my nearly 12yo go to the shop, again because 11.1 is very different to 11.11 or 15.1 being different in lots of ways to 15.11. I honestly think it is informative not anything else.

I will look around for it though, you may be right as you may well have noticed things I haven't!

I would call a two year old of 25 months "just turned two" and a 2 year old of 2yr 10m "nearly three" - no hidden agenda to it, its just the way I speak

Like Natt and KC I describe DS as nearly 4 because that is how I think of him and how I talk about him in real life. This may well contribute to me having unrealistic expectations of him - I couldn't possibly comment for anyone else!

I have to agree with the "mumnset opinion" whatever that is.

Punishment for any age for a one-off incident is absolutely unreasonable.

DD (almost 7 and I am only saying that Dittany because she will be 7 on Monday) still has to be reminded to go to the loo. At 4yo she was occasionally wetting herself when she forgot to go. I would tell her to clean up and put new clothes on, sometimes I would tell her off for not going to the loo but would never punish her.

DS is 4yo and is the same. He rarely does it at school but it does happen at home. The only time that I get annoyed is when he has just been told to go and he says that he does not need. I have made him help me clean the bathroom floor in this case so that he learns that it is much easier to go before you are desperate.

[disclaimer]
He loves cleaning so that was not so much of a punishment, more of a game. But it did show him that Mama has more work if he wees in his pants.

Oh - and if I heard a child referred to as "just over one" I would assume they were 13 months, not 25 months.

cornflake girl, I apologise for insinuating that your dh is an unfit parent. his actions were out of order IMO, however that does not mean he is an unfit parent...sorry.

thanks redsock

Oh you've had it in the neck!

First off, I don't think you are cruel, unfit or whatever parents in any way.

You sound like good parents trying to deal with the little incidents we all have to face with kids.

Delayed punishment is pointless at that age.

Accidents do happen, if your ds was distressed/embarressed at all then that would be punishment enough.

I would have just drawn a line under it without the punishment tbh, so YANBU.

you all seem to think that delayed punishment is wrong

so lets change the crime behaviour to hiting a child, not doing as told, being rude etc

would you all then think delayed punishment is bad

for example if my 3.7 (so getting on for nearly 4 ) kept hitting a child/taking their toys etc, and i said if you do it again then no tv tonight after bath - would you all think that was wrong?

Blondes, tbh yes! I would say a consequence has to be tangable and happen at the time of the act at that age (and I have one around that age myself!) In your case it would use removal, so either stop or we leave, stop or you will not have a biscuit with your juice or something like that (and follow through of course). Children find it hard to see into the future and appreciate how something will affect them. I wouldn't expect a delayed punishment to have much effect on the behaviour in question. I would go further and say that a series of delayed punishments makes a child nervous as I said above.

guess it depends what they miss more

tbh my 3yr wont care about missing a biscuit or maybe even leaving where they were but would care about not watching night garden and only playing before bed and story

but agree that removal and going home if out would work

Yes it does have to be relevant to the child in question!