Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

If i had done what a horrible mum did to her child, to her, i would be up on an assault charge.

95 replies

LEMneedsaholiday · 16/04/2010 18:11

I was in the sweet shop with DD yesterday, we are after chocolate . Mother was with her child with her dodgy looking geezer hanging around outside the shop. Her DD must have been about 18m, so she was obviously going to head for the sweets - which were at her level - her mother was buying cigarettes - growled "leave it" and when she reached out for the sweets she pushed her backwards by her head, quite hard so she fell back. I really wanted to do it to her - and then ask her how she liked it, but of course if i had, i would probably been arrested.

Why is this OK? Well its obviously NOT ok, but in the eyes of the law?????

OP posts:
Bumperliouzzzzzz · 16/04/2010 18:34

I dunno, sounds like an accident. I'm always knocking DD over or standing on part of her as she just gets under my bloody feet and I forget how light she is.

Actually, better call SS on me

AliGrylls · 16/04/2010 18:35

Why do you think it is okay in the eyes of the law?

There are some details that I think maybe I would want to clarify, in particular, whether she had actually had a warning before the "leave it" and if she meant to hit her that hard. Could it have possibly been an accident?

CirrhosisByTheSea · 16/04/2010 18:35

oh it's just so depressing how crap some parents are, isn't it. You wouldn't treat an animal that way

In the eyes of the law though if this left no mark then there's nothing illegal about it.
This is why I think smacking/physical punishment should be completely banned, then this sort of thing could be classed as assault and would be socially even less acceptable than it currently is - people like this would know that anyone watching could take things further.

CirrhosisByTheSea · 16/04/2010 18:37

'pushed her backwards by her head' - an accident?? You think?!

nickschick · 16/04/2010 18:41

This sort of thing pisses me off and I see a lot of it just lately - I actually saw a woman pull her daughters hair ,another time there was a little girl wedged in the shopping trolley by a tin of peas that was digging in her leg on this occasion I did say in a very sweetly 'oh look sweety its this tin that digging in - shall I move it ?' her mother had even covered her legs with a coat so no-one could see but i was soooooooo.

AliGrylls · 16/04/2010 18:49

Cirrhosis, you are making a huge judgement about circumstances you know nothing about. FWIW the parent was clearly in the wrong. She should not have pushed her child at all but how can you prove this was intentional.

The way a parent chooses to discipline a child is generally no-one elses business but their own unless they are actually being abusive. Smacking in itself is not an abuse if the child KNOWS that they are loved, that they have done something wrong, it is not done too hard, and like any punishment is applied sparingly and consistently.

Why do you assume that smacking a child is more abusive than sending a child to their bedroom / sitting on the naughty step for an extended period. All punishments have the potential to be abusive.

CirrhosisByTheSea · 16/04/2010 18:53

Come on, Ali - a push is intentional, fgs

Sorry, to me, smacking is an abuse of power - so is sending a child to their room for an extended period - all punishments have the potential to be abusive yes - but only smacking is actually an assault by definition.

It's crap and I will never agree with it. Children should be protected from physical assault just as adults are - by the law.

AliGrylls · 16/04/2010 19:03

Cirrhosis,

Adults are also protected from "false imprisonment" by law. This, I believe, is termed a "time out" in the world of anti-smacking parents. Forcing an adult to stand in a humiliating position is also illegal (also false imprisonment) but is termed the "naughty step" by anti-smacking parents.

Anyone who believes an adult/child relationship is symmetric, in the same way as an adult/adult relationship should be, is not only deluded but is also failing to do one of the most important jobs of parenting: defining safe boundaries and disciplining transgressions of them. There have to be consequences and, for me, a smack (which, for a young child, can be as little as a tap on the back of the leg with two fingers) is less cruel than a delayed and humiliating punishment, which the child may not even remember is related to its misbehaviour.

JustAnotherManicMummy · 16/04/2010 19:04

Oh dear. This is going to decend into a smacking is ok vs not thread.

FWIW I think if you would do something to an adult then it's acceptable.

I wouldn't ever hit an adult and only shove/push them if it was out of danger. If they had done something wrong I would expect them to be repremanded with a loss of privilages/freedom.

LEM it sounds horrible but the law does say it's illegal only if it leaves a mark. Not that it makes it right. I expect, like child labour, smacking will soon become unacceptable and illegal.

CirrhosisByTheSea · 16/04/2010 19:06

Ali you're making all the usual leaps over logic to get where you are

not smacking does not mean you give extended time outs, or make your kids stand in humiliating positions Not smacking does not mean you think adult child relationships are 'symmetric'. It does not mean you don't give your kids safe boundaries.

Your arguments are utterly illogical and silly.

The trick you see, is to use neither a smack nor inappropriate punishments.

CirrhosisByTheSea · 16/04/2010 19:09

Agree, JustAnother - I've read enough smacking/not smacking stuff. I will disengage - it really is the very defintion of pointless.

AliGrylls · 16/04/2010 19:12

Cirrhosis,

In you world a smack is a smack, so why is a time out not a time out. You seem to be able to distinguish subtle differences in every other punishment bar smacking, yet you have a very absolute view of smacking, equating it always with beating.

If you observe real parents and real children, instead of some ideal and unrealistic world, the happiest children are those who have set and consistent boundaries, enforced by real consequences. I am not advocating smacking a 9 year old. Quite clearly, other punishments are more appropriate at that age. Smacking is appropriate at the age where a child knows he is misbehaving but has too short a memory span for a delayed consequence. The purpose of a smack is not to inflict pain but to let your child know it has seriously misbehaved and disappointed you. If it gets to the level of inflicting serious pain, it is not being used appropriately.

Original poster
LEMneedsaholiday · 16/04/2010 19:18

Sadly, there was no way it was an accident

OP posts:
TinaSparkles · 16/04/2010 19:18

Ali, in this case though a "smack" at 18 months as a form of punishment or setting boundaries is clearly wrong.

Agree with you Cirrhosis.

Who knows though, it may have all been accidental, but I'd feel like you LEM if I had seen this, it goes against all your instincts to protect children.

Adair · 16/04/2010 19:18

HUh, Ali?

  1. huh? 'the purpose of a smack is not to inflict pain but to let your child know it [sic] has seriously misbehaved and disappointed you' - would a cross face/tone not cut it for you? It certainly works for my two (and the teenagers I teach that I am not allowed to smack)

  2. This is NOT about smacking. How can 'leave it' and pushing someone backwards be similar to smacking? Sounds like she lost it and was stressed out. But not ok. No.

Original poster
LEMneedsaholiday · 16/04/2010 19:25

eeeeee well, thats a whole can of worms then.

We don't smack our DD2, i did smack DD1 and it was acceptable then - 20 years ago . I don't think it did her any good, and it certainly didn't help with discipline issues. For those reasons, we don't smack.

What i witnessed was a spitefull push with heel of the womans hand on her DDs forehead which sent her back into a sitting position. How i kept my mouth shut i don't know.

Ali - you know, i agree with you re the naughty step, i don't like it - i have done it with DD and it causes more upset than necessary. I just think if you have to resort to physical punishment then you have lost the battle. This poor little girl wasn't doing anything wrong - i guess you had to be there, this wasn't a harrased mother at the end of her tether, this was a lazy slag who obviously lashes out at her children all the time and didnt even think for a minute that the other people in the shop would be and about her behaviour.

OP posts:
MillyR · 16/04/2010 19:27

I tend to agree with Ali. The whole naughty step, stand over there, stay in your room, would be illegal if done to an adult. It is also ultimately based on force.

I cannot do this to my twelve year old, because if I told him to go to his room or stand on a naughty step, he would simply say 'no.'

What am I going to do? Move him there by force?

I have to use punishments that would be legal with an adult, such as saying you cannot any electrical item in my house. Even then, my control of him is based on our economic inequality. But there should be some inequality, because he is a child and I am a responsible adult.

Original poster
LEMneedsaholiday · 16/04/2010 19:31

THe best bit of leverage with a teenager is their mobile phone mwahhahahahaha!!

OP posts:
JustAnotherManicMummy · 16/04/2010 19:31

"stand over there, stay in your room, would be illegal if done to an adult" Sorry Milly but surely curfews, tagging and prisons are exactly that? they curtail people's freedoms.

The only difference is that as an adult justice is dispatched by the state. As a child it's your parents.

AliGrylls · 16/04/2010 19:32

Adair,

I think if you read my post you will actually see that I disagreed with her course of action.

Discipline by tone of voice - I am always dubious of this! I know a few people who say tone of voice works but whenever I have seen them at it all I witness is their children walking all over them, continuing with their tantrum and not listening to / respecting their parents (and yes I think children should respect their parents).

I am sure some people are good at it but personally I think it is rare. It would not work for me because every time I get cross at people I make them laugh instead. It just wouldn't work.

Adair · 16/04/2010 19:32

It's nothing to do with adult/child. It's to do with not being necessary.

I feel the same way (to a lesser degree) about the naughty step tbh. I don't use smacking as a technique or the naughty step. I occasionally use force to put her away from me, or walk away if my daughter hits me. I don't hurt her as a strategy. I have lost it on occasion but I am not proud.

MillyR · 16/04/2010 19:32

It is also legal for the state to use force and physical violence against citizens. Hence riot police, armed police and all police carrying truncheons.

AliGrylls · 16/04/2010 19:33

Good point ManicMummy.

Adair · 16/04/2010 19:33

Tone of voice + consequences that you follow through. You don't have to shout. You don't have to smack. REally.

JustAnotherManicMummy · 16/04/2010 19:34

The state cannot use physical violence against an individual unless it is in self-defence. At least that is the case in this country. And quite right too.