Dd says she wants to live with her dad.

[NumTumDeDum]

Dd is only just 5 and recently started reception. Dad had her the first weekend after her first week and so she us incredibly over tired at the moment. This means she is listless, argumentative and stubborn. I've tried to give her a relaxed weekend but she's played up, and so she's been on the naughty step a few times. She's been facetiming her dad, his girlfriend and her children a lot over the weekend, once with my knowledge and twice without. (Dad gave her an ipod touch so he didn't have to get me to set up the webcam).

She went up to bed last night and then started crying for her dad and saying she wanted to live with him. She calmed down quickly but then said it again this morning. I don't know if she's serious or just missing him or trying to get at me for putting her on the naughty step. If I've told her off about something previously she generally wants dh to read her story at night and vice versa, me if he's had cause to tell her off.

At what point do I take this seriously?

I don't know, but I feel for you. Am century separated with a dd4 and ds6, and I dread this coming up. It hasn't yet thank goodness. Let me knw how you get on and good luck.

Personally, I would ask her why she feels like she wants to live with him, and ask her what she would like to be different at home, to stop her feeling that way. I would explain that she is very loved by you both, and will always see you both, and if she misses dad she has lots of ways to contact him and will see him soon, but that your house is her home first.

You mention other children at dads house, maybe this is part of the appeal. Could you have her friends round more often?

Maybe set up a calendar in her room with "mummy days" in pink and "daddy days"in blue (ha excuse the colour choice!).

Get her a wee album and put in all the photos of her family, so she can look at you all anytime. Talk about dad positively to show her that you know he is a big part of her life e.g. With foods "oh daddy loves this, eat up" sort of thing, or with tv "daddy used to watch that cartoon you know".

That's the sort of stuff I have done anyway - whether it is "right" or not I don't know, but didn't want to read and run, because I really sympathise.

Don't know why it says century. Recently.

My DH has to dd's and we have had this a lot with his youngest, who was 1 when her parents split up and 3 when I first met her. She is now 10 and it doesn't come up as much as it used to but it does still happen.

Sometimes she will just say she misses her mum at bedtime and then my DH will tell her that it is ok to miss her mum and she will see her very soon. Other times it is more that she has been told off so will cry for her mum. I think this happens at her mums house as well and is pretty normal.

My advise is that, at this age, the adults decide where a child spends their time. It is unfair on the child for it to be any other way. They can't be expected to choose between parents. If you have set times when your dd is with your ex then you can explain quite clearly to her that on these days she will be at her dads and on the other days she will be with you. If she says when she is with you that she wants to be with her dad then just say "well that's good because on Saturday you will be going there".

We had one terrible incident here where dh's ex had called to speak to the girls and the youngest had been told off and was crying on the phone to her mum. Her mum then came over (against DH's wishes) and asked her if she wanted to go back with her. dsd was hysterical and saying she couldn't decide. Well of course she couldn't and her mother should not have put her in that situation.

Be firm and consistent as it is the consistency that builds the security for her.

I'm not sure about the face-timing either. I think a call over the weekend is good but constant on-tap communication is just unsettling. I think that whichever house a child is in they should actually "be there" and joining in with that household and not spending an excessive amount of time communicating with the other.

I completely agree with the previous poster, excellent advice. I'm not divorced and dd will show a preference to parent b if parent a has told her off. It seems to be a version of that although horrible for you because of the fear that its more. Nobody else is her mummy, you cant be replaced. You only have to see the effect on kids of not having their mummy available to know that.

Thanks all. I really am annoyed about the ipod. There are no safety setting set and I can't do it because they set up the account. I've settled for switching the wifi off today and I'll turn it back on when it's time to make a call. I think the extra facetiming has unsettled her massively. I don't call as a rule when she's at dads unless it's longer than a weekend because I want her to be settled there.

Absolutely yes, where she lives is our decision not hers, I was just wondering at what point do I take those wishes seriously? Because if she genuinely wants to live there I would have to give it some thought, because I want her to be happy. I am reasonably confident she doesn't mean it and is testing me but there's always that little seed of doubt!

I

I also agree that the face-timing is OTT. At this stage she is very emotional anyway & constant contact with dad (who isn't punishing her or "walking away" from her - I'll come to that in a mo) is just making it seem like he is more fun than you (I am not saying that to be horrible)

Now, with the walking away (not that you are, but she may see it as such), I am talking about the time out/naughty step. Please bear in mind that my dd has also started school recently, and has just finished her first 10 week term (we are in Australia, so different timings here), so I am not criticizing. I know how hard it can be having an emotional child around when you thought that you were pretty much past that phase. Just letting you know that we are in similar boats wrt tiredness etc.

I don't like the naughty step (and I say this as someone who used it for dd1) because to me, it feels like you are excluding the child for what is, essentially (most of the time), child like behaviour. You put them in a spot & walk away for x amount of minutes. Now, her behaviour is bound to deteriorate at the moment because she is so tired. This is the not the time that she needs you to walk away from her, she needs you, she needs constant reassurance that you will be there no matter what (especially if this is the first time she has been left for any amount of time.) And to me, this means no naughty step, but an alternative sanction if she misbehaves. And lots of talking/some negotiating.

I do also think that you need to cut her a little slack wrt to her behaviour, again, especially as you know reception is exhausting her so much. Choose your battles & all that!

If she feels you are being unfair/mean/horrible/anything else (which let's face it, most kids do at some point) of course living with daddy will seem more attractive. Until she realises that daddy has rules too & she needs to behave there too.

I disagree with differentname - if you would normally use the naughty step then this is a consistent approach and you shouldn't change this at a time when a lot else is changing in her life.

I have tried with my own children to not go over the top with discipline when their behaviour would just fall into the category of "Child-like irresponsibility/behaviour". But to not discipline a child when they are being openly stubborn or defiant just because they are tired is just demonstrating inconsistency which in the long run won't help.

The op did say she was trying to give her a relaxing time so was already making allowances and was aware of the tiredness.

I didn't advocate not disciplining, just not using the naughty step when the whole premise of it is to exclude the child.

She is probably feeling excluded enough & there are better approaches to an upset/emotional child than to send them away.

I wouldn't like my family to send me away if I was upset/over tired/needing something, so I wouldn't do it to a child.

But discipline is not supposed to be enjoyable is it?

The OP is using the naughty step as a method of discipline as are a great many other people. I assume she is not making the child sit on it for extended periods and I really don't think 5 or 10 minutes is going to make the child feel excluded or sent away from the family.

With children this age an immediate punishment is easier to understand than a delayed one. With an older child you can say they can't watch TV that evening , or can't go to play with a friend. A five year old will not feel punished at the time with this approach and will find it hard to understand later when the punishment is applied.

Did I say it had to be enjoyable? I am just trying to point out that at this point in the child's life, exclusion as a punishment is not going to be (IMO) a very productive way to deal with this behaviour.

But I do understand that lots of people think that walking away from someone who is upset is OK. I wouldn't walk away from my dh if he were upset, nor would I do it to a friend, so I don't do it to my kids.

I really don't think 5 or 10 minutes is going to make the child feel excluded or sent away from the family

10 minutes is a long time to a child.

A five year old will not feel punished at the time with this approach and will find it hard to understand later when the punishment is applied

Again, not suggesting it isn't tackled there & then, either. Just in a different way.

My 5yr old understands your above scenario pretty well though.

What discipline are you suggesting then?