Supernanny put a DH in abuser programme

[CovertTwinkle]

On E4 now ... very mixed feelings about this.
Usually Ive noticed things on these sort of programmes where she ignores threatening behaviour or emotional abuse etc and its not addressed. But this episode they're showing the DH meeting ex-abusers and counsellors etc ...

Do we think this is a good thing in showing the need to address abuse and that help is available or is this infact more damanging by sending out the message that meeting a few people and saying "yeah Ive done some wrong things" means they will be "cured" and everything will be ok?? She did a spectacular speech about how he was a "danger" but did nothing more. Just winds me up. Yet another example, like all the soaps, of abuse being shown as "losing his temper", "having a breakdown" etc and not being addressed correctly.

When things went wrong in my relationship I remember watching a drama and the man hitting the woman, shouting in her face etc and thinking "well, Hugh is only doing that because she can't be sensible with money" (which was the perspecrive the drama showed), and so feeling that because I wasn't keeping on top of housework and being a super mum maybe I deserved it. Has anyone else noticed this?

rambling rant over!!

I've seen that episode a few times and I can't bear it - the father is truly evil.
I agree with your first post though - after he shows JF how he 'belts' his little girls, she takes him out to the garden and he has to throw darts at them to make him see how much his words and actions are hurting them. JF seems to think it will cure him - total bullshit, someone who beats their child doesn't give a crap about stuff like that. And that was proved when he lashed out again not long after.
Didn't know that he had been prosecuted - I'm so glad. Those poor girls. I would google it but I especially cannot stand that man and I think google would reveal a lot about him...

Did you see the other american one with the 2YO triplets and the parents would hit them with this spoon thing, only the mum admitted that it had been broken because he'd hit the child so hard. Sorry, but I don't know how parents like this are taken so lightly by Jo - they are child abusers , there is no point 'beating around the bush' (excuse the pun) and I expect they would go back to hitting their children the first time 'Time Out' didn't work, after JF had gone.

Americans advocate alot of things we don't watched an Oprah episode a few years back that made DH so mad that he actually phoned up about it a parent paddled their very small children for not picking 1 toy up saw another programme where a guy made the paddles and they had scripture on about how it was because of how much they loved their children

Yes, fairly severe corporal punishment is normal in some parts of the US. It makes me feel quite sick :(

dotty I hate that, there is a difference between smacking your child, lightly on the hand, and using a piece of equipment specifically for hitting your child. I don't smack, but there is a big difference. Even the word 'paddling' makes me feel sick.

Bertie You're right, I've noticed in most SuperNanny US they use 'corporal punishment' glorified child abuse I think its absolutely disgusting. I love watching Jo Frost, but rarely watch the US ones because I'd rather not watch a parent beat their child.

Ah yes kate the darts sticking out of the photos of his kids made me feel quite ill. It was as though she was encouraging the inappropraite behaviour by setting him this task of lobbing sharp pointed objects at the faces of his DC. Yes over there "paddling" is common but that doesn't make it acceptable. Glad someone's come along with more info, I hope you were right Tanith and that he was prosecuted. I too remember the spoon one, didn't they also use hot sauce on their children's tongue to discipline disrespect? Maybe that was yet another one??

The father wasn't prosecuted, they were investigated.

The child were placed on the US equivalent of a Child Protection plan.

Jo did make the point that the intervention would take time and as well as child services staying involved, the show said that they would, to.

I am not a fan of her or her methods,but i did wonder if she wanted this aired to show that this behaviour was wrong and needed outside help to get better.

These situations are not fixable from the inside, only and i think that she wanted to make that point.

otchayaniye I couldn't agree with you more. It's a vile program on just about every level.

Just watched some of it on utube. The bit where the teenage girl was crying after he called her a bitch actually made me cry.

I saw the bit where Jo confronted them both and she really laid into them. More then I've ever seen happen on that program before. All about the long term effect and how damaging it is, his despicable language and how the mum should take responsibility as well for allowing her children to be in that situation. I don't think she went softly softly on them at all as implied on this thread.

Its clearly beyond her though. If that man is to ever change (which is extremely unlikely) he needs psychiatrist/psychologist specialist help. Jo is just a nanny/childminder and although i think she is good at what she does she is never going to be able to cure a man of those sort of behaviours.

I was pleased that she gave the woman a kick up the bum. I was half expecting the woman to ask for a divorce during that confrontation as Jo made it sound so awful. I am surprised she hasn't since chucked him out.

I realise that some think it shouldn't have been aired but what would that achieve? To brush it under the carpet i would imagine. Putting it/him on telly raises awareness. Awareness that this happens. That's its happening to this family. That they need help and what this man really is.

Otchayaniye. Why do you feel that her methods are outdated?

The naughty step is one method that is frowned on by OFSTED. They raised concerns a few years ago because some childcarers were using her methods (I'm a childminder).

I think it's worth mentioning that the children she deals with are invariably out of control and I think, to get the quick results demanded by the programme, she has to use drastic means which can be easily adopted by the families. I wouldn't mind betting there's a lot of editing going on as well.

Birdsgottafly thank you for the update on what actually happened.

Yes I heard that about OFSTED and the naughty step too Tanith. I work in childcare but not a CM. Isn't it because it's considered discrimination for a 1yo child to be there for 1 minute and older children get longer?

I no longer watch Supernanny because it's very repetitive. I use to enjoy and be moved watching the ones where she went into recently seperated/ bereaved families and made a difference and helped them look forward to the future but it has gone back to it being a 'show' again.

Isn't it because it's considered discrimination for a 1yo child to be there for 1 minute and older children get longer?

No it's more todo with the conection and thought process needed between behaviour and consequence, which young children don't have.

So the 'sit there and think about what you have done' isn't going to happen or work.

There also needs to be clear bounderies and the child needs to know and be shown how they should be behaving.

Parenting programme's, used as interventions for struggling parents, have never used the methods suggested on Supernanny, because they are not tried and tested and are not evidence, based.

For children who don't have a feeling of security, very few bounderies and whose needs are not being met, as is the case in most of the families on Supernanny, they can be damaging.

The parents need to start to lead by example first, SN does to much, to quickly.

Thanks birds That was how a CM friend of mine was descibed the reasoning behind it (the discrimination that is). She was a bit . But doesn't use it anyway so didn't actually affect her iyswim?

We've also been told it's humiliating in a group situation and young children were getting confused about sitting on the step when they hadn't been "naughty" to put on their shoes, for example.

At this young age, most children aren't really being actively "naughty"; they're finding out about boundaries and what they can and can't do.
My DD aged 2 flooded the bathroom the other day by putting the plug in and turning on both taps. She wasn't being naughty, though: she didn't think to herself "I know what'll really annoy my mummy!". Putting her on a naughty step or in time out to think about what she'd done would be a complete waste of time.

Yes I agree - it's much better to assume good intentions and help the child work out what the correct response would be in a given situation, rather than punishing them arbitrarily.

It's also not good toput the child on the step for swearing etc, when the parents and others who mix with the family actively carryout that behaviour.

The 'Triple P' programme asks about the parents response to the situation,gets them to keep a diary and their behaviour, before looking at the child.

I know that SN observes the family but she seems to move very fast after that initial few days, change doesn't happen that fast.

In my opinion it shouldn't be used below 3 as it has no effect on the child anyway

But schools put children on the "sad chair" which is pretty much the same thing. Are ofsted unhappy about that as well?

As for children getting confused about being put on a naughty step and sitting on a step to put on their shoes, i really can't see that at all. I've never seen any evidence of a child thinking they must have been naughty because they've been asked to sit and put their shoes on. That sounds like classic over thinking it to me.

Punishing a child for swearing when the rest of the family do is just ridiculous, but that doesn't mean that the punishment (naughty step) is the problem, but that the parents don't understand that they should teach by example. They are two separate things.

As is not punishing a young child who doesn't even understand what they have done. That doesn't mean that the idea of a naughty step is wrong, but that the parents are punishing the wrong things.

I agree that they need to connect what they have done with why they are put on the step but again if you are doing it properly you explain to the child when you sit them down why they are there, and then have a discussion about it with them after the 4 or so minutes are up. 4 minutes which allow the parent to calm down if necessary which is just as important as getting the message through as to why they are there. It serves dual purpose. Again the method shouldn't be dismissed because its assumed that parents do it wrong, just pick up their child, shove them on the step with no explanation and wander off leaving the child bewildered.

I agree though that it shouldn't be used on a 1 or 2 year old child.

I don't know about schools, but I understand they are not happy about this in nurseries because of the humiliation aspect. There are better ways to discipline that any professional should be able to utilise.

I do see what you're saying and I'm not saying it doesn't work, just that there are better ways of disciplining.

The putting shoes on, I have heard of happening: our co-ordinator told us about a little girl who'd become distressed when asked to sit on the stair to put her shoes on and it seems to be the little ones who get confused or upset.

To go back to my example, I can explain to my little one until I'm blue in the face what she did wrong and that she mustn't do it again. She will, sort of, understand and remember for all of a minute or two. She will even promise not to do it again.
She will not remember the next time she wants to play with the water and she certainly won't remember any punishment. That's why I've taken the plug off the sink

Young children live in the present. That's not to say they shouldn't be disciplined, just that we need to think more carefully about the methods we use.

Just wanted to add that Jo's behaviourist methods rely on repeatedly punishing the child until he or she stops the behaviour.

How much better for all concerned to encourage a different behaviour through positive methods - and I am talking about young children since that's my experience.

She's not even trained by all accounts

Tanith. What are these other ways of disciplining that you feel are better?

Dotty. Trained in what? Are nannys trained?

What are these other ways of disciplining that you feel are better?
There are quite a few other methods of discipline that don't require naughty step - we've never used it (or going to room or anything along those lines) once. (Am not perfect, cool calm collected parent and child not perfectly behaved by any stretch off the imagination and really I think parents should choose what they think is best after looking into the different approaches) Am pretty against using the word 'naughty' to or about young children though, so would have a problem saying 'naughty step' anyway ;) Ditto the phrase 'good boy' or reward charts etc.

Yes nanny's are normally fully trained in childcare.

Dotty. So are you saying that she never trained but worked as a nanny anyway or was she a childminder?

Elusive. You're being pretty vague there. You've said what you don't do but not what you do. Im guessing UP? I always find they are the ones who are very vague.

I don't have time to fully explain it myself, but developmental psychology has moved away from the behaviourism that was popular in the 50s onwards (although those methods still permeate the child manuals of today, including She Who Must Not Be Named and Supernanny techniques)

This is largely because behaviourism deals with the surface behaviour only and not the underlying cause. It is a method of suppressing undesirable behaviour and as such does nothing to foster (and can damage) the brain systems that develop an ability to read social cues and roles, moral suasion, empathy and cooperation.

Here's a pdf which illustrates some of the issues.

www.drcachildress.org/asp/admin/getFile.asp?RID=4&TID=3&FN=pdf