DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Should "behavioral disorder" be a legit excuse?
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 109, (reverse)
AuthorThread
06/18/2007 01:40:58 AM · #26
Originally posted by dudephil:

What do you think should've been done in my situation?

How about sitting down in between the kid and the baby so he can't splash? If the mom asks what you're doing, you could say you heard her ask the boy not to splash the baby, and you were just trying to see that the baby didn't get wet. Protecting the baby, not "doing anything" about the boy ...

Disciplining other people's children never works -- the kids won't listen to you, and the parent is sure to get the defensive and resistant, even if they know you are right.
06/18/2007 01:42:35 AM · #27
Originally posted by mk:

I dunno, if this was swimming near me, I'd probably splash it too.

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/47933/thumb/509583.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/47933/thumb/509583.jpg', '/') + 1) . '


LOL. Is his name Chucky by any chance?
06/18/2007 01:58:46 AM · #28
This whole issue of tolerance is simply a mask for complaceny and indifference. I remember us getting whacked on the back of the head for crap like that and it did not destroy the core of my "self-being". I think the kid needs to learn from someone or something as they ultimately will anyhow. If the parents are too oblivious to remedy basic social misconduct, it is stupid to think a consequence will not result. The "foot up the ass" consequence is a well suited solution for parents who are not willing to get their shoes dirty. On behalf of all of us who like toassume responsibilty for instilling decent behaviour in our children ...... THANKS!
06/18/2007 02:34:59 AM · #29
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by dudephil:

What do you think should've been done in my situation?

How about sitting down in between the kid and the baby so he can't splash? If the mom asks what you're doing, you could say you heard her ask the boy not to splash the baby, and you were just trying to see that the baby didn't get wet. Protecting the baby, not "doing anything" about the boy ...

Disciplining other people's children never works -- the kids won't listen to you, and the parent is sure to get the defensive and resistant, even if they know you are right.


Bingo. She should have stopped him, even if it meant physically moving him away or going home. And you were legitimately concerned about your baby, in a frustrating situation when you just wanted to relax.

But you have no idea what their family situation is, what he's been diagnosed with, or anything else based on one experience of a few minutes.

Just for the sake of argument, though, let's assume it's just what most of the people seem to have assumed: she's a lousy mother who doesn't know how to discipline her child. Doesn't change a thing.

Threatening to hurt him was wrong and counterproductive. It's guaranteed to not get the result you want, and quite possibly could lead to YOU getting in trouble with the pool management or any other authority that happened to be nearby.

Let's flip this around: you, the adult who's paying attention, allowed your baby to be splashed so much he couldn't catch his breath? By a 10 year old who's what, 1/2 your size? Yes, it's a tough situation and you had to do something quickly. But threatening him isn't the answer.

For example, are you a member of this pool? Could you complain to the management?

Was there some spot 10 feet further away you could've gone? No, it's not ideal, and it's not right, but would it have solved the problem?

For those of you who say he exerted more restraint than you would've: really? You would've what, spanked the boy? Thrown him away from your baby? Splashed him so he'd cry? Kicked him for real? Aside from engaging in fantasies, just what would you have done?

Message edited by author 2007-06-18 02:46:05.
06/18/2007 03:02:36 AM · #30
Personally I think you did the right thing. I'd probably have raised my voice at the mother as well.
I'd have made well sure they knew I was not happy with the little brat.
06/18/2007 03:21:46 AM · #31
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by trevytrev:

Actually I agree that a foot in the ass problem usually cures behavoir problems.

Yeah, like if you don;t like what someone's doing hurt them until they do. How is that any different from what the kid was doing -- exerting physical dominance over a weaker being?


How is it different?

Uhh lets see. Splashing a 1 year old baby for no reason has -- no reason.

Disciplining the child with physical means because he doesn't respond to verbal input has a purpose.

If you never lay the groundwork for someone to be able to understand that verbal input is something you need to listen to, they will never learn... Then the only thing that will teach them is to kill them. Of course this is only usually really appropriate in places that have the death penalty and a clean-ish judicial system... still happens though. the sad thing is that in order for them to get that far, they usually end up taking someone out first... We each have a choice to make - whether to listen to discipline or set our own rules. Most people eventually decide to follow the rules. those that don't generally get hurt, die, or kill/hurt someone and end up in jail.

Want some examples? Check your local newspaper... Today the example was of a race car driver who didn't listen to the rules of a road race exhibition and drove his car past the guard rails... A capital crime? Hardly. However, he then lost control of his vehicle and killed a half dozen kids. All from the mentality 'yeah, there are rules, but this is fun for me'.

Imagine if the child had continued and the small child had died. Would it be inappropriate for the parent to pick the 10 year old up, swing him around and dash his brains out on the sidewalk? probably not... although plenty of justice systems in the past allowed this... In our modern world though, with all its confusion about right versus freedom, what is clearly called for in this circumstance is PREVENTION, not merely response.

the fact that the above tragedy did not occur is likely due to the fact that Phil brought the matter up to someone else who had authority in the child's life. She responded like a mindless robot, but the result was satisfactory. The child and mother left and the pool was a safer place. If she had not left, the responsibility for safety is the management of the establishment, therefore it could be presented to them as a problem.

People only have rights until they choose to take away the rights of others.

Message edited by author 2007-06-18 03:27:29.
06/18/2007 03:44:01 AM · #32
Wonder if this kid's mother will tell the arresting officer to leave him alone because of his behavioral disorder after he robbed the old lady at the crossing.....
06/18/2007 04:48:45 AM · #33
I too think you did the right thing but I also like the idea of getting between the two kids and if he continues maybe say something to the lifeguard (provided there is one).

Originally posted by dacrazyrn:

...Not in the same dangerous vein, but shows you how they will grow up. Lady in Wally World....BIG basket full of crap...goes right into the 10 items or less lane. I come around the corner and the she has filled the conveyor thing with half a basket left. No one stayed behind her....so I went down and found a yardstick. Came back and she is still unloading. I walk up and start tapping the stick on the 10. She looks at me and says "What?" I said, you need help reading? "F*&% you." I looked at the cashier and asked if I could go in front of her and went around and got my 2 things. She was not happy. If I were the cashier...I would have her loading her basket back up and moving to another lane. She didn't. So, no lesson learned. She will do it again, and again, and again.


Not to really defend the lady, (because she was in the wrong) but I have been in the store before with more than 10 items and the express clerk actually offered to check me out because there wasn't really anyone checking out and she was bored. Granted I have also stepped aside and let someone with less items go before me which is exactly what she should have offered to do for you. It really doesn't sound like this was her situation but it does happen.
06/18/2007 07:58:12 AM · #34
Originally posted by levyj413:

But you have no idea what their family situation is, what he's been diagnosed with, or anything else based on one experience of a few minutes.



Why should we care in this case? Passing the buck, how politically correct can you get. The parent still should have control over their childen, especially when they are right there and even more if they have a problem child. This parent didn't give a ripe, so why should anyone care about their home situation.

06/18/2007 08:37:56 AM · #35
Satan is three and a half years old, and he stayed at my house for the entire weekend. I did my best to stay happily drunk. My apologies to team Trigger Happy, which had to put up with my P.W.I.

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/35357/thumb/213786.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/35357/thumb/213786.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

My two children are almost perfectly behaved, loving, and polite. This last weekend has really opened my eyes to that. My 8 and 5 year old girls also breathed a big sigh of relief when Satan left.
06/18/2007 08:45:15 AM · #36
Great discussion and, to be honest, I am surprised that so many people share the same view. I was ready for an overwhelming majority to tell me that I was simply a neanderthal who should've given the kid a break.

Originally posted by GeneralE:


How about sitting down in between the kid and the baby so he can't splash?


Originally posted by levyj413:



Was there some spot 10 feet further away you could've gone? No, it's not ideal, and it's not right, but would it have solved the problem?



Tried both of those things guys. I think if Ghandi was there even he would've lost his mind. The entire time I was betweeen him and Brady but water being splashed has a way of not being blocked by a body. The pool went from 4 ft then dropped to 8. Everywhere I went in the 4 ft part this kid would follow. You should've seen this. One of the craziest things I have ever witnessed was him following us around the shallow end like an animal while mom sat and read the Sunday paper. Sure, I could've got out of the pool but why should I have to do that? More on that in a minute.

After they left I asked Steph if she thought I was out of line. She's usually brutally honest with me but said that I took it longer than she thought I would. Said she had never experienced anything so weird, obnoxious and frustrating. She said that if it were her child she would've been mortified by his behavior no matter what condition he had. This leads me to my question.

Why should people with these types of disorders be appeased no matter their age? Why do we have to write off almost being assaulted to, "he's got something wrong with him", or, "he has a disorder"? If they can't be non confrontational in a public place why do they get to be in that public place? I understand that there are fine lines and this is just an exception, but if mom knew what he was going to do (obviously she did) why should I be expected do anything out of the norm to stop this from happening? Don't you think that simply ignoring these kids and just getting away from their area is doing them a disservice?
06/18/2007 08:54:55 AM · #37
Originally posted by mk:

I dunno, if this was swimming near me, I'd probably splash it too.

LOL!

By the way, the kid was splashing your baby, keyword baby. You had a right to protect your baby however you could.

Message edited by author 2007-06-18 08:56:55.
06/18/2007 09:02:26 AM · #38
Personally, I would have told the mother to control her kid or I would do it for her. At that point it's up to her. I would probably have taken my kid to the lifeguard and asked them to address the kid's behavior. If the pool was unsupervised, then I would address it. My priority as a parent is the safety and well-being of my kids, if that includes getting in some 10 year old's face and re-adjusting his attitude because his "mom" is too damn lazy to supervise her child's behavior, then so be it.
06/18/2007 09:10:18 AM · #39
No one has suggested another solution that in most cases does work. Why not engage the child in friendly conversation or an activity that would have changed his immediate behavior? Suppose he was acting out to get attention. What would it hurt anyone to give him the attention he wanted? Once he had stopped splashing the baby and had what he wanted, it would have been a good oportunity to calmly discuss why he was doing what he was doing. Sure, it's not your job to teach him how to behave, it was the mother's job, but I think the world would be much better off if we each thought that all children are our children and all children deserve the same treatment that our own children deserve. Instead of looking at how bad he is and how lousy his mother is, look at how you can add to his world and help him see how the world can be. Lead by example.
06/18/2007 09:23:11 AM · #40
I personally favor the size 12.5 "Foot in the ass" solution. Pretty good chance of a photo opp0rtunity at the moment of impact.... I certainly would score it well in the "Free Study", prob a 10.

Message edited by author 2007-06-18 09:23:39.
06/18/2007 09:53:34 AM · #41
Originally posted by pcody:

No one has suggested another solution that in most cases does work. Why not engage the child in friendly conversation or an activity that would have changed his immediate behavior? Suppose he was acting out to get attention. What would it hurt anyone to give him the attention he wanted? Once he had stopped splashing the baby and had what he wanted, it would have been a good oportunity to calmly discuss why he was doing what he was doing. Sure, it's not your job to teach him how to behave, it was the mother's job, but I think the world would be much better off if we each thought that all children are our children and all children deserve the same treatment that our own children deserve. Instead of looking at how bad he is and how lousy his mother is, look at how you can add to his world and help him see how the world can be. Lead by example.


Sure, leave the baby unsupervised in the pool while dealing with someone else's problem child.
06/18/2007 10:00:08 AM · #42
Originally posted by pcody:

No one has suggested another solution that in most cases does work. Why not engage the child in friendly conversation or an activity that would have changed his immediate behavior?


if he was splaying the baby to get attention and you give him that attention, you're applying positive reinforcement of the unacceptable behavior.

a better solution would have been to start splashing the mother, each time her son splashed you. preferably with a large bucket so she didn't miss the point...

actually, i do agree with those who said you should have directed your threat of whooopassicillin on her, not the child. at least in the modern day. personally, i long for the old days when you could spank a child like that and then send them home where they'd get another spanking from the parents...
06/18/2007 10:02:06 AM · #43
No. The kid was near the baby. A little eye contact and a friendly attitude would have been enough to get it going. By reacting in a negative manner, all that was accomplished is the kid went away knowing that he is a problem that must be separated from "normal" nice people. Yes, Phil must protect the baby. But people really miss a good opportunity to improve the world when they dismiss kids and label them as bad and not their responsibility.
06/18/2007 10:04:28 AM · #44
Originally posted by dudephil:

Took the one year old to the pool today. As soon as we got there I heard a mother tell her son (probably 10-11 yrs of age), don't splash that baby. Well, you guessed it - he constantly splashed the baby. At first he was acting like he wasn't doing it on purpose but it finally got to the point where he was using his hand to splash him like you do your buddies in a water fight; totally ridiculous and waaaay over the top. Brady was crying and couldn't catch his breath. Mom never said a word after the initial, "don't splash the baby". I told the kid to chill out to which mom promptly replied, "Leave him alone, he has a behavioral disorder". I told her that he was about to have a foot in the ass disorder and believe it or not, she didn't like that. Weird huh? She gets their stuff together and leaves. The whole time she's telling him that he did nothing wrong because he couldn't help it. Now, I think I'm beginning to see the cause of this kid's behavioral disorder.

Now I have a couple of questions.

1. Was I out of line and if so, why was the parent and/or kid not?

2. Should we, as a society, accept a "behavioral disorder" to be a legitimate excuse to allow someone to act this way. This wasn't a loud kid in a restaurant, or smart assed child in a supermarket. This was a youngster who was determined to do harm to a one year old child.


What's done is already done. I can tell you what I do in situations like this...leave. There is no way to know the back-story, no way to predict the consequences of confronting or interacting w/disturbed people, whether they are pathalogically disturbed or just temporarily in a bad mood. They have their path, I have mine. You have yours.
06/18/2007 10:08:46 AM · #45
Originally posted by vtruan:

Why should we care in this case ... the parent still should have control over their childen...


I agree completely. Their situation isn't relevant to what happened or should have happened. All I was suggesting was that people who were assuming they knew WHY the mom behaved that way were out of line. There's no way to know.

Now, to get back to the discussion of how to react, regardless of why she did what she did ...

Originally posted by dudephil:


Tried both of those things guys. I think if Ghandi was there even he would've lost his mind. One of the craziest things I have ever witnessed was him following us around the shallow end like an animal while mom sat and read the Sunday paper.


Yikes. How bizarre! I guess I might have said something stern to him, but I still wouldn't have threatened his mother with hurting the kid. Again, I understand it was a crazy situation and you were trying not to go nuts on him.

I've had nothing like that happen, but I have encountered other kids giving my kids trouble, and I didn't hesitate to tell them how to behave. Fortunately, they usually do at that point.

Originally posted by dudephil:


Why should people with these types of disorders be appeased no matter their age? Don't you think that simply ignoring these kids and just getting away from their area is doing them a disservice?


They shouldn't, and absolutely! In no way am I suggesting you should have just taken it without any response.

Telling her to control her kid, telling him very directly to stop splashing your family, going to the lifeguard, complaining to management ... all of those sound like great options to me. Given his age, picking him up probably wasn't an option, but basically looming over him while you told him to stay away from you and your baby might have worked wonders, too.

My ONLY objection was in telling the mom you were going to kick her kid.

Look, I'm a Girl Scout leader. When our girls misbehave, I talk to them in the same way I talk to my own kids. When appropriate, that includes yelling at them, separating them from the others, etc.

One mom switched her daughter to another troop because, as she put it, "My Dad always yelled at me, we don't yell at our children, and no one else is going to." Well, guess which kid was usually the last to help? No big surprise.

So, 100%, I'm in favor of disciplining kids, in telling them how to behave, etc. The mother was shirking her duty, no question. And no, I don't think people who actually have disorders should be given a free pass.

But I also don't think threatening other people's kids is productive, and I do think people with serious problems deserve some compassion.

Message edited by author 2007-06-18 11:19:54.
06/18/2007 10:16:25 AM · #46
Originally posted by pcody:

No. The kid was near the baby. A little eye contact and a friendly attitude would have been enough to get it going. By reacting in a negative manner, all that was accomplished is the kid went away knowing that he is a problem that must be separated from "normal" nice people. Yes, Phil must protect the baby. But people really miss a good opportunity to improve the world when they dismiss kids and label them as bad and not their responsibility.


Sure, give the kid what he wants (attention) and reward unacceptable behavior (terrorizing a baby). That's exactly the wrong message to send.

06/18/2007 10:28:27 AM · #47
Society is funny when people consider a little compassion shown to someone as a reward and not normal human interaction. In my original post I was laying out a plan to help Phil, the baby and the child.
1. Stop the unwanted behavior.
2. Talk about the unwanted behavior.
3. Let eveyone leave with a positive experience.
4. Show, by example, that people care.
06/18/2007 10:28:51 AM · #48
Originally posted by pcody:

... But people really miss a good opportunity to improve the world when they dismiss kids and label them as bad and not their responsibility.


Parenting is a responsibility that rests with the parent... and unsolicited interventions such as that which you propose can get you into a heap of trouble.

You must also take into consideration that the mother may NOT be overly pleased by a stranger intruding into what she considers a private issue having a medical facet, and that she could justifiably argue that your input is diametrically opposed to that of the professionals she and her son have been seeing.

I commend you for your altruistic approach to this problem, but the fact is that actions such as those you are suggesting could very well be met by a hostile response.

Ray
06/18/2007 10:44:00 AM · #49
Wasn't packing up her things and leaving a hostile act? What is there to lose by being the best example you can be in a situation like this? You are not touching the kid or judging him. Just having a friendly talk. Kids really want to live up to people's expectations. By being friendly, you are expecting him to be friendly and more than likely he will begin to act the part to live up to your expectation. What do you think happens when eveyone expects him to be a terror?
06/18/2007 10:51:05 AM · #50
pcody, that makes sense. I know that when someone has said something to my son like, "Do you realize how loud you are talking right now?" He sees that it is not just us thinking that he is loud. (we are taking him in to get his hearing checked :-) But, it's different coming from someone else and confirms what the parents are saying.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/05/2020 12:48:52 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 04/05/2020 12:48:52 AM EDT.