 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Spanking / July 2006I'm open to suggestions
Foster-parenting my 4-year-old grandson. Not allowed to spank. He does whatever he wants and insists on it and we have no control. What can we do? He's got us by our gonads! Bill D > Foster-parenting my 4-year-old grandson. > Not allowed to spank. Did you receive any training? And if not, why not? You should insist on it. There are strategies for parenting abused and neglected children. > He does whatever he wants and insists on it and we have no control. I'm not sure I understand you not having any control. You have total control of his environment. > What can we do? He's got us by our gonads! That's probably the first thing to consider. It's a view the child doesn't share. He thinks YOU have all the control and power. If he was abused then he was taught that "control and power" is the name of the game, not attachment and relationship. The clue is in the latter, not continuing to battle it out in the former. > Bill D Don't want to suggest anything the child's worker is not part of. Again, what training were you offered? Kane  Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) Kane: He was never abused. But he was frequently neglected as a baby. We've had him for two years. My wife and I read all the books, watched all the movies, went to all the classes. This little boy has "been there and done that" on every count. It's as if he's read all the books and watched all the videos, and attended all the classes right with us and has figured out that he can win no matter what you do. It's as if he's being coached! He won't do anything we tell him. It's a fight for anything and everything. I'm open to suggestions. In "The Difficult Child" he was qualifying for the title role. But he has surpassed that recently, and it hasn't been fun for either him or us. My wife said to me that she thinks he really is "hyperactive". I don't know what's driving him. Please help. Bill > Kane: > > He was never abused. But he was frequently neglected as a baby. Mmmm...that's abuse. And is a powerful force for a child to distrust adult caregivers and struggle with them for control. After all, other caregivers failed to care for him. > We've > had him for two years. Okay. Since he was two then? > My wife and I read all the books, watched all > the movies, went to all the classes. No you didn't. > This little boy has "been there > and done that" on every count. Highly unlikely unless he is psychologically damaged, or neurologically damaged to a severe degree. > It's as if he's read all the books and > watched all the videos, and attended all the classes right with us and > has figured out that he can win no matter what you do. That's seems unlikely. > It's as if he's > being coached! He won't do anything we tell him. So he never sleeps, he always eats what he wants, leaves the house on his whim and returns when he wishes. > It's a fight for > anything and everything. That's impossible. Just responding to what you want that he happens to do, the bottom line in changing behavior, presents opportunities constantly. Even if it's him heading to the potty and you saying, "Time to go potty." > I'm open to suggestions. That's not how this appears to me. I gave some suggestions and now I see a long string of what appear to be manufactured "yes buts." > In "The Difficult > Child" he was qualifying for the title role. But he has surpassed that > recently, and it hasn't been fun for either him or us. My wife said to > me that she thinks he really is "hyperactive". Yet in two years neither of you has had the thought of having him evaluated by a competent pediatric psychologist or psychiatrist? I find that wonderously odd. > I don't know what's > driving him. I do. You are a sock, sir. > Please help. Or you need to have this child neurologically evaluated. Or he is one in some ten million children that is a genius and can outsmart you. I doubt this, but heck, anything could be possible. > Bill Let us know how it goes. What the doctor says. Ask Doan for some advice. He has a great view. It's called "let the parent decide," and he seems to think that works even if it includes murderous beatings of the child. Best, Kane Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) I'm open to suggestions, but you don't have any. Don't bother replying to my messages anymore. Thanks for nothing. Bill > > Kane: > > [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb > contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) > I'm open to suggestions, but you don't have any. "That's impossible. Just responding to what you want that he happens to do, the bottom line in changing behavior, presents opportunities constantly. Even if it's him heading to the potty and you saying, "Time to go potty." That's called a "suggestion." The following is a suggestion you stop engaging in a power struggle with him: "Mmmm...that's abuse. And is a powerful force for a child to distrust adult caregivers and struggle with them for control. After all, other caregivers failed to care for him." You have an abused child on your hands that has developed a set of survival skills while being NEGLECTED. They will NOT just automatically go away. Ron offered you some very useful hints, tips, on how to deal with a child that has had this, and similar things, happen to them. > Don't bother replying > to my messages anymore. No bother. > Thanks for nothing. Resistance to being told the truth will simply continue the problem. > Bill But do as you wish. I recommend you get off the power tripping with the kids, and become authoritative. Simply don't take no for an answer, follow through, keep your rules extremely simple. Do not waste your time talking or explaining, other than to say, "this is how it is." Reinforce wanted behaviors, even if they are out of the sequence you would prefer. Reinforce even approximations of the wanted behavior...like telling him to do something, and seeing him even look in the direction of the task. You have an abused child, sir. They do not "parent" like other children. And I also pointed out that he might have neurological damage that needs to be assessed and treated. Often NO common set of parenting tactics will work with children that have such damage. You'll just make yourself crazy and him as well. Best to you. Kane >>> Kane: >>> [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] >> to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb >> contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) Looked like Kane0 just got another friend! ;-) Doan > > I'm open to suggestions, but you don't have any. > [quoted text clipped - 134 lines] > to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb > contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) Kane: Don't feel bad, but when you are on the attack from the beginning, you will not be well received. Susbsequently you started making suggestions. You are forgiven. I agree with you about assertiveness. I believe that is the root of the problem here. When I say no, I mean it. But my wife keeps coming to his rescue. He keeps apealing to her and she keeps responding. He can say "no" whenever he wants and he's not getting a consistent message. Whenever I say no, he calls for "Nana!" Whenever she says "no", it's a battle. I don't know how to get her on board with "no means no." Bill > > I'm open to suggestions, but you don't have any. > [quoted text clipped - 134 lines] > to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb > contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) > Kane: Don't feel bad, but when you are on the attack from the > beginning, you will not be well received. My first post was not attacking. Nor was any other. The fact is some of what I offered just wasn't to your liking. But never mind. The child is more important, as well as the family, than any disagreement we might have. > Susbsequently you started > making suggestions. I started by making suggestions. I was greeted with "yes but," rather than explanations of his actual behavior, as you have now begun to include. > You are forgiven. I don't accept forgiveness when I have not erred, but thanks anyway. > I agree with you about > assertiveness. I believe that is the root of the problem here. When I > say no, I mean it. Without an evaluation on the child, as I suggested, and the problems you describe below I predict your life will be hell. And it's unfair to the child for him to be engaged in power struggles and win them OR lose them. It should not be about power. Ron's had a couple of things to say about that you can take to heart. He may appear even a bit harsh, but given the circumstances YOU see, pick and chose. If priv removal, as he suggests (and I'll add they should be quickly returned upon even the slightest move toward compliance...this is a four year old..about 15 second span for connecting some cause and effect, at BEST...rather like a smart puppy,) does not result in attempts to comply, then that evaluation would be overdue. > But my wife keeps coming to his rescue. He keeps > apealing to her and she keeps responding. He can say "no" whenever he > wants and he's not getting a consistent message. Whenever I say no, he > calls for "Nana!" Whenever she says "no", it's a battle. I don't know > how to get her on board with "no means no." Well, if her imagination is any good you might suggest to her adding ten years to the child's age. It may be she's not entirely thrilled with having this child (despite words and even some actions to the contrary) and is unconsciously sabotaging the parenting. She can't help how she feels, but she could examine it more and see if what she is doing would not fit that pattern. It could be too that in her eyes you are being too harsh. And she's trying to ease the fear and pain of the child. Parents need to consider these things regardless. And work out compromises and accommodations. If the child is NOT neurologically impaired, then there is an old standby ... ignore the unwanted behavior and instead focus on love bombing the child. That is, when he is defiant, just grab him up for some hugs and disruption and move on as though the incident never happened. With SOME children, in few of those encounters they not only give it up, but got what they needed and didn't know how to seek in a positive way. VERY common for abused and or neglected children. They've learned to get attention negatively...0:-> like we "normal parents" never teach our kids that little trick, right? > Bill You've had two years to learn to "read" this child. Best, Kane >>> I'm open to suggestions, but you don't have any. >> "That's impossible. Just responding to what you want that he happens to [quoted text clipped - 130 lines] >> to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb >> contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) > Ask Doan for some advice. He has a great view. It's called "let the > parent decide," and he seems to think that works even if it includes > murderous beatings of the child. > > Best, Kane Hahaha! Just let Kane0 decide for the parents! I heard he recommended using tasers even on SIX YEAR OLDS! It's safe, he said!!! Doan >> Ask Doan for some advice. He has a great view. It's called "let the >> parent decide," and he seems to think that works even if it includes [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Hahaha! Just let Kane0 decide for the parents! I heard he recommended > using tasers even on SIX YEAR OLDS! It's safe, he said!!! You have such a proclivity for lying, Doan. So tell us, did you or did you not claim that parents should decide, and did posters to this ng, spankers, not defend the right of parents to beat their children? Did you speak up and challenge them? Did you in fact point out it was beating and that's over the line? No, Doan, you didn't. You are a vicious thug and will always be, apparently. > Doan I notice you are afraid to address the poster's questions. Why is that I wonder? Afraid to tell him it's his choice to whip the child or not? You are a coward, Doan. Always have been, and likely from the time of your first whipping by your parents. It tends to make socially dysfunctional people. 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) Thanks for the warning. Kane is a man? Gawd, he sounds like a contolling girlfriend! Well, if he continues to offer constructive criticism, I'll pay attention, otherwise, I will revert to my initial assesment. Bill Just let Kane0 decide for the parents! I heard he recommended > using tasers even on SIX YEAR OLDS! It's safe, he said!!! > > Doan > Thanks for the warning. Kane is a man? Gawd, he sounds like a > contolling girlfriend! Which of my statements would suggest that? > Well, if he continues to offer constructive > criticism, I'll pay attention, otherwise, I will revert to my initial > assesment. Are you sure you don't mean, "if he continues to offer what I want to hear and says nothing I don't want to hear?" > Bill I'll give you a more helpful warning. Read the posting histories of people that jump in an give you warnings. And I'm happy for you to read mine. Don't miss Doan's. And engaging in rivalry play starts to look very sock-like. 0:-> > Just let Kane0 decide for the parents! I heard he recommended >> using tasers even on SIX YEAR OLDS! It's safe, he said!!! >> >> Doan Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) > > Thanks for the warning. Kane is a man? Gawd, he sounds like a > > contolling girlfriend! [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > 0:-> Hahaha! Are you going to start accusing bdeshawn as my sock-puppet? First, it was Alina then beccafromlaland, now its' bdeshawn. Next thing you know, Kane0, you are my sock-puppet! ;-) Doan >>> Thanks for the warning. Kane is a man? Gawd, he sounds like a >>> contolling girlfriend! [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Hahaha! Are you going to start accusing bdeshawn as my sock-puppet? > First, it was Alina Alina was you, monkeyboy. You stole the name from a well known person A nun, on the campus. > then beccafromlaland, now its' bdeshawn. Do you deny that such behavior is often the modus of a sock? > Next > thing you know, Kane0, you are my sock-puppet! ;-) The other way around probable. Your way, impossible. > Doan The next thing you know there will be other socks here, just like your Chris from TX friend tried. He even had "them" talking to each other agreeing what a bad bad man I am. R R R R The people you hang with on this ng are a clear indication of your lack of moral development, Doan. And decent people can smell you a mile off. 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) > >>> Thanks for the warning. Kane is a man? Gawd, he sounds like a > >>> contolling girlfriend! [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Alina was you, monkeyboy. You stole the name from a well known person A > nun, on the campus. And yet you were able to send Alina a copy of the Embry Study. Either you are VERY VERY STUPID or VERY VERY BAD LIAR! Which is it? ;-) > > then beccafromlaland, now its' bdeshawn. > > Do you deny that such behavior is often the modus of a sock? Are you so stupid? ;-) > > Next > > thing you know, Kane0, you are my sock-puppet! ;-) > > The other way around probable. Your way, impossible. Nothing is impossible. Got Adidas? ;-) > > Doan > > > The next thing you know there will be other socks here, just like your > Chris from TX friend tried. He even had "them" talking to each other > agreeing what a bad bad man I am. Hihihi! No one believe you! > R R R R > > The people you hang with on this ng are a clear indication of your lack > of moral development, Doan. And decent people can smell you a mile off. And you can smell a "smelly-c.nt"? How is your mom? Is she still proud of you? Doan >>>>> Thanks for the warning. Kane is a man? Gawd, he sounds like a >>>>> contolling girlfriend! [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >> > And yet you were able to send Alina a copy of the Embry Study. Yes, that is correct. And how you got your copy. > Either you > are VERY VERY STUPID or VERY VERY BAD LIAR! Or very very smart and have outmaneuvered you. R R R R R Which is it? ;-) Only The Shadow Knows. >>> then beccafromlaland, now its' bdeshawn. >> Do you deny that such behavior is often the modus of a sock? >> > Are you so stupid? ;-) Nope. Smart enough to notice you "dodging the question" yet again. 0:-> >> > Next >>> thing you know, Kane0, you are my sock-puppet! ;-) >> The other way around probable. Your way, impossible. > > Nothing is impossible. Got Adidas? ;-) Yep, some things are impossible. A sample: You reform and get honest. >>> Doan >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> > Hihihi! No one believe you! Oh? Even HE admitted he did it, dummy. >> R R R R >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And you can smell a "smelly-c.nt"? How is your mom? Is she still proud > of you? Dead. Some time how. How's yours? She always was, especially for calling someone a smelly c.nt that attempted to justify the suspending of children naked and beating them in church by church members. Remember? The instance YOU were silent about, though you claim you aren't for beating children? Odd you'd speak up at nearly every incident, minor or otherwise, of attempts to offer help with non-spanking alternatives, but could not find your monkey voice when Fern was hollering that the state had NO business intervening in families and churches where such behavior went on. You and your mom still proud of you for that, or did you hide from her your behavior here? 0;-> > Doan Yes, given your long string of lies, evasions and general screeching hysterical monkeyboy posts, I'd say you had better hide it from your mother. You might just get another spanking, or make her cry. 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) > >>>>> Thanks for the warning. Kane is a man? Gawd, he sounds like a > >>>>> contolling girlfriend! [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Yes, that is correct. And how you got your copy. I got mine through Interlibrary loan. Funny, if Alina was me and you sent a copy to Alina, you sent a copy to me? ;-) > > Either you > > are VERY VERY STUPID or VERY VERY BAD LIAR! > > Or very very smart and have outmaneuvered you. R R R R R I don't think so! ;-) > Which is it? ;-) You are VERY VERY STUPID! ;=) > Only The Shadow Knows. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Nope. Smart enough to notice you "dodging the question" yet again. 0:-> Hihihi! Even Chris Dugan said you are STUPID! > >> > Next > >>> thing you know, Kane0, you are my sock-puppet! ;-) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Yep, some things are impossible. Like you being smart! That's impossible! > A sample: You reform and get honest. Hihihi! Any one here thinks Kane is honest? > >>> Doan > >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Oh? Even HE admitted he did it, dummy. No one believes you! > >> R R R R > >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Dead. Some time how. How's yours? So she can't be proud of you now. ;-) > She always was, especially for calling someone a smelly c.nt that > attempted to justify the suspending of children naked and beating them > in church by church members. > > Remember? The instance YOU were silent about, though you claim you > aren't for beating children? She must be turning in her grave! > Odd you'd speak up at nearly every incident, minor or otherwise, of > attempts to offer help with non-spanking alternatives, but could not > find your monkey voice when Fern was hollering that the state had NO > business intervening in families and churches where such behavior went on. Hihihi! > You and your mom still proud of you for that, or did you hide from her > your behavior here? I don't talk about my mom, unlike you, STUPID! ;-) > 0;-> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > hysterical monkeyboy posts, I'd say you had better hide it from your > mother. The liar is you and I have proven so many times. > You might just get another spanking, or make her cry. Hihihi! You are just STUPID! Doan > 0:-> > > -- > "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what > to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb > contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) >>>>>>> Thanks for the warning. Kane is a man? Gawd, he sounds like a >>>>>>> contolling girlfriend! [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > I got mine through Interlibrary loan. Funny, if Alina was me and you > sent a copy to Alina, you sent a copy to me? ;-) That would follow. You going to lie now and claim you didn't get it? Why didn't "Alina" acknowledge my sending it to "her" I wonder. And where is and who was Alina...the mystery woman from Mexico that posted about three times, never with follow up to her comments in a thread, and mysteriously with a name almost the exact same as the well knows nun on the USC campus that everyone knows? "Alina" was too "polite" not to acknowledge, but you aren't. >> > Either you >>> are VERY VERY STUPID or VERY VERY BAD LIAR! >> Or very very smart and have outmaneuvered you. R R R R R >> > I don't think so! ;-) Translation+ "I don't think, but I think I think." >> Which is it? ;-) >> > You are VERY VERY STUPID! ;=) Oh, really? >> Only The Shadow Knows. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Hihihi! Even Chris Dugan said you are STUPID! On one particular issue, not even related to this ng. We disagreed politically. This is typical of you. Expanding the reasons for things, and basically lying. >>>> > Next >>>>> thing you know, Kane0, you are my sock-puppet! ;-) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> > Like you being smart! That's impossible! Time will tell. >> A sample: You reform and get honest. >> > Hihihi! Any one here thinks Kane is honest? Anyone care what you think? >>>>> Doan >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> > No one believes you! About Chris? Did you help him dump his posts so you can lie now? If no one believes me then they were not here when the exchange took place. Those that were know he did it. >>>> R R R R >>>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> > So she can't be proud of you now. ;-) Who's to say? >> She always was, especially for calling someone a smelly c.nt that >> attempted to justify the suspending of children naked and beating them [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> > She must be turning in her grave! Why would she do that? She approved of my opinions and statements concerning such an evil person as Fern. >> Odd you'd speak up at nearly every incident, minor or otherwise, of >> attempts to offer help with non-spanking alternatives, but could not >> find your monkey voice when Fern was hollering that the state had NO >> business intervening in families and churches where such behavior went on. >> > Hihihi! All you got. Evasions, and lack of morals. Monkeyboy. >> You and your mom still proud of you for that, or did you hide from her >> your behavior here? >> > I don't talk about my mom, unlike you, STUPID! ;-) Gosh, why not? She not proud of you? You afraid to talk about here? Are people that talk about their mothers all stupid, Monkeyboy? I thought they talked about them mostly because they loved them. What's your non-talk excuse? >> 0;-> >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> > The liar is you and I have proven so many times. Nope. The opposite is true, and that statement of yours is a lie. >> You might just get another spanking, or make her cry. >> > Hihihi! You are just STUPID! Don't you wish, monkeyboy. You prove your stupidity by thinking your arrogance is intelligence. R R R R RR > Doan Lie some more for us, just as you did today again. It's becoming increasingly entertaining, 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) > >>>>>>> Thanks for the warning. Kane is a man? Gawd, he sounds like a > >>>>>>> contolling girlfriend! [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > That would follow. You going to lie now and claim you didn't get it? Hihihi! The liar is obviously YOU! You are so STUPID! You are now claiming that you sent me a copy!!! That's hilarious! > Why didn't "Alina" acknowledge my sending it to "her" I wonder. You would have to ask her. If you sent a copy you would have the proof but being the liar that you are, you don't! > And where is and who was Alina...the mystery woman from Mexico that > posted about three times, never with follow up to her comments in a > thread, and mysteriously with a name almost the exact same as the well > knows nun on the USC campus that everyone knows? Hihihi! Well know nun on USC campus??? > "Alina" was too "polite" not to acknowledge, but you aren't. And so were the three other people that you claimed to have sent copies to. You are so STUPID! > >> > Either you > >>> are VERY VERY STUPID or VERY VERY BAD LIAR! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Translation+ "I don't think, but I think I think." Hihihi. Translation: YOU ARE STUPID! > >> Which is it? ;-) > >> > > You are VERY VERY STUPID! ;=) > > Oh, really? Yes! You don't even know that you are STUPID??? > >> Only The Shadow Knows. > >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > On one particular issue, not even related to this ng. We disagreed > politically. Look it up in the archive, STUPID! > This is typical of you. Expanding the reasons for things, and basically > lying. The liar is you, as always! > >>>> > Next > >>>>> thing you know, Kane0, you are my sock-puppet! ;-) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Time will tell. It already has; YOU ARE STUPID! > >> A sample: You reform and get honest. > >> > > Hihihi! Any one here thinks Kane is honest? > > Anyone care what you think? Hahaha! Anyone thinks that you are honest? > >>>>> Doan > >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > About Chris? What about Chris? You meant when you said "f.ck you, Chris!" to him? > Did you help him dump his posts so you can lie now? Are you so STUPID? He is on your side. Why would he help me, STUPID? > If no one believes me then they were not here when the exchange took > place. Those that were know he did it. And who are those? Hihihi! > >>>> R R R R > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Who's to say? That's obvious, STUPID! > >> She always was, especially for calling someone a smelly c.nt that > >> attempted to justify the suspending of children naked and beating them [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Why would she do that? She approved of my opinions and statements > concerning such an evil person as Fern. What a mom! ;-) > >> Odd you'd speak up at nearly every incident, minor or otherwise, of > >> attempts to offer help with non-spanking alternatives, but could not [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > All you got. Evasions, and lack of morals. Monkeyboy. And all you got are LIES, LIES and more LIES! Typical of anti-spanking zealotS! Oops! And I forgot being stupid too! Like claiming the New England Journal as the source! So so STUPID! ;-) > >> You and your mom still proud of you for that, or did you hide from her > >> your behavior here? > >> > > I don't talk about my mom, unlike you, STUPID! ;-) > > Gosh, why not? She not proud of you? You afraid to talk about here? That's the different between you and me STUPID! > Are people that talk about their mothers all stupid, Monkeyboy? Not about calling other people "smelly-c.nt", STUPID! > I thought they talked about them mostly because they loved them. You love your mom? ;-) > What's your non-talk excuse? It's not relevant, STUPID! Doan > >> 0;-> > >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb > contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) >>>>>>>>> Thanks for the warning. Kane is a man? Gawd, he sounds like a >>>>>>>>> contolling girlfriend! [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Hihihi! The liar is obviously YOU! You are so STUPID! You are now > claiming that you sent me a copy!!! That's hilarious! No, just the truth. Prove otherwise. I mailed it to Alina. >> Why didn't "Alina" acknowledge my sending it to "her" I wonder. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> > Hihihi! Well know nun on USC campus??? Yes, want a link? I found her quite by accident, but from an old long forgotten little memory. I was introduced to her at a faculty function, and completely forgot her over the years. Then you came up with your Mexican sock. Tight, isn't it? >> "Alina" was too "polite" not to acknowledge, but you aren't. >> > And so were the three other people that you claimed to have sent copies > to. You are so STUPID! I suppose they are where they were when I sent them the copies. Unless they've moved. The significance of your question would be ... ? And how would my claiming to have sent, and sent, copies to others make me "STUPID!" I'd say your creation of a sock and the position you are in now with it shows which of us is stupid, Alina. >>>> > Either you >>>>> are VERY VERY STUPID or VERY VERY BAD LIAR! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Hihihi. Translation: YOU ARE STUPID! Don't you wish. >>>> Which is it? ;-) >>>> >>> You are VERY VERY STUPID! ;=) >> Oh, really? >> > Yes! You don't even know that you are STUPID??? Of course not, because I'm not. But you most certainly are to have taken all the bait trails I've laid for you over the years, boy. >>>> Only The Shadow Knows. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> > Look it up in the archive, STUPID! I know what it says. And it's just what I claimed above. Did he call me stupid for my position on spanking, or on our role in invading Iraq? Speak up, monkeyboy. Screeching won't work this time. 0:-> >> This is typical of you. Expanding the reasons for things, and basically >> lying. >> > The liar is you, as always! Yes, Alina, keep trying. >>>>>> > Next >>>>>>> thing you know, Kane0, you are my sock-puppet! ;-) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> > It already has; YOU ARE STUPID! No, you have learned the hard way, Alina. And there's a good deal more off in the wings. Just keep on being stupid, Monkeyboy. >>>> A sample: You reform and get honest. >>>> >>> Hihihi! Any one here thinks Kane is honest? >> Anyone care what you think? >> > Hahaha! Anyone thinks that you are honest? Sure. Lots of people. They tend themselves to be honest and can recognize it when they see it. >>>>>>> Doan >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> > Are you so STUPID? He is on your side. Why would he help me, STUPID? Chris from TX? You lose track pretty easily when you are rattle, Alina. Chris who originated this newsgroup is one thing. You just started talking about his by reference to our conflict. I was discussing, in the prior post, and said so...it's attributed two back above. Now you can't remember what is in front of your face...the guy you stumble bummmed for to help him get rid of his posts where he misrepresented a website owner that is against spanking to make it appear she was FOR spanking by using her material OUT OF CONTEXT? You couldn't even show him how well enough and he removed his CORRECTION and kept the incriminating post ... until I kindly pointed it out to him. Jackasses, the lot of you. >> If no one believes me then they were not here when the exchange took >> place. Those that were know he did it. >> > And who are those? Hihihi! Those that were here. Stupid. Look up the posts, see who was here, or be known for an harassing liar. A little pissant that can't debate so harasses -- with lies. >>>>>> R R R R >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> > That's obvious, STUPID! Oh, no answer at all? Nice going. >>>> She always was, especially for calling someone a smelly c.nt that >>>> attempted to justify the suspending of children naked and beating them [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> > What a mom! ;-) Yes, ethical and kind an caring about children and families. Nothing like the liar and confabulator, Fern. And you. >>>> Odd you'd speak up at nearly every incident, minor or otherwise, of >>>> attempts to offer help with non-spanking alternatives, but could not [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > zealotS! Oops! And I forgot being stupid too! Like claiming the New > England Journal as the source! So so STUPID! ;-) That wasn't a lie. Now you are lying AGAIN. >>>> You and your mom still proud of you for that, or did you hide from her >>>> your behavior here? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> > That's the different between you and me STUPID! That you won't talk about her here? Won't share with her your posts here? Won't let her see you allow a savage attack on children such as Fern made go unchallenged? That you are a little self serving piggie? R R R R Coward. No wonder they spanked you. >> Are people that talk about their mothers all stupid, Monkeyboy? >> > Not about calling other people "smelly-c.nt", STUPID! Still trying hide the reason? I guess that equates then with agreeing with Fern about the state should not be allowed to interfere with parents that hang their kids up in church for members to whip. What would you call her, "Sister?" >> I thought they talked about them mostly because they loved them. >> > You love your mom? ;-) Why wouldn't I. Do you love yours? Are you proud of yours? I am of mine. >> What's your non-talk excuse? >> > It's not relevant, STUPID! Bullshit. The entire subject revolves around Fern's comment and my name calling of her for it. My mother would have been proud I didn't let that ugly hatred of children pass. What would your mother think of you for letting it pass without comment, though you have claimed you do not advocate beatings...liar? > Doan You should be ashamed to use the name. The few Doan's I've known, and I have known a few would never stoop to the unethical way of debate you do, nor to letting someone like Fern slide on her vicious posting supporting the beating of children. Why don't you invite a few of them to observe you here? 0:-> >>>> 0;-> >>>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >> to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb >> contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) I caught this kind of late, but it's HILARIOUS! Kane actually uses his deceased MOTHER as a reference? And she AGREED with her son's opinion of somebody (not here anymore) that Kane described to her? This is just too much! :) Nope, no PATHOLOGY THERE!! > She must be turning in her grave! Kane wrote > Why would she do that? She approved of my opinions and statements > concerning such an evil person as Fern. > What a mom! ;-) You can stop laughing. He didn't say she agreed with him about FERN, he said that she HAD agreed with him about people SUCH AS Fern. HAD means at one point in time...and SUCH AS means people LIKE Fern. Therefore, his mother (when alive) and he agreed on this opinions of people like Fern. I'm sorry that you didn't read it the same way in your haste to make him look bad. That IS what it says. > I caught this kind of late, but it's HILARIOUS! > Kane actually uses his deceased MOTHER as a reference? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > > What a mom! ;-) Nope! Actually, his mother approved of him calling another woman "smelly-c.nt". Do you approve of your kids calling others "smelly-c.nt"? No one makes Kane0 looked bad; he is born that way! ;-) Doan > You can stop laughing. > He didn't say she agreed with him about FERN, he said that she HAD agreed [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > > > > What a mom! ;-) > Nope! Actually, his mother approved of him calling another woman > "smelly-c.nt". Do you approve of your kids calling others "smelly-c.nt"? > No one makes Kane0 looked bad; he is born that way! ;-) > > Doan No, I don't approve of Kane calling someone a smelly c.nt, or my kids doing so either (I have no knowldge of my kids calling anyone anything even remotely like that). I don't call others names like that myself, as you should well know by now, however, Kane isn't the only one who's done name calling here. I've let it pass with others, just as I let it pass with Kane. It's really not that important, do you think? We all say things in times of emotion or upset that we don't necessarily mean, and we all say things on usenet that we probably would never say in person to someone. It's part of the 'annonymous' person we are on usenet. Many feel free to say and do things that they would never do in public or person. Back to the subject at hand...he said that his mother had agreed with him on his opinions of others (opinion, and in the PAST...I did not see anything that stated that his mother agreed with him about FERN in particular, OR calling someone a 'smelly c.nt')...not recently as she is deceased from what I gather. Kane did not say a dead woman agreed with him about someone she didn't know. His words are taken out of context. That's all I was defending. Nothing more, nothing less. > > You can stop laughing. > > He didn't say she agreed with him about FERN, he said that she HAD agreed [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > > > > > > What a mom! ;-) >I caught this kind of late, but it's HILARIOUS! > Kane actually uses his deceased MOTHER as a reference? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> Why would she do that? She approved of my opinions and statements >> concerning such an evil person as Fern. Well that explains it - apple don't fall far - so they say. You're hilarious Butch. >> What a mom! ;-) > I caught this kind of late, but it's HILARIOUS! > Kane actually uses his deceased MOTHER as a reference? Are you presuming she was never alive? > And she AGREED with her son's opinion of somebody > (not here anymore) that Kane described to her? Yes. Just how difficult is it for you to figure out that though now dead, when I spoke to her she was alive? You've made a point of my non-theisticsm, yet you would think I speak to the dead? Interesting thinking process. Or desperation because you cannot produce logical fact based arguments to rebut my claims. > This is just too much! :) > Nope, no PATHOLOGY THERE!! I'd say it's far more pathological to presume I am currently communication with my mother (when all references are in the past tense) when I have pointed out she is deceased. It was not long ago, as a matter of fact. I'll be scattering her ashes with family members later this year at her and my late father's favorite fishing lake. His are already there...1979. If I refer to having discussed something with my father are you now going to presume I mean in the present tense? >> She must be turning in her grave! > > Kane wrote >> Why would she do that? She approved of my opinions and statements >> concerning such an evil person as Fern. Yes. Do you see any reference to her being alive? Even the slime ball Doan knows she's dead after I told him so. Notice the use of the past tense, in "APPROVED of my opinions...," Greg. Of course YOU won't apologize, even for using my dead mother for you vapid and factless insults. You don't apologize for using families and their children unethically. Why should I expect more from you now? >> What a mom! ;-) See anything the I have said or even that Doan has said, that suggests I am currently in communication with my mother? You should apologize, but of course you won't, because you are the one with the obvious Pathology. 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) dragongirl said Kane did not say a dead woman agreed with him about someone she didn't know ROFL! > dragongirl said > Kane did not say a dead woman agreed with him about someone she didn't > know > > ROFL! She's describing what you claimed, Greg. You find that humorous? Yes, I guess you are humorous. Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) Greg, YOU may value your studied ignorance and your hate fueled lies about child abuse, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I'll continue to educate you. Here's another piece of what CPS workers deal with, rather too often in fact. A large number of their clients ARE involved in criminal activities. This series is just one story, anecdotal, so it will not generalize to ALL CPS client families, thank goodness, but it does to many. How would YOU have handled this case the CPS worker failed with? Part One: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA062506.01A.pearl.16d5c4d.html Part Two: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA062606.1A.PearlCruz.169b8c8.html Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) > Kane: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > being coached! He won't do anything we tell him. It's a fight for > anything and everything. Hi ya Bill. A couple of suggestions for you. Dont fight. By that I mean dont force him to do anything, just provide logical consequences for his actions or inactions. Removal of priviallages is a great thing. Think about it, what can you misconstrue to be a privillage? Bed Sheets Pillow Curtins Lights (In his bedroom) Toys TV Phone Chairs Tables (i.e. eating while sitting on the kitchen floor, no table or chair) Bedroom door I could go on for quite some time.... I had a preteen foster child once that had everything removed from his room. And I mean everything. He had a mattress, a blanket, and a pair of pajamas. I even made him vaccum the carpets to remove anything that he could use as a source of entertainment. He came out for meals (which he ate from a plate on the kitchen floor), once an hour for bathroom breaks and a drink of water, and bath time. That was all. Otherwise his life was his bedroom. After 5 days of this he agreed that he had really screwed up and would work on his behaviors. I only had to tell him that I would do it again once, after that he stayed pretty much in control of himself. Another idea is of course the medical / psycological approach. Therapists and doctors and drugs. Not as good an answer IMO, but it has been known to work. Ron > I'm open to suggestions. In "The Difficult > Child" he was qualifying for the title role. But he has surpassed that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Bill Thanks for the suggestion. You idea sounds like a good one, and I would do it, but here's the problem. We will have to give him his own room in order to do that. He currently shares his room. One of things he insists on and fights with us about is that he wants to sleep with someone at night. As a 4-year-old child, I don't have too much of a problem with that, because as a kid, sleeping with a sibling or a friend is an adventure. I've just got an email from my boss and I have to go now. I have more to say, but am unable. Bye for now. Bill. > > Kane: > > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > > > Bill > Thanks for the suggestion. You idea sounds like a good one, and I > would do it, but here's the problem. We will have to give him his own [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Bye for now. > Bill. Each kid is different, so what I suggested may not work. What WILL work, with any child, is consistency. Be consistent in both word and action. Never threaten, always be prepared to do exactly what you say you will, even if it means some inconvenience for you. Children want consistency in their lives, and that is something that a poor parent can rarely provide. As for sleeping in the room with another child, well that's one of those things that can be misconstrued to be a privilege, right? A bit of carpet at the end of your bed, or on the kitchen floor (use that one with caution), and a blanket for a few days and he may get the idea that having a room is something he would prefer. 4 year olds are pretty easy to redirect, and usually respond well to the removal of privileges. You just have to be creative in determining what IS a privilege. Good luck. Ron >> > Kane: >> > [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] >> > >> > Bill > What WILL work, with any child, is consistency. Bill: Yup! I think you and Kane actually agree on this one. So do I. > As for sleeping in the room with another child, well that's one of those > things that can be misconstrued to be a privilege, right? > This is already being implemented. > Good luck. > > Ron Thanks. Bill >> What WILL work, with any child, is consistency. > > Bill: Yup! I think you and Kane actually agree on this one. So do I. Kane and I actually agree on about 95% of things. CP being the only exception that I can think of. And on that we have agree'd to disagree, since we both hold our convictions strongly. >> As for sleeping in the room with another child, well that's one of those >> things that can be misconstrued to be a privilege, right? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Thanks. > Bill Any time Bill. Its one of the reasons that I hang around this news group, the occasions that I can actually assist someone with an issue. Ron Bill already figured out the biggest problem, his wife needs to stop undermining his parenting tactics. She may MEAN WELL, and being the crutch for the child may feel special for her, but if she doesn't stop undermining the parenting, the child will suffer in ways that will become life long problems. Really, SHE needs to grow a spine and start being the tough one, so the kid comes to you for shelter from the tough love parent. Then things will straighten out. I think you already were ON TRACK yourself Bill, with the knowledge that you need to have CONSISTENCY for parenting to work. The undermining behavior may feed some emotional nitch for your wife, but it can screw up the boy for life. > Bill already figured out the biggest problem, his wife > needs to stop undermining his parenting tactics. She may not be aware of it, Greg. Are you inviting him into a confrontation with her? The use of words like, "undermining" when she may not even be aware that she is doing that, and is instead on another agenda entirely needs to be considered. But you, you go for the throat no matter what. Even making the little girl in YOUR story a deliberately willful child.....for WETTING HERSELF at six years old. > She may MEAN WELL, and being the crutch > for the child may feel special for her, but if > she doesn't stop undermining the parenting, > the child will suffer in ways that will > become life long problems. Make everyone feel better, Greg, why don't you? > Really, SHE needs to grow a spine and start > being the tough one, so the kid comes to > you for shelter from the tough love parent. On the contrary. This child may need her nurturing softness in his life. A neglected child may well have been afraid and even hungry ... and in reaction. The child needs just what Ron was discussing recently...consistency and order. That is the starting place. Each parent can serve a different role in this. You are right mom needs to stop "undermining" but I mean something different than you when I use that term. They need to work out a routine between them where she give APPROPRIATE nurturing at critical moments that will have a positive effect on desired outcomes. He needs to be sure he is not in a power struggle with the child. Keep the goals small, the reward immediate. We used to reinforce the kids in our treatment center, at the beginning of treatment, on 5 SECOND INTERVALS. That is every five seconds we would note to the child what they were doing. Sounds crazy, doesn't it? But it only needs doing for say 20 minutes a day to begin having effect. We would ONLY shut down the reinforcing interventions IF THE CHILD WAS NOT DOING WHAT WE WANTED FOR BEHAVIOR. And immediately start again, even if they simply stopped doing the behavior. Even turning their head toward us would trigger a reinforcing response. That's how screwed up neglect and or abused kids can be, Greg. Ring any bells for you with your famous cat training abilities? > Then things will straighten out. That is a claim you cannot make with authority. Your methods resulted in what, Greg? > I think you already were ON TRACK > yourself Bill, with the knowledge that > you need to have CONSISTENCY for > parenting to work. You got one right. He also needs to understand why, beyond simple lay information. Ron has worked with kids with similar problems. So have I. Have you? All you worked with was a normal kid in reaction to your entering the household. > The undermining behavior may feed > some emotional nitch for your wife, > but it can screw up the boy for life. Can you offer more sh.t to pile? She has a very real and likely conflicting need of her own. She wants to do the right thing...start from THAT premise, dummy. And I've never heard of an emotional "nitch." And the idea that a child is going to be screwed up for life because of early childhood bumbling around of parents is a crock of sh.t. I could give them advice to do a whole series of things WRONG, but consistent, and with a high degree of interaction with the child (you know, give the child attention?) and the chances of the child working things out and doing just fine would be close to 100%, Greg. The people that screw kids up are the ones that either, ONE-put chemicals into the child's system, pre or post birth, or TWO- DO NOT ATTEND THE CHILD SUFFICIENTLY IN TIME AND ENERGY. In fact my big bitch about spanking has to do with it being used to SHORT CUT THE TIME A CHILD NEEDS. Instead of working with the child....EVEN BADLY....the parent wallops them, gets some compliance, and turns their attention away from the child. Sure FIRE failure. It's attention, Greg. Something those that are more wrapped up in themselves have a hard time giving to their child. If we all shut up this instant, the interest and involvement this writer shows would likely serve to work out nearly all problems he's facing...because he is going to continue high levels of face to face involvement with the child. THE NUMBER ONE THING THAT CHILD NEEDS FOR NORMAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT. Tricks don't do it, if they cut the attention down. NONE. And neglected children often need "re parenting" from the time they were neglected. A very successful therapeutic foster parent I knew, a butchy lady ..you would have liked her, I'm sure...worked with only kids from about 8 to about 11. When a child came into her home, one of the first things she offered was to rock and bottle feed them. Interesting, most were eager to be rocked and bottle fed. Rarely lasted more than a day or two....because it filled that need from the period of neglect. I trained that lady. And I NEVER TOLD HER TO DO THAT. But I did tell her some children would need "re parenting" from childhood trauma like neglect. She figured the rest out herself...and it was about ATTENTION. Attending the child closely. This child reads, to me, just like one of those kids, just a bit younger. Mom, in this case, may need to be MORE indulgent and indulged by Dad (Bill) who creates the safety and predictability for this child with routines like Ron has suggested. If this developmental need is missed, THEN GREG, your little predictions might come true...but I doubt it, as long as they both ATTEND THE CHILD MORE CLOSELY FOR A TIME. This is why parents that spank can and do raise perfectly health children....they attend. But, most spanking parents aren't attending. So, why haven't you recommended spanking yet? Why has Doan maintained his stupidity and jumped in and said, "you are the parent, you make up your own mind," yet? Because, Greg, you are lamers. If you are going to give advice, study. Learn. Work with children. (yuk, the thought nauseates me) THEN GIVE ADVICE. Ron and I both have done years of this work. He more than I by probably a decade. You and Doan are pissants, little more. Anyone NOT checking your posting history before taking your advice seriously is just asking for trouble. Have a pleasant day. 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) Kane, Is it always ABOUT YOU? In the middle of supposedly helping somebody you can't quit your bitching about me? I was direct and truthful. Bill can easily see that. I beat you to that crucial point about undermining, and you can't stand it. You attempt to redefine "undermining" and consistency so as to try to distance yourself while actually agreeing with and embracing what I said. What a manipulative jerk. I leave it up to Bill to know how to communicate with his wife about this undermining problem and the serious damage it does. You assumed Bill is an idiot and I assumed that Bill is smart enough to handle the communication per his family cultural norm. > Kane, Is it always ABOUT YOU? Nope. It's about you. It just happens to be me, most often, about you. > In the middle of supposedly helping somebody > you can't quit your bitching about me? If I'm answering someone's questions and you pop in with what I know to be distracting dangerous bullshit I should be quiet about it? About you? About your history? They might presume you actually were credible. > I was direct and truthful. Bullshit. You don't know either. > Bill can easily see that. You are going to tell Bill what he sees before he looks, is that it? > I beat you to that crucial point about > undermining, and you can't stand it. Odd, two of us had already responded to that, but in different ways. Check the thread. Ron addressed it, and so did I. > You attempt to redefine "undermining" Your definition. > and > consistency I don't recall you discussing "consistency." I believe it was Ron that first mentioned that. > so as to try to distance yourself > while actually agreeing with and embracing > what I said. What a manipulative jerk. No, you are being manipulative in how you interpret what I said. I am NOT agreeing with you. I was pointing out how you were using the issues between them to cast the wife in a negative role. > I leave it up to Bill to know how to communicate > with his wife about this undermining problem > and the serious damage it does. No you don't. His role may well be as damaging as hers. Between us which, you or I, suggested both need to find the middle ground? > You assumed Bill is an idiot Where? > and I assumed > that Bill is smart enough to handle the > communication per his family cultural norm. While presuming his "family cultural norm," is the same as yours? And that the wife is "wrong?" Were you familiar with Brian Christine and gave he and his wife any advice before they got to vacation at the Greybar? So, tell us Greg. As to advice, just for the hell of it: between the three of us, Ron, you, and myself, which of the three has the least experience, the least qualification professionally, and personally? Have Ron or I every been involved in the loss of a child to CPS and state custody as a principle? Between us, who has fathered and raised children of their own? Who had worked with both the law, and the mental health system? Who would have been more likely to come into contact with abused and neglected children? Who would have training and experience with those children and their behaviors (somewhat unique to foster children)? Did you notice that while Ron gave advice he also pointed out the uniqueness of each child? Did you notice he did not word anything so as to be taking sides? Did YOU take sides? Of course you did. The wife is wrong, just because Bill is having problems with his wife's behavior. YOU DON'T know the wife's position. Why she is doing what Bill says. You don't KNOW THAT IT'S UNDERMINING BY INTENT, OR ACCIDENT, or even undermining at all, but simply perceived that way by Bill. When both are here sharing we MIGHT be able to sort that out, but even then it would be unethical and dangerous to THEM for us to take such a position: one right, the other wrong. I pointed out they both need to find a way to understand and accept and use the other's position and perspective. NOT FIGHT. You, dummy, are using the language of conflict to give Bill, and by extension, his wife, advice. Such behavior from you is a constant. You have done the same thing on ascps for years. Rattling you ignorant, bias and prejudice filled head, and vomiting your ignorance out on whoever came into range. Keep it up, dummy. 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) Kane, you brought up the Christine family in regard to this? You really are a mental case. > Kane, you brought up the Christine family in regard to this? Yes, I most certainly did. They foundered and lost...very badly indeed...on bad advice from the contingent that is most like you. > You really are a mental case. Pointing out the truth and the connections to your kind of advice and the horrible outcome for the Christines on just such kind of advice is "mental?" How so, Greg? What advice would YOU have given the Christines? What Greg duck now. What caused them to, all along the way, lose more and more ground with CPS? What advice did they get at the end, do you think, Greg? The advice I had to get you to refute after a two year campaign of asking you the single question on that issue? Remember, Greg? 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) > Kane: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > has figured out that he can win no matter what you do. It's as if he's > being coached! This little boy was neglected during the time when formation of a secure attachment to a primary caregiver is vital to learn trust. From the little bit of information I have, I'd suspect he is exhibiting behaviors linked to anxious-avoidant attachment. You need help. Please have this little boy evaluated. He won't do anything we tell him. It's a fight for > anything and everything. I'm open to suggestions. In "The Difficult > Child" he was qualifying for the title role. But he has surpassed that > recently, and it hasn't been fun for either him or us. My wife said to > me that she thinks he really is "hyperactive". I don't know what's > driving him. Please help. He may be hyperactive, but he would need a professional evaluation. He also may have many other issues that contribute to his behavior. I hear your frustration in this post, but please don't give up on him. Get help parenting this little guy, and work on trust issues. Do fun things together. Talk to him. Get an idea of what he would like to do. (The movies, the park, etc.) He's been neglected during the most important years of his life. He needs to feel listened to, responded to, and validated. This can be done and is part of discipline. Discipline means teaching and guiding. You will have little impact on this child's life until you build trust. LaVonne > Bill Bill, How long have you been foster-parenting your grandson? Regardless of how abusive or neglective the home situation may have been, children (especially very little children) often go through a period of acting out, which can last a year or more. Try to understand what he is experiencing. Foster an attitude of mutual cooperation in your home, rather than a battle over control. Have age-appropriate expectations and work with this little child to help him meet those expectations and be successful. Provide reasons. Be loving but firm. Parenting is about guiding and teaching, not about controlling. When children learn what is expected and how to achieve those expectations, there is no need for control. What you have is mutual love and respect. There are so many strategies to use, and none of them include spanking. If you could be more specific, I would be happy to give you some ideas. LaVonne > Foster-parenting my 4-year-old grandson. > Not allowed to spank. > He does whatever he wants and insists on it and we have no control. > What can we do? He's got us by our gonads! > > Bill D Bill D: Yes, here is LaVonne Carlson, the queen of pomposity. Did you see anywhere where LaVonne described ways to stop the UNDERMINING behavior from your wife? Lots of happy talk, propaganda and filibuster, but what about the UNDERMINING behavior? If anything, LaVonne's comments about trust issues combined with the undermining behavior make for some fairly nasty psychology like the wife wanting to be the ""good cop"", and guess what that makes you Bill? LaVonne is a fluff brain, missed the actual problem you described, and plied you with her ultraliberal political propaganda disguised as ""professional advice""... > Bill D: > Yes, here is LaVonne Carlson, the queen of pomposity. So, a personal attack is pretty much it for you then? > Did you see anywhere where LaVonne described > ways to stop the UNDERMINING behavior from > your wife? I should hope not. If I understand LaVonne correctly she does not come at human interactions from a win-lose perspective. In fact she stated much more eloquently than I the premise I was attempting to present....that both need to work cooperatively and in support of the child with each other. There should be no "bad guy" if they do not want to abandon the child's interests for personal battle between them. > Lots of happy talk, propaganda and filibuster, > but what about the UNDERMINING behavior? It has to be attended to? They can't agree to trust each other and focus on learning about an apply what is learned concerning children that have been neglected, and in addition normal developmental behaviors of a four year old? > If anything, LaVonne's comments about trust > issues combined with the undermining behavior > make for some fairly nasty psychology like > the wife wanting to be the ""good cop"", and guess > what that makes you Bill? The presumption of malicious intent in others will one day be your downfall, Greg. In fact, it has been at time or two, I'd warrant. Each, in this case, we have to presume, comes from their positive investment in the child, and likely each other as well. Parenting a child that has been abused or neglected is such a difficult task that those that do it have a higher risk of divorce than the rest of the population. It's very tough. The behaviors of such children or so survival oriented that they seem like violent criminals at times. They learned that behavior to stay alive in the situation they came from. Here's few things commonly seen in these children, and remember, it is not their INTENT to do these things maliciously: - Lie - Steal - Horde (mostly of foodstuffs) - Manipulate - Whine - Poor hygiene - Violence toward things and people - Sneaky (very very common) - Triangulation (getting the adults to oppose and fight each other) That's the short list. Interestingly if you compare this list to characteristics of the soldier in combat situations you find a great many similarities. When I helped relatives foster and adopt I made them familiar with this. It helped them understand better the child felt it was fighting for its very life, as sometimes it was where it came from. Even a two year old goes into panic survival mode when confronted with hunger many times, or sudden violence from the primary caregiver or others in the household, or long periods of lonely isolation. > LaVonne is a fluff brain, missed the actual problem > you described, and plied you with her > ultraliberal political propaganda disguised > as ""professional advice""... This will endear you to the poster, I'm sure. 0;-> I'm kidding of course. He'd have to be blind and insane to miss what you just revealed you are. Your hatred of professionals, and those with expertise of any kind simply shows how much of a talentless loser you are. The little girl is about 11 now. Half her life without her mother at her side. Proud of yourself? 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) Greg wrote > LaVonne is a fluff brain, missed the actual problem > you described, and plied you with her > ultraliberal political propaganda disguised > as ""professional advice""... > Greegor wrote: >> Bill D: [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > > 0:-> Thought I'd help you recover the aborted fetus, Greg. I've pasted the post you replied to above. So, let's see what you have to say. > Greg wrote >> LaVonne is a fluff brain, It's real hard to win a PhD if one is a fluff brain. Though I'm not entirely sure what one is. It just sounds bad. > missed the actual problem >> you described, No she didn't. She described it very well indeed. What specifically is the "actual problem" you think he described that you say she missed? > and plied you with her >> ultraliberal political propaganda disguised >> as ""professional advice""... I didn't see any political propaganda. Her advice is pretty standard for both marital counseling and child rearing. Nothing radical or strange at all. Should he just grab his wife and risk the same crime you were charged with and convicted for? Or does he have to win and she lose, for them to get the child under "control?" Be frank with us, Greg. 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) >> Greegor wrote: >>> Bill D: >>> Yes, here is LaVonne Carlson, the queen of pomposity. Kane said: >It's real hard to win a PhD if one is a fluff brain. Though I'm not >entirely sure what one is. It just sounds bad. Fluff brain = fluffed up with loads of book learnin' and nota lick of sense. A la Yavonne >>> Greegor wrote: >>>> Bill D: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Fluff brain = fluffed up with loads of book learnin' and nota lick of sense. > A la Yavonne And your authority for this definition? Or is it just your wonderfully well informed opinion 0:->? Then you must agree with the rest of Greg's claim that LaVonne's advice to Bill to avoid a fight with his wife about being "undermined," and work on finding ways to mutually support the parenting of the child, is just "politically motivated liberal socialist etc. etc. etc. blah blah blah?" Well, sucker, DO YOU? It's really funny that in one thread you hate "dittoheads," presuming you mean conservatives, yet now you wish to attack someone another has labeled a liberal. You haven't been able to get your story straight since coming on board as Michael and putting up your phony "advice for people engaged with CPS," web slop page. You are a riot, and I suspect badly in need of some mental health help. 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) 0:-> wrote to Honkey Dorie below: "You are a riot, and I suspect badly in need of some mental health help." Naw, he's just another F.B. (fluff brain to the acronym challenged). Welcome him on board. He's a hoot and we need some humor around here. LaVonne (oops, A la Yavonne) >>>> Greegor wrote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > 0:-> > Kane said: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Fluff brain = fluffed up with loads of book learnin' and nota lick of sense. > A la Yavonne Good answer, Honkey Dorie! One must keep a sense of humor. I've raised two wonderful children, worked with children (including abused and traumatized children) in a variety of roles, earned a Ph.D. against many odds, and have a current position that I love and that is rewarding. If this is the life of a fluff brain, I'm happy to accept your title. If it applies to my life, it's a good place to be. "A la Yavonne," Ph.D. F.B. ( Fluff Brain for the acronym challenged -- grin) Greegor, I focused on what was going on with the child, and the frustration Bill was expressing. You have a marvelous ability to turn something positive into garbage. Bill did not start out with "UNDERMINING" by his wife. He simply asked for help. I provided suggestions for working with his grandson. When he stated that he felt undermined, others had already dealt with the issue. Consistency between parents is important, but it does not take priority over the welfare of the child. It is unfortunate that you took comments intended to be helpful, by me and others, and attempted to turn those comments into garbage. Please don't do this. LaVonne > Bill D: > Yes, here is LaVonne Carlson, the queen of pomposity. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > ultraliberal political propaganda disguised > as ""professional advice""... I posted this a while ago. Are you able to respond yet? LaVonne > Greegor, > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >> ultraliberal political propaganda disguised >> as ""professional advice""... > Foster-parenting my 4-year-old grandson. > Not allowed to spank. > He does whatever he wants and insists on it and we have no control. > What can we do? He's got us by our gonads! > > Bill D what are the reasons you arent allowed to spank? i'd take away the most favorite thing the child has and refuse to give it back Piggybacking as I did not see the OP >> Foster-parenting my 4-year-old grandson. Has the system given you any parenting classes or advice? >> Not allowed to spank. >> He does whatever he wants and insists on it and we have no control. What kinds of things is he doing? If you are more specific, I can help a bit more. >> What can we do? He's got us by our gonads! >> >> Bill D There are many different things you can do that do not involve spanking or even punishment. As foster parents, you should have help in terms of parenting classes. He's 4. You may need to take into account what kind of discipline was used by his parents. That said, most 4 year olds become much more cooperative when you give them more control and more choice. Give him choices between acceptable alternatives. Do you want to come inside and play with your cars or your blocks? This still means he needs to come inside, but he has control over what he wants to play with when he comes in. Use positive language. Tell him what he *can* do not what he *can't* do. Use your inside voice instead of stop yelling.. Use your walking feet instead of stop running. Come play with the ball over here instead of stop playing with that (whatever). Always give him a positive alternative behavior he *can* do that is acceptable to you when you want him to stop doing something. Give him warnings of upcoming transitions. When you finish that puzzle, then it will be time to get on your shoes. When the timer rings, then it will be time for your bath. A ktichen timer is a great device for defusing arguments and giving kids time to mentally prepare for transtions. When you have gone down the slide 5 more times, then it will be time to leave the park. Concentrate on the positive things he does instead of the negative ones. Catch him being good and give him a hug or tell him you noticed. *I saw you taking turns with Johnny on the swing. That was fun, wasn't it?* *Your room looks good. You put all the cars away.* Make the things you want him to do into games. Humor and fun make work into something that kids enjoy. Remember the old Whistle While You work philosophy. So, want him to help clean up his toys? Say *let's see if the cars can race into their garages on the shelf?* or *can you hop like a bunny while we put the blocks away?* or *let's make a basket into the toybox with the balls.* Start being proactive in teaching him how to control himself. Read books to him and talk about how the characters handle their emotions. Make sure he has the words to express himself. At four, that's important. Play with him. Use role playing difficult situations so that you can guide him into appropriate ways to handle them. Help him problem solve and discover good ways to behave. If you must punish, use logical consequences. You can put a toy that is misused in time-out rather than putting him in time-out. It's much more effective actually. If you are dealing with hitting, you will have to invest some time in actively teaching him that it will not get him what he wants (attention usually) Here's the procedure I suggest. During the learning period, you (or another adult) will need to stay within arm's reach of him so you can intercept his hands when he tries to hit. This usually takes anywhere from 2 days to 2 weeks. It may take a bit longer in this case because of the fostering situation. 1. Stop the hit by grabbing his hand. Hold his hand firmly, but gently. 2. If he does connect comfort the victim first ignoring him until you have done so. 3. Say *we use gentle hands to touch people.* 4. Show him how to use gentle hands by stroking his hand over the person he tried to hit. 5. Ignore and crying and struggling. Keep your face and body language neutral. 6. Say nothing else. Return to whatever you were doing and allow him to return to his playing. 7. Be consistent. Do this every single time he tries to hit anyone. Good luck! >what are the reasons you arent allowed to spank? Foster parents are not allowed to use corporal punishment. >i'd take away the most favorite thing the child has and refuse to give >it back For how long? -- Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. The Outer Limits > Foster-parenting my 4-year-old grandson. > Not allowed to spank. > He does whatever he wants and insists on it and we have no control. > What can we do? He's got us by our gonads! > > Bill D what are the reasons you arent allowed to spank? i'd take away the most favorite thing the child has and refuse to give it back |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.