It's now a non-issue so nvm :)

[Cimorene]

The thread topic is about an issue that's now resolved so I'm deleting my OP. Sorry for taking up space!!!!

 

[quatona]

How much of an ethical right do you think parents have when it comes to making rules & giving consequences to their teens?

I have problem giving you my opinion within the terminological reference frame you have set here.
1. I don´t know that there are "ethical rights".
2. I think it´s very important to distinguish between "consequences" and "punishment". Consequences are your ally in the upbringing of kids, punishments aren´t.

Terms/concepts like "rules", "punishment", "rights" may have their place in matters of distribution of power (which would be politics), but not in our personal loving relationships (partnerships, families, adult/parent-child-relationships).

To me grounding a teen for a week more is just counterproductive.

Personally, I don´t understand the logic behind "grounding" (and similar punishments) at all.
So maybe - since you gave an example where you consider it counterproductive - you could first tell me in regards to which goal(s) you feel "grounding" could possibly be productive.

 

[blackribbon]

I'd say that it depends on the kid. I'd probably not ground a kid that never goes out and is perfectly happy to stay home because the consequences of their actions would not be much of a deterrent. Now, turning off the wifi or putting a password on it probably would be more effective. As for disturbing the plans with friends...well, isn't that the point? If the teen is breaking the rules (note: they knew what the rules were and disregarded them anyway), then yes, the consequences should be "uncomfortable" if you want to illicit a change of behavior in the future.

Of course, there are parents who are unreasonable or very strict...but it isn't fair for people to play "armchair quarterback" in these situations. If a teen really finds her/himself with unfair parents, they are free to move out when they are 18 and act as independent adults. If they continue to accept support in their status as a child after that point, then they have accepted the terms of agreement which means living under the parent's rules. Really, the only think a parent is required to provide for their child is a safe environment and basic needs of life...and only until the age of 18. Everything else is extra and a bonus. There aren't really "rights" or an "ethical" responsibility to provide time with friends or access to a car to drive.

 

[Cimorene]

I'd say that it depends on the kid. I'd probably not ground a kid that never goes out and is perfectly happy to stay home because the consequences of their actions would not be much of a deterrent. Now, turning off the wifi or putting a password on it probably would be more effective. As for disturbing the plans with friends...well, isn't that the point? If the teen is breaking the rules (note: they knew what the rules were and disregarded them anyway), then yes, the consequences should be "uncomfortable" if you want to illicit a change of behavior in the future.

I was more upset about my plans with my friends being messed up bc she got into trouble. I was so disappointed. I didn't do anything wrong. We just moved to Toronto & she's the only friend I have here so far. She was supposed to show me around & introduce me to other friends so I can make friends with them. Her parents are going to let us get together this weekend after all so it's going to be OK! She's not going to be grounded for nearly as long as they said she would be at first. I didn't know any of that when I made the thread. I was just feeling crushed about our plans being canceled bc I was extremely excited. I've been looking forward to it all summer. My parents don't really ground us. It really isn't needed bc we don't really do much we're not supposed to do. They're great. Just talking to us is enough most of the time. I was planning on deleting the OP & asking it to be closed bc it's a dumb topic but thanks for your input anyways.

 

[Cimorene]

I have problem giving you my opinion within the terminological reference frame you have set here.
1. I don´t know that there are "ethical rights".
2. I think it´s very important to distinguish between "consequences" and "punishment". Consequences are your ally in the upbringing of kids, punishments aren´t.

Terms/concepts like "rules", "punishment", "rights" may have their place in matters of distribution of power (which would be politics), but not in our personal loving relationships (partnerships, families, adult/parent-child-relationships).


Personally, I don´t understand the logic behind "grounding" (and similar punishments) at all.
So maybe - since you gave an example where you consider it counterproductive - you could first tell me in regards to which goal(s) you feel "grounding" could possibly be productive.

I'm sorry for not deleting the thread before you read it. I've been grounded once in my life, for 1 weekend, several yrs ago. It was enough for me to think things over & not repeat what I'd done. So I guess it was productive for me. It's not the way my parents usually parent. They're not into giving out punishments. That's not their style. It's not necessary or helpful for us. This was about my friend who was supposed to be taking me on a tour of the city I just moved to & introducing me to new friends being grounded. I was crushed bc it effected me too. I was pumped. But now it's OK bc they changed their mind & our plans are back in place. I honestly didn't expect you to take my post the way you did.

 

[blackribbon]

I don't ground my kids because...well, they are responsible and don't intentionally break any of the few rules we have or disrespect me in the ways that they know matter. However, I would. But grounding would not include missing a team sport where they were depending on my kid to show up (my kids tend to be pitchers & catchers). They wouldn't be grounded from showing up to a job either. I would not have any issue grounding them from plans with a friend because that would be the kind of peer pressure that would correct the behavior the fastest. Hanging out with friends isn't a responsibility but a privilege. In life, there will be plenty of times where friends have to cancel related to last minute family or job responsibilities. Yes, it is disappointing but it is a life reality. At work we can get "mandated" to change our schedules if it is in the hospital's best interest. It doesn't matter even what my family obligations are...I go to work or risk getting fired.

I am glad that things are working out better for you and that you do get to go out though. I had a boyfriend who got grounded for grades one week after I finally agreed to go out with him...he couldn't go on a date for 6 weeks. My grades were all As but that wasn't the issue. I promise he had very high grades on that next report card and everyone after that. Sometimes we motivate teens the only way we can get them to listen.

 

[Cearbhall]

I was more upset about my plans with my friends being messed up bc she got into trouble. I was so disappointed. I didn't do anything wrong. We just moved to Toronto & she's the only friend I have here so far. She was supposed to show me around & introduce me to other friends so I can make friends with them.

I can't remember if it happened to my sibling or someone else, but I remember she had planned to go to a concert out-of-town with a friend, and then suddenly the friend wasn't allowed to go because she misbehaved. She didn't want to go to the concert alone for safety reasons, but it was too late to refund the ticket. Couldn't find anyone else who wanted to go, and I don't think the parents offered to pay the cost of both tickets. Kinda insensitive on their part. That's a lot of money for a teen, or even an adult.

Parents should think it through and make sure no one else is adversely affected. I think there are some who just say "You're grounded for __ days" because it doesn't take any thinking.

 

[jayem]

I'm not a parent, so I'm in no position to talk about teenagers. But this is my general opinion on dealing with errant behavior: The emphasis should be on taking responsibility and making restitution. Suppose my son trashed someone's house. I wouldn't lecture him, or ground him, or prevent his computer use. In fact, I'd have him publicly admit on social media what he did, and make him clean up whatever mess he made. If property was damaged, he'll have to pay for. If he doesn't have a job, I'll have him do chores around the house, pay him by the hour, and he can use that to pay what he owes. If this resulted from acting stupid with some buddies, then he'll have to identify his accomplices unless he wants to take the fall all by himself. If he got drunk and disorderly, then--apart from any other consequences--I'd have him make a donation to something like MADD, or a hospital substance abuse program. And he'd have to earn the money to do it. If my daughter was harassing or bullying another girl on-line, she wouldn't be off the computer. She'd have to post an apology to the victim on her Facebook page or whatever, detailing all the hurtful things she said and did. If her victim needed counseling, I'd sure look into having my daughter pay for at least part of it. And maybe she should also do some sort of work for an anti-bullying organization. This approach might not be available for everything. But as much as possible, I want the consequences for a bad act to fit the circumstances. This isn't punishment. It's treating a teenager as an adult. In the adult world, if you act wrongly, you accept responsibility, and you do what you can to make things right.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

Closed at OP request.