Parenting Question: What Would Do If Your Child Hit You?

[General Mung Beans]

Just a bit of a parenting question, not sure where to put it.

What would you do if your children hit you? How would you react?

If you would react differently for different ages or how hard they would hit you, state so (ie from a joke tap to a disrespectful smack to a nasty slap to full-blown assault).

[Eternal_Freedom]

Whilst I am not a parent, I fully plan to be one day. Should this situation arise, I would shrug off anything barring a full blown assault.

Most likely they would strike me because they are angry or sad or dissapointed or hormonal or whatever. But I think the most effective way to prevent further violence is to show them, by not responding physically, that their assault was impotent.

Obviously there would be consequences. Not least of which would be a lengthy talk about why they felt the need to hit me. If it was something really minor I would probably just let it go. But I would only respond with violence if they were full-grown, and even then only in self-defense.

[someone_else]

Yeah, the goal should remain immobilizing him (gently but firmly) and talk about the issue (when he has vented the steam anyway). And the hardest (but most important) part remains the "talking about the issue", since that requires you to know him very well and be decently good at talking.

[Lagmonster]

Only a complete lunatic would react to violence from their kid the same way when the kid is 17 than they would when the kid is 3, let alone when they're an adult.

A child up to the age of 12, even a strong boy, can be easily restrained without harming them or taking damage worse than a few scratches or light bruises if you're a healthy adult, no matter how hard they're fighting. They might not stop storming, screaming, or flailing, but I have never seen a kid who was capable of the energy for sustained violence against someone twice their mass, so it doesn't take long to get them back to a state where they're not going to hurt themselves or anyone else even if they haven't given up being angry.

An adolescent is a different story; if they don't have self-control by the time they're 13, you fucked up as a parent. It's hard to physically restrain them without getting hurt or hurting them in the process if they're determined to fight. But there is no best case I can think of that doesn't require the teen to both love and respect their parent no matter how angry they might be at them at the moment.

[Sela]

An adolescent is a different story; if they don't have self-control by the time they're 13, you fucked up as a parent.

I know this wasn't the point you were making (which I overall tend to agree with), but I'm curious about this statement of yours. I would say that I was a *very* choleric child at that age, took late-high school to outgrow it, but I can't blame it on my upbringing or my parents, who really *did* do pretty much everything they could to try and fix it. How do you figure that "poor self control" at 13 - or to generalize - "some *very* negative personality traits" are necessarily reflective of bad parenting?

Or am I misinterpreting you here - in which case, I apologize.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

I think he means such poor self control that the child must be physically restrained to prevent violent lashing out, which in a 13 year old in indicative of serious problems that, even if they are not the parent's fault per se, should have been addressed years ago.

[Simon_Jester]

Only a complete lunatic would react to violence from their kid the same way when the kid is 17 than they would when the kid is 3, let alone when they're an adult.

A child up to the age of 12, even a strong boy, can be easily restrained without harming them or taking damage worse than a few scratches or light bruises if you're a healthy adult, no matter how hard they're fighting. They might not stop storming, screaming, or flailing, but I have never seen a kid who was capable of the energy for sustained violence against someone twice their mass, so it doesn't take long to get them back to a state where they're not going to hurt themselves or anyone else even if they haven't given up being angry.

An adolescent is a different story; if they don't have self-control by the time they're 13, you fucked up as a parent. It's hard to physically restrain them without getting hurt or hurting them in the process if they're determined to fight. But there is no best case I can think of that doesn't require the teen to both love and respect their parent no matter how angry they might be at them at the moment.

The line between 12 and 13 is pretty slim, but I take your meaning.

I think he means such poor self control that the child must be physically restrained to prevent violent lashing out, which in a 13 year old in indicative of serious problems that, even if they are not the parent's fault per se, should have been addressed years ago.

As opposed to relatively minor 'background' levels of problems that are exacerbated by hormones?

A lot depends on whether this is a one-off or a regular occurrence. A basically normal* kid might lash out like that once or twice in their adolescence, in response to some very unusual stimulus, and have to be grabbed and pinned for a few seconds, without it being a sign that their parents have fucked up all that badly. If it's happening once a month, or if the kid keeps fighting for a long time until they run out of energy to resist, that's a very different matter.

I guess what I'm trying to distinguish here is the difference between "normal" behavior, "routine emergency" behavior, and "extreme emergency" behavior. Violence as normal behavior is a sign of very bad parenting. Violence as "routine emergency" behavior, in response to stresses that crop up on the order of once a month, is a sign of either bad parenting or underlying medical problems.

Violence as a response to extremely unusual stimuli, of the sort that an adolescent may have only encountered once or twice in their life before... that I have a harder time seeing as something that reflects badly on the parents, or as a sign of mental problems.

*As in "no significant mental illness or obvious social dysfunction beyond the normal range"

[Big Phil]

My three year old son gets instant timeout when he hits.

[someone_else]

An adolescent is a different story; if they don't have self-control by the time they're 13, you fucked up as a parent. It's hard to physically restrain them without getting hurt or hurting them in the process if they're determined to fight.

What I'm expecting is some random attack due to rage because of a punishemt or something he truly doesn't like (too enraged to stay calm, but too controlled to actually do anything more than throw punches/kicks at random). It's not totally uncommon even up to 16-17 afaik.

An actual cold-blooded attack meant to incapacitate or even kill me is probably indicative of either a failure on my part or some illness on his part, and has to be dealt with in the usual way (trying to survive at any cost).

[Akhlut]

Depends on what my son (just under 3 years old) is doing.

If he accidently hits me while we're wrestling or something, I tell him to be gentle and point out that he's given me a "boo-boo," to help reinforce the idea that hitting people hurts them. Luckily, he seems to have empathy and says "sorry" or "don't cry" when that happens.

If he starts slapping or hitting or biting while throwing a tantrum, that results in restraint and punishment (toys taken away, generally, or naps if he's obviously tired).

Now, when he starts getting older, timeouts will be implemented. If he continues to do this after toddlerhood, we might start getting him checked out for potential psychiatric problems.

[Highlord Laan]

Occasionally while roughhousing as a kid, I'd strike my parents. I'd get a solid talking to and be told to better control myself. Playing around would then continue, with that that stern rebuke in mind. Striking out out of anger or something earned an outright slap across the face or being put over a knee, which happened once and never again.

As a teenager, had I ever been goddamed stupid enough to strike either of my parents, my father would have beat the ever living holy out of me, and I would have had it coming.

[Keevan_Colton]

This is something I have to deal with semi-regularly since one of my partners kids is autistic with severe behavioural problems. Generally I tend to just hold him until he calms down, though sometimes that can take quite a long while. He's managed more than an hour and a half long feral episodes before. I'm definitely not looking forward to when he hits his teens at this rate.

[SCRawl]

My three year old son gets instant timeout when he hits.

Same here, though mine are six and (as of tomorrow) five, and girls. My youngest has a little more difficulty with impulse control, and I hope that we'll be able to shake that loose before it becomes a real problem.

[Korto]

When my younger (at 2) hits me because I didn't do what he wanted, I just completely ignore it as if it didn't happen. No feedback, no interesting reaction. He might as well have hit the wall for all the apparent result. A bite may get the same result or (if he's bitten somewhere more sensitive) he is calmly and emotionlessly disengaged and then no feedback.
My elder (nearly 4) gets told calmly and firmly that we don't hit people.

[Lagmonster]

An adolescent is a different story; if they don't have self-control by the time they're 13, you fucked up as a parent.

I know this wasn't the point you were making (which I overall tend to agree with), but I'm curious about this statement of yours. I would say that I was a *very* choleric child at that age, took late-high school to outgrow it, but I can't blame it on my upbringing or my parents, who really *did* do pretty much everything they could to try and fix it. How do you figure that "poor self control" at 13 - or to generalize - "some *very* negative personality traits" are necessarily reflective of bad parenting?

Or am I misinterpreting you here - in which case, I apologize.

There are exceptions, of course - this is sociology - but I wasn't actually thinking about self control in any sense other than to be able to restrain ones' self from resorting to violence, and I came off sounding too generalized. I didn't intend to have implied that a parent has failed if their kid doesn't have an iron will against every and all temptations and instincts by the time they hit puberty. I also made a presumption and only considered the situation in terms of otherwise 'normal' people who didn't have conditions that would affect their behaviour.

For the record, I believe that it absolutely is possible to have good parents with a violent kid due to circumstances that they cannot control. But as a reasonable generalization, a parent should have been able to teach self-control where it comes to not using violence to satisfy wants or express emotions, to even a reasonably young child. And, frankly, in other areas as well where excess exists; teaching self-control should be a principal goal of parenting. If you have that, you can limit your susceptibility to distractions or temptations that would keep you from working, studying, or good behaviour. Which in turns, aids in success.

[Darth Tedious]

When my 3 year old girl hits me, I tell her to settle down/chill out, but I don't make a big deal of it. She tends to do it as a response to being told off for other things, and quickly apologises when I pull her up on it.
Unless she hits me with her lightsaber, in which case it was clearly my fault for lowering my defences.

[Justforfun000]

I'm not a parent..so my opinion is not as valuable or informed as others who actualy deal with this on a personal day-to-day basis..

But I can think of an example of a young girl who is a sweetheart, now in her late 20's..she had an issue with being too physical..she wasn't going out beating people up mind you..but when we were playing a computer game together and she lost..she'd get pissed and punch my shoulder..
Not a huge deal..I'm a man...she's not hitting me with tremendous force..but it's still not a good precedent. I let it slide a bit because I'm so close to her...but her grandmother..and then mother noticed and was like "You do NOT have a good reason to do that"...she was sent anger management which she personally found very beneficial.

[General Mung Beans]

An adolescent is a different story; if they don't have self-control by the time they're 13, you fucked up as a parent. It's hard to physically restrain them without getting hurt or hurting them in the process if they're determined to fight.

What I'm expecting is some random attack due to rage because of a punishemt or something he truly doesn't like (too enraged to stay calm, but too controlled to actually do anything more than throw punches/kicks at random). It's not totally uncommon even up to 16-17 afaik.

Hmm...what if your kid just mock "hit" you to make a point not to attack you?

[Simon_Jester]

Well, if it's a joke or something, and obviously a joke, why worry about it? I mean, I'll pantomime a comically slow-moving haymaker towards my friends now and then as part of a joke; it doesn't seem to me to be a threat in any real sense, especially not coming from a child.