. . . I get so sick of parents that automatically call "spectrum" on their kids for bad behavior due to lack of discipline or supervision.
Apparently now it's easier to label a child and call it a disability (and be rewarded for bad behavior because of said "disability") than actually parent and teach them right from wrong growing up (because snowflake will only be 1, 2 3 4,5, 6 ect once so that's why they are excused)
Should the OP have realized what was going on and stopped it sooner? Yeah, maybe, but EVERY parent whose child is more than perhaps a day old has missed something, has let go by something that should've been noticed. Other kids, the house, the job, and even the parents' own lives get in the way. Missing something doesn't mean she's a bad parent. Noticing it and letting it go would be a sign of a bad parent. Missing multiple things on an ongoing basis would be a sign of a bad parent. As far as we know, the OP missed out on computer issues. I'm not ready to throw stones for that.
And she's not ignoring the problem, not excusing it away, not trying to avoid parenting the child. She's trying to figure out how best to deal with the problem. More than once I've said to my child, "Go to your room, and we'll talk about your punishment after dinner." Sometimes I need to cool down before I can make a rational decision. It doesn't mean I'm not going to come down hard on the child; it just means I need a little time to decide (and perhaps confer with her father) about what's most appropriate.
I would bet money that GoinAgainSoon has no children. One of the things many of us learned once we became parents is that decisions aren't nearly as black and white as we thought when we were criticizing from the side.
I'm getting that "no children" impression too. He or she is strong on the punishment side of things, but is completely missing that a good parent lets the child "earn his way back" into a trusting relationship again. A good parent doesn't punish the child forever because he made a (very serious) mistake at 9 years old.
Thinking back to my own childhood, my own mom was always very strict with punishments -- very fast too -- but although she started out strong, she often petered out by the end. That is, she'd assign grounding 'til the end of the school year . . . including extra chores, etc, etc, etc . . . but after a couple days, a week at the most, she'd run out of steam. Punishing a child takes parental effort, and it's absolutely no fun. She had a whole houseful of kids on her own, and that's hard. Our punishments never lasted as long as they were assigned, and we knew it. Maybe that's why I've always given very stern but relatively short punishments. It seems more effective to me. The end of the punishment, the forgiveness and the return to normality, is just as important as the hurting part. That's what GoinAgainSoon is missing.
In this case, the trip is a month away. A month of punishment is an appropriate amount of time for a 9-year old, and it's appropriate for the crime committed. Come down hard on the child -- I completely agree. But let the punishment end a month from now, and let him back into everyone's good graces.
Certainly, after that point, some new computer supervision rules would be appropriate, but that'd be new family operating procedures -- not continued punishment.
Rewarding bad behavior only breeds more bad behavior.
I agree with that, but going on a vacation more than a month after the crime was committed doesn't seem like a reward for bad behavior. Would you suggest that the poster also forbid him to go on a camping trip with his scout troop next fall? forbid him to go out for middle school football next year? have him skip senior prom?
The child needs to be punished, and the punishment needs to be swift and severe . . . the punishment needs to make him miserable and make him understand that doing wrong is not worth the costs . . . but it also needs to end. A month later is appropriate.
(sic) refers to "spelling in context".
No, it doesn't. It's Latin and I forget the exact translation, but it's supposed to be placed in squared-off brackets [] not parentheses (), and it means that you're quoting a person who's made a spelling or grammar mistake, and although you recognize the mistake, you're still passing on the original author's words exactly as he or she wrote them.
He's 9. He knew right from wrong of course. He should have a consequence. OP has already said there will be a consequence. The whole family can learn from this. He is still a very young child. Don't think he should be labeled a criminal just yet! It is just a coincidence that this trip is in the near future. It's not just him and something fun; the whole family is involved. This is different than taking away something from just him. I'd take away the computer indefinitely and provide lots of library time with books over the summer in addition to the therapist if needed. The future would involve the computer being in a very public place and supervision until he proves to be trustworthy. But he should be given the chance to BE trustworthy again.
This makes perfect sense to me -- except for the therapist part; if lack of friends is the problem, I think he'd do better at summer camp or joining a baseball team than sitting with a therapist . . . but first the OP has to get through this immediate crisis.
However it does not set up a consistent basis of discipline and therefore would be of no use as a teaching tool. For a 9yo it would be seen as totally confusing.
