Tough Love? Tough Luck!

[The Atheist]

I find this story fascinating and think it raises some very good questions on life and family in the 21st century.

Apparently the story has gained traction worldwide, but in a nutshell, a 17-year old boy has taken his parents to court to get around them grounding him due to his involvement with a 24-year old woman.

The full story is here.
(http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10736018)

I'm not sure whether it's of any importance, but for the sake of factuality, I must note that Rhi Jeffrey did not "win" a gold medal at Athens - she competed in the early rounds of the 4 x 200m relay and was awarded a medal for being part of the winning team.

As a parent, I have a sneaky suspicion I may well have acted the same way as Justin Wright's parents. At 17, he should not be involved with a 24 yo, and I would certainly try to stop my kids doing in that situation. Almost 30 years ago, I was the 24 yo going out with a 17 yo and I know damned well my intentions weren't honourable!

I find the court's findings in feeling they know better than Justin's parents to be quite bizarre and have to wonder whether the result would have been the same had not national representation at a sport been involved.

Legally, parents are responsible for their children up to age 18 in NZ, and when my son was 17, I restricted his human rights to nil after a series of "incidents". Looking back over the past four years and now seeing a responsible young man, I'm confident the "toughlove" approach has its merits, but now, a court has over-ruled the right of parents to make those rules.

Am I right to be disturbed by this, or do you feel that at 17, he can make his own decisions and live with the consequences? If so, where do parents' rights end?

(The legal age of sexual consent in NZ is 16)

[Vonny]

I didn't read the article, but I have to say I agree with you completely, and good for you on being a functioning father.

A 17 year-old can certainly devastate his (or her) life. My mom was strict on me, and although she was often unfair, the fact is that I am still alive. I'm here to tell about it!

A 17 year-old boy's brain isn't completely developed at all. They are slower to mature apparently than a girl.

An odd thing is that teenage boys can be very aggressive toward grown women. I don't mean aggressive in an angry way, you know. That is something I didn't know about boys when I was a teenager myself because back then I perceived many of them as more shy. I've been in the park by myself in an isolated area and had a very big boy ride up to me on his bike very fast, get off and walk up to me and stand there staring me down. I never go to the park alone anymore after that incident. But it's happened to me several times that boys who seem to be 15, 16, or 17 proposition me. In fact, I've sometimes asked them their age and they've told me. I have to say that they have approached me more "strongly" than grown men.

[JuniperWoolf]

He's going to be eighteen in three months, after which his parents have absolutely no control over him whatsoever, and they're trying to tell him who to date? Yeah, that's not going to work. If they had won the court battle, what did they think was going to happen when he comes of age in ninety days? Is he going to magically become "mature" enough to run his own life, or are they still going to try to send him to his room without supper? If right now he's willing to move out and get legal aid then I'm pretty sure he'd be willing to tell them to go to hell after three months.

I've never met a seventeen year old who was grounded. I vote "bad parenting decision," they tried to get too tight a stranglehold on him when he was too old and now he doesn't even live with them and he can do anything he wants. Soon he'll be in University, probably on a swimming scholarship. Which reminds me: they tried to stand in the way of his future and endured public riddicule because he was sleeping with someone seven years older than him? That's not so bad, seven years isn't much. I wonder what their reaction would have been if he was arrested for public drunkeness or something, I bet they would have chained him up in the basement.

[Helga]

I think sending the emails was a bad choice, his mom shouldn't have done that I think. But I do think a relationship like this should be stopped, maybe I would have used the 'if you still love her when your 18' approach ,absence makes the heart grow fonder (or something like that) focus on swimming. I know I wouldn't want my son dating a 24 year old at 17 and I wouldn't want him to be the 24 year old either, at this age it is a big age gap! when I was 16 I had an older boyfriend and he did not have honorable ideas about it.

[MarkBastable]

I tend to agree with Juniper. If it's reached the stage where the kid is willing to take the parents to court in order to resolve what is essentially a private familial matter, then the parenting went wrong a hell of a long time ago. The question isn't whether they're doing the right thing now, but how they managed to get themselves to a position in which the kid feels his only effective recourse is to make a legal case of it.

[Vonny]

I don't know anything about the news story, if the parents are trying to do their best, or if they screwed up parenting a long time ago and it's too late now. But...


when my son was 17, I restricted his human rights to nil after a series of "incidents". Looking back over the past four years and now seeing a responsible young man, I'm confident the "toughlove" approach has its merits.

You did what you thought best for your son. Who cares about his age? A kid who has a father is lucky.

If I, at any age, had a father, I'd welcome some love of any kind.

I think my mother controlled me as a way to exercise her power, so I think what matters is the parent's motivations.

[Delta40]

I tend to agree with Juniper. If it's reached the stage where the kid is willing to take the parents to court in order to resolve what is essentially a private familial matter, then the parenting went wrong a hell of a long time ago. The question isn't whether they're doing the right thing now, but how they managed to get themselves to a position in which the kid feels his only effective recourse is to make a legal case of it.

Do you think part of the problem is that this generation if fully cognizant of its entitlements and rights but extremely slow on the definition of personal responsibility?

[Vonny]

"Soon he'll be in University, probably on a swimming scholarship."

Does this happen for you if you have parents who abuse you?

[Emil Miller]

Do you think part of the problem is that this generation if fully cognizant of its entitlements and rights but extremely slow on the definition of personal responsibility?

That's the UK's problem in a nutshell and not just in relation to the young.

[MarkBastable]

Do you think part of the problem is that this generation if fully cognizant of its entitlements and rights but extremely slow on the definition of personal responsibility?

Not really, no. Kids get their ideas about how the world works, and about how a person should work in the world, mainly from their parents. The definition of personal responsibility is a learned thing, which means it has to be taught.

So, I'd guess that Atheist's relationship with his son was such that, when Atheist came down on him, the kid accepted it as something that a dad could do. I've had similar things with my son. He may not always have been delighted by the boundaries I set, but (as he has said subsequently) he never thought they were unfair. And he's now nineteen, with his own place, a job and a highly-developed sense of responsibility.

It pisses me off, actually, when people refer to 'this generation' as if they were an amorphous mass with a hive mind that shared a single attitude - and the attitude people refer to when they say such things is never a good one.

I remember lurid stories about the attitudes and outlook of 'the younger generation' when I was a teenager in the seventies. Apparently those of us who weren't growing our hair too long and taking drugs were cutting our hair too short and drinking too much. Which, even if true, would not necessarily have meant that we wouldn't grow up to be a perfectly average set of adults, some of whom were responsible, kind and industrious, and some of whom weren't.

And - here's a surprise - that's exactly what's happened. And that's what'll happen again.

[TheFifthElement]

Double post - see below.

[Delta40]

This generation is the legacy of past generations and it would be a shame to fingerpoint as if the burden rests on such young shoulders without owning what has gone before us to be now faced with such challenges of 'this generation'

[TheFifthElement]

Do you think part of the problem is that this generation if fully cognizant of its entitlements and rights but extremely slow on the definition of personal responsibility?

I think that's the wrong way around. I think people want kids to behave responsibly without ever giving them the chance to be responsible. If the kid wants to date a 24 year old so be it. It's his life, his responsibility. If the parents think grounding him will make him more 'responsible' they've missed the point. That's taking responsibility away from him, not granting it. Responsibility means making your own decisions and living with the consequences of them, not making the decisions your parents or those 'concerned bystanders' who know nothing about you and your life or the people in it think you should make. Responsibility means living your own life with care for the people around you, not living the life the people who care about you think you should. That's comformism rather than responsibility. There's a line, and at 17 if the parents can't let him life his life then they need a lesson on responsibility. If he were committing crime it'd be different, but preventing him from having a relationship because they don't approve of the age gap, that's just rubbish. It's a decision based on personal prejudice and fear, the pervert in their own minds, and not a judgement on their son or his 24 year old lover. If they were so worried about it, why didn't they get to know her? Keep your friends close and your enemies closer, right? That's what I'd do. Denying them each other would only push them closer together, but getting to know them you get to find out if there's anything really to worry about. She might be a really nice girl. She's a swimmer too, isn't she? Also training at a high level. Maybe they really like each other. Maybe they spur each other on, make each other better swimmers. It's a shame how easy it is to jump to the pervert conclusion and the other hundred thousand possibilities don't seem to get a look in.

And if you read the story they didn't 'ground' him - they withdrew their consent for him to compete as a swimmer thereby standing in the way of his chances to qualify for the Olympics something, in all probability, he's been working all his life towards, because they didn't approve of the relationship. They made this decision without even meeting the girl. It's less tough love than hysteria. It's unfortunate he felt he had to take such extreme steps so that he could move on with his life. If the story is true as written (and there is always the possibility that the story is skewed) it sounds like he is the one taking responsibility and his parents refusing to accept that he's growing up and that they can no longer control every aspect of his life.

Nothing worse than helicopter parenting to my mind.

[Delta40]

Shouldn't a parent do that by example? A loving parent might consider the imposition of consequences for poor judgment/actions the very best thing they can do. One has to set a standard and it certainly doesn't begin when they are 17. It's from the word go and stays consistently in place and a child is shaped into a young adult on this foundation.

[The Atheist]

I've never met a seventeen year old who was grounded.

You need to meet my boy - he was grounded at 17.

He didn't like it much.

:D


Which reminds me: they tried to stand in the way of his future and endured public riddicule because he was sleeping with someone seven years older than him? That's not so bad, seven years isn't much. I wonder what their reaction would have been if he was arrested for public drunkeness or something, I bet they would have chained him up in the basement.

:lol:

Going by NZ's problems with teen drinking, they would have probably bought the booze for him!


I think sending the emails was a bad choice, his mom shouldn't have done that I think...

when I was 16 I had an older boyfriend and he did not have honorable ideas about it.

Wasn't me, was it?

:D

I agree that involving the coach and other people was an awful plan.


I tend to agree with Juniper. If it's reached the stage where the kid is willing to take the parents to court in order to resolve what is essentially a private familial matter, then the parenting went wrong a hell of a long time ago. The question isn't whether they're doing the right thing now, but how they managed to get themselves to a position in which the kid feels his only effective recourse is to make a legal case of it.

You may well be right, and thinking about it, I'm sure my kids would never put me and my wife in that position. No doubt the judge took everything into account, but they may well have been excellent parents and the boy has been sucked in by a fast-talking woman.

I'd be very interested to know what her immigrantion status is. It'd be somewhat ironic if she's looking to marry him when he turns 18 so she can gain permanent residency.


Do you think part of the problem is that this generation if fully cognizant of its entitlements and rights but extremely slow on the definition of personal responsibility?

In some cases. When my boy was in trouble, he was largely under the influence of a complete dickhead. I served papers on the dickhead, forbidding him to contact my boy in any way - virtually a non-association order.

Thing was, it was only signed by a Justice of the Peace, whose official function was only to witness my signature and it had no legal weight whatsoever, but they believed it was real.

He was thick though. Did I mention he was a dickhead?

:D


I think that's the wrong way around. I think people want kids to behave responsibly without ever giving them the chance to be responsible. If the kid wants to date a 24 year old so be it. It's his life, his responsibility.

To some degree, I agree, but we make boundaries for all of our children - or we bloody well ought to.

I must admit to being in two minds about it, and that it would depend entirely on the person involved and the situation at the time. If I saw one of my kids at any age destroying their life, I'd act in some way.


...If the story is true as written (and there is always the possibility that the story is skewed) it sounds like he is the one taking responsibility and his parents refusing to accept that he's growing up and that they can no longer control every aspect of his life.

That could be the case, too. A lot of this is speculation, which is why the inner question of when and where responsibility stops.


Shouldn't a parent do that by example? A loving parent might consider the imposition of consequences for poor judgment/actions the very best thing they can do. One has to set a standard and it certainly doesn't begin when they are 17. It's from the word go and stays consistently in place and a child is shaped into a young adult on this foundation.

Correct. That's why I hope my kids won't be that stupid. Not taking bets, though!

[Delta40]

I believe standards are the anchor that our children need. We have a zero tolerance of alcohol in our house. As a parent I must remind myself that it is not my duty to be a cool friend for my kids but to create a structured framework where they are clear on the limits. They don't have to like it either but it is there for a reason. None of their friends use our home to consume alcohol and I don't deal with melancholy or aggressive young adults as a result. I have heard the age old argument that they will just do it somewhere else and that might be true but even if I let my kids drink at home, they would in all probability drink elsewhere anyway and the only thing I would have given them is an extra place to get smashed which would make me a facilitating, abusive parent.

[Shalot]

I believe standards are the anchor that our children need. We have a zero tolerance of alcohol in our house. As a parent I must remind myself that it is not my duty to be a cool friend for my kids but to create a structured framework where they are clear on the limits. They don't have to like it either but it is there for a reason. None of their friends use our home to consume alcohol and I don't deal with melancholy or aggressive young adults as a result. I have heard the age old argument that they will just do it somewhere else and that might be true but even if I let my kids drink at home, they would in all probability drink elsewhere anyway and the only thing I would have given them is an extra place to get smashed which would make me a facilitating, abusive parent.

Tough love is a good practice, and is appropriate for those kids who have never had a drink or tried a drug. Perhaps a policy like tough love will influence those kids and prevent them from ever taking a drink or drug. Maybe If they know your position, they won't ever try it.

But what about tough love after the fact? Suppose that despite your position, your child tried something at a party or at a friends house after school, or at the park or something. Suppose that child tried the wrong thing and just suppose that child developed a serious addiction (play along). suppose an addiction developed under your nose...maybe drugs came into play at an age you wouldn't expect (10 year old child from affluent family smokes pot with older kids, tries other things and winds up with a pain pill addiction - opiates maybe). Should tough love be applied in those situations? For example, suppose the child is an addict - do you put him/her in rehab or kick them out and let them fend for themselves on the street in the hopes that the reality of street life will bring them to their senses? Are parents more likely to employ "tough love" with boys than with girls? Maybe a son addicted to crack won't be as vulnerable on the streets as a girl would? Just curious - opinions?

[Delta40]

Tough love has to be defined. It doesn't mean abandoning your child and kicking them to the kerb so they're out in the world alone. Despite the difficulties they may find themselves in a parent applying tough love has the courage to make those hard decisions, trusting (sometimes hoping) that their integrity is what will win the day. A child addict is in serious need of help but that doesn't mean a parent should facilitate harmful practices or remove consequences from the list of parental responsibilities. You make it sound as if tough love means no love when that is really not the case.

[SleepyWitch]

I agree with FifthElement. How is he supposed to learn responsibility if he's not allowed to make his own experiences? When I was 17 I had an older boy friend who didn't have honourable intentions (neither did I, for that matter). But guess what? I'm still alive. And what's more, I consider it an extremely valuable experience because it taught me that I don't want this kind of relationship and helped me form a very clear idea of what it is that I do want in a relationship.
Anyway, why are we even assuming that he is ruining his life or whatever? From what it says in the article, he's become a better swimmer because his girl friend pushes him to train harder. Surely, that's a good thing. Apart from that, we don't know anything about their relationship, so why do we need to jump to the conclusion that he's making a mistake? That seems a bit prejudiced and alarmist to me. Moreover, if the legal age of consent in NZ is 16, then his parents don't have any right whatsoever to interfere in his relationship. If he wanted to go out with an 80 y/o granny, there'd be nothing they could do about it. I suppose there are good reasons to argue that the age of consent should be 18, but that's a separate issue altogether.

[MarkBastable]

I believe standards are the anchor that our children need. We have a zero tolerance of alcohol in our house.

See, I think that's a bad idea. I mean, a really counterproductive idea. Because, at some point, every kid is put in a position where they might get very very drunk - and when a kid first finds himself in that position, it really helps him to know a bit about how to deal with alcohol responsibly and measuredly.

The kid in the group who ends up dangerously inebriated tends not to be the kid who has been taught to handle alcohol, just as he's been taught to handle a breadknife, an electric drill and an approach from a predatory weirdo.

[prendrelemick]

All you can do is love them, bring them up to cope with life, and let them go. The last part is the hardest. I suspect this is what the 17 year old's parents found difficult.

[The Atheist]

See, I think that's a bad idea. I mean, a really counterproductive idea. Because, at some point, every kid is put in a position where they might get very very drunk - and when a kid first finds himself in that position, it really helps him to know a bit about how to deal with alcohol responsibly and measuredly.

The kid in the group who ends up dangerously inebriated tends not to be the kid who has been taught to handle alcohol, just as he's been taught to handle a breadknife, an electric drill and an approach from a predatory weirdo.

That is true.

I think an awful lot of alcohol problems might be reversed if parents showed their kids that alcohol can be enjoyable without getting blind drunk.