# Parental Dilemma: Spy or Not To Spy on Your Kid(s)



## MA-Caver (Sep 4, 2011)

On this forum I lament the irresponsibility of a parent when a child goes bad and commits a crime (i.e. story about 2 teenagers robbing a 72 year old man of 7 cents or other examples). Kids are kids and kids will do whatever their minds come up with. Curiosity, rebellion, peer pressure, et al. Then comes parental obligation to ensure their children are safe and free from harm as much as humanly possible. Lots of mean-spirited and terrible people out there and in cyberspace looking for that opportunity to present itself to do whatever their warped minds come up with. Likewise a trust issue between the parent and the child. Trusting the child not to experiment with drugs or sex until a certain age. Thin lines throughout. As usual it's up to the parent to determine that. After all isn't that part of what being a parent is all about? 


> NEW YORK (AP)  In the 21st century, parenthood and paranoia often walk hand in hand.
> 
> For  some, the blessed event is followed by high-tech surveillance  a  monitoring system tracks the baby's breathing rhythms and relays  infrared images from the nursery. The next investment might be a nanny  cam, to keep watch on the child's hired caregivers. Toddlers and grade  schoolers can be equipped with GPS devices enabling a parent to know  their location should something go awry.
> To  cope with the uncertainties of the teen years, some parents acquire  spyware to monitor their children's online and cell phone activity.  Others resort to home drug-testing kits.
> ...



Interesting line from a Senator on the issue.


> In New York City, a  policeman-turned-politician recorded a video earlier this year offering  tips to parents on how to search their children's bedrooms and  possessions for drugs and weapons. In the video, State Sen. Eric Adams   who has a teenage son  *insists that children have no constitutional  right to privacy at home* and shows how contraband could be hidden in  backpacks, jewelry boxes, even under a doll's dress.
> 
> "You have a duty and obligation to protect the members of your household," he says.



Growing up, I recall there were things that I wouldn't want my parents knowing that I did. Sometimes I got caught and sometimes, well... to this day there's stuff that they have no knowledge about, I'm fairly sure because one of those things I confided in with my dad later and he was shocked, so I'm fairly confident that a few other of my "secrets" are safe... but not all. M'dad isn't an idiot and I realize now that he probably knew more about what I've done than he let on. And this is WITHOUT today's technology. 

So are these gadgets worth the money spent? Are they "right" for a parent to use? Do they really keep a child safe? Does it violate or does it weaken/strengthen the trust between parent and child? 
My thoughts are along the lines of the age of the child determines the type of technology used to monitor them. Infants to toddlers to pre-school... absolutely yes these would be beneficial but not fool proof, nothing beats immediate presence. 
Pre-school on up to say... middle school I think those tracking devices are a good idea... I'm iffy on the idea of "implants" sounds too much Orwellian but at the same time useful in cases of kidnapping/abduction ... provided their range and signal are effective. Cyber-monitoring should be used because the net can be a dangerous web to wander about in for the uninitiated, innocent. 
Middle school on up to high-school... ehhh, a sticky. Hopefully by then the relationship between parent and child is built up on trust, obedience and confidence. The tools should IMO be used if the trust is violated by the child. 

A sticky to be sure. Where to draw the line(s). When to say when. 

Your thoughts?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 4, 2011)

I have no children, but I was raised to believe that children have no right to privacy.  I didn't.  Of course I resented it.  Of course I tried to keep secrets from my parents.  Sometimes I succeeded, other times not.  I'm sure we also had some things we thought were secret from our parents that were not, and vice-versa.  Do I think it should be different?  No.  Kids got no right to privacy, and that's cool.  

The Columbine Massacre was perpetrated by a couple kids who were building bombs in their garage and their parents claimed they didn't know about it and had journals full of plans and their parents claimed their kids had a right to privacy.


----------



## Blade96 (Sep 4, 2011)

Columbine was committed by boys who were very unpopular and were targets of bullies. Imo a can of worms. 

Kids are people, and do have a right to privacy. Imo, because i was a kid once, I believe that if parents foster the right environment where they have a kind of glastnost 'openness' where kids feel safe and they could come to their parents about stuff bothering them, and not feel afraid of scary mom and dad (as I did) they wouldn't feel they had to keep secrets. There was this guy on another ma's forum who complained about his daughter. A bit of discussion brought out the fact that he was very punitive. The daughter lied and didn't tell him a lot of things. (Why would she? He acted very scary. Stuff like 'Her world is what I let it be' and very controlling stuff. Now she still has her problems, but later on the father emptied his cup, came to me, and admitted that I was right. If you start from the very beginning with the right environment, you will have a good base for healthy openness. and no need for all this gadget crap. Go go gadget go.


----------



## Stealthy (Sep 4, 2011)

I learnt from a very young age to keep everything a secret from my parents not just naughty things I did but everything, hopes, dreams, things that made me happy...everything.

It didn't matter what it was sooner or later my folks would find a way to use it against me even if it was just for a laugh.

The whole turned into a sort of cat and mouse game of espionage where they were constantly trying to find out what I was up to and I was doing the same(so I could stay abreast of them).

To that end, heck yeah it's okay for parents to spy on their kids, they do, ain't nothing gonna stop that but it should be kept on the down low so the kids never find out.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 4, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> Columbine was committed by boys who were very unpopular and were targets of bullies.



And their bombs still would have been discovered if their parents had snooped.  Respecting their privacy resulted in tragedy.  I agree that a healthy nurturing environment might have obviated the need for snooping, and if the kids were not bullied and so on they might not have done what they did, but that's completely irrespective of the actual facts.  They built bombs in their garage.  They bought guns.  They wrote of their plans in their journals; and their parents respected their privacy and knew nothing of it.  Children have zero expectation of privacy.  Doing otherwise results in Columbines.


----------



## granfire (Sep 4, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> Columbine was committed by boys who were very unpopular and were targets of bullies. Imo a can of worms.
> 
> Kids are people, and do have a right to privacy. Imo, because i was a kid once, I believe that if parents foster the right environment where they have a kind of glastnost 'openness' where kids feel safe and they could come to their parents about stuff bothering them, and not feel afraid of scary mom and dad (as I did) they wouldn't feel they had to keep secrets. There was this guy on another ma's forum who complained about his daughter. A bit of discussion brought out the fact that he was very punitive. The daughter lied and didn't tell him a lot of things. (Why would she? He acted very scary. Stuff like 'Her world is what I let it be' and very controlling stuff. Now she still has her problems, but later on the father emptied his cup, came to me, and admitted that I was right. If you start from the very beginning with the right environment, you will have a good base for healthy openness. and no need for all this gadget crap. Go go gadget go.



I guess that hits the nail on the head.

There are some things I do control (rather spot check) others, not so much. 
But I think we have come to a stage (my 14 yo and I) that he can come to me, and tell me stuff. I get more mad over bad stuff that happened to him he did not let me know or he played down than the other way around.

I in turn do try to minimize my influence in important things (and control my sometimes ugly temper, or apologize when it didn't work as well) 

It worked out pretty well when some kid put some nasty stuff on FB geared towards my kid. (he showed it to me, but I think he was surprised about the level of follow up that came from my side - visit to the principal)
And while I never check his computer, we have the understanding that I know his passwords so I could if need be.


----------



## granfire (Sep 4, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> And their bombs still would have been discovered if their parents had snooped.  Respecting their privacy resulted in tragedy.  I agree that a healthy nurturing environment might have obviated the need for snooping, and if the kids were not bullied and so on they might not have done what they did, but that's completely irrespective of the actual facts.  They built bombs in their garage.  They bought guns.  They wrote of their plans in their journals; and their parents respected their privacy and knew nothing of it.  Children have zero expectation of privacy.  Doing otherwise results in Columbines.



I think it was a tragic case of lack of involvement in these kids' lives...


----------



## billc (Sep 4, 2011)

Yes. Spy, but I would advise wisdom in the spying.  Some things are a normal part of growing up, for example, perhaps an adult magazine, when they had those, which could probably be spied out and then ignored, no one the wiser.  Drugs, guns or loot from stealing could be dealt with.    Spying with wisdom is the key I would think.

Not to sidetrack, Columbine wasn't about bullying.  If you read the follow up research the one kid was popular but was a megolomaniac who wanted to kill people, and the other kid followed his lead.  Bullying wasn't the issue.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-04-13-columbine-myths_N.htm



> They weren't goths or loners.
> 
> The two teenagers who killed 13 people and themselves at
> suburban Denver's Columbine High School 10 years ago next week weren't in the
> ...





> A decade after Harris and Klebold made Columbine a synonym
> for rage, new information &#8212; including several books that analyze the tragedy
> through diaries, e-mails, appointment books, videotape, police affidavits and
> interviews with witnesses, friends and survivors &#8212; indicate that much of what
> ...


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 4, 2011)

Columbine was NOT perpetrated by bullied outcasts.  (More HERE)

Kids have limited rights to privacy, depending on who is doing the probing.  A cop can't walk into a kid's room automatically on the parent's say-so; it depends on the age of the kid, the efforts the kid makes to protect and control the space, the respect of that privacy shown by the parents, and more.

Should parents be aware of their kid's actions, associates, and what they have?  Absolutely.  Should they, as long as the kid's conduct and behavior supports it, allow them reasonable and appropriate privacy as they grow up?  Yes.  Should that privacy be absolute and inviolate?  No.  See the conditions above.

By the way, regarding Harris & Klebold:


> Since 1999, many people have looked to the boys'  parents for answers, but a transcript of their 2003 court-ordered  deposition to the victims' parents remains sealed until 2027.
> The Klebolds spoke to _New York Times_  columnist David Brooks in 2004 and impressed Brooks as "a well-educated,  reflective, highly intelligent couple" who spent plenty of time with  their son. They said they had no clues about Dylan's mental state and  regretted not seeing that he was suicidal.
> Could the parents have prevented the massacre?  The FBI special agent in charge of the investigation has gone on record  as having "the utmost sympathy" for the Harris and Klebold families.
> "They have been vilified without information," retired supervisory special agent Dwayne Fuselier tells Cullen.
> ...


 (from the article linked above.)


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 4, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> By the way, regarding Harris & Klebold:
> (from the article linked above.)



I was living five miles from Columbine High at the time.  All day long I listened to the sirens going by and watched the tragedy unfold on the news.  We were, if you will, at Ground Zero.

They build propane bombs in the garage.  They purchased firearms and kept them in their rooms.  Snooping would have uncovered this.  Period.

All the navel-gazing in the world doesn't change that.  The weapons were being build and hidden in their parent's houses.  Snooping would have found them.  I don't know what else there is to discuss about it.


----------



## MA-Caver (Sep 4, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> Columbine was NOT perpetrated by bullied outcasts.  (More HERE)
> 
> Kids have limited rights to privacy, depending on who is doing the probing.  A cop can't walk into a kid's room automatically on the parent's say-so; it depends on the age of the kid, the efforts the kid makes to protect and control the space, the respect of that privacy shown by the parents, and more.
> 
> ...


That topic alone deserves it's own thread by the way... but my thoughts  were, good thing that neither of the two had a decent paying job and  that they (obviously) didn't receive the type of "allowance" that a few  friends of mine have before they were 18, yeah talking hundreds of  dollars a month (parents were millionaires).  But then again, it's a  different topic. 

Related however this does show the need for occasional if not full time scrutiny of  a child's life by the parent. I recall once while being a nanny I found  a school notebook of one of the older kids. Glancing through it I found  that he hadn't done his homework in over six weeks, I showed the  notebook to the parents with apologies if I had over stepped my bounds  by prying into the boy's school notebook. The gross amount of incomplete  homework assignments allowed for grateful forgiveness in that I may have  saved this boy's final grades. He was "punished" by doing all of his  homework (grounded until they were all complete ... and turned in) that  very day-night. I'm happy to say that (years later) he isn't resentful  and has plans to enroll into college. So sometimes it *is* a good thing to be "nosy".


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 4, 2011)

MA-Caver said:


> So sometimes it *is* a good thing to be "nosy".



When *isn't* it a good thing?  If a parent snoops and finds out something they prefer not to take action on, then at least they know what's going on and have decided to let it go.  If they find something out and need to take action, then they do.  The only danger is in *not knowing* what the child is up to.

The problem with Columbine wasn't that their parents weren't communicative enough or didn't open enough channels to build bonds of trust, blah blah blah.  The problem was they BUILT BOMBS and their parents DID NOT KNOW ABOUT IT.  I don't give a great diddly-squat about their psychological issues and trust problems and whatever else.  They were engaged in a criminal enterprise that was EASILY detectable had their parents SEARCHED their rooms now and again, read their journals, or even (gasp) asked them what the hell those bomb-looking propane tanks with timers in the garage were for. DUH.

This navel-gazing stuff is for the birds.  This is why we raise generations of losers.  This, right here.


----------



## granfire (Sep 4, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I was living five miles from Columbine High at the time.  All day long I listened to the sirens going by and watched the tragedy unfold on the news.  We were, if you will, at Ground Zero.
> 
> They build propane bombs in the garage.  They purchased firearms and kept them in their rooms.  Snooping would have uncovered this.  Period.
> 
> All the navel-gazing in the world doesn't change that.  The weapons were being build and hidden in their parent's houses.  Snooping would have found them.  I don't know what else there is to discuss about it.



apparently id didn't take any snooping, just mild interest?


----------



## MA-Caver (Sep 4, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> When *isn't* it a good thing?  If a parent snoops and finds out something they prefer not to take action on, then at least they know what's going on and have decided to let it go.  If they find something out and need to take action, then they do.  The only danger is in *not knowing* what the child is up to.
> 
> The problem with Columbine wasn't that their parents weren't communicative enough or didn't open enough channels to build bonds of trust, blah blah blah.  The problem was they BUILT BOMBS and their parents DID NOT KNOW ABOUT IT.  I don't give a great diddly-squat about their psychological issues and trust problems and whatever else.  They were engaged in a criminal enterprise that was EASILY detectable had their parents SEARCHED their rooms now and again, read their journals, or even (gasp) asked them what the hell those bomb-looking propane tanks with timers in the garage were for. DUH.
> 
> This navel-gazing stuff is for the birds.  This is why we raise generations of losers.  This, right here.


 Well yeah, but imagine the fear that has been put into our nation... when a child can take their own parent to court for whipping them and call it abuse AND WIN the damned case. Perhaps parents are fearful that their child may cry foul and invasion of privacy and take 'em to court... so they leave 'em alone. 
More-n-likely they're thinking to themselves (before they even HAD kids or even before they got married and lived out on their own for the first time...) I'll never raise MY kids the way my parents raised me. So no snooping, no spanking, no grounding, no going to bed without supper and all of that... hell they worked didn't they? Let go of the damned resentments and realize how well you turned out... no felonies on your record, no heavy duty addiction to drugs or alcohol, paying bills on time and bla bla bla ... molly coddle kids and whaddya get?


----------



## elder999 (Sep 4, 2011)

Spy. They're your kids. 

Not your friends. Not your equals. Not their own person, _yet_. 

"Privacy" is a privelege that comes with respect, and trust-and it's given a little at a time as they get older. 

Who cares what anyone else thinks? They're your kids. 

"Spy?" It's not spying-it's parenting.

edit: In an age when a parent can lose their home because their kid is dealing drugs, it's not spying.


----------



## Blade96 (Sep 4, 2011)

granfire said:


> I think it was a tragic case of lack of involvement in these kids' lives...



Yeah. and be involved. 

I think people shouldn't NOT spy (there is a place for it, they are just kids) but they also have a right to privacy, so it can be 'nice spying' i guess respectful spying too.


----------



## Steve (Sep 4, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> Columbine was committed by boys who were very unpopular and were targets of bullies. Imo a can of worms.
> 
> Kids are people, and do have a right to privacy. Imo, because i was a kid once, I believe that if parents foster the right environment where they have a kind of glastnost 'openness' where kids feel safe and they could come to their parents about stuff bothering them, and not feel afraid of scary mom and dad (as I did) they wouldn't feel they had to keep secrets. There was this guy on another ma's forum who complained about his daughter. A bit of discussion brought out the fact that he was very punitive. The daughter lied and didn't tell him a lot of things. (Why would she? He acted very scary. Stuff like 'Her world is what I let it be' and very controlling stuff. Now she still has her problems, but later on the father emptied his cup, came to me, and admitted that I was right. If you start from the very beginning with the right environment, you will have a good base for healthy openness. and no need for all this gadget crap. Go go gadget go.


The kids from Columbine built the bombs they used in the garage.  At any point, I wonder why the mom or dad didn't poke their head in and ask, "Hey guys do you want something to drink?  What's that you have there?"  Might have saved some lives.

No.  Kids don't have a right to privacy.  Kids are entitled to the illusion of privacy.  Hell.  Even as adults, we operate under the illusion of privacy, pretending (or ignoring) that our every move isn't being recorded by someone, somewhere.

I would assert that if parents were less hands off with their kids, allowing them LESS privacy than they currently are afforded, we'd be a lot better off.  My kids get exactly as much freedom as they earn.  When they come home late, next time they're required to come home earlier.  When there's a reason to snoop, they would expect nothing less.


----------



## Cyriacus (Sep 4, 2011)

Its a Matter of Trust.
(Bear with me)

If you Consumately Trust that your Kid wouldnt do anything nefarious, based on their overall Persona, and not just on their Appearances, by all means, Refrain from it.

If your Kid is any other way, keep an Eye Open, and Circumvent any Negative Influence. Nip it in the Bud.


----------



## Steve (Sep 4, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> When *isn't* it a good thing?  If a parent snoops and finds out something they prefer not to take action on, then at least they know what's going on and have decided to let it go.  If they find something out and need to take action, then they do.  The only danger is in *not knowing* what the child is up to.
> 
> The problem with Columbine wasn't that their parents weren't communicative enough or didn't open enough channels to build bonds of trust, blah blah blah.  The problem was they BUILT BOMBS and their parents DID NOT KNOW ABOUT IT.  I don't give a great diddly-squat about their psychological issues and trust problems and whatever else.  They were engaged in a criminal enterprise that was EASILY detectable had their parents SEARCHED their rooms now and again, read their journals, or even (gasp) asked them what the hell those bomb-looking propane tanks with timers in the garage were for. DUH.
> 
> This navel-gazing stuff is for the birds.  This is why we raise generations of losers.  This, right here.


LOL...  exactly.  Had I read the entire thread before posting, I could simply have thanked Bill.

Parent's aren't doing their jobs as parents if they're not actively impeding their kids' from doing things they'll regret.  Whether it's posting the wrong thing on facebook, smoking weed, drinking booze or just failing to do their homework.  There's a careful balance that must be struck between riding their asses, prodding them to do the right thing, guilting them, guiding them, mentoring them and teaching them.  And sometimes, just watching them fail because otherwise they won't learn.  But never, ever stop snooping around.  That's just plain irresponsible. 

IMO, the sad truth is that the kids in Columbine (and many others) would have been fundamentally different kids had they benefited from having the kind of parents who barged in without knocking sometimes, and opened even their private junk drawers.  While mental illness can make people do many very bad things, so can the neglect that comes from having parents who are indifferent.


----------



## Blade96 (Sep 4, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> The kids from Columbine built the bombs they used in the garage.  At any point, I wonder why the mom or dad didn't poke their head in and ask, "Hey guys do you want something to drink?  What's that you have there?"  Might have saved some lives.
> 
> No.  Kids don't have a right to privacy.  Kids are entitled to the illusion of privacy.  Hell.  Even as adults, we operate under the illusion of privacy, pretending (or ignoring) that our every move isn't being recorded by someone, somewhere.
> 
> I would assert that if parents were less hands off with their kids, allowing them LESS privacy than they currently are afforded, we'd be a lot better off.  My kids get exactly as much freedom as they earn.  When they come home late, next time they're required to come home earlier.  When there's a reason to snoop, they would expect nothing less.



But you're also saying that you do believe in privacy, because well they get what they earn. 

and yeah i agree with the  building bombs in the garage and hey guys do you want a drink and what do you have there.

Like criminals. Sometimes criminals have tracking devices and they have to let people know where they move to (sex predators) Like you. You seem to have a good outlook on it. In society people are watched like you said and if they are criminals their privacy is taken away.


----------



## MA-Caver (Sep 4, 2011)

Everyone has their own ideas and concepts of how to successfully raise children where they are productive use to our respective societies, no matter where. At least in those still "free thinking" countries. 
Nobody knows the exact formula to raising a child. As evident by this statement from Masters and Johnson's "There is no guarantee that raising a child in a good environment that a child will turn out good, there is also no guarantee that a child raised in a bad environment will turn out bad. In fact, when it comes to children, there's no guarantee of anything. Good Luck!" 


:asian: lets keep the tone respectful eh? Disagreeing is allowed.


----------



## Steve (Sep 4, 2011)

MA-Caver said:


> :asian: lets keep the tone respectful eh? Disagreeing is allowed.


Was this last bit directed at me or at someone else?


----------



## granfire (Sep 4, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Was this last bit directed at me or at someone else?



I STRONGLY disagree with you!

No, what?

I think there was in one post something left out that made it seem personal...(since I don't mod I did not pay much attention)


----------



## Steve (Sep 4, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> But you're also saying that you do believe in privacy, because well they get what they earn.
> 
> and yeah i agree with the  building bombs in the garage and hey guys do you want a drink and what do you have there.
> 
> Like criminals. Sometimes criminals have tracking devices and they have to let people know where they move to (sex predators) Like you. You seem to have a good outlook on it. In society people are watched like you said and if they are criminals their privacy is taken away.


I said freedom.  Kids don't have any right to privacy, but they should be given as much freedom as they can handle to do what they find interesting and fulfilling.


----------



## seasoned (Sep 4, 2011)

When I was a kid I know exactly what I could get away with, and did. Lucky for me I was so scared of my dad "scared straight" is the term I hear around, that I walked a very narrow line. My mom was loving and kind to a fault, and my dad got involved when I needed a butt jacking. Other then that I was accountable for nothing. 
I took the pros and cons of how I was raised, sprinkled in what I felt was missing from my formative years and applied it to my kids. There is no road map, just common sense, and a feeling that you want the best for your kids. You will make mistakes in raising them, and they will made mistakes being kids and young adults. Bottom line is get involved, be there for them, make them know that there is accountability and consequences, and give them measured trust. On the other end, I have two great contributors to society, and my hope is that they will add and build from that as they guide their own kids in life.

Proof is in the pudding.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 5, 2011)

seasoned said:


> When I was a kid I know exactly what I could get away with, and did. Lucky for me I was so scared of my dad "scared straight" is the term I hear around, that I walked a very narrow line. My mom was loving and kind to a fault, and my dad got involved when I needed a butt jacking. Other then that I was accountable for nothing.
> I took the pros and cons of how I was raised, sprinkled in what I felt was missing from my formative years and applied it to my kids. There is no road map, just common sense, and a feeling that you want the best for your kids. You will make mistakes in raising them, and they will made mistakes being kids and young adults. Bottom line is get involved, be there for them, make them know that there is accountability and consequences, and give them measured trust. On the other end, I have two great contributors to society, and my hope is that they will add and build from that as they guide their own kids in life.
> 
> Proof is in the pudding.



Not to be contrary, but it's not proof of anything.  Great kids have come from parents that did a lousy job and did everything wrong, as well as those who were hands-on and did everything right.  Terrible kids come from great homes as well as terrible ones.  I think being the kind of parent you are is fantastic, don't get me wrong.

But none of it obviates the need to snoop and intrude in your child's privacy.  Regardless of how good a parent thinks their child is turning out, if they 'respect their privacy' and it turns out the kid is building bombs in the garage, society has a problem, and it's the parent's fault for not knowing about it.

I'm not talking about the philosophy of child-rearing; I agree that all kinds of philosophies work and don't work in all kinds of situations; it seems to depend a lot on the kid, the parents, and even random chance or genetics.  I'm talking about the mechanistic physically searching the kid's room, asking questions, and otherwise completely intruding on what others consider their privacy.  That's not about the philosophy of child-rearing; that's about physically determining that there is not a problem by searching.


----------



## seasoned (Sep 5, 2011)

seasoned said:


> When I was a kid I know exactly what I could get away with, and did. Lucky for me I was so scared of my dad "scared straight" is the term I hear around, that I walked a very narrow line. *My mom was loving and kind to a fault,* *and my dad got involved ONLY when I needed a butt jacking.* Other then that I was *accountable for nothing*.


I was trying to make a comparison here that first of all parents need to be on board as a team in raising kids. Mixed messages leaves loop holes, that *will* be capitalized on.



seasoned said:


> I took the pros and cons of how I was raised, *sprinkled in what I felt was missing *from my formative years and applied it to my kids. There is no road map, just common sense, and a feeling that you want the best for your kids.


Remember I said I was accountable for nothing. Huge factor in making that pudding just right.



seasoned said:


> You will make mistakes in raising them, and they will made mistakes being kids and young adults. Bottom line is *get involved*, be there for them, *make them know that there is accountability and consequences*, and give them *measured trust*.



There was no wishful thinking on my part, the above are receipts that added to the mix. I would think that the above would answer a lot on proper child rearing.





Bill Mattocks said:


> Not to be contrary, but it's not proof of anything. *Great kids have come from parents that did a lousy job and did everything wrong, as well as those who were hands-on and did everything right. Terrible kids come from great homes as well as terrible ones. *I think being the kind of parent you are is fantastic, don't get me wrong.



Being a parent is not for the faint of heart. If you're on board, you have to be on board all the way. It takes time, perseverance, follow through, and commitment. Not to be contrary on my part also, but, I will have to think on the above comment. I have seen a lot of parents *think *they were doing a great job. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> But none of it obviates the need to snoop and intrude in your child's privacy. Regardless of how good a parent thinks their child is turning out, if they 'respect their privacy' and it turns out the kid is building bombs in the garage, society has a problem, and it's the parent's fault for not knowing about it.



Agreed, some parents are so busy doing a great job that they can't see the forest through the trees. Kids spending to much time in the garage, in the cellar, or their room for that matter, would raise a red flag in my mind, and there lies the big difference in my book.



Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm not talking about the philosophy of child-rearing; I agree that all kinds of philosophies work and don't work in all kinds of situations; it seems to depend a lot on the kid, the parents, and even random chance or genetics. *I'm talking about the mechanistic physically searching the kid's room, asking questions, and otherwise completely intruding on what others consider their privacy. *That's not about the philosophy of child-rearing; that's about physically determining that there is not a problem by searching.



In closing I would like to say that we were 100% ready to take *what ever stand *we needed to take, if it became apparent that what my wife and I were doing, was not working. 
The above statement you make, is where I feel that "*real parenting"* takes place. There is a huge balancing act when achieving the above in such a way as to be intrusive in their life, while at the same time not appearing to be. Once trust is damaged, you have lost a big part of cooperation on their part. Now it becomes a, "do as I say thing", and this is the beginning of the END.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 5, 2011)

I appreciate your statements, but I don't think you're getting what I'm saying.  It's not about the method, it's about physically knowing what your children are doing.  I don't care for statements about establishing trust and keeping lines of communication open and being fully immersed or whatever.  Look in the freaking garage.  Read their journals.  Snoop online and read what they post on social networking sites and send and receive via email and online chat.  Raise them with whatever method you think is appropriate to produce great kids.  But that's got nothing to do with protecting society from your kids when they decide to build a bomb or shoot up a school.  You can beat your breast and tear our your hair after they kill a bunch of people, but that doesn't help the dead.  Search their crap.  Raise them however you like, but search their crap.

Look at it this way; you can talk all day long about the best way to rehabilitate criminals, but at the end of the day, if you don't search their cells for shivs, guess what?  Trust issues, rehab versus punishment, whatever; none of it matters when it comes to ONE ISSUE.  They may have a shiv in their cell; you have to find out if they do or they don't.  Telling other guards that YOUR prisoner would never shiv them because you have open lines of communication doesn't help after they shiv your partners or you.  Search for the shiv; rehab them as you wish.


----------



## seasoned (Sep 5, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I appreciate your statements, *but I don't think you're getting what I'm saying*.


This appears to be a two way street, and that's ok.



Bill Mattocks said:


> It's not about the method, it's about physically knowing what your children are doing. I don't care for statements about establishing trust and keeping lines of communication open and being fully immersed or whatever.


As I look through my statements I don't see anywhere, that I'm not on board, with what they are doing. It's obvious that if their spending to much time in the garage or cellar, I'm checking it out. But there is more to being a parent then following them around with a magnifying glass. It's stupid that a parent doesn't know what is happening around their own house, heck I have two dogs,"kid replacements" and if one or both come up missing, I'm wondering what's up, and I'm off to investigate.




Bill Mattocks said:


> Look in the freaking garage.



"Wes wrote in a previous post" .Agreed, some parents are so busy doing a great job that they can't see the forest through the trees. Kids spending to much time in the garage, in the cellar, or their room for that matter, would raise a red flag in my mind, and there lies the big difference in my book.




Bill Mattocks said:


> Read their journals. Snoop online and read what they post on social networking sites and send and receive via email and online chat. Raise them with whatever method you think is appropriate to produce great kids. But that's got nothing to do with protecting society from your kids when they decide to build a bomb or shoot up a school. You can beat your breast and tear our your hair after they kill a bunch of people, but that doesn't help the dead. Search their crap. Raise them however you like, but search their crap.


What you're saying above is called parenting, Bill. But, not being a parent yourself, you must realize that the touchy feely thing is part of the ball of wax *of* parenting. You can teach them to rebel by smothering them with rules that aren't enforced and regulations that are not obtainable. Fairness in everything is key, and still check out their "crap" yes indeed. 




Bill Mattocks said:


> Look at it this way; you can talk all day long about the best way to rehabilitate criminals, but at the end of the day, if you don't search their cells for shivs, guess what? Trust issues, rehab versus punishment, whatever; none of it matters when it comes to ONE ISSUE. They may have a shiv in their cell; you have to find out if they do or they don't. Telling other guards that YOUR prisoner would never shiv them because you have open lines of communication doesn't help after they shiv your partners or you. Search for the shiv; rehab them as you wish.


Two separate issues here, Bill. Kids are not incarcerated, although some parents see fit to treat their kids this way.
I think we are closer then you think on issues of "Spy or Not To Spy on Your Kid(s)" It's just the method incorporated. Who cares how it's done, as long as the end result is, what I said way back when. "Contributors to society".


----------



## granfire (Sep 5, 2011)

seasoned said:


> This appears to be a two way street, and that's ok.
> 
> 
> As I look through my statements I don't see anywhere, that I'm not on board, with what they are doing. It's obvious that if their spending to much time in the garage or cellar, I'm checking it out. But there is more to being a parent then following them around with a magnifying glass. It's stupid that a parent doesn't know what is happening around their own house, heck I have two dogs,"kid replacements" and if one or both come up missing, I'm wondering what's up, and I'm off to investigate.
> ...



well, after all, you have 18 years to prepare them for the real world. After that you have to cut them lose and hope you taught them right.
That can't very well happen when you sit on them 24/7. Or without giving them a sense of where the boundaries are between public and private.


----------



## seasoned (Sep 5, 2011)

granfire said:


> well, after all, you have 18 years to prepare them for the real world. After that you have to cut them lose and hope you taught them right.
> That can't very well happen when you sit on them 24/7. Or without giving them a sense of where the boundaries are between public and private.


This *is* where the rubber hits the road. Only comment I can make is the time is much shorter for preparation. You may begin to lose them as soon as their friends start to make more sense then Mom and Dad.


----------



## Jenna (Sep 5, 2011)

I do not spy on my son. 

If I ever found myself feeling justified or suspect enough to spy upon him, I would at least acknowledge that I have failed in some part of my parental duty to him.  I have failed to educate, advise or guide him properly and he has gone wayward because of it.  Spying on him at that stage will not rectify a situation that I -through my lack of diligent care and gentle direction- have allowed to transpire. I would do better to drop the spying and strive to winch his train back on the track.

I think the need for spying demonstrates yet another situation where a parent has not maintained a reasonable connection with their child concerning the activities of the child. These retrograde actions from spanking to spying and whatever else show that the link of love, care and respect between parent and child has been dropped for any of the myriad reasons there might be, some of genuine inability and but others of pure indolence - and none of these I believe are insurmountable.

That is to digress though.  On the subject of the OP, personally speaking, I prefer gentle inquisitiveness as the more subtle approach to finding out what he is into.  I still believe I have his confidence.  I would like to think that I would know if he is up to something he should not be and but perhaps I am easily duped.  Notwithstanding, I feel it is a duty of a parent -as far as they can- to have a reasonable handle on the activities of their child.  And as much as I feel it is in general overstepping bounds of appropriateness I would not argue with any particular parents that spy on their children.  I just think it is a bad state of affairs that they have let things get to the point where they feel they _have _to.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 5, 2011)

Jenna said:


> Spying on him at that stage will not rectify a situation that I -through my lack of diligent care and gentle direction- have allowed to transpire.



Yes. It. Would.

Presuming you were a parent of one of the Columbine murderers, spying on your child would lead to discovery of bombs, bomb-making equipment, hidden guns, and journals detailing the plans to attack the local school.  I don't *care* if it means you've failed as a parent or not, if your child perpetrates a Columbine, you have also failed in your duty to your community.  And I'm very concerned about that.

Like I said, wearing the hair shirt *after* something awful happens doesn't restore lives.  You have an obligation to know what your child is doing that might endanger lives.  Your relationship with them is not important to me.  That they might be building bombs or carrying guns, is.

I think this steadfast refusal of parents to accept that they are directly responsible for the actions of their minor children is horrifying.  Your relationship with them is important to you and no one else.  It is good if you raise them to be responsible adults and good luck with that; I'm sure you will do well.  But if they choose the wrong path and do something evil, something you could have detected, because of your refusal to snoop, that is your fault.  The blame in such a case would be upon you as well as them.  This is my opinion.


----------



## granfire (Sep 5, 2011)

seasoned said:


> This *is* where the rubber hits the road. Only comment I can make is the time is much shorter for preparation. You may begin to lose them as soon as their friends start to make more sense then Mom and Dad.



true. However I was thinking of the legal time frame. After 18 years your rights to snoop are gone. By then you had better found a different way to communicate.
And I think even the 'under my roof' rule does no longer give you the right to snoop then.


----------



## granfire (Sep 5, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Yes. It. Would.
> 
> Presuming you were a parent of one of the Columbine murderers, spying on your child would lead to discovery of bombs, bomb-making equipment, hidden guns, and journals detailing the plans to attack the local school.  I don't *care* if it means you've failed as a parent or not, if your child perpetrates a Columbine, you have also failed in your duty to your community.  And I'm very concerned about that.
> 
> ...



Well, I suppose you are making Jenna's point for her:
Had the parents given a crap prior they might have avoided the need to spy later.

Or if they had cared enough they had noticed. 

But it shows, first they don't pay attention to the early warning signs (seems the Columbine guys were not at all shy about their intentions but they are still pretty lonesome on the stage of school shooters even) then they interpret every sneeze as looming doom. 

Alas, 9 out of 10 experts are in favor of butt nipping!


----------



## seasoned (Sep 5, 2011)

I will give you one parenting situation, that I would not call snooping, but perhaps, some would thing wrong of me. In NYS you can get a junior license at 16 yrs old, and that allows you to drive up until dusk. My son, at that time, was spending the night at a friends house with some other guys. I drove by twice that evening, once before dusk "no car", and once after dark "no car". I sat and waited till around 10pm. Car shows up, guys pile out, and I meet them in the driveway. His jaw hit the ground. Taking the keys away from him and telling him his driving days were over, had a humiliating effect on him, as it showed plainly. 
Now here is where the parenting comes in, it was 10pm and not 1:am in the morning, and no sent of booze, which was never a problem anyway. I let him stew that night at his friends house, and the next morning he got the keys back. 
I had no problem *monitoring* my kids as they were growing up, but I do have a problem calling it snooping. *Monitoring *is expected as any good parent should know, and it may be a play on words, but snooping has negative connotations to it.


----------



## granfire (Sep 5, 2011)

seasoned said:


> I will give you one parenting situation, that I would not call snooping, but perhaps, some would thing wrong of me. In NYS you can get a junior license at 16 yrs old, and that allows you to drive up until dusk. My son, at that time, was spending the night at a friends house with some other guys. I drove by twice that evening, once before dusk "no car", and once after dark "no car". I sat and waited till around 10pm. Car shows up, guys pile out, and I meet them in the driveway. His jaw hit the ground. Taking the keys away from him and telling him his driving days were over, had a humiliating effect on him, as it showed plainly.
> Now here is where the parenting comes in, it was 10pm and not 1:am in the morning, and no sent of booze, which was never a problem anyway. I let him stew that night at his friends house, and the next morning he got the keys back.
> I had no problem *monitoring* my kids as they were growing up, but I do have a problem calling it snooping. *Monitoring *is expected as any good parent should know, and it may be a play on words, but snooping has negative connotations to it.



Well, there is the secret of the involved parent:
They know.

Sometimes a little birdy tells, sometimes mom or dad just shows up, but they _know_.
much to the amazement of the kid


----------

