Kenneth Kaye

Family Rules

While browsing the book stores in the never ending quest for more non-sensical nit-wittery on the issue of child rearing, I spotted a book by one Kenneth Kaye, PH.D., the cover of which looked promising. The book was titled "Family Rules, raising responsible children without yelling or nagging." I turned the book over and read the synopsis printed on the rear cover. Some of the issues covered in this book were Why children need restrictions in order to handle freedom, and How to make rules - and how to enforce them. The book appeared to be one that I would consider purchasing if I was interested in bringing my unruly child under control. You know the saying "You can't judge a book from its cover?" It certainly holds true in this case.

Doctor Kaye suggests three steps in the rearing of a child. "Liberty" comes first. If this mode is unsuccessful, the next step up is "Probation." When probation fails, the use of "Crisis" is the final step. According to the author, the parent switches to the crisis mode when the "teenage children are so far out of control that they cannot be made to respect the ordinary rules of Liberty." It is my opinion that each step will be attained, up to and including "crisis," if the advice from this book is followed.
Of course, Doctor Kaye is part of the crowd that feels children are inherently good, and we mess them up by raising them wrong. The author writes,

In prior centuries, there were three philosophies about children and morality. There were those who believed that children were born in "native depravity" and had to be rectified, as the Reverend Billy Graham still recommends, by fathers holding a Bible in one hand and a belt in the other. The opposing group believed, with Jean-Jacques Rousseau, that children came directly from God, to be inevitably corrupted by civilization. Finally, there were those who saw children as blank slates, morally as well as intellectually, to be written upon by their parents. The research has not supported any of those views. The greatest of all child psychologists, Jean Piaget, made this point more than fifty years ago when he said, "Given sufficient liberty of action, the child will spontaneously emerge from his egocentrism and tend with his whole being towards cooperation." 

It is also very evident that the author does not believe in the sinful nature that each one of us receives at birth. One of the most evident philosophies in psychology is the "we are all good" ideal. Although the doctor states that "research has not supported" this view, he is at odds with most other "experts" in the psychology field. In fact, the doctor tries to explain in this book why children sometimes act "bad." It has nothing to do with a sinful nature. According to the author, there are always other reasons involved. He writes,

Children do not want their parents to be unhappy. In fact, psychologists who study the whole family system have learned that children's aggravating behavior frequently serves to "rescue" their parents by distracting the parent's attention away from other problems. The children are sacrificing themselves, unconsciously, to try to cheer their parents up!

Oh, come on! Picture this scene. Dad just lost his job and wrecked the car on the way home. He finds out when he gets home that mom has filed for divorce. A notice of foreclosure on the house came in the mail that day, and the family dog bit a neighbor. "Wait a minute," thinks junior. "I can help!" Junior then heaves a rock through the living room picture window. Does this make sense? 

The author makes it clear that his ideals tend to lean to the permissive side of the scale. In the section Problems not to worry about with young children, he writes,

It is true that two-year-olds say "No" more often than "Yes," and resistance to suggestions often seems to be their preferred mode of operating. This may drive you crazy, but other than that, it is not a real problem. Children have to assert their ability to say no before they can choose to say yes. That is what makes us human beings rather than robots.

Kenneth Kaye is giving some dangerous advice here. He is stating that when children tell their parents "no," it is not a real problem. Tell that to the parent of the fourteen-year-old teenager who tells mom and dad he is taking the family car for a spin. Without a license and without insurance, mom and dad could lose everything if junior turns a pedestrian into a speed-bump at the nearest intersection. The police will have a hard time believing that the parents couldn't keep the child from driving the car out of the driveway in their presence. I can picture dad explaining to his insurance agent, "All of the other times he defied our authority and told us no it wasn't a real problem!"

Chapter five, titled Enforcing The Rules, gives suggestions concerning the parent's ability to follow through with the consequences that they have imposed for an infraction of the rules. Amongst the subchapters in the book is one titled Spanking Doesn't Work. Doctor Kaye states, 

Sparing the rod does not spoil the child. The fact is that spankings and other physical punishments are less effective than natural consequences, restrictions, or penalties; and they are often worse than ineffective, in that they may actually set back your cause.

Here we go. This expert begins his dissertation with "the fact is." Here is a medical professional who is obviously intelligent (I hesitate to use the term "wise") and who is looked upon as one who is knowledgeable in his field. He has stated "fact." He has given no room for question. His word is final. The expert then continues, stating "There are many arguments against it (spanking)." Argument number one. 

If you never hit your child, period, then you won't have to worry about where to draw the line. Severe spankings do hurt. They are done in anger. The angrier you are, the harder you hit. There is no clear boundary between serious corporal punishment and physical abuse. 

Let's expand this principal into every example of child discipline. Let's say "If you never ground your child, period, then you won't have to worry about about where to draw the line and end up grounding him for too long a period." Or how about this one. "If you never send your child to bed without supper, period, you won't have to worry about where to draw the line and perhaps endanger the child with starvation." The author also claims that spankings are always done "in anger." I have argued in the past that a parent who attempts to ignore infractions of the rules by their child will eventually reach the boiling point, and combine the discipline for multiple violations into one session, usually in anger. The wise parent, following the principles set forth in God's word, realizes that there is guilt associated with failing to discipline when it is proper. That guilt is alleviated when the spanking is administered, and there is no "build-up" of frustration that many parents experience when they "overlook" infractions by the child. The second portion of Proverbs 13:24 states "he that loveth him (the child) chasteneth (disciplines) him betimes (diligently)." When the parent diligently disciplines the child for wrongdoing, there is less of a chance that anger will contribute to any excessive force when the child is spanked. The author is also wrong in stating that there is no clear line between discipline and abuse. The laws in every state define the boundaries of corporal punishment which the parent must not cross. All the parent has to do is research the law in their state to determine the amount of force that is allowed when disciplining their child. Let's go on to argument number two. 

If parents spank with the intention of not really hurting the child - the "pat on the butt" many parents use with preschoolers, then the child soon realizes that the spankings are not serious. You want the child to know you are serious.

I have the solution to this problem. Make the spankings hurt. I will refer you to 1 Kings 1:6 which explains why King David's son grew up with a defiant attitude. The verse explains "His father had not displeased him at any time in saying, Why hast thou done so?" David did not "displease" his son by demanding accountability for his actions. The word "displease" in the original Hebrew text means to "be in pain." Doctor James Dobson contends that it is the pain that is the motivator in discipline. There is no "fear" of the discipline if it doesn't include pain. Argument number three.

A spanking is almost never a logical consequence of the child's actions. Parents who resort to spanking often do so as their first option, without looking for alternative punishments in the form of natural or logical consequences of the child's own actions.

Basically, there are three forms of consequences. There are natural consequences, like if you play outside in the cold rain, you may get pneumonia. There are logical consequences, like if you leave your bicycle outside unlocked, someone may steal it. The NSA would prefer that if children suffer any consequences at all, that they be not be imposed by the parent. The third type of consequence, punitive in nature, is looked upon by the NSA as too controlling and manipulative by the parent. The problem is, there are no immediate natural or logical consequences to a defiant act. If not dealt with immediately in a punitive nature, the child will not discover the devastating results of their defiance until it is too late. Argument number four. 

To be most effective, a punishment has to be increasable in the future. Once you have hit a child as hard as you can or as hard as you conscience will let you, you have no further options. When, instead, you use restrictions, you can always add more minutes or days, or take away more nickels or dollars.

The author here has already concluded that a spanking will not be effective in curbing the negative behavior by the child. He implies that even after you have "hit" the child as "hard as you can," you have no further options. He goes one step further by implying that the parent should feel guilty after administering the swat. Two major points should be made here. First, if my father had ever spanked me "as hard as he could" when I was young, he would have caused serious bodily harm, which would have classified it as legitimate abuse. He never did, but the swats that he did administer with restraint were more than effective enough to modify my behavior. Second, no parent should feel guilty about using corporal punishment in the manner prescribed by God. We have been assured in God's word that if a parent uses spanking as a loving form of discipline, the child is not harmed and will gain "wisdom." If a parent feels guilty after spanking their child, it is because the idea that spanking is wrong has been planted in their mind by the peddlers of permissiveness who feel that they are wiser than God. Argument number five. 

The older the child and the more serious the misbehavior, the less feasible it is to administer a spanking. It is easy to take a two-year-old over your knee - not so easy with a fourteen year old. So we have to admit that if we do spank a young child, we are taking unfair advantage of our vastly superior size.

Just what is the "unfair" advantage that the parent has over the child?  Fortunately, the parent is larger, stronger, and wiser than the child. To imply that this disparity is not fair is to imply that God made a mistake when He designed the natural order of things. Can you imagine if the child was born larger and stronger than the parent? That would be unfair, not only to the parent, but to the inexperienced and unwise child! The author is right in stating that "the older the child, the less feasible it is to administer a spanking." I never received a spanking during my teenage years. The fear factor was instilled in me when I was very young. I'm now bigger and stronger than my mom. I still respect her authority. Argument number six. 

Corporal punishment demeans the child, by implying that he is not worthy of the respect you accord to other human beings.

I have been a police officer since 1982, and have very seldom afforded a flagrant violator of the law any "respect" when it came to making that person accountable for his actions. My children always understood that their dad was in the business of catching violators of the law and bringing them before the court where they were judged for their misdeeds. My children also realized that as long as people in the community obeyed the laws, they had nothing to fear from me. My children learned very early in their lives that they were worthy of my respect when they followed the rules of the household and complied with the wishes of mom and dad. My children always understood that they were "worthy of the respect I would accord to other human beings," as long as they, like those other human beings, obeyed the rules. Argument number seven. 

Corporal punishment also demeans the parent. If I hit my son, it signifies my utter failure to communicate with him as a human being. As with other kinds of violent punishment, the parent who resorts to spanking ultimately loses. Winning your children's respect means convincing them to behave as civilized human beings without yourself behaving like a brute.

 The word "demean" means to degrade or humiliate. The author here states that the parent who spanks their child is degraded due to the fact that they are an "utter failure" as a parent because they have failed to communicate with the child. The author forgets one very important fact. Communication does not always result in compliance. There have been numerous times I have communicated my position to my children in clear, concise language, yet the child opted to disobey the rule that had been communicated to him in such clear, concise, understandable terms.  What would the author have the parent do at that point? Should the parent then communicate in clear, concise words how disappointed they are in the disobedient child? What if the child replies "So what!" What if the child communicates clearly to the parent that they do not intend to comply with the parent's demands? There is no lack of communication here, just a lack of action by the parent. Argument number eight. 

Corporal punishment gives the child a model for violence as a method of solving interpersonal problems. Many parents worry about toy guns and violent TV shows yet routinely use violence themselves, instead of reason, when disciplining their children. Your own behavior has more effect on your children than a thousand TV programs.

The normal relationship between parent and child and the parent's authority to guide and correct the child is not, and has never been, the solving of an "interpersonal problem." Since the parent's authority over the child is not an "interpersonal problem," then there is no danger that the child will look upon the spanking as a model for violence to solve everyday problems. The author states that the parent should use "reason" instead of "violence" to discipline their child. We have already discussed Eli in  Samuel 2:23, trying to "reason" with his sons, saying "Why do ye such things? for I hear of your evil dealings by all this people. Nay, my sons; for it is no good report that I hear: ye make the Lord's people to transgress." God gives us the result of this "reasoning" discipline in 1 Samuel 3:12. "For I have told him that I will judge his house for ever for the iniquity which he knoweth; because his sons made themselves vile, and he restrained them not." Even in the criminal justice community it is plainly understood that a young child cannot "reason." In my state, a child cannot be charged with a criminal offense until they are eight years old. A five year old child cannot be charged with assault because they do not possess the mental culpability to discern what is real and what isn't. In the same respect, a five year old cannot be "reasoned" with. He WILL understand a stinging rear end. Argument number nine. 

Any form of punishment that makes the parents feel guilty is less likely to be used consistently. Punishments are an inevitable part of making and enforcing rules for children. If you rely on a form of punishment that leaves you feeling guilty, you may hold yourself back from following through with your rules.

A parent who is convinced that the God who created the universe and created man in his own image has instructed parents to carry out discipline with the "rod and reproof," will never feel guilty about spanking their child. Unfortunately, the parent who is unaware of the instruction given to us by the Creator and has swallowed the lie of the NSA, will feel guilty about disciplining with the "rod." Argument number ten. 

Spanking upsets the child partly because of the humiliation and partly because it raises the possibility in his mind, at lease unconsciously, that you may stop loving, feeding, watching over, and protecting him. You gain nothing, certainly not the child's loyalty, by sending that message, which has to do with love versus rejection. I have been advocating consequences in an entirely different dimension: freedom versus restriction.

Juvenile outlaw gangs have become increasingly popular during the past several decades, and those who study the psychology of gang members have discovered that it is the strict enforcement of the gang's rules that attract the youngster. The author here states "I have been advocating consequences in an entirely different dimension: freedom versus restriction." Almost every child who joins an outlaw gang, such as the Bloods, the Crips, or the Folks, have too much freedom at home. They are desperately looking for someone to take control of their lives. They are looking for "restrictions" on their behavior. A parent has a better chance that their child will feel, as the author says, "in his mind, at lease unconsciously, that you may stop loving, feeding, watching over, and protecting him," if you DON'T spank him for misbehavior. It is inherent in children to interpret restrictions on their behavior as love. The parent reinforces that feeling when they discipline the child for violating the rule. The parent has said "I will not allow you to sneak out of this house after midnight, it is bad for you." They then convince the child that they mean what they say when they administer the punishment for a violation of that rule. 

The doctor gives an example of what he feels is the proper form of discipline for a small child, the "time out." When there is a need to escalate the punishment, the parent increases the minutes spent in "time out." He gives an example of a family bringing home a new baby. Three year old Sophie acts "aggressively" towards the baby to the point of causing concern about the baby's safety. Kaye writes,

EXAMPLE: Every time she acts aggressively toward the new baby, three year old Sophie is sent to her room, which she does not like. Realizing that the aggression probably comes from a normal sibling rivalry, Sophie's parents have begun to spend more time alone with her and go out of their way to praise her whenever she is helpful and considerate. Nonetheless, she continues to ignore the rule about being gentle with the baby.

MISTAKE: Her mother is strongly tempted to raise a welt in Sophie's backside. It would do no good, not only because spanking is rarely effective but also because it is a form of attention, and Sophie should get attention for appropriate, not inappropriate behavior.

BETTER: Sophie's mother tells her how angry she is, but controls that anger, and increases the "time out" in her room by one minute each time. If it was five minutes to begin with, Sophie's mother lets her know that it will be six minutes the next time, the seven, and so on. If Sophie does not like being sent to her room, she will start respecting the rule.

If a spanking gives Sophie the attention she is craving, doesn't marching her to her room and supervising her "time out" create the attention that she is looking for? The author states that spanking is rarely effective. Spanking sure was effective when my parents used it on me. Spanking sure was effective when I used it on my children. Thousands of parents that I have talked to claim that spanking is effective when used on their children. It is the parents that have fallen for the rhetoric of the modern day non-spanking bunch that eventually end up in my office, unable to control their children. I have had parents admit to me that their biggest "mistake" was to believe that spanking is harmful to children. Now, with their teenager committing crimes and assaulting their parents, it could be too late to change the child's direction. The doctor states "If Sophie does not like being sent to her room, she will start respecting the rule." Let me change one thing in this statement. "If Sophie does not like being spanked, she will start respecting the rule." Doesn't this also make sense?

Doctor Kaye's opinion on temper tantrums is very similar to the rest of the NSA. Kaye however, believes that the temper tantrum must be stopped, unlike others who advocated moving away from the area or just watching the child act like a spoiled brat. Kay states "There are two absolute rules for parents dealing with tantrums. 1) Stop the tantrum. 2) Do not reward the child by responding positively to the tantrum in any way." The doctor does not feel that spanking the child for the antisocial out-of-control behavior is an effective way to deal with the problem. He states, 

When the tantrum comes, holding the child tightly is often enough to stop it. Try kneeling or sitting behind the child and holding both his arms stiffly at his sides, at arms length from you. Squeeze his arms as hard as you can for five to ten seconds. Then, if he calms down, comfort him and try to get him to relax in your arms. The security of being in his mother's lap will sometimes help him recover control over his rage. 

Kaye also suggests another solution to the temper tantrum  problem. He writes "Some parents find it effective to throw themselves to the floor and feign an even bigger tantrum than the child's." Picture this action by the parent in the local Wal-Mart store. Not only is the parent allowing the child to be disorderly, the parent is taking the chance of being arrested themselves for disorderly conduct, feigned or not!

It is here that the author contradicts himself. In regards to his solution to stopping temper tantrums, he states,

Now I hear you objecting, "Oh, I've tried that and it didn't work." The problem was that you didn't stick to the same series of consequences enough times to make them clear and consistent.

Notice that the doctor advocates the parent containing the child in the "wrap" to prevent temper tantrums. If this method of discipline doesn't work, it is because the parent has not used it enough. The doctor suggests that if the parent is consistent with the "wrap," it will work. But what if the parent uses spanking as a form of discipline? The doctor states "Once you have hit a child as hard as you can or as hard as you conscience will let you, you have no further options." The doctor is very quick to imply that consistency with spanking DOESN'T work. Why the differing view in the two forms of discipline? The doctor doesn't believe in spanking, so to admit that consistency in corporal punishment is effective would destroy his theory.

Doctor Kaye insists throughout this book that he is all for rules. There is a lot of advice to parents to be "consistent," in enforcing the rules, but I had a hard time figuring out what the rules were. In chapter fifteen, Kaye writes,

When you consistently enforce the rules, you show your children both that you care about them and what happens to them and that you have plenty of self respect.

This sounds good! The conservative parent reading this book certainly reads on encouraged by what they are hearing. The doctor continues in the next paragraph titled All-or-none thinking.

It is difficult to think about these issues sensibly if you fall victim to "all-or-none" thinking. You have no chance of succeeding with an absolute, blanket set of prohibitions: "No alcohol, drugs, or tobacco." (I wish it were that simple.) The kinds of rules that work are different for different specific substances or activities. Suppose you were to try to make a rule: "If you ever smoke a cigarette, you'll be grounded." Your son knows as well as you do that he can try a cigarette over at his friend's house without your finding out about it. He can do this on a regular basis, stock up on breath mints, and he will either become addicted to nicotine or be wise enough to stop in time. Your unenforceable rule will not have had anything to do with it, so it would have been better expressed as a preference: "I personally think smoking is a waste of one's health as well as one's money."

Bunk! Do you mean to tell me that telling your child "Don't ever let me catch you smoking" will be no more of a deterrent than telling him "I personally don't like cigarettes?" This kind of thinking is permeating our culture and is resulting in the destruction of millions of kids. Parents are being brainwashed into thinking that their children are wise enough to make decisions that are in their best interest when they are incapable of doing so. The author is correct in one respect when he states "he will either become addicted to nicotine or be wise enough to stop in time." It's one or the other, folks. Unfortunately, most children are NOT "wise enough to stop in time" before they "become addicted to nicotine." All this happens because the child had no fear of being caught smoking. The author continues with his opinion of "enforcing the rules."

You need not get into arguments about politics, music, clothes, hairstyles, sports, or anything else, unless you and the child enjoy such discussion. If the matter is so important that you want to insist upon your view, then make a rule and enforce it with consequences. Example: Randy, seventeen, has started to smoke, and his parents are shocked. Neither of them smokes and they consider it an abuse of Randy's health, as well as a socially offensive, filthy habit. They should say, "We consider it an abuse of your health , as well as a socially offensive, filthy habit. You have to decide the question for yourself at this point in your life. However, you are not allowed to smoke in our house."

Some parents feel they have to come down very strongly in defense of the values and institutions that their adolescents are questioning. The result is constant confrontation, provocation, and bitterness between the generations.

In this example, parents who still have legal control over the child (a seventeen year old, not yet emancipated), allows the child to harm himself by smoking cigarettes. The author starts off by stating that if a matter is of such importance to you that you must "insist upon your view" that you "make a rule and enforce it with consequences." Then the whole concept falls apart with the author's concept of "consequences." Is there any question that this "expert" is of the opinion that children should be "left to themselves?" Permissiveness in other areas of child rearing is evident in this book. Chapter sixteen deals with sex. The author writes, 

Talking about birth control does not mean you are encouraging your teenagers to have intercourse. Frankly, young adults are ready for sex before they are ready to be parents. But when the time comes, birth control is something you must plan in advance and be responsible about. However, I think this decision should be made by the young people themselves, and they should not be asked to report to you. Let your son or daughter know why you are concerned; make sure they have all the facts and know how to get a doctor's advice; and then leave the decision up to them.

Don't try to tell me that "talking about birth control does not mean you are encouraging your teenagers to have intercourse." No parent is able to convincingly tell their child that they do not want them engaging in sexual activity, and then add "but if you do," and supply them with a tool to disobey the instruction they have just given. Instructing your child on the use of birth control encourages your children to participate in sexual activity. Some parents argue that even though it's wrong, "every kid is going to try it," and they need to be protected from the consequences, namely pregnancy and venereal disease.

I have an analogy that I use when I argue the subject of supplying your children with contraceptives. Lets assume that you don't want your child to shoplift. First of all, it's wrong, but almost every child tries it. Second, there is a consequence, namely jail and a criminal record. Can you imagine the father saying to his son, " Son, I want you to know that I believe shoplifting is wrong. BUT IF YOU DO shoplift, I need to show you how not to get caught." Dad then takes junior down to the department store. He points out the hidden cameras in the ceiling and demonstrates where to stand in the isles in order to be hidden from the clerk. He shows him how to remove the magnetic tag and how to hide the merchandise under his coat as he leaves the store.

Sound ridiculous? Why is this scenario so foolish, but yet a parent explaining to their child how to have sex without suffering any of the negative consequences so acceptable? You have to admit that the child that is shown by his father how to shoplift is much more likely to steal from the store than the child who is told by his father that a shoplifting offense will result in severe punishment, period. The author believes that the parent should provide the child with all of the information needed, and then "then leave the decision up to them." This is truly a child "left to himself." 

Doctor Kay also addresses the issue of what I call "peer fear." I have always advocated that the parent restrict the kinds of friends that their child associates with. I believe that other than the parent, the child's peers are the most influential people in their lives. I think Kaye is way off base with this advice. He writes,

It is true that teenagers normally get deeply involved with other teenagers, spend a lot of time with them, and let their tastes be ruled by whatever is "in" with their generation. However, it is not true that teenagers care more about their peers than about their family relationships. Nor do they care more about their friends than about their parents. Another common misconception is that teenagers cannot resist peer pressure to go along with whatever is in fashion and parents are powerless to set standards that conflict with those of the peer group. Conversely, should you encourage them to associate with kids who fit your image of appropriate teenagers? If you try to make a rule about it, it is likely to backfire. If you try to legislate directly whom they can associate with, it will seem like an illegitimate invasion of their rights and they may feel compelled to thwart your choices even if they would otherwise have agreed with you. 

The author is again advocating children "left to themselves." I often counsel parents about their child's friends and the influences on their child outside of the home. I have personally seen many decent kids lead astray by less than desirable peers. I encourage parents to instruct their child to stay away from an acquaintance that they feel could negatively influence their child. If the relationship continues, I instruct parents to legally notify the rotten friend and his parents of the restriction placed on the two juveniles, and if the kids insist on keeping the relationship alive, file charges against the friend. Because your child is guilty of being unruly if he fails to comply with the reasonable control of his parents, the friend who knowingly violates the rule to stay away is guilty of contributing to the unruliness of your child. If parents don't want their kids to be shoplifters, keep them from hanging around with thieves. If parents don't want their kids to become addicted to drugs, keep them from hanging around with drug users. If parents don't want their kids to be defiant, keep them from hanging around with kids who swear at their parents.

Is peer fear a powerful influence? When I finally got the job as a police officer with my department, I was fulfilling a lifelong dream. When I graduated from the police academy, I was given my uniform, and a gun, and a badge, and was introduced to the other officers on my assigned shift. I learned to keep my eyes and ears open, and my mouth shut. I took notes while riding with my field training officer, and tried hard to fit in with a group of men who were very hard to get to know. Making the grade was important to me, and I decided early to try to gain the acceptance of those other officers in order to be a part of the team.

I liked working the afternoon shift. I could sleep in the following morning, and I didn't have to be to work until three o'clock in the afternoon. That shift was the most active, and I enjoyed the public relations part of the job with the citizens out in their yards and the kids at the playgrounds. I enjoyed going home at eleven o'clock at night to fix dinner in the micro-wave, watch a little late night television, and tuck the kids in before hitting the sack.

About three months after I started on the job, I was hanging up my gunbelt in my locker at the end of my shift when I was approached by one of the other officers. "Hey Surgenor," he said, "we're all going up to the Eastland Inn for a few. You want to come?" What I really wanted to do was go home. I had been looking forward to my dinner and my reclining chair and the movie, "Tora Tora Tora," scheduled for that evening. Do you think I possibly did something that I did not want to do in order to be accepted by a group of my peers? Certainly I did. My need to be accepted on the police department superceded the need to do what I really wanted to do!

The pressure on kids to please their friends is stronger than any peer fear that an adult experiences. Doctor Kaye tries to convince his readers that a parent need not fear influences on their children by other children, when in fact, that is the one factor that can drag an otherwise decent kid into the gutter. I have seen children abandon the values and morals taught them by their parents in order to be accepted by a friend. Usually, that action is not dangerous, but when it comes to drugs and crime, there may be serious consequences before the child wises up. Remember, Proverbs 22:6, promises we should "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." The problem is getting the child to the point "when he is old."  You recall, the word "old" is "zaqen" (pronounced "zaw-kane") in the original Hebrew. It means "matured." A teenager is not matured. It is our responsibility to make sure our children follow the rules until they reach the age of emancipation, in most states eighteen years old. Once they are old enough by law to decide on their own what to do, we, as parents, are no longer accountable for their actions. But until then, we must be "diligent" in our instruction and guidance.

At the end of the book, the author gives the parent a final word of advice. He states,

I don't think it is ever too late to begin setting down rules, warning children about the consequences of their actions, and following through. What you may have waited too long for, though, is to be able to put this system into effect without help. In previous chapters, I mentioned several crisis situations that indicate a professional should be consulted, being arrested, suspension from school, staying out overnight without permission, physical assault, carrying a knife or pistol, abuse of any drug to the point of losing consciousness or memory. All the actions listed here are within the realm in which a child can, with help, turn completely around and get on a positive track. But they are so close to the outer edges of this realm that you have little room for trial and error. Therefore, consult a psychologist, social worker, or other family therapist before cracking down on such actions.

Naturally, Doctor Kaye is one of those "professionals" that should be consulted.

 

Family Defense Network of Ohio     Office Box 26348, Cleveland, Ohio 44126     440-829-9830     FamilyDefenseNet@cox.net

developed by the higher power team