How would you handle this dilemma regarding a daughter's confiscated cell phone?

[AllieBaba]

I read the first study and I see nothing in there that says that it's harmful to monitor your child's cell phone and facebook page.

 

[AllieBaba]

How would you feel if your could have no privacy?

Somewhat violated, perhaps?

14 year old girls cannot and should be asked to share their private lives entirely with their parents.

I know and I am very sympathetic to the fact that you do not want your kid to get hereself into trouble.

But you've got to start letting go while they're still in the home, so that when they do leave, they've already learned some of the hard lessons they're going to learn (by doing dumb things) while they're STILL mostly safe because they're under your roof.

Bullshit again.
Checking the facebook and cell phones is not the same as "no privacy".

As I said, facebook isn't private to begin with, and cell phones are privileges not rights.

Adolescence is also when you have the discussion with your child....the one in which you elaborate the difference between a "right" and a "privilege".

Children have limited rights. They have a right to be fed and clothed, to not be physically abused, and educated.
That's pretty much where their rights end.

 

[Mad Scientist]

I'm trying to establish better communication with my 14 yr old daughter, my youngest and last child. She's fallen down on the job, as she's starting to spread her wings in her first year of High School. She's a great kid, strong-willed, highly intelligent, plays soccer, responsible student, and very pretty, blue-eyed blond adorable.

So, because of the fact that she failed to get approval for going to her friend's house after school, I took her phone away for one week. I could have imposed a harsher judgement but chose to be rational and not over react.

She's taken it well, we had a good talk about. The only thing is, I looked at her phone, and she's put a lock code on it, so I can't check it out to see what she's been up to. I feel that this is a continuation of her tendency toward secrecy. I'm sure she would be concerned about her privacy.

So, I can either take the phone to the closest U.S cellular technician who has the ability to retrieve the code (60+ miles away), without my daughter knowing I was snooping, or else I can tell my daughter that I want the code. The third option is to continue to allow her to keep her privacy. I've never thought of snooping before.

The issue with these cellphones is that, unlike earlier times when all calls came to the house, and parents knew who was contacting their child, these days it's much harder for parents to keep tabs on their child.

I don't when it happened, but kids today think they have "rights". I made it clear to my boys that I own everything they have and if they break the rules laid down by their mother and I, there would be consequences which I always followed through with.

My sister tried that "let's be friends" bullshit with her kids. One is in prison and the other lives at home after a divorce. My oldest son is married with a kid and is very responsible. My youngest one is still searching out his life but is very responsible.

My advice to you: Sit down with your kid and ask her to take out the cell phone and lay it on the table between you. Ask her for the security code, if she doesn't give it, confiscate it until she does. Kids need strong parental units to guide them. They feel secure when they get it and depressed when they don't. Besides, they don't understand until later in life anyway.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

How would you feel if your could have no privacy?

Somewhat violated, perhaps?

14 year old girls cannot and should be asked to share their private lives entirely with their parents.

I know and I am very sympathetic to the fact that you do not want your kid to get hereself into trouble.

But you've got to start letting go while they're still in the home, so that when they do leave, they've already learned some of the hard lessons they're going to learn (by doing dumb things) while they're STILL mostly safe because they're under your roof.

I am a full grown mature adult, and my privacy is my privacy. If I do something stupid it is entirely my fault and I will pay for it.
A 14 year old - AGAIN - does not have the capacity to protect themselves, and don't even recognize danger when it is right in front of them.

As well stated by AllieBaba, teens of course should have physical privacy in the home. As well as if they have some freinds over they of course deserve privacy....reason being...THEY ARE IN A CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT.

But out in the world surrounded by sick fucks and slick teenage boys - giving a girl the same level of privacy is an excelent way for your child to be a statistic.

 

[Middleman]

One thing I know, teenagers of today are given way too much freedom. A lot of them are handed the keys to the car, or given their own cars, without much accountability. There is social pressure on parents, as well, to cave into this unfortunate societal norm. Especially our daughters need our protection and oversight, in these days when giving blow jobs not considered anything more than making out, and some girls will do anything to keep a boyfriend. Date rape drugs can be easily slipped into drinks at parties, with dire results, as is what happened in these parts only very recently.

Teenage girls are naive and vulnerable.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

My advice to you: Sit down with your kid and ask her to take out the cell phone and lay it on the table between you. Ask her for the security code, if she doesn't give it, confiscate it until she does. Kids need strong parental units to guide them. They feel secure when they get it and depressed when they don't. Besides, they don't understand until later in life anyway.

Excellent advice.

 

[AllieBaba]

My mom did the whole 1960s-80s permissive parenting thing...mom would no more look in our rooms than she would fly. She didn't interfere with our friends or our dating; we were allowed to come and go at all hours of the day and night (PARTICULARLY my brothers).

My sister was older and raised in a much more restrictive manner.

My sister is the attorney...her kids are a math major and a doctor, she lives in a spectacular house and travels whenever she wants with the entire family.

My older brother spent a large amount of time in prison, my younger definitely has issues, and I felt like I didn't even register on the mom-o-meter. Kids may think parents are invading their privacy when they take an interest in their lives, but they feel like nobody cares if they don't, and when they make their own rules they establish REALLY bad habits that they will carry for the rest of their lives.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

One thing I know, teenagers of today are given way too much freedom. A lot of them are handed the keys to the car, or given their own cars, without much accountability. There is social pressure on parents, as well, to cave into this unfortunate societal norm. Especially our daughters need our protection and oversight, in these days when giving blow jobs not considered anything more than making out, and some girls will do anything to keep a boyfriend. Date rape drugs can be easily slipped into drinks at parties, with dire results, as is what happened in these parts only very recently.

Teenage girls are naive and vulnerable.

(My emphasis)
Absolutely. And therefore demands us to watch over them.

 

[AllieBaba]

And teenaged boys are stupid and therefore dangerous.

I aged 20 years in the 5 years between 15-20 with my boys. I was a mess, I don't think I ever slept...when I wasn't worried about one I was stressing over the other one....I was continually having to go find them, talk to somebody at school, figure out what privilege to take away (when we didn't have many at that time) and all the time worried that they were going to end up dead, in jail, or heaven knows.

They turned out okay, though. A little slow to mature and figure out some of the big truths (like it's best to go to school when you're YOUNG) but overall, good kids and self sufficient. I am getting a little rest now before my second set hit that age...they're 7 & 8 now. Things are starting to rev up but I still have a few years of relative rest and relaxation.

 

[AllieBaba]

One thing I know, teenagers of today are given way too much freedom. A lot of them are handed the keys to the car, or given their own cars, without much accountability. There is social pressure on parents, as well, to cave into this unfortunate societal norm. Especially our daughters need our protection and oversight, in these days when giving blow jobs not considered anything more than making out, and some girls will do anything to keep a boyfriend. Date rape drugs can be easily slipped into drinks at parties, with dire results, as is what happened in these parts only very recently.

Teenage girls are naive and vulnerable.

And see, who ALLOWS their kids to attend parties? I know what a party is...it's not cake and ice cream.

I would never in a million years give my daughter or my son permission to attend a party, unless it was, literally, a party with cake and ice cream (and parents). But parents do! It just floors me.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Kids like to ride their bikes with no hands. They think this is cool

Anyone who has seen kids drive away from school where kids are allowed to drive there, knows that kids are dumb and dangerous and need to be monitored. Mentored too.

Kids need to know you are there to protect them, not to harrass them.

I think you should not do anything on the sly. I think Ali has it down right. You lay the rules, making sure they know absolutely what the ground rules are, and you have all the rights. And you will exercise them.

At the same time, while making it clear you are in charge, give them the respect they earn. If they are not being stupid, then don't comment on what really does not concern you.

Kids can be dumb and dangerous. They can also be super terrific. They need to have you involved in both parts

 

[iamwhatiseem]

This thread is amazing.
It is outstanding to see that there are still good parents out there.
Well done.

My turn to brag:

My 20 year old daughter was accepted at IUPUI Med School in a program where only 1 - 45 applicants get in. Her grades were, and have always been outstanding.
My 16 yo son is a top swimming performer who has a reasonable chance to swim for Indiana University, one of the top swim programs in the country. His grades are solid and 3 days a week he goes to school at 6 am, and doesn't get home till 5:30pm.

My wife and I have been asked 1000 times "how did you do it?"
My kids are well behaved, responsible and I am confident will be succesful in their lives in numerous ways.

How we did it...we put our efforts into raising adults...not raising children.
Discipline is not an act of punishmnent, it is an opportunity to teach.

 

[Sherry]

The Bible tells us that we should discipline our children, but it's unwise to antagonize them, so I want to be careful.

The bible also says it's ok to sell your children into slavery to make a few extra bucks, but I wouldn't recommend you follow something that is thousands of years outdated. If you seek an outlet for your faith, put it in the daughter you raised for the last 14 years.

Really?? Are you serious?? Middleman is obviously not using his faith to justify any sort of abusive behavior on his part, so for you to make any sort of parallel is ridiculous.

As for locking her phone just prior to handing it over, that is the typical power struggle and testing the boundaries of any teenager. She'd probably be surprised if you didn't comment on it. Follow your gut. One size/answer does not fit all.

 

[goldcatt]

One thing I know, teenagers of today are given way too much freedom. A lot of them are handed the keys to the car, or given their own cars, without much accountability. There is social pressure on parents, as well, to cave into this unfortunate societal norm. Especially our daughters need our protection and oversight, in these days when giving blow jobs not considered anything more than making out, and some girls will do anything to keep a boyfriend. Date rape drugs can be easily slipped into drinks at parties, with dire results, as is what happened in these parts only very recently.

Teenage girls are naive and vulnerable.

IMO, boys can be just as vulnerable in their own way. But if it's now becoming an issue then that's why you need to decide, preferably before you give her back the phone, exactly what level of access you want to her possessions, her phone, her computer, etc. and tell her up front and very clearly at that time so she knows exactly what to expect and what will and will not be "private". Then enforce it.

I wouldn't have the phone unlocked without her knowledge unless you're suspicious of something being on it that you need to find out about ASAP, but if you want access to that phone then you have every right to tell her for example that giving you the code is a condition of its return. Then let her choose whether she wants a phone you can monitor or no phone at all.

 

[Zoom-boing]

If you're paying for the phone and paying the bill, you have every right to know the code to unlock the phone. My youngest, 13, doesn't have a cell phone because a) she can't afford one and b) they are not any type of 'necessity'. . . . I called total bullshit on that. If she wants to talk to her friends she can call them on the phone, chat them up on facebook, etc. Speaking of facebook, she wanted one. I said ok (because odds are she would have made one anyway) but I have her username and password. Yes, I sign on there and check out stuff. I delete a lot crap that she's "allowed access". Am I invading her privacy? Don't know, don't care . . . if she wants a f/b she's only getting it with me having access to it. Oh, she also had to 'friend' me as well. I'm her parent not her friend.

When she's old enough to get a job and pay for a cell phone and the bill, she can have one. I personally think they are too much freedom for young kids.; too easy to get into trouble (sexting, pics, etc.) Just my humble opinion.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Parents who don't monitor their children's interactions with other people end up being parents of Columbine shooters

This is ridiculous. Perhaps you should just go ahead and call them nazis while you're at it? How irrational. Do not dare substitute ideas about parenting in regards to psychiatric PATHOLOGY. If you actually decided to educate yourself on this matter instead of draw bullshit conclusions from your limited experience of being ONE parent, you'd have known the parents of the Columbine psychopath ran the house very strictly due to military experience. Now that the FACTS are on my side, I could draw the same ridiculous conclusion that being super strict and intrusive leads to school shootings. But the kid had a psychiatric disorder. I would no more blame the parenting for that then if their kid had Down syndrome.

Not only that, I think a kid has to be 18 to open a facebook page. That implies something right there. If they need my permission, guess what, I'm going to monitor it. There are all sorts of sick fucks out there, and kids are supremely stupid.

So are parents, apparently. Age to join facebook or any other social website is 13. The only thing you just "implied" is that you have no clue what you're talking about. So when you go on to say things like "if they need my permission I'm going to monitor it", guess what?! They don't! And let me guess, you still think you should monitor it, which shows your "justification" is a poor attempt at charade. Don't make excuses for your poor reasoning, ESPECIALLY when it doesn't apply because you don't know what you're talking about.

Bullshit.

Ah. I see. The legitimate research from across the world analyzing thousands of families that is published after being highly scrutinized in reputable peer reviewed journals can be completely discredit NOT because it's bad research, but because one mom doesn't agree. You just exhibited ignorance in a nutshell. You can't find any research that suggests invasion of privacy in adolescents leads to any good outcomes.

You keep asking these desperate questions regarding my experience in parenting in an attempt to discredit me. Forget MY experience. What about yours? As I see it, your experience is as large as ONE household. Maybe two if you want to include your parents. The research I presented draws on experience from THOUSANDS of families. Your unsupported beliefs are insignificant in comparison.

In summation:

• You know nothing about adolescent psychology
• You refuse to believe published knowledge well known to the medical community on adolescent psychology
• You make up poor excuses as to why you should invade privacy, even if those excuses don't apply
• You know nothing about the parenting techniques of adolescent psychopaths, completely fabricating poor assumptions to fill in your deficits
• You know nothing about the actual constrictions of electronic communication, completing fabricating poor assumptions to fill in your deficits, and yet despite all these limitations and shortcomings:
• You still think you are in a good position to tell others "how it is"

What you haven't realized is that there's more than one way to skin a cat. Instead of forcing your safety upon them through privacy invasion, at the cost of increased likelihood of poor grades, depression, and anxiety, why not teach them how to fend for themselves? Or perhaps you believe your children are too moronic to understand strangers with candy are bad?

I know it can be very upsetting and insulting to hear that thousands of families prove your method of parenting is not actually the best way to raise a young adult. I get that's why you're very defensive right now. Chances are even if you remain stubborn instead of acknowledging legitimate research, your children are still going to turn out just fine. There will just be much more anxiety, conflict, and depression taking the place of learning and fostering independence.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

How many here are old enough to have been victims of liberal high school education experiments back in the late 70's and early 80's until they abolished it country-wide?

I was one of those kids.
SmarterthanHick would fit right in with the thinking at the time.
For those not old enough, and therefore have no idea what I am talking about...

Here it is briefly:

1) The Mod system (modular) - too long to explain, don't want to fill the post with trying to explain what that is...google it.
2) Students were given GREAT lee-way with choosing what classes they wanted.
3) A student, on average, had at minimum 1.5 to 2 hours of free time everyday much like universities so students could study...but like colleges, you were not made to study. Schools had "commons" or "common areas" where kids could hang out, play cards or whatever they wanted.
4) Schools had smoking areas, at my school guards sold cigarettes to kids for a dime each (considering packs were about $.50 then - it was a nice lucrative business for them)
5) Students were given punch cards to show teachers that they spent required time in study halls - however this was poorly monitored and kids would simply punch the card in the respective study hall - and then walk outside or go to the commons.
6) Punishment was rare. Kids were sent to "disciplinary counsellors" who would talk about whyyyyyy they were acting out...and give them adviiiiiice on why they should do better.

Needless to say - KIDS LOVED THIS SYSTEM!! - I did too..it was freakin' awesome.
However, after about 10 years of this stupidity, and colleges everywhere complaining about ill-prepared students - the US B.O.E. abolished the system and went back to the traditional system.

It is no surprise that in California, some schools are trying it again.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Perhaps you can provide a more accessible link than this one. I'm sure if the information you claim is valid, then it's widely accessible.

More accessible? Did you click on the download link on that page? The files themselves usually aren't accessible to most people, which is why I hosted them. Nonetheless, here are the links to the National Library of Medicine at the National Institute of Health on both articles:
Parental control of the personal domain and adoles... [Child Dev. 2004 May-Jun] - PubMed result
The role of parents' control in early adolescents'... [Child Dev. 2007 Sep-Oct] - PubMed result

I don't think Smarter realizes that there's a difference between reasonable privacy, and parenting.

I don't think YOU realize there is a difference between invasion of privacy and behavioral control. Read the articles. They explain the differences.

But private time and privacy does not extend to technology that is the primary method sick fucks use to access our kids. They look for kids who have "hands-off" parents, and they exploit and abuse them.

You say that as if strangers with candy has not been a concern for generations. Avoiding privacy invasion does not necessitate "hands off" parenting.

I read the first study and I see nothing in there that says that it's harmful to monitor your child's cell phone and facebook page.

Clearly you didn't read it then:

As we had anticipated, there were no significant relationships between perceptions of parental control over prudential or conventional issues and self-reported psychological symptoms among adolescents in either country. This is consistent with the view that Personal Domain and Adolescent Psychological Symptoms 825 adult exertion of control over such behaviors constitutes guidance and protective direction (Smetana, 1995; Steinberg, 1990). The significant correlations between parental control of the personal domain (PDS) and the overlapping domain (ODS) and scores on the BSI were for symptoms of internalizing behaviors (anxiety, depression, somatization, interpersonal sensitivity) that would be expected as a result of parental exertion of psychological control (Barber, 1996; Barber & Harmon, 2002)

Self-reports of internalizing symptoms were positively correlated with amount of perceived control over personal issues for U.S. and Japanese students and for parental control over overlapping domain issues for Japanese students. There were no associations between parental control of conventional or prudential behaviors and psychological symptoms.

Perhaps you should try that reading thing again. Or do you need me to spell out that removing privacy on facebook and phone falls into "perceived control over personal issues"? Let me save you the trouble with an excerpt from the second article:

Supporting cultural similarities, in both countries over time, parents’ psychological control predicted children’s dampened emotional functioning, parents’ psychological autonomy support predicted children’s enhanced emotional and academic functioning, and parents’ behavioral control predicted children’s enhanced academic function

And there are many MANY more where they came from that all say the same thing.

Kids may think parents are invading their privacy when they take an interest in their lives, but they feel like nobody cares if they don't, and when they make their own rules they establish REALLY bad habits that they will carry for the rest of their lives.

Which again shows you don't even SEE the middle ground of being a very hands on parent without being an invasive parent.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

How many here are old enough to have been victims of liberal high school education experiments back in the late 70's and early 80's until they abolished it country-wide?

I was one of those kids.
SmarterthanHick would fit right in with the thinking at the time.
For those not old enough, and therefore have no idea what I am talking about...

Here it is briefly:

1) The Mod system (modular) - too long to explain, don't want to fill the post with trying to explain what that is...google it.
2) Students were given GREAT lee-way with choosing what classes they wanted.
3) A student, on average, had at minimum 1.5 to 2 hours of free time everyday much like universities so students could study...but like colleges, you were not made to study. Schools had "commons" or "common areas" where kids could hang out, play cards or whatever they wanted.
4) Schools had smoking areas, at my school guards sold cigarettes to kids for a dime each (considering packs were about $.50 then - it was a nice lucrative business for them)
5) Students were given punch cards to show teachers that they spent required time in study halls - however this was poorly monitored and kids would simply punch the card in the respective study hall - and then walk outside or go to the commons.
6) Punishment was rare. Kids were sent to "disciplinary counsellors" who would talk about whyyyyyy they were acting out...and give them adviiiiiice on why they should do better.

Needless to say - KIDS LOVED THIS SYSTEM!! - I did too..it was freakin' awesome.
However, after about 10 years of this stupidity, and colleges everywhere complaining about ill-prepared students - the US B.O.E. abolished the system and went back to the traditional system.

So you're saying that despite popular beliefs, analyzing the actual data regarding the OUTCOMES lead people to draw legitimate CONCLUSIONS?! That almost sounds like..... RESEARCH!

Lack of invasion in no way dictates lack of limitations.

There's a difference between teaching kids what to avoid and giving them one hour of internet time before dinner as a privilege, and forcing them to divulge every social interaction they've had in every form of media. The former is behavioral control, which the research I just shared shows is beneficial. The latter is intrusive psychological control which has negative affects.

I think it was you, iamwhatiseem, that said it best: it's about the teaching.

 

[Ravi]

I know everyone's been dying for my opinion, so here it is...

Tell your daughter she may not lock her phone unless she gives you the password. If she does, she loses the phone permanently.

Tell her you will not read her texts unless you have cause to believe she is going off the rails.

Easy.