A positive parenting style can help protect young people from becoming involved with substance use, delinquency and violent behaviour, a new study suggests.

The 87-page report released Tuesday by the Canadian Institute for Health Information analyzed various research and policy initiatives and crunched data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth from Statistics Canada.

“One of the things we wanted to do with this is really sort of step back and through a lens of mental health examine some of the factors that are associated with youth delinquency and criminal behaviour,” said Jean Harvey, director of CIHI’s Canadian Population Health Initiative.

Young people who never reported engaging in aggressive behaviour had high self-esteem, good stress management and self motivation, she said.

“Those were found to be sort of the protective factors around not being involved with delinquent behaviour and criminal activity.”

In terms of risk factors, those aged 12 and 13 who reported hyperactivity and depression were more likely to report high levels of aggressive behaviours, and high levels of delinquent acts involving property.

When parents nurtured and monitored their children, those kids had fewer contacts with peers who were engaged in criminal behaviour, Harvey said.

And not surprisingly, kids who reported positive school experiences were more likely to report not being aggressive than youth who reported fewer positive experiences.

“Children that are connected to the school and they feel a positive bond to their community and their society … had reduced delinquency,” Harvey said.

She said the report, entitled Improving the Health of Canadians: Mental Health, Delinquency and Criminal Activity, is intended to help policy makers with decisions, but the findings would also be of interest to the general public, parents and the school system.

Source: The Canadian Press, TORONTO
http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5gx3K6tO23TUDYyQ5AkgmST3gaPcQ

When you’re trying to convince people not to hit their kids, it’s sometimes best to use a gentle hand, or even some crayons.

That was the philosophy behind the No Spank Day Family Event on the weekend at Devonshire Mall.

The Windsor Essex Children’s Aid Society put it on in the lead up to International No Spank Day on April 30.

“We’re finding that if we do a parenting event, and talk to parents about positive discipline and discourage the use of corporal punishment, that they’re more open and willing to listen to us than if we were out picketing against spanking,” said Tina Gatt, CAS manager of Public Relations and Prevention.

International No Spank Day began a decade ago. The idea is to get caregivers who use corporal punishment to refrain hitting children on that day, and seek alternative discipline methods from there on.

The CAS child abuse prevention committee put on the weekend event with face painting and crafts for the kids, and information for the parents.

The CAS also had on display the winning entries of the third annual Kent Billinghurst Positive Parenting Award, named after the late advocate and educator.

The contest, in which kids nominate their parents, allows children to focus on the good things their moms and dads are doing. There were more than 200 entries.

The winner was Livia Tipping, 9, a Grade 4 Lakeshore Discovery student, who sent in a drawing of her family and an explanation of why her parents are great.

“My parents are good role models because they don’t swear, hit or yell,” she wrote. “They encourage me by cheering me on and congratulating me. They are positive and don’t give up. They teach me to go for my dreams.”

Gatt said that’s an example of the positive effects parents can have by not spanking.

“Even if it doesn’t leave physical injuries on children, it does create an impairment in the relationship,” she said. “What kids end up saying is my mom or my dad doesn’t like me, I’m bad. It’s really taking the focus away from the behaviour.”

She said parents should instead instead focus on the consequences of actions. Removal of privileges might be an answer, she said.

Katrina Brunelle, 20, said her approach is talking to her two-year-old twins Caden and Damon.

“If they don’t understand what they did wrong, guide them in the other direction,” she said.

Chris and Melissa Etches try to be positive with their children, two-and-a-half year old Chelsea and two-month old Hannah.

“There are other ways of getting discipline,” said Chris. “We try to stay with positive reinforcement. Tell her what she does right, other than what she does wrong.”

Gatt said they still got a lot of resistance from some people. But that’s OK.

“It gives us opportunity to really engage people that are still resistant, that still have very outdated beliefs around parenting,” she said. “We feel like we’re making more impact when we’re not just preaching to the converted.” (…)

Seventeen countries have outlawed corporal punishment. Canada isn’t one of them. Sweden was the first in 1979. The most recent was Spain in 2007.

Source: Windsor Star, Canada
http://tinyurl.com/43jcvb

A couple have been prevented from fostering children after insisting on the right to smack their own daughter “as a last resort”.

David and Heather Bowen told an adoption panel that they would never smack a foster child but might physically chastise their own daughter “once or twice a year”.

Despite initially being recommended as good candidates by social workers, the couple were turned down for fostering after refusing to reconsider their position.

The couple, from Taunton, Somerset, were told by the panel that they would not be allowed to take in children because of their approach to “behaviour management”.

Mr and Mrs Bowen, who are both volunteers at their church and local schools, are appealing against the decision by Somerset county council.

Mr Bowen, 42, said: “Based on the evidence presented to the council, we cannot understand why we are unsuitable and it seems that we have been excluded on the basis that we physically chastise our birth child, in accordance with our beliefs and UK law.

“I’m sure other parents would have just lied.”

He added: “Our birth daughter is only chastised physically as a last resort amongst a whole range of other forms of behaviour management strategies which include rewards and sanctions. The council has made us feel we are bad parents and yet we do nothing that hundreds of thousands across the UK do as loving and responsible mothers and fathers.”

Parents are legally allowed to smack their children if it is considered a “reasonable chastisement” and provided they leave no more than a “transitory” mark.

The Government ruled out a total ban after reviewing the law in 2000. Mr and Mrs Bowen fear that the ruling against them will mean thousands of children will be denied access to good foster care because potential foster parents smack their own children.

The Bowens have a nine- year-old daughter, Emma, and felt they were good candidates for fostering after failing to conceive following the death of their second child, Jonathan, from a rare illness.

They were turned down last month following a 14-month approval process. Mrs Bowen, 47, said: “We felt we had room to give more love to other children. As the outcome sank in we began to grieve again, feeling a tremendous sense of loss that we would not be allowed to complete our family and provide a loving home to a child in need.”

The British Association for Adoption and Fostering said it believed smacking was generally inappropriate, particularly for vulnerable children who may have been abused in the past.

John Simmonds, its director of policy, research and development, said: “The expectation is that you treat foster children as one of your own. You can’t set one standard for your own children and another for the foster child.”

Linda Barnett, the head of children’s services at Somerset county council, said: “In common with most other local authorities, Somerset has a Foster Carer’s Agreement which describes our belief about parenting. Where carers have a very strong personal belief that differs from the Foster Carer Agreement, it is potentially unfair to expect them to operate to a set of guidelines which conflicts with this.”

Rights and wrongs of smacking

Smacking remains legal but the law on it was toughened up in 2004 in response to pressure from children’s campaigners.

The Children Act removed the defence of “reasonable chastisement” from parents who left more than a “transitory mark” on their child.

Causing a bruise, reddened skin or psychological injuries can result in an assault charge and five years’ jail.

However, earlier this year the Sentencing Guidelines Council, which sets down rules for magistrates and judges, appeared to signal a change of opinion.

It called for leniency, recommending light sentences for parents who are prosecuted for smacking but did not intend to hurt their child.

Campaign groups such as the NSPCC and the National Children’s Bureau continue to press for tougher laws, however.

The Children Are Unbeatable! alliance wants an outright ban.

Source: Telegraph.co.uk, United Kingdom
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/09/nfoster109.xml

In a matter of seconds, a baby’s shrill cries can stop – sometimes forever.

A simulation doll, used in local education programs, illustrates the chilling silence that can follow a bout of shaking at the hands of a fatigued, frustrated caregiver.

Permanent damage or death can follow fewer than 20 seconds of shaking, according to the National Center on Shaken Baby Syndrome, which estimates 600-1,400 cases per year in the U.S.

In the wake of Greater Cincinnati’s latest alleged shaken-baby death in Hamilton last week, authorities say it’s important to continue trying to get the anti-shaking message across.

The Hamilton baby’s father, Vincent Blanda, 37, is charged with murder and faces a court hearing today in the death of his 5-month-old daughter, Brooklynn.

Simulation dolls are a tool that Trihealth’s ThinkFirst injury prevention program and similar offices are using to emphasize the “never shake a baby” concept that has been around for about a decade.

People who see dolls shaken in a demonstration “are shocked at what could really happen,” said Krista Jones, a director of ThinkFirst, based at Bethesda North Hospital’s Trauma Services.

The ThinkFirst For Your Baby program targets uninsured pregnant teens and other low-income girls and women. The program provides six lessons that aim to prevent injuries of infants through prenatal education and a post-partum follow-up.

The dolls help dramatically illustrate what parts of the brain are damaged when a child is shaken, Jones said. Participants are taught how to cope with a crying infant: rock the baby, change its diaper, feed the child or offer a pacifier, Jones said.

The number of infants diagnosed as being abusively shaken have remained relatively constant since Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center started keeping track in 2001. Since then, the hospital has seen an average of 19 shaken babies per year. On average, three of those infants died.

The year-to-year variation isn’t large enough to be able to tell whether prevention efforts are having an effect, said Dr. Kathi Makoroff, of the Mayerson Center for Safe and Healthy Children at Children’s hospital. She also said some cases of shaking are mistakenly attributed to other causes if the right tests aren’t done – so more children are shaken in our region than the numbers indicate.

Makoroff wishes people would heed this advice: “If a baby is crying and you’re frustrated, don’t pick that baby up.”

Dr. Lori Shutter, director of neurocritical care at the Neuroscience Institute at the Mayfield Clinic in Cincinnati, said people may be unaware of the potential for severe consequences if they lose their cool and shake an infant out of fatigue or frustration when they cannot figure out why a baby is crying.

Blanda told an emergency dispatcher that he was tired and did not intend to hurt his daughter, but she died at Children’s Hospital Medical Center on March 25, a day after he called to report the baby had gone limp after he shook her.

“People in general do not realize how easy it is to injure the brain,” Shutter said. The brain is the consistency of “really firm Jell-O or custard,” she said. During shaking, the brain “starts moving within the skull in an uncontrolled fashion,” causing bruise like injuries as it bangs around inside the skull.

The bruised areas swell and, if the swellling cannot be controlled, the brain can become so compressed that “the deep parts of the brain that tell you to wake up again or to breathe can be destroyed,” Shutter said. (…)

Source: Cincinnati Enquirer, OH
http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080331/NEWS01/303310027

Mothers who shout or smack are more likely to have toddlers with sleep difficulties - but researchers do not know if the aggressive parenting style is a cause or effect of the problems.

A pediatrician from Melbourne’s Royal Children’s Hospital has analysed data from 4600 families to see if parenting methods had any impact on the sleep behaviour of children between the ages of one and three.

Harriet Hiscock found children were nearly twice as likely to have sleep problems that persisted through the toddler years if their mother’s parenting style was “hostile” - characterised by yelling or physical punishment such as smacking - rather than “warm”.

But her research has opened a chicken-and-egg debate because it is not clear whether the sleep problems are caused by the mothers’ parenting, or if the frazzled mothers have resorted to shouting at their sleep-deprived, cranky children.

“It’s always a cause-and-effect argument and you can’t really conclude from this which one occurs first,” Dr Hiscock said.

She found the biggest predictor of persistent sleep problems was a child’s health.

Babies and toddlers who have chronic health problems such as asthma or autism were more than three times more likely to suffer sleep problems than healthy children.

The data from the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children found that 75 per cent of young children had no sleep issues.

Two-thirds of sleeping problems reported at age one were resolved by the second study, but about one in 20 had sleep problems that persisted over the years.

Mothers’ parenting style was not a big factor in sleep problems at the age of one, but became an issue by the second study.

Source: The Age, Australia
http://tinyurl.com/2gklfl

Parents with aggressive kids need to be involved in early prevention and intervention, study says

Childhood bullies frequently fight with their parents, feel they can’t count on them and aren’t closely supervised, a Toronto-based study shows.

That means bullies not only require counselling on how to relate to peers, but also parents – and their parents need to take part, says lead author Debra Pepler, a York University professor and scientist at the Hospital for Sick Children, considered one of the country’s leading experts in the field.

“Focusing on the child alone is not enough,” she said. “You can’t just provide support at school and hope that the behaviour changes or that the learning transfers to other contexts. These are problems parents need to deal with.”

Technology, too, has added a twist because “adults aren’t in that space, they don’t understand what’s going on.”

The seven-year study of 871 Toronto students from age 10 onwards, is published in the March/April edition of the journal Child Development.

While most children experiment with bullying at some point, about 10 per cent become “persistent bullies,” it found.

Pepler said the study is among the first “to confirm that children who use power and aggression in their relationships have relationship problems and need relationship solutions.

“Let’s not have them sit on a bench for an hour to teach them not to bully. An hour on the bench is not going to teach them how to relate better next time.”

Stu Auty of the Canadian Safe School Network said many bullying issues stem from a child’s home life, and the strategy should always be “early prevention and intervention.”

Involving parents “is a good idea, and not done nearly enough,” he said. “But often you can’t get the parent to agree – that’s part of the problem.”

One of the network’s programs, used by the Toronto District School Board, educates children from junior kindergarten to Grade 2 on honesty, integrity and sharing, using animated characters. Parents can have access to the program and use it as a resource at home to discuss bullying.

“The sooner you get at this issue, the fewer concerns there are down the road,” Auty said. “If it’s anything schools can provide, it’s a focus on character education, on values, the difference between right and wrong.

“So for whatever reason, if they don’t get it at home, they are going to pick it up in school – although sometimes it feels like we have our fingers in the dike here.”

The study found that 9.9 per cent of students were chronic bullies from elementary to high school; about 35 per cent were moderate bullies; 13.4 per cent began as moderate bullies but ceased bullying by high school; 41.6 per cent reported “almost never bullying.”

Youth in the first three categories tended to lack “the protective processes of supportive family relationships (e.g. those with low parent trust, poor parental monitoring) and peer relationships (e.g. those associating with peers who bullied, high susceptibility to peer pressure),” the study found.

Past research has indicated children who bully tend to come from homes with “harsh and punitive” parenting, but it’s not an area that has been looked at in depth, Pepler said.

In her study, almost three-quarters lived at home with both parents; the rest with single parents or in blended families. Most of the children’s mothers had graduated from university or college, making it a “relatively advantaged” sample.

Pepler said while bullying might start in the home, it can also “start in the peer group – youth get a lot of power by victimizing each other. That’s one of the ways of increasing their status.”

Source: Toronto Star, Canada
http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/350367

Researchers have uncovered another damaging consequence of spanking: risky sexual behaviors, or even sexual deviancy, when the child grows up.

“This adds one more harmful side effect to spanking,” said Murray Straus, a spanking expert who presented the findings of four studies at the American Psychological Association’s Summit on Violence and Abuse in Relationships in Bethesda, Md.

“I think that it’s pretty powerful,” said Elizabeth Gershoff, an assistant professor at the University of Michigan’s School of Social Work. “It’s across several studies and across different forms of either risky or deviant sexual behavior.”

Straus, who was the author of all four studies, hopes the findings will raise awareness among child development experts.

“My hope is to convince my colleagues that they ought to put this in their textbooks,” said Straus, co-director of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire. “It’s amazing. Something experienced by all American kids gets an average of half a page in child development textbooks, and not a single one comes to the conclusion that parents should never spank.”

An analysis of spanking studies by Gershoff found 93 percent agreement among studies that spanking can lead to such problems as delinquent and anti-social behavior in childhood, along with aggression, criminal and anti-social behavior and spousal or child abuse as an adult.

However, some 90 percent of U.S. parents spank toddlers, according to Straus.

The review is the first to look at the relationship of spanking to sexual behavior. They found that spanking and other corporal punishment is associated with an increased probability of verbally and physically coercing a dating partner to have sex; risky sex such as premarital sex without using a condom; and masochistic sex such as spanking during sex.

There is a “dose response” at work here: “The more parents spank, the higher the probability of harmful side effects,” Straus noted.

There’s a similar dose response for smokers — but if someone reaches the age of 65 without developing lung cancer, it doesn’t mean that smoking isn’t harmful. It’s the same with spanking, Straus said. “If a person says, ‘I was spanked, and I don’t have any interest in bondage and discipline sex,’ that’s correct, but it’s not because spanking is OK, it’s because they’re one of the lucky ones.”

And spanking a child once may be like picking up that first cigarette. “The trouble is, if you have a 2-year-old, you pretty soon decide you can’t avoid it.”

Source: News-Leader.com, MO
http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080324/LIFE04/803240323

Try to step back and begin to question your behaviour

I always dreamt of having a child - I wanted to love someone in the way that I was never loved. I now have my beloved daughter. She is three and a half and beautiful, but she makes me so angry and I can’t cope. I know that having a child is demanding, but she makes me despair. I don’t hit her but I can feel the build-up of resentment towards her, even though I know this isn’t really about her. My parents hit me and I resent them for it - I could never do that to my child. However, I am frightened by the wave of anger that comes over me when I know that she is probably just behaving as a child.
Catherine

It isn’t just our behavioural responses to our child that affect their behaviour but the emotional content of those responses. These emotions are known as projections - feelings from within us that are linked to our own pasts and histories and that we then project on to our child. In effect, we emotionally dump on our children while all they are doing is responding as a child who is developing and learning the rules of the game of life.

I wonder whether, through your analysis of your relationship with your parents, you are left with an understanding of your own history that has left you feeling uncomfortable? These are the feelings that to some degree you have been projecting on to your child. Except that you are taking responsibility for that, so your daughter can carry on being a child. I congratulate you for doing this - it is tough, but is also an essential part of parenting - not using your child as your emotional outlet. You are tolerating the difficult feelings like an adult and not making them your child’s problem.

When you find yourself in a situation with your child where you acknowledge that their behaviour is stirring up such intense emotions in you, try to step back and begin to question your behaviour. In doing that, you will start to build an awareness of how your own emotional issues are being keyed into by your child - many people would say that their child “knows which buttons to press”. These buttons are our insecurities and emotional vulnerabilities, but is it fair to blame a child for pushing them? Do we honestly believe that they are scheming in their little mind to get what they want by profoundly upsetting us? No, they have learnt because we have taught them that certain behaviours give us the greatest problems and in those situations we are likely to give them the most attention.

It’s a mismatch of behaviour and interpretation of behaviour. And the projection comes from your own belief systems about yourself as an adult. If you believe you are a failure, or not good enough, or even worthless, you label yourself in a negative way. The moment your child does something wrong, or something that embarrasses you, or keys into that sense of “I’m a failure” or “I’m out of control” or “I am a terrible parent”, then you will go into meltdown. It becomes about you, when actually children are supposed to make mistakes. If your child’s mistake compounds your negative beliefs about yourself, which are in turn linked to your own childhood or difficulties in your life and relationships, then your child is going to find themselves in the path of a huge response that is completely mismatched to their behaviour.

It’s important for us as adults to accept that we can at times project our own inner feelings outwards, and a very good receptacle for those feelings can be children. It is easy to fall into the trap of pushing our anger, sadness, pain, frustrations and stress on to them and make them responsible for it, rather than taking responsibility for these feelings ourselves and understanding what they are really about. You have this insight already and you are stopping yourself hitting your child - this makes you a good parent.

My advice is to monitor these situations (keep a diary) and work out the specific triggers that set you off.Then, when you see situations about to occur, employ a range of creative distraction techniques when possible. When this is not possible, ignore the difficult behaviour and distract yourself (count backwards from 100 in threes; sing a song).

In the most difficult situations, use the “time out” method, whereby your child is separated from you for three minutes (one minute for each year of life in a safe place such as a bedroom). This allows them to learn that the behaviour will not be tolerated, gives you time to calm down and reduces the chance of hitting. Once you have managed the behaviour, do not bear grudges; move on with the day and praise them for every wonderful thing they do.

Finally, find support about your own history, either through talking about your feelings with those you trust and are close to or by having psychotherapy.

Source: Times Online, UK
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/child_health/article3598236.ece

(…) In the spring of 2004, Sweden was awash with debate about the growing prevalence of so-called “curling parents”. Drawing an analogy with the sport of curling, the phrase refers to parents who rush ahead of their children, frantically sweeping their path clean of even the most minor obstructions.

The phrase was coined by Danish child psychologist Bent Hougaard in a challenge to the perceived status quo. Parents had become slaves to their children, who ruled the roost, rejecting adult authority in all its forms.

The discourse was joined later by “helicopter parents,” a term describing parents who pay very close attention to their children, hovering around them at all times.

In recent months, parenting in Sweden has again been under the microscope, with some 20,000 parents turning to state-sponsored parenting courses for help last year. But the courses are controversial and experts fear a traditionalist backlash.

Critics argue that the courses signify the return of shaming and the naughty step. Advocates however contend that the courses, which focus on behaviour, work.

Is Sweden, proud of a more “enlightened”, cooperative approach to parenting, losing faith in itself and rediscovering a more “traditional”, hands-on approach to raising its children?

Lars H. Gustafsson, paediatrician and author of several books on children and youth, is critical of the broad application of parenting courses and writes that many of the methods taught in courses such as Komet and Cope are not suitable for the average family. Many of the methods are designed for families with serious problems and could be counterproductive when applied universally, he argues.

“I want to emphasize that I am positive to the idea that parents should meet and discuss parenting, but there should be more of a menu of courses that parents can choose between. It is the content that I react against. There is an important distinction between treatment therapy for families with serious problems and the majority of parents that can manage perfectly well,” says Gustafsson.

Agneta Hellström at Cope, just one of the courses available to parents in Sweden, argues that attitudes have changed over the past thirty years and that state-sponsored courses are not as controversial as they were in the 1970s and 1980s.

“The courses are offered to parents and not imposed upon them. In my experience there has been a professionalization of parenthood. In the same way that the owner of a boat wishes to learn to sail, parents wish to learn to develop in their new roles. The courses are very much part of an ‘empowerment programme’ and it is the parents and not the course leader who shape the content.”

Gustafsson agrees that the courses are not as controversial and parents are less sceptical towards authorities today. “They should be though,” he warns, adding that “the recent vigorous media debate is perhaps an indication that there remains a healthy scepticism to being told by society how to be a parent.”

He reacts against the behaviour focus of many of the modern courses and would like to see courses focused more on “interplay,” “teamwork” and “parental dialogue.”

“Along the lines of a French language study circle.”

Methods such as “time out” and ignoring the child have been the focus of much of the debate. The “time out” method is argued by Gustafsson to be reminiscent of the “room arrest” that was once common in parenting. “Room arrest” was cited by the government in 1979 as an example of what could be considered a “prohibited violation of the rights of a child” and thus equivalent to the use of corporal punishment and thereby prohibited by the new legislation.

Sweden was the first country in the world to outlaw the corporal punishment of children, in 1979. In fact the right of parents to beat their children was removed in 1966.

Hellström argues that the “time out” method has been misunderstood. The method, she emphasizes, should be used selectively and only to “break a vicious circle,” in extreme cases, such as when the child is hitting another child.

“Time out is part of the ‘positive reinforcement’ taught in Cope’s courses and does not mean room arrest,” Hellström explains.

“It is important that parents remain in control. Time out is a so-called ’sharp tool’ - a means of breaking a more negative situation and reinforcing a positive one,” she adds.

It was not until after the end of the Second World War that physical punishment and shaming began to be questioned as methods of parenting in Sweden, Gustafsson writes in ‘The return of the naughty step.’

Children’s author Astrid Lindgren created the characters of Pippi Longstocking, Emil, Madicken and Ronja and was influential in embedding new attitudes towards children and parenting in the Swedish popular self-identity that led to a re-think in the 1970s and early 1980s.

“I was part of the process to develop parenting courses in the beginning of the 1980s. The thought was that we would develop a three-stage process taking the child up to school age, but financial concerns came in the way. Even then we were careful to avoid the word ‘education’ and we went for ‘parent groups’ instead,” Gustafsson tells The Local.

Hellström argues that today’s parents are not familiar with the 1970s tradition and seek “concrete, pedagogical methods for improving their daily lives with their children.”

One such “concrete” method is the so-called “balance of trust.” Deposits are made, in the form of praise, gold stars or “quality time” and, later, withdrawals in the form of punishments. Hellström emphasizes that it is important to consider what we mean by punishment.

“If I turn off the TV because it is time for my child to get to bed is that really a punishment? - It doesn’t fit the Swedish definition.”

Hellström compares this “balance of trust” to an employment contract that most adults at some point enter into. “Built on an agreement and most importantly, renegotiable”

The National Institute of Public Health (Folkhälsoinstitutet) has developed parenting courses in a Swedish cultural context. Sven Bremberg at the institute explains to The Local that “foreign” methods such as “time out” have been consciously omitted from its new parenting course material which has an emphasis on “warmth and limits.”

The popularity of parental courses could be argued to be a result of a period of introspection by parents prompted by the curling and helicopter debates. So what of the children?

One might ask whether these parenting courses aren’t more for the benefit of parents struggling to find a balance to “life’s puzzle” in the high-stress, “I want it all” 2000s, than for their children. Children are one more piece of the puzzle needing to be effectively managed; squeezed in alongside a career, a rewarding social life and free-time activities. Hence the focus on controlling behaviour, or perhaps more accurately, output. Gustafsson agrees:

“The definition of normality has narrowed in today’s society. That which was once considered normal is now considered to be deviant. Take sleep for example. Small children sleep badly, that’s normal, but parents today live with such tight schedules they cannot run the risk of their child having a bad night’s sleep.”

“I miss the children’s perspective,” he concludes.

Source: The Local, Sweden
http://www.thelocal.se/10282/20080305/

Researchers have uncovered another damaging consequence of spanking: risky sexual behaviors, or even sexual deviancy, when the child grows up.

Straus, who was the author of all four studies, hopes the findings will raise awareness among child development experts.

“My hope is to convince my colleagues that they ought to put this in their textbooks,” said Straus, co-director of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire, in Durham. “It’s amazing. Something experienced by all American kids gets an average of half a page in child development textbooks, and not a single one comes to the conclusion that parents should never spank.”

Even the revered Dr. Spock, who was anti-spanking, never came right out and advised parents outright not to do it, he added. Instead, Spock advised “avoiding it if you can.”

A meta-analysis of spanking studies conducted by Gershoff found 93 percent agreement among studies that spanking can lead to such problems as delinquent and anti-social behavior in childhood along with aggression, criminal and anti-social behavior and spousal or child abuse as an adult.

“There’s probably nothing else in child development that has 93 percent agreement in results,” Straus said.

Five percent of people who have never been spanked hit their partners, versus 25 percent of those who were spanked frequently.

However, some 90 percent of U.S. parents spank toddlers, according to Straus.

The review being presented at the meeting are the first to look at the relationship of spanking to sexual behavior.

They found that spanking and other corporal punishment is associated with an increased probability of verbally and physically coercing a dating partner to have sex; risky sex such as premarital sex without using a condom; and masochistic sex such as spanking during sex.

There is a “dose response” at work here. “The more parents spank, the higher the probability of harmful side effects,” Straus noted.

Of course, there’s a similar dose response for smokers. But if someone reaches the age of 65 without developing lung cancer, it doesn’t mean that smoking isn’t harmful. It means the person was one of the lucky ones.

It’s the same with spanking, Straus said. “If a person says, ‘I was spanked, and I don’t have any interest in bondage and discipline sex, that’s correct, but it’s not because spanking is OK, it’s because they’re one of the lucky ones.”

And spanking a child once may be like picking up that first cigarette. “The trouble is, if you have a 2-year-old, you pretty soon decide you can’t avoid it. The recidivism rate for whatever ‘crime’ you correct a 2-year-old for is about 50 percent in two hours.”

“I’ve been researching corporal punishment for 30 years and, in the course of that time, the evidence has accumulated that it doesn’t work any better than non-corporal punishment but has harmful side effects. I have come to the conclusion that parents should never, ever spank because, although it does work, it’s no better than non-hitting methods that don’t have harmful side effects. If there was an FDA for spanking, they’d say use an alternative that doesn’t have harmful side effects.”

Source: U.S. News & World Report, DC
http://tinyurl.com/3crcf2