E-Answer.Net

I agree that psychologists have no idea what they are talking about. The ONLY expert on your child is YOU. Urine can cause rashes...hello diaper rash! The boy should have been spanked when he did that and made to clean up the urine himself.

I don't think it's necessarily "abusive" but I think leaving them on ALL day is a bit much. I think it's a logical consequence for his behavior. He'll learn that peeing intentionally on your clothes = feeling wet and uncomfortable. I would probably make him change after his time out instead of leaving them on all day though. Like some people said, if he has sensitive skin it could cause rashes and plus, it's just gross. I think it would be abuse if he peed his pants on accident and she made him wear them.

That constitues a form of abuse to me, urine left on the skin can cause problems, it dosen't teach anything, it is humiliating. My first grade teacher did that to my little cousin back when we were in school, except that it was feces, because my cousin was afraid to ask to use the restroom, so the teacher made the girl wear her sh*tty clothes ALL DAY. She was fired for it.

this isent abusive but it is neglect urine can cause terrible rashs in wich can cause infections that is deffinetly not the way to teach a child most of the time when a child acts out its for attention because there not recieving the proper amount of positive attention nor are they getting the proper disipline that is deserved for what they are doing wrong

Yes Dr. Phil did mention that to a mom at some point, but I do not recall him saying "all day". I believe that he said for some time...this being said I do not think that is child abuse, but I don't think spanking is abuse either!

Spanking is bad parenting and leaving a child in soiled clothing is also bad parenting. We'd all be better if we stopped listening to experts who much of the time it seems to me are barking mad.

I don't think it's abuse - if he doesn't want to stay in urine soaked clothes he shouldn't pee himself. This is a behavior problem, I bet leaving him in the clothes will work.

yes it is abuse. not as bad as some but still abuse.

yep that would definately be abuse

I don't watch "R" Phil.

What A M said! I agree!

Obviously the punishment is not working. The mom needs to rethink what's happening. The boy is either peeing himself intentionally (as the mom states) or he's peeing himself out of fear. (That is so sad.) Not every punishment fits every "crime" ie: naughtiness -cripes he's only 4! -nor every child. She needs to take something away that would make an impact. A favorite toy for example for a set amount of time. But since we don't know the entire situation, maybe all he needs is for someone (hello, mom & dad) to sit and talk with him. Patience and repetition. As a mom of a 6 yr, 4 yr & 2 yr old I can tell you things get a bit harry around here. I'm not against spanking, but I rarely do it. It has to be for something extreme, that I need to get their attention. You know when you are talking/explaining and they have the blank "look" on their face. You could talk until you are blue in the face. Thawp! on the bottom. But I must say -making a child sit in urine soaked clothes?!?!?! Maybe the "Psychologist" should try that for a day.



I really hope for the boys sake that the Mom gets some good advice somewhere.

I think it is very much bordering on abusive becasue bodily waste is smelly and unsanitary. It will do no good to the child, parent or anyone else to have a urine-soaked kid running around. As a parent I would feel embarassed to let my kid walk around that way. I have a better idea - if the child urinates, let him. He can finish his time out anyway, than clean up his mess. If he won't do it, than take away playtime, fun snacks, T.V. - anything he likes until he does it. If that still doesn't work then spank that boy and he will do it. Yeah I said it. Its a last resort but it works when all else fails and it works fast. Once he fiigures out you WILL spank him if he does those things, you don't have to spank him anymore because he knows your serious. But if you threaten and don't do it, you will never have control again. lol

Putting on my teacher hat, and my active anti-smacking advocate hat.



(a) what the pyshcologist suggested is wrong - it is child abuse. It also breechs the convenant that your country has very lilttle signed as to the rights of children. If you feel strongly about it, you should note the time, date and program you say it on and report him to the Board of registration (there will be one in your area as all psycholgoists in the Western World must be licenced and approved by a Government or sub Government body). I wonder if this 'psychologist' really was a registered psychologist? If he is he should be struck off or place on restricted supervised practice. This kind of rubbish sounds like what a therapist who has studied psychology may do.

(b) Do not hit your child -

i - You only teach that physical violence is the way to get what you want. Might has it over right

ii - The child is a child - he does not have the cognition of an adult, do not expect a son or daughter to act as if they do. Many children do not understand the adult framed 'lessons' parents try to teach - this resorts to violence or kids been put on drugs to 'solve behaviourial problems.

iii - child who are hit at home are apt to hit others at school - a certain percentage become bullies of varying degrees

iv - interestingly our prisons, mental hospitals are full of people (over 80%) who were hit as children

v - the USA army did a study on the backgrounds of people wanting to get into the 'fighting' section of their forces and found that over 85% of all applicants had been hit at home

vi - there is now a body of thought amongst orthos and physios that has created a link between smacks, beltings, whacks etc and the appearance of enchrondorams - non-cancerous tumours that appear on the site of the smacks, beltings etc later in live 35 upwards. It is understood that the disruption to growing bones and cartilidge in childhood from unnecessary and avoidable violence to the area causes it. Footballers in their 50s and 60s get the same type of tumours from regular violence in the same spot in the game.