Oppositional-Defiant Disorder

Tougher parenting doesn't work. At least it doesn't work as it used to.

Why? Because parents are fighting too many negative, anti-kid forces, ones their parents did not have to contend with, while also having to care for their aging parents, work overtime so as not to lose their jobs in the wake of massive upheavals in the way we work, and on and on.

With the general level of decorum and civility in the West at new lows, it is very hard for parents to monitor negative influences in their children's lives, the kind of influences that lead to bad behavior. When I was a kid, parents had a general reassurance that the majority of families in their neighborhood abided by commonsense rules of living. That is no longer the case. Now, even the good kids do rotten things. And those kids' parents are more likely to engage in activities that would not be tolerated years ago. What do you do when every kid in the neighborhood is doing something you disapprove of? What do you do when you're not sure about the households your child is exposed to every day?

I know in our own household, in almost every case, that instance of bad behavior from our son that shocks us and gets our heads scratching was picked up from a peer at church or school. Now we can work to unpack that situation and explain why it's wrong, but the sheer number of bad influences is so high, and even high in what used to be those places known as being good influences, that parenting today is a much more difficult task than in years past. The outcome of this is that getting a kid to the age of 18 without a total flameout is far harder than it once was.

When my oldest son was young and beginning to display his sinful, rebellious, disobedient bratishness (is that a word?), I spoke with my grand-father about it.

He told me that children only needed one spanking but it had to be a good one.

The next time my son decided that he was going to rule the roost, I took him to his bedroom and explained why he was about to punished. I then spanked him until I was ashamed of myself. I did not dispair for his crying/screaming. I did not physically damage him for life. BUT, I gave him a good whoopin.

It was the only one I ever gave him. He is an outstanding young man about to graduate from college.

I followed the same rule with son #2 and I've had the same results.

Many thanks to my Grand-father whose wisdom far exceeds any book that is published today.

@ Tim Irvin,

Consider yourself blessed. The "out to the woodshed for a serious thrashing" does not work for everyone. It did not work for us.

@ Jane,

Does the Gospel mean that our children will never come under the influence of negative pressure from the outside that they may or may not resist perfectly? Does it not seem that there are more negative influences than there once were?

The Gospel ensures one thing perfectly: grace. The problem is that we in the Church are low on grace. We prefer that no one ever truly needs it, and this includes wayward children and their suffering parents.

But wayward children happen. Prodigals exist. In every single family I know in the ministry, at least one child has gone astray. In one family in particular, the eldest and youngest children were bastions of virtue, while the middle child abused hard drugs (including heroin). Same household. Same application of the Gospel in that household. Different results.

We want our children to grow up perfectly. Sometimes they do, but sometimes, no matter what our best efforts, they wind up lusting after the slop they feed the pigs. The Gospel is there for the prodigal as much as for the kid who grows up in exactly the way we hoped.

But please, let's afford the prodigal grace. Too often, we don't. And worse, we in the Church are just as quick to punish the parents of the prodigal as we are the prodigal. We simply can't do that. Grace is there for parents who did everything they could by the grace of God and still a child went astray.

Is God not faithful, even to the prodigal? And to the prodigal's parents, too? Let's make sure of it and continue to offer them all grace and not gossip, accusations, and hatefulness. I've witnessed far too much of the latter in some churches and far too little of the former.

Trades vs. college:

Basically now days you really are better off going to college, assuming you choose an area of study that's employable and have the intellectual tools to perform adequately. Could such a person also have been successful learning a trade? Probably. But getting the degree typically gives you a higher "ceiling" income-wise. I think more kids would learn trades if there was more of a well-defined "track" to that kind of career. I'm in my 30s and I'm still not sure how I would go about becoming a master electrician. Do I go to a school? Do I get some certification? Do I apprentice under someone? If I am to apprentice, how do I find a mentor? Etc.

Men being motivated to succeed by marriage:

This is still alive and well. If anything, one thing that's changed this dynamic is women being much more likely to be financially self-sufficient. It's not as devastating if I lose my job because we have my wife's income to fall back on, even if she doesn't earn as much as me. When we were contemplating getting married, I didn't have to earn enough to support both of us because we also had her income to factor into the equation.

Oppositional defiant disorder:

While I agree that there's probably lots of misdiagnosis, i.e. "normally" misbehaving kids being labeled with a disorder, but I'm also not willing to exclude the possibility that some children may have a biological predilection toward oppositional behavior. For instance, if a child were obsessive-compulsive then he would be understandably upset about many things a normal parent would do. "My slices of toast aren't lined up properly, and this upsets me to no end." But since I'm three years old I can't articulate that fact, and that frustrates me even more. So I freak out and throw a tantrum. Etc.

Not advocating medication here, but I think the pat answer of, "All children diagnosed with ODD really just need to be spanked," is not adequate.

"Maybe instead of trying to change behavior we need to change the heart. "

As a mother to two little ones, this is why I love "Sheparding A Child's Heart" by Ted Tripp. His main premise is that we need to reach the hearts of our children FIRST and FOREMOST. Behavior is just an outflow of what is in their hearts.

This means of discipline is so much more productive in my opinion because it is two pronged. It is not just addressing the behvavior but the heart as well so when I spank my son, I tell him how he disobeyed and thus why I must discipline him before I do so. At only 2 years of age, he can't understand a lot yet but he can already understand a lot more than I often give him credit for. He can already understand that God commands children to honor and obey their mommies and daddies and that when he goes against God's rules, there are consequences. I also love to pray with him afterwards. Discipline is such a great time to pray with our children that their hearts would be changed and that they would come to know Christ as their savior at a young age and that the work of sanctification woudl thus be started in their lives.

Remember, before our children become Christians (if Lord willing they do so), we are dealing with unregenerate sinners who do not have the work of sanctification going on in their lives. We must have a sense of compassion than as we come to them and see their sin. They are lost in it and we can not forget that. As believing parents, we at least have sanctification going on in our lives. They do not. Little "brats" maybe but if that is all we see them as, we miss the point completely. They are likely little lost "brats."

To Tim Irvin, with all due respect, I applaud your success but yet doubt the success you claim at the same time. I had parents who were the best parents at disciplining I know and yet they had to spank us hard again and again and again. I just can not go with your assumption that if we all just gave our kids one big whopping, it would be A-okay from than on. That is not reality and if God wanted parenting to play out like that, wouldn't He parent us in the same way? Yet no...he gives us the rod again and again and again because that is what changes us and molds us and makes us into people more like himself. One big spanking would just never be big enough to eternally change us sinful, foolish people...we forget all too quickly and then need to be reminded again because God loves us so much that He does not want us to stray far from Him.

Perhaps your sons are from another planet or species?! ;)

These types of articles hurt my heart. I'm the mom to 5 boys and one of them is a "disobedient brat" -- he is so out of control and articles like this make it out to be a parent's fault for lack of discipline. As the parent of child who has pediatric bi-polar, ADHD, and Tourette's I would challenge that I have to try and NOT discipline my son too much. Believe me...I've had visions of throwing him down the stairs (that is just me being completely honest so you understand the frustration). If you have never lived with a child like this you truly have no understanding of the chaos that exists in these children's mind. Our son is medicated and I am not ashamed of that. Prior to being on medicine he used to hold butcher knives over our 3 year old's head and attempted to jump out of his second story window. He no longer is this extreme but he does have at least 10 tantrums every day and he is almost 11 years old. And yes he does get plenty of time with his father. My husband was injured about a year and a half ago and has been staying home with the boys ever since. We have other children who are kind, obedient, compassionate, loving, etc. I feel like my head will explode if one more person asks, "Have you tried a sticker chart?" Seriously?! You think I spend over $250 a month paying for medicine and spend 3 hours driving my son to a specialist when all I needed to do was implement a sticker chart?! Jane - your comments rang so true with me. Just last night I was praying over my son pleading with the Lord as I was feeling at the end of my rope. I'm not saying that there are not cases where children are just plain being unruly.....I just wanted to offer some balance.

This is slightly off topic but thought it was a beauty...For fathers out there - as has been mentioned - your children our watching you (and me):http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htgPh3DalmM

Now wrt the defiant child - yes many are products of a sinful world out of control - but some, as illustrated in some the stories above have complex medical conditions and need care and sympathy and good medicine and psychological intervention. They don't need 'tougher parenting' and more abuse from a 'rod'.

I appreciate the honesty in some of these posts. Thanks Mandi and Chuck.

Regarding Leonard Sax’s quotes, and in particular, the one about women preferring successful, affluent men over men who are less successful as one of the factors driving Western society, is laughable. Of course women prefer successful men over the unemployed - but I'm not sure that this is the driving force steering men away from trade schools. Could be that international competition, especially in the areas of aerospace and defense, are creating greater need and thereby, greater salaries for those who steer their studies in the sciences.

If women are less interested in sex anymore, it could be that peer pressure to wear the pants, bring home the bacon, and manage the home like Martha Steweart simultaneously creates too heavy a load - too unnatural a load for them to care about anything else at the end of the day.

Interestingly enough, and as an aside, I watched a short clip of one of the Rothschild family members who said that way back when, the feminist movement was incited not by free-thinking women but by money-grubbers who knew that, once out in the workplace, the large population of women would be a considerable taxable population.

And to add.....I agree when you are speaking of a neuro typical child. My other kids resond well to discipline.

I wanted to thank DLE for the very insightful comments. I agree with you. And, I wanted to tell Mandi "I understand". I have two boys; one with mild autism and one with Tourrettes. Traditional spankings do not work with either of them. It has been a difficult 12 years or so...and getting harder all the time. I do believe psychology is over-diagnosing but just telling parents to discipline better or stricter is myopic and simplistic.

As a former teacher, I'm on your side. Parents don't seem to care about making kids behave. The order of the day is for teachers to be the ones who take a beating because we just don't understand that child. It must be us, the teachers who are the problem.

Thanks for that post, Tim.

You can't parent a child properly by making excuses for his (or her) inappropriate behaviour.

Also, as an educator, I agree 100% with what Savvy said in comment #24. The bulk of the blame for students' misbehaviour is unfairly put on teachers' shoulders.

On the disobedience versus disorder question the danger is to thinks its an either/or choice.

The old 'disobedient brat' thinking led to a lot of good hard loving discipline - it also led to a minority of of abusive, vindictive, regularly assaulting the child violence under the guise of discipline.

On the other hand

Some children obviously do have specific problems that need to be addressed in specific ways, including in some cases medication - but it is clear that there is massive over diagnosis of children as having 'disorders' these days.

Between the either/or options is a middle route of responsible parenting.

To add on above about trades. My old neighbor moved about 2 years ago to work fulltime as a welding supervisor at a nuke plant in Fl. He make a really NICE salary and he told me on a recent visit that he could hire 10 good welders if he could find them tommorw. Of course you have to a have a clean record etc but the fact is that there are a lot of jobs out there that don't require a college education. He says with the number of plants being built and those on the books to be built you will have enough work to last the next 40 years at least.

here's a link worth reading concerning college and it's benefits or it's hype!http://www.voddiebaucham.org/vbm/Blog/Entries/2009/2/6_Searching_For_An_Affordable_College_Alternative.htmlGet his two books on family!

Julius-

I sort of agree "in principle" with Baucham's article, but as far as I can tell he plays a little fast and loose with the facts. Some examples:

"$10,000 (half the first year cost at the University of Texas)"

According to UT's website, the estimated first-year cost is $18,400, and that includes room and board. Nothing says a student has to live on campus. And, if he/she were working and living on his/her own he'd also be paying for room and board. So it's not entirely fair to include that in the "cost" of college.

It's also the case that not all universities are this expensive. Though, clearly, some are much more expensive. A student may also get his tuition/fees covered by an academic or need-based scholarship. That makes the prospect of college substantially more attractive. And then there's the fact that any student of at least moderately above average ability should be able to get some form of engineering or computer science degree, or possibly attend medical or law school. For such students college probably really is the most advantageous path to take (from a purely financial perspective).

He also claims "There are very honorable trades that are disappearing before our eyes because no one seems to want to do them anymore."

Uh. Trades don't just disappear because nobody wants to do them. They disappear because demand decreases which typically makes those trades less profitable, which in turn leads to fewer people going into them.

"Most Universities Are Philosophically Antagonistic to Christianity"

I'll grant you that the vast, vast majority of faculty at secular universities are antagonistic to conservative evangelical Christianity. So what? I don't care if my calculus professor is a liberal nut job. He's just there to teach me math. And you know what? If he crosses the line and goes off on a rant against Christianity...my faith is secure enough to handle that.

He talks up the College Plus program which seems to revolve around coaching students on passing CLEP tests. Even ignoring such programs, a dedicated student of at least moderate ability should be able to shave about a year off college through AP tests, SAT II's and transferring credits from junior colleges (which are much cheaper, and many of which allow you to take courses while still in high school).

Besides what others have said about financial considerations not properly being the chief drivers, even from a financial standpoint, the "ceiling wage" of a certain profession is a poor way to look at it. Most people will never hit the ceiling of whatever profession they go into, even if they are good at what they do. Insofar as financial considerations are valid, it makes more sense to look at what a typical competent practitioner of a given occupation (whether a trade, profession, or what have you) is likely to earn, than what the ultimate potential would be at the top. Most well-qualified, experienced people in trades do make a living sufficient for providing for a family. That they don't make as much as a Fifth Avenue lawyer is irrelevant to anyone who wasn't likely to get into the Fifth Avenue firm, or wasn't interested in that kind of lifestyle anyway.

Julius writes: from a financial perspective’? unfortunately that’s the wrong starting point...

And yet that's one of the angles Baucham takes in his article. He's not just arguing college is a bad idea because you're surrounded by people hostile to the gospel, or because some folks would be more fulfilled by working a trade. He's saying that, in addition to those things, college doesn't make sense from a purely financial perspective. That is to say, you're worse off financially if you go to college. I agree that in some cases that may be true. In many it is not. In my opinion he gives short shrift to the various cases in which college does provide some financial advantage.

Now if you were doing a trade then endoctrination would be minimal, but what about the pysch, socio, anthro, eng lit, hist, ethics, science classes and so on.

True. These classes are more prone to professors putting a particular spin on things. That said, I was quite pleased with the history classes I took at my secular university, and didn't feel like anyone was "obviously" left-wing or antagonistic to the gospel. I know there were a few profs in the English dept. who were outspoken against Christianity, but they were generally well known and could be avoided. But still- if I were going to study one of those subjects and wanted to have the material presented from a strictly evangelical perspective then yeah, I would consider not attending a secular institution. Of course, those people are the exact group that Buacham says shouldn't go to college anyway, since those degrees are largely "worthless". Side note: the mere fact that he's calling them "worthless" seems to imply he's coming at it from a purely financial perspective. If someone spent four years studying and gaining knowledge about a subject they enjoy, I'd say that has some intrinsic "worth" even if it doesn't command a higher salary.

penamom writes: rom a financial standpoint, the “ceiling wage” of a certain profession is a poor way to look at it

I agree. But this cuts both ways. We can't always compare white collar jobs against master plumbers and master electricians. What percentage of people who go into the plumbing "field" eventually make master plumber? How many stall out at some level lower than that? It's hard to get salary statistics because they're usually tied to a particular position, e.g. "master plumber" or "senior software developer". It's hard to tell how many people actually reach that level after N years in their chosen field.

Most well-qualified, experienced people in trades do make a living sufficient for providing for a family. That they don’t make as much as a Fifth Avenue lawyer is irrelevant to anyone who wasn’t likely to get into the Fifth Avenue firm

Agreed. You can make a living if you diligently apply yourself to learning a trade, then work hard at it. I'd argue, though, that even an attorney not on partner track at a firm is likely to earn more than the tradesman. Not that money is the end all be all of everything, of course. I just disagree with the statement that, "If you go into a trade and apply yourself, you will earn as much on average as a guy who went to college and applied himself to a profitable area of study."