That *is* ridiculous.

Mom pays for the phone, she pays for the computer, she pays for the
electricity; she has the right to monitor the communication taking
place using her property

No, it's not ridiculous at all. The mother can ALLOW the child to use the
phone. If she does, then the child has an expectation of privacy while
using it. If the mother can't live with those terms, then the child
shouldn't be on the phone at all. Put another way . . . if you don't trust
your child to use the phone without illegally spying on him/her, then your
child shouldn't be using the phone, period. -Dave

In article , "Dave C."
wrote:

That *is* ridiculous.

Mom pays for the phone, she pays for the computer, she pays for the
electricity; she has the right to monitor the communication taking
place using her property

No, it's not ridiculous at all. The mother can ALLOW the child to use the
phone. If she does, then the child has an expectation of privacy while
using it. If the mother can't live with those terms, then the child
shouldn't be on the phone at all. Put another way . . . if you don't trust
your child to use the phone without illegally spying on him/her, then your
child shouldn't be using the phone, period. -Dave



When one of my children was clearly getting out of control, I handled it
differently: I TOLD her that her behavior had cost her her privacy
rights, and that I would search her room or listen in on her phone calls
at my discretion.

I did not want to prevent her from ever using the phone -- she did have
some friends who were good for her -- but continuing to eavesdrop from
time to time kept me aware of what she was doing.

(She's more or less fine now, and I no longer feel the need to invade
her privacy.)
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

dragonlady wrote:
In article , "Dave C."

wrote:

That *is* ridiculous.

Mom pays for the phone, she pays for the computer, she pays for
the
electricity; she has the right to monitor the communication
taking
place using her property

No, it's not ridiculous at all. The mother can ALLOW the child to
use the
phone. If she does, then the child has an expectation of privacy
while
using it. If the mother can't live with those terms, then the
child
shouldn't be on the phone at all. Put another way . . . if you
don't trust
your child to use the phone without illegally spying on him/her,
then your
child shouldn't be using the phone, period. -Dave

When one of my children was clearly getting out of control, I handled
it
differently: I TOLD her that her behavior had cost her her privacy
rights, and that I would search her room or listen in on her phone
calls
at my discretion.

You don't necessarily have to give you kid advance notice. The problem
with the phone monitoring, in many states, is that the third party has
a legal expectation of privacy. If you could bug your kid's room and be
able to listen to just her side of the conversation, you would probably
have no legal worries.

The way I read the article originally posted, the issue privacy issue
was applied to the other party in the conversation, not the daughter.

Your daughter's expected level of privacy is controlled at your
discretion. But you can't control the rights of people she talks to on
the phone. So you have use even more discretion when eavesdropping on
both sides of a phone call.

In article .com,
"Curtis CCR" wrote:

dragonlady wrote:
In article , "Dave C."

wrote:

That *is* ridiculous.

Mom pays for the phone, she pays for the computer, she pays for
the
electricity; she has the right to monitor the communication
taking
place using her property

No, it's not ridiculous at all. The mother can ALLOW the child to
use the
phone. If she does, then the child has an expectation of privacy
while
using it. If the mother can't live with those terms, then the
child
shouldn't be on the phone at all. Put another way . . . if you
don't trust
your child to use the phone without illegally spying on him/her,
then your
child shouldn't be using the phone, period. -Dave

When one of my children was clearly getting out of control, I handled
it
differently: I TOLD her that her behavior had cost her her privacy
rights, and that I would search her room or listen in on her phone
calls
at my discretion.

You don't necessarily have to give you kid advance notice. The problem
with the phone monitoring, in many states, is that the third party has
a legal expectation of privacy. If you could bug your kid's room and be
able to listen to just her side of the conversation, you would probably
have no legal worries.

My own position is that my kids started out with a high expectation of
privacy from me and their dad (and each other). When that changed, I
felt morally obligated (not legally) to tell them, and to tell them why.


The way I read the article originally posted, the issue privacy issue
was applied to the other party in the conversation, not the daughter.

Your daughter's expected level of privacy is controlled at your
discretion. But you can't control the rights of people she talks to on
the phone. So you have use even more discretion when eavesdropping on
both sides of a phone call.

I understand that -- but, since I was only "using" the information with
my daughter, and would not have used the information in any other way, I
decided to do it anyway. (The only exception was towards a young man
who had been ordered to have no contact with her -- but I never listened
long enough to hear what he was saying, only to tell him to get off the
phone immediately. He's in prison now, so I don't worry about him any
more....)
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

Curtis CCR wrote:

dragonlady wrote:
In article , "Dave C."

wrote:

That *is* ridiculous.

Mom pays for the phone, she pays for the computer, she pays for
the
electricity; she has the right to monitor the communication
taking
place using her property

No, it's not ridiculous at all. The mother can ALLOW the child to
use the
phone. If she does, then the child has an expectation of privacy
while
using it. If the mother can't live with those terms, then the
child
shouldn't be on the phone at all. Put another way . . . if you
don't trust
your child to use the phone without illegally spying on him/her,
then your
child shouldn't be using the phone, period. -Dave

When one of my children was clearly getting out of control, I handled
it
differently: I TOLD her that her behavior had cost her her privacy
rights, and that I would search her room or listen in on her phone
calls
at my discretion.

You don't necessarily have to give you kid advance notice. The problem
with the phone monitoring, in many states, is that the third party has
a legal expectation of privacy. If you could bug your kid's room and be
able to listen to just her side of the conversation, you would probably
have no legal worries.

The way I read the article originally posted, the issue privacy issue
was applied to the other party in the conversation, not the daughter.

Your daughter's expected level of privacy is controlled at your
discretion.
--------------------
And as soon as you reveal to her that you violated HERS, HER discretion
will forever exclude you from her life. Sort of like: You get just
one look, and never ever again. Fool me once, **** on you, you don't
GET twice!! People who **** with their kids have a death-wish.
Steve

dragonlady wrote:

In article , "Dave C."
wrote:

That *is* ridiculous.

Mom pays for the phone, she pays for the computer, she pays for the
electricity; she has the right to monitor the communication taking
place using her property

No, it's not ridiculous at all. The mother can ALLOW the child to use the
phone. If she does, then the child has an expectation of privacy while
using it. If the mother can't live with those terms, then the child
shouldn't be on the phone at all. Put another way . . . if you don't trust
your child to use the phone without illegally spying on him/her, then your
child shouldn't be using the phone, period. -Dave



When one of my children was clearly getting out of control, I handled it
differently: I TOLD her that her behavior had cost her her privacy
rights, and that I would search her room or listen in on her phone calls
at my discretion.

I did not want to prevent her from ever using the phone -- she did have
some friends who were good for her -- but continuing to eavesdrop from
time to time kept me aware of what she was doing.
--------------------------
People who dishonor their children that way GET dishonored BY their
children. A friend of mine who hated her father used to plant things
in her father's sock drawer for her mother to find, receipts carefully
altered, porno, etc. Those who **** with their kids are destined to be
****ed BY their kids.
Steve

In article ,
"R. Steve Walz" wrote:

When one of my children was clearly getting out of control, I handled it
differently: I TOLD her that her behavior had cost her her privacy
rights, and that I would search her room or listen in on her phone calls
at my discretion.

I did not want to prevent her from ever using the phone -- she did have
some friends who were good for her -- but continuing to eavesdrop from
time to time kept me aware of what she was doing.
--------------------------
People who dishonor their children that way GET dishonored BY their
children. A friend of mine who hated her father used to plant things
in her father's sock drawer for her mother to find, receipts carefully
altered, porno, etc. Those who **** with their kids are destined to be
****ed BY their kids.
Steve

Steve, I started out honoring her: I had to change my ways when she
started DIShonoring me (and herself) and doing things that were
dangerous. I did what I felt I had to do to keep her alive -- and that
is NOT an exageration. It turned out she was severely depressed, but
adolescent depression manifests in odd ways, which I did not recognize:
in her case, it was mostly phenominal anger along with acting out.

And I think violating their privacy OPENLY does honor them -- you tell
them what you are doing, and why, and don't hide it. Sneaking is
dishonorable, but I never did that.

FWIW, it worked: I managed to keep her out of several really dangerous
situations, and eventually, the depression was diagnosed and
appropriately treated. She's almost 19 now, not anxious to move out,
going to college, and just came in, told me I looked wonderful, gave me
a kiss on the cheek, agreed to drop me off later today (so DH and I
wouldn't be somewhere with two cars; as a side benefit, it means she
gets to use MY car for the rest of the day), and stayed for a short chat
with me (and her boyfriend) before the two of them went back to her room.

I think our relationship is good.

I know you think your kids never got into serious trouble because you
are such a wonderful parent. It's a lovely theory. But at some point,
other things influence your kids as well -- and when things start to go
badly, you sometimes need different tools.

I remember one conversation with this particular daughter, where I said
that, in spite of everything, I thought I'd been a pretty good parent.
She said, "In spite of WHAT?" I didn't want to be insulting -- I mean,
what could I say? After a moment, I said, "In spite of the fact that
my kid's lives are not exactly what I'd dreamed they'd be." She put her
hands on her hips and said, "Well! YOUR job isn't to dream for us.
YOUR job is to just keep us alive until we grow up enough to have our
OWN dreams."

I figure as long as a teenager can put me in my appropriate place like
that, I've done a pretty good job of parenting. Not perfect, Lord
knows, but pretty good.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

dragonlady wrote:

In article ,
"R. Steve Walz" wrote:

When one of my children was clearly getting out of control, I handled it
differently: I TOLD her that her behavior had cost her her privacy
rights, and that I would search her room or listen in on her phone calls
at my discretion.

I did not want to prevent her from ever using the phone -- she did have
some friends who were good for her -- but continuing to eavesdrop from
time to time kept me aware of what she was doing.
--------------------------
People who dishonor their children that way GET dishonored BY their
children. A friend of mine who hated her father used to plant things
in her father's sock drawer for her mother to find, receipts carefully
altered, porno, etc. Those who **** with their kids are destined to be
****ed BY their kids.
Steve

Steve, I started out honoring her: I had to change my ways when she
started DIShonoring me (and herself)
-----------------------
Nope, she was doing what was her RIGHT, and YOU simply didn't LIKE it!

She can't possibly "dishonor herself", that's YOU talking and making
judgements you don't even have a RIGHT to make.


and doing things that were dangerous.
-----------------
Her RIGHT, NOT YOURS!

I've seen what many pricks like you SAY is "dangerous", it being
anything that YOU don't happen to favor, nothing more! If you hadn't
been abusing her rights she'd have had no desire to do anything truly
dangerous. It is your dishonoring abuse of her equality that made her
want to take risks merely to contradict your overbearing attempts at
control!


I did what I felt I had to do to keep her alive -- and that
is NOT an exageration.
----------------------
You drove her to it and then justified it, like chasing a child
toward a cliff.


It turned out she was severely depressed, but
adolescent depression manifests in odd ways, which I did not recognize:
in her case, it was mostly phenominal anger along with acting out.
----------------------------
You don't even grasp WHY she was depressed and angry.
And "acing out" is a misused term by parents like you, more excuse
for what YOU want.

You're incapable because her MIND and THOUGHTS violate your stupid
****ing little religion.


And I think violating their privacy OPENLY does honor them
------------------------------
Nonsense, you're deluding yourself to avoid taking the blame that
is rightfully YOURS for dishonoring her!


-- you tell
them what you are doing, and why, and don't hide it. Sneaking is
dishonorable, but I never did that.
----------------------------------
Sneaking or overt abuse is irrelevant, abuse is abuse.
If they shouldn't do it to you, then you shouldn't do it to them,
or you will certainly incur their hate, wrath, and their urge to
harm you by self-destruction.


FWIW, it worked: I managed to keep her out of several really dangerous
situations, and eventually, the depression was diagnosed and
appropriately treated. She's almost 19 now, not anxious to move out,
going to college, and just came in, told me I looked wonderful, gave me
a kiss on the cheek, agreed to drop me off later today (so DH and I
wouldn't be somewhere with two cars; as a side benefit, it means she
gets to use MY car for the rest of the day), and stayed for a short chat
with me (and her boyfriend) before the two of them went back to her room.
----------------------------------
Play-acting. She hates your guts.


I think our relationship is good.
-----------------------------------
You think what she wants you to. Child becomes the parent.


I know you think your kids never got into serious trouble because you
are such a wonderful parent. It's a lovely theory. But at some point,
other things influence your kids as well -- and when things start to go
badly, you sometimes need different tools.
----------------------------------------
Kids "get into trouble" with illegitimate authority. Everybody does.
Parents who don't try to assume unrightful authority never become
illegitimate, and kids never find cause to rebel against one who is
not trying to interfere with them.


I remember one conversation with this particular daughter, where I said
that, in spite of everything, I thought I'd been a pretty good parent.
She said, "In spite of WHAT?" I didn't want to be insulting -- I mean,
what could I say? After a moment, I said, "In spite of the fact that
my kid's lives are not exactly what I'd dreamed they'd be." She put her
hands on her hips and said, "Well! YOUR job isn't to dream for us.
YOUR job is to just keep us alive until we grow up enough to have our
OWN dreams."

I figure as long as a teenager can put me in my appropriate place like
that, I've done a pretty good job of parenting. Not perfect, Lord
knows, but pretty good.
----------------------------
Now, if you only understood ALL that she meant by that, but she has
given up on that with you, now you're to be coddled and otherwise
ignored. She caught herself and stopped short, having long ago decided
that you're not worth it, and that she shouldn't bother.
Steve

In article ,
"R. Steve Walz" wrote:

dragonlady wrote:

Nope, she was doing what was her RIGHT, and YOU simply didn't LIKE it!

She can't possibly "dishonor herself", that's YOU talking and making
judgements you don't even have a RIGHT to make.


and doing things that were dangerous.
-----------------
Her RIGHT, NOT YOURS!

I've seen what many pricks like you SAY is "dangerous", it being
anything that YOU don't happen to favor, nothing more! If you hadn't
been abusing her rights she'd have had no desire to do anything truly
dangerous. It is your dishonoring abuse of her equality that made her
want to take risks merely to contradict your overbearing attempts at
control!


Well, since her activities landed her in the hospital, and came close to
killing her, I'm sure I'm not imagining that they were dangerous. Nor
am I imagining that she'd rather be alive.

Even you admit that intervention to pull a child from in front of a
speeding car is appropriate. I believe that what I was doing fit that
category -- it beat the heck out of letting her die due to some
misplaced values that put her presumed rights over her life. All I did
was keep her alive.


I did what I felt I had to do to keep her alive -- and that
is NOT an exageration.
----------------------
You drove her to it and then justified it, like chasing a child
toward a cliff.


It turned out she was severely depressed, but
adolescent depression manifests in odd ways, which I did not recognize:
in her case, it was mostly phenominal anger along with acting out.
----------------------------
You don't even grasp WHY she was depressed and angry.
And "acing out" is a misused term by parents like you, more excuse
for what YOU want.

Since it turns out that virtually ALL the women in my family struggle
with depression, I suspect it's because she's inhereted lousy brain
chemistry. Contrary to your apparent beliefs, much depression is NOT
situational. And given her immediate and dramatic response to
psychotropic drugs, it seems clear that the primary cause was
bio-chemical. She took the drugs for about 3 years, and no longer needs
them.


You're incapable because her MIND and THOUGHTS violate your stupid
****ing little religion.

And which religion would that be? The one that thinks alive is better
than dead?

I'm not a member of any mainstream religion, and am not a theist. Or
even a dieist. Or at least I don't believe in any of the things most
people in our current culture mean when they say "God" (Don't consider
myself an atheist, either.)

----------------------------------------
Kids "get into trouble" with illegitimate authority. Everybody does.
Parents who don't try to assume unrightful authority never become
illegitimate, and kids never find cause to rebel against one who is
not trying to interfere with them.

You are delusional. Your ivory tower must be a great place to live:
"kids only have serious problems due to bad parents. If the parenting is
good, the kids will always be just fine."

Get over it: kids are independent beings with their own thoughts,
desires, and wills. Their parents are NOT in control of those things,
nor, unless they keep them completely away from the rest of the world,
are they the only influence on their kids. Life happens, and other
things influence them as well.



I remember one conversation with this particular daughter, where I said
that, in spite of everything, I thought I'd been a pretty good parent.
She said, "In spite of WHAT?" I didn't want to be insulting -- I mean,
what could I say? After a moment, I said, "In spite of the fact that
my kid's lives are not exactly what I'd dreamed they'd be." She put her
hands on her hips and said, "Well! YOUR job isn't to dream for us.
YOUR job is to just keep us alive until we grow up enough to have our
OWN dreams."

I figure as long as a teenager can put me in my appropriate place like
that, I've done a pretty good job of parenting. Not perfect, Lord
knows, but pretty good.
----------------------------
Now, if you only understood ALL that she meant by that, but she has
given up on that with you, now you're to be coddled and otherwise
ignored. She caught herself and stopped short, having long ago decided
that you're not worth it, and that she shouldn't bother.
Steve

It must be nice to be so omniscient that you know everything without
ever meeting me OR my daughter. She's a great kid. Fortunately, your
"announcement" that she hates my guts won't change how she really feels
about me.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care