Dad uses Facebook to teach daughter a lesson

[Avistew]

When your parenting style mimics that of Malory Archer, there might be a problem.

Oh God. I'm so glad I'm not the only one who thought that. I saw the latest episode after hearing the story, I think (could be wrong on that) but the two are so similar it's eerie.

Personally, I think shooting the laptop was the worst thing (first of all he shouldn't have taken back a gift, period. Second of all if he had been letting her use it with the understanding that it was still his, then he should have donated it or sold it or something, not destroyed it).

She's 15. I know the laws are a bit different in the US and you can work some jobs when you're 15 and don't have to wait to be 18, but... The way I see it, having kids is something you do for yourself, because you want kids, just like wanting a puppy or kitty or car or whatever. The difference with the car is that the other three are living things, and by having them you take full responsibility to take care of them entirely, in the case of the pets until they're dead, in the case of kids until they're 18.

Having a place to live in his house isn't "something he's letting her because's his nice". It's his duty and only fair because he caused the kid to be here, and he owes her at least that much. It's like complimenting yourself for saving someone from drowning when you're the one who pushed them into a river.

Now, telling her that Facebook is public and that he doesn't like her tone is one thing I can understand. The video I,m not approving of, the fact that he grounded her before I'm not approving of, destroying her laptop I'm not approving of, and giving her chores without making them optional and paying her for them I'm not approving of. I don't know if she's a bitchy brat or just a regular teenager, except her ranting ended up on facebook rather than in her friends' ears due to the time she's living in, but in his case we know he's an adult and I think he should know better.

Even if you're of the school of "she should earn everything she gets" (which I believe she has already earned until she's 18 as a repayment for being born), still what kind of lesson is that supposed to be? "An eye for an eye, and some more"? "You talk shit about us online so I'll do the same and break your stuff"?
What kind of weird teenager doesn't talk shit about their parents?

[JustAName]

There's a strong cultural difference here, I think. The way I learned? If you're not a spoiled brat, you do chores. I was paid for them, but only a few dollars. If your family is not rich, you get a job at around 16, to try to save up for college. My parents never grounded me for anything but poor grades, but we got in plenty of fights where I was punished for being insulting, and I know other families might ground a child for something that disrespectful. The view here is not that "we brought you into this world, so we should care for you," it's "we have created you, and however you might feel about that, we have also housed you and fed you and catered to many of your whims for as long as you've been alive, and you have the rest of your life to repay us."

Also, I have complained about my parents in my time, but NEVER somewhere where they could POSSIBLY see (except for that one time I was showing my mom something on the laptop and she caught a glimpse of an e-mail with someone about emotions and psychological stuff and then took it, read my e-mails, concluded my friends were all broken and dragging me down with them, took the laptop, grounded me... But, uh... yeah, my mom and I haven't always got along. Also that's an extreme example. And was my Junior year of high school. I was 15 or 16. Um).

[Deedles]

What kind of weird teenager doesn't talk shit about their parents?

*raises hand*

[Lord Chrusher]

*also raises hand*

[Merrymaker_Mortalis]

*also raises hand*

Still do. I'm 22.
Though it's more constructive critacaesium. Doesn't help that my mum (rightfully) speaks shit about her mother and brother.

[JayBlanc]

I'm pretty sure it's not financially feasible to get a part time job as a teen that can pay for US college fees/residency/books anymore... Inflation of College fees and costs have been increasing faster than the minimum wage for a long time in the US. Maybe if you lower your expectations to a two year instate community college, you might be able to make a small contribution.

Additionally, US colleges expect the parents to pay. To the point of requiring financial aid applicants to either provide the tax returns of their parents, or documented evidence of physical abuse. This does of course cause some problems for adult college students still considered dependant on their parents by the financial aid system, who realise they are gay, but their parents disapprove...

Hostage taking "You and all your stuff are ours" parenting is bad to start with, and it can turn into much worse.

[Deedles]

*also raises hand*

Still do. I'm 22.
Though it's more constructive critacaesium. Doesn't help that my mum (rightfully) speaks shit about her mother and brother.

I meant that I didn't talk shit about my parents when I was a teenager.

[empath]

I...wow, we really have a disparity in this forum.

Show of hands: how many participants in this discussion are parents or step-parents; essentially guardians of children?



===


But with that 'pseudo-poll' pending, I'll say this to people who STILL think the punishment was over-the-top:

This was the SECOND STRIKE she took; we don't know what...no, wait - IIRC we DO know EXACTLY what punishment she got for doing the exact same thing previously: (timestamp 0:36)

"Hannah, you were grounded for about three months for doin' something very similar to this, and I would have thought, with a father that works in I.T. for a living, that you'd have better sense than to do it again..."

First strike (IF that was in fact the first time she got caught talking shit about people on a public forum; maybe the first infraction just got a lecture) is a little harsh, but MUCH more in line with all your liberal parenting guidelines, isn't it?

...and it worked just FINE, didn't it? Hannah REALLY learned her lesson and treated people with more respect after that last infraction, didn't she?


So now his reaction to being betrayed AGAIN, and his desire to punish her in a way and show her that a) actions have consequences, b) bad things you say about people will ALWAYS find their way back to the person you're talking shit about, c) on the Internet nothing is really and truly private and secure, and d) that people in his family are to treat others with more respect than a pile of insults and profanities; that decision of response to her SECOND infraction of JUST THE SAME THING she got caught and punished for last time doesn't seem so unreasonable now, does it?




And you know what? Initially I thought, 'jeez, man - why waste handgun rounds on that; you could just put it under the legs of your chair and sit and do as much damage for less cost', but then I realized, the gun is a) for shock value, b) something that everyone in the family is more comfortable around and thus not as inconceivable, and c) just the right amount of 'over the top' to get across to Hannah and her Facebook friends.

[Rikadyn]

Shotgun would of been a better choice, with maybe slugs for the massive holes...

[Merrymaker_Mortalis]

I think if he was going to trash the laptop, he should have gone for the whole hog. I'm slightly disturbed that even the kid's mother was happy with the murder of the laptop via gun. Then again I live in a culture where owning a gun means you enjoy murdering wildlife.

[EnglishMQ]

I suppose the issue here is the laptop shooting. I personally think that since he bought it, did the software updates which he paid for, it's his laptop which he can do with how he pleases. Maybe it was a tad aggressive but I have no pity for self entitled teenagers believing themselves to be the victims of everything and everyone else to wait on them hand and foot, maybe if she hadn't talked about the 'cleaning lady' like that I'd be more sympathetic, or considering herself entitled to pocket money when she's going on 16. Yes teenagers can be hormonal, but their are limits.

So yeah, judging from this video they've tried reasoning with her and if she's not going to listen to that, she'll maybe listen to the gun shots.

[Lyinginbedmon]

Legally, if something is handed over as a gift (as I'm personally taking the laptop to have been, if nothing else than because she used it privately and handed it back to him temporarily for software upgrades) it becomes the property of the recipient, meaning it was the daughter's property and the father destroyed it illegally.

I'm not a parent (And at 21 years of age I'm quite thankful for that much) but I do want children and parenting is something that often goes hand-in-hand with my contemplation of that. As a writer I also often have to contemplate metaphor, allegory, and symbolism, in order to best get across messages with varying levels of clarity.

Punishing her for insulting him behind his back, I can agree with. (3 months might be excessive, but then we don't have full details on that prior event). Respect is earned, not freely given, but obviously there are specific times and places for such insults to be utilised, ideally to the face of those concerned where possible.

Chores are certainly not given with finance obligatorily attached, though I was paid small amounts (50p to £1 or so) for my house chores as a child, so certainly I'd dispute her claim for monetary compensation there.

It could be argued that Hannah blocked her parents because she specifically didn't want them to see her conversations with her friends and such, not just this specific post. This would speak to a longing for privacy in her own life, which I can agree with and support, as she is a teenage girl and should be allowed her privacy. The dog's facebook page is an odd aspect to this that I can't really think how to quantify, but I'd probably still call this a breach of privacy, perceived or otherwise.

Handguns in the home I definitely cannot agree with, but I understand that is a difference of culture more than anything else.

Possible alternatives for the laptop than shooting it for punishment definitely have been covered to doomsday already, and I support almost any other option than destroying it.

In summation, bad choices were made on both sides, but really I think I have to side with the daughter here more than the father.

[2stepz]

Can I just point out an interesting, but expected, point of derision here?
The people taking the girl's side, thinking it was too much, that he damaged her property, and such... are young, and for the most part, not American.

In the US, even if you give something to your child, it is legally yours until they are 18. Everything that teenager has, including themselves, are legally your liability.

Say she were to take that attitude against an educator, and spur a lawsuit. Who would be liable for the lawsuit? The parents. This is a very litigous society. Right or wrong, he was within his power to do what he did. She needs to learn there are consequences to words. Grounding didn't work.

[empath]

I think if he was going to trash the laptop, he should have gone for the whole hog. I'm slightly disturbed that even the kid's mother was happy with the murder of the laptop via gun. Then again I live in a culture where owning a gun means you enjoy murdering wildlife.

Yeah, and I live in one where owning a gun means your family gets to eat during the winter...

(And "murder" of an inanimate object? I know we as humans like to personify things, but keep a grasp on reality, please - I may give the fryer at work backtalk whenever it beeps at me while I'm busy, but I don't consider it a living thing {mostly I just do it for the amusement of my customers & co-workers})

And the supposed 'invasion of privacy' bit about her blocking her parents? Trumped by parental responsibility to protect their children from outside threats such as stalkers, pedophiles, bullying (victims often are ashamed to admit such to their families), underage drinking/drug use, etc. etc.

And even if you think a father shouldn't be permitted to know what his daughter is plotting and planning with her 'friends' on a social networking site for her own protection (because again, not legally an adult because she simply hasn't lived long enough for the government to assume she'd had enough experience to exercise good judgement), there's the wonderful issue that 2stepz brought up of parental liability.

Say a young man of thirteen plans with his friends to lie to their parents that 'I/he/other guy is having a sleepover' so they can go see a concert, and during their adventure, they end up accidentally damaging property, and how'd you like to wake up in the middle of the night to learn FROM THE POLICE that your own son lied to you, deceived you, did things he KNEW he wouldn't be able to get permission, then GOT IN TROUBLE WITH THE LAW?

Yeah, I really don't think Zuckerberg is gonna tell ANY parent who gives enough of a shit about their offspring that they CAN'T see what said child is saying/doing on his site...

Try again, please.

[Merrymaker_Mortalis]

(And "murder" of an inanimate object? I know we as humans like to personify things, but keep a grasp on reality, please

Exaggeration. Or the word that sounds like that that I cannot spell.

[JustAName]

I'm pretty sure it's not financially feasible to get a part time job as a teen that can pay for US college fees/residency/books anymore... Inflation of College fees and costs have been increasing faster than the minimum wage for a long time in the US. Maybe if you lower your expectations to a two year instate community college, you might be able to make a small contribution.

Additionally, US colleges expect the parents to pay. To the point of requiring financial aid applicants to either provide the tax returns of their parents, or documented evidence of physical abuse. This does of course cause some problems for adult college students still considered dependant on their parents by the financial aid system, who realise they are gay, but their parents disapprove...

It kind of sucks. I was told by my mom when I was in elementary school that I would have to get perfect grades so I could get a scholarship, because she couldn't pay my way through school.

[Lyinginbedmon]

And the supposed 'invasion of privacy' bit about her blocking her parents? Trumped by parental responsibility to protect their children from outside threats such as stalkers, pedophiles, bullying (victims often are ashamed to admit such to their families), underage drinking/drug use, etc. etc.

And even if you think a father shouldn't be permitted to know what his daughter is plotting and planning with her 'friends' on a social networking site for her own protection (because again, not legally an adult because she simply hasn't lived long enough for the government to assume she'd had enough experience to exercise good judgement), there's the wonderful issue that 2stepz brought up of parental liability.

Say a young man of thirteen plans with his friends to lie to their parents that 'I/he/other guy is having a sleepover' so they can go see a concert, and during their adventure, they end up accidentally damaging property, and how'd you like to wake up in the middle of the night to learn FROM THE POLICE that your own son lied to you, deceived you, did things he KNEW he wouldn't be able to get permission, then GOT IN TROUBLE WITH THE LAW?

Yeah, I really don't think Zuckerberg is gonna tell ANY parent who gives enough of a shit about their offspring that they CAN'T see what said child is saying/doing on his site...

Try again, please.

And here we have that wonderful issue that SOPA and its brethren trounced over: Privacy versus Security.

If we want privacy, we automatically make it harder to keep people and valuables safe and secure. If we want security, we automatically make privacy very difficult.

She's 16, I'd say she's mature enough to understand what a pedophile and a stalker is online.

Oh, and point of note: Facebook allows you to tag individuals with certain relationships, including mother and father. So it really wouldn't take much to allow users to block their parents explicitly from viewing their things, and there'd be reasonable mentalities to do so ("Oh god, I'm 30 and my mother just got on facebook, what if she sees my drunken nightclub posts?!") but I'll admit there're more arguments against on that notion. Age could be considered in the same code to restrict such functionality to above age-of-consent users, but then all things online are fake until proven otherwise.

[JayBlanc]

Can I just point out an interesting, but expected, point of derision here?
The people taking the girl's side, thinking it was too much, that he damaged her property, and such... are young, and for the most part, not American.

I am unsure how not being American makes a difference to bringing up children... And as an aside, I've seen my nieces and nephews grow up into adults, and a niece has a child of her own now. I have actually seen child rearing occur, and seen the results of different kinds of it.

In the US, even if you give something to your child, it is legally yours until they are 18. Everything that teenager has, including themselves, are legally your liability.

Something being legal to do, does not equate to something being right to do.

Say she were to take that attitude against an educator, and spur a lawsuit. Who would be liable for the lawsuit? The parents. This is a very litigous society. Right or wrong, he was within his power to do what he did. She needs to learn there are consequences to words. Grounding didn't work.

Oh lordy yes... Saying nasty things about her Teacher, on Facebook!
That would be such a grave turn of events, and there are certain steps that must be took. Why, this back talk against her parents is sure to be the beginning of the end for all morality.

Why, she may even start listening to Rock and Roll music, and dancing, and playing Pool. And that rhymes with Fool, and that's what you are if you don't see the trouble right here in River City..

[JustAName]

Oy. Don't take it out on TwoStepz. She's just trying to explain cultural differences. It's not just saying nasty things about teachers, it's saying, "My teacher raped me!" in order to get that teacher in trouble. Students have done it before.

[Lyinginbedmon]

I think we can all agree regardless of cultural separations that this is a grey area.

[JayBlanc]

Also, I believe the point about the parents being liable for defamation professed by their child, is only true if the parent directly and provably prompted their child to make the statement. Otherwise, transferring animus nocendi of a minor to their guardian is difficult. But I am not a lawyer.

Additionally, there are such things as Parental control tools for network access, and most consumer broadband routers of the last few years have them built in. It was trivial for them to deny their daughter access to Facebook without destroying their laptop. And most routers will even allow you to selectively deny access from the mac addresses of individual computers so they could continue using it themselves. Or even deny access to the internet at all from that laptop, except for supervised sessions.

There was no reason for them to violently destroy the laptop and engage in public humiliation to 'protect' the child from doing stupid things on facebook.

[Tally]

Couple of things I feel strongly about, thus want to weigh in on. First, the US college thing where parents are simply expected to pay for their kids' university education. I think it's absolutely absurd. Parents can certainly pay if they can and if they want to, or can help fund the education, but it is ridiculous that it's an absolute expectation on the part of kids and society that their parents take on upwards of $20,000 a year so that their kids can, in a lot of cases, go party and skip class. Even when the kids are good students, that's a lot to ask of your parents, nevermind just assume that you'll get from them. Now, I'll admit, my parents did pay for my entire university education, but it was not something any of us thought they'd be able to do until my last couple years of high school, it was not something they promised and it was not something I expected them to do for me. And part of the reason it happened was that I moved and went to a school with much less expensive tuition than most places in the States. And I am massively grateful to this day that they paid all that and I didn't have to do more than pay my living costs and don't have any debt to this day. It was a huge gift for which I am grateful, but not something I just assumed I'd get.

Sorry about the rant. That's a particular piece of American culture that really irks me.

A little related to that, someone mentioned the idea that parents taking care of their kids and giving them food, shelter, necessities and so on is really a requirement since the parents chose to bring those kids into the world. And I agree, but I think part of what's going on here is not the dad saying, "You can't have anything unless you earn it," but rather, "We'll give you the basics, but if you want more (basically luxury items), then you have to pay for it."

Raising kids isn't simply about taking care of them for 18 years, it's about also preparing them to take care of themselves after those 18 years, teaching them how to be adults. And learning how to budget, how to earn things, how to respect and take care of things, how to respect and take care of others is all part of that. It's not that parents think their kids will never mouth off, or don't remember being a teenager themselves and blowing things all out of proportion. You expect a wee puppy to pee in the house a few times before it gets all potty trained. But you still make it understand that this is a bad thing to do, and teach it to go outside. You don't say, well I expected that to happen, so it's all good, because then the puppy doesn't learn and it keeps happening. You expect kids to screw up, to do something stupid or thoughtless, to get in trouble, mouth off, act without thinking, etc. But when they do, you have to use that to teach them to behave better next time. That, along with housing, clothing and feeding kids, is a parent's job.

[Metcarfre]

Wow, Tally, you said that a lot better than I could. Thanks!

But I agree. Parents are responsible to (at least try) make non-douchebag-asshole adults emerge from the cocoon of home when they leave. Part of that, I believe, is having children contribute to the running of a home, and learning that if they want privileges (be it possessions, freedom, etc.) they are going to have responsibilities as well. You know, like an adult.

[2stepz]

Can I just point out an interesting, but expected, point of derision here?
The people taking the girl's side, thinking it was too much, that he damaged her property, and such... are young, and for the most part, not American.

I am unsure how not being American makes a difference to bringing up children... And as an aside, I've seen my nieces and nephews grow up into adults, and a niece has a child of her own now. I have actually seen child rearing occur, and seen the results of different kinds of it.

I was pointing out that there are cultural implications involved between the rights and expectations of a European teenager and an American Father. Not saying that either are wrong in their own culture, but you are starting at two very different points of origin for this defense.

In the US, even if you give something to your child, it is legally yours until they are 18. Everything that teenager has, including themselves, are legally your liability.

Something being legal to do, does not equate to something being right to do.

Right or wrong, I was clarifying that he had the legal stance to do repossess and destroy the laptop. Some were arguing that it wasn't his to take. Legally, yes it was.

Say she were to take that attitude against an educator, and spur a lawsuit. Who would be liable for the lawsuit? The parents. This is a very litigous society. Right or wrong, he was within his power to do what he did. She needs to learn there are consequences to words. Grounding didn't work.

Oh lordy yes... Saying nasty things about her Teacher, on Facebook!
That would be such a grave turn of events, and there are certain steps that must be took. Why, this back talk against her parents is sure to be the beginning of the end for all morality.

I never said the libel would occur on Facebook. I said the attitude expressed on facebook could be turned against an educator (or anyone else of higher cultural standing than a teenager, really). Fayili pointed out the spin of sexual accusations, which is valid, but not where I was going. This is a respect issue. She needs to learn that actions, even words on a computer screen, have consequences. Respect the power of words.

I'm not saying all adults, all parents, make the wisest choices. I, myself, am psychologically "damaged goods" from some similar acts by my father when I was of that age. However, as an adult, I recognize what he was trying to teach me, though he thoroughly ingrained a lesson of a different nature into my psyche. No parent's actions are ever perfect, but most of the time they do have good intentions.

Also, I believe the point about the parents being liable for defamation professed by their child, is only true if the parent directly and provably prompted their child to make the statement. Otherwise, transferring animus nocendi of a minor to their guardian is difficult. But I am not a lawyer.

I never said the parent would be charged for the crimes of the minor, but they would be held responsible for the lawsuit. That's a financial burden, not to mention the cultural implications and societal burden, that most families cannot afford.

[JayBlanc]

Also, I believe the point about the parents being liable for defamation professed by their child, is only true if the parent directly and provably prompted their child to make the statement. Otherwise, transferring animus nocendi of a minor to their guardian is difficult. But I am not a lawyer.

I never said the parent would be charged for the crimes of the minor, but they would be held responsible for the lawsuit. That's a financial burden, not to mention the cultural implications and societal burden, that most families cannot afford.

No, I just said that a Parent would not be held responsible for the lawsuit, unless it can be proven that the child was prompted to make the statement by the parent. It is a principle of defamation cases, based on animus nocendi (intent to harm), that to show liability for damages you have to show that the _person you are holding liable_ was making a statement they knew to be false, or allowed such a statement to be made that would not have been made under rational supervision. ie, a News Editor shown to have failed to pursue due diligence in a fact check on something damaging that was published.

So to pursue damages from the parents of a child, you would have to positively prove that the Parents knew the accusation to be false, and that the Child was prompted to do so, or that the parents had neglected the proper upbringing and supervision of their child to a gross degree. And there is case law on this, Finkel v. Dauber, Supreme Court of the State of New York, where a Child's Parents (and her Teacher) was sued for defamatory comments left on a facebook page, and the judge ruled that the parents were not liable.