Kids need to know when they sense the truth

Some people hesitate to acknowledge the truth kids see, know or sense.  Common examples are when kids sense they’re unsafe in the presence of:

• A neighbor or a family friend or relative or someone’s unleashed pet.
• An older kid who lives next door or who’s included in family activities.
• One parent in a divorce or someone at that parent’s home.

Sometimes, adults simply don’t see the truth themselves, but more often, some adults:

• Want to maintain illusions that these close people are not actually dangerous.
• Hold back because they don’t want to say anything bad about someone like an ex or a relative.
• Have a value that it’s wrong to judge a person’s identity as bad or evil.

Some parents hesitate even when the danger is obvious and glaring.

These hesitations are wrong and very damaging to the kids.  Kids need to now that they may be in dangerous situations even at home.  Especially, kids need to know when what they sense is accurate.

Jane’s father had even seen his five year-old daughter yelled at, harassed and verbally and emotionally bullied by the new boyfriend of his ex, Jane’s mother.  So when Jane said she was scared to go there and that the boyfriend was bad to her, he knew her fears were well-grounded.  Jane also said that her mother had said that the boyfriend was a good person.  Obviously, Jane was unsure what to think.  But she knew what she felt.

Jane’s father was a nice person and didn’t want to think of the boyfriend as a bad person, so he hesitated in responding to Jane.  He didn’t want to say that someone was bad.  Also, he thought it was important for a child to see her mother often and to like her mother’s friends.

Get your hierarchy of values and priorities straight.  Jane’s father is missing the point.

1. Jane’s father has conflicting values and hasn’t effectively organized his priorities in a hierarchy of importance.  It may be important to him not to judge or label people as “bad” or “evil,” but more important than that value is the value of protecting his child.  And there’s a way he can intervene without judging the boyfriend’s identity.
2. Jane is unsafe.  She’s being subjected to mental and emotional bullying and abuse.  Her mother may be also.  And both Jane and her mother may be targets of physical abuse already or in the near future.  Jane’s father must intervene effectively even though he may have difficulties because of court ordered divorce requirements or because of the possibility of starting a fight with his ex in court.

Kids need to know when their sense of things is accurate and true. A key step in developing confidence and self-esteem is learning when we can trust our estimations of people and situations even if other people disagree or our self-bullying, “monkey mind” tries to talk us out of what we sense to be true.  Tremendous damage is done to kids when adults tell them not to trust their feelings, thoughts and intuitions.

Jane needs to know that she’s right.  What she estimates as “not safe” and “fear” is accurate.  She should not be talked out of those accurate estimations because of big and meaningless words like “compassion,” “kindness” or “being non-judgmental.”  She must know that she does see the reality of the situation.  Even more damaging than thinking that “love” means putting herself in dangerous and painful situations, if she’s talked out of her feelings, she’ll grow up riddled with self-doubt.

To protect Jane, we don’t need to judge the boyfriend’s identity. Jane, at age five, may think in terms of good or bad, but we don’t have to.

Thinking in those terms is usually a self-motivation strategy.  Some adults generate enough anger to act only if they think in those terms.  Then they often over-react because they’re so emotional.

But we can act simply when we recognize that a situation or person is dangerous.  We don’t need to get into a highly emotional loop that keeps us from acting effectively.  And we don’t need to label people’s identity.  We can simply discern a pattern in their actions no matter what their reasons, excuses or justifications are.

In a way that a five year-old can understand, Jane’s father must acknowledge to Jane that she’s right; the situation is painful, dangerous and scary.  Then he can deal with the difficulties in the situation.  If Jane’s mother is also feeling abused by her new boyfriend, Jane’s father may be able to stimulate her to act without her admitting she’s done anything wrong – which might make it easier for her to act.

But Jane’s father may have to deal with difficulties in order to protect Jane.  Can he get Jane’s mother to get rid of the boyfriend without going to court?  Can he get documented evidence that a court would accept?  Must he get a court-approved psychological evaluation, which would put Jane in the middle of choosing between her parents?

These are not easy choices.  Jane’s father probably needs good legal advice before he begins.

But he must act soon.  He can’t keep putting his daughter in danger.

Since all tactics depend on the situation, expert coaching by phone or Skype helps.  We can design a plan that fits you and your situation.  And build your will and skill to carry it out effectively.

Are parents liable for kids' school cyberbullying?

Teenagers do things behind our backs.  They hide things from their parents just like we did.  But suppose they’re involved in cyberbullying?  Even if they’re not the original perpetrator, suppose they simply get drawn in to pile-on? Are we liable when they’re cyberbullies?

Sometimes, people make nasty, sarcastic, critical remarks to a friend about someone else but they don’t expect it to get forwarded to everyone at school.  Lesson learned, I hope.

But how about our children being relentlessly nasty and vicious to everyone they don’t like on social networks?  How about if they tell people to kill themselves?

How about our children sending obscene remarks to lots of people under the name of someone they don’t like?  How about our kids asking people to pile on to call someone they don’t like obscene names?  How about our teenager setting up a fake Facebook page in the name of someone they don’t like, filled with altered pictures of the person, a fake history and rants about all the other kids at school?

About 50 percent of teens with internet access report having been bullied online.  About the same number report doing the cyberbullying.  More than one in three report having received cyber threats.  Only 10 percent of kids who are bullied tell their parents.  Only 15 percent of parents know what their kids doing online, especially on social networks.  Of course, these numbers are rough estimates, but in my experience, they’re low estimates.

If these things are done at school, schools will get involved.  What might a permanent record of these actions do to your teenager’s chance of getting a good job or getting accepted into college?

If the cyberbullying is done from our home computers, the school will probably not get involved.  But the police will.  And our liability as parents will be increased.

Notice, I didn’t approach cyberbullying as a moral wrong.  We grownups know that.  But how far would we go on moral grounds to stop cyberbullying by our children if that meant a pitched battle with angry teenagers.  They will object because we’re spying on them or we’re stopping them from joining some “in-crowd” they desperately want to belong to.

So I approached stopping cyber bullies by asking about our liability.

Suppose the bullied kids and their parents go to the police about our children as a cyber bullies?  Do we want the police coming to our door?  Do we want to defend ourselves by saying that we didn’t know?

Suppose the targets file a suit against our children and against us for damages?  Even if we win, how much money will the lawyers cost?  How will we stand the publicity on every television and newspaper in town?  Suppose it goes nationwide?

The lines of responsibility are in flux now because the area of law is so new.  We don’t know where a judge or jury might come down in our case.

Suppose the target of our children’s venom commits suicide or gets a gun to wreak vengeance?  Suppose we could lose our house in a civil suit?  Suppose we could go to jail?  Does that change our willingness to limit the freedoms our children want when they’re living in our home and using a computer we bought?

The bottom line is that we’re responsible for our children.  They live under our roofs.  We must know what they’re doing.  They don’t have privacy.

If we don’t set limits when they’re younger, they’ll grow up to be teens who think they can do whatever they want.  They’ll know they can wear us down if we try to limit them.  Even though we may pay the price.

If they’ve become teenagers already who think they’re entitled to do what they want, we’d better set boundaries before they do something that can ruin our lives as well as theirs.

Since all tactics depend on the situation, expert coaching by phone or Skype helps.  We can design a plan that fits you and your situation.  And build your will and skill to carry it out effectively.

Stop Cyber Bullies: Vague Cyber bullying Laws Aren’t Effective

According to an editorial in the New York Times, “Vague Cyberbullying Law,” “Lori Drew acted grotesquely if, as prosecutors charged, she went online and bullied her daughter’s classmate, a 13-year-old girl who ended up committing suicide.  A federal court was right, however, to throw out her misdemeanor convictions recently.  The crimes she was found guilty of, essentially violating the MySpace Web site’s rules, are too vague to be constitutional.” Whether or not we’d agree with the constitutional interpretation of the US District Court judge, I think the ruling illustrates clearly why we need clear, specific laws to stop cyber bullies.

Freedom of speech is not the issue.  We abridge freedom of speech in many ways because, in some situations, there are values more important than freedom of speech.  That’s why we prohibit yelling “fire” in crowded public places and why we have laws against libel and slander.  Difficulties in enforcing some laws like libel and slander are no reason not to have such laws.  We recognize that such difficulties mean that there are a lot of gray areas in human behavior in these areas.  Therefore, we expect human judgment to be required in these difficult areas.  But if we didn’t have laws, we’d never be able to respond to cases that are clear.

Angry, vindictive and relentless bullies will continue to abuse their targets by whatever means they can.  If we avoid the difficulties in trying to stop cyber bullying, if we say that we can’t distinguish between lying about our age, weight or physical appearance online, and plotting to cause emotional distress or persecuting someone or spreading malicious, false gossip and rumors online, we only encourage cyber bullying – especially if it can be done anonymously.

Therefore, we need laws that are as specific and clear as we can write them, as well as human judgment in enforcing them.  I’d rather have the option to effectively prosecute people like Lori Drew than to be unable to because there are no clear and specific laws.

Because internet use is nationwide, we need the laws to be Federal laws.

On the other side of the equation, we hope we’ll be able to raise our children to be more sturdy than Megan Meier was.  We hope we’ll recognize the signs that our children are targets of cyber bullies.  But we’ll never succeed in raising all our children to be mentally and emotionally strong enough to resist all pressures and stress.  Not all children will develop the self-esteem and self-confidence to thrive in the real world.  Negative input and negative self-talk will always be a problem.  But in many cases, strong Federal laws will help protect people, especially teenagers.  Cyber safety for as many people as possible takes precedence over freedom of speech.

Lori Drew Acquitted by Judge in Cyber Bullying Suicide Case

On July 2, a federal judge overturned guilty verdicts rendered by the jury against Lori Drew, 50, who was accused of participating in a cyber bullying scheme against 13-year-old Megan Meier, who later committed suicide. This case demonstrates why we need federal laws to stop cyber bullying, harassment and abuse.

The facts in the case were agreed upon even by Drew.  She set-up a MySpace account under an assumed name, “Josh Evans,” that was used by her daughter and an employee to harass, bully and abuse 13-year-old Megan Meier.  It is not clear what other actions Drew took to use or promote the use of the site.  After many attacks on Megan, the fake identity eventually encouraged her to commit suicide.  The three perpetrators would not admit who sent that message.

While that sounds straightforward and obviously wrong, and most people react with outrage, there are no Federal laws to prevent such attacks.  Since there are no laws making the cyber bullying, harassment and abusive actions of Lori Drew, her daughter and her employee a felony, prosecutors had to bring weak charges based on unauthorized computer access under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Despite difficulties in stretching the application of these laws to cover the cyber bullying, a jury found Lori Drew guilty of three misdemeanor counts in the case.  However, the judge overturned the jury and acquitted Drew of the charges.  Some of the arguments for the defense were: * The three bullies didn’t know the terms of agreement for setting up their MySpace account because they hadn’t read the MySpace contract they agreed to. * Stretching the laws to cover their actions could set dangerous legal precedents.

Even though we can follow the legal arguments, the sense of outrage still remains.

This situation makes an obvious case for the need for strong Federal anti-cyber bullying laws. If there were clear laws and stiff penalties against, for example, using sites to defame, embarrass, harm, abuse, threaten, slander or harass third parties the case against the three people would have been different.  In addition, we must not offer people anonymity or secret identities to attack other people online.

Of course these laws would infringe on free speech and some people’s desires to create secret identities online.  Which is more important, protecting adults and children against anonymous attacks or free speech?

In the case of the suicide of Megan Meier, had Lori Drew’s daughter accosted Megan in person, laying forth whatever complaints she had, saying whatever vindictive and nasty things she wanted to say, the situation would have been very different.  Megan would have been able to face her accuser.  She would have known her accuser’s personal agenda.  She could have argued or ignored the attacks.  But online attacks through a false identity are a very different matter.

Of course lawyers debate legal precedents.  But we all know the protection we’d want against anonymous people who put signs or graffiti on our homes or burn crosses on our lawns.  We clearly see the need to regulate these actions, even if they aren’t direct attacks with a deadly weapon.  Cyber bullying, harassment and abuse require the same regulation.

Lori Drew and her attorney are trying to drum up sympathy for her.  They say that she’s had to pay legal fees and move from Missouri due to the publicity and anger her family has faced.  They may not have envisioned the final consequences of their hoax, but once we go down the pathway of harassment, bullying and abuse, we can’t control the results.

As parents, this case also should make us question our children’s use of social networking sites like MySpace.  I always recommend drawing firm lines that encourage face-to-face friends and prohibit virtual friends, who, by definition, aren’t real friends.

The signs of cyberbullying

The post on the PC Pandora Blog, “The signs of cyberbullying,” refers to an article by Elizabeth Wasserman, “Warning signs: Is Your Child Having Cyber Issues?”  The original article gives a good list of some of the signs that your child might be having trouble dealing with cyber bullies.  The follow-up post refers to the PC Pandora software that will alert parents if their child is either being the victim of cyberbullying or is even a cyberbully him or herself. The signs they listed were: * Changed work habits, grades slipping, failing tests. * Losing sleep or sleeping too much. * Increased insecurity or irritability.

I would add withdrawal and lack of communication.  These warning signs are really some of the warning signs that teenagers are having problems with any issue they can’t resolve by themselves, not only cyberbullying.  They’re tip-offs that parents need to talk more with their children and find out what’s going on.

However, the solutions suggested by the experts in the article fall short in the real-world.  They all stem from the ideas that kids are experts and parents should not upset or pressure their children too much.  Instead, parents should only make what I think of as weak suggestions.

However, suggestions are nice but are usually not enough.  Most children may be more expert than their parents about technology but: 1. They don’t know what’s best for them.  I hope that as parents with much broader experience, we know a lot that our children don’t and they have already had the opportunity to see that. 2. They’re not more expert than we are about dealing with bullies.  I hope we have many ideas they haven’t thought about, even if that might mean they would have to go outside their comfort zones or we might have to intervene.

We may have to work hard to get our kids to tell us or to problem solve with us.  How many of us told our parents when we had trouble?  But that’s the universal task.  Their liking it or not is not the most important criterion.

I know parents who have even prohibited their children from wasting time on social networks like YouTube, MySpace and Facebook.  They want their children to have face to face social activities with real people they can judge face to face.  How’s that for a concept.

I also think that to put a dent in the amount of cyberbullying, we’ll need Federal laws to make it illegal and then the willingness of social networks to turn over records of cyberbullies.  Writing and enforcing these laws will be as difficult as enforcing the libel laws we already have.  We’ll have to distinguish between an angry exchange and a pattern of on-going attacks.

I learned effective techniques to deal with bullies through growing up in New York City, by watching our six children (three girls and three boys) deal with each other and with bullies at school, and through my experience as a coach, psychotherapist and consultant.

Teenage student harassed, bullied and beaten, but none of the adults at school protected him.

According to numerous reports, a teenager was bullied at West Middle School in metro Denver.  The boy had pencils, markers and a calculator taken; he was called fat; he was called “gay” because he was involved in musical theater; because he was from musical theater, he was called a “Nazi.”  Eventually, he tried fighting back against his tormentors.  But he wasn’t big or strong enough and was beaten severely.  He suffered a broken collar bone and head injury.  The published picture of him is self-evident.  Now that the case has become public, the community is in an uproar and the Cherry Creek School District has responded by expelling the bully.  The bullied boy has reported that the bully threatened to beat him more when he returns.  Three other students, who also threatened to beat up the victim, have been required to sign contracts that they won’t harass the boy.  That’s nice of the school district to go that far. Of course the legal wrangling will go on for a long time.

There’s so much to say about this example of hostility, abuse and brutality.  I want to comment on only a few areas.

The adults failed.  Whether they blame the legal system or say they didn’t know; they failed. Since the severe beating happened at the end of November, don’t you think that every student in school knew what was happening? 

The parents of the bully and his collaborators failed.  They are supposed to know their children’s character and to stop their children’s bullying.

The teachers failed.  They are supposed to know who torments, abuses and bully’s another student and they are supposed to stop it.  They allowed a hostile, abusive environment to continue.  If the typical educational approaches don’t work rapidly, they are supposed to intervene in other ways.

The principal failed.  The principal is supposed to set a tone of zero tolerance.  The principal is supposed to be courageous enough to cut through the legal red tape and somehow stop bullies.  If the teachers don’t stop it, the principal is supposed to stop it and then get rid of those cowardly and/or ignorant teachers.  The worst beating happened at the end of November and the principal did nothing effective for three months until the story became public.

The administrators in the school district failed.  The administrators are supposed to be courageous enough to cut through the legal red tape and somehow stop bullying.  If the principal doesn’t stop it, the school district administrators are supposed to step in and then get rid of that cowardly and/or ignorant principal.  The worst beating happened at the end of November and the district administrators did nothing effective for three months until the story became public.

How can we hold up these teachers, principal and school district administrators as models for children?  They have failed as models.  Despite, or maybe because of, their colleges and universities, their degrees and certifications, their possible expertise in some course matter, they have shown themselves to be ignorant or cowardly or inept or all three.  They have failed the public trust and are unfit to be teachers, principal or administrators.

They should not be allowed to hide behind a poor legal system.  We all know that there are schools in the most violent locations in which courageous administrators, principals and teachers bullying.  And they do it in the face of the same.

The 14 year-old boy who was bullied has shown himself to be courageous.  He has succeeded.  At first he did what we all try to do.  We try accommodating in hopes that the bully will move on.  We ask bullies to stop; we take the bullying; we try to understand what lousy home lives we think bullies must have; we try to rise above it.  These tactics may stop many kids who are temporarily trying on bullying to see what it feels like, but those tactics don’t stop dedicated, relentless bullies.  They are not effective for teaching children to stop bullies at school.

Eventually that boy fought.  I say he succeeded because, even though he was severely beaten he did what was necessary to try to stop his tormentors.  He lost the fight but he emerges as the one person who is not a coward in this affair.  He can hold his head up high all his life.  He can keep his self-esteem.  He can judge the adults as cowards and failures.  I hope he is resilient enough to bounce back  and continues to resist to bullies the rest of his life.  I hope that when he becomes an adult with more choices, he creates a personal life that is bully-free.  Sometimes, a tormented teen can fight back and win – as in the case of the “Teen acquitted in punch.”

Of course, bullies will always exist .  America is not unique, nor are we the worst people in the world.  We are outraged and we will try to make better systems.  And more important, we still must train , seek and hire people who can act effectively, no matter how poor the system is at any moment.  And we must educate and prepare individuals to be as courageous as that 14 year-old boy.

Among other places, this story was carried by the Denver Post (Bullies called teen “Nazi” and “gay”), 9news (Student says he was bullied, beaten because he’s German), the Denver Channel News (Boy: School Bullies Harassed Him Because Of German Ancestry) and the Denver Post Neighbors Forum (Article Discussion: Cherry Creek teen may face bully in court).