User Mood
Happy
Message Emote 
|
July 10, 2008, 2:32 pm PDT
Sadly, no.
As long as this child is given the power that, sadly, she has been given, no, this family cannot be saved.
I was very disheartened when watching the show because, unwittingly, Dr. Phil and the pastor, while addressing the child's inappropriate behaviour, tended to lay the bulk of the problem at the parents' doorstep. No, I do not think that any child - given his or her vulnerability and inexperience - should be open to abuse; however, in Canada and, I suspect, in the United States of America, children's versions of events are taken at face value, and parents are made to explain themselves and their responses to clearly unreasonable behaviours. This tends to reinforce to children that the parents are in the wrong and will be taken to task. This, in turn, undermines parental authority in the house.
I don't believe that it is healthy to reinforce children's (natural) ego-centrism, particularly when it undermines parental decision-making and healthy family functioning. Moreover, I would assert that some decisions are centred on the idea that ``this is what helps the parents.`` For example, a child may wish to stay up until 4 o`clock in the morning in his or her parents`bed because his or her body-clock allows them to do so. The argument is entirely reasonable, but for the fact that it may interfere with the parents` time to be by themselves. However, society has adjusted itself around the notion that we must accommodate children. In and of itself, this is a grossly inappropriate manner by which we should comport ourselves. The function of parenting is to teach children how to orient themselves around others, thus ameliorating their their entirely egocentric view. Simply put, there are places where children should not be and decisions that they ought not to make. Unfortunately, we do not do this; rather, we accommodate youths. For example, there is no smoking allowed in bars in the city of Toronto, in which I live, because children ought not be exposed to second hand smoke. What is not taken into account, however, is that no child ought to be in a bar in the first place. There are places where children should be unwelcome. And they should know that they are unwelcome in these places because these are adult spaces and certain activities (healthy or otherwise) that are open for adults to indulge in are not open for children or teenagers. Rather, we have decided to infantilize adults. No wonder, then, that children do not wish to grow up. Drugs, alcohol, and sexual behaviour is theirs to enjoy... and they look better doing it because they are younger.
Bless them, but children, nowadays, are incredibly savvy and are keenly aware of their rights under the law. This is all to the good, but they are less understanding of their responsibilities, given their age and their general naivite. I would prefer that government agencies and your show assist parents in relaying to youngsters that, if children persist in anti-social activities, those children will lose their supposed entitlements (allowances, certain freedoms, etc.). Instead, I, sadly, witness governmental authorities and you and your pastor explain to these children why their abusive behaviours (be they aimed at their parents or at society, as a whole) are explainable. While I will not disagree that the children are acting out in some kind of emotional vortex, perhaps it would be better if the parents were taken aside, given assistance in handling their child's difficulties, and that the child be publicly remonstrated for his or her ill-considered actions. Instead, I see the reverse. The child is given support and the parents are publicly chastised for their poor parenting skills. Consequently, what I tend to witness are children who continue to abuse their families (because they do not understand the overall and future consequences of this, so-called, self-protective action) and parents who feel, with great remorse, that, to maintain the family`s overall integrity, the child needs to be removed from the home.
I recall a dear friend of mine who, witnessing her eldest child smacking another toddler with a sand bucket, asking her daughter why she was doing this. It occurred to me that the primary lesson being learned was, in essence, ìf I give my mother a suffiently reasonable answer, I am justified in hutring another.` I suggested to my friend that, first, she should address the socially inappropriate behaviour and insist that her daughter apologize. First. Only later should she assist her child in understanding what triggered the awful, damaging assault. In short, sir, I believe that my friend had her responsibilities backwards. Moreover, I believe that our social service agencies are doing, on a macrocosmic level, the same disserive to the next generation. The advice given on your show, along with your general demeanour, mirrored this strange - to my mind - reshifting of focus.
Moreover, during your show, I witnessed a grinning child who appeared to believe that she could `push` her parents even further and parents who, at some point, will no longer assume responsibilities that they cannot possibly bear. In short, dear Dr. Phil, I doubt that the parents will throw any further resources at their daugher, and I will not be shocked to learn, at some later time, that the parents have decided to `cut their losses` and give their daughter the freedom she so craves. No one wins under these circumstances, least of all the child. Human nature being what it is, the parents will save their own home, their own sanity, and their own relationship, and this will cost their daughter dearly. To do otherwise, unfortunately, would be irrational and detrimental to any one else living in their home.
I know that you often exhort the participants in your talk show to review the tapes so that they might gain a greater perspective on their underlying behaviours. In my humble opinion, I hope that you would do so too (though I am sure that you already do).
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to express my (digressive) view. I wish you, Robin, your beautiful boys, and your wonderful staff all the best. I would be interested in your feedback to the opinions I have expressed herein but easily recognize that, given the time constraints imposed upon you by your schedule, this may not be even remotely possible. In the meantime, thank you for providing me with food for fodder, entertainment, and a forum from which I have a chance to grow.
Best regards,
Janet Futerman
(Toronto, Ontario, Canada)
|
An out-of-control teenager, allegations of physical and verbal abuse, a marriage on the rocks — you name it; this family drama has it all. Along with Bishop T.D. Jakes, renowned pastor and author of Reposition Yourself, Dr. Phil has advice for bringing calm to the chaos. Tricia had to move out of her house because her husband, Jeff, couldn’t handle her rebellious 13-year-old daughter, Caysha. Tricia says Caysha curses, skips school, and has unprotected sex. Caysha says she isn't the only one at fault. She says her stepdad, Jeff, is controlling, insults her constantly, and even calls the cops to discipline her! Is reconciliation possible? Then, Bishop Jakes has a heart-to-heart talk with the teen. Find out what she says is the major cause of the chaos in her household. And, Caysha joins her parents and Bishop Jakes onstage. Is boot camp the answer for the troubled teen? Is it too late for Tricia to begin setting boundaries for Caysha and start healing her family? Join the discussion.
