First, let's clarify that these things were NOT his idea or advice. He was printing several stories from parents who'd successfully used some "psychologically incorrect" discipine that they'd come up with on their own and had success with. The 4 yr old child who kept claiming to be afraid of dark areas of the house for example, was glued to his mother all day, trying to follow her around the house every minute, including wanting to go into the bathroom with her, and she rightfully thought that was a bit much. She gave him a a couple of free passes for the day, but since he knew darn well how to turn lights on and such, decided to put a limit on how many times he could carry on about it. His "punishment" was simply spending some time in his well-lit room. He was amazingly cured of his "fear" in 3 days. Sometimes practical, common sensical approaches with children work wonders with no psychological angst believe it or not. That was the point he was illustrating. I always think Rosemond simply states the obvious, and I'm always surprised that these things seem "controversial" to modern ears, but I guess they do.

I'm guilty!

I have taken away my daughters favorite toy if she didn't poop in the potty. I was almost relieved when I read the column & saw that others had done it also. I finally resorted to this after trying lots of other things, to no avail. It was a consequence that mattered to her.

Most importantly, I warned her ahead of time what I would do, so the choice was hers.

I sometimes resort to taking one of her bears away when she is getting out of bed frequently at night. Again, I would calmly tell her ahead of time what was going to happen. She could then decide what she was going to do.

I wouldn't take her bear away if she had a legit reason to get out of bed. I didn't want her to be afraid of coming to me if she needed me.

I find that Rosemond's advice is often refrehsing and sometimes something I could never do as a parent. I've never read any suggestions from him that were harmful to a child - only harmful to ego-centric thinking that most children try to pursue. I've only followed his advice a few times - but I've found his insight to be helpful that my job is to prepare my children to be independent, healthy adults - not just cute & precocious.

I would not listen to him if he were the last "expert" on earth!

Becka+Chris= Nick 8 Michele 5 Wyatt 18 months
www.learnandgrowtogether.com

Yes - lilybug - you're right. Should have made that clearer. Rosemond was writing about parents who had let him know about what they've done and how they've had success.

At one time, I found Rosemond's approach of injecting a good dose of common sense somewhat appealing. However, his most recent book and several things I've read on his website lead me to the conclusion that his approach has moved far, far beyond some "common sense parenting suggestions" into the realm of parenting by a very, very narrow and strict interpretation of Biblical scripture.

Also, his website features a download of the first 21 pp of a book he has written entitled The Diseasing of America’s Children: Exposing the ADHD Fiasco and Empowering Parents to Take Back Control. While I agree that ADHD is often mis- or over-diagnosed, Rosemond runs the risk of condemning or at least inducing guilt in families who deal with the reality of ADHD, particularly if those families already ascribe to Christianity. It is as dangerous and unethical for a noted psychologist to promote such strict adherence to his approach to parenting, as it is for a noted psychologist to ignore that ADHD is sometimes a misdiagnosis.

As for the examples parents gave him of some "practical" approaches that worked for them which he featured in one of his columns - a lot of parenting strategies work in the short term but have negative long-term effects. He may be allowing parents to justify use of methods which are easier and seemingly effective in the short-term, but ultimately send children the wrong message about themselves and their relationship with their parents.

If parents in the 50's and 60's were doing things so "right," then their own children would not have grown up to seek other ways of parenting. That doesn't mean the parents of the 80's to the present don't have their faults, but to suggest we just go back to another time period that wasn't effective either is ludicrous.

He co wrote the book w/a pediatrician who had come to all of the same conclusions about ADD/ADHD as John did. He never suggests that parents of any particular moment in history did everything right, he simply believes that parenting up until very recently was a bit less "psychological" in nature, thus a little more healthy in many ways. I agree. All I can say about his recommended style of parenting is that I have four girls, and we parent more his style than the more "modern" way, and we have so many less problems in our house than many people have. Not to say my parenting or my kids are perfect, or close to it in any way, just that we spend less time dwelling and hand wringing about the imperfections is the way I'd put it. Kids can survive a fair amount of missteps, if overall they are raised in a loving, caring home, and that's the beauty and the whole point of this attitude. I think that's the point people miss, that it's not about having to do things a certain way, it's about relaxing and not overstressing about every little thing, and taking every little thing with your kids so seriously and personally. I'm always amazed that people don't grasp the freedom and joy that comes with that concept; it's as if they almost think if they're not stressing and over focusing constantly they aren't doing their job which is too bad. So Rosemond's whole point of bringing up "gramma" all the time is that once upon a time, mothers were not consumed with their kids achievements, more in their character and self reliance.

I "grasp the freedom and joy that comes with that [Rosemond's] concept" to the extent that I agree with focusing more on kids' character and the development of the skills of independence. But I take issue with his disdain for all things modern. Just as there are helpful, insightful things about his approach to parenting, there are equally helpful, insightful things to be found in the approaches of others who broach the subject in thoughtful ways.

In one John's essays on his website, I found the following:

"Genesis 2:24 records the moment that God, immediately after creating woman from the rib of man, establishes marriage - the union of a male and a female - as the foundation of the family, the child rearing unit. The meaning of this is as clear as mountain air: God intends for children to be reared by a man and a woman who are committed to one another for life. Period. His holy parenting plan does not include a variety of options. To be very specific - and in so doing, equally politically incorrect - God does not intend for children to be reared by unmarried mothers, unmarried heterosexual couples, grandparents, or homosexual "life partners." The attempt to raise a child in any situation other than a family established by a male and a female who are married in God's eyes is not consistent with His plan for us. Any such deviation, therefore, is not in the best interests of children. [emphasis added] In these politically correct times, that is not the "right" thing to say (because it unsettles people, as it should), but it is the truth, because it's consistent with God's Word." (from http://www.parentingbythebook.com/view/245/5547/Johns-Essays.html )

While I would love for every child to be raised by two loving parents, Rosemond does a huge disservice to the multitudes of families who find themselves in circumstances other than what he claims is "in the best interests of children." And it seems this is the basic premise from which Rosemond operates.

We (society, and particularly anyone who claims to be a parenting guru) must support families in their many manifestations, and until human beings figure out how to be perfect, we will have families who do not fall into his ideal of the one, "true" structure of being headed by husband and wife.

Returning to the subject of another of Rosemond's books, The Diseasing of America's Children, (based on the pages that are downloadable from the site - I haven't read the whole book and refuse to pay money for it) Rosemond and his pediatrician co-author appear to be much too wreckless and unapologetic in their approach to making what I actually think are valid claims that ADHD is mis- and over-diagnosed in children. I actually share their concerns about the tendency to be too quick to medicate, but I acknowledge that there are people who do need and benefit from medication. They could make there case without the arrogance and disdain for the professional community and parents who deal with very difficult situations on a daily basis which are no fault of their own or any lack of parenting skills.

I am disappointed that the good parts of Rosemond's common sense message are being usurped by his recent need to prove himself the ultimate parenting expert by disregarding any other approaches to parenting and ADHD.

Rosemond has actually explained many times that he was in fact raised for many years by a single mother. While I don't see who could argue that's not the ideal, I think he, as well as the rest of us, are well aware that it doesn't always happen that way. I've seen him respond to many, many questions from single parents on his website over the years, and have never found those responses to be anything less than compassionate and supportive.

I think his seemingly "unapologetic" approach to the ADD fiasco is a reaction to being inundated night and day as a psychologist, with the aftermath of the mess. Instead of just looking at one family's difficulty, he sees the big picture of the result of the current mindset, and really wants people to consider alternatives, maybe some that they haven't tried. He has seen firsthand the results of the current mindset, and has lived enough years to have a certain amount of experience and wisdom on the subject. He has researched ADD more than any other subject in his professional career, and was astounded at what he uncovered and wants to share the info. I for one, enjoy reading many different viewpoints on things, just to learn. Personally, I find the info fascinating.

I don't doubt that Rosemond has lots of wisdom on many subjects relative to human behavior. Also, it sounds as if lilybug is much more familiar with his overall body of work than I am, so I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt, to an extent. Perhaps in order to get his point across, he feels he has to go in one extreme direction. I'm just concerned that an average parent, particularly one who is a Christian, could pick up his books or hear him speak and walk away feeling unnecessarily guilty about their parenting, especially if they have a child who is truly experiencing symptoms of ADHD as a result of neurological and biochemical differences. And if Rosemond is willing to go after ADHD with such vehemency, and such emphasis on the lack of conclusive scientific research demonstrating that neuro. and biochemical problems exist, I can't help but wonder if autism might be next on his list of diagnoses to question.

One last thing, then I'll try to let this go...

In his 21 page preview of The Diseasing of America's Children, I see Rosemond finding fault with parenting, the current cultural paradigm, and even with his colleagues. While there may well be some degree of problems with all of these, he leaves out the more significant problem of insurance companies which do not provide coverage sufficient enough to ensure that families can afford a thorough multidisciplinary evaluation. Without such thorough evaluation, a well-meaning pediatrician might come to quick, inaccurate conclusions resulting in medicating, just to give the parents and child some immediate relief, when other, natural and behavioral strategies might be employed and have almost equal benefits.

I am still very suspicious of Rosemond's approach, and urge other parents to consider that not everything he (or any proclaimed parenting expert) recommends is the best for every family.

Yes, I admit that I know him personally, but more importantly am very familiar with his work over the years. I've read every book, though admittedly still working on the latest, most of his columns, and have been a member of his website for years. I'm equally skeptical of most parenting experts, but for some reason have found his work to be the most interesting, honest, and helpful (personally) of the material that I've read. I only met him after being impressed with his work, and of course more so after getting to know him a little bit (by no means am I a close friend, or do I ever claim to speak for him). But before having my own kids, I was a nanny for many years, and worked in various childcare situtations, and had come to many conclusions based on these experiences about how I wanted to raise my kids. And now having my own, his style has been such a natural fit, and I really do credit those philosophies with the fact that I don't find parenting four kids even remotely overwhelming. And I'm NO supermom, believe me. But it can be soooo much easier than people make it, and I think that's what makes him a little nuts, and me too!

I did the same with our son.  I knew that he knew how to go in the potty, he was just being defiant.  I took away most of his toys and he "earned" them back when he used the potty and his pull-ups were dry.  He  failed  only twice (he was testing me to see if I would keep my word), where I took back a toy of my choice and he had to earn it back again.  Well, he learned that I stand by my word and that he really could go in the potty and not have to wear pull-up's anymore.  He was COMPLETELY POTTY TRAINED and in underware full time just BEFORE his 3rd birthday.

It can be done.  It just takes time, consistency and patience.He continues to be in underware and has had no accidents in 8 months time.

What care needs to be taken while pregnancy.