• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

teenager problem

I apologize if I said anything to offend anyone. I was merely pointing out my views if I were in your shoes, not to lecture at all. Thats what I do, I just kind of throw my opinions out there and dont really think as to how some people mighht take to them. I apologize.
 
So let me see if I understand. You didn't trust your kids enough to try and make decissions in the way you raised them, so you decided to snoop inside their phones. You found some inappropriate images on an account intentionally set up to not be something you would easily find. Since you are not saying hwat the pics where, I'm guessingit si typical teenage pushing the boundaries of their freedoms type of stuff. Rather than talking to your children (and perhaps having to admit to them that you don't trust them and have been snooping in what they consider to be a private space), you've come to an anonymous forum to seek the advice of strangers?

It sounds to me like the real issue is one of trust and openness. You have to trust your kids to do the right thing and trust them to fall and make mistakes, and be strong enough to get back up. If you've been snooping and are concerned that they will loose trust in you for doing so, then perhaps you might want to address the issue as though it were theoretical. delete all the inappropriate stuff in the phones (including the account), and leave it at that. Teenagers will do stupid stuff, but at some point you have to give them the freedom to do it, learn, and come out at the other end as responsible adults.

Of course you can always just increase their responsibilities and performance standard in exchange for increased freedoms.

I totally disagree with your parenting advice. As a parent it is your responsibility to monitor your children. This includes monitoring their cell phone use, and monitoring their internet use. As a parent your job is to protect your children from themselves and others.

Children and teens lie, no matter how strongly you believe your child is an angel.

If more parents were proactive and took an active role in their childrens life, then children wouldn't be the brats that they are today. Do you ever visit YouTube and read the comments people leave? Most of those comments are vulgar, cruel, evil and some even verge on harassment. Most of those comments come from children and teens who have free reign and free access to the internet, because their parents are too busy trusting that they are behaving online.

I SAY BRAVO TO THE OP, GREAT PARENT, KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK. YOU aren't your child's best friend, you are their parent. You are here to guide them, keep them safe from themselves and others. Your job is to make sure they develop into adults with good morals and ethics, and become productive members of society. As long as they are living under your roof, you have every right to monitor every area of their life, and guide them to the right path when they veer off course.


I only have 1 question for the OP, how old is your child? If your child is young, I personally believe they shouldn't even have a cell phone. They should only have a phone that makes 911 calls, and any free old phone does that. I see kids walking to middle school and elementry school talking on a cell phone, WTF? Horrible horrible parenting in my opinion. No child should have a cell phone with a voice or data plan, only one that makes emergency calls.
 
I totally disagree with your parenting advice. As a parent it is your responsibility to monitor your children. This includes monitoring their cell phone use, and monitoring their internet use. As a parent your job is to protect your children from themselves and others.

Children and teens lie, no matter how strongly you believe your child is an angel.

If more parents were proactive and took an active role in their childrens life, then children wouldn't be the brats that they are today. Do you ever visit YouTube and read the comments people leave? Most of those comments are vulgar, cruel, evil and some even verge on harassment. Most of those comments come from children and teens who have free reign and free access to the internet, because their parents are too busy trusting that they are behaving online.

I SAY BRAVO TO THE OP, GREAT PARENT, KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK. YOU aren't your child's best friend, you are their parent. You are here to guide them, keep them safe from themselves and others. Your job is to make sure they develop into adults with good morals and ethics, and become productive members of society. As long as they are living under your roof, you have every right to monitor every area of their life, and guide them to the right path when they veer off course.


I only have 1 question for the OP, how old is your child? If your child is young, I personally believe they shouldn't even have a cell phone. They should only have a phone that makes 911 calls, and any free old phone does that. I see kids walking to middle school and elementry school talking on a cell phone, WTF? Horrible horrible parenting in my opinion. No child should have a cell phone with a voice or data plan, only one that makes emergency calls.
Again, I respectfully disagree. Even if they get all the hugging and attention and monitoring in the world, that is not going to change one bit if the child will be an angel or not. Take Dylan Klebold for example. He was closely monitored and under strict rules and regulations, although him, along with his buddy, Eric shot up a highschool in 1999. That was columbine. Im not saying that if you monitor your kids, they are going to be school shooters, what im saying is that even the best monitoring in the world will not make a bad kid good. In fact constant monitoring and/sheltering I believe has the opposite effect. Tell a kid to not smoke pot or cut him off from his friends that do and what's he going to do? More than likely smoke pot. It makes it that much more exciting and dangerous. I still stand by the fact that monitoring within reason is a good outlook, but when someone says "your not your kid's friend", it bothers me. Yes you should not be easy going and let them get away with anything like a friend, but you should also NOT force them away from you and rebel that much more. just my 2 cents. Again I dont have a kid but im fresh out of my teenage years and ive picked up on a few things.

And please, I am not implying anyone's kid is "bad".
 
I think it all boils down to actions and consequences. If the OP been telling his/her kids that those kind of behavior is not acceptable in his/her family then there should be consequences. I know the OP has good intent about coming here and asking advice but I think you (OP) should deal with your kids your way. Ask your parents how they dealt with you when you broke the rules.

Im a parent I deal with my kids my way. I have friends who have kids and their kids are out of control (their kids are 5 and 7) and they deal with them their way. They always make fun of me because i dont give sweet to my kids or soda (they are 3 yrs old) etc. But i see how their kids are so I DONT take advice from them because obviously they dont know how to parent. I also have friends whos kids are great. I ask them question so I'll be prepared when they reach those ages.

Parenting hard i see now. Having kids doesnt make you a parent automatic (yes you get the title) but it takes hard work. Like getting a girl pregnant doesnt make you a father until you accept the responsibilities until then youre just a sperm donor.

So I say: Deal with your kids by the rules you set already. Get advice from parents that are raising kids the way you want to raise yours.

To all of the poster that criticized the OP about his/her rules: Rules and boundaries are there not to limit the kids from doing things. Its there to protect them from harms that may come from doing those things. The old adage of "eh kids will be kids. let them do it and if they survive then congrats them and welcome them to adulthood" is like going to a mine field (life) and if ur lucky to make it out then praise god. Wouldnt it be better to go through that mine field with a guide/ road map? that way you increase your chances of NOT getting killed?
 
It's funny how just 10 years ago we never had to worry about cell phones, or sexting and anything to go along with it. I can't imagine in the next 10 or so what it will be like. Kids will find trouble it's how it is, just make sure it doesn't get out of hand.

yes..
and giving the new front facing camera.. and conferencing ....

so much trouble is around the corner!

ps.. I agree .. parents have the right and obligation to do a little checking up .. making sure their kids are safe!
 
I have a soon to be step son and will, more than likely, have another child in the future. You better believe that I will make sure that they are acting appropiately. If I have to tear through their phones, computers, physically writen letters, whatever I feel the need to monitor to ensure they don't do anything stupid that will hurt them later.
 
I agree with the op about monitoring ones kids. I also see what redraptor is saying. Yes, one should monitor ones kids closely but at the same time, there should be trust and openness. I think here the key to how to approach risky behavior with kids is communication.

I did not understand it then when I was a teen why my parents where in my business, but later when I became an adult, I was very thankful for their caring enough to protect me.

I guess what I am also saying is that each parent has their own way of parenting, and unless one has not walked in that parents particular shoes, no judging should be made.

Just my 2 cents. :)
 
Again, I respectfully disagree. Even if they get all the hugging and attention and monitoring in the world, that is not going to change one bit if the child will be an angel or not. Take Dylan Klebold for example. He was closely monitored and under strict rules and regulations, although him, along with his buddy, Eric shot up a highschool in 1999. That was columbine. Im not saying that if you monitor your kids, they are going to be school shooters, what im saying is that even the best monitoring in the world will not make a bad kid good. In fact constant monitoring and/sheltering I believe has the opposite effect. Tell a kid to not smoke pot or cut him off from his friends that do and what's he going to do? More than likely smoke pot. It makes it that much more exciting and dangerous. I still stand by the fact that monitoring within reason is a good outlook, but when someone says "your not your kid's friend", it bothers me. Yes you should not be easy going and let them get away with anything like a friend, but you should also NOT force them away from you and rebel that much more. just my 2 cents. Again I dont have a kid but im fresh out of my teenage years and ive picked up on a few things.

And please, I am not implying anyone's kid is "bad".

negative on the Columbine reference.... his parents didn't ever go in his room, which housed MANY clues that the shooting was going to take place, including where they stored the guns.

Neither one of those kids were monitored in their internet activities which is where they planned this stuff.

If anything, the COLUMBINE example is justification for parents monitoring their children

Columbine High School massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

actually, it seems it was Harris that was unmonitored. but my point remains valid.

but even arguing that strict parents of Kliebold didn't matter, still does not mean you can just take a lassiez-fairre approach to parenting. Sometimes you do everything right, and they still mess up. Pesky thing that free will and all. But even arguing your side does not mean I say "well, I'm damned if I do, damned if I don't, so I might as well let them"

I'd rather be damned if I do, than damned if I don't.
 
Columbine High School massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

actually, it seems it was Harris that was unmonitored. but my point remains valid.

but even arguing that strict parents of Kliebold didn't matter, still does not mean you can just take a lassiez-fairre approach to parenting. Sometimes you do everything right, and they still mess up. Pesky thing that free will and all. But even arguing your side does not mean I say "well, I'm damned if I do, damned if I don't, so I might as well let them"

I'd rather be damned if I do, than damned if I don't.
The point is pretty null tho. One was monitored the other was not.. Many loosely monitored kids turn out just fine, many are problems and vice versa.

There is no RIGHT way to raise a child.. they are all different..
 
Ok guys let me throw a few things out here.

First, I noticed someone comment "I don't have kids so maybe I'm not the best person to comment on this" and well.. I HATE this mentality. All my life growing up my parents told me "you don't understand you don't have kids" and I can't say how many times I have heard other people say "you just don't know what its like having kids"

To me.. the excuse that someone else doesn't have kids is nothing more than a parents attempt to justify poor parenting. Now.. if the parent were to say, "you are unaware of all the factors of this situation, thus you are unable to make an informed judgment" that would be different. The truth of the matter is in most conflicts, a third party is usually used to negotiate. In this case who better than someone who doesn't have kids and can look across both lines?

I am not saying that a 3rd party making random judgments is always best. I most certainly don't look down on people who will even publicly whip their children if the child starts acting up, and I don't make instantaneous judgment over anyone.. However, the truth of the matter is speaking from first hand experience as one of three children. Parents are usually wrong. Hell i can cite more examples growing up of my parents not having any idea what the **** they are talking about.

Does this mean all parents are like this? no not at all. Does this mean all children have the same view of things as I did? no not at all. Me and my brothers would constantly fight. Why? well.. our parents sucked at parenting. My mom knew I would sit there and complain to her until I got my way.. meaning the one who would (the youngest) always got whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted it. Didn't matter if it wasn't his or his turn.

The point I'm trying to illustrate with that? when your a parent.. you really are self serving.. you don't care about the details, all you care about is either A. being able to maintain control of your kid or B. at least coming to some point of "equilibrium" for yourself so that your not in a world of constant chaos.

There is a fine line between "controlling" and "caring". I would like to applaud the user who mentioned having one child who she doesn't snoop around on, and trust and having another child she has to check on constantly. Why? this means as a parent she did more than tell her kids to "stop fighting" if there is a problem. It also means she does in fact trust her kids as far as they let her trust them.

However, this is an issue which I suppose I must comment on. For all the things I dislike my parents for. Telling us to "come talk to us and don't just hit your brother!" then as soon as we do yelling "WHY CAN'T YOU EVER SOLVE ANYTHING ON YOUR ON?"... I received my first cell phone many years ago before they came with camra's and all the bells and whistles. However, my parents have *always* felt that if you were not responsible enough for something, then you do not need whatever it is you have.

If my parents didn't trust me to not speed in my car, they wouldn't put a limiter in my car, they would drop my insurance! If they didn't trust me with a phone, they would take my sim chip and cancel my line.

I am not a parent, I do not instantly take the "childrens' side nor do i take the "parents" side on this. All I want to say on this is I am tired of people immediately siding with "parents know whats best" is the social norm. It is not true and is really justification for a lot of stupid crap.

I would be horrified if I had a daughter and nude's of her went viral..

I imagine I would probably feel like total failure as a parent however, I think I would associate the failure with my daughter sending nude pictures of herself in the first place and having her not understand why its a horrible idea and should not be done not in my failure to physically stop her from sending the pictures.
 
The point is pretty null tho. One was monitored the other was not.. Many loosely monitored kids turn out just fine, many are problems and vice versa.

There is no RIGHT way to raise a child.. they are all different..

it does make a difference when parents of the injured/dead kids sue the parents of the kid who shot them (one was 17 still) for wrongful death, etc. You, as a parent, are held liable if your minor child does something negligent and you could have stopped it.
 
it does make a difference when parents of the injured/dead kids sue the parents of the kid who shot them (one was 17 still) for wrongful death, etc. You, as a parent, are held liable if your minor child does something negligent and you could have stopped it.

That is a bit of a different discussion tho. I feel that is just taking advantage of a bad situation. The greatest parents in the world could get sued and lose, because their son/daughter has a bad day, gets drunk and kills someone behind the wheel.
 
if you have an employee, who you are responsible for, who, if they screw up, you can lose your business, your money for his negligence, nobody complains about checking up on them.

Why is it such a bad thing to check up on kids...

Keeping tabs, checking up on, snooping, whatever you want to call it, you're right, will never eliminate things 100%.... there's that free will thing again, but it will reduce the chance something bad will happen.
 
Ok guys let me throw a few things out here.

First, I noticed someone comment "I don't have kids so maybe I'm not the best person to comment on this" and well.. I HATE this mentality. All my life growing up my parents told me "you don't understand you don't have kids" and I can't say how many times I have heard other people say "you just don't know what its like having kids"

I'm sorry, but until you've raised children, you haven't learned a lot of lessons that parents learn via mistakes.

We all makes lots of mistakes with our kids, and learn from them (hopefully). Until you have made your share of mistakes, and TRULY understand kids and parenting, then you are running on theory.

Theory just doesn't cut in when it comes to parenting.

To me.. the excuse that someone else doesn't have kids is nothing more than a parents attempt to justify poor parenting. Now.. if the parent were to say, "you are unaware of all the factors of this situation, thus you are unable to make an informed judgment" that would be different. The truth of the matter is in most conflicts, a third party is usually used to negotiate. In this case who better than someone who doesn't have kids and can look across both lines?

Because you have so much to learn when it comes to kids.

It's like having an undergraduate student mediate between a PhD physicist and a High School physics student.

You just don't know enough to get involved.

I am not saying that a 3rd party making random judgments is always best. I most certainly don't look down on people who will even publicly whip their children if the child starts acting up, and I don't make instantaneous judgment over anyone.. However, the truth of the matter is speaking from first hand experience as one of three children. Parents are usually wrong. Hell i can cite more examples growing up of my parents not having any idea what the **** they are talking about.

Every child thinks that parents are usually wrong. Every parent thought that when they were a child. It's often not until we've raised a child of our own that we understand WHY our parents made a lot of the decisions that they did.

The point I'm trying to illustrate with that? when your a parent.. you really are self serving.. you don't care about the details, all you care about is either A. being able to maintain control of your kid or B. at least coming to some point of "equilibrium" for yourself so that your not in a world of constant chaos.

See. Here is a great example of what you need to learn as a parent.

Parenting is far from self-serving. Self-serving would be to let my daughter fail spelling.

It wouldn't be to have arguments where I'm forcing her to study using a new method that might help her do better on her tests.


There is a fine line between "controlling" and "caring". I would like to applaud the user who mentioned having one child who she doesn't snoop around on, and trust and having another child she has to check on constantly. Why? this means as a parent she did more than tell her kids to "stop fighting" if there is a problem. It also means she does in fact trust her kids as far as they let her trust them.

Again, here is where you have so much more to learn. Sometimes there is a fine line between controlling and caring. Sometimes they are the exact same thing. It all depends on the child.

However, this is an issue which I suppose I must comment on. For all the things I dislike my parents for. Telling us to "come talk to us and don't just hit your brother!" then as soon as we do yelling "WHY CAN'T YOU EVER SOLVE ANYTHING ON YOUR ON?"... I received my first cell phone many years ago before they came with camra's and all the bells and whistles. However, my parents have *always* felt that if you were not responsible enough for something, then you do not need whatever it is you have.

I find it amusing how you tell us that your parents were almost always wrong, and then use their thinking as part of yours.

Aside from that, you don't always get the luxury of taking things away from your child because they are likely to do something stupid with it.

If my parents didn't trust me to not speed in my car, they wouldn't put a limiter in my car, they would drop my insurance! If they didn't trust me with a phone, they would take my sim chip and cancel my line.

Drop your insurance? Take your car.

I am not a parent, I do not instantly take the "childrens' side nor do i take the "parents" side on this. All I want to say on this is I am tired of people immediately siding with "parents know whats best" is the social norm. It is not true and is really justification for a lot of stupid crap.

Spoken like a child.

I would be horrified if I had a daughter and nude's of her went viral..

I imagine I would probably feel like total failure as a parent however, I think I would associate the failure with my daughter sending nude pictures of herself in the first place and having her not understand why its a horrible idea and should not be done not in my failure to physically stop her from sending the pictures.

Then you don't understand that number one thing that EVERY parent MUST understand about children:

They will screw up in ever more inventive ways. They will screw up in ways that you never thought of. Why? Because they don't tend to think before they act.

As a parent you are continually striving to get one step ahead of their immaturity. Your child WILL screw up. That's just a law of parenting.
 
if you have an employee, who you are responsible for, who, if they screw up, you can lose your business, your money for his negligence, nobody complains about checking up on them.

Why is it such a bad thing to check up on kids...

Keeping tabs, checking up on, snooping, whatever you want to call it, you're right, will never eliminate things 100%.... there's that free will thing again, but it will reduce the chance something bad will happen.
A business is different, you evaluate and pick who works for you and your personal finance is not endangered anyways with a business, just the business. And to a certian degree it is the same also, some businesses micromanage the crap out of their employees, others hire people they know will preform with minimal supervision.

I never said it was bad to check up on kids either.. I was just saying trying to use an extreme example is null because both ways work, and you will find examples of it working both ways; minimal monitoring and tight monitoring. What confuses me is, that very few people are seemingly considering that EVERY child is different and yes your methods may work for one, but can go terribly wrong with another kid.

But "more monitering = less chance something bad will occur" is not always true was my main point.
 
negative on the Columbine reference.... his parents didn't ever go in his room, which housed MANY clues that the shooting was going to take place, including where they stored the guns.

Neither one of those kids were monitored in their internet activities which is where they planned this stuff.

If anything, the COLUMBINE example is justification for parents monitoring their children

Columbine High School massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

actually, it seems it was Harris that was unmonitored. but my point remains valid.

but even arguing that strict parents of Kliebold didn't matter, still does not mean you can just take a lassiez-fairre approach to parenting. Sometimes you do everything right, and they still mess up. Pesky thing that free will and all. But even arguing your side does not mean I say "well, I'm damned if I do, damned if I don't, so I might as well let them"

I'd rather be damned if I do, than damned if I don't.
I never said take a "lassiez-fairre" approach. As I recall, I said that monitoring a VERY important thing. But going behind the child's back and checking on them 100% of the time can be JUST as dangerous as not monitoring them at all. And yes Klebold was not monitored at first, then he ran into trouble with the police over stupid teenager things (stealing a few things, fireworks, breaking a car window). After that his parents made sure he was closely checked in on, including taking part in a special program that keeps him out of jail and must report to a guidance officer during certain activities. That coupled with constant parent monitoring and he was still able to slaughter 14 (I believe) students. And it was all a "surprise". My point is, even with VERY strict monitoring, a bad kid will remain bad.

And that by no means means that I suggest parents do NOTHING and just let their kids run rampant. In fact I believe more parents should take MORE action with certain things. But at the same time you should not "abuse" that system and possibly drive a child to extremes. Weather that be 100% monitoring or no monitoring.

Im also curious to if any of you have read "Columbine". It is an INCREDIBLE account of what happened as well as a closer look at all the victims and killers. MUCH better than a wiki page...no offense :D
 
Let's just put it this way, if you don't keep your eyes on your kids the next thing you know they'll grow up to have banana avatars and post on forums during late hours of the night.

In all seriousness, depending on the age of your kids I don't blame you at all for keeping an eye on their phone activities. I don't have any children but I'd probably do the same thing. I'm 21 and know very well what kind of shenanigans I got myself into during my high school years.
 
I never said take a "lassiez-fairre" approach. As I recall, I said that monitoring a VERY important thing. But going behind the child's back and checking on them 100% of the time can be JUST as dangerous as not monitoring them at all. And yes Klebold was not monitored at first, then he ran into trouble with the police over stupid teenager things (stealing a few things, fireworks, breaking a car window). After that his parents made sure he was closely checked in on, including taking part in a special program that keeps him out of jail and must report to a guidance officer during certain activities. That coupled with constant parent monitoring and he was still able to slaughter 14 (I believe) students. And it was all a "surprise". My point is, even with VERY strict monitoring, a bad kid will remain bad.

And that by no means means that I suggest parents do NOTHING and just let their kids run rampant. In fact I believe more parents should take MORE action with certain things. But at the same time you should not "abuse" that system and possibly drive a child to extremes. Weather that be 100% monitoring or no monitoring.

Im also curious to if any of you have read "Columbine". It is an INCREDIBLE account of what happened as well as a closer look at all the victims and killers. MUCH better than a wiki page...no offense :D

I know, I hate wiki.... but it's the only site I have access to at work. GARBAGE.....

but here is our confusing point I think.... checking through phone logs isn't chekcing up on 100% of the time.... I'm not suggesting a sign in sheet, or a detailed agenda followed to a tee being notarized by the places you went. But a phone, a bedroom, a backpack are NOT "private property" for the kids from parents. To me, those are all privaledges I choose to GIVE my kid... not rights. He can carry his books to school, he could share his room with his brother and I can make the first room an office (I pay the mortgage after all) and he can have a non-texting/pictures phone until he earns my trust back
 
It's all simple set theory, really.

There are:

Good kids with good parents;
Good kids with bad parents;
Bad kids with good parents;
Bad kids with bad parents;
... and every conceivable variation thereof.

Here's my take on it. If, as a parent, you feel intrusion into your child's personal affairs is necessary and you don't do it, you are a bad parent. On the other hand, if you feel that sort of monitoring isn't necessary and you DO do it, again, I'd say you were a bad parent. Of course right, wrong ... fair, unfair ... legal, illegal ... moral, immoral ... can be conflicting concepts in cases like these. All any of us can do is make our best choice, act (or don't act) on it and then live with the consequences.

Just remember the first law of parenting:

Kid's don't come with owner's manuals, parents don't get certified before being permitted to procreate, and free advice on the internet is worth everything you pay for it.
 
Kid's don't come with owner's manuals, parents don't get certified before being permitted to procreate.

You know what...we should bring chastity belts back!!! Have your teen daughters wear one until they are of age (18) or moved out...reduce teen pregnency!!!
 
u-mad1.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom