Why Did Supernanny Resort to Drastic Measures?

The mother was desperate, and saying that Jo's technique wasn't going to work with her kids. Jo saw the mother's desperation, realized that it wasn't working, and adapted her methods. She knew that he values his video games, so she used that as the incentive to get him to bed. It worked, without yelling, fighting, tears, stomping, etc., so what's the problem?

ETA: Do you think Joseph watches the show and knows what techniques she uses? Probably not. Not every kid can be handled the same exact way. I have to be much more forceful and creative with my oldest son (with ADHD) than I have to be with my other kids.

I don't see that as drastic in the slightest. It's all about actions and consequences.

The bigger problem, as I see it, is why that child, at his age and the age of his sibilings, is allowed to have a TV, video games, and a computer in his room? In my opinion, that is just asking for trouble.

I didn't hear it (no volume), but it didn't LOOK drastic. Everything seemed calm.

I doubt that--at his age--he would determine that she has never done that before and is, therefore, singling him out.

It's perfectly fair to single him out. And it worked.

Jo used this child's "currency." Usually, with toddlers who won't go to sleep, their currency is attention. Placing them back without speaking is taking away their currency. Well, this boy's currency was his game. So she used that currency.

As a parent, you use what works for that child.

I don't understand why some parents are so afraid to single out their child for doing something inappropriate. Peer pressure is often a helpful tool in the family dynamic. Last week, when my younger son took advantage on my older son's good nature and left him to do all the chores by himself while he played on his iPod, I singled my younger son our by making him do ALL the chores for a week. And he wasn't allowed to play his iPod (but his brother still could). He deserved to be singled out for his lazy, rude behavior.

Different children have different needs. Singling them out is not always a bad thing.

How is taking a game console out of his room a drastic measure? How is that not fair? He isn't owed the use of electronics and he certainly isn't being denied basic comforts.

Why are you asking this? Are you personally invested in this child's life? Do you have something against Supernanny? I am really wondering why this is so important to you.

So taking the video games out of a room were drastic measures?

The third time that boy was out of the room the video games would have been gone.

From what I have seen of the show she has her basic set of rules that work, each child needs one or two rules adjusted here and there, Jo KNOWS this. I do not think that any of her rules are perfect for every household. I do agree that they are a good place to START, again a good place to start but not the only way to do things.

I have seen episodes where Jo brings in other people to help kids when she feels there are needs beyond what she can fulfill like with children who are living with ADHD, are on the spectrum, or have other needs, even Jo knows that her guidlines are just that guidlines and each child has their own needs.

G.:

Welcome to mamapedia!

Why did Jo do it? So she could get the boys attention. The mother had lost all control of the children. They called the shots. Jo knew how much that video system meant to the boy and took it away.

At the point where she had taken it away - it was already THREE (3) hours of putting the kids back to bed. SOMETHING needed to be done. It got his attention. It worked. The next night was less than 2 hours.

I don't know how this is considered "drastic". As my kids do NOT have video games, computers or TVs in their rooms. PERIOD.

So this is a great first question...what is your point? What are you trying to get across? That Jo's process worked?

The background showed that this mother was spending 3-4 hours PER NIGHT getting these 3 kids into bed.
Jo took away a privilege after 2+ hours that night of the show.
The boy seemed to speak the language that Jo was talkin' at that point. Until then, he (the eldest--setting example for 2 younger sisters) he thought it was a game, like it had been for years with his very low authority mom.

Perfectly appropriate. I've seen her take things away from kids in other episodes; why does this stand out to you? It was done calmly and firmly. The boy is clearly old enough to connect the loss of something he wants with his own behavior, so the technique worked.

You're focusing on Jo's own use of the word "drastic" but it's not even a really drastic measure. As for singling him out -- of course you "single out" EVERY child for the discipline and techniques that work for that individual child. He does need to know he's being treated differently -- because he is acting differently: His siblings are going to bed properly and he is not. He needs to know that the situation is not acceptable and he, not all the kids, is the one causing the issue. It is fine to single out a child because each child is an individual, needing individual handling.

G.,

I don't mean to be rude, but are you for real? TWO HOURS of very consistently putting her kids back to bed and one was determined to have none of it.

I usually can't stand this show, but Jo was absolutely right. She found that consistency wasn't working; in this case, she adjusted the consequence to something which was both age-appropriate AND let him know that if he were to continue misbehaving, things would not be 'okay' the next day-- he would be doing without favorite things. Great motivator and shows who is in charge.

When kids are as old as Joseph is, we do not need to be spending the evening dragging them back to bed. My son is nearly six and occasionally has a hard time in the evening-- he wants more attention. When he was three and four we did the 'put him back into bed' things. Now, he just knows-- he loses privileges for not staying quiet in his room. I am not spending a whole evening giving him my attention by being 'on the ready' to put him back into bed. "If I hear you call out, if you are up again and you are not bleeding, throwing up or dying, you will lose your legos (or stay-up time, or tv time) for the next X many days."

Joseph *knew* he was up to nonsense, G.. He knew he was making life hard for his mother. He deserved a very real consequence for this. I don't think 'fair' has anything to do with it, either. She wasn't 'singling him out'-- not all kids respond to the same techniques, and she could plainly see that they could prove a point, the slow way or the fast way. (and how would he think he was 'singled out' -- do you think he is watching the show with any critical thinking? Why would a parent even *let* a child of that age watch a show like this?) This also empowered the mother to know that she did have other appropriate choices and that she could get the kids to bed on her own. THAT was the part we forget-- that this is meant to help the parent adopt a new way of doing something, and this mother needed to feel her efforts were successful. She was already feeling like a failure or she wouldn't have likely chosen to go on a show like this to begin with.

I also agree that it's not healthy for a child of that age to have so much media in their room at their disposal. Media is the LAST thing my son gets to do, and he watches his show in the living room, where I can see/hear it.

G., what would you have done in that exact situation?

Is this for real? AFTER TWO HOURS??!! He was going to get the message when exactly? Parents don't need sleep? He looked about 5 years old and he won't stay in bed??!

I can never even watch that show because no one does anything drastic ever and the kids act like scary maniacs. My kids would have had much more drastic measures much sooner than that which is why they never get out of bed at night. Instead, they love bedtime and get enough sleep.

Did you feel he was harmed by that? Did you think he looked traumatized at all because he finally went to bed? He had a look on his face like, "Oh, wow, someone's doing something for once." There was NOTHING drastic there. I don't even know why he had a video game in his room if he never goes to bed.

I agree with what Jo did and I can see a couple of reasons for changing her tactic. First, even tho the mother was putting the kids back into bed she was doing it in a very passive way. Her posture and movement were not authoritative. Second, some kids need a different approach. Use their "currency." Third when what one does isn't working it makes sense to try something else. Two hours putting them back to bed was not working.

It usually works much quicker than that. The kids weren't slowing down at all and Joseph, the oldest, was the ring leader. He is old enough for the taking away his game was more effective than repetition. We should adapt our actions to fit the child.

That's drastic?

Hate to think what my response would have been!! ha!

because that technique wasn't working. Her drastic measures technique worked quite well.

He wasn't crying or having a fit. He was being a rebellious brat who needed something else done.
What's the big deal?
I would have gone that route a LONG time before she did.
And did you notice...he went straight to bed!
It's not drastic, it's not mean, it's called good parenting.
L.

The fact is, we only have a limited view on this matter so all we can say is just our opinion.

I believe it's because of two reasons. One, the poor little boy had never been taught that his mom was in charge and really, she was ready to chuck the whole business. Mom was caving and the boy sensed it. If you start down that road, things can only get worse.

Two, he was the ring leader and if if you don't have success with him first, you have no hope of training the other two.

I am curious, why ask?

What drastic measures? Are you serious with this?

Also, not all methods work for all children and families. Every situation is different and therefore there are some different approaches and tactics when the typical initial approaches don't work. How is that "singling out" and unfair?

Sometimes the same method that worked for the same child doesn't work all the time. Who knew!

That boy looks to be about the same age as my son and I've only ever 1 time had problems with him staying in bed and that is when he was almost 2yrs old and went from crib to twin bed. My son also doesn't have a computer, video game or a TV in his room either. There was nothing drastic Supper Nanny did to this boy that shouldn't have been done a long time ago. This show is exactly what is wrong with parents now days, no back bone and the kids run the house!!

I was expecting to see her swat his butt before I watched the video!! This boy is also the oldest child and needs to be setting a proper example to his younger sisters. All they were doing was following in his actions by getting out of bed.

S.

I think they should have started with removing the video games, personally.

Because the technique alone was obviously not working on him. So she took more "drastic" measures. He knew they weren't giving up, he just didn't care. He also distracted his two sisters.

With every technique, there is always a goal. Whether it's getting a child to speak more clearly, say hello to guests, eat healthier, or in this case, get the child to bed asleep. They weren't accomplishing their goal with this technique alone, so they tried something else.

That was a totally acceptable consequence, not drastic at all! He is WAY old enough to know better, and old enough to understand the consequence for being willfully disobedient. If you notice, once he stopped, his sisters pretty much stopped. He was the biggest concern being the oldest, and the example to the younger ones. I would have taken those things out much sooner than super nanny did!

I don't see what the complaint is. Based on your question, I was expecting to see Jo go in and scream at the kids, call them names, incorporate corporal punishment, etc. After about 2 hours of putting kids back into bed without consequences for taking bedtime as a joke, I think that was the correct call. The kids were testing their mother, especially the oldest. Younger kids usually take their cue from the older kids. When Joseph's toys were taken away for intentionally and continuously disobeying his mom for almost 2 hours, that was a good call. When children intentionally disobey their parents, it's time for a punishment. Taking his electronic toys for 2 days isn't drastic. I'm much more drastic than that! I'll take my daughter's fun away for weeks and even months.

I think that he was the oldest. It might have been an example for the younger ones, but at that point, I didn't see the little girls walking around anymore. I would have loved to see how they were in the follow-up. Thank you for sharing!

I didn't see the episode nor do I want to but my guess is that the boy would be much more tired out if he would get off video games and then be easier to put to bed. From what others have described, I wouldn't have been even that patient. When I tell a kid to do something they do it or there is a consequence. I don't give second, third, or fourth, chances and it would never take me three hours to get a kid to go to bed.

I've not watched this show before so I wanted to watch the whole clip to get a good feel for it.

By 1:30, I was starting to lose my mind and they are not even my kids. Then at 2:04 when the mom said she'd been going that 'bedtime' thing for over TWO HOURS. Oh hell no.

Then I got to 2:25....I don't think that was the least bit drastic. It should have been done before/instead of all that lead-them-back-to-bed nonsense.

Different kids need different parenting, so I would not expect one method to suit all kids in all families. The only thing the nanny did 'wrong' is not figuring that out before two hours went by.

I spent 10 hours trying to enforce the naughty spot with my 4 year old.
http://www.mamapedia.com/questions/5553994990985871361
Then she wasted Jo's stay in bed technique (the one in the video). I to away her toy, got down to her level, made eye contact, spoke to her sternly telling her if she didn't stay in the naughty spot she will have all her toys, TV and computer privileges taken away. That didn't work. We used the One Strike and You're out Technique and that didn't work either. All the mothers suggested I read parenting books and take parenting classes, and no Supernanny.

normally she removes the electronic items from the room IMMEDIATELY, I wonder why she left them in at all
These kids weren't even letting mom get out of the room. Maybe cause there were 3 of them and the oldest one was the ringleader, it had been two hours and NO improvement, and he was basically acting out for the camera too (making faces for it).
I think cause there were 3 of them she couldn't do the method of staying in the room and gradually moving further and further out.
Personally I would have just taken out all the stuff from their room, turned the doorknob around so i could lock them in, removed the lights and said goodnight and shut them in till morning. Putting on headphones so I didn't hear any screaming.