I can see why she might not respect authority.

....ya .... that will do it!

She must have immediately reformed! LOL

..... a bristol board and permanent marker stoning........

There must be much more to this story ......... on both sides......

Regards

Rita

I've read about similar cases. I don't think the concept of forcing reform via humiliation actually works.  It seems like the desperate, futile measure of parents who have let things spiral out of control to the point where they have no clue how to recover. And that their daughter probably really doesn't respect them.

I hope that some of the teachers, neighbours, parents of schoolmates, and guidance counsellors are able to give this child the love, affirmation, understanding, and encouragement that her parents seem unable to provide. 

i expect the parents feel vindicated as they would clam to have tried everything

in my humble opinion they are the path to losing this child

as seeler rghtly says above hopefuly others can affirm some love for this girl

That was a lousy Christian counselor. He or she forgot about the stoning part.

In all seriousness, it's a tragic story. There is no easy answer to family problems like these, but I'm pretty sure attacking a teen's self-esteem isn't going to be the answer.

The girl is 13. The parents belong to some twisted faith and it is they, their religion and their society (a policemen allowed this to continue) that is the problem, not the child. 

The child is being used as a scapegoat, and is being harmed by her parents for doing what is likely no more than a normal/common stage of  development. By treating her like this  they are damaging her ability to develop into a full human being.  The method and the reasons she  is being punished will only serve the needs of those who will abuse the girl in the future.And teach her to abuse others in the future.

 see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strip_search_prank_call_scam

to understand how teaching children not to question authority/adults leads to rape in the US.

I have to wonder what led this teenager to have "no respect for authority" and to just not care.  Honestly, I'd rebel if I had parents who humiliated me, and I've never been all that rebellious.  I'd just feel like they didn't understand me, so there would be no point in talking to them or letting them know what was going on, and I'd probably actively try to care less rather than changing my behaviour.  

Hi All,

Oddly we seem to be okay with turnabout as fair play.

Shaming the child is, in our collective opinion, horrid parenting.

And yet

Shaming the parents is, apparently, responsible citizenship.

With the splinters in our eyes showing so prominantly I'm sure we are experts at removing them right?

If we don't agree with public shaming then surely this article and not just the contents of, is something we should be rejecting.  Or, is social shaming justifiable if it brings about the results we want?

And if Parents upping their parenting to socially acceptable norms (as if we have named any in this thread) is worthy of public shaming then why would disrespect for authority and failing to live up to socially acceptable academic norms be off limits?

I mean, clearly by voicing our collective disgust we have decided that these parents have no respect for our collective authority as the society which surrounds them.  How many D's is that on a parental report card?

For the record I am not a fan of public shaming, unless somebody has made a public spectacle of themselves.  You want to be Mayor of the Country's largest city and act like a buffoon well then . . . .your public awaits.

And just off the top of my head I can think of several things a 13 year old girl could get up to where a public apology might be called for.  Mind you, a public apology isn't the same as public shaming.  Though I would imagine it could be embarrassing.

Grace and peace toyou.

John

seems there are two levels of social shaming the first being the intent of the parents to teach their daughter a lesson, the second being societies rejection of that method

i distinguish between the two in that the former was their choice, they may claim it to have been a last resort, but i think not - the latter is a result of their choice - are you suggesting revjohn that we in being critical of their choice we are judging them and shaming them as a result of our disapproval

i think for us to be choose to say nothing is a bad a lesson as their initial error i think society needs t be able to comment critically

I would really like to know more about this story....

What is the history leading up to this.

Where did the parents get this idea from.

What was tried before this.

What about the levels of exasperation that lead up to this.

I would really be interested in more about the family dynamics in all of this.

On a personal note ....... being real here ......

We had taken in a grandson (16) who was going through immense problems at home.

The father was exasperated and there was huge escalating disconnect.

We tried ... we really did .... and it was to no avail....

We had to abruptly kick him out on the street....

Yes ..... we had to ....... imagine that ......

So ... before I judge I look at my own experience.....

I feel for this entire family.....

Rita

Hi mark1129

I am suggesting that there is a direct line between their behaviour and ours.

Not being privy to what goes on in the Nickell household I am not privy to what methods they have tried previously, how effective those strategies are typically considered or even whether or not they used those strategies properly.

I would be surprised if anyone commenting on the thread had that information.

Which means that our opinion is, at the very least, uninformed.

In that regard we are judging them and shaming them as a result of our disapproval.

Which would be fair if society had been present to evaluate everything that the family had been doing up to that point. and it appears that society wasn't otherwise our collective wisdom and ability would have taught more effectively the lesson we believe needed to be taught.

And yet, while there is considerable criticism of this last straw there has been absolutely no constructive advice offered to the parents on what could have been done better.

If one wants to look at it objectively then perhaps the fact that the parents, turning to public shaming as a last resort have provided a more superior example than we have who resorted to public shaming as our first step.

And what do we teach by resorting to public shaming so quickly and easily  if it isn't that public shaming is acceptable?

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi RitaTG,

This would have made a great first response.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I do not know a single parent that does not have something they say "I wish I could take that back". This may be theirs. But, what is ours?

Parents can get advice, by religious or non-religious counselors or doctors, that they follow.

My mom used to hang my sheets for the neighbours to see, because I peed the bed. It happened to many a bedwetter, because someone said it would help. The child would stop if they were ashamed. The parents who were at their wits end or worried something might be wrong, were told their child did it because they were lazy. Parents listened. They did not know what else to do.

Yes indeed RevJohn ... yes indeed.......

I am trying hard to get it right.....

Please keep reminding me

Hugs

Rita

points well made and taken thankyou

Hi RitaTG

You aren't doing badly.

Better late remembering than never remembering at all.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi mark1129

You are welcome.

Grace and peace to you.

John

wait a sec. Where in the article did you  read that the intent of the article was to shame, or punish the parents?

It is very clear that the intent of the parents was to shame and punish the 13 year old.  While many may feel the parents should be ashamed, that is not the stated intent of the article. In fact as far as you know the parents could be very proud of their behaviour, and have a clipping of the article that they show off to family and friends.  it is often the case iof abusers that they are proud of their abusive activities and brag about it.

Hi Alex,

Where in the thread have I laid the blame for shaming the parents on the article?

Which is relevant to the parents how?

Grace and peace to you.

John

I must have misunderstood your intent when you said

"And yet Shaming the parents is, apparently, responsible citizenship.

 

With the splinters in our eyes showing so prominantly I'm sure we are experts at removing them right?

 

If we don't agree with public shaming then surely this article and not just the contents of, is something we should be rejecting.  Or, is social shaming justifiable if it brings about the results we want?"

 

 Were you saying that the posters on WC were shaming the parents? I do not understand how it is possible for people to be shamed by the opinions of people they do not know,  whose opinions they will not see. As such I believe that the intent of my post (and likely others)  was not to shame anyone, but to judge/comment/discern the behaviour/event. (public shaming of children)

Or where you saying something else. 

As for the paper publishing this story, it becomes a public interest story, becasue the punishment is by definition public. Is it not?

Alex,

I am saying that we on WonderCafe.ca have joined with the rest of the public in shaming the parents.

And yet those people are forming opinions based largely on what they do not know.

If the parents cannot be shamed by the public's response then how, pray tell, can the daughter be shamed by standing out in public with a sign listing a few short-comings?

It is well within your right to believe that Alex.  Your belief doesn't make your behaviour in judging/commenting/discerning the behaviour of the parents whom I presume you do not know better or even more accurate than the judgement/comment/discernment of the parents who probably know their daughter quite well.

You also saw fit to draw analogies between the behaviour of these parents and the behaviour of abusers.  No intentional nudge, nudge, wink, wink there right?  Purely accidental connection right?  Who in their right mind would think that you were accusing the parents of being abusers?

The punishment is by definition public.  I expect that there is more to publishing the story than the fact it happened in public.  And yet, without the report would you or I have know that the event happened to be able to comment on it?  Speaking for myself I was ignorant of the story until it appeared here at WonderCafe.ca.  Which is a public forum commenting on an article which is in the public domain about an event that happened publicly.

How is our response in a public forum not public Alex?

Grace and peace to you.

John

I still do not understand how you can see what we know the parents did to their 13 years, as being the equilivant as what we do when we make comments on the news story/

We form opinions all the time and write about published stories.  This story is no more  limited in what they tell, or do not tell than any others.  So how is this different than commenting on other press stories about people behaviours.(politicians, demonstrators, and others who involve the  public)

To the 13 year old's parents are inviting derision from adults and other children that know her or live in her community. This will surely continue after the public shaming.  No one on WC knows the parents, and I feel fairly certain the parents do not read WC

What we do know is that the parents say the idea came from a "Christian Counsellor"  The parents by claiming  behaviour is Christian and therapeutic , means other Christians are in my opinion duty bound to speak out.

Just as when other Christian declare that certain activities are moral based on being Christian. (ie violence , sexism, homophobia) it is our duty to say that we see a different side, and reject the idea that their behaviour is Christian. Otherwise they alone get to define Christianity in the eyes of others.

 I was drawing an anology between these parents and other abusers.  I should have been more intentional in stating my believ that the parents are abusers, emotional and mental abusers.  This I base on what they admit there intention was, and how they treat their 13 year old.

I am sorry that you did not see/understand  that my intention was to call the parents abusers/

If they did this in Ottawa, I along with many others would have called the police.

Hi Alex,

The news story (and please Yahoo is about as much "News" as Fox is "News") at best, gives us a snapshot of life for the Nickells.  The snapshot is not a pretty one.  Is it a normative one?

You do not know that any more than I know that.

What do I know about the Nickell Parents and their relationship to their daughter?  Only what is reported through the story.  They claim that they love her and they claim that they have exhausted their parental tool box in dealing with certain behaviours.  This was apparently the last tool that they had left.  So they used it.

What do I know about WonderCafe.ca and its relationship to the Nickell family?  Only what has been shared here at WonderCafe.ca.  And that is there is none.  We will appeal to the amphorous creation of "society" as if WonderCafe.ca is a) representative of every society everywhere and b) a couple in Florida answers to any of us here on WonderCafe.ca.

Do we love them?  Nobody has claimed to.

Do we know them?  Nobody has claimed to.

Will we help them?  Nobody has offered to.

Will we judge them?  Of course we will, it is our right and duty not only to judge them but to accuse them of criminal action and intent.

To true.  We form opinions all the time.  Whether we have enough facts or no.  We form opinions based on our emotional responses and our rational responses, sometimes more of one and none of the other.

That doesn't justify our doing to this family what we are upset with them for doing to their daughter.  Which I am not defending as excellent parenting.  I am simply pointing out that our emotional response which drives our response is probably no different than the emotional responses which drove theirs.

It is no different.  It is just more hypocritical given the content and context of the story.

New in the Toronto Star this morning is that a drunken Rob Ford was asked to leave a gala event about a month ago.  Is it true?  It could well be.  Rob Ford has several documented public moments of intoxication.  An impaired driving conviction in Florida 1999.  A drunken shouting match at Leafs game where he verbally abused a couple from Durham.  There is not, an allegation of a drunken groping.

Does this prove that Rob Ford has a problem with alcohol?  I'm leaning towards yes.

Does this prove that Rob Ford is a bad mayor or a bad person?  No.  It proves (if true) that he is a man with a significant problem.  A problem which affects many and he should seek help in dealing with that problem.

Do I like Rob Ford?  I do not know him well enough to say that I like him or dislike him. I know myself well enough to say that he isn't somebody I would seek to spend time with.

Now, if I was giving the Mayor of Toronto the gears for being an alcoholic while drunk and disorderly my hypocricy would be obvious.

And so we have this case.

Two parents make a decision.  It isn't one that I would make and it isn't one that I condone.  Had I been present and asked my opinion I would have advised against it.  I wasn't present and my advice wasn't sought.

Police were called.  Police did investigate.  No charges were laid as the investigating officers could discern no harm being done.  Which proves only that no physical harm was being done, I doubt that the attending officers ran a battery of psychiatric tests to determine if any emotional damage was being done.

Now, police officers tend to deal with hundreds of people in as many circumstances a shift and most appear to be pretty good at sniffing out trouble.  Some may be no more than thugs with badges, I have not had the misfortune of meeting those particular officers.

There are consequences that the Nickell family never imagined.  They are smarter now for taking the action they took than they were before they took it.  How much smarter?  That much smarter at the very least.

How much smarter could they be?  Well if anybody bothered to teach them something they would at least be that much smarter.

Which we decry and then continue to participate in.

And yet posts here on WonderCafe.ca pretend to know what the parents are like.

Which is nothing more than a justification to talk about them behind their backs in a public forum.

That's true.  They got the idea nine years ago from an alleged Christian Counsellor.

Now, I will grant that public shaming has a Christian history and I know of individuals who were made to make public apologies to their faith communities for getting pregnant before they were married.  I didn't agree with it and I still don't.  It is the house rules for many congregations in some denominations.

I am suspicious of the "Counsellor's" credentials.  This doesn't sound like effective counselling to me.  The reality is that in many places in North America I could rent and office and advertize that I was a counsellor and I wouldn't need so much as a napkin with some scribbling on it by way of credentials to operate.

So, we can slam both Christians and Counsellors alike for the bad advice.  Which brush should we tar you with Alex?

I disagree with the parents about the behaviour being therapeutic.  Technically I would quibble with the Christian application on the grounds of location.  The city square is not the place.  Various Christian denominations have suggested that the sanctuary is an appropriate place for a public confession, which is notably different than a public shaming if the confession is voluntary and not forced.

When I served a church which had a treasurer misappropriate funds public confession was an option it was not mandated.

The official board finally got an apology.  That individual will never be trusted with money again by that congregation.  The individual has now been restored to fellowship within the congregation.  It was a long haul for everyone.  It was handled well.

Agreed.  Showing that their are different perspectives is our Christian duty.  Hopefully, as we show those different perspectives we can avoid behaving with the same ugliness that we are speaking against.

If only it were that easy.

The Rev. Fred Phelps is somebody I have no sympathy or agreement with.  The Rev. Fred Phelps is probably the poorest example of Christianity known to observers in North America.  It would be, on one level, emotionally satisfying to say that the Rev. Fred Phelps is not a Christian.  Some will go and do that.

It is a no true scotsman style fallacy.  Based on the premise that Christians are essentially good people and there are certain things true Christians wouldn't do.

Nobody should be so naive as to believe that premise.

As much as all Christians might wish that premise to be true there is no way any honest person can look at Christianity in general and say, without hesitation, that the premise is true.

If defining Christianity is the primary concern here then this thread is enough to show that Christians will leap to any number of conclusions based on the scantest of evidence.  We will also offer up any identified Christian we happen to disagree with as a convenient scapegoat to prove how much better our take on Christianity is.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi Alex,

I actually thought that it was very clear that you were.  I was hoping that was a mistake on your part.

If it is, it is one you are happy to make.

The police were called.  The police did investigate.  No charges were laid.

This doesn't prove that they are not abusive any more than the one incident we have seen proves that they are.

Grace and peace to you.

John

My point was that to me public shaming of a child is in itself abusive. Talking about it in another country is not shaming, IMHO, howevr the parents by publicly punishing her are fare game for comment, just as others who go public, like demonstrators, or politicians.

Hopeful some sort of child protection agency will investigate, and discover if this is just a case of bad or ill informed parenting for typical teenage behaviour. However if the child has some sort of disability, (very smart and low grades is often the result of undiagnosed disabilities) they may be able to help. Or perhaps they will discover that the 13 year is being bullied, or has been assaulted, and the parents do not know.  Either way I would hope the childs welfare  is looked into, by people who can help them.

I am also aware of Christans in the US who are fighting the laws protecting children on the basis that these laws are unconstitutional, as it impinges on the parents freedom of religion.  Perhaps if these parents win we will see a lot more public shaming, and other OT punishments.  That would be sad. 

Hi Alex,

To you it is abusive.  Since when did this become about you?

Within reason.  It is fair comment for you to say, "I wouldn't do that."  It is speculation for you to say that her parents are abusers.  

Then you become, frankly, abusive yourself.  Without knowing where this family goes to Church you leap to the conclusion that it is "twisted" whether or not this is common or rare doesn't concern you at all.  Your judgement is all that matters.  You blame the society and the police (police who actually mounted and investigation and were present as opposed to you who simply read the article and worked yourself into a lather).

And now you are defending your right to be irresponsible and saying that it is in no way similar to the atrocious, abusive parenting of the Nickell's.  Are you for real Alex?

You are wilfully being the monster you believe them to be and justifying it.

Now the child has a disability!?

What's the matter Alex?  Aren't the parents monster enough for you?

Nothing over the top about this comment.

Now, not only is this particularly ugly snapshot of an incident in the life of this family the defining moment of who they are you are making it the defining moment of families who have never done it.  As if there is some mythical long line of families who have been dying to embarrass one of their own and the only thing that has held them in check up till now is a complete absence of laws prohibiting them from doing so.

Grace and peace to you.

John

When I am expressing  about my point of view, or my beliefs it is by definition about me. I also believe my point of view is shaped by my experiences, and how I interpert the beliefs and actions of others. So i can never get away from myself.  Unless I am talking about things that are totally objective like math.

I am not making this a incident defining moment. It could be. What I am saying is that they are better ways. 

There are many right ways and many wrong ways to behave, However there are besides personal beliefs, laws that govern how we treat each other and how one can treat one's kids. These laws are being challenged all the time in courts, and in the US some parents and religious communities are challenging those laws based on freedom of religion.  

The same thing happened in Canada 10 years ago, when a group of Mennonites from the around Aylmer Ont were charged with assaulting their kids.   The courts were firm in declaring that there freedom to practice their religion did not give them the right to ignore the laws concerning child protection.  Hopefully the US courts will do the same.  

One of the cases being consider by the US Supreme Court right now  involves the rights of practicing ones religion versus the responsibility of gvts to protect children.  A German family fled to the United States,  claiming the German government had denied their religious freedom by forbidding them from homeschooling their children. In Germany, mandatory school attendance dates back to 1717,  "This law protects children," says Josef Kraus, president of the German Teachers' Association. The European Court of Human Rights deemed Germany's compulsory-schooling law as compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1968099,00.html#ixzz2OftiZNNK 

How the court decided will affect how US laws sees freedom of religion when it conflicts with the states responsibility to protect children.  children. Lower courts have decided in favor of the refugee claim. If the Supreme court rules in the family favor, it will provide a precedent that will be used by the many religious families who's  freedom to treat their children in accordance with their religious ideals conflict with laws designed to protect children.

Hi Alex,

So your opinions take precedence over this family specifically when we are discussing this family.

So just to recap.  They are abusive but if it turns out  that their daughter has an invisible disability they will suddenly understand how do parent more effectively?  Do you actually mean parent or abuse more effectively because I don't know how they magically go from abusive parents of a typical needs teenager to understanding parents of a special needs teenager.

As the parent of a child with PDD-NOS, an early onset Bi-Polar Disorder and a unilateral hearing loss to boot you are preaching to the choir.  It isn't just the kids that others assume to be bad, it is the parents.

Oh look here in a thread where the parents are presumed to be abusive and unloving.  What are the odds?

You have Alex.  You called the parents abusers.  You defined them.

Which nobody in the thread would disagree with and absolutely nobody in the thread has even attempted to outline what a better way would be.  Why?  Because everybody is smart enough to know they have no bloody idea of what is going on inside this house.  Save for the fact that they know the parents are abusive and unloving.

Public shaming is not something that is necessarily religious.  Is the Toronto Star alleging Rob Ford has a substance abuse problem religiously motivated?

The Mennonites were charged with assaulting their kids for making them hold signs in public?  I'm not familiar with the case.

While the information around court cases is interesting it hasn't been shown to be relevant to the Nickell case so I'm not certain how it actually translates into discussing the facts of the article.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I can see Rev John's point. We object to how these parents have "punished" their daughter, and consider it abusive, and yet rather than simply stating our disagreement, we offer our opinions on their actions, vilifying their abilities as parents.

One poster has also describe the parent's faith as "a twisted religion," even though it is only described as "Christian" in the article.

In fact we are also "shaming" them. Whether or not they ever read these comments, they have been made in a public forum.

While we do not have much in the way of details, the article (if one has read it) does state that the mother's brother was killed in Afghanistan, and the daughter's behavioural changes began shortly after her uncle's death.

As some posters have suggested, there is likely a great deal more that we do not know about the situation.

I do not agree with the public shaming, but I understand how parents can find themselves at their wit's end, andend up grasping at straws.

It is not just the girl who needs love and affirmation, it is the entire family.

Its unfortunate that with all the publicity associated with this case the parents may end up punished rather than helped.

The parents were ill informed and trying their best to get their daughter to behave.  The child's life was not endangered.  People make mistakes.

It is too bad that people are more concerned with punished "bad parents" than helping them do better the next time.

Punishing the parents hurts the daugther because she will give them even more disrespect than whatever she did the first time.

 A good intervention would be publicly paid family counselling.  What I see is a law being passed that makes it illegal or a form of child abuse to do this to your child.  And that doesn't help the situation.

I was all ready to jump in with righteous indignation, until I read your post. Thanx for helping to keep me honest.

I was feeling somewhat guilty.  My initial reaction was 'how could the parents be so insensitive to their childd's needs?' 

But I've gone back andd reread my post.  I don't think I was judgmental.  I expressed my hope that some adult (teacher, friend's parent, etc) could give this girl the help and support she needs.  I actually hope that the parents also receive some help and support.  The very best thing that couldd happen for this child is for the family to find a way to show their love and care for one another andd help each other through their grief at the loss of a relative, and the difficult years that a child goes through becoming an adult. 

I'm suprised no one has mentioned grief as being a possible issue.  Both for the child and the parents.  It's likely a difficult time for all considering a relative was killed.

I would suspect that was the issue before a disability for the low grades.

As for public humiliation, most of the time my guess would be is that it's not the best decision.  Every person and situation is so different though, maybe for some it is what they need.  I do think sometimes it's best for parents to be seen as the bad, mean tough parents.  Maybe that's what they were trying to achieve here.