Bransom, TX

a discussion place for our web site


You are not connected. Please login or register

5 March 2017 - Does Hardship = Hard and Sore?

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1 5 March 2017 - Does Hardship = Hard and Sore? on Sat Mar 04, 2017 5:18 pm

Jack

avatar
Admin
This is your 15-year old son, Jake.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Your spouse had worked at home for a long time, but has decided to go back to work for a number of reasons. While investigating some of the possibilities (working from home or part-time, for instance) the two of you realized that Jake could probably get a hard ship license. He was old enough, he'd already passed the written test for his learner's permit, and you were able to convince someone that your spouse needed to work, but getting child care would have just created more economic problems.

Jake got his license, you found an older car with a beat up body, but everything else worked well. You bought it cheap, but some new panels on it, and Jake started driving. Besides taking his two little brothers - Drew and Luke - to school and picking them up, he also got permission to work for his uncle 12 hours a week.

That's been going on a month or so, and everything has worked well.



Tonight is your bowling night. When you come home, your spouse is awaiting you and explains that there's been some trouble with Jake. Jake was a bit late arriving home. When your spouse asked why, Jake claimed to have worked late. Jake is not very good at prevaricating though, so your spouse asked again, reminding him that you're able to check the GPS on his phone to see where he's been. He admitted to taking a friend home, though claims it's not a big deal, because Chip lives practically right on the way. The problem is, part of the deal of Jake getting his license was an agreement that no one but his brothers ride with him unless he had explicit permission from one of you.

Jake is waiting in his room to hear his sentence. There is a problem, though, which your spouse points out.

After church, school, work, and sleep, there's almost no time left for Jake to be grounded. Taking the car would cause more trouble for the two of you than for him. You don't want to take his phone while he's not home. You could take his screen time, but you already limit it, and he honestly spends more time reading and working on his game stuff than playing games or watching TV right now. About all you can really do is take the little socialization he does (at his Uncle Jack's house one night every weekend or two) or use some type of restriction on Sunday afternoons.

Or you could go back to the old way.

While Jake hasn't had the belt in a while, it was never officially taken off the table.

So, what's going to happen to Jake (for breaking the agreement, then lying about it)? How do you decide? Is that a one time only, or will it cover future trouble as well? Does he get any input into the decision?


_________________
"In the end, it's just a story. But if you ask me, it's all true."
http://bransomtx.forumotion.net

db105

avatar
Trailboss
Well, he has broken the rules he agreed to, so he deserves a punishment. It sounds like other options are rather inconvenient or ineffective, so I would be in favor of paddling him (or the belt, since that's what I used before) and getting it over with. At that age, I do think he should have some input, even if the final decision is mine, so I'll have a talk with him. I just don't want to limit his social life any more.

It makes sense for this to cover future trouble as well, if the circumstances that make other punishments unpractical do not change.

http://www.malespank.net/listAuthor.php?author=Danny

18Smacked

avatar
Cowboy
It does not appear that the other options are doable or workable, absent major problems for you and his siblings. I agree, however, that I want to at least offer my son the opportunity for input here.

Beyond all this, I have to concur with what db has written. Not much wriggle room here, I am afraid to say.

BTW- I never heard of any "hardship case" with respect to driving licenses.

http://www.malespank.net/listAuthor.php?author=18Smacked

Y Lee Coyote

avatar
Deputy
This is a fine example of you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

One parent quit many of their parenting functions to go to work and Jake was given many of the abandoned responsibilities.  All appeared to be fine until he wasn’t in lock step with a rigid set of rules.

If you want Santa then you have to have Jack Frost painting your windows and kisses make babies.  If you give a kid adult responsibilities then he needs adult freedoms.  That means flexibility in dealing with things.

The alternative is that the parent returns to doing their job so that the kid can be a kid again.  Did I mention that “You can't sit on two chairs with one butt.”?

Y.

This might be of interest - http://www.dmv.org/articles/what-is-a-hardship-drivers-license/

http://www.asstr.org/~YLeeCoyote/

StevieWeeks

avatar
Trailboss
The hideous monster with no empathy wonders when your last one died and all...

Iconoclast

avatar
Trailboss
I agree with Y Lee, this gets a pass. No punishment.

Iconoclast

AFinch

avatar
Sherrif
God help me, I agree with Y Lee and Icono. They didn't go joyriding. He dropped a friend at home on the way home from work. If the law (not the arbitrary rule) is that he's allowed one passenger, as has been stated here many times before, then IMO, a kid who's been forced to be an adult made an adult decision, and a kind one. I'm not punishing him.

ivor

avatar
Marshall
I'd need to know why he decided to give Chip a lift home and whether his brothers were in the car at that time.

http://www.malespank.net/listAuthor.php?author=Ivor+slipper

MemoryMan

avatar
Sherrif
I'm joining the consensus club

http://www.malespank.net/listAuthor.php?author=MemoryMan

Jack

avatar
Admin
Y Lee Coyote wrote:One parent quit many of their parenting functions to go to work and Jake was given many of the abandoned responsibilities.

I'm just wondering here, but how does taking your brothers to and from school equal 'many of the abandoned responsibilities'?

In return for this, Jake was allowed to have a license and his own car earlier than his friends, as well as being allowed to take a job. Or was the phrasing on him going to work what caused the problem? For the record, Jake WANTED to work, so he could afford more 'toys'.


_________________
"In the end, it's just a story. But if you ask me, it's all true."
http://bransomtx.forumotion.net

AFinch

avatar
Sherrif
Jack wrote:
Y Lee Coyote wrote:One parent quit many of their parenting functions to go to work and Jake was given many of the abandoned responsibilities.

I'm just wondering here, but how does taking your brothers to and from school equal 'many of the abandoned responsibilities'?

In return for this, Jake was allowed to have a license and his own car earlier than his friends, as well as being allowed to take a job.  Or was the phrasing on him going to work what caused the problem? For the record, Jake WANTED to work, so he could afford more 'toys'.

My reading on his going to work was that he was working to contribute to the family's hardship. While Jake's wanting to work to afford "toys" changes the dynamic a little bit, I'm not sure that it changes my answer. If Jake were driving far out of the way, or joyriding with a buddy, I'd have a different take--simply dropping someone off who is essentially on the way home doesn't really seem a punishment-worthy crime to me.

Y Lee Coyote

avatar
Deputy
Jack,

I felt that the youth had to do a lot more with regard to his younger brothers.  Even in the morning he needed to leaver earlier to drop them off at their school.  Then in the afternoon had to fetch them and deal with their schedules.

Once home he switched from being a chauffeur to a babysitter cum au pair and had worry abut their after school snacks and visiting with friends and getting to their homework and chores.  Oh, and still deal his own stuff.

Y.

http://www.asstr.org/~YLeeCoyote/

Jack

avatar
Admin
ivor wrote:I'd need to know why he decided to give Chip a lift home and whether his brothers were in the car at that time.

Ivor, I'm not sure why the other fellow needed a ride home. This was from work, so his little brothers weren't with him.




Jake was allowed to start driving when he was only 15 1/2, and his parents thought it was best to restrict him to not having friends in the car at all without permission. He agreed to that.

Now, if he had just sent a text asking if he could drop Chip off, it sounds like everything would have been okay. I think the real problem is that he chose to lie about it, instead of just being honest. And once he had lied, it took away any chance that he could claim he forgot or didn't think about it.

Jake's dad did talk to him. One of the things his dad said was that he has to prove himself responsible, if he wants more freedom later. Another is that, if he doesn't want to tell someone he's not allowed to have riders, all he has to do is say "mom worries, so I have to let her know I'll be a few minutes late."

Jake told me that he did get the belt that night, but it was only about four strokes on his boxers - enough to leave him sore, but not a 'real whupping.' Jake and his dad also talked it over, and Jake not only understood, but also felt that getting the belt was better than losing his one free day, and a lot better than losing his gaming nights. Dad did specify that more major misbehavior might result in the loss of those things instead or as well, and that too much trouble might result in the loss of his driving privileges, even if it meant Mom had to work something else out.

Overall, Jake felt Dad was being more than fair with him, and if you've been following Jake over the years, you know that's a very important thing for him.


_________________
"In the end, it's just a story. But if you ask me, it's all true."
http://bransomtx.forumotion.net

squarecutter

avatar
Sherrif
I wouldn't have spanked unless Jake was. and knew he was outside the law in giving a friend a ride as opposed to just his brothers. Was the stipulation legal or one from Jakes parents. But then Jake lied presumably because HE thought he HAD done something wrong and maybe he should know better than that. May be taking Jakes socialising rights away for a couple of Saturday nights or perhaps imposing early bed time might have been better.
Is the hardship law a State thing or across America.15 seem incredibly young to be taking a car on the road

Jack

avatar
Admin
squarecutter wrote:Is the hardship law a State thing or across America.15 seem incredibly young to be taking a car on the road

It's a state law. While driving is similar in most states, each of them do have their own laws and restrictions, so I can't say anything about it elsewhere.

In Texas, an underage driver may have one unrelated minor in the car with him, and, as far as I know, it's the same for a hardship license. My understanding is the 'no riders' restriction came from his parents, and last a couple of more months until he does turn 16.


_________________
"In the end, it's just a story. But if you ask me, it's all true."
http://bransomtx.forumotion.net

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum