The default position in my home is one of openness

ShareThis

I was treated to my first "POS" the other night. As in, a child's computer-speak for "parent over shoulder/can't talk/gotta go," etc.One of my children was instant-messaging, which is allowed when I know the other child. My kids have one computer in an open area of our home's main floor. I approached this particular child about coming downstairs to watch "American Idol" with the family. Instantly, the "POS" messages started flying. Before the child could "x-out" of the conversation, I said, "Hey, hon, as long as I'm over your shoulder, let's see what you kids are up to ..." And I read through the IM stream of the past several minutes.Nothing inappropriate, but it's clear the kids would have preferred to have kept their conversation "private."Guess what, as I reiterated to all my kids that night, including the (now angry) IMer: There is no privacy in my house for kids.I'm obviously not talking about physical privacy when bathing, dressing and so on. I mean when it comes to how they, well, operate. The default position in my home is one of openness. This doesn't mean I always do, or need to, know what they are up to or what they talk about with their friends. It does mean I have the right to know. Why? Because a private, "secret" world, by definition, outside of the circle of safety that the family affords, can be a dangerous one to a child.This week, Tara Parker-Pope wrote in The New York Times about the "One-Eyed Invader in the Bedroom." She writes:"By some estimates, half of American children have a television in their bedroom; one study of third-graders put the number at 70 percent ... Children with bedroom TVs score lower on school tests and are more likely to have sleep problems. Having a television in the bedroom is strongly associated with being overweight and a higher risk for smoking."One of the most obvious consequences is that the child will simply end up watching far more television -- and many parents won't even know."When parents don't "know" something about their kids, when the default position in a home is one of "respecting a child's privacy," the kids are at risk.But too much TV-watching, even with the many downsides that go with it, may be the least of the problems a "private" world brings to a child. When children deal on their own with their experiences of pain, heartache, anger and even happiness, when they get into the habit of responding to these things without the wise guidance of their parents, they are left to navigate too much on their own. It's too easy to get lost.I don't intend to monitor my children at every turn. I don't want to. I do want to adopt the default position of each child's life being understood, by both of us, as best being an open book. And for each one to understand that a parent is positioned more than anyone else to help the child understand and read that book.Is this going to solve all the problems, secrets and defiance regarding my kids? Of course not. But the goal is for my children to see what is normative and wholesome, as opposed to secret and so more dangerous.For starters, that means that I have to be willing to listen, really listen to my kids, to ask lots of questions (as I've done from their earliest ages), questions to which "yes/no/I don't know" are (begin ital) not (end ital) acceptable answers, and to be willing to hear -- once again -- that the lack of a "right to privacy," or any of my other ways of operating around here, is (begin ital) so unfair (end ital).In fact, that's when I remind them, and myself, that my job is to care far more about whether my kids like me when they are 30 than when they are 13.I see no reason to be secretive about that.(Betsy Hart hosts the "It Takes a Parent" radio show on WYLL-AM 1160 in Chicago. Reach her through betsysblog.com. For more stories, visit scrippsnews.com.)