<p>
</p>
<p>Determining for her what her attitude and behavior should be, is (a desire for) control.</p>
<p>Linking her sole source of income to it, is (a threat aimed at getting the) control.</p>
<p>Taking the credit cards and reducing her income, is (an exercise of) control. </p>
<p>Some measure of control may be legitimate or not, that is a separate question. But denying the fact or the motivation of control would be delusional and destructive for the Dad.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Prior consultation does not mean “years of back-story” or “she should have seen it coming a mile away”. </p>
<p>Advance consultation means that the daughter could have predicted, with specificity as to the time and nature of the action, what Dad would do if she didn’t do X Y and Z.
An unequivocal written correspondence is usually part of the run-up to these confrontations, not a phone call and a weekend drop-in intervention.</p>
<p>I guess we have to agree to disagree. I think he did the right thing all the way around. When you realize a ship is off course, no matter what got it there, you just have to take dramatic, corrective action sometimes. I think he was fair, loving and truly has what’s best for her and the whole family as his priority.</p>
<p>It’s not a question of “the right thing” but “the clueful thing”. The dramatic action is in part corrective and in part destructive. Resetting the boundaries in the relationship is something the Dad is of course entitled to do, but doing so without (clear, specific, advance, predictability-creating) warning is typical of just the kind of disorders people here are speculating that his daughter suffers from. The manipulation or coercion through money is also a form of participation in her type of game. IMO the counselor is an idiot and Dad needs to find a better one, fast, or figure it out on his own.</p>
<p>siserune, you appear to be in the minority here. From what hmom has posted, there have been many “prior consultations;” the difference this time is that the dad’s resolve is stronger, and he is now backing up his words with action. About time, methinks, and will do the whole family much good in the long run.</p>
<p>Add me to the list of those who think that the OP’s friend did exactly the right thing. Am very glad that upon update when the daughter demanded more funds, Dad did not give them to her. I hope he continues to hold fast and not capitulate to her manipulative actions. He is being more than generous in the first place.</p>
<p>I also find the counselor’s advice very practical, and I think it helped the Dad here draw up the boundaries that were needed. I also tend to believe that the daughter DID know that “the hammer” was going to strike down sometime; she just didn’t think it would be NOW. </p>
<p>While the family helped create daughter’s behavior, ultimately it is HER behavior and she “owns” it. Sounds like it may be the first time in her young life that she is faced with that reality and dealing its consequences. Better now than never.</p>
<p>Parenting is not for sissies. OP, please tell your friend to hang in there!!! He is doing the right thing, at least from where I sit.</p>
<p>Glad to see he didn’t cave in. I would have done this when she was three, but better late than never. If she could learn from this, she could have a better chance of having a good, healthy relationship with her future SO. As mentioned by hmom before, she couldn’t sustain any meaningful relationship. </p>
<p>When my kids were younger I used to bribe them to do the right thing. Hmm…I think I am still doing that.</p>
<p>This mans dd has been going ‘nuclear surprise’ on him for years and years. </p>
<p>Siserune, your comments imply that you think the girl is and has been perfectly reasonable and that the father came out of the blue with this sledgehammer and hit her over the head with it. </p>
<p>Taking away her credit cards is not a nuclear surprise. He is giving her $500 a month. In addition to tuition, room and board. That is more than many many kids are given. She doesn’t need the credit cards and this man did not go overboard nor is it wrong to mix $ into the contract. </p>
<p>What’s the difference if he had called her up and said,“There are going to be some changes, and I’ll be visiting you to talk about them in a few days.” I’ll bet that it wouldn’t even have registered as a beep on the girl’s radar. Maybe in a few months or years, he will be able to have normal ‘negotiations’ with her. But this girl has held this man hostage for years. Too bad if she had gotten used to it and was shocked. It was past time for a change.</p>
<p>(quote)Linking her sole source of income to it, is (a threat aimed at getting the) control(/quote)</p>
<p>Well, while it may be her only current source of income, nothing is stopping her from getting a job and supplementing that very generous $500 above roam/board etc.</p>
<p>edited: sorry, I am trying to learn how to highlight the quotes, and I guess I misunderstood, but I am sure you get it!!</p>
<p>I agree with you, dsc, and many other posters here. $500 per month is huge. Other than books for his classes, I would estimate that my S has spent under $100 so far his freshman year on himself, including non-dorm food. He is frugal and understands that he could spend more if he wanted.</p>
<p>As others have said, it is too bad that the Dad didn’t start a long time ago establishing and enforcing rules and boundaries, but it’s never too late. The Dad is doing what is best for him, and his rules are reasonable and, I think, generous. Of course his D is going to react very strongly in hopes of pushing her Dad back to his previous way of doing things. Technically, she is an adult, and she has to take ownership of her problems. If her reaction is over the top, so be it. Help from mental health professionals can always be called in.</p>
<p>I hope the Dad holds firm.</p>
<p>bhmomma: You did it right, except for using () instead of .</p>
<p>gladmom:thanx! I have to say I had to pore over the keyboard to find a . Never knew they were there!</p>
<p>I agree that setting limits following ongoing out-of-control behavior is necessary and appropriate. We all live with potentially punitive aspects of rules and limits (laws, speed limits, what have you) and we also live with rewards for positive behavior (awards, bonuses, etc). What the dad and the therapist did were right on. IMO she is the one who has threatened with conditional love (“fund my out of control lifestyle or I won’t talk to you anymore”), and calling her bluff is appropriate. Her behaviors and actions are hurtful and insensitive. There should be consequences for her bad behavior, and rewards for good behavior. She should have learned this >15 years ago, but better late than never.</p>
<p>I think that my D spends about $500/month, but she doesn’t have a meal plan so a lot of that is food.</p>
<p>i wanna see the credit card bill for the $500 a month and listen to the daughter when she calls and says she wants more money…this daughter is quite a character lol</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>hmom has not contested the reading that there WERE NOT prior consultations in the specific (and standard) sense discussed above. An ongoing history of confrontations, which is what she apparently was referring to, is not “prior consultation”.</p>
<p>The issue with the consultant’s advice is not whether it’s defensible for the Dad to immediately disconnect the credit cards, deliver an ultimatum, etc (obviously the status quo was ridiculous); but whether there were obviously superior alternative plans the Dad could have pursued to better achieve his strategic objectives. The Dad clearly wasn’t hurting for money and could have kept the status quo for another few days or weeks while exploring what the range of non-nuclear solutions was, in writing.</p>
<p>hmom5–any report on week 2 of the new deal?</p>
<p>^Yes, update please. This is like one of those reality shows…intervention.</p>
<p>Siserune,
The daughter’s sense of entitlement would have caused her to erupt no matter <em>what</em> the dad did, as she would want to maintain her status quo and ridiculous, extravagant lifestyle. Dad has a right to turn down the pipeline. He didn’t leave her high and dry, but he let her know clearly and firmly what the rules are. She has tried to bend and manipulate rules forever to her liking (from the description of her relationship with her boyfriend, etc) and getting a clear, firm dose of reality, with dad NOT sticking around to be guilt-tripped or manipulated by this self-focused daughter is the right thing to do. The dad and the therapist were right to set the limit. The daughter has to live in the real world-- not her fantasyland.</p>
<p>First, Dad had to get her attention. Apparently, the only way to do that was to cut off the money. Now that he has her attention, he can try all the other negotiations, techniques, removing money from the equation, etc. But the daughter needed a real, honest-to-God wakeup call. This was it.</p>
<p>Dad had an escalating series of ways to get her attention, up to and including complete and immediate financial disconnection. Although Dad holds all the cards financially, it is not true that “all the other negotiation [options]” are as available or as valuable compared to an alternative course of action where he held his horses a bit. Dad dug himself out of one hole but also dug some new holes with the help of the counselor. He will be cleaning up both the pre-existing mess and the new one he just introduced for some time to come.</p>
<p>Again, this has nothing to do with the Daughter being reasonable or not. Assume that she is pathological. My comments pertain only to Dad achieving his strategic interests or not.</p>