Do you think this is acceptable?

[Gothel]

I don't think the location maters in the slightest, tho I'm would never "lock" my child anywhere.
The big no-no to me is the fact you said the child was distressed. My eldest is 5 & I have never left her to cry when distressed.

[winterbaby]

To the people who think it's not nice, how is it any different to sending a child to time out in a room?

When I say it's not something I would do my 2 are a little younger. I haven't had to send them to their room to punish them. I can see what your referring to in terms that outside is another room, but I can see what op is stating that they live in close proximity to one another and it can be disruptive to others. Also if its once in a while or if its a daily occurrence matters also. And if the child is genuinely terrified of having to stay outside or whether its just a tantrum.

[bpac]

To the people who think it's not nice, how is it any different to sending a child to time out in a room?

I believe in timeouts but at least if they are inside they are not upsetting or disturbing neighbours. That's why I wouldn't do it but that's my opinion

[Gothel]

Duplicate.

[SassyMummy]

I think this is how my neighbours deal with their kids too.

In all honesty, I can understand the appeal of locking them outside, but not small children and not at 4am (as our neighbours liked to do). Lock them in their bedroom if you really must lock them somewhere! Just as I assume these parents are sick of hearing their kids, nobody else wants to hear them either!

I also don't imagine outdoor areas are always safe for small children to be left unattended.

[FearlessLeader]

Agree with headoverfeet, I don't see how it's different to putting them in their room. Some kids have wild tantrums,
Maybe it's safer/less destructive to send them outside than having them destroying their room, pulling bookshelves down etc.

[peanutmonkey]

Agree with headoverfeet, I don't see how it's different to putting them in their room. Some kids have wild tantrums,
Maybe it's safer/less destructive to send them outside than having them destroying their room, pulling bookshelves down etc.

This was my first thought. I wouldn't do it with my kids cos the idea never occurred to me but my oldest is destructive when he gets in tantrum mode and has a tendency to throw things and I always worry he is going to cause serious damage to his room one day.

Without knowing the details as to why the child is being disciplined etc, I don't feel comfortable judging.

Sent from my GT-I9305T using BubHub

[Hootenanny]

I wouldn't lock my kids out or in

[LifeInShadesOfGrey]

I wouldn't lock my children out no.

[headoverfeet]

Also if its once in a while or if its a daily occurrence matters also. And if the child is genuinely terrified of having to stay outside or whether its just a tantrum.

DS2 is genuinely terrified if I put him into time-out in his room (toy room, if I put him in our room, we share a room together, he is just as terrified) outside is not terrifying for him, he doesn't like it but it's not scary.

I think sending kids to places like their rooms could be counterproductive because there are usually things to do there. Perhaps sending them outside is done because there is nothing to do but think about what has happened?

I could think of far worse things to do to kids....

1-2-3 magic says it doesn't matter what there is to do as long as there is no tv, video games etc.

Eta I totally agree if the child was distressed because of the location that's not ok but if it's just a protest about being in time out..