Who Decides When Parents Don't Agree

Dealing with different approaches to parenting involves first figuring out whether an issue is one of opinion or, instead, a matter of one person being right and the other being wrong.

Opinion may be about "I want him to have a red bike, and you want him to have a blue bike". On a harmless disagreement such as this, parents can either ask the child or agree to take turns when it comes to having things their way.

Sometimes opinion can involve more serious matters: "I don't want you taking him out on your boat, because he can't swim; you think I'm making a baby out of him." On a matter like this, I think parents need to be honest with themselves about whether, in fact, one parent doesn't want any unnecessary risking of the life of the child; while the other thinks he has a right to risk someone else's life. In a case like this, I, personally, believe that parents need to err on the side of not risking another person's life because they don't happen to believe the risk is high.

There's a difference between one parent's not wanting a child to do something that is a "regular" part of most children's lives (riding a bike, climbing trees, etc.); and not wanting to extend risk beyond what is "day-to-day", to one that is unnecessary. A non-swimming child can easily have a normal childhood without going out in a boat. Something like going out on a boat does increase a child's risk of being killed. Things do happen. The same child can swim in a pool or use a raft in the pool (with supervision). Yes, there is risk there too; but it is lower and it is more a part of what all childhoods include - not just the childhoods of boat fanatics. So, essentially, I happen to think that when "beyond the usual" risk is involved to a child's life, parents should err on the side of caution; until a child is old enough to decide, for himself, what risks he wants to take (or until he learns to swim well enough to save his own life).

On the other hand, when the difference of opinion involves what is generally considered "normal part of most kids' childhoods", I think the parent who is aware of that may be the wiser one. A parent who doesn't want the child to ride a bike, skate, run, or climb is unaware that kids need to do these things.

There is one thing to consider in cases like this, and that is the age of the child. One parent, more than the other, may have a better understanding of developmental stages; and may know the child better as well. One parent may know that a child will learn to ride a bike without training wheels if he is left to decide when he's ready. Again, parents need to be honest with themselves and consider which parent actually has a better understanding of developmental stages, or even of the child, himself.

Some matters are not particularly opinion, however. On some matters there is a right and a wrong. Children's stages of development, nutritional needs, emotional issues, etc., are quite well understood by reputable experts. Organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics offer guidelines in any number of areas. Well established, reputable, child development professionals usually have websites and books. When parents don't quite know which parent is right and which is wrong, looking up what the reputable experts/agencies say about any matter can settle disputes.

What people who don't understand children very well often don't realize is that, to a large extent, the matter of child development is a well established, proven, science with a right and a wrong.
Parents with no knowledge of child development often think it's all a matter of opinion. They may think the other parents "always has to have things his way" because they don't realize that the other parent has a good understanding of child development and knows that the other parent's idea is a very bad one. It could be compared to a non-meteorologist talking to a meteorologist, who has been at work all day. Someone asks, "Is it going to rain?" The non-meteorologist says, "I think it is." The meteorologist says, "It is not expected to rain until tomorrow." This disagreement is not a matter of one person's preferring the color, pink; and the other one's preferring blue. One of the parties actually knows what he is talking about because he knows the science of it.

There are parents who believe that "the experts" don't know what they're talking about these days. The reason some people believe that is because too many parents misuse, misinterpret, misunderstand or other make mistakes in trying to follow the guidance of "the experts". On a vast number of issues related to children, the most reputable medical/scientific professionals DO know what they're talking about and DO agree on a large number of issues. Parents may run into or hear one professional who doesn't seem to know what he's talking about, because individual professionals are not always the most knowledgeable or skilled. In general, however, among mainstream experts in the areas of parenting and children, there is quite a bit of agreement that has been reached as a result of sound science.

When parents aren't sure about who is right it always makes sense to do a little research and see what the general consensus among mainstream, reputable, professionals and organizations is. They shouldn't ask Grandma and Grandpa or Fred at the office, and they shouldn't trust a book about a new way of doings things by a little known author (professional or not).

Then there are matters for which there is no real right or wrong. An example may be which of the parents' religions (or lack of one) will be shared with the child. This is where parents need to reason things out. If one parent's religion is a mainstream religion and means a lot to that parent; and the other parent has none, it may make sense to go with the parent for whom the matter is most important. Few children are hurt by being raised in a mainstream religion. They can always decide to give it up if they turn out to be like the non-religious parent. Both parents can always tell the child, "This is what I believe."

Then again, if both parents take their religions very seriously, there may need to be some other determining factor when it comes to who "wins". If parents generally want their child to be free spirited they may want to choose the religion that will least inhibit that. If Grandma and Grandpa (who also care deeply about the religion) are alive, while Grammy and Grampy are no longer alive; maybe it would be good to make Grandma and Grandpa happy.

On the "no-right-or-wrong" matters that are important it can help to make a list of pros and cons, and be very honest about all the things that should be considered when finally making a decision.

As for "red bike/blue bike" kind of dilemmas that will inevitably follow parents throughout the child's childhood and beyond: If the child can't decide, flip a coin, take turns, buy two bikes, or buy one that is both red and blue.