«Mr Omer, how can parents gain authority and perseverance?»

It doesn't take an hour for Haim Omer to respond to the interview request: He would be happy to take part. However, his hearing loss makes phone calls difficult. He can talk, but cannot hear the other person. Omer suggests to the journalist that she send him the questions in advance by email and he will then answer them on the phone. If she has any questions, she should simply write and call again. The initial situation is complicated, but Omer is not: a fruitful exchange ensues that gives food for thought.

Mr Omer, do parents today have a harder time than the generation before them?

Definitely. Much heavier.

Why?

Children and young people have never been exposed to as many temptations as they are today. In view of the abundance of consumer and entertainment offers that bombard them, it seems almost impossible for parents to protect them from their risks. Added to this is the fact that we live in increasingly individualised societies. Social control by neighbours or the extended family is no longer effective. Parenting has become a matter for the nuclear family, often resting on the shoulders of a single person. In addition, parents lack guidance when it comes to parenting.

What do you mean by that?

In our grandparents' day, mum and dad were untouchable. They decided what was right and what was wrong. Bringing up children meant teaching them obedience. Authoritarian parenting relied primarily on fear, often accompanied by violence. At the end of the 1970s, the traditional understanding of authority began to crumble and has since become obsolete.

But even the anti-authoritarian approach that followed is no longer an option for the vast majority of parents.

That's right. Studies have shown that this parenting style favours low self-esteem and low frustration tolerance, for example. So although we have left traditional authority behind, it is obviously not a good idea to raise children without any authority at all. My work tries to fill this vacuum.

To this end, you developed the concept of the new authority. What is it based on?

His guiding principle is: I am here, and I am here to stay. In the image on which the new authority of successful parenting is based, parents symbolise the safe harbour for their children. This should be designed in such a way that it offers boats protection, but also allows them to sail out and gain experience. In addition to the function of the safe harbour, parents also have the task of ensuring that the ship stays on course in the event of danger. Strength in this function is based on parental presence.

«We are your parents: you can't sack us.»

Haim Omer in relation to parental presence.

What do you mean by that?

Parental presence is the experience a child has when their parents convey the following message to them through their thoughts and actions: «We are here and we are here to stay. We are your mum and dad. You can't push us away and you can't dismiss us. We will not be marginalised.» Then the child realises that they have parents and not just donors or service providers. I'm talking about inner and outer presence.

What is the difference?

Inner presence means the awareness that we have an important place in the child's life: It needs us. However, inner presence also lies in the conviction that we can trust the child to deal with challenges and that they will be able to cope with our messages. Externally, we show presence by being physically and emotionally present in our children's lives, showing interest and being available by providing clarity through rules and structures.

How can parents develop such an attitude?

Presence can be learnt at any time. It may not happen overnight - and not without the help of others. Presence as a parental strength develops when we let go of the desire to control our child. The only thing we can control is ourselves and our actions.

What is important here?

The renunciation of all violence and the development of self-control. It's about de-escalation, about not reacting impulsively and still maintaining a clear stance. If a child breaks the rules and comes across as cheeky, we may feel the urge to intervene, shout at them or punish them. The problem is that both parents and children perceive the loss of self-control as weakness. Not responding to provocations, not trying to convince the child with threats or sermons, takes strength. But it is worth it.

How could parents react instead?

I cannot defeat my child, but I can persevere. In concrete terms, this means that I don't deal with a conflict when emotions are running high, but bring the issue up again at a calmer moment. In the meantime, it is important to make it clear to the child: «I don't agree with this and I will come back to the matter.»

But what happens when the child's resistance thwarts everyday plans? Here's an example: A couple have a ten-year-old daughter and a twelve-year-old son. The daughter regularly prevents the family from doing things together when she doesn't feel like it - by throwing herself down and screaming. What can the parents do?

Put like this, the question is unfruitful because it leads to problematic conclusions. Parents either try to force their daughter, punish her or try to persuade her. Coercion is counterproductive, especially with children like this. Some really demand punishment in order to demonstrate to their parents that they will not give in. The central question is not how the parents can persuade the girl to go out, because they can't do that.

But what?

First of all, I would ask the parents whether there are other occasions when the child exerts pressure on their family. This question always elicits answers that make it clear that family peace depends in many ways on whether the child gets his way or not. His threats and tantrums always affect - or rather determine - several areas of family life. For many parents, it is then like scales falling from their eyes: they are not free, but live under duress. How can they resist this? What options do they have to restore the freedom of all family members? These are the crucial questions.

Their answer to this is non-violent resistance. What is it about?

We always start with an announcement, which is given to the child as a letter and read out. This formal ritual demonstrates that things are about to change. In our example, a letter could read as follows: «Dear daughter, we are your parents, we love you and will always be there for you. But we are no longer prepared to give in to your threats and tantrums. We will resist them. We can't force you to do anything, but we will stand firm and we won't be alone.» The parents stop complaining, scolding or threatening and instead concentrate on sending unmistakable messages.

What if they merely shrug their shoulders in response to the letter?

This is likely, but does not detract from the matter. The announcement is not a contract with the child that they have to accept or sign. It is unilateral and signals that the parents will take action and that their decisions are not subject to negotiation. The success of this measure does not depend on the child's reaction, but solely on the parents' determination.

What happens next?

In everyday life, it is important that parents remain attentive to the child and also focus on the positive, that they do something good for themselves and the child from time to time. The child should realise that parental resistance is not directed against them personally, but against certain behaviour. If this is a permanent, massive problem for the family, there is an impressive method of non-violent resistance: the sit-in.

A sit-in like during the student protests?

The principle is the same. Let's take the example of a twelve-year-old teenager who regularly beats his sister. The parents have announced to him that they will resist this. They now have the opportunity to strengthen their position by staging a sit-down strike. To do this, they go into the teenager's room, sit down in front of the door and say in a calm voice: «We value you as our son. But we will no longer put up with you hitting your sister. We are sitting here to protest against your behaviour and are waiting for suggestions so that it doesn't happen again.» The parents then remain in the room. They remain silent and don't answer any questions. They agree together beforehand how long they will stay. If the child makes a suggestion, the parents end the sit-in and tell them that they will discuss their ideas.

And if there is no proposal?

The parents then remain seated until the agreed time has elapsed. Afterwards, they can say goodbye with these words: «We haven't heard any suggestions from you yet, we're leaving now. We'll keep at it and come back to you with our request.» Strike while the iron is cold, I say.

The young person may leave the room.

The parents should not use force to prevent him from doing so. They let him go, but stay in his room for the agreed time. In this way, they show him that they are present, regardless of his reaction. It is often helpful to involve a third person who is familiar to the family in the sit-in. This person waits outside the room. If the child runs away, the person asks them to return to the room. If the child becomes violent, the parents call the third person into the room so that they can witness what is happening. Parental resistance does not work in a quiet room.

So it needs the help of others?

Exactly. We only develop presence through the assistance of a support group. It is often shame or concerns about the child's privacy that prevent parents from asking others for help. This is understandable, but it limits the parents' ability to act. When we feel support and relief, our attitude towards children changes. However, this requires parents to publicise their helplessness to a certain extent.

Who is eligible as a supporter?

Friends of parents, godmothers, grandparents, neighbours, teachers, friends of the children - the list is long. Experience shows that whoever is asked is usually happy to help. Let's come back to the girl in our example: the family has plans for the weekend and there is a possibility that the daughter will go on strike again. This time, the parents are making preparations. They have informed those close to them about the situation and now ask a suitable person - perhaps the mother's friend, it could also be a paid babysitter - to come to the family on the day in question. As usual, the parents inform their daughter that an activity is planned and the supporter is at the door a good ten minutes before departure.

What then?

If the daughter is unruly, the parents don't react to this, a short message is enough: «We're leaving now, XY is staying with you.» By not responding to his provocations, they take the wind out of the girl's sails: What's the point of shouting if no one responds? You may now be wondering what will happen if the daughter takes her anger out on the babysitter. It won't happen because such children's obsession with control is usually only directed at their parents.

Do parents pillory their child when they initiate others?

I don't see it that way. Supporters are not there to scold the child, they let them know that they are aware of the situation. For example, it can be effective for a twelve-year-old who beats his sister if his favourite aunt or best friend's father also speaks up. They can say to the boy: «Look, I think the world of you, but I know that you're hitting your sister and that's not acceptable. I believe you can overcome this. I'm sure we can find a solution.» This also works via WhatsApp or Skype if the aunt doesn't live nearby. Supporters can be comforters and encouragers, providers of time-outs, mediators, tutors or witnesses. It is not helpful to involve supporters in the sense of a punishment: «I'll tell Grandma!»

The boy is probably embarrassed that outsiders are talking to him about his misbehaviour.

The parents can tell him that it's not just his business if he hits his sister, but also that of his aunt and the people around him - because he and his sister are important to these people. And it is a fallacy to believe that shame and remorse are always bad for the child's development. In a respectful context, they can actually be helpful. The child learns to stand by their behaviour and accept the consequences.

You say that parents attach too much importance to their children's privacy anyway?

For many parents, it is an inviolable commodity. Often all it takes is a hint from the child to stay out of their life and the parents are immediately paralysed. I advise parents to let go of these inhibitions.

And to follow your offspring to the youth club or discotheque if necessary?

They talk about following and seeking out other forms of resistance. Then the parents appear in places where problem behaviour may be occurring. This sometimes requires a phone call in advance.

A telephone round?

It is helpful, for example, if young people refuse to say where they are going or if they are absolutely determined to be late home. The telephone round works like this: you collect the numbers of your child's friends and acquaintances in advance and call as many of them as possible if necessary to find out where your child is. In this way, you show your presence and become visible in your child's network of contacts. Much more often than you think, these young people are willing to help you. If necessary, turn up on the spot.

How do parents go about it?

Let's take the example of a 16-year-old who often disappears from home. He's hanging around in a no-go room when suddenly his parents appear in the room. They don't say a word. The teenager ignores them at first, the parents stay. His friends soon urge him to sort things out, they want to be left in peace. Under protest, the 16-year-old accompanies his parents home. He is angry and feels embarrassed - at the same time, he realises that running away was a bad idea.

What if the young person runs away?

Even then, the parents' campaign has not failed. They stay with their friends for a moment and often find more supporters. The teenager may not join in, but the parents show a determined presence. Only a short time ago, they would have sat helplessly at home. After their action, they feel empowered. Through closeness instead of distance, resistance instead of punishment.

Are you fundamentally against penalties?

Not always. Schools could not function if they did not have the option of suspending violent young people. Fundamentally, however, children have an innate urge for independence. Rewards and punishments are an attempt to steer their behaviour in a desired direction, which runs counter to the child's urge for independence. This often leads to escalation. Adolescents in particular are likely to have undesirable counter-reactions. Children punish their parents back when they are punished.