Rethinking Permissive Parenting

I sat in the waiting room of a new psychologist’s office, frantically juggling my three challenging children under five years old. I was suffering from postpartum depression, a severe backache, and an unending lack of sleep. My oldest child was struggling to attend preschool because he couldn’t wear clothes or find shoes that he could tolerate on his feet. It was the heart of winter, and the problems had escalated to the point that I knew we needed professional advice.

When I shuffled, dragged, and cajoled my kids into the psychologist’s office, and they set upon her carefully arranged toys, we began to talk. I shared how rewards and punishments were failing colossally with my children. I told stories of how they escalated into catastrophic, violent meltdowns with a simple two-minute time out, even as I fought to remain calm, steady, and consistent, just as I was coached to do.

“The main thing that you must not do is give in,” she emphatically stated. “They will only calm and feel safe when you hold your steady boundaries. You are the captain of the ship. You are the adult. You must not give in. That is being permissive, and it is the single worst parenting style in terms of child outcomes.”

Single worst parenting style. Those words have clung to my brain like my children’s slime has clung to our carpet. Even though I have scraped endlessly, the residue remains.

Parenting philosophies have evolved over the years, influenced by shifting societal norms and advancements in scientific research. Yet one term that has endured through time is “permissive parenting,” often vilified for its association with lax discipline and spoiling children. However, a deeper examination of its historical definition and its incongruity with current neuroscientific understandings reveals a need to reconsider the way we approach this parenting style. Perhaps permissiveness is not the evil we have been led to believe it is. Perhaps it is simply radical and countercultural. Perhaps it is precisely the transformation we need in our modern parenting world as we seek to parent our neurodivergent children in an ableist world.

“Permissive parenting” is rarely defined clearly, but always lurks, a dreaded evil in the background. As I have worked with hundreds of parents and been in dozens of interviews, nearly every person feels compelled to ask me to differentiate my method, Low-Demand Parenting, from permissive parenting. Though people struggle to explain why, they are certain that permissive equals “bad.” 

“The working assumption of children’s development is that children lack self-understanding, self-discipline, and self-control...”

In the 1960’s, psychologist Diana Baumrind conducted extensive research on parenting styles from which she defined three prototypical parenting styles in 1966 in the journal, Child Development: authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive. She advocated for authoritative parenting, characterized by high levels of responsiveness and warmth from the parents while also setting clear expectations and boundaries for the child. 

Baumrind defined "permissive parenting" as being nurturing and warm, but reluctant to impose demands, limits, or boundaries. Baumrind stated that permissive parents don't closely monitor their children's behavior or use rules or standards of behavior and that they perceive their children as equals. Permissive parents were seen as indulgent, lenient, and overly tolerant of their children's behavior. They were perceived as failing to establish appropriate limits or enforce consistent discipline, leading to concerns about potential negative outcomes for children's development. Baumrind declared that this style of parenting had the worst outcomes of all three styles that she observed. 

“Boundaries” in Baumrind's authoritative parenting style were understood to be guidelines meant to provide structure and guidance for children, with the intention of promoting self-discipline and self-understanding, rather than relying solely on punishments (as authoritarian parents did). “Boundaries” continues to be a powerful buzz word in the parenting world of today, often paired with the concept of “consequences” (both imposed and natural). The working assumption of children’s development is that children lack self-understanding, self-discipline, and self-control, and thus they require clearly defined and imposed expectations as well as consequences to enable them to develop discipline and control.

Ross Greene, a clinical psychologist and author, challenges the traditional notion that children's challenging behaviors are primarily due to a lack of self-discipline and self-control. He argues that these behaviors are more accurately understood as a reflection of lagging skills and unsolved problems, rather than intentional defiance or willful disobedience.

Greene's approach, known as Collaborative & Proactive Solutions (CPS), proposes that children's behaviors are best understood as a form of communication. Instead of assuming that children “won’t” behave well, Greene suggests that we should consider that they “can’t” behave well due to underlying challenges or unmet needs. This shift in perspective encourages parents, educators, and caregivers to focus on identifying and addressing the specific skills that children are lacking, rather than merely disciplining or punishing them for their behavior.

According to Greene, challenging behaviors often arise from what he calls “lagging skills,” which are the abilities or competencies that a child has not yet developed to handle certain demands or expectations effectively. Additionally, he emphasizes the role of “unsolved problems” in triggering challenging behaviors. These are the specific situations or circumstances where a child is struggling to find a mutually satisfactory solution, leading to frustration, anxiety, or meltdowns.

Instead of using traditional behavior modification techniques that rely on rewards and punishments, Greene advocates for a collaborative approach where adults work together with the child to identify and solve the problems that trigger challenging behaviors. This involves actively listening to the child's perspective, understanding their concerns, and jointly finding solutions that address the underlying issues. Greene readily acknowledges in his work that parents can only work collaboratively on a few issues at once, ideally one or two, but that often there are dozens of unsolved problems leading to challenging behaviors at once. His recommendation is to proactively release those adult expectations that are leading to the unsolved problems, so that the child and adult can focus their relational and mental resources on only a few problems at once.

By focusing on teaching and supporting children in developing the necessary skills to cope with challenges and by addressing the problems that trigger difficult behaviors, Greene's approach aims to reduce the frequency and intensity of challenging behaviors. This perspective challenges the assumption that children misbehave primarily due to a lack of self-discipline and self-control, and instead encourages a more empathetic and problem-solving approach to supporting children in their growth and development.

Greene’s central research premise is that children do not lack self-discipline or self-control but that they are struggling to meet adult-imposed expectations. This discovery flips the assumptions about permissive parenting on its head. Struggling children do not need unrealistic expectations to be more “clearly stated” or to have additional painful boundaries drawn or consequences imposed when they are invariably unable to meet these unrealistic expectations. In fact, stating unrealistic expectations, drawing boundaries around adult behavior, and imposing consequences only deepen a child’s distress when they are already under stress.

To further explore the power of children’s stress, we must turn to the discoveries of neuroscientists in the last decade. Children's “negative behaviors” are in fact all stress behaviors that reveal an unstable neurosystem signaling distress. Modern neuroscience has shed light on the concept of the “window of tolerance,” which refers to an individual's optimal level of emotional arousal where they can manage stress and emotions effectively. When a child's stress response system is overwhelmed, they may move out of this window, leading to fight-flight-freeze responses. Just as Greene discovered, when adults proactively release those expectations that push children outside of their window of tolerance, explosive distress behaviors dissipate dramatically. 

This need to release unrealistic expectations to create safety is further reinforced by research into attachment theory, pioneered by John Bowlby. Bowlby emphasizes the importance of secure emotional bonds between caregivers and children, which fosters a child’s sense of safety and trust in the caregiver, promoting exploration and resilience. Unlike Baumrind’s suggestion that children will only feel safe and be regulated with high expectations, these researchers suggest that the opposite is true. Children can only be regulated, self-controlled, and self-disciplined when the expectations of adults are realistic and attuned.

Perhaps we need to return to the real purpose of a boundary: to make children feel safe, reduce anxiety, encourage mutual respect, and to develop secure attachment. For some children, certainty and direction make them feel safe. Boundaries and consequences are not the only ways to provide certainty and direction. There are many flexible and creative ways to give these children the clarity and certainty they crave for safety without using adult power over them. For other children, autonomy and self-direction make them feel safe. Parents need access to each of these tools to respond to the particular child before them.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Baumrind and her contemporaries completely miss the crucial lens of neurodiversity and the corrosive power of ableism. In the worldview of Baumrind and modern parenting experts who advocate for boundaries and consequences to teach self-control and self-discipline, the goals of good parenting are to produce children who achieve certain universal academic and behavioral standards and meet specific benchmarks of independence. “Good children” respond quickly to their parents’ requests without negotiation, emotional expressions, or delay. “Good children” are compliant and excel in school. “Good parents” raise independent adults who do not require supportive care from others, who earn their own money, marry and procreate, and contribute to the economy. 

Sadly, these assumptions about the “good life” often leave neurodivergent and disabled members of our communities completely unseen (at best) and shamed, judged, and marginalized (at worst). Many parenting approaches completely ignore the powerful discoveries of neurodiversity and of disability advocates and the importance of customizing your parenting approach to fit the unique children in your family.

Neurodiversity is a concept that recognizes and celebrates the natural variation in human neurological traits and cognitive functioning. It emphasizes that differences in brain wiring and processing are a normal and essential part of the human experience. Researchers define neurodiversity as an inclusive framework that values the diverse ways individuals think, learn, and process information, embracing conditions such as autism, ADHD, dyslexia, and other neurodevelopmental variations as inherent aspects of human diversity rather than solely as disorders to be cured, suppressed, or normalized. Ableism is the discrimination or prejudice against individuals with disabilities, perpetuating harmful stereotypes and undervaluing their worth and contributions to society.

Universal standards of “good behavior” for children are ableist in that they center around neurotypical norms and expectations. These standards rarely account for the diverse ways in which neurodivergent children process information, express themselves, and interact with the world. Children with auditory processing differences may look as though they are “not listening” when they need instructions repeated, or when they need a long delay between the instruction and expected responsive behaviors. Children with sensory processing differences may be reacting to real and challenging sensory triggers in the environment that their neurotypical peers completely miss. Autistic children may need to self-stimulate with repeated sounds or behaviors that they are unable to stop, thus being perceived as “deliberately disobedient.” ADHD children may wander off or repeatedly forget expectations because they are unable to sequence events or create a memory pattern for repeated events. 

In 1966, Barumrind stated that the hallmarks of permissive parents were a warm and connected parenting approach, combined with releasing expectations, dropping demands, and refusing to impose external boundaries and consequences. They did not use universal rules or standards of behaviors. They viewed their children as equals. Permissive parenting is indeed a radical divergence from the standard approach to parenting. The children raised under such a system would absolutely be free thinkers. Moreover, it is important to remember that correlation is not causation. It is entirely likely that the parents who gravitated toward this parenting style in the 1960’s were neurodivergent and disabled themselves, and/or those parents raising neurodivergent and disabled children. Those parents and children would never achieve the neurotypical standards of excellence assumed in testing and research. Those standards were not written with neurodivergent families in view. 

I have ceased differentiating my parenting approach, Low-Demand Parenting, from permissive parenting, as I no longer wish to perpetuate the universal judgment and fear of this parenting style. Fear of permissiveness has caused generations of parents to hold to arbitrary rules and boundaries for fear of “giving in.” Fear of permissiveness has caused countless arguments and battles between parents and children that could be easily healed by parents adjusting their expectations to match the window of tolerance of the unique child before them. Professionals repeatedly admonish parents for not being “consistent” or “in control,” out of the claim that this “lack of boundaries” will make their children feel “unsafe,” though the research clearly identifies otherwise.

Baumrind claimed that permissive parents view their children as equals. Perhaps we need more equality among adults and children to counteract the generations of “adultism” that holds the expectations, needs, and opinions of adults in higher regard than children and discriminates against children on the belief they are less worthy of respect than adults. We need parents who respect their children’s innate personhood and believe that they are equally deserving of respect, regardless of their developmental stage or level of independence.

We no longer need to fear the evils of being “permissive.” We no longer need to hold unrealistic boundaries out of a misguided attempt to make our kids feel “safe” and to ensure their long-term thriving. Thriving comes from an attuned and creative caregiver who releases unrealistic expectations, works collaboratively on solutions to problems, and creates responsive goals and visions of success that are as unique as the children before them. The root of “permissiveness” is “permission.” We need more permission as parents, particularly as parents of a new generation of neurodivergent children. We need permission to align with our particular child, to use the tools that our child needs, and to provide safety, connection, and secure attachment, so that they can pursue their own joy and thriving. We will not get this permission from the traditional parenting world or from the established canon of parenting guidance. We may not get this permission from experts and therapists who are supposed to be helping us. We may have to give this permission to ourselves, embracing our freedom and autonomy alongside our innate wisdom and intuition. Perhaps it’s time to rethink, and even embrace, permissive parenting.