Speaker 1they started it that's not fair she always gets more i hate him if you have more than one child these statements are the soundtrack of your home or at least something similar the bickering the physical fights the constant coming to you to adjudicate and you do adjudicate because what else do you do you try to be fair you try to figure out who actually started it you try to deliver a verdict which both children can live with and five minutes later you're doing it all over again the refereeing is exhausting and here is the thing it is also making the rivalry worse not because you are doing it wrong but because the act of refereeing itself removes the one experience which actually builds the skills siblings need working out themselves today i want to explain why sibling rivalry happens why the usual approach is keep it going and exactly what to do instead now let's start with something that i think will genuinely change how you see every sibling fight sibling rivalry is not a sign that your children do not love each other it is not a sign that you have done something wrong it is hard wired from an evolutionary perspective siblings are in direct competition for the most important resource available parental attention and care that's you that competition is not a character flaw it's biology doing exactly what it was designed to do every sibling relationship throughout history has carried this tension because resources including the resources of having a parent's full attention are fundamentally finite and it's not a sign that you have done something wrong your children's nervous systems know this even if their conscious minds do not and you want to add to this the fact that siblings are thrust together in close proximity usually without choosing each other at developmental stages where they have very different needs different capacities for regulation and different levels of that cognitive that intellectual sophistication a three-year-old and a seven-year-old inhabit genuinely different levels of cognitive and intellectual sophistication genuinely different developmental worlds the three-year-old cannot yet take the seven-year-old's perspective the seven-year-old is developmentally capable of understanding fairness but is not yet reliably able to apply it under stress so neither of them is being unreasonable they are simply at different stages of a very long developmental journey towards being people who can resolve conflict without adult intervention and here is the research piece which matters most and the studies on sibling relationships consistently show that children who are given the space and the tools to work through conflict with their siblings rather than having it resolved for them by us as the referee they develop significantly stronger conflict resolution skills better perspective taking and more resilient peer relationships in adulthood the sibling relationship is the first and most intense training ground for everything which comes later friendships romantic relationships workplace dynamics every time children work through a conflict with a sibling they're building the toolkit that they're going to end up using for the rest of their lives every time we do it for them they do not and so when we think about that in relation to the fine lens and the wide lens we're working with that in mind rather than the fine lens where we're managing the incident in front of us who took whose toy who sat in whose seat who looked at whom the wrong way we're trying to be fair which is an almost impossible task because both children have their own version yeah we've been there got their own version of what happened and both versions are true from where they're standing from their perspective and then we end up issuing verdicts imposing consequences and trying to restore the peace so we can get on with whatever the next thing is the fine lens is exhausting because the incidents are constant and each one demands our attention and our judgment the wide lens asks what skills are not yet developed in my children that if they were would mean this conflict would not need me to be involved and the answer is a cluster of different things the ability to not get what you want without the feeling of being overwhelmed the capacity to take someone else's perspective and understand that that their siblings experience of the same event was genuinely different from theirs the skills to negotiate to compromise to repair after conflict these are not skills children are born with they are skills which develop through practice specifically through the conflict and having to find a way through it every time we take the conflict off their hands and referee it we shorten that practice every time we step back and let them attempt it we lengthen that practice the referee who was always available means the players have never had to learn the rules for themselves now there are three things at the heart of this episode first stepping out of the referee role not abandoning the situation but changing how we show up in it second it's about shifting from treating siblings as two opposing sides to treating the conflict the argument as something that they own together and because they own it together they need to solve it together and thirdly helping children understand that fair does not mean equal because the belief that everything must be equal is not equal because everything must be equal and everything must be exactly equal is one of the most persistent drivers of sibling conflict and it is a belief parents often accidentally reinforce so what does this look like at different ages so for our for young children those sort of toddler and early years at this stage sibling conflict is almost entirely about objects and space she has the thing i want he's in my place there's no malice there's that immediacy, this moment, because a toddler brain cannot hold in mind that the toy belongs to someone else or is being used by someone else and that they will eventually get a turn and that that is worth waiting. The impulse to grab is faster than the capacity to regulate it. Now at this age, our job is not to resolve the conflict, but to keep it safe and to narrate it. Yeah. So you both want the car. That's really hard. Then step back, see what happens. They will not necessarily resolve it gracefully and they may not resolve it at all without it escalating, but the narration that we give them, that kind of, you both want the car, this is really hard. If we say that without rescuing, we begin to help them build the sense that feelings in conflict can be named without being fixed. Immediately. And that is the foundation that everything else will be built on. Now, of course, if it escalates to hitting or biting, we want to address that calmly and immediately because that's a safety issue. But the underlying conflict about the toy, if we want to leave it with them where it is safe to do so. Now, as our children get older, by the time children reach school age, they are capable of more sophisticated understanding of conflict and they resolve these. in the playground quite often themselves, but their regulation under stress is still a work in progress. So they can understand that something is unfair, but they can't generally always manage the feeling of unfairness without help. So this is the age to begin introducing a simple conflict process. So it's not a lecture. We don't need to have a family meeting about it specifically, but it's something more immediate and practical. You two have a problem. What are your ideas for solving it? Then stay close, but do not offer the solution. Give them time. And what you'll find, of course, because this is new and we've not done this before, is the first few times they may not produce anything. They might not be able to come up with anything. And that is fine. The question itself is the intervention. It reframes the conflict as something that they own, not something that you will take over. And that avoids that referee loop and that you always take their side. You're always on there. You know, you love them more, all of that process, because what you're simply doing is restating the problem and handing the responsibility to them to resolve. When we start getting into sort of middle childhood, sort of eight to 12, the rivalry often shifts now from objects to status. Yeah. Who is better? Who gets more? Who's the favorite? This is a more painful version of the competition because it cuts closer to identity. And it is the age when children are most likely to die. to try and pull on you as an ally. Maybe to take their side, to validate their version of events, confirm that yes, their sibling is being unreasonable. Resist, resist, resist. This is not about refusing to listen. Listen fully with warmth and hear them out, then return the problem to them. That sounds really frustrating. What do you think you're going to do about it? Yeah, not in that tone. That was probably not the right tone, but you know, that sounds really frustrating. You're not a judge. You are a sounding board. And the moment you take a side, you have confirmed the framework that there is a right side and a wrong side. And the right side gets your support. The framework guarantees the rivalry continues when we simply restate and then pass on that, the resolution and the ownership to them. And we can be the, we can be the sounding board. We can listen, but the responsibility for resolving still lives with our children. Now with teenagers, sibling conflict can become more sophisticated and genuinely much more hurtful. Words are sharper. The capacity for that deliberate provocation has arrived and the power dynamics that began in toddlerhood, the older child who controls the resources, the younger one wants the younger child who can get a reaction from the older one without trying. That's had years to calcify. So your role here is the same. The stakes just feel higher. So step back, name what you observe without taking a side. There's a lot of tension between the two of you at the moment. Make space for each child to talk to you individually as a sounding board, if they need that and make it clear calmly and consistently that you're not available to be the arbitrator. You are there. As available for either of them to help them think through how they can handle it. Separate conversations, not a tribunal. The responsibility in terms of resolving is still with them. Now, before I move on to my top tips, I do want to say a note on neurodiverse children, because this does have an impact on how the dynamics within siblings operate. So for children with ADHD, impulsivity in conflict is, neurological rather than intentional. So the grab, the shove, the thing said before it was thought through, these happen faster than the brain can regulate them. This does not mean that the behavior is acceptable or that there are no consequences. It just means that the intervention needs to come before the conflict rather than after it. Yeah, we want to anticipate it rather than look at the, obviously we need to do the resolution afterwards. If that's what happens, but the best way to scaffold it is to be looking at things in advance. So we want to structure the environment as best we can. I understand we live very busy lives, but where we can and where this is becoming a repeated challenge in your home, you might want to consider structuring their environment to try and reduce the high conflict flashpoints where possible. Maybe an opportunity for there to be separate physical spaces, clear, ownership of objects, predictable transitions. All of these reduce the number of moments where an ADHD child's impulse control is likely to be overwhelmed. And when conflict does happen, because it will happen, a brief cool down before any resolution is attempted is essential because trying to process a conflict in the heat of it with an ADHD brain is rarely productive. For autistic children, the rigidity around fairness and rules can make sibling conflict particularly intense. If a rule has been established, it is my turn. We agreed to this. That is not how it works. Any deviation from it is not just annoying. It's a violation of how they are supposed to be. And the distress this causes is real and significant. So work with this rather than against it. It's not always possible, but where possible, particularly where you are noticing big flashpoints, make the rules explicit. Even write them down if you need to, so that they're not up for interpretation. When conflict does arrive from perceived rule violation, acknowledge the distress before attempting any resolution. Yeah, you expected it to work this way and it didn't. That is really hard. Trying to resolve the logic of the conflict before the emotional reality has been acknowledged rarely works. So that's all of our context. So I'm going to move into my five top tips and I'll talk you through how we can help children at different ages. Now, you know what the first one's going to be, surely. Number one, stop refereeing and say so out loud. The most important thing that you can do is make a deliberate stated decision to step out of the referee role because it's just fueling the sibling dynamics because there's always going to be a side taken. So we want to communicate that to our children clearly, not as a threat, not as a punishment, simply as a matter of fact. It's a change in how your family handles conflicts. From now on, when you two have a fight, I'm not going to come and sort it out. It is yours to work through. I'm here if someone is hurt or needs me, but the solving is going to be yours. That's simple. Just state it as it is and then hold it. The first few days will be louder. It will be tricky. The conflicts will escalate. Before they resolve because your children are accustomed to you arriving and ending it and refereeing it and then doling out the consequences. And without that arrival, they will need to find another way through. And I suspect they'll probably escalate the coming to you in the hope that you will have changed your mind. They will find it. It just takes longer than maybe we will feel comfortable with. Now, with younger children, we want to explain it in simple terms. Mummy and mummy, mummy and daddy, daddy and daddy are not going to decide who is right anymore. You two are going to figure it out. Then follow through, staying nearby for safety, but not intervening unless it becomes physical. Primary age, they will test this. They will come to you with their case, expecting your verdict. Your response? I hear you. What are you going to do about it? Repeat as needed. It will take time. It is working even when it does not look like it. Even if it gets, and it will get significantly more before it gets better. With teenagers, we want to make it explicit and mutual. So we want to have the conversation with the children together, if possible. I'm stepping out of the middle of this. This does not mean I do not care. It means I think you're both capable of handling it. So that's number one. Number two, treat them as a unit in the conflict, not as two sides. So when you do need to speak to what is happening, speak to the conflict rather than the children as opposing parties. So instead of what happened to each of them, which is often what we end up doing and then we referee, one gives us their version and then the other one says, that's not what happened. And then we arbitrage between the two of them. Instead, what we want to try is you two have a problem. What is it? So that's just a simple thing. It's a problem that they have between the two sides. So the reframe changes everything because it makes the conflict a shared problem rather than a competition between two sides. And it positions you as someone interested in the problem, not in allocating blame. And when you gather them together, resist the pull. It will be there to hear each side because you'll never establish the truth of what happened. We know that. And the attempt just prolongs the conflict. What matters is not what happened, it is what happens next. Now with young children, we might say things like, you two have a problem. Sit down. What is the problem? Keep it very simple. One sentence to define the problem. Then what could you both do? As we move into older primary school children, we can then introduce more structure here. What is the problem? What has each person tried? What could they try next? Keep it brief. This is a process, not a therapy session. With teenagers, the unit framing often works better as a one-to-one conversation with each of them separately. You and your sister have a problem. What's your part in it? That last question is the important one because it moves them from the position of victim to co-author of the situation. Number three, the fairness trap. Fair is not the same as equal. One of the most exhausting things about sibling rivalry is the fairness argument. He got more, she stayed up later, he got a bigger piece. It's relentless and parents often exhaust themselves trying to be scrupulously equal in response to it. The problem is that equal is not actually fair and trying to make everything equal is both impossible and counterproductive. Fair means each child gets what they need. An eight-year-old and a 12-year-old do not need the same bedtime. The same level of independence or the same amount of screen time or the same amount of support. They need what is appropriate for their age and time. stage. The older child gets more privileges because they are older and more capable. The younger child will get those privileges when they reach the same age. This is not unfair. It is the way the world works. And name this directly and often. In our family, fair does not mean everyone gets the same thing. It means everyone gets what they need. It will not stop the complaints immediately, but it establishes a framework which is actually defensible, unlike the endless attempts to make everything equal. Now with young children, we want to keep the explanation simple and age appropriate. You will get to do that when you are as old as your brother. No more justification is needed at this age. As they move into primary age and they are old enough to understand the principle, fair is not everyone getting the same. Fair is everyone gets what they need. Use examples from their own life where this has applied in their favour. And with teenagers, have the honest conversation. I know it does not always feel equal. It's not supposed to be equal. It's supposed to be fair. And fair means different things at different ages. When you were 11, your brother got things you didn't get yet. Now you're 15 and you get things he doesn't get yet. Number four, give them a simple process for resolving it themselves. The single most important thing is to give them a simple process for resolving it themselves. The single most useful thing you can do to reduce refereeing long-term is to give your children a process which they can use without you. Not a complicated one, a simple memorable sequence they can reach for when things escalate. Something like stop, say what you want, hear what they want, find something you can both live with. That's it. Stop, say what you want, hear what they want, find something you can both live with. That's it. Stop, say what you want, hear what they want, find something you can live with. That's it. You can put it on a wall, you can practice it in calm moments, you can refer to it when conflict happens. The point is not that they follow it perfectly. The point is that there is a shared framework which both children know which means conflict has a structure rather than an escalation. Now with young children I would encourage you to use pictures rather than words. So particularly obviously because they're not able to read yet. So stop could be a hand up, talk could be a mouth, stop could be a hand up, talk could be a mouth, listen could be an ear, fix it could be a handshake. Practice it when everyone is calm, not in the middle of a fight. With primary school children we might do that, write it together and you might even use the imagery as well. But when we get them to write it with us, we get them involved in creating the process. Maybe they choose what the icons are going to be so that they have ownership of it. A process they helped design is one they are more likely to use. And for teenagers the process is the same. They have ownership of it. This is more likely to be temporal than structural. So agreed that when conflict is high, both parties take 20 minutes. That's the temporal, that's the time bound. That they take 20 minutes before any conversation happens. In the cool down, they each think about their own part, then come back. No blame opening, just here is what I need. And number five, know when to step in the line between discomfort and safety. Now stepping out of the referee role does not mean stepping away from your children. It means being clear about the difference between conflict that is uncomfortable and conflict which is unsafe. Discomfort is fine. Discomfort is where actually the skills get built. Unsafe is not fine and does require your presence immediately. So the line is physical safety and also emotional cruelty. If someone is being hurt, you step in. If someone is being genuinely targeted, sustained name calling, deliberate exclusion, consistent scapegoating, you step in. The occasional fight, the loud argument, the door slammed, the unfair accusations, these are discomfort. They are survivable. And in fact, they are in fact necessary. And when you do step in, step in calmly and briefly. I'm stopping this because it has crossed a line. When you are both calm, you are going to work this out. Then step back again. The intervention is not a resolution. It's simply a reset. And where necessary, you remove them, not physically yourself, but suggest that they have that disconnect from each other so that they can reset. Now with young children, physical safety is the primary line at the stage. Fighting, hitting, scratching, address immediately, calmly with a clear boundary. The emotional cruelty line is less relevant typically with young children because they lack the sort of the sophistication that's needed for that level, that level of emotional cruelty. Primary children, the emotional lines become more relevant. Sustained mockery, deliberate targeting of a sibling's weak points, consistent exclusion from play. These warrant your attention. Name what you see, set a clear expectation without turning it into a prosecution. Teenagers, well, the emotional cruelty capacity is at its height with teenagers. And so is the damage that it can do. If one sibling is consistently being undermined, targeted, or treated with contempt by the other, that is not a conflict to leave with them. It is a pattern which needs your intervention. Address directly with the perpetrating sibling with clarity and without shouting. And by just following these, and I know it sounds, I'm about to say simple, framework, but when we step out of that referee position, when we set things up for our children so that they own it, and then they own the problem solving, when we call out that emotional distress and also that physical intervention, and then create space for them to come back and discuss, we equip them not only with the skills to manage the conflicts that happen at home, we equip them for all of the conflicts that they're going to have to deal with, throughout the rest of their childhood and well into their adulthood. Now, on Monday, I am talking about something a lot of parents of toddlers find mortifying. When your young child hits, bites, or hurts other children. What is actually happening, why it is more normal than you think, and three things which actually help. Now, sibling rivalry is not going to disappear. It is a part of what siblings do, and it is a part of how they grow. The version of it that requires you to referee constantly, that escalates every time, that leaves everyone, including you, feeling worse, that version is optional. It exists because of how we are showing up in the conflict, not because the conflict itself is intractable. The five things. Stop refereeing and say so out loud. Treat them as a unit in the problem, not two sides. Retire the pursuit of equal in favour of fair. Give them a simple process to use without you, and know the difference between discomfort, which is theirs to work through, and unsafe, which is yours to step in. If this episode resonated, share it with a parent of siblings who is in the middle of the referee role right now, and I will see you on Monday. Subtitles by the Amara.org community
PodcastTranscript AI