254: What is FAFO Parenting? The 9 Most Important Things Parents Should Know

Think about it from a child's perspective. If you know that admitting to a mistake or revealing a problem will result in a harsh consequence that your parent could prevent but chooses not to, what's your incentive to be honest? If telling the truth means you'll be allowed to experience something unpleasant in the name of learning, while hiding the truth might allow you to avoid that unpleasantness altogether, many children will choose hiding.

Hi everyone. I am Denise, a longtime listener of Your Parenting Mojo. I love this podcast because it condenses all the scientific research on child development, compares it with anthropological studies, and puts it into context of how I can apply all of this to my daily parenting. Jen has a wealth of resources here, so if you're new to the podcast, I suggest you scroll through all her episodes. I'm sure you'll find one that will help you with whatever you're going through, or one that just piques your interest if you'd like to get new episodes in your inbox, along with a free infographic on 13 Reasons Your child isn't listening to you and what to do about each one. Sign up at yourparentingmojo.com/subscribe. Enjoy the show.

Hello and welcome to the Your Parenting Mojo podcast. Today, we're talking about something that is trending on social media lately and that is FAFO parenting. If you've been scrolling TikTok or reading parenting forums, you've probably seen this term, often with people taking pretty strong perspectives about whether it's the most brilliant thing in the world or incredibly harmful. FAFO stands for "F*** Around and Find Out," and it's being positioned as the antidote to what some people see as overly permissive gentle parenting. But as we dig into this trend today, we're going to see the whole debate is missing something important: an understanding of what children actually need to thrive, and how we can meet both our children's and our own needs. We're going to explore what FAFO parenting actually looks like in practice, why it's gaining traction, what problems it might create, and most importantly, what we can do instead when we understand that both our children and we have legitimate needs that deserve to be met. So let's dive right in with the nine most important things that you need to know about FAFO parenting.

Point number 1 is what FAFO parenting actually looks like. Let's start by understanding what we're actually talking about when people say FAFO parenting. The term comes from the phrase "F*** around and find out," which basically means if you make poor choices, you’re going to face the consequences of those choices. In parenting terms, it's about stepping back and letting children experience the results of their decisions without intervening to soften the blow. Now, this can look very different depending on the family and the situation. On one end of the spectrum, you have examples that actually seem pretty reasonable. Kylie Kelce, who is football player Travis Kelce's sister-in-law, shared a story on her podcast about her three-year-old refusing to wear a jacket. Instead of battling with her daughter or forcing the jacket on, Travis suggested the child go outside and experience how cold it was. The child came back in and put her jacket on. That's a pretty low-stakes way for a child to learn about weather and clothing choices. A Wall Street Journal article describing FAFO parenting that got a lot of press opened by describing it like this: “FAFO (often pronounced "faff-oh") is based on the idea that parents can ask and warn, but if a child breaks the rules, mom and dad aren't standing in the way of the repercussions. Won't bring your own jacket? Walk home in the downpour. Didn't feel like having lasagna for dinner? Survive until breakfast. Left your toy on the floor again? Go find it in the trash under the lasagna you didn't eat.

Child psychologist Dr. Andrea Mata’s situation is described in that same article. It says, “Recently, her 8-year-old son kept having accidents in what Mata thought was him intentionally disregarding the urge to go to the bathroom during a fun activity. After attempts to correct it, she told the boy to take his allowance and buy himself new underpants. She later discovered the problem was related to a medical issue, which was resolved, and she has since apologized to him. But she didn't reimburse him since he'd lied about it and tried to cover it up, and she stands by the idea of repercussions when children intentionally fall short of expected behavior”. The appeal of FAFO parenting seems to be its simplicity. Parents who are exhausted from negotiating, explaining, and managing their children's big emotions are attracted to an approach that seems to cut through all of that. There's something logical about saying, "Well, you chose to pee in your underwear, so you can replace them.” When you’re feeling exhausted and overwhelmed, these kinds of simple approaches have undeniable appeal.

But when we look at these examples more closely, we start to see some important distinctions. In the jacket example, the consequence getting cold is directly related to the choice and happens immediately. The child learns something really useful about the relationship between weather and clothing. But in the underwear example, the consequence losing allowance money, isn't actually really related to the original problem. It's a punishment that the parent created. We also see that FAFO parenting often gets applied without considering the child's developmental stage or individual circumstances. A three-year-old forgetting their jacket is very different from an eight-year-old having medical issues they don't understand. But FAFO approaches often treat these situations the same way as matters of choice and therefore, ‘logical’ consequences. When we talk about FAFO parenting, we're really talking about a spectrum of approaches that all center around letting children experience negative outcomes when they make choices that parents don't approve of. But as we're going to see throughout this episode, this approach raises some important questions about what children actually need to learn and grow.

This brings us to point number 2: The core problem: FAFO confuses punishment with consequences. One of the biggest issues with FAFO parenting is that it often mixes up two very different things. This what we call natural authentic consequences and manufactured punishments and treats them as if they're the same. A natural consequence is what happens as a direct result of an action. When you don't wear a jacket when it's cold, you might feel cold, although that isn’t universally true. My daughter often happily wears a t-shirt when everyone else around her is in jackets. If you don't eat dinner, you might feel hungry but then again, you might not if you had a huge lunch. These are what we might call ‘authentic’ or ‘natural’ consequences because they flow directly from the choice and it would happen whether a parent was involved or not. Natural consequences tend to be great teachers because they make sense. The relationship between the choice and the outcome is clear and is actually logical. Life is full of natural consequences, and I’m a big fan of letting our children experience them, in an age-appropriate way. If your 3-year-old doesn’t want to put a jacket on, there’s no need to fight to get the jacket on but you might want to bring the jacket with you, so you don’t have a child who starts complaining three minutes after you arrive at your destination.

A punishment, on the other hand, is something a person in authority decides to impose to teach a lesson or to discourage certain behavior. Refusing to allow a child access to other food because they don’t like what you served is a punishment. Throwing away a toy that was left on the floor is a punishment. Making a child buy their own underwear after bathroom accidents, whether or not they were caused by medical issues, is a punishment. But it’s an especially inappropriate punishment when we realize the child couldn’t help peeing. These so called ‘logical consequences’ wouldn't happen on their own, they only happen because an adult decided to make them happen. And that's where things get tricky: when we're creating consequences rather than allowing them to happen, we're making a lot of assumptions about what the child needs to learn and why they're behaving the way they are. In the underwear example, Dr. Mata assumed her son was choosing to ignore his body's signals because he didn't want to interrupt fun activities. Based on that assumption, she created a consequence punishment designed to motivate him to pay more attention to his body. But her assumption was wrong, he had a medical issue. So the consequence didn't teach him what she thought it would teach him. Instead, it probably taught him that when he has problems he doesn't understand, his parent's response won’t be to work with him to find out what’s happening, but to punish him for doing things that don’t match her expectations.

In my mind, this is where FAFO parenting often goes wrong. It's based on the idea that children are making conscious choices about their behavior and just need the right motivation to make better choices by which we mean the choices that we want them to make. But children's behavior is complex. Sometimes they're making conscious choices, but often they're responding to things like developmental limitations, unmet needs, overwhelming emotions, or yes, medical issues they don't fully understand. When we create punishments disguised as consequences, we're often addressing the symptom rather than the cause. The child who keeps forgetting their lunch money might not need the motivation of going hungry, they might need help developing organizational systems or understanding what's making it hard for them to remember. The child who won't clean up their toys might not need the threat of losing them, they might need help understanding why cleanup matters to their parents or support in developing the executive function skills that make cleanup possible. Another problem with manufactured consequences is that they often damage trust between parents and children. When a child experiences something unpleasant and realizes their parent could have prevented it but chose not to, it sends a message about the relationship. Instead of "my parent is here to help me learn and grow," the message becomes "my parent will create suffering for me if they think it will teach me something." This doesn't mean we should never let children experience difficulty or discomfort. But there's a big difference between allowing authentic natural consequences to happen while remaining emotionally available and supportive, versus creating punishments and calling them ‘logical’ consequences.

This leads us to point 3: FAFO can damage the parent-child relationship. When we step back and look at FAFO parenting through the lens of relationships, some concerning patterns emerge. The approach often positions parents and children as adversaries rather than allies, and this can have lasting effects on trust and connection. Think about the fundamental message that FAFO parenting sends to children. When a parent watches a child struggle or suffer because they believe it will be educational, the child learns something really important about that relationship. They learn their parent will prioritize teaching a lesson over providing support. They learn that their parent's role is to judge their choices and allow unpleasant consequences rather than to help them navigate challenges.

This becomes especially problematic when children are struggling with things beyond their control or understanding. In the bathroom example, imagine being an eight-year-old dealing with a medical issue you don't understand, having accidents that embarrass and confuse you, and then having your parent respond by making you spend your own money on underwear because they assume you're just being careless. What does that teach you about going to your parents when you have problems? That child has already learned that his parent won’t be supportive, which is probably why he lied to her about the accidents in the first place. Research consistently shows us that children thrive when they have a secure relationship with their caregivers. They need what psychologists call a "secure base" the knowledge that their parents are available, are responsive, are supportive when they're facing challenges. FAFO parenting can undermine this sense of security because it explicitly involves parents stepping back and allowing children to struggle when they could provide help.

But the relationship damage often goes deeper than this. FAFO parenting frequently involves an element of "I told you so" satisfaction when children experience difficult consequences. Parents might not say it out loud, but it seems to me that social media post I’m seeing, there’s an underlying sense of vindication when the child who refused to wear a jacket gets cold or the child who didn't want to bring lunch money gets hungry. This satisfaction comes at the expense of empathy and connection. Children are incredibly attuned to their parents' emotional states. When they're struggling and they sense that their parent is pleased about their struggle because it proves a point, it creates confusion and distance. Instead of being supported through a learning experience, they experience their struggle as something that satisfies their parent. And that can lead to children hiding their struggles or becoming defensive about their mistakes rather than seeing them as opportunities to learn and grow.

The relationship impact is also complicated by the fact that FAFO parenting often involves a fundamental misunderstanding of children's developmental capabilities. When we expect children to make consistently good choices and learn efficiently from consequences, we're often expecting more than their developing brains can deliver. Young children, in particular, don't have fully developed executive function skills, impulse control, or the ability to think through long-term consequences. When children repeatedly face harsh consequences for developmental limitations, they may internalize the message that they're disappointing or problematic. Instead of developing confidence in their ability to learn and grow, they may develop anxiety about making mistakes or shame about their struggles. This is especially true for children who have additional challenges like ADHD, autism, or processing differences.

And the irony of all of this is that FAFO parenting can undermine the very goal it's setting out to achieve. If we want children to learn from their experiences and make better choices over time, they need the emotional safety and support that allows them to reflect on their experiences without being overwhelmed by shame or fear. When children are focused on avoiding punishment or proving they're not "bad," they have less mental and emotional energy available for actual learning. Strong parent-child relationships are built on trust, and trust develops when children consistently experience their parents as being on their side, even when they make mistakes. This doesn't mean protecting children from all discomfort or difficulty, it means being a supportive presence as they navigate challenges and learn from their experiences. When children trust that their parents will be responsive and supportive, they're more likely to be honest about their struggles, ask for help when they need it, and be open to guidance and feedback. These are the conditions that actually support learning and growth, rather than the fear-based compliance that FAFO parenting often produces.

Idea number 4 is the myth that gentle parenting created "soft" kids and that FAFO parenting is the answer to that. One of the driving forces behind the FAFO parenting trend is the belief that gentle parenting has created a generation of "soft" children who can't handle difficulty, disappointment, or failure. This narrative suggests that because parents have been too focused on children's emotions and self-esteem, kids today are unprepared for the harsh realities of adult life. And when parents look for alternatives, they're often told that "authoritative parenting" is the gold standard. The approach that decades of research prove is best. But both of these ideas are more complicated than they appear. First, let's talk about what people actually mean when they say "gentle parenting." There isn't one agreed-upon definition of gentle parenting. Ask a hundred parents who identify as gentle parents to describe their approach, and you'll get a hundred different answers. Some emphasize validating emotions but still use punishments. Others focus on avoiding punishments but struggle with boundaries. Some emphasize consequences, while others prioritize collaborative problem-solving.

The gentle parenting umbrella covers everything from highly permissive approaches where children have few limits, to highly structured approaches that just happen to avoid traditional punishments. Some parents still use reward charts, but call them ‘positive reinforcement systems.’ Some use ‘calm down corners’ to mean a place where parent and child can go together to re-regulate; others means to use the spot where the Time Out chair is located. Some gentle parents are very focused on children's emotions but less attentive to their own needs, or maybe don’t even realize they have needs. Others work hard to balance everyone's needs in the family. But most of what gets described as "gentle parenting" online isn't really very gentle at all. It's actually a very scripted approach as described by writer Amil Niazi in an article for The Cut called Gentle Parenting is Too Gentle. She writes: “The Script goes like this: validate the emotion ("I see you're frustrated that we have to leave the park"), hold the boundary ("but it's time to go"), and then sprinkle on a sweetener ("would you like to skip to the car or walk?").”

This approach is really just control with lipstick on it. You're still making the child do what you want them to do; you're just using different words to make it sound nicer. The child's autonomy, competence, and connection needs aren't really being met, they're just being managed with prettier language. It's no wonder that the most common type of article you'll find online about gentle parenting follows a really precise formula: it describes this scripted, not-really-gentle way of interacting with kids, explains how exhausting and impossible it is for parents to maintain, and then concludes that traditional parenting using control and consequences is actually best. The article from The Cut is a perfect example. The author describes trying to negotiate everything, getting exhausted, and then deciding that what kids really need is for parents to be "blunt" and stop offering choices.

So when someone says "gentle parenting doesn't work" or "gentle parenting created soft kids," what exactly are they criticizing? These are all very different things, but they get lumped together under the gentle parenting label. But when parents look for an alternative, they're often pointed toward "authoritative parenting" as the research-backed solution. And this is where things get really interesting, because the story behind authoritative parenting research reveals some significant limitations that most people don't know about. I explored this in a lot more depth in the episode called “Authoritative is not the best parenting style”, here’s a very brief summary of that. Back in the nineteen sixties, researcher Diana Baumrind studied families in Berkeley, California, a very specific population of mostly White, middle-class families that she looked for by design. She observed what the parents with their kids and identified three main approaches they used to control their children's behavior (that’s what she’s looking for). She describes this as: authoritarian (high demands, low warmth), permissive (low demands, high warmth), and authoritative (high demands, high warmth). And then later researchers added a fourth category: neglectful (low demands, low warmth).

The research consistently shows that of these four approaches; authoritative parenting produces the best outcomes for children. And that's important information. But the problem is that the researchers assumed these were the only four possible approaches to parenting. It's like going to the burger chain In-N-Out and choosing between hamburgers, cheeseburgers, double-doubles, and the vegetarian grilled cheese option. There might be decades of research showing that the double-double is clearly the best option, and it even looks like the best option if you don’t know about the off-menu Animal style Double-Double with whole grilled onions, extra spread, and fries that are ‘well done.’ Yes, authoritative is the best of the four ‘official’ methods. We’ve got decades of research to prove it. But you’re missing the much better off-menu fifth option. Even more concerning is what Dr. Baumrind herself said about how to achieve authoritative parenting. In a paper she co-authored, she wrote: "On average, authoritative parents spanked just as much as the average of all other parents. Undoubtedly, some parents can be authoritative without using spanking but we have no evidence that all or even most parents can achieve authoritative parenting without an occasional spank." So our "gold standard" approach that research supposedly proves is best includes spanking as a recommended tool. To me, I think that should make us pause and think about whether we're really looking at the best possible approach, or just the best of a limited set of options that all focused on adult control of children.

What's particularly telling is that Dr. Baumrind did encounter some families in her studies who were parenting in ways that didn't fit her four categories. Families where parents and children seemed to work together more collaboratively. But she dismissed this approach because while the girls in these families were "achievement oriented and friendly," the two boys (just two boys) were "cooperative but notably submissive, aimless, not achievement-oriented, and dependent." She worried that this "harmonious pattern of child rearing seemed to produce an effeminate orientation in boys." Setting aside the obvious sexism in that observation, what Dr. Baumrind was really saying is that she couldn't conceive of parenting approaches that weren't based on adult control, and when she encountered them, she dismissed them based on extremely limited data and biased assumptions. And that matters because today's parents are discovering approaches that go beyond those original four categories that honor children's developmental needs while also meeting parents' legitimate needs which Baumrind never consider. These approaches might look like "gentle parenting" to some people, but they're actually more sophisticated than that. They're based on understanding child development, recognizing that both parents and children have legitimate needs, and finding creative solutions that work for everyone. So when people criticize gentle parenting and point to authoritative parenting as the research-backed alternative, they're missing the fact that there are approaches available today that go beyond those original four categories. Approaches that can be even more effective than the "gold standard" without requiring parents to use control and punishment as primary tools.

Point number 5: The real reasons behind kids' behavior challenges that FAFO parenting misses. If it's not gentle parenting that's creating behavioral challenges in children, then what is it? In our recent series of episodes on the book: The Anxious Generation, we saw how Dr. Jonathan Haidt puts the entire blame on the rise in kids’ use of smartphones in general, and social media in particular. Now that being told that FAFO parenting advocates place the blame squarely on Gentle Parenting. Given the complexity of the world we live in, is it more likely that the challenges our kids are facing are due to any one single source, or a huge web of factors that are genuinely making childhood more difficult and stressful than it was for previous generations. Let's look at the school environment, because this is where many of the behavioral concerns are showing up. Class sizes have been growing steadily for decades. Teachers are overwhelmed and underpaid. Students spend more time sitting still and less time moving their bodies. Recess has been shortened or eliminated entirely in many schools. Art, music, and other creative outlets have been cut to make room for more test preparation.

Meanwhile, academic expectations have intensified dramatically. Kindergarteners are expected to read at levels that used to be considered appropriate for first or second grade. Homework loads have increased across all grade levels. Students face constant assessment and data collection about their performance, to the extent that some teachers and school administrators in Atlanta were convicted of racketeering for faking standardized test scores rather than face the consequences of anyone finding out what’s really happening in their school, and they got to collect some financial bonuses while they were at it. The pressure to achieve has never been higher, and it starts earlier than ever before. We're also seeing the effects of what researchers call "continuous partial attention", that children today are growing up in an environment of constant stimulation and distraction. Between devices, notifications, scheduled activities, and academic demands, many children rarely experience the kind of unstructured, unstimulated time that developing brains need for integration and processing.

Social media adds another layer of complexity. Children and teenagers are comparing themselves to carefully curated online personas, experiencing cyberbullying, and dealing with the pressure to document and perform their lives for others. They're exposed to global news and trauma in ways that previous generations weren't. They're developing their sense of identity in an environment where everything can feel public and permanent. Economic stress is another huge factor that we don't talk about enough. Many families today need multiple jobs to make ends meet, which means less time for connection and more stress in the household. Children can be very sensitive to family stress, even when parents try to hide it. Chronic stress affects brain development, emotional regulation, and behavior in significant ways. We have to consider the impact of reduced community support. Many families today are more isolated than families in previous generations. Extended family members may live far away. Neighborhoods are less connected. Religious and community organizations have less participation. This means that both parents and children have fewer sources of support and fewer models for handling life's challenges.

From a developmental perspective, we're also learning more about individual differences in children's brains and nervous systems. We now understand that some children are highly sensitive to sensory input, others have differences in executive function development, and still others have variations in how they process social information. What looks like "bad behavior" can often a child's nervous system responding to demands that exceed their current capacity. Sleep is another critical factor that's often overlooked. Many children today aren't getting enough quality sleep due to early school start times, overscheduled afternoons, screen time that interferes with sleep cycles, and family stress that affects sleep quality. Sleep deprivation has profound effects on emotional regulation, attention, and behavior. Then there's the broader cultural context. Children today are growing up in a society that is increasingly polarized. They're aware of political divisions, environmental concerns, and social problems in ways that can be overwhelming. They're also growing up in a culture that often prioritizes achievement and productivity over well-being and connection.

In my mind when we consider all of these factors together, it's remarkable that children today are coping as well as they are. The fact that we're seeing some increases in anxiety, depression, and behavioral challenges makes perfect sense when we understand the context. What if, instead of seeing children’s behavior as a problem that has to be fixed, we could see it as the canary in the coal mine? What if it’s telling us that most of these factors aren’t good for any of us, and it’s just showing up for kid’s first? Understanding these real factors behind children's struggles also points us toward more effective solutions. Instead of focusing on how to make children more compliant through consequences, we can focus on how to create environments that better support their development and how to help them build the skills they need to navigate a complex world.

Important point number 6: FAFO can increase lying and hiding behaviors. One of the most counterproductive aspects of FAFO parenting is that it often creates exactly the opposite of what parents are hoping to achieve. Instead of encouraging responsibility, honesty, and good decision-making, it can lead to more lying, sneaking, and cover-up behaviors. Think about it from a child's perspective. If you know that admitting to a mistake or revealing a problem will result in a harsh consequence that your parent could prevent but chooses not to or has even designed especially for you, what's your incentive to be honest? If telling the truth means you'll be allowed to experience something unpleasant in the name of learning, while hiding the truth might allow you to avoid that unpleasantness altogether, many children will choose hiding.

We can see this dynamic clearly in the bathroom accident example. Dr. Mata mentioned her son had lied about the accidents and tried to cover them up. She saw this lying as additional proof that he deserved consequences. But from the child's perspective, the lying makes perfect sense. He was dealing with something he didn't understand. A medical issue causing accidents he couldn't control. When he tried to hide it, he was probably trying to avoid shame, embarrassment, and potential punishment. When the consequence was imposed, having to buy his own underwear, what did that teach him about honesty? It taught him that his instinct to hide problems was correct. His parent's response to discovering his struggle was to make it more difficult for him, not to help him solve it. What's that child likely to do the next time he has a problem he doesn't understand? He's probably going to get much better at hiding it.

This pattern plays out in countless situations. The teenager who gets a bad grade and knows their parents will impose consequences might forge their parent's signature or delete emails from school rather than face the music. The child who breaks something accidentally might hide the broken item or blame a sibling rather than admit what happened. The kid who's struggling with homework might lie about having it finished rather than ask for help. All of this actually sounds remarkably similar to the way that the Atlanta teachers and administrators covered up kids’ performance on standardized tests. They were afraid of the consequences, so they lied. When the focus is on avoiding consequences rather than solving problems, people of all ages get good at covering things up instead of getting good at understanding what went wrong and getting the support they need.

This is going to become a especially problematic during adolescence, when young people are beginning to individuate and may be experimenting with riskier behaviors. If teenagers have learned that honesty leads to harsh consequences while secrecy might allow them to avoid those consequences, they're much less likely to come to their parents when they're in trouble or just in over their heads. The research on adolescent brain development tells us that teenagers are biologically driven to take risks and push boundaries. This is a normal and healthy part of development. But it's also a time when they genuinely need adult guidance and support. When our parenting approach makes them afraid to be honest about their experiences, we lose the opportunity to provide that guidance when they most need it. There's also a broader issue with how FAFO parenting affects children's relationship with mistakes and failure. When mistakes consistently lead to unpleasant consequences that adults could prevent but choose not to, children often develop shame around making mistakes rather than seeing them as learning opportunities. They become focused on avoiding detection rather than on understanding what went wrong and how to do better next time.

This can have long-term effects on children's willingness to take healthy risks, try new things, and persist through challenges. If you've learned that mistakes lead to suffering and that asking for help isn't reliably going to bring help, you might become overly cautious or perfectionistic. You might avoid challenges where you're not sure you'll succeed, or you might give up quickly when things get difficult rather than seeking support and guidance. What we can do instead is to create family cultures where honesty is consistently met with support and problem-solving, even when children have made poor choices. This doesn't mean avoiding all consequences or protecting children from all discomfort. It does not mean that children's first experience when they come to us with problems is that we're glad they told us and we're going to help them figure out what to do next. When children trust that honesty will be met with support rather than punishment, they're much more likely to include us in their decision-making process. They're much more likely to ask for advice before making choices, and they're more likely to come to us when they've made mistakes and need help cleaning up the mess.

Point number 7: FAFO parenting sees stopping undesirable behavior as more important than understanding it. One of the fundamental flaws in FAFO parenting is that it focuses almost exclusively on changing behavior without any curiosity about why that behavior is happening in the first place. But when we understand the underlying causes of children's behavior, we often discover the behavior itself isn't really the problem, it's a symptom of something else that deserves our attention. Children's behavior always makes sense when we understand it from their perspective. When we consider their developmental stage, individual temperament, unmet needs, and current circumstances. A child who keeps forgetting their lunch money might have executive function challenges that make organization difficult. A child who has bathroom accidents might have a medical issue, anxiety about using school bathrooms, or sensory sensitivities. A child who refuses to wear a jacket might be highly sensitive to certain fabric textures or temperatures.

When we approach behavior with curiosity rather than judgment, we often find solutions that work much better than consequences alone. Take the classic example of a child who won't clean up their toys. A FAFO approach just describe in a Wall Street journal article involves throwing away toys that aren't picked up. But what if we get curious about why cleanup is challenging for this particular child? Maybe they're overwhelmed by having too many toys out at once. Maybe they have trouble with task initiation. Maybe they crave connection with their parent and “Go and tidy up your room” means “You’re going to be apart from me for at least an hour.”

Each of these underlying issues would lead to a different strategy to address it. If the child is overwhelmed by too many toys, you could rotate toys to have fewer out at once. If they struggle with initiation, you could help them get started. If they need connection with you, you could tidy with them, and then have them help you with another task after that. It took me a really long time to figure out that the instruction to “just put things back where they came from” was something my daughter just couldn’t do, because she couldn’t remember where they came from. She was more than willing to help clean up, if I would remind her where things go. Consequences alone might eventually produce compliance in some of these cases, but they wouldn't address the underlying challenge that's making cleanup difficult. And they certainly wouldn't help the child develop the internal motivation and skills that make cleanup manageable and meaningful. I often find that kids jump very quickly to a ‘no’ but when we take the time to understand why, finding strategies that meet both of our needs becomes much easier. My daughter resisted showers for a while, as she got older she didn’t need me in the room the whole time, but it turned out that without me there, she couldn’t remember which way to turn the taps to get them to turn off, and she was afraid of getting burned. A piece of tape stuck to the wall showing the direction to turn the taps off addressed the issue immediately the resistance evaporates.

This principle becomes even more important when we're dealing with behaviors that seem deliberately defiant or disrespectful. It's so easy to assume that a child who talks back, refuses to follow directions, or seems to ignore us is choosing to be difficult. But children who consistently struggle with cooperation often have underlying issues that are making cooperation genuinely challenging. Parent Laura, who is in the Your Parenting Mojo membership, shared about her own son’s toileting struggles in episode 183 on What I Wish I’d Known About Parenting. Here she is explaining it:

Hi, I'm Laura. I have a seven-year-old son and a four-year-old son. When my oldest was two years and two months old, the teacher at his daycare said that she thought he was ready to start potty training. While I’ve worked with thousands of children in my career, I have worked with fewer than 20 children that were not yet school aged. So I felt like this was not my area of expertise and these people have worked with thousands of other children that are of this age and I thought, well, they must be the professionals. If they're telling me he's ready, he's ready. They were wrong. He wasn't ready. Over five years later, my son still has regular accidents. He has daytime accidents two or three times a week. He has nighttime accidents six or seven nights a week. Potty learning before he was ready has caused a lot of long-term problems. He is chronically constipated and he's had so many accidents in his bedroom that we're going to have to replace the carpet. I learned after all of this potty problem or potty trouble, that several studies say that potty training before the age of three is harmful. One of the doctors that we work with says that a child's bladder keeps growing to its standard size until the age of three, and it grows faster and stronger when we don't disrupt the process by inhibiting filling and emptying. My son's pelvic floor physical therapist, that's right. My seven-year-old has a pelvic floor PT. She says that the muscles to void and haven't developed yet. And they aren't in the right place until after age three. So potty training before those muscles are in place is detrimental to a child's development. I wish I had known this before.

So, all of these is a multi-year journey for Laura and her son. A doctor initially told her there’s nothing wrong with him. A psychologist told her to punish her son for peeing in his bedroom. When she eventually advocated for an x-ray (that nobody else thought they need it), they found the fecal impaction that created the chronic constipation. The treatment involved daily enemas for a long time. This could very easily have led to a situation where she forced him through these procedures that he hated, but instead she worked to give him autonomy over each part of the process, like what temperature the water should be, and what he would be doing to distract himself while it was happening. She said she was often surprised by her son’s creativity in finding strategies that would work for both of them, and she emailed me recently to let me know that her son has stopped wetting the bed, he can now have bowel movements on his own, no longer needs enemas, and has been accident free for two months. Just imagine the connection and collaborative relationship that Laura has developed with her son as they’ve navigated this together over four years. No, it hasn’t been easy, and you can bet Laura would prefer that they didn’t have to deal with this. I know I would prefer that, and you can bet Dr. Mata didn’t want to deal with it either, which is why she punished her kid for urinating in his pants. But if those are the cards Laura and her son have been dealt, and if I imagine her taking the path the ‘experts’ like Dr. Mata and the psychologists that Laura herself so recommended, and punishing her son for peeing all over the house, I just feel sick inside at the way it could have turned out, with these ever-escalating punishments and ever-more creative places to pee. But when she emailed to share her update that the wetting is now over, I felt overwhelmed with warmth for the two of them. The way that she’s approached this journey has made them a team, which is exactly what we want as our kids enter the middle and high school years.

Some kids have processing delays that mean they need more time to understand and respond to requests. Others have high needs for autonomy and react strongly when they experience interactions as controlling. Some are dealing with anxiety or stress that makes it hard to think flexibly. Others have attention differences that make it hard to focus on verbal instructions, especially when they're engaged in something else. When we understand these individual differences, we can adjust our approaches in ways that make cooperation much more likely. Instead of focusing on consequences for non-compliance, we can focus on setting children up for success by matching our expectations and communication style to their particular needs and capabilities.

The medical issue example from Dr. Mata perfectly illustrates why understanding the "why" matters so much. Because when she assumed her son was choosing to ignore bodily signals during fun activities, she created consequences designed to motivate him to pay better attention. But because her assumption about the cause was wrong, the consequences didn't address the real issue and probably created additional shame and stress around an already difficult situation. This pattern of mismatched solutions happens so often when we focus on behavior change without understanding the underlying causes. We might create elaborate reward charts for a child who's struggling with motivation, only to discover later, they’re depressed. We might impose consequences for a child who seems careless with belongings, only to learn that they have visual processing differences that make it hard to notice when things are out of place.

Understanding the "why" behind behavior also helps us respond with appropriate empathy and support. When we realize that a child's challenging behavior is their way of communicating about something that's genuinely difficult for them, we can respond as allies rather than adversaries. Instead of getting frustrated with their behavior, we can get curious about their experience and motivated to help find better solutions. This doesn't mean that all behavior is acceptable or that children shouldn't learn to manage their challenges more effectively. But it does mean that our starting point is understanding and support rather than judgment and consequences. When children experience us as being on their side, working to understand their perspective and help them succeed, they're much more motivated to work with us on developing more effective strategies.

For point number 8: Start exploring a roadmap for moving beyond FAFO - when problems come up, you actually have choices. FAFO parenting jumps straight to consequences when there's a problem between parents and children. But there's actually a whole range of tools available to us, and the choices we make determine what kind of relationship we build with our children. There’s a diagram in my book "Parenting Beyond Power" that a way to think about this, and I’m going to try to describe it to you. We start in the upper left corner with a problem between you and your child, and the first question to ask is: how is each of us feeling here? (Unfortunately, gentle parenting practitioners often get stuck there and just work to make the child feel better). But the most important question is the next question, which is: what need are you trying to meet by doing this behavior? And just as important: what need am I trying to meet by asking you to do something different? And can we imagine a way that we can meet both people's needs here? Most of the time, the answer is yes, if we can get a bit creative, like finding out that the child is refusing a shower because they need physical safety from getting burned, so the solution becomes ‘put up tape to show which way the taps work’ rather than ‘punish the child if they don’t shower.’ The same goes for refusing to tidy up, when we understand that the child is willing to help with some direction, we can get the room tided, but punishment is not going to help her to overcome the obstacle of not being able to remember where things go.

This process doesn't always lead to solutions where both of our needs are met. Sometimes we genuinely can't meet both people's needs, and that's where boundaries, limits, and consequences come in. The difference is, we’re using these tools after we've explored other options, not as our first response. On the right side of the diagram, we start to explore what those options are, starting at the top, and move down. If I as the parent am the person most impacted by the problem, I can set a boundary. A boundary is something about my own behavior - what I’m willing or not willing to do. I remember saying to my daughter one time: “I’m not willing to read you another chapter of story tonight because I have a sore throat.” She wasn’t happy about it, but we snuggled together in bed to meet her need for connection instead. That need was met, her need for joy, fun, and understanding the next part of the story was not met.

I’m not controlling your child's behavior directly, but I’m saying what will and won’t work for you. Boundaries invite conversation because they leave room for the child to change their approach if they want a different outcome, like we snuggled in bed instead of reading stories that partially met my daughter’s needs. There are times where a limit really is the best tool. This might sound like “Don’t throw blocks at your sister” while you then work to figure out why everybody is dysregulated and address that underlying cause. We’re setting the limit to keep bodies safe, but we’re doing it with a sense of curiosity about the underlying behavior, not just setting the limit and walking away. Ideally, we want to figure out whether there are patterns at play in their relationships that make their interactions difficult and work to address those, so we aren’t setting limits left and right, because constantly being told “don’t do that” doesn’t feel good to anyone.

If the child is the person most impacted, our best tool is the natural consequence. If you go out without a jacket and it’s cold outside you might feel cold. If the child is young, you’re going to bring the jacket with you if you don’t want to come back home in five minutes. Again, the parent didn’t make a decision to change the thermostat outside, which is what makes this a natural consequences. Most of the examples of FAFO parenting I see are so-called ‘logical’ consequences, which sound so appealing! We want to be logical! We want our kids to respond to logic! But most of the time the punishments are in no way logical; they’re just punishments. Where we do choose to use these, we should be clear that we’re doing it because we really aren’t willing to let the natural consequence happen. For many parents this comes up with toothbrushing, we’re not willing to let the natural consequence of cavities happen if you refuse to brush your teeth. Then we create a punishment of withdrawing our time and attention, things like ‘if we don’t get teeth brushed before 8pm, we won’t have time for bedtime stories.’ That’s a punishment that’s appropriate in scale and in time for the issue at and but again, there’s probably a reason why the child is resisting toothbrushing and you may well be able to understand their need and find a way to get the teeth brushed without the punishment. Each of these tools has their place, but the more time we spend on the left and top of that diagram looking for needs and finding creative solutions, the better our relationships are going to be. When we default to limits and boundaries, we're in an antagonistic relationship with our child. We're setting ourselves up as adversaries rather than allies.

FAFO parenting completely skips over the possibility of meeting both people's needs. It assumes that when there's a conflict, someone has to lose and usually that someone better be the child rather than me. But when we understand that both parents and children have legitimate needs, we can get creative about finding strategies that work for everyone. Let’s look at the concrete examples of how this works in practice. Take the morning routine struggle that so many families face. The FAFO approach might be: "If you don't get ready on time, you'll be late and feel embarrassed when everyone sees you walking in, your choice.” It doesn’t really sound like we’re on the same team as the child here, right? But when we look for underlying needs, we might discover a child's dawdling is actually about wanting more connection time with the parent before the busy day starts, or maybe about anxiety about something happening at school, or maybe about wanting more autonomy over their morning choices. And if the child is younger than about six, they may not give two hoots if they’re late, and that’s when you find yourself inventing arbitrary punishments because there really isn’t a ‘natural’ consequence.

Once we understand the need, we can get creative about strategies. Maybe we build in ten minutes of cuddle time before getting dressed. Maybe we create a visual schedule that gives the child more control over the order of the morning tasks. Maybe we pack bags and lay out clothes the night before so mornings feel less rushed. Maybe we discover that our child is being bullied at school, or they’re having a hard time with their teacher, and we need to address those underlying issues that we would never have known existed if we just said “you can feel embarrassed or not; it’s your choice.” This process that I walked you through, understanding feelings, yes, that’s important, but we don’t stop there, we look for needs, we look for strategies to meet both people’s needs, isn't just a nice theory. It's a practical tool that works in real situations, from making routines work for everyone to figuring out why kids refuse to shower to cleaning up toys. The really important difference is in our mindset. When we use limits and consequences as last-resort tools within a relationship focused on meeting everyone's needs, we get into a collaborative dynamic instead of an antagonistic one. The child understands we're working together to figure out how everyone can get what they need, even when we can't always find perfect solutions.

This approach also teaches children incredibly valuable skills. When they experience their parents looking for underlying needs and getting creative about solutions, they learn to do the same thing. Instead of seeing conflicts as battles to be won or lost, they learn to see them as problems to be solved collaboratively. I've watched this play out countless times with families in the Your Parenting Mojo memberships. Children who grow up with this approach become incredibly skilled at understanding their own needs and communicating about them clearly. They learn to consider other people's perspectives naturally because they've experienced having their own perspectives considered. They become creative problem-solvers because they've practiced finding win-win solutions their whole childhood. But the most profound impact is on the parent-child relationship itself. When children know that their parents are genuinely interested in understanding their perspective and finding solutions that work for everyone, they're much more likely to be honest about their struggles and to come to their parents when they need help. The relationship becomes a source of support and collaboration rather than a source of stress and conflict. This doesn't mean that parenting becomes easy or that children never push boundaries or limits. But it does mean that when challenges arise, you have a toolkit for addressing them in ways that strengthen your relationship rather than damaging it. Instead of asking "How do I make my child comply?" you're asking "How do we solve this problem together?"

If you're interested in learning more about how to set limits in ways that maintain connection with your child in the context of more collaborative tools, you’ll really love my "Setting Loving (& Effective!) Limits" workshop. It’s just $27, and in a week you could learn how to set limits effectively (in a week). And also how to set a lot fewer of them without getting walked all over. No permissive parenting and no FAFO parenting involved. You can find more information at yourparentingmojo.com/settinglimits. The beautiful thing about this approach is that it teaches children the same problem-solving skills they'll need as adults. Instead of learning to comply out of fear or to see relationships as power struggles, they learn to consider multiple perspectives, communicate about their needs, and work collaboratively to find solutions. These are the skills that will serve them well in their friendships, romantic relationships, and workplaces throughout their lives.

When we move beyond the false choice between being tough or being soft, between FAFO and permissive parenting, we discover a whole range of tools that help us build the kinds of relationships we actually want with our children. Relationships based on mutual respect, genuine understanding, and creative collaboration. Relationships where both parents and children can be their authentic selves while still considering each other's needs. Relationships that become a foundation for the kind of world we want our children to help create.

And that brings us to point number 9: All parenting creates culture, what kind do you want to create? As we’re wrapping up our exploration of FAFO parenting, I want to zoom out a little bit and think about the bigger picture. Every choice we make as parents is contributing to the culture of our family and, by extension, the broader culture our children will help create as adults. So it's worth asking ourselves: what kind of culture do we want that to be? FAFO parenting is ultimately about power and control. It's based on the idea that children need to experience unpleasant consequences to learn, and that parents' job is to ensure those consequences happen even when they could prevent them. The underlying message is that learning requires suffering, that asking for help is a sign of weakness, and that relationships are fundamentally hierarchical with those in power determining what happens to those with less power.

When children grow up in this kind of culture, what do they learn about how to treat others? If they learn that it's appropriate for people with more power to allow suffering when they could prevent it because it might be educational, how will they treat their own children, their partners, their employees, or others who have less power than they do? There's been a lot of discussion in recent years about how we want to raise children who are kind, empathetic, and capable of creating a more just and peaceful world. But we can't create those qualities in children through approaches that are fundamentally unkind and unempathetic. Children learn a lot more from what we model than from what we tell them. If we want children who are thoughtful and reflective about their choices, we need to model thoughtfulness and reflection rather than reactive consequences. If we want children who seek to understand others' perspectives and find collaborative solutions to problems, we need to demonstrate those skills in our interactions with them. If we want children who are resilient in the face of challenges, we need to show them what it looks like to face difficulties with support and problem-solving rather than isolation and punishment.

The alternative to FAFO parenting isn't permissive parenting where children have no limits or consequences. It's creating family cultures based on mutual respect, collaborative problem-solving, and the understanding that everyone's psychological needs matter. In these families, children still experience consequences and face age-appropriate challenges. But they do so within the context of relationships that are fundamentally supportive rather than punitive. In families that do this, mistakes are seen as learning opportunities rather than failures that require punishment. Problems are approached with curiosity rather than judgment. Conflicts are viewed as information about unmet needs rather than power struggles to be won. Children learn to consider others' perspectives not because they're afraid of consequences, but because they've experienced having their own perspectives considered and valued.

This kind of family culture produces children who are genuinely self-motivated rather than compliance-oriented. They develop internal compasses for decision-making rather than just learning to avoid punishment. They become adults who can think critically, communicate effectively, and work collaboratively with others because those are the skills they've practiced their entire childhood. The ripple effects of this approach extend far beyond individual families. When we raise children who have experienced respectful treatment, they're more likely to treat others respectfully. When we raise children who have experienced collaborative problem-solving, they're more likely to approach conflicts with creativity rather than force. Proponents of FAFO parenting talk a lot about respect, but is it really ‘respect’ when the child does something because they’re afraid of what will happen if they don’t? When we raise children who have experienced unconditional love and support, in the context of meeting everyone’s needs, they're more likely to extend that same unconditional regard to others.

But perhaps most importantly, this approach acknowledges the fundamental humanity and dignity of children. FAFO parenting often treats children as projects to be managed or problems to be solved rather than as full human beings with their own valid perspectives and experiences. And we’ve also seen that we can’t just focus on the child’s feelings and minimizing their discomfort. That hasn’t led to the changes that many gentle parenting advocates hoped it would. We have to show our kids that their feelings and needs matters and so do ours. The culture we create in our families becomes the foundation for the culture our children will help create in the world. If we want a world that's more compassionate, more collaborative, and more just, we can start by creating families that embody those values. If we want adults who can solve complex problems creatively and work together across differences, we can raise children who experience those skills being modeled and practiced in their daily lives.

FAFO parenting promises simple solutions to complex challenges. But parenting isn't simple, and children aren't simple. They're complex, developing human beings who deserve the same respect and consideration we hope they'll extend to others. When we approach parenting with that understanding, we have the opportunity to create families that are not just functional, but truly thriving, families that contribute to a culture of connection, creativity, and mutual support.

As we wrap up this episode, I want to acknowledge that this conversation about FAFO parenting touches on some of the deepest questions we face as parents. How do we prepare our children for a world that can be challenging and unfair? How do we help them develop resilience and responsibility? How do we balance our own needs with theirs? These aren't easy questions, and there aren't simple answers. What I hope I've shown you today is that the FAFO approach, while it might seem straightforward, can often create more problems than it solves. When we focus primarily on consequences and compliance, we miss opportunities to build the relationships and skills that actually support children's long-term development and well-being. It’s understandable that this approach is getting traction now we’re seeing the impacts of protecting children from all discomfort. I hope that now we can move toward approaching parenting with curiosity about our children's experiences, respect for their developing capabilities, and creativity about finding solutions that work for everyone in the family.

This does take more from us as parents than simply imposing consequences or punishments. It means understanding child development, reflecting on our own psychological needs and triggers, and developing skills in communication and problem-solving. It's more complex than FAFO parenting, but it's also more effective and it’s more aligned with the kind of relationships and culture we want to create. If you're overwhelmed by some of the challenges we've discussed today, remember that you don't have to change everything at once. Start with curiosity, that’s an awesome place to start. The next time your child's behavior is challenging, instead of immediately jumping to consequences or punishments, try asking yourself: "What might they be trying to communicate? What needs might not be getting met here? How can I approach this as a problem to solve together rather than a behavior to punish?"

Small shifts in our approach can create significant changes in our relationships with our children and in the family culture we're creating together. And remember that this is a practice, none of us gets it right all the time, and that's okay. What matters is our willingness to keep learning, keep growing, and keep working toward the kind of relationships and family culture we truly want. Thank you for joining me today for this exploration of FAFO parenting. If this episode has raised questions or sparked thoughts for you, I'd love to hear from you. You can find all the ways to connect with me and also ask your own questions that’s on your mind that you would like me to explore in an episode and access additional resources at yourparentingmojo.com.

I'm a Your Parenting Mojo fan, and I hope you enjoy the show as much as I do. If you found this episode especially enlightening or useful, you can donate to help Jen produce more content like this. Just go to the episode page that Jen mentioned. Thanks for listening.