Is restraint acceptable for a child?

Many parents believe attachment parenting does not allow a parent to put their hands on their child for any reason, or else assumes the wrong reasons for certain touch, such as during co-sleeping. The belief is that we here at attachment parenting don't support child restraint.

It says in Colossians 3:21 KJV:

Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they become discouraged.

The Greek root word translated "provoke...to anger" is ερεθιζο (Latin: erethizo) and literally to "stir up", referring to "stirring the pot" in relation to a child's frustrated emotions, and refers to the slightest of offense perceived by the child, with entitled intent. Such is denoted by the Greek root word πλεονέκτης (Latin: pleonektés) and refers to parental entitlement, or wanting things from a child, or for a child to do things for you, to the point of seeking to impose said want onto children. In the Early Church, touching a child without their consent and/or their mother's consent, but more so the child, and was considered battery. 

Anything involving imposing your wishes for children is entitlement, whereas pro-social help is imposing a need on them in terms of avoiding risk of death or serious bodily injury. That is about the only time you can restrain a child. Otherwise, you commit a form of child abuse.

Pro-social help here means pro-social restraint. Most restraint, meaning physically moving a child around, is abuse. What parents should do when a child is endangering themselves is pick them up, and carry them away from the situation, holding them and scolding them in a hushed voice something along the lines of "don't scare me like that".

Sometimes, older children are aggressive, in which case there are two acceptable routes of dealing with the issue - castle doctrine or pro-social punching bag. Castle doctrine means barricading yourself in a room before defending yourself. The Early Christian churches allowed violent self-defense, but only after all options were exhausted, and even then, most men preferred to turn the other cheek even to physical violence and oppression, being a pro-social punching bag for an aggressive child.

The legal loophole here is that children perceive what is abuse and what isn't, but what they perceive must come from some sort of parental entitlement, which would be like a tug that was emotionally threatening in nature. Physically removing a child from endangering their own life or limb or the life or limb of others is acceptable. Spanking or punishing them afterwards isn't. Secluding them or isolating them in a cell, isolated room, or locked box, is abuse also, regardless of disability or lack thereof. Opposing Parental Entitlement supports the passage of Keeping All Students Safe Act, and its signature by President Joseph Biden, but is critical of the omission of protections for regular education students from physical violence of all kinds.

My mother works for the Reading School District here in Reading, Pennsylvania, and there, it is a no-restraint zone, even for special education students, but especially for students with an Individualized Education Program (IEP). Security guards must escort students and break up fights, but technically are not allowed to touch a student with special needs, which I support, but which was not recognized with my behaviors, as teachers can write up security guards. Certain teachers from certain states that still paddle students with a wooden board called security many times because she did not know how to talk to a child in that state. Usually, the procedure is to clear the classroom. Reassuring a child through, say, sitting with a child and putting your arm around them, is actually legal in Pennsylvania for IEP students, and children need reassurance when they are upset, but when they are aggressive, and won't accept reassurance until afterwards, let them tear up the room. 

I support the expulsion of all disruptive students, even IEP students, after many warnings instead of constantly restraining them. Where should they go next? Home-bound, meaning homeschooling supervised by a teacher from the relevant local education agency (LEA). Expulsion should be framed as a logical consequence, not a punishment, meaning "we can't handle them, so you must be able to", handing them back to the parents. Other students need to be able to learn, and some children learn best in one on one settings such as a private homeschool. I actually was that student, by both my parents were schoolteachers, and thus were beholden to teacher's unions that oppose homeschooling. Unschooling options should exist for the most behaviorally disturbed of children, who need less structure encroaching upon their life, meaning children learn through their own curiosity. Sadly, that specific option here in Pennsylvania is illegal. 

Physically aggressive and violent children do exist, for sure, and need LESS structure, not more. I was that child, and rules and structure that I didn't identify got my hackle up, meaning the more adults controlled me, the more I felt controlled. The idea is to loosen the expectations, in which case they may end up too strict on themselves for your liking, but they'd be happier. When the iron grasp of rules and authority are removed from a child, children follow your example, so be good so they are good. It says in Colossians 3:21 KJV:

Children, obey your parents in all things, as is well-pleasing unto the Lord.

The Greek root word translated "obey" is υπακουο (Latin: hupakouo) and refers to providing custody, which reserves to holding space for children as a safe person listening to their emotions. It isn't structure for children, but leaving space for children to internalize morality for themselves, and hold themselves responsible, with parents maybe giving verbal prompts a few times along the way, but mainly reminding the child of their values and where they should go, based on their own moral choices, which seem to most always fall in line with those of parents', at least in spirit, at least towards the end of their journey in religious and moral exploration. That is, if parents are safe enough, to the child, to emulate. 

Obedience, in the Bible, is rest in the love and grace of parents, feeling safe to vent anything to parents, including with aggressive force, with parents taking the brunt of children, then supplying their every demand, owing absolutely nothing to parents, yet nonetheless showing gratitude for respectful, non-entitled, non-violent treatment by listening to the voice of parents, meaning out of reassurance and familiarity of the voice imprinted, not fear of punishment or control.

The depraved and entitled parents who move around and restrain children unlawfully will not inherit the Kingdom of God! Let them burn in the lake of fire and burning sulfur, which is the second death! Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!