“Your father and I have been worried sick whenever you don’t answer the phone!”
Afterward, she also put her foot down and gave her daughter two options: either she turned off do not disturb, or her daughter’s phone would get taken away for a full week.
Her daughter just wound up rolling her eyes, though, and claiming it would be unfair if she wasn’t allowed to use the do not disturb feature. Still, she held her ground and told the teen that she needed to start answering the phone or at least call people back right away. She also reiterated how if her daughter did not listen, then the phone would be taken away.
At that point, her daughter started begging her not to take the phone away. But, the teen kept refusing to turn off the do not disturb.
So, by the time they got home, she gave her daughter the same ultimatum. And after they got into a back-and-forth argument, the teen finally removed the do not disturb feature right in front of her before starting to cry and running to her room.
Now, she feels like what she did was necessary because she simply could not get ahold of her daughter. And her teen being completely unreachable was just unacceptable in her eyes.
Nonetheless, she still feels like what she did might have been too harsh, even though she was at her wit’s end. So now, she has been wondering whether forcing her daughter to get rid of the “do not disturb” feature makes her a jerk or not.
Do you think it’s reasonable that she wants to be able to contact her daughter? If her teen isn’t using the phone for its intended function, does her daughter need the phone? Was she too harsh or not? Would you have done the same?
You can read the original post on Reddit here.
If true crime defines your free time, this is for you: join Chip Chick’s True Crime Tribe