By law or by love? Parents are obliged to support their minor children — this is not up for discussion, it is the law. The extent of support is an individual matter, "some prefer thin soup, while others prefer fine pearls." Even the concept of "healthy eating" varies from family to family. Some take their children to McDonald's on Saturdays, and it is considered a celebration and a reward for good behavior, while for others, "Eating at McDonald's" is a threat and the ultimate sign of financial ruin. But, one way or another, when it comes to children, everything is more or less clear: we feed them, clothe them, educate them, spoil them, take them on vacation, and give them gifts. But what about adult children who continue to live in the same house with their parents? Students, for example. Or working young people. Or, most challenging and painful, unemployed young people. Let's consider the options. Students Here everything is simple. By law, and by common sense, we willingly continue to support full-time university students, understanding that the normal academic load of the first three years of undergraduate studies simply does not allow children to work. They either study or toil. Then most students begin to seriously look for jobs, internships in their field, or part-time work. So, for students, true adulthood comes closer to the age of 21, not at 18. Even in the most difficult cases, when, for example, a guy comes from a remote area and lives in a dorm, parents still find a way to support their child: sending packages, money transfers, or vacations "for fattening up." There is no conflict of expectations; everyone understands that they are making an effort and enduring hardships for the future — to help the young person stand on their own feet. And financial support will cease on its own as soon as the newly minted specialist starts earning a salary. Not studying, but working In my neighbors' case, there is a situation: a large family, the father and mother are already of age, two of their adult sons with wives. The head of the family is retired. His wife works five days a week as a housekeeper. Plus, she manages the household. The young couples all work. The absurdity (for me) of the situation is that both young couples do not give their mother a single penny, neither for food nor for utilities. In fact, a 55-year-old woman supports five other people besides herself. And everyone is fine with it. However, the mother has started to get sick often; she must be tired. But no one even thinks that they could contribute a portion of their salary to the common pot. From my point of view, as soon as a teenager starts earning something, they should put a portion of their money into a conditional "piggy bank." This immediately alleviates a lot of irritation and redistributes energy in the family towards balance. From my point of view, as soon as a teenager starts earning something, they should put a portion of their money into a conditional "piggy bank." This immediately alleviates a lot of irritation and generally redistributes energy in the family towards greater balance. Agree that you communicate differently with an equal partner, without accusations and claims. At the same time, the child begins to understand where things come from. Not working, not studying, demanding money for cigarettes In this case, I would be unyielding: a home is a place for a married couple and their minor children. Supporting a mature human being — no thank you, I am not old enough to have a gigolo. So either you work and contribute your share to the family budget, or welcome to the wonderful world of rented rooms for five and buckwheat porridge three times a day. But in reality, it is very difficult to implement such a strict position. Who can loudly declare: "We want you to leave home"? Moreover, in our culture, there are practically no rituals for transitioning from one social state to another. There was a child — then a teenager. There was a beloved son — suddenly became a stranger, an adult man. At what moment and why does this happen? In traditional communities, this transition is clearly defined: here is your bar or bat mitzvah at 12 or 13 years old among Jews, here is first communion, confirmation among Catholics, various initiation rites in all cultures. A young man, before being recognized by the male world, must leave the maternal, female world. This separation is painful, traumatic, but absolutely necessary, for we cannot be born into a new, independent life without separating from the umbilical cord of the old, dependent life inside the maternal womb, within the parental family. But in modern urban culture, this separation is not formalized in any way. In words, we want the boy to stand on his own feet, build his own house, family, and career. In practice, however, we do everything to stop this process, laying down straw wherever possible, controlling every step he takes: "We are terribly afraid for you, so please don’t stray too far from us." Why is that? Partly, it is a consequence of the tragic experience of loss and the destruction of a huge number of families during wars and periods of terror. Partly, it is a result of the decreasing number of children. It is one thing when you have seven or eight sons (and several have already died in infancy), and quite another when all maternal love and anxiety fall on the head of a single child. One way or another, modern parents constantly send children double messages: we want you to take the initiative, but not disturb our peace. Be persistent in achieving your goals, but obey us when we choose a university for you. Get married and start a family, but only with the girl we approve of. “We want you to get off our backs and start earning for yourself” Great, guys, that’s a noble cause! But who gave the child an iPhone for their 12th birthday? Who took a bunch of classmates to the water park almost with a strip show? And why did you rush to take him home in a taxi from the other side of the city at night? And why did you give him 50 euros for a gift for a girl on March 8? And when he got his first job as a courier in a friendly office, who secretly added money to his salary in an envelope so that the boy wouldn’t lose motivation to work? And now you think he will actually go work for 400 euros because he won’t get any other money without an education? And most importantly: he has absolutely no reason to change his lifestyle. Sure, he won’t take a girl to Bali. But there are plenty of girls around who would be happy just to take a tram ride. And everything he needs for a comfortable life, he already has — his parents made sure of that. So if you really want happiness for your child, you must go into their room, wait for them to shift their gaze from the monitor to you, and clearly say: “Stop! Starting tomorrow, you will begin looking for a job and paying for your living expenses yourself. Our wallet and refrigerator are closed. If you need help finding a job — just say.” And endure all the aggression, all the manipulations with a miserable face, the complaints from grandparents, withstand the nighttime panic attacks of "are we pushing him onto a slippery path of crime?" And also keep in mind that this is a long road. What you have created over the past 15–20 years cannot be fixed in one week. So my answer to the question “How and when can you stop giving your child money without causing them psychological trauma?” is “Never.” If you are afraid of causing your child trauma, hurting them, or causing inconvenience — continue to fully support them, give them money for pocket expenses, buy fashionable clothes and the required gadgets. They will never grow up, never leave you, never be offended, never get angry. You will be one happy family with your beloved child. Even when they turn 40. Ekaterina Demina, psychologist.
