For every article that you can show, that says Timeouts are bad, I can show articles that say they are fine and can be effective and positive. Even for 2 yr olds. For example, from Dr. Sears:
"Language makes time-out for children easier. By two years of age most children understand what time-out means—if they misbehave it’s off to the chair they go. They perceive time-out as a break in their activity, a parent-imposed (logical) consequence of their behavior. The older the child, the more detailed the explanation can be. We started using official time-outs with Lauren when she was eighteen-months-old. She had witnessed many time-outs for Stephen, so when it was her turn she understood clearly what we were doing. We could tell by the gleam in her eye and the alert body language that this little ritual was a special experience, and she got into the spirit of it willingly. She also knew the ritual included an enforced (though brief) time of sitting alone. Stephen needed frequent reminders, so she knew she was expected to stay seated. As soon as the novelty wore off, she was no longer amused."
Techniques for Time-Out for Children | Ask Dr Sears
Experts rarely agree. So we can see that SOME childhood development experts recommend using Timeouts as a tool, while others may not.
But I do think it is unfair to criticize a young mother for using a COMMONLY practiced technique, probably taught to her by her parents, and maybe by her teachers, for dealing with toddler's misbehavior.
Even your excerpt said "“Time-outs
may not be the best approach..." That is hardly a rebuke. It does not say 'never give a 2 yr old a time out...' etc.
As for the accusation that SW was 'publicly shaming' her 2 yr old...I say RUBBISH. That is just silly.
But I really have to question your final sentence:
"...but there are many things (this, the Xmas video with her becoming angry with Bella for not enjoying the experience & repeatedly calling her names, the video where she allowed CeCe to put herself in danger climbing to “learn her lesson,” etc)
that raise red flags for me knowing what ultimately happened to these children"
I never saw SW as being 'angry' at Bella in the Santa video. I would disagree with that description of what SW was feeling. Nor would I agree with the assessment that SW was 'allowing' CeCe to put herself in danger. CeCe had ALREADY climbed on top of the sink area. Then she began whining because she knew she was stuck. I think SW was wanting CeCe to feel uncomfortable for a minute, to try and prevent her from doing it again in the future. Was that a smart or safe decision? Maybe not, but it wasn't a horrible or cruel one. It was a judgement call, like Moms with small children make every day.
But your final statement===
that raise red flags for me knowing what ultimately happened to these children"...
Are you saying that SW putting Bella in a TO, and being frustrated with the Santa video, and allowing CeCe to stay stuck for 30 seconds on the sink area, somehow leads to her brutally strangling her babies?
