Toy jealousy issue, you make the call?

If she deliberately broke her brother’s toys, I would make her give her one toy to him. If she’d gotten more than one toy, I’d make her give an equal number of her toys to him to replace those she broke. That’s a really crappy thing for her to do, although she is just a kid, and she needs to be taught how it feels to lose something special that you just received.

I’d tell the father, in case he might want to replace the items he gave his child.

All this having been said. If I was the mom in question, I probably would have bought a couple of extra toys for the children who received less from their dad, to even things out a bit. It might have prevented this situation from happening in the first place. Regardless of what their fathers might do, I would want my children to feel equally loved and equally gifted.

This is dysfunction that will not be solved by the allocation of toys.

Toys do not do a good job of conveying love. And treating objects as the measure of love is setting the child up for a dysfunctional and unhappy life. I’d recommend conversation as the first step.

The mother needs to speak with the child who broke the toys about the relative importance of toys in life. The girl’s gift from her father should be taken away.

The boy’s father should be told.

I might try working with the fathers to agree on a Christmas budget for toys.

I like all of the answers above. In addition to the notion about a budget for toys, it could be suggested to the boy’s father that he give the boy the above-budget toys to play with at the dad’s house so it doesn’t cause friction at the mom’s house.

Somehow explain that life is going to be like that sometimes. It’s going to seem totally unfair at times, but there are much better ways of dealing with it than the way she did. Then work with her to help her come up with ways of how she might make it up to the boy. Poor kids…all of ‘em. And Mom.
And all the answers above, too.

Hmmm…maybe go Zen on them.

Give them a mutial pet, project, and allow them to work out their own common bond through something they have MUTUAL investment in.

There is a Zen story that parallels this thinking…the short version….

A farmer has trouble with his neighbors dogs killing his sheep. They argue back and forth and things get ugly between them.

The matter goes to court and the judge tells the one farmer to give some of his sheep to the other. The farmer is indignant but…after this happens the dogs do not bother his sheep as the neighbor has fenced in his dogs to protect his own flock.
They become friends with a commonality, their shared interest in keeping their sheep.

Never mind..I probably lost you awhile back now….hahaha

@Coloma You lost me with ‘Zen.’ My first thought was…We’re not talking about boobs! We’re talking about toys!

It sounds to me like this family has a lot worse issues to work on than toys, starting with the Mother.

@Coloma I got it. the farmer by giving up one sheep or two saved many sheep in the long run. As Zig Ziglar said sometimes you have to spend $10,000 on the way to making a million. Many don’t make the million because they fear risking the $10,000. Or most would handle saving their sheep by killing the damn dog. ;-)

@Hypocrisy_Central

Well..actually it isn’t about the sheep, it is about creating a co-sympathetic relationship.
The dog owning farmer now is invested in protecting his own sheep from his own dogs and that benefits the original farmer.
But…sheep were saved too..soooo, it’s all good. hahahaha