If a child refuses to eat, the parents' attitude to food can reveal all, writes Tony Humphreys

The idea of letting a child go hungry is horrifying to many parents. Actually, it is unpleasant to be hungry, but it is hardly life-threatening, except, of course, in the case of young people who are anorexic or bulimic. But one missed meal now and again is not going to cause bodily harm and the discomfort may be effective in stimulating children to eat at the next meal. It is certainly a better alternative to the friction and lack of harmony between child and parent that can result from forcing or cajoling the child into eating.

Parents do not have the right to assume the responsibilities of their children, nor do they have the right to take the consequences of their actions. Those belong to the children.

Certainly, it is the responsibility of parents to put food on the table, particularly for younger children, but it is not their responsibility to make them eat it. Children eat when they are hungry; when eating becomes a problem, generally speaking, it is not eating that is the problem, but something deeper is being manifested through the eating problem.

A three-year-old girl was presented to me with the words: "She's not eating; no matter whether we punish or bribe her she will not eat".

The child had had every physical examination done to get to the "cause" of her problem. However, whilst the cause is important to detect, the intention of the "not eating" symptom is equally important.

Both father and mother came with the child. I noticed that the father appeared very into his physical appearance and, going on intuition, I explored this avenue as a possible cause.

I discovered he was quite fastidious about his food - he would only eat fish and all his food had to be grilled. His slimness and "perfect" weight were obsessions for him; he did not have any extra layer of flesh on him. I wondered how he viewed the typical "pot belly" of a three-year-old and discovered that he constantly teased her about it, saying "fatty, fatty, fatty".

The father's disapproval, "modelling" of the "perfect" body and "finicky" approach to food were the causes of the child's not eating. She wasn't eating because she wanted to lose her pot belly and be slim like her Dad. The child was clever enough to identify with her father in order not to suffer further rejection by him. I encouraged the father to desist from teasing the child and also to look to his addiction to having the perfect body. Within weeks, the child returned to normal eating.

Eating sustains life. It is a normal function. There is nearly always a parent with difficulties when a child develops a feeding problem. It is children's business to eat. The parents (and other adults) need to mind their own business and not the child's.

It is frequently the case that when a child has an eating problem the purpose is to keep parents busy with him or her. Parents need to first ensure that the child is getting enough attention from them in other more spontaneous ways. At the meal table it is best to simply "let" the child eat. If he refuses, the parents need to maintain positive behaviour, refrain from verbal reminders altogether, remove the unfinished food from the table when everyone is finished and allow the child to find out what happens - when we do not eat, we get hungry.

At the next meal, and not before, fresh food is again put on the table. If the child still plays with his food and does not eat, nothing is said, friendliness is maintained at the table. If the child continues to play with the food, the plate is casually removed. There must be no threat of punishment and no bribe or reward (for example, sweets).

The child may complain of hunger an hour later and plead for "coke and biscuits". The parent needs to reply kindly, along the lines of: "I am sorry you are hungry. Dinner will be ready at seven." The suffering inflicted by scolding and threatening is punishment because it is perpetrated by the parent. The discomfort of going hungry is not inflicted by the parent, but is the result of not having eaten at mealtimes.

A subconscious desire to control lies behind many parenting behaviours. And it is often this very authoritative control that children fight, particularly, at meal times.

When parents decide to let go of their need to control, the child no longer has anything to battle against, there are no benefits in not eating, and the child is more likely to regain his appetite. It may take a little time and it certainly demands patience, however, any sign of impatience results in the battle lines being drawn again.

Dr Tony Humphreys is a consultant clinical psychologist and author of Self-Esteem: The Key to Your Child's Future (new edition)