U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting > Adoption
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-11-2013, 09:28 PM
 
1,851 posts, read 2,982,402 times
Reputation: 2365

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lizita View Post
I may be mistaken but I believe that TPR after 18 months of no improvement is a part of the federal law that was passed in '96.
You may be right, here is the outilne of the federal law: Adoption and Safe Families Act

Quote:
Originally Posted by thethreefoldme View Post
So children who are separated from their biological mothers during the first year of their life never struggle with attachment issues? I'd like to see you back that up.

BTW, I didn't say anything about "Primal Wound Theory." Most people who are even vaguely familiar with developmental psychology or attachment theory would not have any problem with what I said. Bringing up an opinion about a theory I never mentioned does not make what I said untrue. Can you provide anything that actually refutes my point?
Re bolded...Oh really? I beg to differ. See below, per your request.

RAD - Mayo Clinic
RAD - Causes
RAD - Risk Factors

RAD - WebMD

RAD - National Institutes of Health

Attachment Treatment and Training

From the above link under "What is Attachment":
Quote:
Attachment to a protective and loving caregiver who provides guidance and support is a basic human need, rooted in millions of years of evolution. There is an instinct to attach: babies instinctively reach out for the safety and security of the "secure base" with caregivers
Note: In all of these sources, the term biological mother is not used because the infant's caregiver may not be the biological mother, for whatever reason.

Attachment issues arise from the lack of care of an infant/child. The "cause" of attachment issues has little - or nothing - to do with being separated from one's biological child and everything to do with how said child is cared for, over a period a time, particularly within the first five years of life. In fact, one of the risk factors shown to cause RAD is teenage motherhood.

Now, can you back up your claim with universally accepted academic and medical sources that are not theories but sound scientific facts that have been tested and proven over decades of study? Can you provide non-biased sources as opposed to the opinions of only adoptees or birth mothers?

Lizita, this is completely off-topic from your OP, I am more than happy to split this thread into a new topic if needed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-12-2013, 12:45 AM
 
Location: Liberal Coast
4,277 posts, read 5,159,341 times
Reputation: 3889
The child does NOT need to attach to the biological mother. The child needs to attach to SOMEONE. My niece was not attached to her mother the first year of her life (despite living with her) but was attached to other people. They need some sort of attachment, but it doesn't have to be the biological mother.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2013, 12:50 AM
 
Location: Liberal Coast
4,277 posts, read 5,159,341 times
Reputation: 3889
I want to add to my statements that I live in CA, where they system is very broken. It may work better in other states, but it does not work well at all here. They also may not be able to TPR in 18 months because CA won't do that until there is a family ready to adopt the child and almost to the court date. That could take quite awhile, especially with the older kids or kids with medical needs. I believe it took over two years for my sister to lose rights, and my niece had the "adoptive" family (my mom and step-dad) already lined up. Social workers kept dragging their feet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2013, 03:09 AM
 
1,879 posts, read 1,857,927 times
Reputation: 1462
[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded View Post
You may be right, here is the outilne of the federal law: Adoption and Safe Families Act



Re bolded...Oh really? I beg to differ. See below, per your request.

RAD - Mayo Clinic
RAD - Causes
RAD - Risk Factors

RAD - WebMD

RAD - National Institutes of Health

Attachment Treatment and Training

From the above link under "What is Attachment":
First of all, was threefoldme specifically talking about RAD or rather attachment in general - she may be referring to more mild attachment issues.

I also got the impression that when Threefoldme was saying when she said "So children who are separated from their biological mothers during the first year of their life never struggle with attachment issues?" that she was saying that one can't use the word "never" as that is implying that not a single child has ever suffered as a result of the above.

She was also careful to use the word "could" rather than "will" in her previous post - "could" usually refers to a possibility and "will" to an actuality:
Quote:

Anything that disrupts attachment with the biological mother during the first year of age could lead to attachment issues.
Thus, it is possible that the above "could" happen - one can't guarantee that it has never happened in the history of mankind. If she had said "will", then she would be saying it is an actuality but she is not doing that.

Quote:
Attachment issues arise from the lack of care of an infant/child. The "cause" of attachment issues has little - or nothing - to do with being separated from one's biological child and everything to do with how said child is cared for, over a period a time, particularly within the first five years of life. In fact, one of the risk factors shown to cause RAD is teenage motherhood.
Certainly, how the child is cared for is important. However, one does need to also deal with emotional needs of a child. Thus, one does need to be careful about how one explains adoption to one's child. Also, one does need to be careful about how one talks about the child's birthparents.

For example, to take deliberately over the top hypothetical case that I am sure we would all agree with, if a child asks why their bparent couldn't take care of them, it would fairly obviously not be wise to tell an adopted child "Look kid, you were a total inconvenience to your birthmother, she wanted to abort you but was too late. When you were born, she couldn't stand the sight of you and was thrilled to be rid of you. But don't worry darling, I love you and that's the important thing" Of course, I am deliberately using an extreme example but the point is that one can surely understand that one does need to be sensitive about how one tells their child things. Obviously no-one is going to say the above but even those aparents that are sensitive to things may not always realise that other things they say could inadvertantly send the wrong message.

Sometimes APs also can think that the only way they can get the child to full attach to them is to make sure they feel nothing for the BPs - which seems a bit of a cheap shot. One should have one's child attach to one for one's own sake.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2013, 05:46 AM
 
1,024 posts, read 985,117 times
Reputation: 834
Exactly, Susankate. If people would be careful to read posts more clearly perhaps they wouldn't be misinterpreted here so often. I said nothing about RAD (although it has been diagnosed in infancy which it seems Jaded does not understand).

Here I will clarify the original point:

If the child has attached to their biological mother within the first year of their life, having that attachment disrupted can (not always) lead to attachment issues (not necessarily RAD). I also mentioned that disrupting attachment with subsequent caregivers compounds those issues. Has anyone made an argument that proves any of those things false? No.

I know there are probably many people who wish to completely deny the importance of attachment to the biological mother, but if changing caregivers can greatly impact an infant, then obviously disrupting attachment with the biological mother could, too.

Signed papers & being raised by a wonderful new family does not magically erase any previous attachments that have been disrupted. This is important for APs to understand so they can be prepared to parent a child who may have attachment issues. It's also important PAPs/APs do not have expectations for what any adoptee will be like. But unfortunately many do, especially when adopting infants.

Quote:
Originally Posted by susankate View Post
Sometimes APs also can think that the only way they can get the child to full attach to them is to make sure they feel nothing for the BPs - which seems a bit of a cheap shot. One should have one's child attach to one for one's own sake.
Perhaps that should be a red-flag option in a questionnaire given to PAPs? If they exhibit a strong desire to deny any significance the child's biological family may have to them. Scale from 0 to 10. 0 being not significant at all & 10 being significantly important. If a PAP marks 0, further investigation should be made to explore why & whether or not they will be compatible for adoption.

Last edited by thethreefoldme; 04-12-2013 at 06:56 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2013, 08:54 AM
 
1,024 posts, read 985,117 times
Reputation: 834
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded View Post
Now, can you back up your claim with universally accepted academic and medical sources that are not theories but sound scientific facts that have been tested and proven over decades of study? Can you provide non-biased sources as opposed to the opinions of only adoptees or birth mothers?
Attachment theory has been researched since the 1950s. Here is a simplified overview I found for you (references for research available at the bottom if you are interested):

http://www.simplypsychology.org/attachment.html#sthash.vn9f0Uo3.dpbs

Quote:
Attachment theory in psychology originates with the seminal work of John Bowlby. [Experience working with emotionally disturbed children] led Bowlby to consider the importance of the child's relationship with their mother in terms of their social, emotional, & cognitive development. Specifically, it shaped his belief about the link between early infant separations with the mother and later maladjustment...

John Bowlby, working alongside James Roberston observed that children experienced intense distress when separated from their mothers. Even when such children were fed by other caregivers this did not diminish the child's anxiety. These findings contradicted the dominant behavioral theory of attachment which has shown to underestimate the bond with their mother.
& please note that I never said infants cannot attach to caregivers other than the biological mother.

I also never mentioned Primal Wound, but since you felt the need to I would just like to point out that Nancy Verier is not an adoptee or a birth parent. She is an AP who has an M.A. in Clinical Psychology & has done research in the field of adoption from 1985-present. Her research was used as her thesis for her Master's Degree & she has since been used as an expert witness on both adoption & separation issues. Why you feel you can use her theories to discredit what I said, I do not understand.

Last edited by thethreefoldme; 04-12-2013 at 10:21 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2013, 11:26 AM
 
Location: Chicago area
1,105 posts, read 2,902,568 times
Reputation: 2106
Quote:
Originally Posted by thethreefoldme View Post

If the child has attached to their biological mother within the first year of their life, having that attachment disrupted can (not always) lead to attachment issues (not necessarily RAD). I also mentioned that disrupting attachment with subsequent caregivers compounds those issues. Has anyone made an argument that proves any of those things false? No.
It would be idiotic to claim that disrupting the relationship with the bio mom in the first year of life does not present a problem. That should be obvious with what we know today. But if the after birth attachment with the bio mom is never started but is started with another consistent caretaker do we see the same problems as we do if it has started and been interrupted? Does the baby suffer attachment problems if the first caretaker is someone else? What about babies raised by a grandparent or the father? Is the quality of care the most important thing or is that it has to be done by the bio mom?

I sometimes get kittens who are only a few weeks old and for some reason have lost their mother and very often as they grow up they have behavioral issues even though they've grown up with other adult cats and have been cared for by a human too. They often have infantile behaviors as adults and are often insecure. However, I haven't seen the same problems with kittens who have been raised by a feline foster mom when it's started early. This doesn't mean that it's the same for babies since kittens are of course much less complex than babies but I still think it's an interesting observation that may apply to other species as well.

I've been wondering whether, in the case of babies adopted at birth, it is the loss of the bio mom that creatures future problems or if it's the knowledge of that loss. Are there any studies that have studied adoptees adopted at birth who knows they are adopted and those who don't know they are adopted? If so, is there a difference? Anyone know?

(Note, I'm not arguing that the loss of a bio mom does not cause attachment or other problems and I'm not arguing that it does. I'm not taking anyone's side. I'm simply questioning.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2013, 12:18 PM
 
1,851 posts, read 2,982,402 times
Reputation: 2365
Quote:
Originally Posted by thethreefoldme View Post
Exactly, Susankate. If people would be careful to read posts more clearly perhaps they wouldn't be misinterpreted here so often. I said nothing about RAD (although it has been diagnosed in infancy which it seems Jaded does not understand).

Here I will clarify the original point:

If the child has attached to their biological mother within the first year of their life, having that attachment disrupted can (not always) lead to attachment issues (not necessarily RAD). I also mentioned that disrupting attachment with subsequent caregivers compounds those issues. Has anyone made an argument that proves any of those things false? No.

I know there are probably many people who wish to completely deny the importance of attachment to the biological mother, but if changing caregivers can greatly impact an infant, then obviously disrupting attachment with the biological mother could, too.

Signed papers & being raised by a wonderful new family does not magically erase any previous attachments that have been disrupted. This is important for APs to understand so they can be prepared to parent a child who may have attachment issues. It's also important PAPs/APs do not have expectations for what any adoptee will be like. But unfortunately many do, especially when adopting infants.

Perhaps that should be a red-flag option in a questionnaire given to PAPs? If they exhibit a strong desire to deny any significance the child's biological family may have to them. Scale from 0 to 10. 0 being not significant at all & 10 being significantly important. If a PAP marks 0, further investigation should be made to explore why & whether or not they will be compatible for adoption.
I understand completely. Your statement was incorrect. And the primary benefit of healthy attachment in infancy is that the child WILL be able to form other healthy attachments as they become older. You don't like the idea of infants being adopted. I get that. But using attachment theory to rationalize or justify your opinion is a bit far-fetched.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thethreefoldme View Post
Attachment theory has been researched since the 1950s. Here is a simplified overview I found for you (references for research available at the bottom if you are interested):

Attachment Theory

& please note that I never said infants cannot attach to caregivers other than the biological mother.

I also never mentioned Primal Wound, but since you felt the need to I would just like to point out that Nancy Verier is not an adoptee or a birth parent. She is an AP who has an M.A. in Clinical Psychology & has done research in the field of adoption from 1985-present. Her research was used as her thesis for her Master's Degree & she has since been used as an expert witness on both adoption & separation issues. Why you feel you can use her theories to discredit what I said, I do not understand.
Again, your overall rationale doesn't work here. You simply misspoke about attachment issues and disorders. Your link proves this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lizita View Post
It would be idiotic to claim that disrupting the relationship with the bio mom in the first year of life does not present a problem. That should be obvious with what we know today. But if the after birth attachment with the bio mom is never started but is started with another consistent caretaker do we see the same problems as we do if it has started and been interrupted? Does the baby suffer attachment problems if the first caretaker is someone else? What about babies raised by a grandparent or the father? Is the quality of care the most important thing or is that it has to be done by the bio mom?

I sometimes get kittens who are only a few weeks old and for some reason have lost their mother and very often as they grow up they have behavioral issues even though they've grown up with other adult cats and have been cared for by a human too. They often have infantile behaviors as adults and are often insecure. However, I haven't seen the same problems with kittens who have been raised by a feline foster mom when it's started early. This doesn't mean that it's the same for babies since kittens are of course much less complex than babies but I still think it's an interesting observation that may apply to other species as well.

I've been wondering whether, in the case of babies adopted at birth, it is the loss of the bio mom that creatures future problems or if it's the knowledge of that loss. Are there any studies that have studied adoptees adopted at birth who knows they are adopted and those who don't know they are adopted? If so, is there a difference? Anyone know?

(Note, I'm not arguing that the loss of a bio mom does not cause attachment or other problems and I'm not arguing that it does. I'm not taking anyone's side. I'm simply questioning.)
I'll look into your question a bit later to see what I can find.

Re; your first statement, the removal from a birth mother within the first year where there is no attachment (due to abuse or neglect), does not cause problems. The child has problems already from not forming any attachment. In a healthy environment, where there is attachment and the baby is removed, the new attachment isn't automatic, but it will develop in a short period of time IF the new caregivers provide the emotional and physical needs of the child. So, it's not idiotic to believe that the seperation doesn't present a problem because the problem already exists. It is often the reason social workers move quickly in cases where the child in under two years of age and there are signs of neglect and abuse. To avoid potential long-term problems with attachment, it is best to remove the abused or neglected child when they are young (preferably before age five), then, move them less frequently, and place them in better care. This is better for the child in the long run.

Last edited by Jaded; 04-12-2013 at 12:23 PM.. Reason: Added words for clarification
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2013, 12:27 PM
 
1,024 posts, read 985,117 times
Reputation: 834
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lizita View Post
It would be idiotic to claim that disrupting the relationship with the bio mom in the first year of life does not present a problem. That should be obvious with what we know today.
Agreed. & that was my original point to begin with.

Quote:
But if the after birth attachment with the bio mom is never started but is started with another consistent caretaker do we see the same problems as we do if it has started and been interrupted? Does the baby suffer attachment problems if the first caretaker is someone else? What about babies raised by a grandparent or the father? Is the quality of care the most important thing or is that it has to be done by the bio mom?
Up to 3 months of age most babies will respond the same to any caretaker because they form in-discriminant attachments -- however that does not mean attachments made during this time are not important.

Unless someone can cite otherwise, I'm pretty sure separation from the bio-mother during the first three months would still be considered a disruption (although obviously it would not impact the baby the same as a disruption that occurs after a longer period of attachment or multiple/frequent disruptions). As for quality of care -- that is always important & will compound the issue. Attachment can be disrupted by a neglectful caretaker or it can be disrupted/broken by separation.

Quote:
I sometimes get kittens who are only a few weeks old and for some reason have lost their mother and very often as they grow up they have behavioral issues even though they've grown up with other adult cats and have been cared for by a human too. They often have infantile behaviors as adults and are often insecure. However, I haven't seen the same problems with kittens who have been raised by a feline foster mom when it's started early. This doesn't mean that it's the same for babies since kittens are of course much less complex than babies but I still think it's an interesting observation that may apply to other species as well.
Obviously being abandoned, neglected, & having that initial bond severed is far more traumatizing than having the initial bond severed & being immediately taken care of. That doesn't necessarily mean the initial bond being severed had no impact at all.

Quote:
I've been wondering whether, in the case of babies adopted at birth, it is the loss of the bio mom that creatures future problems or if it's the knowledge of that loss. Are there any studies that have studied adoptees adopted at birth who knows they are adopted and those who don't know they are adopted? If so, is there a difference? Anyone know?

(Note, I'm not arguing that the loss of a bio mom does not cause attachment or other problems and I'm not arguing that it does. I'm not taking anyone's side. I'm simply questioning.)
I hear ya, Lizita. You asked a lot of really good questions here & honestly, some things just haven't been researched well enough to know yet. To my knowledge there have been no studies comparing late discovery adoptees in such a way. Based on some studies I've seen I think it is at the very least possible the initial separation could predispose an adoptee to some things (note being predisposed to, say, anxiety does not mean the individual will never overcome the predisposition). & of course the knowledge of loss could always compound that.

Last edited by thethreefoldme; 04-12-2013 at 01:39 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2013, 12:31 PM
 
1,024 posts, read 985,117 times
Reputation: 834
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded View Post
I understand completely. Your statement was incorrect. And the primary benefit of healthy attachment in infancy is that the child WILL be able to form other healthy attachments as they become older. You don't like the idea of infants being adopted. I get that. But using attachment theory to rationalize or justify your opinion is a bit far-fetched.
Quote:
Again, your overall rationale doesn't work here. You simply misspoke about attachment issues and disorders. Your link proves this.


Jaded, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you I never said anything about attachment disorders. Also you seem to be missing that I specified that there was an attachment disruption (which means there was attachment). If you are trying to say that infants cannot attach to their biological mothers during the first year of their life then you are the one who is incorrect.

Now please provide something that refutes what I actually said (not what you believe I meant) or stop insisting I am incorrect. There is absolutely nothing in the link that negates the actual statement I made. If you believe I misspoke about attachment, feel free to quote myself & the link I provided & show me why you believe so.

Last edited by thethreefoldme; 04-12-2013 at 01:12 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting > Adoption
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:34 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top