Bonding Myths: Stories from both Biological and Adoptive Mothers (birth mother, options, foster parents)
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.
Any quick google search of adoptive mothers will reveal the emotional journey they take to motherhood and to building their families. Oftentimes, there is a feeling of parental inadequacy due to the lack of a pregnancy in becoming a mother, the lack of a "blood" connection to the child, or even infertility.
It's not uncommon to attribute feelings of inadequacy to the adoption itself and even to place it onto the adoptee. So, sometimes it's good to do a 'checks and balance' of the emotions surrounding adoption by comparing the adoptive parents to biological families.
While some adoptions do come with unique problems and circumstances directly related to the history of the child, his/her birthparents, and when/where the adoption occurred; other issues fall within the realm of overall parenting, and are completely unrelated to the adoption.
Below are examples, from both an adoptive and biological mothers, about not having an "instant" bond with their babies, as well as a short commentary on the notion of a baby's immediate bond with its mother. I found it very interesting and have heard of similiar stories from family and friends. Can you or do you know of others who can or cannot relate to these women's stories?
My sister had some trouble bonding with her second child in the beginning, but she also had PPD. According to your first link some of those mothers did, too. Wonder how often depression is a factor.
Third link is messed up for so many reasons. They clearly did not adopt for the right reasons & had unresolved issues.
If someone is going to talk about the myths of bonding, they really should have the research to back it up. Much of what they said on that blog post is incorrect. Several studies have shown that newborns/infants do show a preference for the biological mother's smell, voice, heartbeat, breast milk, etc.
Despite these preferences it is true that most babies will still form in-discriminant attachments for up to 3 months of age. That doesn't mean the baby has no bond or attachment to the biological mother, it just means they will form in-discriminant attachments to other caregivers (ie: dad, foster parents, adoptive parents, grandparents, etc.)
Last edited by thethreefoldme; 04-15-2013 at 03:17 PM..
Third link is messed up for so many reasons. They clearly did not adopt for the right reasons & had unresolved issues.
If someone is going to talk about the myths of bonding, they really should have the research to back it up. Much of what they said on that blog post is incorrect. Several studies have shown that newborns/infants do show a preference for the biological mother's smell, voice, heartbeat, breast milk, etc.
The third link is only a blog post, it is not peer reviewed, uses one HANDBOOK as a reference and is written by an anonymous author who couldn't be bothered to put his/her name to the work.
The third link is only a blog post, it is not peer reviewed, uses one HANDBOOK as a reference and is written by an anonymous author who couldn't be bothered to put his/her name to the work.
Huh? About the author of the blog, it's right there on his page:
Simpson, J. A. (2002). Attachment theory in modern evolutionary context. In: J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver, (Eds.). Handbook of attachment: theory, research, and clinical applications. The Guilford Press.
In reality, the bond between baby and parent is not biological but mental. Contrary to the common myths about bonding, the process does not always happen instantaneously for either biological or adoptive parents. More often, bonding occurs over a long period. Some bonding may happen at birth but, for many parents, their profound bond to their child—a bond like no other—develops through a variety of experiences from seeing their child's first smile to watching their son or daughter graduate from high school or college.
It appears the research that the bonding myth is based on was animals, not humans. I guess since the myths began to spread like wildfires, that a lot of what is discussed about it often goes unchallenged.
I think working mothers and adoptive mothers are particularly vulnerable to believing the myths and even biological moms who don't have an immediate bond may feel they are not "good" mothers. When in reality, the bond may not happen for some time after birth with any primary caregiver, including the bio mom.
I only looked at the page linked - it only mentions him as the creator of the blog. I went back to it and clicked around a bit before finding the info that he was the sole author of the blog.
There's lots more studies out there, done on humans, not ducklings. The recently posted (to this forum) video with Paul Sunderland goes into this at some depth as well.
I'll add my own experience here as well. I have had no contact whatsoever with my adopters or their families for ten years. They are not my family, I do not belong or "fit" there. Zero bond with my adoptive mother or father. I have a strong bond with my birth mother, who I have known for 13 years. We can finish each others sentences and strangers immediately recognize the mother/son relationship. There is a bond which survived 33 years of separation, which drew us back together. I probably won't ever see my adopters again and only feel relief over this.
And it is #5 as part of his 10 Mind-Myths. So I'm not sure why it's being dismissed?
Because it's a one-page interpretation/summary of a lengthy scientific article, in a "pop culture" psychology blog. I tried looking up the original source and can't find the entire article. I'd like to see the original author's words, please.
(That same series of "mind myths" includes this gem: "50% of College Students Think We See Like Superman, Despite Perception Course". Seriously? )
That's an adoption agency site. Do you really think they'd say ANYthing that might discourage a prospective adoptive parent? And even that paragraph states:
It appears the research that the bonding myth is based on was animals, not humans. I guess since the myths began to spread like wildfires, that a lot of what is discussed about it often goes unchallenged.
I think working mothers and adoptive mothers are particularly vulnerable to believing the myths and even biological moms who don't have an immediate bond may feel they are not "good" mothers. When in reality, the bond may not happen for some time after birth with any primary caregiver, including the bio mom.
That's not at all what she's saying. Here's what the NY Times Book Review says about the book.
What the author actually proposes is that mothers don't have to take extended leaves of absence from work (months, or even a year) for successful bonding to occur -- a reaction to this comment:
Quote:
Ms. Eyer quotes from a 1988 public television show in which Bill Moyers and the popular child-rearing expert T. Berry Brazelton chat about the desirability of women staying home from work for a year after childbirth, to insure successful bonding.
As for bonding, itself, she says:
Quote:
"I would like to urge the impossible -- that we discard the word entirely," she writes. "Discarding the term bonding would force us to notice that children are not merely putty in our hands."
I'm still not sure what "myths" you're trying to debunk?
Below are examples, from both an adoptive and biological mothers, about not having an "instant" bond with their babies, as well as a short commentary on the notion of a baby's immediate bond with its mother. I found it very interesting and have heard of similiar stories from family and friends. Can you or do you know of others who can or cannot relate to these women's stories?
You are asking for specific examples of mothers bonding to children rather than children bonding to mothers. Who knows what the child feels, we probably will never really know.
Also a resilient child doesn't always make a resilient adult - sometimes when the child becomes an adult and they are able to process their early life, they may have a delayed reaction (not talking about adoption specifically here).
The parents do eventually bond with their child. One danger is with some adoptive parents is that they decide their experience is their child's experience. For example, the mothers in the above site were worried about bonding because of their child not being their natural child, they then discovered that when it comes to loving a child, that biology isn't important. That is a good thing, i.e. "when it comes to loving a child/parent, biology isn't important". However, it then can get taken one step further and sometimes the adoptive parent decides that because biology doesn't matter when it comes to love, then biology doesn't matter at all and thus that message is relayed to the adoptee who is then made to feel guilty for wanting to know about their genetic origins.
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.
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.
Other Thoughts on Bonding
)
