Do you believe periods of separation of child-parent/caregiver permanently damages the child? (orphans, day care)
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.
What I suspect could be harmful is if parents actively lie to themselves, or put their heads in the sand, because they don't want to face the fact that they prioritize their personal good time over the needs of their children. And that is what this aspect of the conversation is about. The needs of the child vs the parent's good time. It's a fail before we even leave the gate.
Anyhow, the cited article I linked above runs the gamut of A-Z separation in the Introduction and the study addresses 4 hypotheses rather than just innocuous short term parental separation as well as affects on parental behavior following separations. Since we are only discussing short term separation with a few specific variables provided by the OP - (A. mom and dad gone for 10 days twice a year; B. Infant's age to start at 6 months for first trip; C. Temporary residence during vacation is at grandparents who live in another country) I'll just pull out relevant content as I see it.
Although please read the article and study, or follow the citations in the article.
Their review of the literature in the Intro
Quote:
Other studies examining the impacts of more minor separations from caregivers have also found adverse consequences. For example, Leventhal and Brooks-Gunn (2000) found that any separation from a primary caregiver (defined as hospitalizations lasting one week or more, or a change of primary caregiver between assessment waves) was negatively associated with children’s reading achievement by age 8. Although they found effects of separations that occurred at any point (until the child was age 8), separations that occurred within the first year of life were particularly salient for later achievement. Even normative separations, such as a child spending the day in child care, has been shown to be physiologically stressful for many children (Luecken & Lemery, 2004), though the stress of these separations can be buffered by responsive parenting prior to the separation and a sensitive alternative caregiver (Gunnar et al., 1992; Klein, Kraft, & Shohet, 2008).
....
In the current study, we define early separation more broadly as any separation from the mother that lasted for one week or more and occurred within the child’s first two years of life. Although it is quite likely that many of these separations occurred for innocuous reasons such as vacations or work-related travel, according to attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969/1982), a separation for as long as a week can result in distress for a young child who lacks the cognitive abilities to understand the continuity of maternal availability despite physical unavailability. Furthermore, a separation may serve as an indicator of other types of disruptions or instability within the family.
Findings in this study
Quote:
Table 3 presents the results of the first step in our analysis, in which maternal detachment, sensitivity, and warmth at child age 3 were regressed on early separation. None of these parenting behaviors was associated with early separation. Tables 4 and and55 present results of subsequent analyses, in which children’s aggression, negativity toward parent, and receptive vocabulary at ages 3 and 5 were regressed on early separation. Consistent with bivariate analyses, there were significant associations between early separation and children’s aggressive behaviors at age 3 (β= .06, p < .05) and age 5 (β= .05, p < .05). Children who experienced a separation from their mother within the first two years of life exhibited significantly higher levels of aggressive behaviors at ages 3 and 5 than children who had not experienced an early separation. Additionally, early separation was related to child negativity at age 3 (β= .05, p < .05), but not at age 5. Children who experienced an early separation were observed to be more negative toward their mothers during play at age 3, but this effect was no longer evident by age 5.
Last, a mediation model was tested based on the previous sets of results. Because early mother-child separation was related to children’s aggressive behaviors at both 3 and 5 years, we examined whether aggression at age 3 mediated the relationship between early separation and aggression at age 5. Following the steps outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986), it was first necessary to demonstrate that aggression at age 3 was related to both early separation and aggression at age 5. The significance of the first of these paths had already been demonstrated. It was also necessary that aggression at 3 years predict aggression at 5 years. This association was found to be large and significant, such that children who were rated as aggressive at age 3 were also likely to be aggressive at age 5 (β= .48, p < .001).
Finally, when the association between early separation and aggression at age 5 was tested controlling for aggression at age 3, the coefficient for separation was no longer significant (β= .03, p = .22), suggesting that aggression at age 3 mediated the relationship between early separation and age 3 aggression at age 5. This finding was confirmed by a Sobel test, which indicated that age 3 aggression significantly mediated the relationship between early separation and aggression at age 5 (z = 2.51, p < .05).
Discussion
Quote:
...
Given the context of relatively limited findings, our results still suggest that early separation has consequences for both children’s aggression and negativity. For aggression, effects emerge by age 3 and persist at least through age 5. The effect of separation on child aggression at age 5 was identified as being mediated through elevated levels of aggression at age 3. These findings indicate that even a relatively brief separation within the first 2 years of life can have implications for child well-being three years later.
Last edited by Jaded; 05-26-2014 at 04:09 PM..
Reason: Split from another thread...
This particular subject popped up in another thread and it's worth further discussion in the Parenting forum, so it's been split into a thread of its own.
Life happens and that may include separations. The child will get over it.
I don't say that callously either. It's a simple truth. Children who have been raised in all sorts of adverse situations can go on to live healthy, normal lives.
A couple of weeks events at 9 months old will not dictate the totality of one's life at say, age 30.
Life happens and that may include separations. The child will get over it.
I don't say that callously either. It's a simple truth. Children who have been raised in all sorts of adverse situations can go on to live healthy, normal lives.
A couple of weeks events at 9 months old will not dictate the totality of one's life at say, age 30.
Despite the title of this thread, that's not what this study says. It's not about adverse events dictating a child's life, rather lasting effects from parental separation and those effects were seen up to three years.
As a general statement- what the conversation was about, from my pov, is choices. There will invariably be things that come up in our children's lives. We cannot control everything or even most things. This particular issue, OTOH, is about what we can control; choices that are mostly up to us and how we prioritize.
As I stated up thread, I don't think willful ignorance is a good idea if it can be helped. Ignoring potential consequences of our choices doesn't do any good. Arguments that go in the extreme in either direction seem to be attempts to do just that. It's not either all fine or dire.
Depends on how long and how often. We know children adopted as infants can have RAD, so it is obviously deeper than being old enough to remember or not. In my completely non-professional opinion, I think a lot of it would depend on how they were cared for while the parent is gone.
My sister was hospitalized at 3 for hernia surgery. At that time, the doctors did not want parents visiting because it disrupted the children and they were harder to manage (1951). She was in the hospital for about a week, I think (maybe less time than that). When my parents finally picked her up, she would not let go of my mom. Even at 8 years old when we were building our new house right next door, when my mom went out to check on the builders, she screamed and cried and ran after her.
With my grandson, when he was 2.5, his parents left him with us for 2 weeks for a vacation with his sister to Australia. He was fine the entire time, but when they came home, he would not let his mom out of his sight for any reason. This went on for 3 years. He is autistic. He would strip off his clothes so that mom could not leave the house. He is still very attached to mom, but he is fine at our house now.
What I suspect could be harmful is if parents actively lie to themselves, or put their heads in the sand, because they don't want to face the fact that they prioritize their personal good time over the needs of their children. And that is what this aspect of the conversation is about. The needs of the child vs the parent's good time. It's a fail before we even leave the gate.
Anyhow, the cited article I linked above runs the gamut of A-Z separation in the Introduction and the study addresses 4 hypotheses rather than just innocuous short term parental separation as well as affects on parental behavior following separations. Since we are only discussing short term separation with a few specific variables provided by the OP - (A. mom and dad gone for 10 days twice a year; B. Infant's age to start at 6 months for first trip; C. Temporary residence during vacation is at grandparents who live in another country) I'll just pull out relevant content as I see it.
Although please read the article and study, or follow the citations in the article.
Their review of the literature in the Intro
Findings in this study
Discussion
Most of the r-values were very, very small. "Early mother-child separation was not associated with later parenting behaviors, but was related to child negativity (r =.06, p < .05) and aggression (r = .06, p < .05) at age 3, and to child aggression at age 5 (r = .06, p < .05). Separation was not associated with receptive vocabulary at either age 3 or 5."
For those not in the know, r values are between 1 and -1, with 0 being no relationship at all and 1 and -1 being very strong. These correlations were tiny, 0.06. The highest correlations were 0.6, which is getting closer to strong, but wasn't actual for outcomes vs separation but rather outcomes vs parenting behaviors.
As for the regression, almost none of it was significant (almost all of it had disappeared by age 5) and the only parts that were were also correlated with gender and education level. Meanwhile this entire study was done on low income families. There is a certain amount of well DUH, anything related to low income will correlate more strongly with education level.
Most children are not raised under ideal circumstances. And most parents work. So regardless of what studies say, the great majority of humanity is being raised by 2 parent working families. And most of them are turning out just fine.
Human beings are resilient. We can thrive under all sorts of circumstances. Very few people are raised in ideal situations. People have problems, the children themselves can have problems. Life happens.
Certainly the death of a parent at a young age can be harmful. But regular separations for day care/travel? Meh. IMHO as long as children have A consistent caregiver (mom, dad, grandma, auntie, nanny, etc) then they have what they need to thrive.
What I suspect could be harmful is if parents actively lie to themselves, or put their heads in the sand, because they don't want to face the fact that they prioritize their personal good time over the needs of their children.
This is a poor start to the thread. Basically from the outset you are pre-questioning the motives of anyone that might disagree with your premise. You think it is harmful. Others do not. But here above you suggest that those who do not are ignoring facts - facts you are yet to even present - in order to pursue their selfish agendas guilt free.
Which calls into question whether you intend to have an open and honest thread on the subject or not. If you do - you should put aside your preconceptions about peoples motivations and openly and honestly present the data and evaluate it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn
The needs of the child vs the parent's good time. It's a fail before we even leave the gate.
I think the issue with the thread you are splitting off from is that no one is suggesting there - or here on this thread - to not meet the needs of the child. The assumption you appear to be operating under is to take a week holiday without the child is somehow a failure to meet the needs of the child.
I think we can assume from the outset that people who agree with your assertions - and those that do not - are no more or less inclined than each other to be fighting for the needs and well being of a child.
The issue is you have not once shown that taking a week break without the child is a failure to meet those needs - or is harmful to the well being of the child. You have instead simply asserted there is harm caused here - and the support you originally offered for this "harm" is an opinion blog piece with no actual citations - study - or data within it. Just the authors opinion.
Your most recent link has a few issues I can see however.
Firstly it starts by asserting some based hypothesis such as "The Attachment Theory Perspective on Mother-Child Separation" and then just runs with them as if they are true.
Secondly it beefs up the article with things hardly relevant to the question. The link is meant to be about sperations of a week or so. But it throws in irrelevancies such as studies about institutionalised children "with little opportunity for interaction with warm and responsive adults" and of children who "experienced the loss of a parent or grandparent".
I mean come on - are we talking about short sperations from the primary care giver here or not? Or are we talking about loss through bereavments - orphans - or some other trauma situation? The writers of the paper are anything but focused here.
Also what KIND of speration are the authors trying to focus on. This is not clear. For example mixing parents who go off for a week of holiday - is comparing apples and oranges - if you also include numbers on parents taken to hospital or in some other way traumatically removed from the situation of parenting such as when your link says "separation from a primary caregiver (defined as hospitalizations lasting one week or more,". At which point one has to ask if any negative effectson the children were due to speration - or the earlier than average realisation of the mortality of their parents.
The paper even tries to suggest Day Care / Kindergarten is a source of these kinds of harms? An extraordinary claim like that - against the actions of a huge % of our society - requires good strong back up I would expect.
Also as the paper notes much of the studied seperation is not due to the parent taking a holiday - or sending the child to day care - but is attached to other instabilities in the household which cause the seperations. The question THEN becomes how they normalise for this - and show that any later negative effects in the children actually came from the seperations - and not the root instabilities that caused both those seperations and the later negative effects in the child. The paper is entirely opaque on this matter.
It is simply not enough - for example - to study 10000 families where the parents took a forthnight holiday within the first 3 years of the childs life - and collage the results of the children at the end. There is so muc normalization on MANY levels required there to come out with any useful result whatsoever.
Even the motivation and effects of the holiday have to be measured. Was it done for personal or other reasons? Was it done because the parents in question hate their kids and just want to be away from them? Was there some ongoing well being - health - psychological - or stress issue that was related to the cause of the seperation which might effect the child too - and so later results measured in the child stem from THAT rather than anything whatsoever to do with the seperation(s)?
How were the children cared and catered for DURING the abscence. Was the holiday taken at the expense of some other related family dynamic such as the childs education fund (given the study suggests mostly poor people were evaluated here). The list is huge and they mention few and actively normalise for fewer.
They do mention for example "it is possible that infant characteristics, such as temperament, may have predicted the occurrence of a separation". In other words rather than the abscene being a predictor of later attributes of the child - the attributes of the child were the preictor of the abscene and their own later development. Which is the exact reverse of the idea the paper purports to inquire into - and you want to use the paper to support.
And also in the methodology of the report why were only high risk families - poor families - and vulnerable families chosen for this? Surely if we are going to do a study making grandeous claims about parenting as a whole - then some cross-socio-economic sample set should be used and not some cherry picked low and vulnerable social class?
Where is there any data in the report on how they normalised for differences in the care givers who were not absent? for example a single mother who is not just the primary care giver but the ONLY care giver appears to be treated numerically the same in this report as a father-mother couple who split the duties and care 50%. Clearly however any perceived effects on a child between the mother being absent in these two cases is - once again - apples and oranges. They acknowledge this themselves at the end when they say "The present study was limited by its lack of information on caregiving arrangements during the separation" and "the quality of care that the child receives during the separation". That is no small lack here.
The paper also suggests "The presence or absence of a separation in the first 2 years was coded as 1 for at least 1 separation, and 0 for no separations.". 1 or 0 really?!?!?!?! so for the purposes of their numerical results a child whos mother was absent 25 times in a year is treated in their outcome the same as a child whos mother was absent ONCE? Come off it.
Summary - the sample set in this link is small - and the sub categorisations in it too numerous - to obtain anything useful from it. And that is before we look at the abscence of all levels and manners of normalisations. The results of this paper are therefore vauge at best - impossible to draw useful conclusions from (let alone the one you want to draw) - and at best the paper is useful only as a guide on what further study is needed - how it should be performed - and what mistakes not to make.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn
As I stated up thread, I don't think willful ignorance is a good idea if it can be helped.
Here we could not agree more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn
Ignoring potential consequences of our choices doesn't do any good.
Absolutely agree. But nor does it do any good to fabricate potential consequences without foundation in order to manufacture things to worry about.
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.
