To all CPs and NCPs of Infants & Toddlers...

[Rushia]

Yep, life would be easier if everyone could act like they have some sense. I'm not going to lie, things between the ex-girlfriend in my post and I were a little awkward at first.

But we were both adults, got to know each other, and found that we actually had a lot in common and really like each other. She and I get together about every 2 weeks without any of the kids (YAY!) for a day of lunch and shopping. We've had her kids over-night that she has from a previous marriage and vice versa. She and I are very good friends, and she and my husband are very good friends, as they should be. They have to raise a child together for the next 15 years.

Now, if things could be that rosy with my husband's ex-wife. Lord knows I've tried with that woman, but . . .

That's what happened with me and SM. We go out to dinner every Friday WITH all the kids. Mind you, it's just McD's or BK, and watching the kids run while we gossip. She and go to movies that our DH's don't want to see. The kids do their sleepovers and once Pipsqueak is older, I'm sure he'll go too.

 

[casa]

You all may not agree with that article, but it is identical to information that I have seen come from many other mental health professionals and pediatricians. I have read similar articles from numerous sources. They aren't lawyers, they don't care about the law, they are simply writing the truth from their very educated perspective.

This is a doctor focusing on what is best for children in general, irregardless of what is best or fair for either of the parents.

If a child recognizes both parents as primary caregivers, the situation in this article does not apply. My 22 month old granddaughter (who is not speaking well yet) recognizes three people as primary caregivers, her mother, me, and my mother. If her father were able to be around, then most likely by now she would recognize him as a primary caregiver as well. She may not be very verbal, but she is sharp and understands what is going on around her. She has also had plenty of experience with short separations from all of us, therefore she fully understands that we ARE coming back, and would probably be fine with an occasional overnight away from us.

That is why phased in plans are so appropriate, because they give the child the time to understand what is going on and to form a proper bond with the other parent.

Look at how many sullen, uncaring and dangerous teenagers we have out there in this country right now. We already know that divorce and unwed situations bear some responsibility for the huge problems with young people these days. However, if these doctors are correct, then attachment disorders are also a big part of the problem as well. Just because in our personal situations the child did not develope an attachement disorder, doesn't mean that every other situation is like one of ours here.

I want children to have good relationships with both parents...with very solid emotional bonds and security. If we give them time to establish those bonds they will be happier and healthier children.

And the parent who doesn't want to visit mid week because its too rushed....well I think that ALL of us agree that an infant or toddler absolutely needs to see their other parent more often than once a week, let alone once every two weeks. All we disagree on is when overnights should start.

I have said this before and I will say it again. I think that parents should be willing to make whatever sacrifices that need to be made, to ensure that infants and toddlers see both of them, EVERY day. However, I also know that its unrealistic for it to happen in many cases. Even if one of the parents is willing, generally the other is not.

Actually, legitimate professionals agree that children with happy divorced/single parents are far emotionally HEALTHIER than those who grow up in 'intact' families with conflict(s). So marriage has nothing to do with the subject at all.

Also, it's incorrect to assume that bc this woman is a PhD that she is the 'authority' on the subject. I've worked with children/adolescents with every type of attachment/abuse/disability/anxiety disorder, etc. And having to go to a babysitter or visit their other parent is Never a reason for their predicament.

Attachment disorders are due to problems with attachment/bonding as a young child...that's all, it's not because they spent the night with the 'other' parent. It's because WHOEVER caretook of them failed to meet their physical, emotional & developmental needs. It doesn't flippin matter if that's Gma, Mom, Dad, Uncle, Best Friend/Neighbor.

To even IMPLY that a baby spending the night with their parent (without the other parent there...just like everyone who works graveyard or visits family or travels for work in an INtact relationship)....would result in a negative psychological impactis just SO MUCH BULL$HIT!.

 

[Peanuts200788]

thank you proud parent .. and i agree with you...ive found several articles and am making it a point of reading ALL of them.

Like I said, this is just someone's opinion and we all have opinions...some of the things she wrote are insightful, but all families and cases are different, therefore she shouldn't say all children need this, this, and this.....but if you read objectively you can see insight in some of it, not all of it...

 

[Silverplum]

To even IMPLY that a baby spending the night with their parent[/B] (without the other parent there...just like everyone who works graveyard or visits family or travels for work in an INtact relationship)....would result in a negative psychological impact is just SO MUCH BULL****.

I agree with you, 100%!!

 

[casa]

And I can cite abundant clinical research by other educated professionals to refute Dr. Fox's conclusions. As you yourself have observed with your granddaughter (and a meta-analysis of the available research also supports this conclusion), infants and toddlers are capable of forming multiple secure attachments -- even to nonrelatives. Several widely published and peer-reviewed studies have indicated that attachment formation has as much to do with other factors (the child's temperament, the caregivers' responsiveness, sensitivity and consistency) as with the child's age.



This is precisely what I find most outrageous about this article. How arrogant of one person, no matter what her credentials, to presume to speak to the best interests of all children! The best interests of a person must be weighed in terms of the individual's unique situation; that's why we have family courts to decide custody and visitation. If one size fit all, we would have no need of psychologists, investigators, GALs and the like -- and we wouldn't be here on this board!


For the record, the article Peanuts posted comes comes from Attachment Parenting International's web site. As the name suggests, API is a group that promotes Dr. William Sears' theory of "attachment parenting", a very particular parenting philosophy emphasizing so-called "natural" or "instinctive" parenting techniques. It is therefore not surprising that the article is so biased.

For those unfamiliar with attachment parenting (or AP), it is based on principles of attachment theory. But whereas 'attachment theory' is widely accepted by developmental psychologists, 'AP' is more of a lifestyle or a movement. Adherents of AP often contrast it to "mainstream parenting". AP support groups like API advocate such practices as home birth/midwife-assisted birth, breastfeeding beyond infancy/toddlerhood, co-sleeping (bed sharing), stay-at-home parenting, homeschooling, etc. Many AP supporters are also involved in the anti-vaccination movement.

I'm not here to debate the merits of AP versus conventional parenting, but rather to emphasize that Dr. Isabelle Fox's viewpoint is just that -- HER viewpoint. It is not generally accepted medical or psychological theory.

Peanuts200788, this article has generated some thoughtful discussion, and I for one feel that is a good thing. I encourage you to continue your reading and research, but I would caution you to give consideration to opposing viewpoints before hanging your hat on the personal opinion of any one "expert".

Exactly. I should have read the rest of page 3 before nearly repeating this.

Another thing to consider is IF someone bought that B.S., can you even IMAGINE the litigation it would CAUSE? Everyone trying to say the baby is more bonded to THEM...then it drags in ANYONE the baby could have bonded with (Not to mention, who's asking the non-verbal little cutie in the 1st place?) ...and so on...and so on...and so on.

 

[ezmarelda]

Actually, legitimate professionals agree that children with happy divorced/single parents are far emotionally HEALTHIER than those who grow up in 'intact' families with conflict(s). So marriage has nothing to do with the subject at all.

Also, it's incorrect to assume that bc this woman is a PhD that she is the 'authority' on the subject. I've worked with children/adolescents with every type of attachment/abuse/disability/anxiety disorder, etc. And having to go to a babysitter or visit their other parent is Never a reason for their predicament.

Attachment disorders are due to problems with attachment/bonding as a young child...that's all, it's not because they spent the night with the 'other' parent. It's because WHOEVER caretook of them failed to meet their physical, emotional & developmental needs. It doesn't flippin matter if that's Gma, Mom, Dad, Uncle, Best Friend/Neighbor.

To even IMPLY that a baby spending the night with their parent (without the other parent there...just like everyone who works graveyard or visits family or travels for work in an INtact relationship)....would result in a negative psychological impactis just SO MUCH BULL$HIT!.

Uh-huh...what she said.

 

[IrishLady47]

thank you proud parent .. and i agree with you...ive found several articles and am making it a point of reading ALL of them.

Like I said, this is just someone's opinion and we all have opinions...some of the things she wrote are insightful, but all families and cases are different, therefore she shouldn't say all children need this, this, and this.....but if you read objectively you can see insight in some of it, not all of it...

Based on what is in the article and website in general, my impression is that MORE time with the infant w/NCP from birth is the best way to avoid "trauma". That way both Mom & Dad will be considered "primary caretakers".

From personal experience, I sincerely doubt long lasting psychological damage from these issues. I always seeing posters talking about "phasing-in" Dad when there has been a lapse in visitation. My X and I split when my son was 1 yr old. X exited military service 3 mo later and moved back to home state of FL from MD. Did not exercise ANY visitation until my son was 4 years old. He only knew what his father looked like from pictures. He was too young to fly so my parents drove him down to visit his Dad and he stayed with his Dad & new wife for over a week. The next year (age 5) flew down BY HIMSELF for 2 wk visit & the same each summer until he was 9. No phasing in.

Son is now 32, a very happy & successful guy. I have not seen that he was bothered by this in any way--either back then or now. However, I'm not saying every child would be unaffected. Children are individuals with their own unique personality. But I do think it helped a great deal that I always expressed to my son that those visits and flying would be a wonderful adventure for him. And, that how he viewed it also.

 

[Peanuts200788]

youre right Irish...Im just researching all points of view, seeing all sides, if you will...

i have several articles left to read, and i'm sure all of them will express different opinions...

 

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

Peanuts, when I had my first son, I was a SAHM. By the time my son was 4 month, he would NOT stay with anyone but me. I couldn't go to the frigging bathroom without trauma. Dad was fine as long as I was in the room. I vowed that I would NEVER find myself in that predicament again.

Children should have an opportunity to bond with many people who will love them. The more love, the better. Because babies and young children have shorter attention spans, separations should not be long periods. Babies should have MANY opportunities. Work opposite shifts than dad so that the baby is with a parent instead of a babysitter. Find a way, because daddy's are happier to pay support of children with whom they have a good relationship.

 

[Peanuts200788]

Ginny you are right ... and I guess this is me being selfish again, I just have concerns about leaving my ex alone with my child...reason being this...

after i got pregnant, we were talking about parenting, and i told him i didn't want my child around excessive drinking, partying, drugs, excessive sex partners that kind of thing...he didn't see anything wrong with a child being exposed to any of that, said if i was like that i was sheltering the child.

he said i was wrong to teach the child about my Christian beliefs (i found my faith again after i got pregnant, and it has kept me sane through all of this) and he didn't want my mom and dad involved in the child's life....

these were just a few of the reasons we seperated...that and i knew it wasn't right for me to live with him and not be married to him (just how i felt) and it wasn't a good environment to raise a child in....

anyway i know he can change after the baby is born and i pray he does, i guess these things just take time

 

[IrishLady47]

Peanuts, when I had my first son, I was a SAHM. By the time my son was 4 month, he would NOT stay with anyone but me. I couldn't go to the frigging bathroom without trauma. Dad was fine as long as I was in the room. I vowed that I would NEVER find myself in that predicament again.

What do you mean by trauma in this context? That he cried? Or something else? At what age was this resolved? Also, any long-term effects you've noticed?

I'm asking because I was also SAHM from my son's birth until I went back to college when he was 5 mo (and w/Dad's military duty he was home very little). Lucked out w/grandmother type neighbor who only watched him while I was in classes MWF. He cried when I left the first 2 wks, then he was used to her, no more tears (with her at least). What I'm saying, he was a happy baby most of the time & grew into a happy child. Obviously, me leaving him with a total stranger after almost exclusive time with me as primary caretaker did not cause long-term effects. That is the part of the article by Fox I cannot believe. I'd have to see a long-term case study.

Children should have an opportunity to bond with many people who will love them. The more love, the better. Because babies and young children have shorter attention spans, separations should not be long periods. Babies should have MANY opportunities. Work opposite shifts than dad so that the baby is with a parent instead of a babysitter. Find a way, because daddy's are happier to pay support of children with whom they have a good relationship.

Totally agree with all except bolded part. Babies & young children have NO concept of time, period. From what I've observed w/my own, nieces & nephews, it matters little if Mom (or whoever primary caretaker is) leaves the room to pee or leaves overnight, the kid will cry for a time, some longer than others. But I've never seen one yet that didn't stop if love & attention is given by whoever is caring for them.

 

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

Baby-kins screamed from the time I left till I got home, whether it was one hour, two or six ... I believe that the adult was probably more traumatized than the baby, but still. I learned after that to take breaks from the baby and let others take care of 'em too.

 

[peppier]

How many women go back to work in 6 weeks to a couple months and leave the infants in daycare and the babies spend more than 2 hours away from either parent.

IMO, this is bogus and should or would only be considered if the mother was a SAHM and just in my experience there are very few of those nowadays.

 

[Peanuts200788]

All of you have brought up great points and I realize them now...I used to work in a daycare and i took care of the babies, we had two in the room that were just 6 weeks old, of course they cried some, but mostly they slept unless they were eating or having their diaper changed, they didn't seem too traumatized or anything when they left each day...it's just as I said in my last post, selfish as it seems, I worry about my child's safety if he ever visits his father for reasons below...

after i got pregnant, we were talking about parenting, and i told him i didn't want my child around excessive drinking, partying, drugs, excessive sex partners that kind of thing...he didn't see anything wrong with a child being exposed to any of that, said if i was like that i was sheltering the child.

he said i was wrong to teach the child about my Christian beliefs (i found my faith again after i got pregnant, and it has kept me sane through all of this) and he didn't want my mom and dad involved in the child's life....

these were just a few of the reasons we seperated...that and i knew it wasn't right for me to live with him and not be married to him (just how i felt) and it wasn't a good environment to raise a child in....

anyway i know he can change after the baby is born and i pray he does, i guess these things just take time

 

[Bloopy]

should or would only be considered if the mother was a SAHM and just in my experience there are very few of those nowadays.

Even in this case a phasing-in plan would suffice. Today, few married couples can afford for there to be a SAHM. Being a SAHM is just about impossible for a single woman.

Since a divorcing/separating/never-married mother NEEDS to get a job, were back to the babysitting argument.

Peanut- Please don’t feel we’re trashing you. There's NOTHING wrong with posting the article. It’s the AP lady we’re miffed at. Like proud_parent said, it’s been a good discussion.