Wednesday, August 17, 2016
I usually avoid looking at the website of ATTACh (Association for the Treatment and Training of Attachment in Children), the parent-professional organization that pushes the belief that emotional attachment is behind most unwanted behavior-- also, that they know how to “fix” this. However, my attention was called to the brochure for ATTACh’s September 2016 conference by a prospective adoptive parent who is being strong-armed to attend. I had a look at it to see what speakers were scheduled. There were some goodies:
Lark Eshleman-- was the therapist for the family of Nathaniel Craver, a Russian adoptee who died, apparently as the result of abuse.
Terry Levy-- one of the old school of holding therapists. He edited a book that included advice to limit quantity and variety of food as part of treatment for Reactive Attachment Disorder.
Michael Trout-- according to lectures he gave for the Association for Pre- and Perinatal Psychology and Health (APPPAH), he believes that attachment occurs before birth and that the fetus is conscious of what the mother says, does, and thinks about. (Yes, just what Scientologists think.)
But the cream of the brochure is that Arthur Becker-Weidman is presenting about evidence-based treatments! This is really quite unbelievable, because B-W has repeatedly published the claim that Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is an evidence-based treatment when it is quite clearly not eligible for that category. I won’t get into the whole story here, but it is recounted in detail at http://www.springer.com/psychology/personality+%26+social+psychology/journal/10560/PS2. (This is free to readers and is the last article in the table of contents you will see.) I don’t know whether the problem between them was this tendency to make unfounded claims, or what, but it is clear that Daniel Hughes, the originator of Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, has cut his former colleague B-W adrift and no longer even mentions their co-authored publications about DDP. I am not sure Hughes ever mentioned B-W’s retracted papers.
I’ve never completely understood why B-W has made and repeated his unfounded statements about the evidence basis of DDP. Does he actually not know what is required before a treatment can be said to be evidence-based? Or can it be that (not unlike some others) he simply regards the evidence-based designation as a marketing tool that can be used to sell a treatment—and to sell himself as a lecturer and trainer?
In either case, what on earth is ATTACh doing, allowing him to further entrench himself as a therapist and adviser to adoptive families? Well… I suppose the answer is obvious. ATTACh is using its annual conference to attract parents and quasiprofessionals and to make them more willing to purchase the organization’s services and publications. ATTACh used to do this by talking about attachment all the time; now they do it might repeating current buzzwords like “trauma” and “evidence-based treatment” (EBT). The connection between EBT and treatment funding /insurance coverage is a value-added factor for ATTACh’s sponsorship of a presentation on EBT—especially one whose past approaches to the issue have been highly problematic.
Is it important for people attending the ATTACh conference to understand what an EBT is? It would be good in a general way if they knew this, of course, but I find it difficult to imagine taking a mixed audience of people who just want to know how to raise adopted children, and trying to convey to them the nature of random assignment to groups, the problem of confounded variables, statistical significance and effect size, and quite a few other things that are involved in deciding whether a treatment should be called evidence-based—in an hour or two. (I make this statement as one who spent some 30 years teaching psychological research methods.) Most people are quite willing to accept testimonials and anecdotes as “evidence” and become bored very soon with any argument saying there is evidence that is more important than personal experience. Also, they don’t like math, and to teach this properly there has to be some math.
If I were running the ATTACh conference—an idea that no doubt would draw gasps of horror from the ATTACh board-- I would organize a presentation about the use of Internet sources to look up evaluations of the evidence for a treatment. Although they are far from perfect, the California Evidence Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare, the National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices, and Effective Child Therapy all provide extensive resources for checking into whether a child mental health intervention has been strongly supported by empirical work. Adoptive parents who know how to use these websites can spare themselves and their children some regrettable tangles with ineffective or even harmful treatments.
But if ATTACh simply must get EBT into the discussion, let them get a presenter whose history shows that he or she can do the job properly.
Tuesday, August 16, 2016
In 1998, Judith Rich Harris published The nurture assumption, a book that argued that parents had
little impact on their children’s development. This position was most annoying to many parents who
had worked and worried to provide their children with parenting that (they hoped) would assure them
with later happiness and success. Like most apparently simple positions, of course, Harris’s claim
worked well only within certain boundaries. She did not argue that abusive parents and kind parents
created the same outcomes, just that within a normal range of parenting behavior, what the parents did
was not the major factor determining child outcomes. Other important factors were the child’s and the
parents’ genetic characteristics, school experiences, peer influences, extended-family influences,
religion, and community and national events. In other words, Harris argued, on the basis of considerable research, not that parents were not important, but that other factors were quite important at all times and became more important as children got older.
It’s a common mistake to assume that whatever is true at one stage of life will necessarily continue to be true at other stages. Some rules of development seem consistent, but others change a good deal with age.
In addition, the term “developmental bias” is sometimes used to describe the assumption that whatever is happening now is based on events that happened early in life. Later events can be caused by earlier events, of course, but it’s also possible that some experiences that make a lot of difference to a baby’s behavior may have nothing at all to do with later behavior and development. It might be that later experiences are so powerful that they just wipe out the early effects, or that maturational change causes reorganizations of behavior that leave behind any early events or experiences. An example is the fact that babies who walk early and who walk relatively late (but within the normal range) really can’t be told apart later-- their walking and other movements are similar, and their early development and experience don’t seem to make any difference. Or, for another example, there are the descriptions from years ago of Russian babies who were swaddled a lot of the time until they were a year old and didn’t get much chance to crawl or pull to stand, yet it was reported that they walked at about the same time as babies who were encouraged to move around.
The idea that it may be a mistake to assume that early experiences determine development is an important one as we argue about whether parents do or don’t influence children’s development. As Harris noted, there is a lot of evidence that events other than parenting are powerful shapers of children’s behavior and abilities. But at the same time we see increasing research reports that show how parenting may influence very young children.
Here’s an example of this kind of research, by Emily Little, Leslie Carver, and Cristine Legare (“Cultural variations in triadic infant-caregiver object exploration”, Child Development, 87, 1130-1145). Little and her colleagues were interested in the ways parents play with babies by using toys and objects—holding a toy for the baby to see, or helping the baby grasp it. Most of the research on this has been on people in the “WEIRD” population (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic), and “WEIRD” adults are known to choose to be face-to-face with babies while playing and to use object play as a teaching tool. Western psychologists have focused on this kind of interaction to the point where we look at babies’ use of social referencing (gazing toward an adult for a cue about a strange object) and joint attention as essential developmental steps. But Little and her colleagues were curious about whether the rest of the world—the non-WEIRD part—behaved in the same way, and how children might be influenced differently.
Little and her colleagues decided to compare caregivers in the United States with caregivers on the island of Tanna in the Melanesian archipelago, a quite non-WEIRD place where subsistence farming and traditional life go on without compulsory schooling. (Other researchers like Barbara Rogoff have shown how children in this kind of society learn by watching adults more than by instruction.) The researchers looked at three ways the caregivers could interact with the children: using their voices, getting face-to-face and using the gaze to signal, or by physical contact (touching or holding the child, moving the child’s whole body and head, moving the body while holding the head still, moving the child’s body parts). As they played with the babies and the toys for three minutes, the U.S. group used their voices at about the same rate as the Tanna caregivers did. But the two groups reversed their use of visual and physical contacts-- the U.S. group used visual interaction more than twice as often as the Tanna group, and the Tanna group used physical interaction more than twice as often as the U.S. group. And what were the effects on the babies? There were not as many differences in infant behavior as Little and her colleagues had predicted, but the U.S. babies did look at the toy more often than the Tanna babies did—perhaps because of their previous experiences with caregivers who used their gaze to give and receive information.
When Tanna babies and children later behave in ways that seem to reflect their caregivers’ early behavior, does that happen because of their experiences in infancy? Or are those experiences not nearly as important as their many later experiences, which will reflect the culture they live in? Either of these conclusions is possible in light of our limited information… limited because we see only a few people who move from a non-WEIRD infancy to a WEIRD childhood, and almost none who do the reverse. In either case, we need to remember that early experiences could be overwhelmingly important, or completely unimportant, or any point between—and what’s more, how that works could be different for each aspect of development. Like everything else about development, it’s complicated!
The editors of Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal have very kindly selected one of my publications to include in a free on line issue of their journal. The paper is about the growth and development of "woozles"-- ideas that we think are supported by evidence, simply because we've heard about them so often. The woozle example I used is Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy.
Read it here:
Read it here:
Friday, July 22, 2016
Usually I avoid looking at Nancy Thomas’ website, www.attachment.org, but I was reminded of it the other day and had a look—several looks. And of course, having looked, I want to point out a few of the flaws therein.
Let’s start by looking at Thomas’ comments about Attachment Therapy (www.attachment.org/what-is-attachment-therapy/), which, she says, consists of eye contact, touch, smiles, and the “sharing of sugar between the mother and child”. Yes, folks, it appears that Thomas is still committed to the idea she put forward in the 2000 book edited by Terry Levy (and published, to its shame, by Academic Press). She suggested there that attachment can be created by hand-feeding caramels to a child. Logical? You bet, if you can accept Thomas’ premises. These are 1) that attachment normally occurs soon after birth, 2) that breastfeeding contributes to attachment, 3) that because human milk is slightly sweeter than cow’s milk, milk sugars play a role in attachment, 4) that caramels, which contain milk and sugar, are analogous to human milk, 5) that when a woman hand-feeds caramels to a child, the effect on the child is like that of being breastfed. Of course, attachment does not begin shortly after birth, nor is it especially related to breastfeeding. Although it’s true that human milk is sweeter than cow’s milk, there is no reason to think that its sweetness has more to do with an emotional effect on the child than its protein or calcium contents or the individual flavors that come from what the mother has eaten (and anyway, as I just said, there is no particular connection between breastfeeding and attachment). In fact, this whole argument is simply based on sympathetic magic mixed with the assumption that a mother’s early positive feelings toward her infant are immediately mirrored by similar feelings on the part of the infant.
Attachment Therapy, as discussed by Thomas, requires, in addition to sugar, a “release of rage” over a period of several hours. Thomas’ hero Foster Cline supposed that children in this kind of treatment are angry because of the loss of the birthmother and that their rage blocks the development of a new attachment. He used a hydraulic analogy to suggest that when the children express rage, they then become able to form an attachment. This belief unfortunately contradicts research evidence that expression of anger actually intensifies the anger rather than diminishing it. In addition, the belief that a newborn separated from the birthmother will be angry is in contradiction to everything known about early cognitive and emotional development. On this topic, of course, we need to ask how the “release of rage” would be brought about, and the most likely guess is that it is to be done by physical restraint, shouting, and terrifying the child, as per the rage-reduction therapy of the ‘90s. Although Thomas does not define Attachment Therapy directly in this way, she provides enough cues to convey what she is actually talking about, and allows us to guess what she does in her camps when she takes a child aside for a “tune-up”.
The same page reveals two other incorrect assumptions-- unstated, as presumably the wished-for reader already agrees with them. One is that unwanted behavior of children is of necessity associated with difficulties of attachment-- difficulties that, we are told, can be fixed with caramels and other equally likely methods. The second is that the diagnosis Reactive Attachment Disorder means that a child is manipulative, aggressive, untruthful, exploitative, and so on. Neither of these positions is correct. Certainly children who show risky behavior may have had few opportunities for attachment, but the same kinds of behavior can appear in children with a good attachment history and clear attachment behavior in earlier life. Also, certainly there are children who are manipulative, etc. etc., and they may have at one time also shown symptoms of Reactive Attachment Disorder (although there is no clear method for diagnosing that disorder in school-age children), but the various undesirable behaviors named are not symptoms of Reactive Attachment Disorder.
Thomas also repeats a claim that was common among members of Cline’s group in Evergreen in years gone by. She proposes that “traditional therapies” are not only ineffective but actually harmful in cases of undesirable child behavior. On another page, www.attachment.org/therapy-goals/ , Thomas states that “Non-directive play therapy, traditional talk therapy, and sand tray therapy have been proven to either be ineffective with children with RAD or make them sicker.” This is, of course, completely untrue with respect to any usual use of the term “proven”. In order for such proof to exist, someone needs to have systematically compared the outcomes of Attachment Therapy with those of the methods Thomas references, and I can assure you that this has not been done. Indeed, there has never been a systematic study of the outcomes of Attachment Therapy alone. Thomas’ argument is not based on the existence of systematic research, but instead on her belief that if a possible mechanism for an effect can be named, this is as good as having found evidence that the effect occurs. She states on both pages the unsupported belief that being alone with a therapist enables a child to become more manipulative, etc., and thus “sicker”, and that the presence of the mother is essential to prevent this. These assumptions are put forward as evidence that the claimed outcomes occur.
It’s a bit mind-boggling to try to unravel the logical and factual mess presented on www.attachment.org. Unfortunately for their children, those who can’t bear a bit of mind-boggling may fall for the claims of this purveyor of snake oil. And just as regrettably for all of us, reporters who hastily copy Thomas’ claims can and do spread these misconceptions and give free advertising to Attachment Therapists.
Twenty years ago, the state of Utah opened a can of worms by hiring trainers for adoption caseworkers from a Colorado group who advocated Attachment Therapy (AT) in its “rage reduction” form. Caseworkers were trained to teach adoptive parents that any resistance or disobedience in the children had to be met with physical force in the form of lying with the adult’s whole weight on the supine child. In the case of Don. L. Tibbets’ adopted preschool daughter, the child stopped breathing briefly under this treatment, and although Don reported this to the caseworker, he was told that he and his wife had to continue the restraint practice-- on pain of having the adoption stopped. Don (a registered nurse) did as he was told, but when the child stopped breathing again, she could not be resuscitated. Don was sentenced to six years in prison for his role in the death, but as I am sure you can guess, the caseworkers were not punished.
The Colorado trainers hired by Utah left behind them the seeds of a number of catastrophes, child deaths, and injuries later caused by AT. Efforts at legislation prohibiting this type of treatment for children were successfully fought by “parents’ rights” groups and by AT therapists and clinics that had sprung up. Nevertheless, the national furor among professional psychologists and social workers, culminating in a task force report strongly rejecting AT in the journal Child Maltreatment in 2006, helped to limit some of the more egregious AT practices in Utah and elsewhere.
But how soon they forget, right? Wyoming has recently arranged for social services training by the Institute for Attachment and Child Development of Evergreen, CO, home of at least one practitioner with AT roots going way back. The IACD website includes a requirement for parents sending their children to this residential treatment center: if the child has ever accused an adult of abusive treatment, a document to this effect must be provided, so that law enforcement and others will know how to respond to claims a child may make while at IACD. This precaution must cut out a lot of problems like having to investigate whether a child was actually abused while at IACD, and may have appealed to Wyoming social services bureaucrats. As far as can be told from the website and from reports of personal experiences. IACD does not use any evidence-based treatments, so other than convenience and shared philosophies, reasons for choosing IACD training are difficult to find.
According to the article linked here (thanks to Linda Rosa!),
Missouri is now spending public money to send adoptive parents to an ATTACh conference, where they will receive instruction in a range of beliefs advocated by that organization. Although ATTACh, a parent/professional organization that taught AT concepts years ago, has apparently retreated from the belief in physical restraint as an appropriate way to create attachment, nevertheless the organization continues to teach that behavior problems in foster and adopted children are largely based on a failure of attachment, resulting in Reactive Attachment Disorder. Treatment of disruptive behavior, according to ATTACh, requires “fixing” a child’s attachment to an adult caregiver, even though the child in question is years beyond the developmental stage which is the focus of evidence-based therapies that nurture relationships between adults and children. These views are strongly opposed to positions taken by conventional psychologists and certainly do not provide the evidentiary basis that should be required before public funds are expended. Like Wyoming, Missouri is making a big mistake; people in both states have been conned by AT proponents.
I want to comment on one other aspect of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch article. In addition to reporting that parents will be treated to attendance at the ATTACh conference, the piece refers to a program called Extreme Recruitment, which is said to aim at adoption within 12 to 20 weeks for difficult-to-place children, including older and special needs children. Given that it is very hard on children to be unsure of their position in a family, or even where they will be sleeping the next day, and that frequent changes of foster care are to be avoided if at all possible, this rapid path to adoption nevertheless seems to be an invitation to trouble and disruption. Can either parents or children rationally know that they want to proceed to adoption after such a short period? Especially in the case of special needs children, can parents during that time period learn what they should know about a child’s medical, psychological, or educational needs? Much as a caseworker or a parent may want to close a file, they need to consider the number of cases in which parents say that the child “came home”, all was well, then suddenly the honeymoon was over and the parents complain that no one gave them all the information they needed. Hastening to reach adoption decisions seems like a way to guarantee those kinds of difficulties, with possible dissolution of adoptions, or in the worst cases the informal Internet “rehoming” that has had such ill effects for children. When people are convinced that all problems of fostered or adopted children are attachment problems, and when they believe that they can “fix” attachment and therefore all the other troubles as well, it is easy for them to fall for the idea that speedy adoption will have positive results. Extreme Recruitment is associated with the Carleen Goddard-Mazur Training Institute, which on its website offers no evidence of any evaluation of the outcomes of this practice, although it uses the word “replication” which would suggest to professionals that some outcome studies have been done-- but in fact seems to mean only that this approach is being tried in several places. Someone in Missouri needs to examine this program under a strong light.
Wednesday, July 13, 2016
Looking at various on line discussions of Reactive Attachment Disorder, we see multiple claims that every orphaned, mistreated, or medically fragile child is likely to have RAD (a disorder incorrectly claimed to cause anger and aggressive behavior). Made-for-TV movies like “Child of Rage” echo these claims. But… people have not always thought that orphans as a group were overtly or covertly hostile to other people. This is a fairly recent idea, and one without real support.
Let’s look at how people used to think about orphans in the 19th and 20th centuries. Literary depictions of children give us some information about how people thought, because readers would not have accepted stories that went against their own beliefs about orphans.
Should Anne of Green Gables have been diagnosed with RAD? She was described by L.M. Montgomery as having come from an orphanage to her adoptive home on Prince Edward Island, so she had experienced the separation from her birth mother that is supposed to be a major factor in RAD. She was taken in by people who did not really want her; they had asked to be sent an orphan, a boy, who would be helpful on their farm and grow up strong to work for them. Anne’s adoptive mother wanted her to be sent back to the orphanage and exchanged for the right kind of child, but Anne had winning, though exasperating, ways (hmm, psychopathic charm maybe?) and the adults decided to keep her. As she grew up, Anne was a bit impulsive, but affectionate to her caregivers, and friendly to her teacher and other children. In later books, she was shown as falling in love and marrying, while maintaining loving relations with her former caregivers. The author clearly did not think of Anne as emotionally handicapped or depict her as having more risk-taking behavior than went with her red hair (an assumption of the time). Orphans were all right as far as L.M. Montgomery was concerned.
Did Oliver Twist have Reactive Attachment Disorder? Born to a poverty-stricken mother who soon died in the workhouse, and not knowing his father, Oliver spent his first years “on the parish” with minimal food or care. When big enough to be useful, he was sold to an undertaker as an apprentice, but escaped only to be taken in by the criminal Fagin and forced to learn to pick pockets by his terrifying mentor. All the elements of abandonment and mistreatment are here, even Oliver’s presence at a murder. Nevertheless, Oliver grows up as a kind and engaging person who is willing to give half of his small inheritance to someone else. Orphans were all right as far as Charles Dickens was concerned.
How about Dondi, if anyone else remembers him? Dondi was a comic strip character following World War II. He had a lot of black hair, pale skin, and huge dark eyes. His ethnicity was far from clear, but he was a war orphan of some kind, and was adopted by a very rich lady with a lorgnette and an immense bosom. She was always drawn from a child’s-eye perspective, so the bosom was much in evidence. Despite his experiences of separation and trauma, Dondi was not only not angry, but was depicted as wholly good. His reliable moral compass made him an ethical adviser to Mrs. Van Bosom and her friends. Orphans were not only all right, but purified by suffering, in the opinion of the artist.
And then, what about Huey, Louie, and Dewey, or Ferdie and Mortie? These Disney characters of the Depression, fostered by their uncles, the cranky and indifferent Donald Duck and the somewhat more socially engaged Mickey Mouse, were depicted as mischievous, but no more so than non-orphaned children. Their independence was admired rather than being interpreted as high-risk behavior.
My point here is that beliefs, expectations, and stories about influences on children change historically and are not necessarily good guides to decision-making about individual children. When narratives tell us that orphanhood is a psychologically healthy status, we tend to believe that, and when we believe it, authors tend to tell us that orphans do very well even under very difficult circumstances. When narratives like “Child of Rage” tell us that orphans are not only dangerous but capable of hiding their threat from us, we may believe it, especially if the stories are repeated. And when we believe, there are many reasons why more such narratives may be presented to us.
What’s the moral of this discussion? It’s not a good idea to depend on stories for our understanding of children’s mental health. Stories are always more interesting when they exaggerate reality, and when they repeat for us what we already think. They cannot tell us about diagnosis and treatment of emotional disorders as systematic research can do.
It can be hard for people to resist the appeal of “Child of Rage” and more recent examples of the type – but just think: would you expect to learn the real facts about sharks from “Jaws”? About human physiology from “Fantastic Voyage”? If not, just keep in mind that stories about childhood mental illness were not written as sources of fact, and we should not try to use them that way.
Tuesday, July 12, 2016
In a recent essay in the newsletter of the Society of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, Eric Youngstrom described the “hyper-abundance of information on the Internet” as including “a wild mix of good information with opinion, direct-to-consumer marketing, and snake oil sales pitches, all clamoring for attention”. The latter two commercial approaches are all too easily absorbed by naïve print reporters, repeated as accurate in print, and then doubled down back on the Internet as statements of fact. Deception of an unwary public is multiplied during this process.
A fashionable topic for intentional or unintentional public deception is Reactive Attachment Disorder. As presented by representatives of the Snake Oil Manufacturers Educational Association (SOMEAss), this is a juicy topic, including serial killing just like in the movies, hypersexuality, and failure to be grateful to one’s mother—all to be treated by a strict regimen of authoritarian and intrusive parenting. (In reality, RAD is a diagnosis that describes young children’s difficulty in feeling comfortable with or staying close to adult caregivers; the term does not describe feelings or behaviors of school-age children or older individuals.)
Mistaken articles about RAD appear every other day, but my friend and colleague Linda Rosa has put me onto a beaut out of Oklahoma City: kfor.com/2016/07/11/camp-for-families-with-children-dealing-with-rare-mental-disorder/. This article makes mistaken claim after mistaken claim and does not allow for the public comment that might correct these mistakes.
The piece begins with a remark that alerts all knowledgeable readers: “Bonding with your baby is one of the most precious moments in a parent and a child’s life.” What’s wrong here? Don’t I think that happy moments with a baby are precious? Yes, of course I do. But “bonding” is a term that describes a parent’s sense of engagement with and commitment to a baby—“falling in love” with the baby is what we are talking about. The parent’s deep involvement leads to a cascade of positive events for the baby, but “bonding” is not in itself part of a child’s life. You have to be grown-up to “bond” in this way. Babies will later develop attachment to a consistent, sensitive, and responsive caregiver, but this is not “bonding” and it is not the matter of a moment, precious or otherwise, but takes months and continues to change form for many years. Parents’ “bonding”, too, may or may not be a quick process; although some parents feel smitten by their babies the first time they hold them, many others feel a bit worried that they don’t “feel more”, but some weeks later will realize that now they are intensely engaged with the baby. The Oklahoma article is deceptive in its statement that both parent and baby go through a rapid and permanent emotional change, and that their feelings about each other are similar. This is not just a problem of a little detail about child development, because it wrongly suggests to readers that young children have adult-like feelings that are established at a very early age-- and would take severe methods to change later on.
The Oklahoma article goes on to state that Reactive Attachment Disorder is a rare condition, and that is quite true. So what is deceptive? It’s the slightly later description of children with RAD as “lacking a conscience”, being aggressive, lying, stealing, and having fits of rage. None of these characteristics have anything to do with RAD as the term is conventionally used. The behaviors listed are in fact far from rare, and are related to conduct disorders, oppositional defiant disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, PTSD, even autism or early-onset schizophrenia. These disorders are not associated with attachment issues but are certainly more common among children who have been mistreated and who end up in foster care or placed for adoption. The basic cause is the mistreatment, and although developing good relationships with caregivers may be very helpful to the children, after early childhood this is no longer an issue of attachment.
One more-- extremely important—point from the Oklahoma article: an interviewee is quoted as saying that “traditional therapy can have the opposite effects for a child with Reactive Attachment Disorder.” While the man may not have known and may have had the best intentions in saying what he did, the fact is that this statement is a bald-faced lie. Pseudoscientific approaches to childhood mental and behavioral problems have been making this claim since the early 1990s, when Foster Cline appears to have been an early adopter of this mistaken view. His protégée Nancy Thomas (of whom I will have more to say) has followed up and repeated the idea frequently. In fact, there are several conventional evidence-based therapies well-known to be effective in treating children with the problems mentioned earlier; these include Sheila Eyberg’s Parent-Child Interaction Therapy and Mary Dozier’s Attachment and Biobehavioral Catch-up. There has never been a randomized controlled study of the effects of the therapy proposed by Cline, Thomas, etc. , much less a study comparing their treatment with conventional methods.
The Oklahoma article proposes a “RAD camp” to treat the problems they have defined (incorrectly) as Reactive Attachment Disorder. Click on the “learn more” link and what do we see? Yes, it is a Nancy Thomas camp, which will, by the way, cost $895 for each family member over 3 years old, an expenditure of almost $3000 for a couple with one child, and not, I can almost assure you, covered in any part by health insurance. This woman, a former dog trainer, has re-issued herself as a Therapeutic Parenting Specialist (UClc, for impressiveness, but unassociated with any actual certification or licensure). The Oklahoma reporter has been most cooperative in providing free advertising for Thomas as part of what Youngstrom called the “wild mix” including “snake oil sales pitches” and what I call deception of the public.
What actually happens at these camps is not clear, so I will refrain from suggesting that it includes the holding therapy known to have caused child deaths and injuries. In other material about the camps, however, Thomas has said that she takes recalcitrant children away for “tune-ups”, and I think we can make some educated guesses about what she does.
Wednesday, July 6, 2016
I received the following query, but somehow it did not get published here on childmyths, so I am posting and answering it here. This message brings up a topic that I’ve been meaning to mention, as well as some other issues.
GOOD EVENING Madam
I love to read your posts in your blog.Thos e are really helpful.I am a mum of 5 week's child.He hardly gazes at me while breastfeeding or while craddling.I am worried unless that he is a very active child and doctor told me.he is doing well.So.please tell me.the milestons in the following months.It will be so grateful if you lwt me know..Thank you in advance..
Send from my vivo smart phone______________________________
I love to read your posts in your blog.Thos e are really helpful.I am a mum of 5 week's child.He hardly gazes at me while breastfeeding or while craddling.I am worried unless that he is a very active child and doctor told me.he is doing well.So.please tell me.the milestons in the following months.It will be so grateful if you lwt me know..Thank you in advance..
Send from my vivo smart phone______________________________
Thanks for your question! These points you mention are concerns for many young parents who expect to spend a lot of time in mutual gaze with their baby. But in fact young babies (in the first few months) do not gaze at people for very long at a time. They are interested in faces, but they don’t look for a long period of time, the way we look at them. They also have trouble looking at things that are not brightly lit, so if you are cradling the baby and your face is in shadow, the baby may not be able to see you as well as you can see him.
Breastfeeding is an especially difficult situation with respect to a young baby’s ability to look at a person. For one thing, young babies are ravenous when they are hungry, and they are interested in nothing but getting that milk. They usually close their eyes tightly and their faces turn red with the effort of sucking, then they fall asleep when full, or let go of the nipple only to be changed to the other breast. For a second thing, breastfed babies take the nipple right into the center of their mouths, and this means that they turn the face toward the breast and cannot see much other than the breast even if they open their eyes. A bottle-fed baby (a little older) may turn to look and keep the artificial nipple in the corner of the mouth, but a breastfed baby cannot suck if he does that, just because of the way the mother’s nipple works.
A breastfed baby of 7 or 8 months may let go of the nipple to look up at the mother, or may just hold the nipple loosely in his mouth while looking around, then may go back to sucking. He may also put his hand up to explore his mother’s face and put a finger in her mouth or (sometimes painfully!) up her nose. Mother and baby may look at each other at those times, but don’t forget, nursing mothers may be doing other things at the same time as breastfeeding—drinking a cup of tea, talking on the phone, or reading to an older child. Breastfeeding is a lovely experience, but it is not always the exclusive focus of the mother and baby.
There are a lot of developmental milestones ahead of you, and you can look these up easily if you have Internet access. I just want to point out to you a developmental step that is coming along soon. At about two months of age, most babies become much more easily interested in other people and the world in general. This change has been called the “two-months shift”. Before it happens, it is quite hard to get a baby’s attention. Occasionally the baby may look at you and even smile, but at other times he or she seems to look everywhere else. The baby smiles “at the angels” sometimes, at you other times, and sometimes not at all, even when you do all the baby-pleasing tricks like opening your mouth and eyes very wide. Years ago, before the diagnosis of autism was created, people used to call this a period of normal developmental autism; the baby was focused almost completely on herself or himself, which is what “autism”means.
Please keep in mind that like other developmental milestones, the two-months shift does not occur on a specific day of life, but just somewhere around the age of two months. For some babies, the change is abrupt and noticeable. For others, it is gradual and may not appear in the same way from one day to the next. However, generally speaking, from around the age of two months you will see that the baby looks at you more, smiles at you more, is more likely to get quiet and listen to your footsteps approaching, and so on. You will get much more of a feeling of successful communication about things other than feeding. Just like an adult, though, the baby will not always look at or listen to you or smile when you smile—but these things will happen often enough that you will feel your relationship developing.
Tuesday, July 5, 2016
Michael and Ian are both 12 years old. Their birthdays are only a day apart. They are in the same class in school and play on the same soccer team. Both are reluctant to show any interest in girls or romance. Neither has begun a rapid growth spurt and both are still sopranos. Their parents and teachers think of them as a lot alike.
But… let’s go back about 12 years. Michael was born on just the day he was predicted for, about 40 weeks from the first day of his mother’s last menstrual period before she became pregnant (depending on the mother’s cycle, this puts the birth about 38 weeks after conception). Ian, however, was born about 35 weeks after the first day of his mother’s last menstrual period (about 33 weeks after conception). Michael was a full term (or just “term” baby), while Ian was what most people call “premature”, a preterm baby. They were quite a lot different at that time, because they were at different gestational ages—40 weeks for Michael and 35 weeks for Ian..
The most obvious difference between them was their length and weight at the time of birth. At 7 pounds 15 ounces, Michael was similar to many babies at 40 weeks of gestational age. He was average in weight for his gestational age. Ian was also average for his gestational age of 35 weeks, but because he had not been developing as long, that average weight was not as great as Michael’s. The average weight at 35 weeks gestational age is only about 5 and ½ pounds, and Ian weighed 5 pounds 7 ounces. Michael was at the average age for birth, counting from his conception, and he was similar in weight to most babies born at that gestational age. Ian, even though he was much lighter in weight than Michael, was about the same as most babies born at the same gestational age as himself.
There were some other differences between the newborn Michael and the newborn Ian. One was that Ian had a good deal more of the creamy skin coating called vernix; Michael had had time to lose this and just showed a bit in skin creases. Ian still had a lot of the head hair called lanugo, but Michael had only a little. When Ian was lying on his back, an examiner could take the baby’s left hand and pull it to the right quite a way across his chest and neck. Michael, lying in the same position, would resist the pull and the arm could not be pulled very far. Again, when they were lying on their backs, Ian’s foot could be brought up close to his ear, but Michael’s could not. (There were many other differences, and you can see more about them at www.ballardscore.com.)
But—very confusingly—Michael and Ian were about the same chronological age! The same amount of time had passed since they were born. Ian spent a little extra time in the hospital, but even a while after he came home in good condition, his father, Sam, was worried. “I looked in the book,” Sam said. “It says right here that a baby who is two months old can look at people and even smiles at them sometimes. Our friends’ baby Michael does that all the time, but Ian is still just looking around a little bit, just like Michael did a month ago. I don’t know what’s going on. I know they say not to compare babies, but I just don’t see how two babies almost the same age can be so different unless something’s wrong somewhere.”
What Sam missed was that even though they were born only a day apart, the babies Michael and Ian were not really the same age. Two months after their birth, Michael had been developing for the 38 weeks between his conception and his birth, plus two months—about 46 weeks. Ian had been developing for the 35 weeks between his conception and his birth, plus two months—about 41 weeks. This does not seem like a big difference, but it means that at two months Michael was almost 10% older than Ian, developmentally speaking. (But of course as time passed the percentage difference became less and less, and by the time the boys were 12 the percentage difference was a very tiny one.)
It’s much less confusing to understand preterm babies if when they are very young we think of them by their corrected age—the gestational age plus the chronological age. If Sam had done that, he would have realized that when he compared Ian’s behavior to Michael’s from a month before, he was exactly right because Ian was developmentally at about the point where Michael had been a month earlier.
There are risks for preterm babies, and their development can be affected by their too-early birth. Also, whatever the reason for the early birth, that reason could also contain risks for the babies. It would be a mistake to think that all differences between all preterm and term babies just have to do with corrections for gestational age. But, all other things being equal, the biggest differences will be present simply because of gestational age differences, and understanding that fact can save a lot of worry for parents of young babies.