Story about childhood bonding/Reactive Attachment Disorder

[devilsadvocate]

This is a transcript of an NPR story about Harlow's experiment on bonding in monkeys and the struggle an adoptive family went through to teach their son how to love after having grown up in a Romanian orphanage:

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-a ... transcript

I post this here because I think the scientific understanding of love and bonding between parents is important in any discussion of some of the harsh parenting techniques advocated by people like the Pearls.

[The Archivist]

Are you suggesting that the Pearl's methods of child training may be justified because fundies are, by and large, raising with children with attachment disorders?

Because that's what it sounds like you are suggesting.

[emmiedahl]

I think s/he means that Pearlescent training can contribute to creating attachment disorders. At least, I hope that is what is meant.

[The Archivist]

After reading the article, specifically the portion about a child adopted from a Romanian orphanage who developed attachment disorder and assaulted his adoptive parents, and then was treated with "attachment therapy" that sounds a bit like the Raising Godly Tomatoes training protocol, I'm thinking devilsadvocate is living up to his/her name.

Relevant part of the article:

The treatment of attachment disorder has a long and controversial history. Such a controversial history that many of the people who practice versions of the therapy declined to use its name. It was started in the mid '70s by a psychiatrist named Foster Cline, who felt that children who acted out because of an inability to connect to their parents should be forcibly regressed. Made to feel helpless and hopeless, so they'd return to a baby-like dependence.

Early versions of the therapy involved berating children, poking them, and physically subduing them by holding them down. Therapists would sometimes direct profanity at a child and also have the child direct profanity at them. Cline, himself, acknowledged that this was so harsh it was often difficult even for professionals to watch. But when outsiders criticized the treatment as sadistic, Cline responded that, quote, "These children need the kind of love that forces them to love others."

After the '70s though, the therapy changed substantially. Particularly after a couple of children died from being smothered in blankets. And by the time Heidi started hunting for something to help Daniel, most of the extreme methods of attachment therapy had been abandoned. So when Heidi heard about the doctor in Virginia who appeared to have had some success with a highly intensive program related to attachment therapy, she leapt at the opportunity.

According to the doctor, Ronald Federici, mother and child needed to spend several months side by side, literally no farther than three feet apart.

Heidi Solomon:

"The goal of his plan is to try to recreate the bond that never occurred because I wasn't with him when he was born. But it'd be very natural for a newborn baby to spend an extensive amount of time just next to the mom, and so you're trying to recreate that attachment. So Daniel and I were like three feet apart for about eight weeks."

Daniel Solomon:

"I didn't go to school. She stopped her job. When she would go to the bathroom I would be right outside a door. When I went to the bathroom, she'd be right outside a door. The only time she was not next to me is when I was sleeping. And like literally, that was it."

But it wasn't just being side by side, there were other elements to the program, like eye contact. Federici felt that because mothers and their babies spend a large amount of time just staring into each other's eyes, it was important for Heidi and Daniel to do the same. Daniel was required to look into Heidi's eyes during every interaction they had. And neither of them were allowed to move onto the next activity until Daniel did it correctly.

Heidi Solomon:

"Like if I was talking to him, I would keep repeating what I was saying until he made correct eye contact. I remember one time we spent like 20 minutes, him handing me a notebook. And part of it also is he is not allowed to ask for anything. He couldn't ask because babies don't ask for anything. They learn that they're going to have their needs provided for. So it's not that he couldn't have a treat or he couldn't have every-- he just couldn't ask. Like we went to the store, could not ask for anything. Because he had to learn that I was going to provide for him what he needed."

My response to that suggestion is this: the Pearl's books were marketed to the parents of average children, and attachment therapy is only indicated in special cases involving clinical emotional disorders, and is (I believe) even highly controversial in that world. Not generalizable to the rest of the population. Your premise fails.

[FJSharkJump]

Wait, what? What premise?

The therapy that helped Daniel to learn to love was the exact opposite of the kind of discipline the Pearls advocate. The constant presence of his mom. Hugging/closeness as punishment, since isolation is what he would actually want. Eye contact, you know, acknowledging each other in the most fundamental way as human beings of value. Proving again and again that his parents are going to provide for his needs, that he won't go without, that he doesn't even have to ask. And getting to the point that Daniel could actually identify his own feelings and talk about them.

No hitting. No isolation. No plumbers pipe. No water torture. No withholding of basic needs. No believing that the child is not a person. You know, all the things that could lead to problems with attachment, especially considering these tactics should begin in infancy according to the Pearls.

And how many fundy kids raised the Pearl way are like those poor little monkeys? Returning again and again to their cloth dummy of a mother trying to fix the relationship, make it all better, even though the dummy randomly lashes out with sharp instruments or throws the baby away?

You don't think an understanding of attachment is relevant in discussions about people who routinely smack/spank/beat/isolate and withhold from their children?

[emmiedahl]

I think the measures talked about are just more extreme versions of the Time In discipline technique that many attachment parents use. I use mild Time In techniques and it is very effective.

[Brainsample]

In light of the Schatz Family, it is a pretty relevant issue. We've also discussed families here who adopted Haitian children and then sent them packing into the foster system in the US after they made the poor kids change their names.

Lydia, Zariah and the baby were all adopted from a Liberian orphanage. Those kids have a high incidence of RAD. They are the last kind of kid that you want to put into a family that follows the Pearl stuff. And now, adoption has become all the rage, now that Phillips can make a buck off of it and use it to make himself look good. If families are adopting babies, it isn't too bad, but what of older children who have been shuttled in and out of the foster system are adopted by these "covenant families" so that they can save more people spiritually through that family membership?

It would have been a relevant consideration for the Schatz Family to have considered at some point to possibly avert their tragedy. How many more people are like them? Nancy Campbell used to promote Liberian Adoptions. I'm sure I would have not survived in her household without a lobotomy.

[FJSharkJump]

Yeah, I didn't even touch on the adoption issue even though I wanted to. Just felt I was riding the teal deer already. But, yes, Schatz, et al. is exactly who came to mind when reading about Daniel's story of overcoming RAD.

Seriously, Archivist, I'm not understanding where you are coming from. Do you think the Pearls = the successful RAD therapy that was featured in that story?

[Deleted12]

I honestly wonder how many of the kids who supposedly have RAD just have really, really, really selfish parents.

News flash, parents: expecting an 8-yo kid to cling to you like a toddler is never going to happen. You're giving the kid a better life, and if the kid just wants to be left to do his or her own thing, maybe you should respect that.

[FJSharkJump]

What kids, Athena? Anyone specific?

[Guest Anonymous]

What kids, Athena? Anyone specific?

I can't answer for Athena, but my mind springs to the kiddies we have discussed on here. Lovelie, for example, seems to be very happy in her new home, despite suffering 'RAD' briefly whilst in the loving care of Emma. Her 'RAD' first manifested itself in the form of ungratefully refusing oatmeal in her first few days of repatriation.

[Deleted12]

What kids, Athena? Anyone specific?

I was thinking of that crazy bitch up in Oregon who adopted the two kids from Haiti and then gave one away and sent the other one back to Haiti.

They weren't exactly the little loving angels was hoping for, so she got rid of them like you'd get rid of a dog.

[The Archivist]

You don't think an understanding of attachment is relevant in discussions about people who routinely smack/spank/beat/isolate and withhold from their children?

I do think it is relevant. But I also think that devilsadvocate is trolling, and that his/her premise is not the same as yours.

Early versions of the therapy involved berating children, poking them, and physically subduing them by holding them down.

If this doesn't sound Pearl-ish, I don't know what does.

[FJSharkJump]

Oh yeah, okay. You're talking about the douchebags that are self-diagnosing their adopted kids as having RAD because the kids act like normal children. And all along it's their biological children that probably have attachment disorders due to their fucked up, damaging parenting.

[Guest Anonymous]

I was thinking of that crazy bitch up in Oregon who adopted the two kids from Haiti and then gave one away and sent the other one back to Haiti.

They weren't exactly the little loving angels was hoping for, so she got rid of them like you'd get rid of a dog.

The woman from it's-a-blessing is suffering so much remorse after her disrupted adoption that she has written a list of the specific ways she wishes her friends could bless her:

One of the things that has been really hard through this ordeal is the realization of how much I miss my Christian friends in New Jersey where we moved from 3 years ago.

I know for a fact that many of them would have come to our side to offer support.

They would have shown their love by:

offering a meal or two

offering to babysit some kiddos

sitting and listening while I cried my heart out

praying with me-daily if need be

speaking the word of God and his truth into our difficult situation

In the past I have known these ladies to even offer to do some laundry-

clean a bathroom-whatever it takes to make the load a little lighter.

No mention of the suffering the despatched kiddos may be going through. Yeah, some families are just damn selfish and look for a name to label the children they reject.

[The Archivist]

I really do wonder how many people conveniently "diagnose" children with attachment disorders to have an excuse to use what amounts to abusive techniques on them.

Certain therapies that might be helpful under professional supervision for kids with real clinical disorders are just flat-out abusive when administered, WITHOUT supervision, to average kids.

It's medicine - give it to a sick person, and it can help them heal. But give it to a person who is not sick, and you may have just poisoned them.

Seriously, Archivist, I'm not understanding where you are coming from. Do you think the Pearls = the successful RAD therapy that was featured in that story?

No - but I suspect devilsadvocate thinks so, and that this story somehow justifies the Pearls' methods. Until we hear back from him/her, I guess we won't know for sure what their intentions were in posting this.

[FJSharkJump]

I do think it is relevant. But I also think that devilsadvocate is trolling, and that his/her premise is not the same as yours.

If this doesn't sound Pearl-ish, I don't know what does.

Yeah, I know. The Pearls advocate a very outdated, disproven theory & practice for sure. But that was just part of a quick overview of the history of attachment theory. That early version has nothing in common with the kind of therapy that Daniel Solomon & his family experienced. It's the complete opposite, in fact.

I thought the OP was using this article/story to highlight how outdated and messed up the Pearls' discipline method actually is. Beating/poking/subduing/berating as a means of forming attachment has obviously been debunked.

[FJSharkJump]

I really do wonder how many people conveniently "diagnose" children with attachment disorders to have an excuse to use what amounts to abusive techniques on them.

Certain therapies that might be helpful under professional supervision for kids with real clinical disorders are just flat-out abusive when administered, WITHOUT supervision, to average kids.

It's medicine - give it to a sick person, and it can help them heal. But give it to a person who is not sick, and you may have just poisoned them.

No - but I suspect devilsadvocate thinks so, and that this story somehow justifies the Pearls' methods. Until we hear back from him/her, I guess we won't know for sure what their intentions were in posting this.

I think some of these poor fundy kids would be so much better off if their parents actually practiced a few of the RAD therapy techniques with their kids. Looking your child in the eye and acknowledging them as a human being with their own independent feelings and thoughts? Good. Anticipating your child's needs and providing for them without your child even needing to ask? Good. Using loving, respectful touch to foster feelings of security and connection? Good.

[The Archivist]

I think some of the techniques described in the story sound great - as you say, they have moved past some of the creepier, more abusive techniques.

But I'm afraid the distinction between what has been discarded and what is still used today might be lost on people looking for any official-sounding rationalization for the Pearl and RGT techniques ("tomato-staking," in particular, was what some of the techniques in the article reminded me of.)

raisinggodlytomatoes.com/ch07.php

[Brainsample]

I think some of the techniques described in the story sound great - as you say, they have moved past some of the creepier, more abusive techniques.

But I'm afraid the distinction between what has been discarded and what is still used today might be lost on people looking for any official-sounding rationalization for the Pearl and RGT techniques ("tomato-staking," in particular, was what some of the techniques in the article reminded me of.)

raisinggodlytomatoes.com/ch07.php

I haven't read extensively on that "vegetable" site, and I haven't looked at it since 2007. AWFUL! So I wouldn't have known enough about it to know it was similar. Some of those basic behavioral techniques are helpful, but you have to consider the developmental and emotional mastery of the child on an individualized basis. If their skills and abilities are drastically limited, you get more basic, and it is behaviorism to some extent. But done in the right way, it is very effective and is not a demeaning thing. Some of these types of approaches are done with adults with limiting disorders, and it can be a very effective thing, but you would never employ those same alternatives with higher functioning adults.

The blanket plan for all people and shoving people into a diagnostic box without individualized care and planning is horrible. It's where mental health meets totalitarianism by way of bureaucracy. But I fear as healthcare funding and resources become more limited, we will see more and more of these catch all therapies and rigid plans applied to people without that individualized planning that is so needed. But it's a hard thing to evaluate without knowing the limitations of the subject, too.

[BravaAmica]

Are you suggesting that the Pearl's methods of child training may be justified because fundies are, by and large, raising with children with attachment disorders?

Because that's what it sounds like you are suggesting.

I don't think she's suggesting that at all. If you read the article, you would see that harsh techniques were once the norm. There have been scientific studies debunking those techniques favored by the Pearls. The article details how one family was able to overcome their adopted son's RAD with nurturing techniques that focused on creating a bond with the child.

[FJSharkJump]

I think some of the techniques described in the story sound great - as you say, they have moved past some of the creepier, more abusive techniques.

But I'm afraid the distinction between what has been discarded and what is still used today might be lost on people looking for any official-sounding rationalization for the Pearl and RGT techniques ("tomato-staking," in particular, was what some of the techniques in the article reminded me of.)

raisinggodlytomatoes.com/ch07.php

With just a quick review of the tomato site (I've never heard of it until now) it is clear that the purpose of keeping your kid in such close proximity is for the ease in administering (corporal) correction. And that's very different from the RAD therapy which had the kid in close proximity in order to foster connection. Assholes who are determined to hit their kids will twist whatever discipline/therapy they learn about in order to still hit their kids. Willful ignorance and all that.

Are we supposed to never discuss the history of child psychology/development/discipline/theory because ass douches will persist in believing that some old, outdated, damaging, abusive therapy or discipline technique is still applicable despite all the years of research that have debunked it? An ass douche is going to be an ass douche, you know? It isn't the compassionate, rational person/parent that has to feel responsible for an abusive control freak refusing to see obvious distinctions between alienating abuse and loving attachment.

[Witsec5]

I know I'm going to get it for this but here goes--massive opinion piece with wide sweeping generalizations:

I'm getting more than a little tired when every adopted or foster kid I come across these days has a RAD diagnosis. Not to minimalize RAD or say it doesn't exist yet it seems to be the "go to" answer for disappointed parents everywhere. Most psychiatrists take the parents word for what's going on because who is paying them the kid? And they have to keep their customer (the parent) happy? My own bio son has disappointed me from time to time and it would be so much easier get a psychiatrist to slap a label on him when he decides to act like a little pip but since we share some of the same DNA, my ego is involved!

Please don't this ramble/rant as an insult to good adoptive parents everywhere and most parents are great. But in my long years, I've seen it all. Little girls with long hair and frumpers going from home school to public school (after a divorce with the dad acting like a controlling SOB the whole time) and the girls having absolutely no education except for what they got from self-paced packets, Gypsy kids who've been to a bazillion schools, and worst of all fundy parents who've adopted a ton of kids and then try to cast off the trouble-maker (cough, cough identified patient) pronto.

So is it RAD or is it double abandonment? I mean after a parent tells you that the stress from the trouble-maker's smoking cigarettes caused her one and only sacred pregnancy to end in miscarriage, then you know the poor kid can do no right and everything else the parent says including RAD is suspect. I can't give more details on this one so as not to identify but it got a lot worse. And guess what, I googled the kid (one of the two or three I will never forget) and he is a wildly successful adult well on his way to being one of the 1%. I can mention this much because it's all from SO long ago...

I'm starting to think it's a varient of Munchausen by Proxy to get a ton of diagnoses and medications for the kiddo (some mutually exclusive BTW) either by doctor hopping or via the Internet. It takes a brave doctor to call the parents on their shit but I've seen it done. Or, alternatively if we ask to talk to the doctor, we sometimes get printouts of Internet pages with highlights. And we say, "I'm sorry, we can't accept this."

The only way to stop this craziness would be to have more oversight. If a person files a lot of lawsuits, there is some record of it right? Shouldn't it be the same for children? The good parents would welcome it and the poor ones would claim persecution.

[The Archivist]

Sorry if I was too quick to assume about the OP's intent, but the way this post was framed (or rather, not really framed at all) rubbed me the wrong way, especially considering the username.

I don't think we should never talk about the history of child psychology/development/discipline/theory, etc. That would be sort of over-the-top, no? Of course it would be.

If devilsadvocate would grace us with the privilege of her/his take on the subject matter, maybe that would clarify things a bit.

[emmiedahl]

Hasn't devilsadvocate been a little controversial before? I am smelling a fundie plant. Or maybe ChrisLukas.