My post was deleted already!  

I think it was moved to your rant thread, I think mine should be moved there as well.

Frenzy, I have not offered professional advice.  My posts on this research thread have been explanatory. 

Any advice I have given on this site has been personal advice, same as you and others, and I have never presented it as professional advice. There is no breach of ethics involved at all. 

You keep alluding to fact your are 'qualified' and serving to 'protect the interests of children', it matters little what section your dropping of hints about qualifications is in, as people read more then one thread. Your advice and anything you post on this forum could easily be interpenetrated as coming from someone 'qualified'. As you the one who repeatedly alludes to your 'qualifications' as being relevant to children interests, then you should at least have the integrity to post what those qualifications are or had the professional sense to never ever drop hints about it in the first place.

My post was deleted already!  

Frenzy, I have not offered professional advice.  My posts on this research thread have been explanatory.  

Any advice I have given on this site has been personal advice, same as you and others, and I have never presented it as professional advice. There is no breach of ethics involved at all.  

I have the qualifications to back what I write, I have no interest to protect here other than that of the children who constantly get screwed up because their parents can't work out their own feelings enough to do the right thing for their kids, and that includes both mums and dads.

April if you are qualified to back what you write, then explain what those qualifications are?.

No professional with integrity who is bound by ethical conduct standards, would be giving advice to anyone over the 'internet'. If you are qualified in child psychology or similar then you need to brush up on ethical principles, as giving advice out over the net certainly doesn't do a lot to facilitate public confidence and reflects negatively on the standing of such professions.

Irrespective of whether or not I agree with all you are saying (I do agree with some of it BTW) my thoughts on appropriate conduct by an (apparently?) qualified person would the same.

April said

...there is evidence to show shared care of infants is not beneficial.

Hey Nicola Coombs of AAIMH, aka April, disclose your self-interest

1. This thread is "It takes two to raise a child" started by me to counterbalance the radfems, the welfare mamas and profiteering maternal supremacists (you) currently trolling this site

2. There is "no valid evidence" to show shared care of infants is not beneficial

3. The AAIMH guidelines solely rely on the ideological driven, evidence-free findings of a "limited, flawed study" by Jen McIntosh. This junk science utilised a tiny and selective sample size of 258 children with flawed methodology dependent on subjective opinions of mothers to the exclusion of fathers. These obvious flaws raise the question were the babies stressed because they spent the night with their non-custodial parent or because their custodial parent was stressed? The researchers mistake an effect for a cause.

Further the AAIMH guidelines extrapolate these findings to draw conclusions which have little to do with the original data.

4. The theory of primary attachment was a fraud contrived in 1950s to frighten women out of the workforce to make way returning servicemen - children would be mentally damaged if not cared for by mum at home. Bowlby later recanted it himself. Perversely, it is now being used to justify dumping infants into childcare for mum to work (and have sole custody) rather than "risk" attachment to fathers.

5. From my understanding of Kips posts there is no evidence that secure attachment to one parent is beneficial or even desirable. There are other forms of attachment which are appropriate dependent on child personality type, DNA, etc...  

Moderator:
Expect a fatwa from the feminist Taliban. Please delete hijack posts.

In McIntosh's study the research categories define infants as those under 2 years old. Toddlers above 2

April said

Please note this thread was discussing shared care of infants and has now changed to shared care of children.  Shared care of children has been shown to be beneficial to children and there is ample evidence to show that is the case (usually).  However, there is evidence to show shared care of infants is not beneficial.

To people following this thread please be aware that the earlier discussion of INFANTS in shared care should not be confused with the subsequent material about CHILDREN in shared care.

 
It should be noted that my children have been living in shared care arrangements since they were 3 and 18 months old respectively.

I'm not sure at what point infancy ends,but they seem to have managed OK.

As a parent in a high-conflict shared care arrangement I'd have to agree. I'd go further and say that in my experience the hardest thing to deal with is an ex who simply refuses to participate in reasonable communication. Arguments are part of life, after all, but what do you do when the ex won't respond to email, won't respond to requests for information about schooling, travel, recreational arrangements; won't participate in any form of co-parenting, won't cooperate with arrangements for out-of-school activities? What do you do when they act as though any disagreement over arrangements is a threat? How do you negotiate the path of life?

Well,the answer's pretty straight-forward: you forget they exist and you get on with the stuff you want to do and the kids want to do when they're with you. You get on with life and you try to ignore the fact that your kids can't experience proper birthdays with their loving parents, or feel the joy of having Mum there when they score a try at footy or some other personal milestone.

When all's said and done, they're still a whole lot better off than kids who don't have any parents and they're still part of a golden nation which is the envy of just about anywhere else on Earth. Kids are tough: we come from a long line of people who've survived far worse than a narcissistic mother and survived well.

It could be worse. Part of being an adult is the capacity to adjust our expectations to suit our circumstances. Perhaps our kids will end up being more resilient and better prepared for life than those "lucky" children who grow up wrapped in cotton wool.

CONTRARY to perceptions propagated by anti-father groups and certain members of the news media, equal parenting between high-conflict parents tends to produce better child outcomes than sole custody and even reduces the amount of conflict over time.  

That's one of Dr. Edward Kruk's key arguments for Equal Parental Responsibility in custody cases in his article "Arguments for an Equal Parental Responsibility Presumption in Contested Child Custody", that appeared in the January edition of The American Journal of Family Therapy.

Opponents of the 2006 amendments to the Family Law Act in Australia made the point repeatedly that a presumption of shared parenting couldn't work in high-conflict divorces.  In England, the family justice review headed by David Norgrove relied on those same arguments in recommending that no change be made to fathers rights to children or children's rights to their fathers.  As Kruk makes clear, the claim is without merit.

One of the problems with the research on parenting arrangements in high-conflict divorces is that much of it fails to differentiate between parental contact and parenting time.  

To be clear, parental contact refers to how much time the parents spend in each other's company and interacting with each other. The more of that there is when there's a lot of animosity between the parents, the greater the level of conflict.

By contrast, parenting time is how much time parents spend with their children.

Now, it should be obvious that greater parenting time doesn't necessarily involve greater interaction between the parents.  For example, if Dad gets the kids every weekend, that means he and Mum meet each other twice - Friday and Sunday evenings in a seven-day period.  But if Dad has the kids for a week and Mum has them for a week, the two adults again see each other twice, but Dad's had more time with the kids.

As an aside, considering the "ping-pong" or "shuttle" argument against shared parenting one wonders why the default position in custody matters regarding kids over the age of about four isn't two weeks with Dad followed by two weeks with Mum.  That's equal parenting, and less upsetting to the children's schedules than the usual every-other-weekend routine imposed by judges.  The kids would pack up and move less often in a given period of time, while the parents would get equal custody.  So what's the problem with that?  

In any case, where both parents are fit to care for children,

• More recent studies have found not only that EPR (Equal Parental Responsibility) is not harmful in high-conflict situations, but equal parenting can ameliorate the harmful effects of high-conflict: a warm relationship with both parents is a protective factor for children in high conflict families.

Various researchers have found that the negative outcomes for children associated with high-conflict parents are mediated by paternal involvement.

• Finally, Fabricius, Diaz and Braver (2011) determined that children's ongoing relationships with each parent can counter the harmful effects of parental conflict, and that limiting parental time when there is parental conflict makes children doubly vulnerable to long-term physical and mental health problems.

More to the point, the current system of winner-take-all custody itself promotes conflict between parents.  To anyone who's been involved in a custody case, this is all but self-evident.  Parents know to a virtual certainty that one of them is going to be awarded the children almost to the exclusion of the other parent.  They also know that, in order to receive that award, it will be advisable to depict the other parent in the worst possible light.

Lawyers often fail to reduce conflict between parents.  Indeed, they do the opposite for the clear reason that, in custody cases, the greater the acrimony, the more applications need to be filed, the more court appearances made, the more client consultations, billable hours, etc., all of which result in ever greater fees to the lawyer.  Given that, is it any surprise that the bar associations invariably oppose equal parenting?

So the evil genius of our system of custody rulings is to do everything in its power to exacerbate conflict and then decide that, since there's conflict between the parents, only one  Mom  can have custody.  It's wrong in every possible way.

Unsurprisingly, social science finds to be true what divorcing parents have known for years.

• Winner-take-all adversarial processes and sole custody or primary residence orders are strongly associated with exacerbation or creation of parental conflict.

Non-custodial fathers are more likely to resent their custodial ex's than are Dads with equal custody.

• Inter-parental conflict decreases over time in shared custody arrangements and increases in sole-custody arrangements; inter-parental cooperation increases over time in shared custody arrangements and decreases in sole custody arrangements. (Citations)  The culture of animosity created by the sole-custody system seems tailor-made to produce the worst possible outcomes when there are two capable parents who wish to continue as primary caregivers, cannot agree on a parenting plan, and are forced to disparage each other within the adversarial system in an effort to simply maintain their role as parents.

Most perversely, the current system of custody decisions by family judges often rewards with custody the more adversarial parent.  In short, it tends to place children in the sole care of the parent who has won the war by being more conflictual than the other.

Finally,

• Most acrimonious parents can successfully learn to minimize conflict when motivated to do so, and an EPR presumption provides an incentive for parental cooperation, negotiation, mediation and the development of parenting plans.

In short, the argument that equal parenting can't work in high-conflict divorces is flat wrong.  It not only can work, it works better than what family courts now prefer  the removal of one parent from the child's life, almost entirely.

ref: http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=23147

April said

If you have enough cash in America you can find someone with the "credentials" to say just about anything you want to hear.  No science, just good old American capitalism at work here.

April,

Hold everything. Before you can go around questioning other peoples' motives by suggesting that they do not know what they are talking about and are only doing it for the money shouldn't you clarify your own 'credentials' by explaining your comments?

1. Do you think 'multiple' is a better description than 'linear' to describe the example of regression modelling given below? Yes or no?

2. Can you clarify what you mean by bonding? If 'infants bond to many' how is the 'primary carer' selected? If it is not innate then do court judges have to do it for them?

If you set yourself up as a knowledgeable critic in these subjects you need to explain your comments or you will make yourself sound like a harpy.

kip

April said

Over to you Kip.  They just want to hear your BS so go for it.  Completely misrepresent what I say and feed the seething anger that festers on this forum.

All,

What I was going to say is that I think April may have confused 'linear regression modelling' with 'multiple regression modelling' in the original posting. I think this would be a more accurate description and I am sorry April has taken her attitude towards me.

I wonder whether she could explain the following statement which I will also post on the relevant thread?

April said

Kip said, "It is quite significant in research terms because it undermines Bowlby's claim, repeated by April, that 'bonding' is innate by suggesting that parenting is an acquired skill".

Where did I ever say such a misleading thing?  If you are going to quote me then do so but don't misrepresent what I said by paraphrasing it in to your words.  Very interesting how you cut this bit out of another thread so the flow of argument gets disrupted.  Kip, Bowlby is dead. Move on already.

 Here is your reference to innate behaviour. Are you saying the behaviour is innate or not?

Kip said

April said

I wasn't talking about children. I was talking about infants. Infants have a unique need to form an attachment relationship, temporarily when they are young, to a consistent attachment figure. Talk of children and their care patterns is quite different. Shared care is good for children, but it is not good for infants. Infants have different needs. Infants need interaction with other people and both their parents should be involved in the infant's life but infants usually attach to one person and the infant suffers when that attachment relationship is subject to consistent and prolonged disruption. It's not based on love. It is an innate behaviour. Loving relationships come later. If you don't want to believe that infants form an attachment relationship then don't, but there is much empirical evidence to show that they do. (Research term / Family court meaning Posted 15 February, 2012, 10:37 PM)

April said

Kip, I did not call bonding an innate behaviour.  I was talking about the infants behaviour as being innate in regard to establishing a primary attachment.  It is the infants behaviour and it is not "bonding". Infants bond to many.

I should be grateful if you could clarify what you mean in the last quote by 'bonding'?

Are you saying 'bonding' is not innate in children but they do it anyway?

I am still not clear.

kip

There actually is evidence that children under 2 do suffer psychological adjustment issues when in shared care arrangments.

Only recent one that post-dates 2001 would be McIntosh, which only relates to one or more nights a week. Not ALL shared care arrangements. Even Bruce Smyth has publicly urged caution (he must love a good debate) in jumping to radical conclusions as in his words 'the sum total of knowledge about shared parenting in Australia is drawn currently from just 250 parents; so rare is the arrangement, this is roughly the number who have so far been available to researchers'.

It seems that anyone else can say whatever they want on this forum based on any source they find but I can be subject to being called the c word because others don't understand the need of the infant to form an attachment to the person who most consistently cares for it

I have never called you the C word, don't agree with that behavior at all. I don't think that it unimportant that infants form an attachment to the primary carer, just think in some cases less then weekly overnight care could possibly work (as there is no recent studies that prove a lesser time fram is harmful), hence my opinion AAHMI have gone to far.

If you don't want me involved in this discussion then stop referring to me in your posts.  I am so over this discussion, nothing is getting achieved.

Never said I don't want you involved, nor have alot of other members. Just believe as you have made several posts about others qualifications or lack off, that you should have stated yours to be fair.

What were you hoping to achieve, as you are no longer answering questions, i'll have to stick with my assumptions that its some kind of total acceptance of the AAMIH's guidelines.

No matter how much research there is anyone can apparently discredit it by making any unsubstatiated claim they like.

See Bruce Smyth's comments on the lack of research so far.

I would prefer to be left out of this, so stop asking me questions and misquoting me please.

I will stop asking you questions now, as it's clear you can't answer them.

Where is the research paper involved here? Not the article in the legal review. You surely aren't talking about the one from 2001? That research is out of date.

There actually is evidence that children under 2 do suffer psychological adjustment issues when in shared care arrangments.

Atlanta behavioural consultants = legal gun for hire. (see link provided by Frenzy and Kip in previous 2 posts)

The link might come from a behavioral consultants site, but the information they use actually come other sources, including from Joan Kelly, Ph.D. and Michael Lamb Ph.D., Who is a professor and Head of the Department of Social and Developmental psychology at Cambridge uni
He has published peer reviewed articles on the subject.

My point in posting it was to show that not every qualified professional agrees with your opinion April. There are different views on it.

If you want to bag anyone's qualifications and employment, how about firstly telling us yours? interesting you posted to condemn and article but totally ignore Kips questions lol

If you do actually read psych journals, you will see that multiple attachment and the hierarchy of attachment is often discussed. Your one, attachment, separate 'bond' idea is a bit unusual. The word bonding in relation to infants, usually means maternal infant bonding, which occurs shortly after birth. The word bonding is also used interchangeably with attachment.


*EDITED* add a link for April http://www.sdp.cam.ac....staff/profiles/mlamb.html this is the Academic profile for Micheal Lamb. His publications are listed at the bottom on the page.  I am sure you can also look into qualifications of the others whose views are quoted in the article. I think it wise to look at and discuss any topic from all perspectives, even if they differ from my own. At least then people can read the various view points and draw their own conclusions.

April said

If you have enough cash in America you can find someone with the "credentials" to say just about anything you want to hear.  No science, just good old American capitalism at work here.

April,

Hold everything. Before you can go around questioning other peoples' motives by suggesting that they do not know what they are talking about and are only doing it for the money shouldn't you clarify your own 'credentials' by explaining your comments?

1. Do you think 'multiple' is a better description than 'linear' to describe the example of regression modelling given below? Yes or no?

2. Can you clarify what you mean by bonding? If 'infants bond to many' how is the 'primary carer' selected? If it is not innate then do court judges have to do it for them?

If you set yourself up as a knowledgeable critic in these subjects you need to explain your comments or you will make yourself sound like a harpy.

kip

April said

Over to you Kip.  They just want to hear your BS so go for it.  Completely misrepresent what I say and feed the seething anger that festers on this forum.

All,

What I was going to say is that I think April may have confused 'linear regression modelling' with 'multiple regression modelling' in the original posting. I think this would be a more accurate description and I am sorry April has taken her attitude towards me.

I wonder whether she could explain the following statement which I will also post on the relevant thread?

April said

Kip said, "It is quite significant in research terms because it undermines Bowlby's claim, repeated by April, that 'bonding' is innate by suggesting that parenting is an acquired skill".

Where did I ever say such a misleading thing?  If you are going to quote me then do so but don't misrepresent what I said by paraphrasing it in to your words.  Very interesting how you cut this bit out of another thread so the flow of argument gets disrupted.  Kip, Bowlby is dead. Move on already.

 Here is your reference to innate behaviour. Are you saying the behaviour is innate or not?

Kip said

April said

I wasn't talking about children. I was talking about infants. Infants have a unique need to form an attachment relationship, temporarily when they are young, to a consistent attachment figure. Talk of children and their care patterns is quite different. Shared care is good for children, but it is not good for infants. Infants have different needs. Infants need interaction with other people and both their parents should be involved in the infant's life but infants usually attach to one person and the infant suffers when that attachment relationship is subject to consistent and prolonged disruption. It's not based on love. It is an innate behaviour. Loving relationships come later. If you don't want to believe that infants form an attachment relationship then don't, but there is much empirical evidence to show that they do. (Research term / Family court meaning Posted 15 February, 2012, 10:37 PM)

April said

Kip, I did not call bonding an innate behaviour.  I was talking about the infants behaviour as being innate in regard to establishing a primary attachment.  It is the infants behaviour and it is not "bonding". Infants bond to many.

I should be grateful if you could clarify what you mean in the last quote by 'bonding'?

Are you saying 'bonding' is not innate in children but they do it anyway?

I am still not clear.

kip

Atlanta behavioural consultants = legal gun for hire. (see link provided by Frenzy and Kip in previous 2 posts)

They prey on parents in custody disputes by acting as "professional" witnesses in legal disputes.  The team consists of a social worker and a psychologist who aparently specialise in infant mental health but still manage to find the time to also specialise in sleep disorders, anger management, assessment of learning problems, drug and alcohol dependence, mood disorders, OCD, sexual abuse, personality disorders, psychotherapy, marriage guidance and many more!  They sure are some dynamic duo!

If you have enough cash in America you can find someone with the "credentials" to say just about anything you want to hear.  No science, just good old American capitalism at work here.

(Minor edit for clarity)

Frenzy,

Thank you for this link.

I think the paper by Rutter on assessment goes further and says that 'security' is not an INDICATOR of child happiness or well being. He is saying that Dr McIntosh is using the wrong 'yardstick' altogether to measure this aspect of child development.

kip


http://www.atlantabeha...-for-infants-and-toddlers


May 9th, 2011

Rock-A-Bye Baby: Overnights For Infants And Toddlers

Howard Drutman, Ph.D. & Marsha Schechtman, LCSW


(The Family Lawyer, Atlanta Bar Association, May 2011)
 


Overnights with non-custodial parents for infants and toddlers are a hot topic in child custody. When to start and how many overnights is age appropriate for very young children are hotly debated in the psychological literature? As in all issues of parenting time, overnights for young children vary. one size parenting time does not fit for all young children.

A number of well-respected researchers have written about the importance to infants and toddlers of having the opportunity to engage with the non-custodial parent in all areas of childcare including feeding, bedtime, comforting, and play, rather than be limited to brief visits between the non-custodial parent and the child. Writing in the journal Family and Conciliation Courts Review (vol 38-3, p. 306), Joan Kelly, Ph.D. and Michael Lamb, Ph.D. state, [t]here is absolutely no evidence that childrens psychological adjustment or the relationship between children and their parents are harmed when children spend overnight periods with their other parents. There are other researchers who are opposed to overnights for very young children under two years of age. Their main concerns center on the potential negative effects of an overnight on the childs attachment to their primary attachment figure. Richard Warshak Ph.D. and others have critiqued the attachment theories approach to blocking overnight visits since the research does not indicate that children only form one significant attachment, usually to the mother. In fact current research and observation indicates that even young children develop multiple attachments and eventually a hierarchy of attachment figures.  Most children form attachments to parents, siblings, daycare workers, grandparents, etc.

Jonathan Gould, Ph.D. and Philip Stahl, Ph.D. in 2001 wrote an article for the Family and Conciliation Courts Review (vol 39-4) which included a number of steps to assess and apply the developmental research to parenting time in specific cases under investigation. In a 2010 special issue of the ABA Section of Family Law Family Advocate entitled Your Parenting Plan-A Client Manual, Dr. Gould wrote an article one, Two, Buckle My Shoe-Crafting Age-Appropriate Parenting Plans for your Children. In the article Dr. Gould outlines some of the basic research and theory to base parenting time recommendations. The following are excerpts from the article (pp 8-11):

 The Arizona Supreme Court has issued a parenting plan document that suggests various time-sharing strategies for various age groups (www.azcourts.gov/portals/31/parentingTime/PPWguidelines.pdf). In their document parenting time for infants and toddlers varies from no overnights the first 24 months to 2 overnights a week. Many children from 2 to 3 years of age can have 3 days with the non-custodial parent a week including overnights. In one of their plans a child age 3 to 5 years of age may have up to 4 consecutive overnights with the non-custodial parent.

The most important point in determining overnights or any other parenting plan dilemma is that research shows group responses that are statistically related.  Theories attempt to make inferences from a wide range of studies and case studies. In custody determination evaluations it is best to always look at the specifics of the parents and children under investigation as they may deviate from the norm for better or for worse. one-size parenting time plan for a particular age child still has wide variations based on all of the factors mentioned in this article as well as many other factors. As often happens in contested child custody cases, situations that are often seen as normal suddenly are presented as pathological and harmful to the child. As noted above, many experts strongly recommend against 2-3 consecutive overnights for a toddler. If the time away from the primary parent, assuming there was one, was so damaging and stressful to the child, how come their isnt a cry to ban all parents, including married parents, from letting their toddlers go to spend the weekend with grandparents so the parents can get away for a weekend? If those two or three nights are so traumatic for the child then there must be a lot of very traumatize children and adults since sending young children off to grandparents for the weekend is commonplace in our culture.

Hopefully, by individually assessing the multiple factors a parenting time plan can be generated that works for the specifics of the case so that when the bough breaks, the baby will fall gently, cradle and all.

Thanks Kip, I watched it to see what was said about indigenous Australians. My mother has spent 45 years working in infant and child mental health in remote aboriginal communities, so I find what was said interesting. The same can be said about using the strange situation test/procedure on toddlers that don't fit into developmental norms, such as those with pervasive developmental disorders. Disorders like those are not always readily apparent at a young age, any toddler with that type of disorder could easily and unfairly be slotted into in-secure attachment category.

Not sure if this link has been posted, sorry if it has. It discusses multiple attachments, which a number of well respected researchers have written peer reviewed articles about, including Michael Lamb, Ph.D. Some researches (all qualified) do subscribe to the notion that having some involvement in all areas of child care, including overnights is important for non residential parents.  It also has an overview of an article written for the Family and Conciliation Courts Review by Jonathan Gould, Ph.D. and Philip Stahl, Ph.D, which contrasts significantly to the AAMIH guidelines. 
http://www.atlantabehavioralconsultants.com/rock-a-bye-baby-overnights-for-infants-and-toddlers/

Frenzy,

This is a short video clip of Professor Sir Michael Rutter discussing the points you raise;

Maternal Deprivation - Professor Sir Michael Rutter

http://youtu.be/igC9R45TS5E

If you are at all interested in cultural influences on so-called attachment behaviour I produced a video on Mary Ainsworth's Strange Situation Procedure SSP which towards the end features Australian Aborigine culture (48,801 views).

The 'Strange Situation' procedure and Separation Anxiety

http://youtu.be/LbV5iDV74rU

Many thanks,

kip

Alot of questions are being raised by cross cultural studies on attachment. In many non-Western societies such as Papua New Guinea, Uganda the idea of an infant being raised by a primary carer or forming an attachment to a primary carer is foreign.Infants and children are generally raised by a very broad group of people. Studies from these cultures show that infants raised in such away still grow up to be well adjusted members of their society.

There has been alot written in psychological journals questioning what other factors are influencing the outcomes for these individuals and why the need for attachment to a primary carer seems to be an apparent absolute necessity for Western children.  

April said

Over to you Kip.  They just want to hear your BS so go for it.  Completely misrepresent what I say and feed the seething anger that festers on this forum.

All,

What I was going to say is that I think April may have confused 'linear regression modelling' with 'multiple regression modelling' in the original posting. I think this would be a more accurate description and I am sorry April has taken her attitude towards me.

I wonder whether she could explain the following statement which I will also post on the relevant thread?

 

April said

Kip said, "It is quite significant in research terms because it undermines Bowlby's claim, repeated by April, that 'bonding' is innate by suggesting that parenting is an acquired skill".

Where did I ever say such a misleading thing?  If you are going to quote me then do so but don't misrepresent what I said by paraphrasing it in to your words.  Very interesting how you cut this bit out of another thread so the flow of argument gets disrupted.  Kip, Bowlby is dead. Move on already.

 Here is your reference to innate behaviour. Are you saying the behaviour is innate or not?

 

Kip said

April said

I wasn't talking about children. I was talking about infants. Infants have a unique need to form an attachment relationship, temporarily when they are young, to a consistent attachment figure. Talk of children and their care patterns is quite different. Shared care is good for children, but it is not good for infants. Infants have different needs. Infants need interaction with other people and both their parents should be involved in the infant's life but infants usually attach to one person and the infant suffers when that attachment relationship is subject to consistent and prolonged disruption. It's not based on love. It is an innate behaviour. Loving relationships come later. If you don't want to believe that infants form an attachment relationship then don't, but there is much empirical evidence to show that they do. (Research term / Family court meaning Posted 15 February, 2012, 10:37 PM)

April said

Kip, I did not call bonding an innate behaviour.  I was talking about the infants behaviour as being innate in regard to establishing a primary attachment.  It is the infants behaviour and it is not "bonding". Infants bond to many.

I should be grateful if you could clarify what you mean in the last quote by 'bonding'?

Are you saying 'bonding' is not innate in children but they do it anyway?

I am still not clear.

kip

April said

Behaviourism is relevant to infant behaviour

Yes it is which is why your statement that it cannot explain infant behavior had me puzzled, no branch of psychology can explain all infant behavior. Had you said infant attachment, then I would not have been confused and questioned you.

April said

Frenzy, I understand that you don't agree with me, but I look back on this thread and all I can see is you trying to put me in a defensive position.  Why don't you post your own perspectives on the topic instead because it is useless me just defending my posts all the time.  Nothing is being achieved.

As for the topic, are there not several threads on the same thing, we have all been posting in, most seem to be have started by Kip.  You might like repeating yourself and your views over and over but I don't.

Behaviourism is relevant to infant behaviour. Operant conditioning is incorporated into behavioural intervention for children with autism for example.  However attachment theory does not come from a behaviourist perspective.  You are mixing up what I mean.

Frenzy, I understand that you don't agree with me, but I look back on this thread and all I can see is you trying to put me in a defensive position.  Why don't you post your own perspectives on the topic instead because it is useless me just defending my posts all the time.  Nothing is being achieved.

April said

 I did not bring it up to discuss it because it is not relevant.

ok I got it, we must not ask for elaborations on what YOU post unless YOU decide it's relevant. 

April said

If you already have some knowledge of behaviourism then why are you asking me?

The reason I asked you the question is because what you posted didn't and still doesn't make much sense. All I was trying to do was actually establish what you actually meant.

Alot of ideas that have roots in behaviorism are used routinely in infants & toddlers, partially in the treatment of disorders & in early education & behavior programs. So yes, your comment about behaviorism not being relevant to infant behavior, confused me.

I brought it up in response to Kip's misunderstanding as to what "Bowlby/Ainsworth" tradition meant.  I did not bring it up to discuss it because it is not relevant.  I was just making the point that there are other "traditions"/perspectives.  I have already given you a response to your question.  If you already have some knowledge of behaviourism then why are you asking me?

This is going no where.  

April said

The reason it is boring is it doesn't matter what I say the topic just keeps getting changed.

April it was YOU that brought up the whole behaviorist thing. "There are other perspectives, such as behaviourism or a psychoanalytical view of infant development

All I did was ask you to elaborate further on something YOU posted ie YOU brought up....

April said

So over to you now Frenzy

Another childish response to avoid answering the questions I asked.

The reason it is boring is it doesn't matter what I say the topic just keeps getting changed.  If you want to discuss behaviourism go ahead.  The reason you have not come across behaviourist references to attachment is that attachment is not thought of in terms of a behaviourist perspective, i.e. not related to operant conditioning.  

I am not here to promote "a view".

If you want to change the topic to something you know about that is great.  So over to you now Frenzy.  What role do you think behaviourist perspectives play in helping to work out appropriate care arrangments for infants in a post separation situation?  

April said

This is boring.

Yes I realise being asked to explain a different view to your own could be considered boring by you.

The reason I asked is I work in an OBM field, so am some what familiar with the behaviorist perspective, however I have not come across any specific behaviorist reference to attachment theory and infants, that differs to the norm.

The fact you refused to answer the question and replied with a child like response 'this is boring' speaks volumes. Obviously you are only here to promote your own view and have no wish to discuss any other viewpoint on the subject.

Frenzy said

April said

There are other perspectives, such as behaviourism or a psychoanalytical view of infant development but these perspectives are not really considered valid explanations of infant behaviour because there is not much empirical evidence to support that notion.

Not really considered vaild by whom, by you?? and can you give us a run down on the behaviourism or a psychoanalytical view you are talking about, please. You may discredit what ever it is you are referring too, but others maybe interested so they can form their own opinion.

 

I didn't discredit these alternative perspectives I said that they are not really valid as explanations of infant behaviour.  They make contributions but their ability to comprehensively explain infant behaviour is insufficient. Broadly speaking, behaviourism refers to learning through reinforcement and psychoanalytic viewpoints come from a Freudian tradition. If you want to find out more then read about them!

This is boring.

I genuinely want to know what she is referring too.

Frenzy said

April said

There are other perspectives, such as behaviourism or a psychoanalytical view of infant development but these perspectives are not really considered valid explanations of infant behaviour because there is not much empirical evidence to support that notion.

Not really considered vaild by whom, by you?? and can you give us a run down on the behaviourism or a psychoanalytical view you are talking about, please. You may discredit what ever it is you are referring too, but others maybe interested so they can form their own opinion.

 

Boom!  Right back at ya.  Great comeback Frenzy.....

April said

There are other perspectives, such as behaviourism or a psychoanalytical view of infant development but these perspectives are not really considered valid explanations of infant behaviour because there is not much empirical evidence to support that notion.

Not really considered vaild by whom, by you?? and can you give us a run down on the behaviourism or a psychoanalytical view you are talking about, please. You may discredit what ever it is you are referring too, but others maybe interested so they can form their own opinion.