View topic ( It takes two to raise a child)

Member information

« Previous

	Posted 16 February, 2012, 01:57 AM #45492
It takes two to raise a child
srldad101 Platinium Member	This article from Barbara Kay is opportune. We need to recognize the importance, promote and defend the father-child bond starting from birth. When a strong father child bond is developed early in life, it increases the likelihood of having an involved father later in life. Interesting that the exact opposite is happening in Australia, promoted by the radfems and supported by the single baby mamas (TK) and maternal supremacists. "Two weeks ago the U.K. government announced its intention to amend the 1989 Children's Act. Changes will include a presumption of shared parenting to ensure that children's relationships with both parents continues after separation. Under the current adversarial system, as in Australia, legal custody battles almost invariably end with mothers gaining sole custody. The decision was based more in pragmatism than compassion. Mounting sociological evidence confirms the terrible social costs of fatherlessness: triple the rates of truancy, teen pregnancies and drug abuse, to name a few. Also proposed is a 10-million mediation fund. One spokesman enunciated what has become obvious to rational observers: The courts are rarely the best place for resolving private disputes about the care of children. In truth, no one but career stakeholders favours the status quo. Let's hope the U.K. example will hasten the inevitable arrival of equal shared parenting (ESP) as the default presumption, in the absence of abuse, in Canada. This is, after all, an idea whose time came decades ago. The 1978 Family Law reform Act interpreted the best interests of the child to mean: where feasible, a child should have maximum access to both parents; the animosity of the parents should not interfere with this interest; and the needs of both parents should be considered. The in-depth 1998 Senate-House of Commons Joint Committee Report For the Sake of the Children also recommended ESP as a default presumption. But the report fell into a black political hole. Guided by feminism-inspired social context courses they take at the National Judicial Institute, unaccountable family-court judges with no expertise in children's best emotional and psychological interests privilege mothers rights in hugely disproportionate numbers. Indeed, fathers money is welcome, but the fathers themselves aren't considered necessary to their children's well-being at all, nor their children necessary to theirs. In 2003 justice minister Martin Cauchon stated, Divorced fathers have no rights, only responsibilities. He might well have added, Divorced mothers have no responsibilities, only rights. For fathers who fail to pay child support, even when they can't pay, may spend more time in jail than a cocaine dealer and have their faces plastered on the Internet as deadbeat dads; but how many Canadian mothers have spent a night in jail for arbitrarily denying a father court-appointed time with his children? Ideologues argue that fathers only demand equal parenting rights as a patriarchal backlash or to reduce their child support burdens or to punish their ex-mates. Some individual men are doubtless guilty of bad faith, just as some individual women seek sole custody for its material benefits or to punish their ex-mates. But anecdotes are not evidence of a rule, nor must they trump human rights. Most fathers anguish over the loss of their children. Post-divorce suicide rates for men rise to 12-16 times those of divorced women, a direct reflection of the grief and trauma fathers suffer from their marginalization. And since residential fathers today spend virtually the same amount of time in hands-on parenting as mothers, their despair in exile is far more profound than it used to be. Edward Kruk, professor of Social Work at the University of British Columbia, has long researched the iniquities to both non-custodial men and women in our winner-take-all custody arena. His most recent published article, in The American Journal of Family Therapy, offers 16 evidence-supported Arguments for an Equal Parenting Responsibility Presumption in Contested Child Custody. Amongst them, Kruk shows how and why equal parenting: preserves childrens relationships with both parents and vice-versa (right now about 30% of children - have no contact with their non-custodial fathers); reduces feelings of insecurity and rejection in children; decreases parental conflict (40% of first-time incidence of family violence occurs after an adversarial separation); respects childrens wishes (70% of children of divorce approve equal parenting, as do 93% of the 8% of children raised in ESP homes); reduces incidence of ignorance- or bias-based judicial decisions; reduces the risk of parental alienation that can and does flourish under sole custody conditions; guarantees what should be childrens and parents Charter rights to each others love and companionship, as enunciated in the United Nations declaration regarding the rights of children. ESP is objectively fair to both sexes and to children, and thus a win-win-win policy. Over 70% of ordinary Canadians prefer it. ESP has long been a plank in the platform of the Conservative party, which now forms a majority government. Justice Minister Nicholson: Its a no-brainer. What the heck are you waiting for?" from http://fullcomment.nat...kes-two-to-raise-a-child/ We should note that our Conservative leader Mr Abbott is making blood oath promises to repeal/repair the disasters created by the worst government in Australian history, namely, Carbon Tax, Mining tax, pokie tax, private health rebate, etc but on reinstating shared parenting - crickets... The LIB shadow ministers have confided that Mr Abbott, intends doing NOTHING for children or fathers. Mr Abbott prefers to spend 2.4BN on paid maternity leave to fix his female image problem. Mr Turnbull, raised by a single father, understands true equality. When Juliar Gillard is dumped it is time for the LIB's to change to the moderate Mr Turnball. In my view Mr Turnbull is the preferred PM for the 2.3million non-custodial parents (10% women), which doubles if one includes new wives impoverished by their husband's financial shakedown and alienated grandparents often forced to take in their bankrupted sons. Sign the Fathers4Equality "Stength in Numbers" Register now! Its free and nothing is required of you, but every person who signs helps us send a loud message to Canberra that the silent majority have numbers, we will not be sold into gender law persecutions of the Gillard National DV Plan, we will share in the parenting of our children, we have a voice and that we intend to use it! Last edit: 16 February, 2012, 02:08 AM by srldad101
	,

	Posted 16 February, 2012, 09:11 PM #45551
Kip Silver Member	ALL, I hope it is okay to repost this here. It is from another thread but I think it is appropriate. kip All, Kalimnadancer beat me to it! kalimnadancer said April infants can attach to many people. There is not just one person for each baby. If this was the case grandparents, babysitters, relatives, parents, siblings, creche workers, adoptive and foster parents would never be able to have a child in their care as the child would not cope. Babies who do not cope would scream the house down as this is their communication means. This would make care impossible. Babies need to be with all family so they can bond with the baby. It is harder to bond with a child for the adult as well as the child. Maybe you could do a study to find out how well the child and adult manage when no bond is formed from infancy and at age of 3 or more they start from scratch with limited time to use due to restrictions from the "primary carer" I cited this research in my previous posting. It showed that sometimes babies bond with the mother. Sometimes to the father. Sometimes to the father even though it was the mother who spent most time with the baby. The research showed that babies respond to those who are most sensitive to their needs and that they can form 'multiple attachments'. REF; Schaffer, H. R. and Emerson, P. E. (1964), PATTERNS OF RESPONSE TO PHYSICAL CONTACT IN EARLY HUMAN DEVELOPMENT. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 5: 113. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1964.tb02126.x 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. kip Kingsley Miller is the author of 'even Toddlers Need Fathers', a critique of the principle of 'Maternal Deprivation' as applied in family courts, which Professor Sir Michael Rutter described as an, 'interesting and informative guide'. He has also received a letter from Buckingham Palace stating, 'It was thoughtful of you to enclose a copy of your book 'even Toddlers Need Fathers' and Her Majesty has noted your concerns'.
	,

	Posted 16 February, 2012, 09:59 PM #45553
April Silver Member	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.
	,

	Posted 17 February, 2012, 09:41 AM #45572
Kip Silver Member	April, Here is your reference to innate behaviour. Are you saying the behaviour is innate or not? 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) In another quote you say; April said Seriously folks, all this talk of theories of development is not really helpful. The theories formed the basis of further research which informs the field of psychology. Psychologists don't talk about the merits of Bowlby or Erikson etc, rather they discuss the research which followed from them. (Research term / Family court meaning Posted 15 February, 2012, 09:23 AM) You say that 'Bowlby is dead' because you want to distance the work of Dr McIntosh from his discredited and sexist theory. But Dr McIntoshes work is based on Bowlby's theory of 'maternal deprivation'. This is how she says she selected contributors for her Special Edition of the Family Law Review; If narrowing the topics for this enquiry was difficult, then selecting the experts to address them was going to be harder still. Considering the spread of questions posed by the AFCC respondents, my task was to engage attachment authorities who could knowledgeably tackle the issues. I limited the field in this way. First, I targeted experts who had published original attachment research (conducted in the Bowlby/Ainsworth tradition) in high-ranking international journals. Second, I sought out attachment specialists who had exposure to divorce related issues, but for whom divorce per se was not their chief line of publication.Why? Scanning the last decade or so of the Family Court Review alone will tell you what a hotly contested, ideologically vulnerable area this is amongst divorce academics and practitioners. I wondered if fresh voices might help. GUEST EDITORS INTRODUCTION TO SPECIAL ISSUE on ATTACHMENT THEORY, SEPARATION, AND DIVORCE: FORGING COHERENT UNDERSTANDINGS FOR FAMILY LAW Jennifer E. McIntosh In her guidelines for Infants and Toddlers McIntosh cites Dr Schore who believes mothers have different brains to fathers that makes them better parents and Dr Sroufe who thinks 'Men can't nurse'. Dr Siegel, in the same edition, who is trained as a medical doctor and is a psychiatric professor, takes a different stance; McIntosh: Questions that arise often in the family law arena include these: Can you have two primary caregivers? Is there any evidence about the brains of mothers and fathers working any differently over the care-giving tasks? Siegel: Others may say no, you do not have two primary attachment figures, but I think you can over time, within the same home. But those parents do different things. In divorce, having two primary attachment figures is probably different. I am not the person to ask about the gender question, because I have a peculiar aversion to gender-specific generalizations. I know there is neurobiological research that demonstrates differences. I just cannot get myself to take those findings seriously because of my own experience as a father, because of my own experience of my parents, because of my experience as a therapist. Both men and women have deep potentials for caring for infants. McIntosh: The gender issue is something I would like to dismiss too, but it is endemic to family law and it perpetually rears its head in court decisions and influences policy directions. Siegel: My understanding of attachment categories is that they are totally gender neutral. I know people say women are more integrated because their corpus callosum is thicker. So what? That does not mean you cannot have a loving relationship as a male with an infant. Now, we do have these things called gender roles, where the male feels like he has to go out and earn money, and the female thinks that she has to be at home. But I think that is a sociologically reinforced, perhaps genetically induced tendency, but it does not have to be fixed at all. Ive seen plenty of fathers be unbelievable primary caregivers, and the woman is out and about working. And the children do extremely well. Attachment categories are gender-neutral. McIntosh: If we could hose down the gender debate about attachment, then we might actually get down to talking about the function of a primary caregiver: whether you are the mother or the father, what is it that a primary attachment figure does to support optimal development? I see that as the discussion that is most needed. Allan Schore talks about the importance of psychological gender and the ability to fulfill the functions of the primary caregiver role: being nurturing, responsive, and a secure base for comfort. Siegel: Absolutely! I mean, if you outline the basics of a primary caregiver, you see how gender neutral it is. The primary caregiver is someone who is tuned in to the internal experience of the child, not just the childs behavior. That is the simplest way to say it. Males can do it, and females can do it. And some females cannot do it, and some males cannot do it. It is really a matter of seeing the internal world, not just managing behavior. And this reflective function can be taught: most can learn to have mindsight enabling us to perceive our own and others internal worlds. In this exchange Dr Siegel dismisses the neurobiological claims made by Dr Schore (PhD) as 'laughable' and whilst Dr Sroufe (PhD) says men can't nurse, he says 'My understanding of attachment categories is that they are totally gender neutral' and 'Ive seen plenty of fathers be unbelievable primary caregivers.' Do you not accept that Dr McIntoshes work is based on Bowlby's theory of attachment called 'maternal deprivation'? Kingsley Miller kip Kingsley Miller is the author of 'even Toddlers Need Fathers', a critique of the principle of 'Maternal Deprivation' as applied in family courts, which Professor Sir Michael Rutter described as an, 'interesting and informative guide'. He has also received a letter from Buckingham Palace stating, 'It was thoughtful of you to enclose a copy of your book 'even Toddlers Need Fathers' and Her Majesty has noted your concerns'.
	,

	Posted 17 February, 2012, 10:36 AM #45579
April Silver Member	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. Quite simply, maternal deprivation is not a term that has been used for decades. Kip you are the only one that brings it up and then you suggest that modern theories of child development are some type of re-introduction of maternal deprivation. Not true. The theory evolved. It is not sexist. Your constant need to reduce discussions to Bowlby will do nothing for your credibility when you write to the people in authority over these matters. When people refer to the Bowlby/Ainsworth tradition they are refering to contemporary understandings of attachment (i.e.Bowlby's work that has subsequently been revised and reviewed, thus the word tradition gets added. The raw basis of Bowlby's work was never discredited). "Bowlby/Ainsworth tradition" does not mean the work is based on a paradigm that existed in the middle of last century. Rather it is written to notify the reader that the perspective being taken is that of attachment. 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.
	,

	Posted 17 February, 2012, 11:19 AM #45585
Frenzy Platinium Member	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.
	,

	Posted 17 February, 2012, 11:29 AM #45587
haknbakr Silver Member	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.....
	,

	Posted 17 February, 2012, 11:57 AM #45590
Frenzy Platinium Member	I genuinely want to know what she is referring too.
	,

	Posted 17 February, 2012, 12:12 PM #45591
April Silver Member	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.
	,

	Posted 17 February, 2012, 12:38 PM #45593
Frenzy Platinium Member	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.
	,

	Posted 17 February, 2012, 01:51 PM #45600
April Silver Member	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?
	,

	Posted 17 February, 2012, 03:18 PM #45604
Frenzy Platinium Member	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.
	,

	Posted 17 February, 2012, 03:33 PM #45605
April Silver Member	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.
	,

	Posted 17 February, 2012, 04:07 PM #45609
Frenzy Platinium Member	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.
	,

	Posted 17 February, 2012, 04:17 PM #45611
April Silver Member	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.
	,

	Posted 17 February, 2012, 04:55 PM #45614
Frenzy Platinium Member	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.
	,

	Posted 19 February, 2012, 09:37 PM #45740
Kip Silver Member	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 Kingsley Miller is the author of 'even Toddlers Need Fathers', a critique of the principle of 'Maternal Deprivation' as applied in family courts, which Professor Sir Michael Rutter described as an, 'interesting and informative guide'. He has also received a letter from Buckingham Palace stating, 'It was thoughtful of you to enclose a copy of your book 'even Toddlers Need Fathers' and Her Majesty has noted your concerns'.
	,

	Posted 20 February, 2012, 10:50 AM #45779
Frenzy Platinium Member	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.
	,

	Posted 20 February, 2012, 11:10 AM #45781
Kip Silver Member	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 Kingsley Miller is the author of 'even Toddlers Need Fathers', a critique of the principle of 'Maternal Deprivation' as applied in family courts, which Professor Sir Michael Rutter described as an, 'interesting and informative guide'. He has also received a letter from Buckingham Palace stating, 'It was thoughtful of you to enclose a copy of your book 'even Toddlers Need Fathers' and Her Majesty has noted your concerns'.
	,

	Posted 20 February, 2012, 05:42 PM #45810
Frenzy Platinium Member	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/
	,