and reach thousands of daily visitors
25 February
NO 1269
Young children
It is the vehement and adamant position of this paper that removal of young children from the biological family, or from any family setting, should be undertaken only in the most extreme cases. Early attachment experience may well be the single most important factor operating in healthy physical and emotional development of children, however, and if the natural opportunity for that to occur (mother-child bonding) is unavailable or must be interrupted, then an alternate attachment process must be a part of whatever intervention is necessary to meet all of the child's needs.
When obvious and significant physical, emotional, and developmental problems are identified in early infancy, the very best opportunities for remediation also occur during those early years. Intensive, early intervention may well completely overcome problems that, if identified later, would be overwhelming. In other cases, a progressive decline may be halted so that problems at least remain at a manageable level.
The early intervention argument is greatly strengthened by recent discoveries about the abilities and needs of infants. Aaronson (1978) summarized today's radically different view of the involvement of newborns in the world around them, noting that they are far from helpless and that they respond to and interact with the world around them from the first days of life after birth. Pawl (1984) spells out the need for early intervention in detail, arguing that mental health services should be routinely available in the infant/child health system from birth on and should be particularly aggressive if the parent-child relationship is not developing well.
Much the same position is taken by Martin (1984): "Inasmuch as character disorders such as borderline personality disorder are felt to be linked to parenting styles and infant behaviors in the first four years of the child's life, it seems clear that psychological intervention in infancy should have high priority." And, in the same vein, "Any individual at-risk infant may need speech therapy, physical therapy, cognitive therapy, occupational therapy, psychotherapy and other therapeutic modalities."
Call (1984), dealing with the same subject, explores two areas in some depth. First, he notes typical infant behavior and the faulty interpretations made of it by potentially abusive and neglectful parents. His list includes thumbsucking, interpreted as unacceptable immaturity; biting, interpreted as hostile aggression; turning away from the bottle or spoon, interpreted as disobedience; and excited movement of arms, or scratching, interpreted as hostile aggression.
SUSAN S. STEPLETON
Stepleton, Susan S. (1989). The young child in group care. In Balcerzak, Edwin A. (Ed.) Group Care of Children: Transitions Toward the Year 2000. Washington D.C. Child Welfare League of America. pp. 256-257.
REFERENCES
Aaronson, May. (1978). Infant nurturance and early learning: Myths and realities. Child Welfare, LVII, 3. pp. 165-173.
Allen, R., and Wasserman, G. (1985). Origins of language development. Child Abuse and Neglect ,9. pp 335-340.
Call, Justin D. (1984). Child abuse and neglect in infancy: Sources of hostility within the parent-infant dyad and disorders of attachment in infancy. Child Abuse and Neglect, 8. pp. 185-202.
Martin, Harold P. (1984). Intervention with infants at risk for abuse or neglect. Child Abuse and Neglect, 8. pp. 255-260
Pawl, Jeree H. (1978). Strategies of intervention.
Child Abuse and Neglect, 8. pp. 261-270
