Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

RESEARCH - Post-separation parenting arrangements and developmental outcomes for infants and children

RESEARCH - SHARED PARENTING

McIntosh, J., Smyth, B., Kelaher, M., Well, Y., & Long, C. (2010). Post-separation parenting arrangements and developmental outcomes for infants and children: Collected reports. Canberra: Attorney-General's Department.

The REPORT

All, (Apologies if this is on the wrong forum or is a bit too geeky)

I have an interest in the work of John Bowlby who believed it was wrong to take small children away from their mothers called 'maternal deprivation'. I have taken a look at the above research and I am amazed at the lack of academic rigor. It conflates Study 1: Longitudinal study of school-aged children in high conflict separation with Study 2: Overnight care patterns and psycho-emotional development in infants and young children, to arrive at something which has nothing to do with either and more to do with the work of John Bowlby.

Does anybody else know what I am talking about?

Kip (UK)

VIDEO - Maternal deprivation - Maternal Deprivation - Professor Sir Michael Rutter - Children's Rights - YouTube

PS Many thanks for the earlier replies

Attachment
Post-separation parenting arrangements and developmental outcomes for infants and children 2010

Last edit: by Secretary SPCA


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'.
very interesting read. makes some very interesting points for when parents are trying to do the best thing for the development of their children. this reasearch should be taken into account when determining parenting plans for young children. after all i believe children should have the opportunity to grow up as mentally healthy as those children who have both parents still together.
Bowlby, Ainsworth etc were pioneers into research concerning infant attachment.  Their research resulted in an understanding of the need for an infant to develop a secure attachment with a primary caregiver during the very early stages of life.  However, these theorists worked during a time when the primary caregiver was called a mother because several decades ago the primary caregiver was nearly always the mother.  It is important not to conclude from their research that mothers are more suited to being primary caregivers.  Feminists have fought hard to dispel the myth that women are better suited to raising kids and that mothers should be left to the task.  Either parent can be the primary caregiver, the critical factor is consistency of care, especially while the child is very young.
All,

Bowlby and Ainsworth's work is discredited. You can't have bits of research you like and bits you don't. You are conflating facts to suit your own opinion which is happening in the piece I looked at.

Is there a section on this forum for the analysis of RESEARCH as it is manufactured by the system?

As each piece of work is produced it could be put through the wringer?

WEBMASTER, would be possible to start such a forum on research?

For example take the research I refer to in my first post. It is hopeless yet the Australian government has run it up the flag pole and saluted without even a 'by my leave'.

Kip


PS I have recently produced 3 videos on Bowlby for those interested. The last is called;-


Dr John Bowlby, Biography: THE LEGACY - PART THREE


http://youtu.be/x945VMNQJJs

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'.
Bowlby, Ainsworth were pioneers and the basis of their work was the need for an infant to form a secure attachment with a caregiver to form a secure base for future development.  Of course an infant can have a secure attachment to their father that is not in dispute, and I made that point.

If you are suggesting that their work is discredited I wish to disagree (besides use of the term "mother" instead of caregiver which was relied on heavily but that is a reflection of the times in which they lived).  The basis of their work is very much valid.  Did you see the deprivation of orphaned Romanian children denied access to a loving and consistent caregiver?  Long term and in some cases irreversible damage was done to those children.

The take home message is to form a secure tie to your kids from the day they are born, whether you are a mum or dad.  Maybe a whole shift in society is needed so that men and women can be primary caregivers from a young age, i.e. both work less than full time hours and spread the care more.  In my opinion if a couple worked say 30 hours each per week and shared child rearing equally from birth then maybe a lot more couples would actually NOT split up in the first place, and if they did working out care for the kids afterward would be very straightforward because it could continue in the same pattern as before.

Last edit: by OneRingRules

If there are any problems posting in this new forum please let us know at the SUPPORT email.

Let us know if the description is satisfactory. In due course we will look at relocating other discussions on this topic into the forum. Thanks for the request to set this up.  :thumbs:

Site Director
Guest,

I am sorry but you are drawing your own conclusions from the research.

You cannot distinguish the ideas of Bowlby and Ainsworth from the theory of 'maternal deprivation' although many would like to. (See Citation Classic below).

You say,

'Did you see the deprivation of orphaned Romanian children denied access to a loving and consistent caregiver?  Long term and in some cases irreversible damage was done to those children?'

The 'take home' message from this research is that the damage is NOT 'long term' or 'irreversible'. Your conclusions are based on Bowlby's discredited research

The 'take home' researcher is Professor Sir Michael Rutter who produced 'Maternal deprivation Reassessed' and comprehensively demolished Bowlby's work.

His seminal work on Romanian orphans showed that given incredibly dire circumstances children can recover. (In the case of concentration camp children they relied on their own peers as 'primary carers' to survive)

Your comments regarding a 'secure base' are used by the anti shared parenting lobby to argue that children cannot cope with 'shared parenting' and also conform to Bowlby's thinking.

This is because they are based on  old judges who when they leave court cannot find their own way home therefore invented the 'secure base' principle to justify giving children to the mother's 'secure base'.

Your description of child development is part of the feminist narrative and shows the need on this WEB for a forum on RESEARCH to discuss these issues.

My initial point is that the RESEARCH used in Australia to justify anti shared parenting lobby lacks academic rigor and I would appreciate comments on that issue.

Yours etc.

Kip

 PS CITATION CLASSIC
VIDEO-John Bowlby and Maternal Deprivation

http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/classics1986/A1986F...

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'.
Bolby and Ainsworth provided the foundations of research into that field.  Since then there has been a mountain of research into infant attachment.  You are confusing this issue with the emotional connections of older children to others.  Attachment during the very early years of life (up to age 2) is critical to the development of the child.  To compare older children in concentration camps to an infant deprived of a secure attachment to caregivers in not correct.  The older child will have formed an attachment already, when they were younger and if it was adequate they will already have had a good foundation for future development.  Yes, a child in a concentration camp for example would have experienced severe trauma, but with care they may recover (to varying extents) from that experience.  That is not the same as an infant going through critical periods of development who, if deprived from consistent adequate care, may never fully develop properly in the first place (for example they may never develop an adequate sense of trust).  The courts reflect this knowledge and shared care is introduced when the child is more ready to deal with it.  If both parents cared more equally for their kids at the start then the issue of who is the care giver would be redundant.  Like I said in my original post here don't be swayed by the use of the term mother/"maternal deprivation" as it was used in the original research.  Now it would more likely be called  "parental deprivation" but it means the same thing.  It is not developmentally appropriate to radically adjust the care of an infant and the legal system recognises this.  Note I said infant, and not child.  A child can cope with a change in circumstances much better than an infant, and if I recall correctly the report from the original post makes that same point.
April,

You are wrong and you are repeating the same old feminist clap trap.

Bowlby was interested in Maternal Deprivation. Read what Bowlby says in his Citation Classic which was written towards the end of his career then comment.

Yours etc,

Kip

PS It is because of the views you express I have produced my latest videos.

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'.
First, the main drive behind feminism was a push for equality between the sexes.  It was not a pro-woman stand.  That is called radical feminism.

Second, my points are not about Bowlby's research.  I have made the point that his research was the basis for further research.  Discrediting Bowlby does not discredit the further research.  My points are about infant attachment and how it is crucial to the fundamental development of the child.  Infant attachment is a function of the relationship between the infant and its caregiver(s).  This is not a sexist debate.
April,

Read the comments made by Bowlby TOWARDS THE END OF HIS CAREER in his CITATION CLASSIC and then say it is not a 'sexist debate'. You are continuing to put your own 'politically correct' gloss on what Bowlby actually said. He made his reputation from Maternal Deprivation NOT the attachment theory. It is a common misconception that one gave rise to the other. Bowlby says,

I believe the monograph has become a Citation Classic because it focused attention on the relationship of a young child to the mother as an important determinant of mental health, with far-reaching practical implications, and has given rise to widespread controversy and extensive research. For a recent evaluation of the field by an erstwhile critic, see Rutter.)
Kip

PS This is a recent note I put on a UK forum that might interest readers;-


All,

 For those interested in my criticism of the work of John Bowlby this is how his theory is described in one abstract in 1979;-

 "The hypothesis that separation from an established mother figure in early childhood has a detrimental effect on a child's later mental health has been widely promulgated and commonly accepted both in academic and lay circles throughout the Western world".

 This is how it is described by a member on a forum to me this week 2011.

 "In my psychology degree we have been inundated with Bowlby til i was sick. I have chosen the essay on him. Having researched for the essay, however, there seems very little evidence to support his theories and most social scientists have disassociated themselves from him. One study in 1964 stated that by the age of 18 months 87% of children were no longer attached to the mother as the primary carer.

 Bowlby seems to have simply cherry picked from others to support his juvenile theories.

 He was popular because, ironically, both sides of the fence liked his work. Traditionalists on both sides of the Pond were trying to shame mothers back into the home with scare stories about loss of attachment effects and marxist/fems loved the fact that dads were invisible in Bowlby's work. Everybody but Bowlby was championing dads. None of his theories hold much water apart form the 'secure base' which is boody obvious, and all theories were subsequently tested rigorously not by Bowlby, but everybody else. Policy makers adopted his work without testing it. Ulterior motive if ever there was one".

 When I initially started campaigning I had to choose a name for my website, book etc. I chose 'even Toddlers Need Fathers' because Bowlby said toddlers don't need fathers ie The theory of maternal deprivation.

 His main 'opponent' was Professor Sir Michael Rutter who Bowlby called his 'erstwhile critic'. This was because he had written Maternal Deprivation Reassessed (1972) which comprehensively demolished Bowlby's ideas. (Hence videos)

 In 2002 I had to go to the Court of Appeal because a judge had DISCHARGED ie taken away my Parental Responsibility Order for my son recognising me as his father because of my ideas. In the week before the hearing in front of Lady Justice Hale I received an e-mail from PSM Rutter saying,

 "Very many thanks for sending me a copy of your interesting and informative guide on 'even Toddlers Need Fathers'. I much appreciate your drawing my attention to it"

 (This is a critique of the theory of 'maternal deprivation'.)

 Of course I was able to go to the Court of Appeal and argue that the judge should not have discharged my Parental Responsibility Order because they were NOT my ideas but the ideas of PSM Rutter and the decision was reversed.

 During the hearing I had to check with LJ Hale beforehand that she knew who PSM Rutter is? She was offended and said something like I had tea and cakes with him only last week.

 So when I produced the e mail I could argue that if they were my ideas, as the judge had said, I would be the one having tea and cakes with her ladyship, to some mirth in the courtroom.

 If I had been writing serious academic papers all my life I could never hope to get such a comment from PSM Rutter.

 Kingsley Miller Kip

 N.
 McConaghy Maternal deprivation: can its ghost be laid? (1979) Aust N
 Z Journal of Psychiatry (3):209-17.
 Abstract
 The
 hypothesis that separation from an established mother figure in early
 childhood has a detrimental effect on a child's later mental health
 has been widely promulgated and commonly accepted both in academic
 and lay circles throughout the Western world. The hypothesis
 continues to have a significant effect on mothers' decision as to
 whether they should resume work or not, and on governmental policy
 concerning the provision of child-care facilities for the children of
 those mothers who do. The evidence for the hypothesis is reviewed and
 it is concluded that it does not satisfy the requirements of
 scientific methodology. The theory that a child's attachment to its
 mother figure is the emotional basis for its future love
 relationships, group affiliations and loyalty to the state, is now
 being accorded similar acceptance without further evidence than that
 supporting the original hypothesis.

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'.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets