[skirbo]

Not specifically related to Attachment Therapy, I suppose, but more toward the holding part of it.

When a normal bio child is a toddler, there will be many times that their parent will tell them no, or pick them up and hold them through a temper tantrum to stop them from doing something that they want to do. They learn that their parents are stronger than they are, that the parent is in charge and they learn to quit fighting and start pouting.

We so often focus solely on the physical abuse (because God knows there is plenty to focus on) that our kids go through, that we forget for most of them, particularly for these uber-extreme kids, they didn't have appropriate early childhood parenting. They don't learn that mom and dad can best them in these struggles every time.

Restraining your child through a temper tantrum, even one that is caused by you picking up and holding your child while he doesn't want you to, is a normal early childhood behavior.

Explain to me how this is any different (specific hold styles aside-I'm speaking of result, not technique), how these children who have never had this structure (for lack of a better word) in their lives will understand that the parent (and in the future other authority figures) is in charge and is capable, willing, able and expected to enforce compliance with restraining. How is this different, and if it is, how are these particular children supposed to learn now those particular lessons that they should have learned as a toddler?

Sarah

[zebramom]

Anything can be taken out of context and used to fit what your personal agenda is.

Let's take something as "simple" and accepted as the bible. In the Old Testement it says "an eye for an eye" but Jesus said to "turn the other cheek". I can take either one of these things and use them to fit my personal need at the time.

In attachment therapy, there are many different view points and types of therapy. No one said you have to use Nancy Thomas' therapy if you don't like it. However, you shouldn't prevent other families from using it if it works for them. We do NT parenting, and it helped my little one. Didn't work worth a flip for my older child. So does it work or not?

Most parents combine a little bit of this and a little bit of that and do what works for their family.

I'm fat and I'm trying to lose weight. Personally I don't agree with the South Beach diet because I feel all the fat is unhealthy, but many people have success with it. Should I tell them that they can't do it, even though they have seen success just because *I* don't agree with it? No. No one appointed me God.

Personally, I think this thread is meant to stir up a crap storm instead of being a productive and open minded discussion.

I too have met both Beth & Nancy and find them both to be amazing people. Neither one of them would ever want harm to come to a child. Their goal is to help children heal, and they have empowered many parents and kids to do just that. Thank God they have the courage to speak out.

[Barksum]

While this is a dicey subject because it is fraught with emotions I'm glad to see it discussed because it puts more information on the table. "This term is defined as this, not that." or "We did this because...." Those things are informational and flesh out the theories that fly around all over the place. In fact, when I've spoken to various child therapists/psychs they don't all define the same terms in the same ways, so having more communication about what you or I mean when we say something is always helpful.

In our state when we were going through foster/adoptive parent training by the state agency we were told that our state does not endorse Nancy Thomas and they would not hand out or recommend any of her books or tapes. This was announced after the nurse doing one segment of the training suggested we read and try Nancy Thomas' parenting methods. That left it to the adoptive parents to choose their own path after finalization, but pre-adoptive and foster parents were barred from using Nancy Thomas' practices. (Namely any restraint/holding of any kind.) I don't know if this is still the official stance, but that is what we were told during training.

We were told as foster parents that we were not to restrain a child, ever, unless we'd had therapeutic foster parent training specifically in restraint and holding. In fact, an actual story about a foster parent's experience was shared to illustrate this. This one foster father followed a child who was raging and running during the night so that the foster parent could render first aid if needed, but he followed the directives and didn't restrain the child. He just kept following behind to do whatever damage control he could. No joke. (My question here would be, if this child had run into traffic, what should the foster parent do? Risk a lawsuit and criminal prosecution and restrain the child, or risk a lawsuit and criminal prosecution and not restrain the child? Remember, the poor foster father had not had the proper training so he was not allowed to restrain the child.)

I suppose the thing to take away is for each parent to do their homework and find what works well for their child's particular situation. In doing some basic research I was able to determine what would be a good fit for a particular child of mine, and what wouldn't.

I think that we don't do any one parenting method, but I don't have time to do the research to see which parenting method we most closely follow. Mostly we follow the dictates of the cognitive abilities of each child. Since we know our children were prenatally exposed we no longer assume that they can go through all the thought processes needed for most parent methods without some help along the way.

That is, if you assume that all of my children can hear, understand, store, retrieve, and then apply directions given to them, you'd be wrong. Since they would not be complying with a simple direction you might think they were being defiant, but again, you'd be wrong. When we break down directions into multiple simple mini-steps, and check along the way to see if the child is remembering from one mini-step to the next, they do what is requested. When we rush, the child gets frustrated because they get 'lost' due to their inability to remember or retrieve info that they 'should know', which results in brain-stall, which would default to an explosion of anger. And then sometimes they're just being kids and yanking our chain.

I used to think that we were blazing our own trail, but there are too many kids with the same issues as our kids for us to actually be trailblazers here! Mostly I just attempt to stay consistent and attempt to teach the kids lifelong habits that are positive and healthy. I think I fail more days than I succeed, but the desire and the effort is toward the goal of training each child to live up to their abilities, whatever they may be.

My questions about AT are:
What is the core of the method?
What does everything hinge upon?
What are the presuppositions going into it?

[lucyjoy]

I've never heard Nancy Thomas say anything about HER using holding or restraining techniques. Her approach is fun, love and self esteeme building using high structure and high nurturing.

[zebramom]

From Barki-

I suppose the thing to take away is for each parent to do their homework and find what works well for their child's particular situation. In doing some basic research I was able to determine what would be a good fit for a particular child of mine, and what wouldn't.

BINGO!!!!!!!!! Thank you so much Barki!!!

[Lorraine123]

Thats how I feel as well. So I don't understand this condemnation of individual choices.

[Barksum]

Rats! Just lost my response somewhere in cyberspace. (Where do all the glitched responses end up? Somewhere with the missing socks?)

Anyway, Lucy - I don't know what Nancy Thomas says because I've not seen any of her vids or books. (Hey, they're on my list...along with everything else....) I do know that our training was in the wake of the deaths at the attachment center in CO and the powers that be were pretty freaked with anything that said "attachment", unless it was at a regional medical center or university medical school. So I don't know if the agency had read Nancy's info and rejected it, or if they just blanketed it with the same condemnation as other attachment methods. The system should be open to the idea that even for the most RAD of RAD kids there can be other options besides the most widely used methods. It's such an emotionally charged topic and so hotly debated because (usually) those involved are so passionate about advocating for the children and families involved. As with anything regarding human relationships there is no consensus and really no one magic size to fit all, but there should be basic foundational concepts that remain the same.

The forum here is a perfect picture of the outside world and the debate that continues between all the therapists, psychiatrists, social workers, medical doctors and parents. Some professionals still don't acknowledge attachment disorder as an issue and think of it as an excuse. So the fact that we have a lively debate about how to treat RAD says something pretty phenominal about us as a group: we all agree that kids can and do have RAD and that they need dedicated parenting methods. That we don't agree on the method is human nature.

[ajjhmf]

Originally Posted by Barksum

I suppose the thing to take away is for each parent to do their homework and find what works well for their child's particular situation. In doing some basic research I was able to determine what would be a good fit for a particular child of mine, and what wouldn't.

I know Z already highlighted this quote, but I think it really hits the nail on the head here.

I have three kids and I don't parent them identically. What works for one doesn't work for the others in many cases. I need to use more words with H than I do J. J needs sort, direct instructions, but those same instructions directed at H will hurt her feelings. M needs 2-3 word phrases with simple action words. That would annoy the heck out of my other 2. J needs time to talk out and process his feelings after an event, while H does her consequence and moves on. And M needs lots of hugs and LONG, SLOW transtions to avoid the screaming. 3 kids, 3 different techniques. All working well in our house.

I don't agree with every parenting style I see and I KNOW people don't agree with mine. We could have this same discussion on so many parenting styles. How many times have parents gone round over spanking or the Ferber method (cry-it-out) or heck, whether or not to leave an arrested kid in jail. I'm glad we can have this conversation, and I'm glad we are all trying to have a level head here.

[dadfor2]

the interesting thing, I agree with everyone here, the only one i have trouble with, is CJ, the AT therapist that Beth went to.

I totally get what everyone is saying, and I cant argue with any of you, becaue you all make sence. But that is not what I am reading from Nancy Thomas. I dont think restraining a child, just for the sake of restraining a child, is good.

jen pointed out the loving rocking. Thats not what CJ did with beth. Beth said something about having power, and CJ held her and restrained her so she could fight (she knew she would) then mocked her after she couldnt break free.

That is what bothers me. To me, I just dont see the theraputic value, I just think it traumatizes a child, doesnt make them better.

I guess if anyone came to my house, and then took my son and restrained him so he could fight back, just for the sake to prove something, I would call the police....lol.

and that is my issue. I am all for certain alternative therapies if I feel it can actually help, but I just dont think re-traumatizing a child, is helpful.

for folks who say that they try everything first. Have a therapist, not your husband or friend, but someone you hardle know, and have them hold you against your will, when it gets uncomfortable, and you start to fight to break free, and they wont let you go, I just cant imagine it feels good.

I remember when I was younger, some of my neighbors started to tickle me to death. I literally couldnt get away, and I couldnt breath, and I pleaded with them to stop and they just kept tickling me. I was so scared I thought I would die. I remember that. It really was traumatizing for me.

the thing to remember also, is that a few minutes to us, can seem like a life time for a kid.

[Lorraine123]

I agree with everyone here

No you don't. I posted earlier that my therapist is the same one that Nancy Thomas is now using. She was actually trained by CJ and uses the same techniques. They have worked for my daughter. My daughter is not a willing participant in therapy and she needs coercion to do it. She doesn't like when she is "forced" to participate, but she will tell you once it is over that she is relieved to have released the trauma that was inside. Its really amazing to see the calm on her face afterwards. Go read what I said in the other thread. So, Dad, no, you don't agree with everyone. And I respect your right to disagree, but please, don't expect me to help my child in the same way you help yours.

Oh, here is what I said about this type of therapy and how it helps my daughter:

Her past is so painful to her that she will not just talk about it. If you sit her down and so, ok, spill it, nothing will come out. But if we hold her and start telling her to remember that things that her birthmom did and we start replaying them, she will get angry and start talking. Yes, we incite the anger, but it also releases the pain. She fights and she rages and she yells and she spills her guts about her pain. She gets it out. Afterwards, she would tell you that she is relieved. And while I am holding her thrashing around, I tell her that I love her and I will continue to love her no matter what she tells.

[skirbo]

Originally Posted by dadfor2

To me, I just dont see the theraputic value, I just think it traumatizes a child, doesnt make them better.

I was serious when I asked my question earlier. These children that come from neglect and abuse haven't had normal early childhoods. The toddler and young child stages when they learn that parents hold them, and don't hurt them, against their will at times. Where mom or dad refuses to let them go no matter how mad they are.

The children that haven't learned the fundamental lesson that their parent is and has to be in charge and in control (and that's really poor phrasing on my part, but I don't know how else to say it), how else can you possibly teach them that lesson, especially to the point that it would become second nature to them the way it would be for a 'normal' toddler.

How is what CJ did to Beth *different* (at the root of it) than a child being held who screams and cries and kicks and hits because he wants down, and says 'down, down, down' and doesn't get what they want? It served the same purpose, taught the same lesson. I would think that the therapist pushing her to try and get loose, under controlled circumstances in a safe room, was a lot safer than just waiting to deal with it until Beth was screaming, crying, kicking and hitting because she wanted down so she could get into whatever it was she wanted to get into.

I hope I'm making myself clear. I'm on percoset at the moment trying to recover from surgery and therefore I'm not at my most lucid.

Sarah

[Lorraine123]

Well said Skirbo. Those are my thoughts exactly.