16th August 13:44
|Re: Posts by fern are FACTS DENIED! - Cross posted from ASFP (impulse control psychopathology down parenting eye)
.....a doofus subject....if you are going to cross post a new reply,
Doug, plese try to remember to include in the addy field the original
newsgroup, or the folks following there miss your comments, and my
shoveling you into the shitter over your ugly behavior here............
Oh! By supporting leaving him with kin? Where he's been for some
months now? And he's only three?
What kind of a social worker ARE you, Doug?
R R R R...oh that's going to improve things..for sure. Judges are such
good social workers....r r r r r .
Unnn...douggie, the cousins ARE family.
Oh, I do. I've watched it cause infanticide, more abuse and neglect
for many years now in states where it's true.
Please define a nonforcable removal..and why CPS must have the freedom
to move children without foster parents running to the media.
The foster parent, by the way, has the ear of the court...as was
proven, so it's apparently pretty hard to gag them completely, wouldn't you say?
Okay, Solomon, what would be the happy ending you'd recommend?
The former may be true...but the latter is up for grabs. Which
political fight are you referring to...the one between the judicial
and the judicial...in fact the same judge in both instances....the
judge against himself?
You sure are slipping in your misleading poppy****.
Now here comes the big lie. Watch his hands folks.
The movement of any children at certain developmentally critical times
in their lives CAN be a factor...it is not the only factor. By far.
Please defend this contention, and include those "other major
emotional disorders defined in DSM-IV."
And you claim to be a social worker. No graduate instruction, nor
under grad for that matter, ever made such a claim as you just did. If
that were so any child moved from one relative to another would ALSO
suffer the same ailment. It's not so...moving is NOT the criteria.
A child that has certain basic needs meet in the first three years,
barring any disruption like ill health or death or mental illness
onset of the caregiver, is pretty assured of having a strong capacity
for healthy attachment...the same characteristic that we carry into
adult hood and base our intimate relationships on, ranging from friend
"Moving" is a factor ONLY if it disrupts caregiving behaviors in the
early years. This child was placed at 3 months and not moved for 16
months. Then he stayed in his present placement for the remainder of
his current life.
He is unlikely to have RAD, but he IS likely to be greaving, and it
may not be recognized if the new family is NOT properly trained to
recognize and deal with it. I suspect they were and are given what
they say about his behavior.
I presume, from considerable experience in this field, that some of
the symptoms common to RAD children might surface should the child NOT
be allowed to and supported in greaving.
But it won't BE RAD, just could look like it. The disaffected child,
is the RAD child, usually more often males. They are distant,
disconnected, and go about their activities, even energetic ones, with
a singular detachment from their environment and that includes the
people in it.........this is very much like the more temporary
disconnect a child (or adult) greaving exhibits.
Don't confuse people with your ignorance and biases Doug. It could be
very bad for children in their care.
You've tried to pull this nonsense about RAD before and I had to
correct you. Shame on you.
You are aware that RAD is a very well known occurance in children in
families that have never moved a child, are you not? The only problem
that surfaces is that old one of some kind of disruption early on in
caregiving. A disruption of Attention, not a "move." Here, for
instance, is a support group at yahoo for just such bio parents:
UPDATE: 9/28/04 ~ I have been out of touch for the past year, taking a
very much needed break. I'm hoping to have the strength to come back
so we can support each other,, we sure as heck need it.!
INTRO: I started this board out of love concerning our biological 13
yr old daughter who was dx'd INCORRECTLY at age 6 as O.D.D. We've been
through years of therapy w/few positive results.
We have struggled so much by having to deal with the "unknown origin
of anger" from our child.
Since 2002, I BELIEVE I've connected RAD/AD (reactive attachment &/or
attachment disorder) w/our child due to
cir***stances such as ours, her prematurity,hospitalizations,
seperation of myself & her. Other reasons can begin the RAD process
w/out us realizing the impact it will have on our family.
~The basis of RAD is "untrust" towards the mother specifically.
A lot of professionals don't even acknowledge Attachment
disorders,, talk about frustration!! geesh!
A lot of RAD support groups & info on the web
address adoptive children who were purposely abused
by their parents. That is NOT what happened with us biological moms
who have what I refer to as biological RAD kids. Situations like above
created the radness in our child.
And Doug, your simplistic notions peddled here with the attempt to
attach the authority of the DSM-IV are questionable professional
Here is exactly what is said there:
DSM-IV 313.89: Reactive Attachment Disorder of Infancy or Early
Beginning before age 5 and occurring in most situations, the patient's
social relatedness is markedly disturbed and developmentally
inappropriate. This is shown by either of:
Inhibitions. In most social situations, the child doesn't interact in
a socially appropriate way. This is shown by responses that are
excessively inhibited, hypervigilant or ambivalent and contradictory.
For example, the child responds to caregivers with frozen watchfulness
or mixed approach-avoidance and resistance to comforting.
Disinhibitions. The child's attachments are diffuse, as shown by
indiscriminate sociability with inability to form appropriate
selective attachments. For example, the child is overly familiar with
strangers or lacks selectivity in choosing attachment figures.
This behavior is not explained solely by a developmental delay (such
as Mental Retardation) and it does not fulfill criteria for Pervasive
Evidence of persistent pathogenic care is shown by one or more of:
The caregiver neglects the child's basic emotional needs for
affection, comfort and stimulation.
The caregiver neglects the child's basic physical needs.
Stable attachments cannot form because of repeated changes of
caregiver (such as frequent changes of foster care).
It appears that the pathogenic care just described has caused the
disturbed behavior (for example, the behavior began after the
Specify type, based on predominant clinical presentation:
Inhibited Type. Failure to interact predominates.
Disinhibited Type. Indiscriminate sociability predominates.
-- American Psychiatric Association DSM-IV Sourcebook, Volume III
The DSM-IV also includes, beside environmental factors YOU wish to
blame solely, "persistent pathogenic care" we lay persons refer to
more casually as "bad ****in' parenting."
Only ONE of the criteria is "foster care" and it's pretty obvious that
"frequent" is the operative modifier. And the kind of care at each
move is critical. Much of the legislation and the practices of CPS are
deliberately aimed at reducing this and the other factors leading to
RAD. Many that YOU and your twit-squad piss and moan the loudest
Kids go into CPS care all the time already suffering from RAD. It's
rare that CPS causes it...it is NOT rare that CPS is unable to treat
it..because a permanent family must be found to do that...it cannot
happen anywhere else.
And Doug, most of the children that come to CPS are already suffering
from RAD because of the parenting issues mentioned above, and the ones
that brought that child into care....NEGLECT..the most predominate
cause...and one YOU'd like to see parents NOT involved so much with
CPS over...since police investigations aren't going to be much help in
psychological abuse and neglect cases.
It is far more complex than you suggest with your need to blame CPS
for a "move."
Yer so fulla'shit Doug...as long it serves to blame CPS. Tsk.
The cause of Reactive Attachment Disorder is not known. Most children
with this disorder have had severe problems or disruptions in their
early relationships. Many have been physically or emotionally abused
or neglected. Some have experienced inadequate care in an
institutional setting or other out-of-home placement (for example a
hospital, residential program, foster care or orphanage). Others have
had multiple or traumatic losses or changes in their primary
Diagnostic information follows:
You will find in the following ONE criteria that includes changes of
caregivers, but it does not rank over any other causative factor.
Doug, your glibe little outbursts of "expertise" so as to satisfy your
propagandist's agenda about CPS are not the behavior I expect from a
professional when it comes to matters of children and families.
This is a highly complex issue that deserves respectful treatment and
calls for a very very careful control by you of your CPS blame bias:
Although there has been much advancement in the clinical picture of
Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD) since the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd ed.; DSM-III; American
Psychiatric Association, 1980), there is still much to learn about the
relevant criteria needed to make an RAD diagnosis. The DSM IV
describes RAD using criteria such as persistent failure to respond in
a developmentally appropriate fashion to most social interactions,
meaning children with RAD are extremely inhibited, hypervigilant, or
highly ambivalent and show contradictory responses, such as avoidance
or resistance. Children with RAD fail to exhibit appropriate selective
attachments by being excessively familiar with strangers and are
developmentally inappropriate in social relatedness in most contexts
beginning before age 5 (American Psychiatric Association, 1994).
These criteria must not be strictly due to developmental delays as in
mental retardation, and they mustn't be a symptom of a pervasive
developmental disorder (American Psychiatric Association, 1994).
The final criterion, pathogenic care, must involve one of the
following: persistent disregard of the child's basic emotional needs
for comfort, stimulation and affection; Persistent disregard for the
child's basic physical needs; Repeated changes of primary caregiver
that prevent formation of stable attachments (American Psychiatric
The DSM IV has one category for two totally different clinical
pictures, whereas the International Classification of Diseases (10th
ed.; ICD-10); World Health Organization, 1992), the other diagnostic
tool used, separates RAD into two different categories. The DSM-IV
emphasizes the prevalence of abnormal social behavior, while the
ICD-10 emphasizes the importance of social responsiveness. The DSM-IV
excludes those with mental retardation and the ICD-10 makes no such
exclusion (Zeanah, 1996). The DSM-IV does, however, recognize RAD as
being one of the most severe forms of child psychopathology in terms
of attachment disturbances (Wilson, 2001). RAD is described by Reber
(1996) as the inability to form normal relationships with others and
an impairment in social development, marked by sociopathic behaviors
during early childhood. Although the known causes are limited, the
diagnoses are many. Reber (1996) cited a study that claims 1 million
children diagnosed with Reactive Attachment Disorder live in New York
City alone. This is disturbing, considering that the DSM-IV describes
RAD as a fairly uncommon behavioral disorder.
There are two subtypes of RAD described in the DSM-IV, the Inhibited
Type and the Disinhibited Type. Inhibited Type is characterized by a
persistent failure to initiate and respond to social interactions in a
developmentally appropriate manner. The Disinhibited Type is
characterized by indiscriminate sociability: The child fails to
discriminate attachment behaviors. There are many other features not
included in the diagnostic criteria that seem to be common in most
children diagnosed with RAD. These include lack of empathy, limited
eye contact, cruelty to animals, poor impulse control, lack of causal
thinking and conscience, abnormal speech patterns, and inappropriate
affection with strangers (Reber, 1996). Such behaviors are helpful for
parents to look for in early childhood, although early indicators can
be found in infancy, according to Wilson (2001). It is important to
note a weak crying response and/or an aversion to different textures,
marked stiffness or limp posturing. If such signs are present, it is
suggested that parents seek assessment and intervention in order to
facilitate healthy attachment and combat the emergence of RAD (Wilson,
These criteria have been criticized in the literature based on the
DSM-IV focus on social abnormalities rather than maladaptive
attachment behaviors. The inclusion of pathogenic parental care as one
of the three criteria, the requirement of cross-situational
consistency in symptom manifestation, and the representation of
maltreatment rather than attachment disorders fuels the argument that
the DSM-IV criteria de-emphasize the child's behaviors with the
attachment figure and focuses more on the "reactive" rather than on
the "attachment" nature of the disorder (Zeanah, 1996). Zeanah (1996)
proposed a new system of diagnosis, relying less on abnormal social
behavior and more on the attachment-exploration balance. By
incorporating this focus on attachment disturbance to the established
DSM-IV criteria, the population to which the RAD diagnosis could be
applied would expand, while the difficulty in determining social
functioning would be reduced. However, since the focus remains on
behavior, RAD appears to be similar to (and is often misdiagnosed as)
several other disorders of the DSM-IV : Conduct Disorder (CD),
Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD), Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
Disorder (ADHD), Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Adjustment
Disorder. On the other hand many children with CD, ODD, ADHD, PTSD and
Adjustment Disorder may be misdiagnosed as having RAD. These disorders
could be differentiated by using The Randolf Attachment Disorder
Questionnaire (RADQ). It is used as a screening tool for differential
diagnoses of children between the ages of 5 and 18 (Randolf 1997). The
RADQ is a 30-item parent report frequency checklist of various problem
behaviors observed throughout the preceding 2 years. It involves an
assessment with parent(s) and child together and separate in order to
help discriminate between an attachment disorder and other
psychological disturbances. The RADQ has been tested to assure
reliability and validity. It has been found to correlate positively
with the Behavioral and emotional Rating Scale (BERS) and the
Biophychosocial Attachment Types (BAT), which are well validated
standardized instruments in attachment assessment for those between
the ages of 6 and 18 years (Ogilvie, 2000).
RAD isn't a simple set of behaviors or reactions caused by "a move" Doug.
He may say that, but I'd like to discuss it with him clinically.
Children that have a good start are often quite hardy in their
capacity to have healthy attachments. This child has had 16 months in
one place, and the remainder in another. 3 years of apparently good
consistent caregiving. He may well be quite capable now, as are many
three year olds I've seen that got off to a good start. Two moves, one
right after birth at 3 month from most likely a very poor caregiver,
considering he and she tested positive for meth at his birth, are not
going to be very likely to cause RAD.
The only way I would feel confident of predicting RAD in a child is if
they were subjected to constant change of caregiver, such as in an
institution with shift workers. That will pretty much do it for the
majority of children. Premies are at risk for this...that's why
parents come for bonding time.
Before makins such a prediction an assessment of this child is called
for, not someone blathering from a soap box, no matter how many
letters he may have behind his name.
Making this kind of a diagnositic "the sky is falling" prediction is
NOT professional conduct.
Moves, by themselves, at 3 years of age, are NOT going to by any
default, cause RAD, as is suggested by the snippette you provided.
I would presume the "expert" was quoted out of context...let's hope,
or other professionals in the field are just going to be chuckling.
The child MAY be at risk, but certainly NOT like the expert above is
as saying; "WILL cause more damage." [emphasis mine]
It is easy, and It's happened to me, to have my remarks edited in such
a way that what I actually said had little to do with the quoted
snippet that got in the media. He may well have mentioned OTHER damage
possibilities, such as greaving, and the reporter when on his title of
expertise in RAD and made the connection. Very common to those with
lousy, or biased thinking.
The Baklids have stated the Delks didn't come forward until later in
the process. The Delks have said DCF knew they wanted to adopt
Christian just weeks after he was placed with the Baklids. The
appellate court said DCF acknowledged state delays in the case in
getting a home study in Tennessee and 'paperwork errors.'
What we don't know is if those delays were about getting the Baklids
homestudy done, or paperwork errors with them, or the Delks.
Sloppy reporting, but more grist for your blame mill.
You have no way of assessing that except by a media piece innuendo.
You are a fit compantion for Fern.
I've read every single thing in that article about and from the state
child welfare agency...not a single thing establishes how they felt.
Or how they acted that would brand it "callous." They, as you know,
are required to maintain some professional distance, or like a
twittery surgeon, they can do more harm to the patient trying to
"save" them from pain and the surgical scar.
My own surgeon was a brute...the scar is over two feet long. I lost a
lot of muscle tissue, I also got, a few months, then a few years,
later, a clean bill of health.
CPS can ALWAYS be labelled as "callous," and you can get away with it
in this setting. I'd like to see you do it in the office spaces of a
CPS office like you do here. You'd last about three minutes....they
ARE polite. Then you'd be buried under about five hundred caserecords.
Doug, you are a liar. Plain and simple.
They did nothing to suppress the voice of the foster caregivers. Not
in THIS article. Do you have another source of information?
R R R R .....CPS simply refused to allow them to adopt. A 16 month
stay in foster care, in some states, does not even pass the statute
for intervenor status. Some states have reduced it to 6 months, but I
think that's a farce and very very unfair to the bio parent client. As
well as to the relatives that might be also trying to adopt. One of my
states where I helped relatives did that. The results of my explosion
over that are still felt in CPS offices in that state. I am still
writing periodically to the capitol...the governor, the legislature,
the admin of CPS there.
Their application to adopt was turned down. They had just about as
much time with the child as the relatives. 16 months is not a long
time in a case. Especially one with relatives and foster parents vying
for the same child.
If CPS had to stop and give every foster parent "a voice," there would
be no other work done at CPS. They are often very outspoken, and
demanding. Sometimes it's about the children, and sadly, sometimes
it's not really. It's about their own wants.
Nice sob story approach. More subtle than your, "poor innocent little child" number.
What is "the enemy" here, Doug, is the enemy of truth...you.
The complexity of such cases often results in reports in the media
that are based on the quick attention getting blurb, and fails to
include the complexities and the actions of all parties that lent to
the time lagging problem.
The court dates set in the future is a big one. CPS has nothing to do
with that. They do not keep the docket.
Courts in my state run from 6 to nine months from petition to court
date. Funding cutbacks in 2002 and 2003 caused much of it. Court
staffs were cut by as much as a third. Judges are seen doing their own
clerical work. I appealed to the largest law school in the area to see
if they could work study some of the students in to do some clerking.
It only picked up a small piece.
I hear reports my states are not the only ones with this problem.
Ah, more appeals to emotion. Increases readership, and sells ad space.
Yep, that's one third of his current life. Let's hope it isn't one
third of his entire life.
Critical thinking, in fact, thinking at all, makes Levy's statement
The evil sick attack you make on CPS in this instance is
unconscionable. You have no way of knowing all the possible blocks to
a speedy resolution they had to deal with.
They, for instance, can't stop anyone from petitioning them or the
court for advocacy or intervenor status. The mere act of doing so
completely changes time lines.
There seems to be no end to the ugly unwarranted insulting things you
do here, Doug. Any wonder I call you names?
You appear to be a deliberate spoiler, rather than a dedicated
For all we know CPS acted in an exemplory manner in this case. A media
trial of CPS is very easy to pull off, as they cannot defend
themselves...not even offer reasons for their decisions that include
information about clients, or stakeholders.
Hell, they've done it to me. I've known the details of cases from
relatives. And when I put them to CPS KNOWING they had ample cause to
and easy ways to defend their actions......they refuse to answer. They
will NOT spend time defending themselves even when it is easy.
How do WE know the ****nal foster family wasn't turned down for
cause...that they actually did something unacceptable for a child's
We don't, because it's all confidential..but it does give you and your
twit-squad room and ammunition to insinuate.
Shame on you.
Shame on you.
Shame on you.
16th August 13:44
Posts by fern are FACTS DENIED! - Cross posted from ASFP (personality psychology job)
I just hit the reply group button when replying to all posts and will
continue to do so.
Nope. After the system bounced the child back and forth between two
caregivers, kin and strangers, it ends up placing him with strangers. The
system failed this child. CPS is certainly part of the system and make its
share of mistakes, don't you think?
What kind? LOL! We are not like chips or donuts. There is only one flavor
or kind that I know of. Are you asking what my speciality was in school?
Good child welfare practice requires oversight and checks and balances.
Good government, as our Founding Fathers demanded, requires checks and
balances from different branches of government. It is imperative that
judges hear both all sides to contested placements and make a decision based
on the best interests of the children involved rather than decide a child's
future based on the singular opinion of the CPS worker or her agency.
Judges serve as objective third parties to hear the evidence of all
litigants. They are not social workers and would probably do a horrible job
at it. That's probably what makes them good judges.
Yes, cousins are family. As are aunts and uncles. Family advocates have
been complaining for years that courts simply rubber stamp CPS/DCF
recommendations. Florida has now moved to stop that practice to some extent
and allow the judges do what they are supposed to do.
A telling statement. Thank you. Many of the rest of us would prefer to
have the judge make a decision based on the evidence presented rather than
simply rubber stamp the recommendations of child protective agency workers.
Child abuse and neglect does not increase because we require our judges not
to rubber stamp the position of one of the litigants in her courtroom.
The legislature was not talking about foster caregivers running to the
media. The Florida legislature was talking about foster caregivers having a
say so in court. Part of the particulars of this case was that the hearing
judge would not listen to the foster caregivers and DCF had policy *******
the foster caregivers. The legislature whacked that policy.
The foster caregiver got the ear of the court ONLY after the appeals court
found DCF's policy and the hearing judges' refusal to hear the foster
caregivers wrong. The appeals court sent the case back to the hearing
judge, demanding he hear the foster caregivers. Meanwhile, the child
involved stayed with the party DCF chose and the judge rubber-stamped in the
foster caregiver's silence. After now hearing the foster caregiver, the
judge ordered the child to once again be removed -- this time from the
kin -- and bounced back to the foster caregiver.
The case should have been handled differently from the get go. The judge
should not have rubber stamped DCF's recommendation, but instead listened to
all sides of the controversy and made a decision based on what was in the
best interests of the child.
The adults and the assorted government identies have had a great time
litigating their power trips. But no one thought about the child's best
interests. One of the caregivers won and judges that will hear future cases
won. But the child lost.
Children often lose in the child welfare industry, regardless of which adults prevail.
Nope. The battle between the executive and the judicial. The issue of
rubber stamping and the requirement -- since changed by the Florida
legislature -- that the judge not have the power to overrule a DCF recommendation.
No slip here or previously. You were just not paying attention to the
discussion or didn't read the article. Or perhaps you did both and are just
repeating another empty, name-calling charge as you repeatedly do.
No, not the only factor. Other variables can be involved as factors in RAD,
according to the DSM-IV. It depends on the individual, of course. So-called
"foster care bounce" or repeated moves from caregiver to caregiver is the most common.
Come on. What do you want, the DSM -IV criteria for the diagnosis? It
clearly states that multiple caregivers and multiple moves is a factor in
RAD. Other emotional disorders can be caused by this disruption in early
life. Surely you must know that. Or do you?
It is one of the criteria in the DSM-IV, and it is taught in graduate
schools of social work and psychology. Your claim is false.
Yes. And this, according the the clinical psychologist and expert in
attachment disorders, was very disruptive to the child. This is one of the
factors that cause attachment disorders. As I have said, and as is taught
to those who are persuing graduate degrees to practice clinically, moves
back and forth between substitute caregivers is one of the causal factors to
Reactive Attachment Disorder.
"Terry Levy, a clinical psychologist in Colorado and an international
speaker on attachment disorder, said it's not right to penalize a child if
decided it made the wrong decision a year ago. If Christian now
psychologically considers his cousins his parents, he said moving him will
cause more damage."
"One year in the life of a 3-year-old is a lot of time," Levy said. "That's
one third of his life."
Time will tell whether he will develop RAD. The clinical psychologist and
expert on attachment disorders said that the moves caused this child emotional damage.
I presume you are not licensed to diagnoise. Further, it would be terribly
inaccurate to diagnose on the basis of a newsgroup discussion. Still
further, it is impossible to predictably diagnose ("It won't be RAD"). No
one knows at this point whether this child has or will have RAD. That would
be up to a therapist to decide upon meeting with this child later.
You have only mentioned some of the presenting behaviors. There are others.
I would yield to the opinions of the clinical psychologist and expert on attachment disorders.
No confusion here. You appear to be confused and most definately
passionately serving a bias.
Nope. You have made similar statements about RAD before. You were as
incorrect then about the disorder as you are now.
Yes, I am aware of such children. I have worked with them.
This is a amateur newsgroup-like discussion, for godsakes. Mom is correct
that some therapists take a dim view of attachment disorders, however, and
are reluctant to diagnose it. I can understand the misgivings.
Apparently there was time apart due to the child's hospitalization and some
other variables. Apparently some clinicians contacted by the author
questioned whether her child had RAD.
Not at all. I accurately summarized the pertinent part of the DSM-IV I was
discussing and accurately explained how this factor is operational in RAD.
You are coming close here, so I would advise you to be careful in this area.
Truth is a defense. Yours is a false claim.
Actually, multiple changes in caregiver is a primary factor and often one of
the few, or sole factor. Muliple caregivers or institutional caregivers
(like group homes or treatment facilities) can be the prevelent causual factor to RAD.
Since children are often diagnosed with the disorder while in foster care,
clinicians often find that onset occurred while in foster care or partially
as the result of the trauma connected with removal. In other situations,
the time-order problem makes determination of onset impossible, but
variables that contribute to the disorder are present in the current
environment. It is highly debatable that the majority or even a sizable
minority of children come into state care already suffering from RAD. The
experience of most clincians would support a polar opposite argument -- that
onset occurred in state care.
You are incorrect. ....NEGLECT..the most predominate
Most child welfare issues are more complex than those points discussed here.
Most mental illnesses are more complex than what is generally spoken about
in newsgroups. For instance, you have diagnosed those you disagree with
with an array of improbable disorders like borderline personality disorder
based upon what they write in posts. <g>
I didn't say that this factor ranked above others. Either did the clinical
psychologist who commented about the damage done to the three year old in
this story. But it was said that it was a factor. A big factor.
Are you denying that it is a factor?
My comments are what a professional may expect from a professional. I hope
you understand that I could care less what you may expect. I disagree with
you regarding your positions on issues regarding children and their
families. Live with it or not. It's up to you.
But surely you understand I am not here to meet your expectations. <g>
You don't think our discussion here is "respectful treatment"? If not,
please feel free to stop at any time. I feel that my contributions are
respectful, so I will continue them.
It remains to be seen whether Christian will present with these behaviors.
Absolutely. The diagnosis cannot be made if there are indications of
developmental delays or the possiblity of them -- in which case, the
diagnosis is deferred on Axis II.
Multiple caregivers is one of the factors. This is the only factor
mentioned in the article. There could be, of course, other contributing
factors that were not addressed in the article. However, as Levy says, the
facts in this case certainly brought about risk of one of the contributing
factors to attachment disorders.
Levy disagrees. He is a clinical psychologists and national expert on attachment disorders.
Precisely. So why are you blathering in this newsgroup without the letters
after your name?
Precisely what I said above. Did you read it?
You took Levy's quote to "suggest" that. Neither he or I made any
Of course forcibly removing a 3-year-old child from caregivers he has lived
for the half of his life will cause emotional damage to that child. How
callous can you be, Kane? Of course this child will suffer emotional damage
from this move. That is a certainty.
16th August 13:44
|Re: Posts by fern are FACTS DENIED! - Cross posted from ASFP
Because now Cain stated he worked in the MH field.
Let's see how many careers has Kane had?
Or, more likely, how many shill games has he played with his abusive braying?
Doug honestly and straightforwardly brings up considerations noted with FC for