If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
| Posts by fern are FACTS DENIED! - Cross posted from ASFP
On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 12:48:57 -0500, "Doug" wrote:
.....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 ****ter over your ugly behavior here............ Ron cut and pasted a long article (in thread) and writes: Let's get the entire thing in here shall we fern? If you are going to post the article, dont snip the parts that tell the rest of the story and dont sybscribe to your preudices about the system. DCF was all for moving this child in with his second cousins, they even denied the adoption petittion of the prospective adoptive parents. Hi, Ron! Thanks for posting the newsstory. It is encouraging to note that some of the problems the case brought to mind have since been corrected, but sad to learn how the system continues to slight the best interests of a three year old child. 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? Partially as the result of this case, the Florida legislature limited the powers of DCF in removing foster children from kin and stranger caregivers and gave the courts more power in overruling the child protective reccomendations. R R R R...oh that's going to improve things..for sure. Judges are such good social workers....r r r r r . Family advocates have been complaining for years that courts simply rubber stamp DCF recommendations. Unnn...douggie, the cousins ARE family. As the result of this case, Florida took steps to temper that rubber stamp and allow judges in some circumstances to ignore the reccommendations of the child protective agency and make their own decision. Imagine that. Oh, I do. I've watched it cause infanticide, more abuse and neglect for many years now in states where it's true. The Florida legislature also forced DCF to take the gags off foster caregivers mouths and allow them a say when DCF has forcibly removed their wards. 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? Yet the story does not have a happy ending for the child, which it should have been all about from the beginning. Okay, Solomon, what would be the happy ending you'd recommend? This was all about the power struggle of adults warring for custody and the political fight among different brances of government for power over one another. 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 poppycock. As an expert on children's attachment disorders said in the article, 3-year-old Christian is being moved yet again. Now here comes the big lie. Watch his hands folks. The movement of foster children between caregivers 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. leads to Reactive Attachment Disorder and other major emotional disorders defined in DSM-IV. 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. Care is. 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 to spouse. "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: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biologicalradkids/ 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 circumstances 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 behavior..very. Here is exactly what is said the " DSM-IV 313.89: Reactive Attachment Disorder of Infancy or Early Childhood 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 Developmental Disorder. 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 pathogenic behavior). 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 **** and moan the loudest about. 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'**** Doug...as long it serves to blame CPS. Tsk. http://library.adoption.com/Reactive...le/2046/1.html " 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 caregiver. " Diagnostic information follows: http://ac.marywood.edu/benedict/www/rad.htm You will find in the following ONE criteria that includes changes of caregivers, but it does not rank over any other causative factor. http://ac.marywood.edu/benedict/www/radoverview.htm 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: " RAD Overview 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 Association, 1994). 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, 2001). 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. "Terry Levy, a clinical psychologist in Colorado and an international speaker on attachment disorder, said it's not right to penalize a child if the court 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." 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. Unfortunately, the child protective bureaucracy delayed the process through admitted "errors" and handling paperwork. " 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. The agency took a callous approach 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. in refusing to allow the foster caregivers a voice, They did nothing to suppress the voice of the foster caregivers. Not in THIS article. Do you have another source of information? forcing the appeals court to step in and order a rehearing. 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. Time is the enemy to these kinds of cases. Each day that goes by with a child's future undecided is an assault upon that child. Nice sob story approach. More subtle than your, "poor innocent little child" number. Institutional child abuse. 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. "One year in the life of a 3-year-old is a lot of time," Levy said. "That's one third of his life." 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 rather absurd. 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. Doug 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 reformer. 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 orginal foster family wasn't turned down for cause...that they actually did something unacceptable for a child's safety? 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. Kane |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"kane" writes:
....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 ****ter over your ugly behavior here............ Hi, Kane! I just hit the reply group button when replying to all posts and will continue to do so. I had written: Thanks for posting the newsstory. It is encouraging to note that some of the problems the case brought to mind have since been corrected, but sad to learn how the system continues to slight the best interests of a three year child. Oh! By supporting leaving him with kin? Where he's been for some months now? And he's only three? 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 of a social worker ARE you, Doug? 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? Partially as the result of this case, the Florida legislature limited the powers of DCF in removing foster children from kin and stranger caregivers and gave the courts more power in overruling the child protective reccomendations. R R R R...oh that's going to improve things..for sure. Judges are such good social workers....r r r r r . 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. Family advocates have been complaining for years that courts simply rubber stamp DCF recommendations. Unnn...douggie, the cousins ARE family. 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. As the result of this case, Florida took steps to temper that rubber stamp and allow judges in some circumstances to ignore the reccommendations of the child protective agency and make their own decision. Imagine that. Oh, I do. I've watched it cause infanticide, more abuse and neglect for many years now in states where it's true. 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 Florida legislature also forced DCF to take the gags off foster caregivers mouths and allow them a say when DCF has forcibly removed their wards. Please define a nonforcable removal..and why CPS must have the freedom to move children without foster parents running to the media. 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 gagging the foster caregivers. The legislature whacked that policy. 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? 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. Yet the story does not have a happy ending for the child, which it should have been all about from the beginning. Okay, Solomon, what would be the happy ending you'd recommend? 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. This was all about the power struggle of adults warring for custody and the political fight among different brances of government for power over one another. 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? 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. You sure are slipping in your misleading poppycock. 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. As an expert on children's attachment disorders said in the article, 3-year-old Christian is being moved yet again. Now here comes the big lie. Watch his hands folks. The movement of foster children between caregivers 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. 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. leads to Reactive Attachment Disorder and other major emotional disorders defined in DSM-IV. Please defend this contention, and include those "other major emotional disorders defined in DSM-IV." 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? 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. Care is. 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. 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 to spouse. "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. 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 the court 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." 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. 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, 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. 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. Don't confuse people with your ignorance and biases Doug. It could be very bad for children in their care. No confusion here. You appear to be confused and most definately passionately serving a bias. You've tried to pull this nonsense about RAD before and I had to correct you. Shame on you. Nope. You have made similar statements about RAD before. You were as incorrect then about the disorder as you are now. 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: Yes, I am aware of such children. I have worked with them. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biologicalradkids/ 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 circumstances 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! 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. 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. " 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. And Doug, your simplistic notions peddled here with the attempt to attach the authority of the DSM-IV are questionable professional behavior..very. 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. Here is exactly what is said the " DSM-IV 313.89: Reactive Attachment Disorder of Infancy or Early Childhood 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 Developmental Disorder. 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 pathogenic behavior). 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 **** and moan the loudest about. 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. 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. 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. 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.... You are incorrect. ....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." 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 Yer so fulla'**** Doug...as long it serves to blame CPS. Tsk. http://library.adoption.com/Reactive...le/2046/1.html " 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 caregiver. " Diagnostic information follows: http://ac.marywood.edu/benedict/www/rad.htm You will find in the following ONE criteria that includes changes of caregivers, but it does not rank over any other causative factor. http://ac.marywood.edu/benedict/www/radoverview.htm 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? 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. 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 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: 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. RAD Overview 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). It remains to be seen whether Christian will present with these behaviors. 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). 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. 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 Association, 1994). 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, 2001). 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. 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. "Terry Levy, a clinical psychologist in Colorado and an international speaker on attachment disorder, said it's not right to penalize a child if the court 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." 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. Levy disagrees. He is a clinical psychologists and national expert on attachment disorders. 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. Precisely. So why are you blathering in this newsgroup without the letters after your name? Making this kind of a diagnositic "the sky is falling" prediction is NOT professional conduct. Precisely what I said above. Did you read it? 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. You took Levy's quote to "suggest" that. Neither he or I made any predictive diagnosis. 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] Of course forcibly removing a 3-year-old child from caregivers he has lived with 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. Doug |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 years: Subject: | Posts by fern are FACTS DENIED! - Cross posted from ASFP From: (kane) Date: 11/5/2004 5:40 PM Eastern Standard Time Message-id: On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 12:48:57 -0500, "Doug" wrote: ....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 ****ter over your ugly behavior here............ Ron cut and pasted a long article (in thread) and writes: Let's get the entire thing in here shall we fern? If you are going to post the article, dont snip the parts that tell the rest of the story and dont sybscribe to your preudices about the system. DCF was all for moving this child in with his second cousins, they even denied the adoption petittion of the prospective adoptive parents. Hi, Ron! Thanks for posting the newsstory. It is encouraging to note that some of the problems the case brought to mind have since been corrected, but sad to learn how the system continues to slight the best interests of a three year old child. 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? Partially as the result of this case, the Florida legislature limited the powers of DCF in removing foster children from kin and stranger caregivers and gave the courts more power in overruling the child protective reccomendations. R R R R...oh that's going to improve things..for sure. Judges are such good social workers....r r r r r . Family advocates have been complaining for years that courts simply rubber stamp DCF recommendations. Unnn...douggie, the cousins ARE family. As the result of this case, Florida took steps to temper that rubber stamp and allow judges in some circumstances to ignore the reccommendations of the child protective agency and make their own decision. Imagine that. Oh, I do. I've watched it cause infanticide, more abuse and neglect for many years now in states where it's true. The Florida legislature also forced DCF to take the gags off foster caregivers mouths and allow them a say when DCF has forcibly removed their wards. 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? Yet the story does not have a happy ending for the child, which it should have been all about from the beginning. Okay, Solomon, what would be the happy ending you'd recommend? This was all about the power struggle of adults warring for custody and the political fight among different brances of government for power over one another. 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 poppycock. As an expert on children's attachment disorders said in the article, 3-year-old Christian is being moved yet again. Now here comes the big lie. Watch his hands folks. The movement of foster children between caregivers 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. leads to Reactive Attachment Disorder and other major emotional disorders defined in DSM-IV. 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. Care is. 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 to spouse. "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: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biologicalradkids/ 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 circumstances 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 behavior..very. Here is exactly what is said the " DSM-IV 313.89: Reactive Attachment Disorder of Infancy or Early Childhood 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 Developmental Disorder. 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 pathogenic behavior). 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 **** and moan the loudest about. 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'**** Doug...as long it serves to blame CPS. Tsk. http://library.adoption.com/Reactive...D/Reactive-Att achment-Disorder/article/2046/1.html " 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 caregiver. " Diagnostic information follows: http://ac.marywood.edu/benedict/www/rad.htm You will find in the following ONE criteria that includes changes of caregivers, but it does not rank over any other causative factor. http://ac.marywood.edu/benedict/www/radoverview.htm 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: " RAD Overview 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 Association, 1994). 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, 2001). 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. "Terry Levy, a clinical psychologist in Colorado and an international speaker on attachment disorder, said it's not right to penalize a child if the court 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." 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. Unfortunately, the child protective bureaucracy delayed the process through admitted "errors" and handling paperwork. " 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. The agency took a callous approach 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. in refusing to allow the foster caregivers a voice, They did nothing to suppress the voice of the foster caregivers. Not in THIS article. Do you have another source of information? forcing the appeals court to step in and order a rehearing. 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. Time is the enemy to these kinds of cases. Each day that goes by with a child's future undecided is an assault upon that child. Nice sob story approach. More subtle than your, "poor innocent little child" number. Institutional child abuse. 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. "One year in the life of a 3-year-old is a lot of time," Levy said. "That's one third of his life." 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 rather absurd. 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. Doug 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 reformer. 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 orginal foster family wasn't turned down for cause...that they actually did something unacceptable for a child's safety? 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. Kane |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking | Kane | Spanking | 63 | November 17th 03 10:12 PM |