This post is in response to comments made about a prior post where it was suggested that a child adopted at birth is not at risk for attachment disorder. Some respondees agreed, others didn’t. The purpose of this post is not to make anyone wrong or right or to score points, but I thought it raised an interesting question which I throw open to my followers.
From everything I’ve read by the experts, such as Nancy Newton Verrier, David Brodzinsky and others, that primal wound – the broken attachment at birth – can be the source of a lifelong void in many, but not all, adoptees. The fact that there was an immediate hand-off in the delivery room from birth mother to adoptive parents is not necessarily a cure, in my opinion. Wouldn’t that child, in the back of his or her mind, always wonder about the people who gave them life yet couldn’t be there to parent them, for whatever reason?
I do agree, however, that the longer the child is separated from a devoted caregiver, the worse it is for the child. Children, like Casey, who’d been institutionalized often have difficulties adapting to a new life beyond the institution that had been the only “home” they ever knew.
So with that, I throw this open to my readers. What do you think? 
Written By John Brooks
SJS Contributor
This post was originally posted at http://parentingandattachment.com/2013/08/26/is-someone-at-risk-for-an-attachment-disorder-if-adopted-at-birth/ and has been syndicated with permission of the author.
Sources:
Our authors want to hear from you! Click to leave a comment
Related Posts
The American Academy of Pediatrics recently came out with a new guide that says “Assume that all children who have been adopted or fostered have experienced trauma.”
While a newborn is not an adult, there are still sensations, feelings and experiences that cannot be processed and categorized as adults since they do not have the verbal ability to do so. They cannot even form concrete memories and save the fleeting thoughts for later, but there can, I do believe, be a sense of what is NOT right. Yes, they DO look for their mothers voice, they do look for what they know and they can be “not right” in not finding that comfort. Can that overwhelming feeling of “not right” turn into something greater? The hundreds of adoptees I do know say yes.
I also think there is not enough study into the pre-birth connection between mother and child and the feeling of a crisis pregnancy, the knowledge of the pending adoption separation coming after birth, and the disassociation promoted by many adoption agencies can, IMO, also be contributing factors.
I personally would LOVE the Primal Wound to be untrue; the knowledge that my sad and unnecessary decision to relinquish my own son could have in any way harmed him is a horrible thing to live with, but even if I don;t like it or want it to be true, I must accept the reality that adoption separation was not good for him.
The fact that current adoption practices in this country really DO look to be harming the very children they claim to help should be of greater concern!I see the delivery room hand off as something that really caters more to the desires of the paying client, the adoptive family, in allowing them to “experience” everything. Even the presence of the adoptive parents in the delivery room is unethical IMO.
If adoption was truly child centered, then we would ensure that mothers and babies had that special time together after birth, when they hormonal connections for both are occurring. Adoption is a societal construct and a legal transfer of parental rights. The signing of the papers does not alter the natural occurrence of post birth hormones for mother and child, but retards them. We don’t take puppies and kittens away form their mothers until they are six weeks old. Our government accepts through federal disability laws that a mother requires 6 weeks post delivery to recovery physically from a normal birth. So why are we separating mothers and newborns before it is humanly necessary?
There is no valid scientific evidence for the notion of “primal wound.”
Child development researchers, on the other hand, have noted that attachment behaviors begin around 8 months of age. This may be the time when the infant is able to understand the concept of the individual. Attachment forms from shared good experiences.
“Primal wound” concepts, promoted as valid, can potentially cause a nocebo effect. That would be unfortunate because we know that adoptive families, in general, work out better than biological families. But it pseudoscientific notions can cause all sorts of harm, including discouraging people from adopting.
The fetus is exposed to the same neurochemicals as the pregnant mother. Therefore, if a mother experiences significant distress for whatever reason while carrying her child, the child will experience distress as well. Since giving a child over for adoption often accompanies distressing circumstances and can in itself be a distressing decision, any child who is adopted is likely to exhibit difficulty with attachment due to a neurochemical imbalance. So while the adoption itself might not cause difficulties with attachment, there is a high correlation with children who are placed for adoption exhibiting attachment disorders. The most important point, in my opinion, though, is that these attachment difficulties can be overcome with proper intervention and support to the child and family.
Good way of explaining, and pleasant paragraph to obtain data about my presentation subject, which i am going to
convey in school.