aliceBB Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/fathers-angered-by-psychologists-claims-that-underfives-are-damaged-by-sleepovers-with-their-separated-fathers-9537861.html?origin=internalSearch A leading child psychologist claims that pre-school children of separated/divorced parents should not stay overnight with their fathers as it damages their mental development and their bond with the mother. But how can anyone know whether Penelope Leach is correct or not, without research based on lots of identical twins of separated parents, where one twin is allowed to stay with their father, and the other one, not? That aside, surely the child's sense of security depends more on the competence and loving care of whichever parent is looking after them? Leach assumes that the important bond is with the mother - a bit of a slap in the face for all those fathers who bring children up as single parents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
natjack Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 What about if they sleep over at grandparents, other relatives or carers? Does that damage the bond as well, or only if it's their dad? Sounds a bit farfetched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghozer Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 I think it's more damaging to not have one of your parents... My dad left when I was very young (before I was 5) and my step dad was violent.. I didn't have a father figure in my life at all through ages 7-18 until I managed to get back in touch with my dad myself (my step dad had "warned" him away) I wish I had a father figure growing up, my mum did her best but being disabled (registered blind), raising me (ADHD / Autistic) and my 1/2 sister (also disabled, registered partially sighted) was a very difficult task for her... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/fathers-angered-by-psychologists-claims-that-underfives-are-damaged-by-sleepovers-with-their-separated-fathers-9537861.html?origin=internalSearch A leading child psychologist claims that pre-school children of separated/divorced parents should not stay overnight with their fathers as it damages their mental development and their bond with the mother. But how can anyone know whether Penelope Leach is correct or not, without research based on lots of identical twins of separated parents, where one twin is allowed to stay with their father, and the other one, not? That aside, surely the child's sense of security depends more on the competence and loving care of whichever parent is looking after them? Leach assumes that the important bond is with the mother - a bit of a slap in the face for all those fathers who bring children up as single parents. What you have to remember is that an awful lot of psychology is nothing but pseudoscience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 I think it's more damaging to not have one of your parents... My dad left when I was very young (before I was 5) and my step dad was violent.. I didn't have a father figure in my life at all through ages 7-18 until I managed to get back in touch with my dad myself (my step dad had "warned" him away) I wish I had a father figure growing up, my mum did her best but being disabled (registered blind), raising me (ADHD / Autistic) and my 1/2 sister (also disabled, registered partially sighted) was a very difficult task for her... I think it depends on the parent. I know situations where the absent parent was absent because they were violent to the other parent and the child, and with the best will in the world, it's far better for the child not to have contact with the absent parent. A single parent I know saw her ex go down the line for four years for sexual activity with an under- 13 year old child. He's due to be released later this year. The partner cannot have contact with their child until he is eighteen, because of the conviction. I have no problem at all with this ruling. It's different strokes for different folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Ms Leach strongly defended her position last night, arguing that "being a father is not a reward for good behaviour". ..nor is being a mother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SevenRivers Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 My parents divorced when I was 7 and my Dad got custody of us. He was a crap cook, the best he could manage were fish fingers, beans, hoops and ravioli. But by 'eck I always knew my Dad was a grafter, working full time on shifts while still looking after us and holding it all together. My Dad was/is an inspiration for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliceBB Posted June 16, 2014 Author Share Posted June 16, 2014 What you have to remember is that an awful lot of psychology is nothing but pseudoscience. Well, some of it is academically established and well-researched, but I am astonished by this claim. It's bizarre. Surely what destabilises a young child's life is having his/her parents split up and one of them leave the family home - being piggy in the middle between two warring parents is hardly a recipe for security and happiness. But if both parents, after the separation, can maintain a good relationship with the child if not with each other, it has to be better than one of them disappearing completely...doesn't it? Perhaps what is important is that both parents follow the same rules (re food, routines, bedtimes, treats, etc) and don't try to score points off the other by trying to be the one who spoils the child. ..nor is being a mother. I would agree with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfish1936 Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 How much of this is based on studies of a large number of children taken at random, and how much on "Some of the children I've met have been harmed ...." type of reasoning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 Well, some of it is academically established and well-researched, but I am astonished by this claim. It's bizarre. Surely what destabilises a young child's life is having his/her parents split up and one of them leave the family home - being piggy in the middle between two warring parents is hardly a recipe for security and happiness. But if both parents, after the separation, can maintain a good relationship with the child if not with each other, it has to be better than one of them disappearing completely...doesn't it? Perhaps what is important is that both parents follow the same rules (re food, routines, bedtimes, treats, etc) and don't try to score points off the other by trying to be the one who spoils the child. So's subjects like history, but I wouldn't call them scientific. I'd put psychology into this bracket. Psychology is interesting in a way sociology is interesting and it fuels debate, but I wouldn't accept it's claims with the same confidence that I would scientific based subjects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.