Babies, emotions and brain development

Have been reading a fascinating book by Sue Gerhardt, 'Why love matters'. Gerhardt is a psychotherapist who has been doing much work with babies and their mothers, and in this book collects much current research on babies and the effect of love, or otherwise, on their development. Not only does love make babies feel all warm inside, but it also directly affects their brain development, and the size of different parts of their brain, so they can deal better with stress throughout their lives. The window of opportunity for building an emotionally stable child/adult is past by the age of 2.

Gerhardt calls it 'regulating' when parents, usually mothers, help babies understand how they feel, are responsive to their needs, and provide whatever support the baby needs. It's not just that children need to be with their mothers (or other
permanent carer), but that this carer also responds adequately to the
child's needs. If the baby is thus made to feel secure, as a child and adult he or she can deal with most things life throws at them. If, however, infancy involves stress - no-one alleviates hunger, thirst, boredom, or worse, or the baby is left to cry because 'it's good for the lungs', or 'time there was some discipline', this leads to a permanently raised cortisol level, which inhibits the growth of parts of the brain, and later in life can cause people to explode at seemingly trivial matters. Nowadays all these things can be explained and proven by imagining techniques, which is a huge advantage on guesswork, and even on John Bowlby's attachment theory - effectively, it now even more scientifically confirms his research findings on children, who had attachment problems with their mothers.

She describes some of the (often adult) consequences of poor baby-regulating, for example:

• some babies may feel that they are not allowed to have feelings that their parent might not like, and thus have a level of unfulfilled need that even in adulthood can lead to a high level of dependency, and an inability to realise their own feelings in interactions with others, by trying to be too nice or too strong.
• babies who are not well-regulated grow into the thugs of tomorrow; Gerhardt suggests that already by the age of 2 the absence of positive affection can lead to later problems, especially if combined with a harsh parenting style. My experience of working with poor families, and with children in primary schools confirms this view - by 4 (school age in Scotland) it was already clear which children had more problems.
• poor parenting is passed on, not through genes, but because the parents themselves have not been well treated. Thus you get trouble-some families of the kind you see on 'Supernanny' every week.

Add to the babies whose mothers are unable to provide good parenting, those who lose their mothers, especially those who are placed in infant homes, and you have a recipe for disaster.

The solution? She suggests psychotherapy (she is one). But really, given the time that takes, and the very limited availability and funding, is anyone but a rich family or individual able to indulge in this? Poor families, especially in the UK, have no chance - they are just given ritalin for their lively children (the level of prescription in Scotland has risen nine-fold in 7 years,with 6% of children treated with this (a third of the rate of the US!). Seems to give a message - don't bother parenting, give the kid a pill. Horrifying!

The book is really quite technical, and not necessarily one that harassed new mothers can read easily. But it is a fantastic resource and a severe warning, that nothing is good enough for your baby.

'Addiction to the Internet is an Illness'

tells us today's Observer.

Right.

The computer is going off (at 17.10) for the rest of the day, as soon as I have asked a question of my tutor.

Children are resilient?

Story on the Beeb today reports that US research has shown that children of anxious or depressed parents are more often sick. British consultants pooh-pooh the idea saying that 'children are highly resilient' and parents are not to worry.

Not convinced about that. Own experiences and some research I have done (the research admittedly being at the extreme end of child welfare problems) suggest that children are extremely sensitive to their parents' condition. Do they really think that stressed or depressed parents can hide their feelings so well that they can act relaxed with the children and that those don't notice? I don't think so - it must be even worse if children have never experienced their parents happy and relaxed.

Psychiatrists working with mothers with post-natal depression certainly worry about this enough because it can really interfere with the bonding of children and mothers. And, as we know, (as I know), bonding problems, and even more changes in carers in children's lives, especially in the first years, can interfere very significantly not only with their emotional development, but can also effectly wreck their future level of educational achievement (an infant who lacks proper attachment does not develop a certain part of his or her brain). Imagine, for example, children who are constantly moved around, from (often disturbed) parent to foster placement, back to parent, to another foster placement and so on. They haven't got a chance! (I will climb off my high horse now). There's a whole school of research into this, in connection with attachment theory and reactive attachment disorder. Google them.

People always say that children are resilient, particularly as they divorce - it makes the parents feel better, I guess. But the hidden damage in the children? Losing a parent is traumatic enough, and living with the remaining parent who may be anxious or depressed - and worrying about losing this parent, too - is far from easy for children.