Robertson Films Home Page
THE PSYCHOLOGICAL PARENT
THE
CONCEPT of the psychological parent (Goldstein,
Freud and Solnit, 1973) is a useful one. Whoever loves and looks after a young
child in the early years, whether she is the blood mother, adoptive mother or
foster-mother, becomes the object of the child’s deepest feelings, his
psychological parent. There are of course usually two parents, but during early
childhood it is usually
the woman who is the main psychological parent. This is the person the child
cannot imagine being without — whom he loves and
wants to be with, whom he calls for when hurt or unhappy, whom he feels most
secure with, whom he can most safely be angry with. It is she who shares the
child’s joys and sorrows, is glad when he is happy, is angry when he
displeases her, helps him to control his aggression and to tolerate frustration,
from whom he learns to give and take within a love relationship. When this
relationship is established it
promotes, as time passes, his social,
intellectual and emotional development.
THE BLOOD MOTHER AS PSYCHOLOGICAL PARENT
Normally
it is
the blood mother who becomes the primary psychological parent. The child’s
choice of psychological parent occurs alongside the parent becoming bonded to
him within a context of care. But, paradoxically, a young child’s attachment
does not depend upon the quality of care he receives.
He
may progress emotionally, even within a relationship to an impoverished and
unstable personality. If the psychological parent is
THE
ADOPTIVE MOTHER AS PSYCHOLOGICAL PARENT
An
infant adopted in the first few weeks of life stimulates in the adoptive mother
feelings comparable to those of a mother who has given birth. The necessary
anxiety is aroused by the infant’s helplessness and her responsibility for
keeping him safe and well. Care-giving, at a time when every cry and gesture of
the baby is genetically designed to elicit pangs of love and concern, sweeps the
adoptive mother into the process of bonding. Thereafter the course of attaching
and bonding will be similar to that in blood relationships.
If
the infant is taken over later in the first year the bonding is likely to
develop more slowly; and because the adoptive mother has not been exposed to the
seductiveness of the infant’s behaviour in the first few months the bonding
may lack something of the fullest commitment. Adoption still later, after the
first year, is unlikely to result in bonding of the intensity of a very early
adoption. But the relationship can be deep and satisfying, with the adoptive
mother ultimately becoming the psychological parent, especially if the
infant’s experience in the first year has been good and he transfers from one
loving person to another. However, if the infant has made and lost a number of
relationships his attachment to the adoptive parent may be marred initially at
least by his lack of trust.
THE
FOSTER-MOTHER AS PSYCHOLOGICAL PARENT
The
phenomenon of attachment and bonding, which society welcomes for its binding
effect in early adoption, is inconvenient in foster care. In recent years we
have been made painfully aware that foster-parents can become psychological
parents and the objects of the foster-child’s deepest attachment.
Foster-parents
have long been expected to keep in mind that their function is only temporary,
that they should remain clear about their role and not become ‘possessive’.
But no matter how conscientiously restrained a foster-mother may try to be, if
the child is very young he will
If
the foster-mother gives the quality of care needed and demanded by the very
young child, she, like the adoptive mother, may be swept into a deeply bonded
relationship. But, whereas society welcomes this when it
occurs in
adoptive relationships, attachment and bonding are not welcomed when equally
irresistibly they occur in foster care. Social work and the law have been in
painful confusion over the way in which these inevitable processes can interfere
with plans for the child and his blood parents. There has been a struggle to
find compromise solutions which take full account of the conflicting claims of
blood parents and fosterparents. Insufficient attention has been given to the
consequences of severing the child’s established relationships, whether they
are in the blood family or in the foster-family.
Only
a few years ago press and television showed children being wrenched with all the
authority of police and social service departments from the foster-parents in
whom all their expectations of love and security had been vested.
MARIA
COLWELL
Maria
Colwell was one such child. (In this discussion we are relying mainly on the
official report into the case.) She had been with foster-parents since she was a
baby, for as long as she could remember. She knew they loved her and she loved
them more than anyone else and wanted to be with them. But when her legal
parents claimed her, the social services decided to make the transfer. Maria
resisted with the small voice of a six-year-old. Her wishes were ignored. Nobody
except the foster-parents seemed to understand that for Maria the relationships
to them were the only ones that mattered. The social workers who understood kept
quiet, because they thought the law as it
then stood
would not uphold the relationships.
The
social services department encouraged and expected Maria to change her
allegiances, but of course she could not since the blood mother and stepfather
meant little to her. Nevertheless, she was removed to their home. She escaped
and tried to get back to her foster-parents, but she was forcibly returned to
the blood mother and stepfather.
The
running away, the unhappiness, the rejection of them and other difficult
behaviour typical of a child separated from those she loved were highly
provocative to the blood mother and stepfather. They had not
The
plight of this hounded child does not bear thinking about. Only death at the
hands of her stepfather released six-year-old Maria from intense unhappiness and
from a society which would not listen to her. With hindsight we can be shocked
that so little understanding was shown of the child’s need to stay with her
psychological parents.
We
hoped it would never happen again. But we know that even today young
foster-children can be put into states of comparable distress and danger when
they are moved with insufficient regard for their attachments. It can too
readily be overlooked that the feelings of a loved and attached very young
foster-child are no different from those of a child living in the family
into which
he was born.
It
can also be overlooked that it is being bonded to a child through the intimacies
of day by day care that enables adults to love him and tolerate his behaviour
and his demands (Robertson and Robertson, 1982). The prolonged absence of a
child in a foster home and lack of involvement in his care can cause the
parents’ feeling for him m become shallow. Furthermore, if there is a
stepfather who has not had the experience of becoming bonded, he may be
specially intolerant of the difficult behaviour of a newly returned child who is
fretting for his foster-parents. If the stepfather is immature and prone to bad
temper or violence the child will be at risk of being ill-treated.
The
public are shocked and horrified when young children are killed in such
circumstances (Blom-Cooper, 1985). But these are the tip of the iceberg. Other
children similarly removed from loved foster-parents are in danger of abuse and
ill-treatment which may go unnoticed because they do not result in death.
Foster
care undoubtedly offers better possibility of stable relationships than
institutional care, but there are hazards. Foster placements can result in young
children being subjected to repeated changes of caretakers which are as painful
and damaging as institutional care. These risks can only be minimized—if
foster care is used with greater knowledge of the development of early
relationships.