Reactive Attachment Disorder, RAD Blog - Thank goodness for safety nets

08/17/07

Thank goodness for safety nets

Posted by : Nancy Spoolstra in Reactive Attachment Disorder Blog at 09:34 am , 441 words, 139 views
Categories: Parent issues or child issues?

Beth and I didn’t end up going to the Chief’s game last night. She had a mini-meltdown … the stress of the first day of school was a bit much for her. I was not sure keeping her out late last night was a great idea to begin with, and her meltdown only confirmed my fears. So my husband went and Beth and I stayed home. It was good that we did, as we had a fierce thunderstorm and I had several very antsy dogs to handle.

I learned through the family grapevine last night that apparently Amy does, indeed, have a safety net in the event she is evicted from her apartment in another month. Apparently Tommy has stepped up and offered to house her. I think this is a win/win situation. Tommy has held the same job for several years; he acquired his high school equivalency diploma on his own; he keeps his apartment neat and clean and pays his bills on time; and he has academic aspirations beyond high school. Those are all areas of strength for Tommy and something he can be very proud about. Amy has deficiencies in all these areas, and I have no doubt she would be a willing recipient to any effort Tommy wants to make to address these areas of her life. The only fly in the ointment is that Tommy doesn’t live close by … so it would require a major move and major planning on someone’s part … But it is an option, and it will be interesting to see if it is one Amy chooses to embrace. (Side bar here ... a reader asked if Amy was refusing to let anyone see her apartment because it was messy or because she was perhaps living with someone ... based on past experience, my answer would be it was beyond messy ... and that's all I'll say about that ...)

SPONSOR

While the overwhelming number of comments on my recent blogs have been quite supportive and positive (support for which I am most grateful) there are most definitely those who would rather shoot the messenger than absorb the message. Next up I am going to address and define healthy relationships. One recent comment accused me of being “Nancy-centric” and how I talked about my lost hopes and expectations … how it was all about me. I guess I should have aspired for Amy to be homeless …? I have often cited Katherine Leslie’s work, and she is a firm believer that relationships should meet the needs of both members of the equation. Sounds pretty basic to me. Stay tuned for more on that!

Photo Credit

10 comments

Comments, Pingbacks:

Comment from: fenyimom [Member]

Having a relationship that meets the goals of both members is wonderful, and in an equal relationship, it would be an expectation and requirement of the members. But the relationship between parent and child is not an equal relationship. Is your goal as a parent to have your child provide you with a relationship that meets your expectations and requirements? What is your goal in becoming a parent? What happens when your child either cannot or will not fulfill the expectations that you have for her? And were you the right parent for Amy? You know that Beth's first parents were not the right parents for her, while she has excelled in your care. Who would Amy have become if she had been parented by someone with different requirements and expectations?

Permalink 08/17/07 @ 10:32

Comment from: Faith Allen [Member]

· http://hoping.adoptionblogs.com/

"a reader asked if Amy was refusing to let anyone see her apartment because it was messy or because she was perhaps living with someone ... based on past experience, my answer would be it was beyond messy ... and that's all I'll say about that ...)"

This was true about my close relative as well. (Too bad we cannot hook them up since my relative is in the healing stages. Perhaps she could save Amy years of grief.) This relative brought "messy" to a new level. Subconsciously, she was trying to make her surroundings unpleasant to stay "safe" (making them undesirable for nocturnal visitors). I am happy to say that she is now taking much more pride in both her home and her appearance. I am so proud of how far she has come. :0)

- Faith

Permalink 08/17/07 @ 11:34

Comment from: John [Member]

fenyimom, you have obviously never parented a child that only takes, and takes a lot. The idea that all parents should be superhuman, is common in those who have not had to parent a very draining child. News flash, there was only one Mother Teresa, and she didn't live anywhere hear here. For what its worth, she also did not have any children.

You have every right to your opinions, but you do not have a right to the tone of your comment to Nancy. Grow up feny, you don't have a clue what you are talking about, read what others WHO HAVE WALKED THE WALK have to share. They have been there and done that. You want someone to dig in your stuff everytime you comment, I'll be glad to oblige. I am persistent and willing. What is required is to be civil and not insulting, are you up to that? John

Permalink 08/17/07 @ 17:07

Comment from: NCOZADD@aol.com [Member]

There is a vast difference between cannot and will not. In addition, children have an entirely different set of abilities than adults. Thus, their ability to meet the needs of adults is very different, but that does not lesson their capability to contribute in their own way. My eldest son is a definite "won't" who, like Nancy's Amy would make CHOICES that undermine self. He drains my tank in ways only the parent of another RADish would understand. My daughter and two other sons fill my tank immeasurably.... the give-and-take within each unique relationship meets the needs of everyone involved, even when we are driving each other nuts.

Were Love Muffin and I the "right" parents for Son #1? Perhaps not, but it can be safe to assume that the behaviours he directed at this family would have simply been directed at another one, since the basic fact of his traumatized childhood would be no different, and we were as or better equipped than many to meet those challenges.

The "requirements" that Nancy and her husband have had of all of their children are the normal, fair and reasonable set of hopes, dreams and expectations of any parent. To offer the possibility that Amy might have fared better in another family - and especially to compare her situation and relationship to Nancy with that of Beth - is insulting at best.

Nancy, thank you for today's update! It is good to hear that Amy has a "fall back", and that Tommy is prepared to meet any challenges. Would Amy have to quit her fast food job to live with him?

Thank you, also, for your honesty, integrity and willingness to sacrifice so much on behalf of others.

Permalink 08/17/07 @ 17:12

Comment from: miriam [Member]

· http://www.growingjwards.blogspot.com

I posted on Faith's blog that I am grateful to hear your thoughts on this and for the depth of your honesty here.

I'm not a parent of a special needs kid, in fact my only current kiddo is not even two yet. I have, however been around long enough know that life is imperfect and you never know what is around the next corner. Looking to the parents who are challenged in the extreme (I promise I am not calling you saints ;-) ) and appropriating some of your compassion and tools is helpful to me.

Fenugreek, or whatever you're calling yourself here, suggesting that Amy needed another set of parents is simply rude. I've found that bloggers here are generally very willing to discuss ideas with commenters, but no one should have to read such ridiculous hyperbole. You seem intelligent; please make an effort to stay on topic. If you won't do it to spare the blogger annoyance, how about for your fellow peanut gallerians?

Permalink 08/17/07 @ 18:14

Comment from: fenyimom [Member]

Miriam -

I am not suggesting that Amy needed another set of parents. I am wondering how Amy would have turned out if she had been parented under different conditions. Nancy has already shown what a difference this can make to a child who has problems, in her parenting of Beth. Rather than look at Amy as the problem child who will not return anything back to her family, why not look at her as the child who is returning what she is able to return, under the conditions that have formed her?

Permalink 08/18/07 @ 04:34

Comment from: fenyimom [Member]

John,

Thank you for your supportive message. I am parenting my own attachment issue, adopted at older age kids. Maybe I am more fortunate than some, in that my agency insisted on so much education before I started that it wasn't a surprise to me to find that I am parenting children who have a great deal of difficulty giving anything back. Of course I would like to have my children love me and become people that I can love. But I went in knowing that this may never happen. They were already severely damaged before they were adopted, and my adopting them and taking care of them won't change them overnight. It may never change them at all. But I knew this going in. My job as their mother is to parent them, not to expect them to give me back anything in return. If they do, that would be fantastic. If they don't, I'm grown up enough to cope with it.

Permalink 08/18/07 @ 04:39

Comment from: Faith Allen [Member]

· http://hoping.adoptionblogs.com/

"I am wondering how Amy would have turned out if she had been parented under different conditions."

My question is how Amy would have turned out had she never been abused. The people who traumatized the child in the first place are the ones who should have stones thrown at them.

- Faith

Permalink 08/18/07 @ 10:32

Comment from: miriam [Member]

· http://www.growingjwards.blogspot.com

Fenyimom- You said, "And were you the right parent for Amy?", and also, "Who would Amy have become if she had been parented by someone with different requirements and expectations?" in your first comment.

Yet in your reply to me you said, "I am not suggesting that Amy needed another set of parents."

I think you can see how we might have gotten the impression that you meant what you wrote the first time around. What point is there in questioning the appropriateness of Amy's placement in Nancy's family? She is on the brink of adulthood; in fact isn't the challenge at hand how to help her take steps toward ownership of her own life? She is not at the beginning of a placement trying to determine if she's a good fit. Her mother believes she is capable of this new skill (responsibility)- and just as you have the best perspective on the difficulties of your kids, can't we presume she knows Amy's capacity best?

My impression is that Nancy's concern centers on the fact that Amy is indeed capable but has yet to prove herself willing to move forward. This does not strike me as cold or unloving. In fact, being known to that depth by my family is part of their love for me, and they would be the most upset if I were to squander my abilities.

Thank you for changing your tone and rejoining the conversation. I appreciate hearing from various perspectives, including yours.

Permalink 08/18/07 @ 11:59

Comment from: John [Member]

Feny, my message was not supportive, and it was not intended to be. I am glad you had an outstanding agency and excellent training. I am amazed that you have experience with children who are constantly draining, and yet are so intolerant of others who also walk the same road. Your children are not theirs, your experiences are not theirs. I am suggesting that your thinking reflects only what you have lived through, and is not an all inclusive triest on what all right thinking parents should do and feel. You are human, just like the rest of us. You are also not the ultimate grown up. Life may yet have surprises that don't fit into your preconceived ideas of your right thinking superiority. Good luck. John

Permalink 08/18/07 @ 14:41

Leave a Comment: You need to login to leave comments.:

Login | Register