Why Children Should Not Be Taken Away from their Parents

Stop Separating Immigrant Families Press Conference and Rally Chicago Illinois on June 5, 2018. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license. Author: Charles Edward Miller.

Note  from Kathie MM: As too often happens, a major human rights issue has become a political football, human beings are suffering, and important evidence about the outcomes of yet another instance of some people’s inhumanity to others is being ignored.  But Dr. Alice LoCicero has some insights to share.

by Alice LoCicero

It is hard for me to believe that while the vast majority of Americans are disturbed by the sight of immigrant parents and children being summarily separated, and babies being remanded to group care, some Americans are not. Yesterday, results of a Quinnipiac poll showed although 66% of Americans reject the policy, 27 % favor it.

The policy has been called child abuse, torture, inhumane. Many have warned that it will do irreparable harm to the families. Others have glibly suggested that the children’s centers are like summer camps and some have even cast doubt on the idea that these separations are causing distress, maintaining that the wailing babies and children are child actors.

For people who are interested in what science has t0 say on the subject, great deal of evidence has accrued,  inspired by the many unanticipated and unwanted separations of children from parents during World War II. We know from studies inspired by observations of children and babies separated from parents that babies who receive adequate hygienic care and food but no affection become more vulnerable to illness, and some die.  Lack of affection can also cause developmental neurological problems: See https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-athletes-way/201310/parental…

The high numbers of children separated from their parents during the war inspired a great deal of research on attachment, separation, and loss, by John Bowlby and by James and Joyce Robertson, who during World War II, worked with Anna Freud in the wartime nurseries of Hampstead.

The Robertsons developed a knowledge base of what happens to children separated from parents in times of trouble and crisis. They not only observed children directly, but also made several compelling—and heartbreaking—films. One dramatic film documenting the aftermath of separation of young children from parents and placement in group care  is called “John, aged 17 months for nine days in a residential nursery,” about a child whose parents believed he would get good care in a nursery setting while his mother was in a hospital giving birth to a sibling.

The nursery where John was placed had good food, a clean environment, many toys, trained caregivers, and other children about his age. The ratio of children to caregivers was not unreasonable for a group care setting. But over nine days, John went from being an obviously happy, well-developed child who could be helped, fed, and comforted by the staff  to a child who refused food, seldom played, and simply looked depressed.  After nine days, he looked like a person in despair.

This is the kind of decline we can expect for many of the young children summarily separated from their parents and placed with strangers—even if they are provided the best available physical care, food, and a hygienic environment. John was fortunate to be reunited with his parents after nine days. But where is the plan to reunite the parents and children who have been separated at the border?

The Robertsons’ films  showed children separated from parents  protesting at first , then despairing, and finally detaching from others. The films led to revolutionary changes in pediatric inpatient care–from parents being  allowed only occasionally to visit their children to parents being welcomed as part of the caretaking team.

Perhaps it is time to show these films to the 27% of Americans who think separating children from their parents at the border is a good idea.  Perhaps it will take 100% of us to stop this madness and reunite the families that have been ripped apart for political purposes.

Alice LoCicero Ph.D., ABPP, is President, Society for the Study of Peace and Conflict (Peace Psychology)

This post is a lightly edited version of a post published June 20, 2018 on the Psychology Today website: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/paradigm-shift

Peace, too, takes courage. 

 

These are our children, Part 2

“And then we ran away. Then we went in our home with our mothers. Everyone got in (the car). We carried some of our clothes. Then we came here (Istanbul).”

By Deryal Yuksel

In last Wednesday’s post , we introduced you to Hasan, Hatun, Hanna, and Ali, child refugees from Aleppo, Syria, who currently live in Istanbul, Turkey. Their story continues in this photo essay.

Unfortunately, most refugees experience indifference and neglect. We must recognize that change is never easy, especially if you are missing your homeland that no longer exists. It will make a big difference if we sharpen our senses and expand our outlook on humanity.  Take a moment to hear the stories of these four children.

*The quotes in the photo captions  come directly from the children and are translated into English.

“Then we carried our grandfather to the room. Then he died too.”

 

*Hasan taught me to sing one of his favorite songs in Arabic, Safer Ya Habibi. The translation of the song is “Travel my beloved, and return.”
“I am this many years old.”

 

“People take our photographs on the streets and then offer us money.”
“We moved to Istanbul four years ago.”
“We are bringing some clothes home.”
“The people here do not let us pose for their photographs the way that we would like to. They tell us to lift our arm, and do what they tell us to do and this bothers us a lot. They do not treat us right.”
“My father’s brother died. A bomb hit him and killed him.”
“My sister was born in our house in Turkey.”
“We are going to hang the photographs in our home.”
*On the streets, the children were offering small antique keys to promote peace.

Note from Kathie MM: I hope we will all do what these Syrian refugee children are requesting: Promote peace for all.  If we do not promote peace for everyone, there will be peace for no one.

Where it all begins, Part 2

Colin Henderson’s winning design displayed at 2009 Domestic Violence Awareness Rally, Fort Jackson. Author: Sharonda Pearson As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain.

 

By Kathie MM

As noted in my last post , if people want to move their countries from a preoccupation with war, hatred, power, threat, and punishment to the pursuit of peace, brotherly (and sisterly) love, social equality, justice, and reconciliation, the place to start is the home.

Suggestions for starting can be found in the work of Robert J. Burrowes and his “promise to children”:

“From today, I promise that I will try to no longer inflict this violence on you, including that which I call ‘punishment’ so that I can pretend that I am not using violence…

I also admit that we adults have done a bad job at looking after each other, including all of our children, and planet Earth, your home, and that you are going to have an increasingly difficult life as the natural world continues to break down. So I promise to participate in efforts being made to address all of these problems, such as that outlined in ‘The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth’….

 Most importantly of all, I promise that I will listen to you as best I can. See ‘Nisteling: The Art of Deep Listening’….

Oh, and finally, as best I can, I promise to love you and to respect you as a unique, beautiful and compassionate creation with a great deal to offer the world (as long as adults don’t get in your way)….”

After presenting his pledge to children, Burrowes asks, “As an adult, would you be willing to make this promise too? To whom would you make it?

He then comments, “There is no doubt that giving every child (or adult, for that matter) all of the space they need to feel, deeply, what they want to do, and to then let them do it (or to have the feelings they naturally have if someone or something prevents them from doing so) will have some dysfunctional outcomes in the short term.

This is because we have all been dysfunctionalized, to a greater or lesser extent, by the violence we have already suffered throughout our lives. But listening deeply to a child from birth (or starting today), and supporting them to act out their own Self-will, will lead to an infinitely better overall outcome than the system of emotional suppression, control and punishment of children which has generated the incredibly violent world in which we now find ourselves.”

Again, as I asked in my last post, what do you think about these ideas?

If you wish to join the worldwide movement to end all violence, including violence against children, you can sign online ‘The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World’.

Where it all begins, Part 1

By Kathie MM

Most children, in this country and much of the rest of the world, have been subjected to considerable verbal and psychological violence, and often physical violence, by the age of two—and it may only get worse. The “terrible twos” often means terrible treatment.

Toddlers are routinely yelled at, sworn at, called names, threatened. They are shaken, slapped on the hands or buttocks, sometimes slapped in the face, spanked, sometimes hit with switches, kicked, beaten—and all of these things may happen in what people think of as “good homes.”

Given the level of violence in families, it should not be surprising that in day care and nursery schools, children are heard yelling, “I hate you, I’m going to kill you!” They don’t need to watch TV to learn these messages.

Robert J. Burrowes has written passionately about the likely outcomes of violence against children.

Here is an example of what he has to say:

“The man who inflicts violence on women was damaged during childhood. The white person who inflicts violence on people of colour was damaged during childhood. The employer who exploits workers was damaged during childhood.

The individual who endorses the state violence inflicted on indigenous peoples was damaged during childhood. The terrorist, the political leader who wages war and the soldier who kills in our name were all damaged during childhood.

The person who supports structures of violence (such as the military, police, legal and prison systems) was damaged during childhood.

The person who supports structures of exploitation (such as capitalism and imperialism) was damaged during childhood. The person who thoughtlessly participates in destruction of the natural environment was damaged during childhood.”

What do you think of Burrowes’ argument?

Do you have other explanations for this country’s high level of engagement in violence?

Clearly poverty and racism can also damage children but hordes of violent people are reapers rather than victims of those social ills. If we really want to reduce violence in and by our country, we better play closer attention to what we do in our homes.

Please share your views.