Articles Book I - Pg 66-180 (1977) - triadoption

efforts tocasetl~eircliildrenkwiy into
new lives. While they tolerated imnlnture
bcl~nvior [sucll as the demand by
oncsix.ycar-olrl that tl~ey always dress
him), the natural parents wcrc less
,. forgiving. Several cotnplnined that
thc child didn't renlly love themcouldn't
lovc them, in fact, because
they hadspent all those yearsapart. It
wasas if thcpnrents'roles Iiadbcen re.
versed. Tlic adoptive parents tl~ooglit
of the child as thcir own, while the
natural parents often snw the cliild as
not really theirs.
T
izard thinks adoption can be successful
even if a child is two, four,
scven,or older, if the adoptive parents
are willing to fscc tbcdifficultics. She
doesn't hclievc in the maternal-dcprivation
hypothesisncceptcd
. .
by many
: social agencies.
. ' 1n thcresidcntiolm~rseri~s, the cliildren
rcceivcd no personal motheiing.
By tlicngc of two, wch liad been cared
for iiy al>out 25 adults, and by the age
of four, by 40 adults. llcarly loving
care isas essential as many theorists
believe, d ~c children* cmotlonal and
: intcllcctual ... growth .... should l~avc been
. .
"It was as if the roles had been
reversed. The adoptive
parents thought of the child
. - as their own,whlle the
real parents often saw the child
: '
as not really theirs."
. .
stunted, with littlc hope for lmprovcment.
Yet, in Tizal.dk study, the cliildren
who wcrc adopted late did quitc
well.
Indeed, they had hccn eager to make
friends with any adult at the nurscry
and wcre fickle in tlieir affccrioos. nut
givcn n good home, they developed a
very strong natural fecliiig for their
adopted parents. They learned to love
: by being loved and cared for, even
tlioudi lovcdidn't sturt until tlicageof
four, five, or, in the case of one child,
seven.
Tiznrd would like to see foster parents
givcn a better chance to adopt or
l~ccon~cgi~artlians of a cliild they have
c~rerl for. She also fccls strongly that
social
.
tvorkei and others who deal
.
!
134 pa~umr toor? tmtusinelt
\
with the children must scccpt the fact
th~lt there arc tinles when a motlier
shnt~ldti't he pressed to tnkc licr cliild
back. Many social workcrs in England
seem to be dogmatic in tlicir belief
that a child Is better off with lliv nntural
motl~cr. In the groups studied by
Tizard, social workers often fostered
the guilt that drove mothers to re.
claim tlieir children, even when the
mothers expressed a great dcnl of anibi~nlencc
and wercn't really prepared
to carc fcrr tlie~n, As a result, there
wcre Ytrong feelings of hostility between
parents and social wcrrkcrs.
Tizaril recog~lizcs that her findings
tverestrongly i~dlucnced by economic
factors. All the restored children she
studicdreturncd to fn~tiilies that were,
often, quite poor. The adoptive families
were better off. Docs this mean
that cliildrenshouldnot bereturned to
poor people but should be givcn up for
adoption to the rich? Tizard argues.
that ultliough money helps, it is not
merely n qucstion of money but rather.
of thefeclin~snnd attitudesof the nnt.
urn1 parents. hr too often, thcy are
badgcrcdintoralsinga child they don't
wantandcan't hondle.ln such clrcunistances,
they arc unlikely to be scnsitive
to the needs of eliildren who have
been thtough a lot in their first years
and consequently nccdn lot of devoted
carc. I~radoxically, the autlioritics
tend to see a cliild restored to his fnm.
ily nsn happy ending.
It is easy to pick scientific holes in
Tizard's research. She used a small
sample. She relied a good deal or. what
' parents said about the children, hc-
I licving that questioning the children
directly might create more problems
in their relationships 'with thcir parents.
Despite these limitations, the
picture that emerges from the study is
clear and consistent. It sccrns obvious
that families should not be forced,
subtly or otherwise, to take children
back simply because we assume that
blood is best. And, important as the
first two years of life may be; we need
not give up on childrcil who may not
11i1ve been given much lovc and atten-;
tion in those years. n
David ~ihon is a British journalisl wt~o writes
on psychology tor magazines in Britain,
Franco. Germany, and the UniledSlales and is
also active in leievision. His most recent bwk
isPsycholooists on Psyclrolo~y: Modern Inno.
vators Talk About Tttolr Wrk (Taplinger). Ho
tlos recolved a grant from the Leverhulrne
Trust in London lo study tho dovelopmont ol
lauglltor.
For roprints, seo Clossllied Adverlising.