Attachment in Practice: Observation, Reflection, and Action - Case Study Example

Attachment in Practice: Observation, Reflection and Action Student’s Name Course Tutor’s Name Date: Word count: 1637 Observation Mary is a three-year old child brought up in a single-parent household. Her mother Naomi appears to be the perfect parent, always responding to Mary’s physical and emotional needs effectively. In her first day of school this term, Mary could not part with her mother, and Naomi had to go with her back home. While Gonzales-Mena (2007) indicates that first day child-parent separation is usually difficult, Mary’s problem seems not to have gone away with time because a month later, the parting between mother and child usually leaves the latter crying uncontrollably for minutes on end. Although Keyes (2003) suggests that girls can take up to three months to adjust to new environments, Mary’s case is disconcerting because of the intensity of her cries. Based on the circle of security, one can arguably say that Mary’s emotional status has been conditioned to think that she will always stay close to her mother. Mary is thus chronically dependent on her mother, and her best moment in school is when her mother comes to pick her from school in the evening. Tom is another three-year old child who unlike Mary is always eager to attend school saying he likes spending time with friends. In school, Tom is a lone player, and rarely interacts with his supposed ‘friends’. His mother thinks that Tom is an ‘old soul’ because he is ostensibly too mature for his age, he hates being hugged, and does not talk much about his experiences in school. Applying the circle of security theory on Tom reveals that he experiences a chronic state of self-sufficiency, probably by the emotional factors that he has been exposed to. Mann and Kretcher (2006) define such an attitude by children as a place of “You are not there for me...I don’t need you. I know how this works” (p. 28). Tom’s parents, Becky and Ely, are often on travel, during which time Tom’s grandparents take over Tom’s parenting. During one of the parents’ returns from a business trip, Tom said “This time around you stayed abroad for so long I thought I’d never see you again”. His father just retorted by telling him that he was sure the grandparents had taken good care of him. The expression on Tom’s face clearly indicated that this was not the answer he was looking for. Reflection In the first case, it is apparent that Mary feels safe with her mother, but has difficulties feeling safe in the school environment in the absence of her mother. As Cooper, Hoffman, Powell and Marvin (2005) observe, a parent’s care giving system “under good circumstances, creates an elegant interplay between parent and child that provides a sense of security for the child” (p. 39). The sense of security however does not revolve around wanting to be around one’s parent all the time; rather, it gives the child the sense of safety needed to explore the emotional, social and physical world, and by so doing, gives them the capacity to become self-reliant in future. In Mary’s case, it would appear that her mother does not support her exploration as indicated in figure 1 below. According to Cooper et al. (2005), “Young children watch their parents carefully to decipher what is safe and what is dangerous” (p. 133). While Naomi may have succeeded (at least to a great degree) in providing a safe haven to Mary, the same cannot be said about her abilities to provide a secure base by supporting the child’s exploration. Based on this, I would advice Naomi to be more outgoing while being accompanied by her daughter. She could go shopping with her, go to the local playgrounds and let her interact with children her age under her observation, join community organisations where parents and children interact, and perhaps spend several minutes in school with her instead of just dropping her and picking her. By so doing, I am convinced that Naomi would be indirectly telling Mary (at least through her actions), that it is safe to interact and build relationships with other people outside their home. Figure 1 Source: Marvin et al. (2002, p.110) Tom’s case on the other hand lacks in both a safe haven and a secure base. While it may appear that the child has room to explore, the parents’ absence to watch him, delight in him, help him and/or enjoy with him as suggested by Marvin et al. (2002) is evidence that Tom’s parents do not always meet his relationship needs. Additionally, and as evident in the scene where Tom and his father meet after a business trip which the latter had attended, the child does not always get the comfort he may desire from his parents. Tom has created a seemingly self-sufficient way of surviving, which his mother misconstrues as being too mature for his age. In reality, however, it would appear that Tom may have not gotten enough help organising experiences especially due to his parents’ absence. In this case, I would suggest that Tom’s parents start being perceptive to his needs and interests more. A good place to start is perhaps assuring him that they would always come back to him after their business trips. Calling daily while away on such trips and encouraging the child to talk about his school activities would also be a good way of reminding him that they care about his experiences, and would be willing to offer advice where necessary. I would also suggest that Tom’s parents make a deliberate decision to follow the five principles provided by Mann and Kretchner (2006), because it appears that Tom is hurt and could therefore benefit from more focused and assuring care giving. Action: 1. Sharing personal thinking about Mary with another member of staff Rationale: to get some form of mentorship as suggested by Fowler, Robins, Callan and Copp (2009), who suggest that childhood mentors can help practitioners “find answers to challenging situations, assist with strategies for action...” (p. 218). Me: How much more loving can a mother be? Just look at how Naomi pampers her daughter; my only concern is that she has enclosed Mary within her ‘limited world’. Colleague: I agree, they look like the perfect single parent family although I never quite understood why the child always panics when being dropped off to school. Me: My thinking is that Naomi, with all her love, has failed (albeit unknowingly) to provide Mary with a secure base from where she can “engage with the world, balancing inquisitiveness with a need for security” as Neander and Engstrom (2008, p. 2) puts it. Naomi’s lack of access to a social network is in my opinion the basis for the behaviours seen in Mary. Colleague: How so? Me: Well, suppose that at three years of age, you had never really interacted with other children your age. Your relatives or your parent’s friends never visited, and neither did you ever visit them. You had no other relations except with your parents, no siblings, and you didn’t even know who the neighbour is. Your parents order provisions so you never go shopping, they work from home, thus meaning you are around them 24 hours a day, and they only go for holidays for two weeks annually. Would you ever know how to interact with others? Colleague: Well, perhaps not, but I don’t believe anyone could live that way. Are you suggesting that Naomi does? Me: I am telling you what her life is like. Of course she didn’t tell me to spread details about her lifestyle around, but I was hoping that you’d tell me whether I erred by suggesting that she needs to access more social networks and obtain more social support as a way of trying to help Mary overcome her fears of being dropped off at school. Colleague: You did well. Any child living in such conditions would probably grow up as a social retard. Whoever said that man is not an island was true you know? 2. Sharing personal thinking with Tom’s parents Rationale: To make Tom’s parents understand that his behaviours are an indication of unmet relationship needs, and gain their support with a view of establishing good parent-staff relationships as suggested by Hughes and MacNaughton (2001) and Dolby (2009). Me: You have described Tom and too mature for his age, and an old soul. How would it make you feel if I told you that he is like other child his age and that his perceptions of him are misconstrued? Becky: I’d be confused because Tom is unlike other children I know. Too reserved, unwilling to open up, and thinks he can handle most things on his own. I rarely know what to do right with him. Me: I need to tell you that am not questioning your parenting abilities. However, having reviewed Tom’s behaviour in school including his eagerness to come to school, his reluctance to actively trust the caregivers, and interact and make friends with his friends, I have realised he has multiple unmet relationship needs, which I am suggesting you can assist us to give Tom. Becky: How so? Me: To start with, I’d like to let you know that parent-staff collaboration is very important as suggested by Ashton et al. (2008) and Swan and Dolby (2003). Second, I’d like for you to try suggestions illustrated in COS, and together, we can find out if Tom is indeed an old soul, or his behaviour is just evidence that he has unmet relationship needs. Are you willing to take travel this journey? Becky: If it will improve our son’s behaviour, we will surely try it. Me: Thank you. I’ll take you through the theoretical foundation of this exercise, so you will be better placed to understand why I have these opinions regarding Tom. Becky: Alright. That is fine with us. References Ashton, J., Woodrow, C., Johnston, C., Wagmann, J., Singh, L., & James, T. (2008). Linking early childhood services, families and schools for optimal development. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 33(2): 10-16. Cooper, G., Hoffman, K., Powell, B., & Marvin, R. (2005). The circle of security intervention. In L. Berlin, Y. Ziiv, L. Amaya-Jackson & M. Greenberg (Eds.). Enhancing early attachments, (pp. 127-151). NY: The Gilford press. Dolby, R. (2009). Building attachment security in child care through an intervention module of infant mental health consultation. Sydney Australia: The Benevolent Society. Fowlers, K., Robins, A., Callan, S., & Copp, E. (2009). Fostering identity and relationships: the essential role of mentors in early childhood. In T. Papatheodorou & J. Moyles (Eds.), Learning together in the early years: Exploring relational pedagogy (pp. 217-227).Oxon: Routledge. Gonzales-Mena, J. (2007). Transitions: Managing the end of the day. In 50 Early childhood strategies for working and communicating with diverse families. (pp. 113-115). New Jersey: Pearson. Hughes, P., & MacNaughton, G. (2001). Building Equitable Staff-Parent Communication in Early Childhood Settings: An Australian Case Study. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 3(2). Retrieved February 25, 2013 from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v3n2/hughes.html Keyes, C. R. (2006). A look at children’s adjustment to early childhood programs. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 8(2). Retrieved February 25, 2013, from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v8n2/keyes.html Mann, J., & Kretchmar, M. D. (2006). A disorganised toddler in foster care: Healing and change from an attachment theory perspective. Zero to Three, 29-36. Marvin, R., Cooper, G., Hoffman, K., & Powell, B. (2002). The circle of security project: Attachment-based intervention with caregiver-preschool child dyads. Attachment and Human Development, 4(1), 107-124. Neander, K., & Engstrom, I. (2008). Parents’ assessment of parent-child interaction interventions – a longitudinal study in 101 families. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 3(8): 1-20. Read More