Babies should not be separated from Mommy overnight during the first year of life? How about they should not be separated from their Primary Caregiver, and sometimes, that means Daddy.

 

 

Here’s a story making the rounds in a number of papers, but I have a weakness for the hyperbole of the Daily Mail, so I’ll use that as my main reference. The story is this: babies who spend nights away from their Primary Caregiver (usually owing to custody agreements) experience reduced attachment to that caregiver.

 

 

Of course, the DM equates Primary Caregiver with Mommy, and while that’s generally true, it by no means HAS to be.

 

US researchers set out to discover what happens when babies under 12 months old spend a night or more per week away from their mothers, as increasingly happens when separated parents share custody.

They found that such infants had more insecure attachments to their mothers compared with babies who had fewer overnight stays or saw their fathers only during the day.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2372868/Nights-away-mum-leave-babies-secure-New-findings-affect-custody-rulings-young-children.html

 

Let’s turn our attention first towards what the word “attachment” means.

 

 

Infants become attached to individuals who are sensitive and responsive in social interactions with them, and who remain as consistent caregivers for some months during the period from about six months to two years of age, this is known as sensitive responsiveness. When the infant begins to crawl and walk they begin to use attachment figures (familiar people) as a secure base to explore from and return to. Caregivers’ responses lead to the development of patterns of attachment; these, in turn, lead to internal working models which will guide the individual’s perceptions, emotions, thoughts and expectations in later relationships.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_theory#cite_note-Bretherton.2FMul-2

 

Babies who DON’T experience this kind of attachment to a loving, responsive caregiver can have some serious difficulties to contend with throughout their lives.

 

Attachment disorder is a broad term intended to describe disorders of mood, behavior, and social relationships arising from a failure to form normal attachments to primary care giving figures in early childhood, resulting in problematic social expectations and behaviors. Such a failure would result from unusual early experiences of neglect, abuse, abrupt separation from caregivers after about 6 months of age but before about three years of age, frequent change of caregivers or excessive numbers of caregivers, or lack of caregiver responsiveness to child communicative efforts.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_disorder

 

This new research, as referenced in the DM, seems to suggest that separations BEFORE six months can be just as deleterious on an infant’s attachment to their Primary Caregiver.

 

 

Personally, I agree. The idea that infants are tabula rasa prior to six months is nonsense, to me. All three of my children seemed completely in awe when they were first born and heard me speak and could see me for the first time. They did not react to the midwives, who were not familiar, regular voices to them, nor did they react to other people who were not regular visitors or guests in our home.

 

Aside from me, there was one other person the babies seemed astonished to hear for the first time: their father.

 

 

His voice was completely, utterly familiar. Even in sleep, their eyes would flutter when Daddy spoke or sang to them. The two younger children reacted the same way to the voices of their older siblings. They knew those voices. They were already attached to them.

 

It’s hard for me to set aside my Mommy instincts and try to objectively consider whether some babies might be better off with a primary attachment to their fathers, which is kind of odd, because I also believe at the same time that had I died during childbirth, my children would have been absolutely fine in the care of their father, whom they recognized from his voice.

 

What I do want to tackle is the idea that “shared parenting” is the ideal way to care for a baby. That the baby is EQUALLY attached to both parents, or to all the people (it takes a village) who help raise the child.

 

http://www.phdinparenting.com/blog/2013/3/10/equally-shared-parenting-and-breastfeeding-is-that-possible.html

 

It’s bullshit. Babies need one Primary Caregiver. One person to whom they are deeply, inextricably bonded, and that person needs to be loving and responsive. I firmly believe that normal, well-adjusted women will understand that biologically, they are programmed to be that caregiver. The baby that comes out of their body is best served if they are fed from the same body, and if they bond deeply to that body. It’s a continuum that nature has evolved to ensure the best odds of survival.

 

 

There is no question that breastfed babies are at an advantage over their chemically nurtured counterparts. They are happier, smarter and healthier.

 

Children exclusively fed breast milk for at least three months have up to 30 per cent extra growth in the key parts of the brain which control language, emotion, and understanding, say scientists.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2337374/Breast-really-best-want-brainy-baby-Just-THREE-months-breastfeeding-boosts-development-30.html

 

‘What we found was that infants fully breastfed for six months had a significantly lower risk of respiratory infections in the first two years.

‘Specifically, the chance of contracting pneumonia was reduced fivefold, while the risk of recurrent ear infections was minimised twofold.’

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-113533/Breastfed-babies-times-likely-catch-colds.html

 

I’ve written about women’s refusal to breastfeed before, and just how I feel about that, but when the issue of custody and wellness comes up, I think there is another layer of nuance that can be added to the discussion.

 

http://judgybitch.com/2012/11/13/refusing-to-breastfeed-your-child-yeah-that-makes-you-a-shit-mother/

 

While I will happily say that breastMILK is best for baby, I am now forced to pause to consider if breastFEEDING is really all that important, or if the benefits of breastfeeding can be delivered equally by either parent.

 

 

When our next door neighbor decided that motherhood was actually a shit deal and went back to work when Peanut was five months old, Peanut’s Daddy stepped in and he “breastfed” his daughter. He would tuck her inside his hoodie with her bottle (full of breastmilk) tucked into his armpit, and hold her up high while she “nursed”. It was actually the cutest damn thing in the world. She had all the benefits of skin-to-skin contact, and warmth and snuggling and listening to his heartbeat and it was just lovely all around.

 

http://judgybitch.com/2013/04/26/what-do-women-want-from-marriage-oh-everything-is-that-so-much-to-ask/

 

It’s hard to imagine a judge ordering a baby into Daddy’s custody, and simultaneously ordering Mommy to provide the baby with expressed milk. Holy Jesus, could you imagine the headlines?

 

JUDGE ORDERS WOMAN TO BE DAIRY COW

 

WOMAN FORCED TO PROVIDE NUTRITION TO HER OWN CHILD

 

JUDGE ACTS IN BEST INTERESTS OF CHILD

 

But why the hell not? We already know that men don’t get to decide if they want to be parents. If they are going to be forced into it, why shouldn’t they be able to take actions to reduce the contact they must have with the child’s mother while sacrificing ZERO of the bond they might have with their children?

 

http://judgybitch.com/2013/07/10/legal-parental-surrender-is-not-morally-equivalent-to-an-abortion-and-no-amount-of-bitchy-sarcasm-will-make-it-so-yeah-amanda-marcotte-im-talking-to-you/

 

One can easily imagine feminists jumping on board with the “no shared custody of babies” argument, based on the idea that it fractures the baby’s attachment to a Primary Caregiver. Fair enough. That would be a new argument: NOW (the National Organization of Women) at the moment opposes shared custody because it limits women’s abilities to sue for child support, but why not add such a compelling physiological argument to the arsenal, too?

 

https://nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/20980-as-it-was-and-ever-shall-be-now-opposes-equal-rights-for-fathers

 

 

 

Ultimately, it could end up being a very nice precedent. Baby needs an uninterrupted attachment to a primary caregiver. No overnight visits. Watch all the women nod their heads in approval. Yup. Drop off your checks and don’t plan on any overnights with the baby for a good long time.

 

Right up until the moment it’s Daddy who wins custody. Then the screaming will begin.

 

 

Fair won’t seem so fair then.

 

What we really need is a campaign that shows fathers “breastfeeding” their infant children. Ubiquitous representations of fathers as equally capable, equally responsive, equally loving caregivers of infant children. Do I think that’s ideal?

 

 

No way. But when mothers SUCK, and god knows I have plenty of personal experience with that, then yes, fathers can and SHOULD be able to step in and take over. And needless to say, they should be awarded child support for taking on that task.

 

I can’t readily imagine that happening. But it would be a step towards equality, wouldn’t it?

 

 

Gee, maybe I am a feminist, after all.

 

Lots of love,

 

JB