I think part of the issue is that, in foster care, there is somehow a  
sense that
we want attachment for all the reasons we know about, but not too much
attachment, because foster parents and kids may, in fact likely will,   
be
separated at some future time. Real life is complicated and what we
and the social workers in foster care know about child development does
not always translate into policies in place and actions on the ground
in real homes with real kids and families. We want attachment, but we
are afraid of the pain of separation when it comes. We want attachment
to the foster parents, but we are afraid of that attachment supplanting
attachment to biological parents with whom we hope to reunite the child.

How many babies go into foster care when they are still at bfing age  
(in the
US, I would put that at a few months as far as policy makers and foster
care workers are concerned?) My guess is that not too many babies are
placed in foster care with non-relatives, but I don't know that.
Do foster parents undergo physical exams to assure that they are
healthy enough to care for these foster kids? Does that include
illnesses that can pass through human milk? What about babies
having something that can pass through the mother? If we took bfing
seriously, that would be part of foster screening for those who take in
babies of bfing age. Foster care is not my expertise, can anyone
enlighten us on these issues?

How old are the babies in question here?

Indeed, foster moms should be able to bf their foster kids without even
telling anyone because it is a normal part of child care, but we all  
know
that life is not that simple.

I know this issue has come up on lactnet before. Has anyone looked at
the archives to see if there is other concrete information there?

Naomi

On Feb 2, 2011, at 9:06 AM, LACTNET automatic digest system wrote:

> It's the only way this baby will manage to make a secure attachment
> in the future with his permanent carers (and is what lies behind
> current calls from experts to avoid delaying adoption unnecessarily -
> you have a window of *months* not *years* to maximise the baby's
> chances of overcoming early emotional neglect, let alone frank abuse).
>
> (This requires enormous strengths and resources and sacrifice  from
> the foster mother, of course, because attachment is a two-way street.)
>
> So - given that attachment is understood as essential in the field of
> fostering, why would this not include permitting and supporting the
> foster mother to breastfeed? As a means of supporting the attachment?

------------------------------------------
Naomi Bar-Yam Ph.D.
Executive Director
Mothers' Milk Bank of New England

[log in to unmask]
617-527-6263
www.milkbankne.org
------------------------------------------

             ***********************************************

Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome