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