Maggie Rebalski

578482515

November 14, 2016

EDPB 503

Child & Youth Development Case Study

Part I: Dynamics at Play

This case study will focus on two children, 7-year-old Chloe and 2-year-old Hugo, who

I looked after for 10 months in Toulon, France last year (all names have been changed to

maintain confidentiality). To preface, the term they use for nanny in France is au pair. In

France, an au pair traditionally lives with the host family, eats meals with them, and is

generally welcomed into the home as an extended member of the family. I was my host

familys first au pairthey decided to hire someone after using an at-home nanny service for

Hugo and finding that he was getting a different woman almost every day. The parents saw

this as an attachment issue for Hugo, who wasnt able to develop close ties to any of these

nannies. Already, you can see how Neufelds idea of an attachment village is important in

French culture. From my reflections on my time spent with these children, I can outline three

dynamics at play that I can relate to material we have learned in this course: the importance

of attachment between adults and children in French culture (Neufelds attachment village),

the attachment frustration that arises when children are separated from their parents, and

how physical discipline provokes counterwill.

In his book, Hold On to Your Kids, Gordon Neufeld talks about the idea of an

attachment village from the perspective of traditional cultures: cohesive communities where

extended families lived in close proximity, where children grew up among mentoring adults

who did their work close to home, where cultural activities brought together generations

(p.355). While I cant say that this traditional village was still completely alive in Toulon, a
larger city in Provence, I saw certain cultural traditions that maintained these strong

connections between adults and children. Chloe was very comfortable around adults, and

although adult conversation didnt always interest her, she was happy being around her

parents, aunts, uncles, and parents friends because it was just what she was accustomed to.

The French tradition of bisousgreeting someone with a kiss on each cheekis an

example of French children being comfortable around adults. They are taught this custom at a

young age, and this greeting is common everywherewith parents in the schoolyard, their

parents friends, neighbours, aunts, uncles, and family. I think this is a good example of

collecting-- almost any time a child comes in contact with an adult friend, they do bisous.

Another French custom that contributed to this idea of an attachment village is the

tradition of assigning your children godparents when they are baptized. I believe this is a

Catholic tradition (much of southern France is still primarily Catholic) however after the

baptism no aspect of religion is really incorporated within this relationship. As I understood it,

godparents are more like a surrogate parent, an adult for children to orient towards when they

feel like they cant go to their parents. The children would receive gifts from their godparents,

write letters back and forth, and even if they were living far from one another, make an effort

to spend time together a few times throughout the year. I saw this tradition being celebrated

with several different families in France, not just with Chloe and Hugo. Godparents are often

very close friends of the family, who contribute to a network of caring adults for the children.

In addition, I saw parents keeping their kids close through routine. Routine was very

important in Chloe and Hugos life. School went from 8:30 to 4:30. Parents or caregivers

brought and after-school snack to the playground, and children would play and eat their snack

for about 30 minutes after school, then everyone went home to their respective houses. Bath-

time was at 6, and dinner was at 7. Due to this routine, play dates were rare and never

arranged after school like they were for me in Canada. I think the kids really appreciated
having that time after school to spend time with family and unwind after a day full of peer-

interaction. Generally, I saw that Chloe and Hugo had strong attachments to the adults in their

lives. Chloe had many friends, but I never saw her very preoccupied by these friendships,

and she did not spend much time outside of school with these friends, aside from birthday

parties and the odd playdate on the weekend. She was oriented toward her parents, who

placed great importance on school and extra-curricular achievements. Due to this orientation

toward her parents and their values, Chloe excelled in school, dance, and horseback riding.

One instance where I regularly saw attachments break down between the children and

their parents was when their father went out of town for work. He worked in the Netherlands,

and would work 10-day shifts and then come home for two weeks, where he wouldnt be

working and had lots of time to spend with the children. The mother and I began to see a

pattern every time the father would leave for workthe evening after his departure and for the

following two days or so, the kids would act out. Hugo would bite or hit kids on the

playground, Chloe would not listen to instruction and be rude to her mother and me. We

knew that these changes in behaviour had something to do with their father leaving, and know

after reading Neufeld it makes much more sense to me. I believe this is what Neufeld would

call attachment frustration. The children were separated from their father, and that important

attachment was temporarily put in jeopardy, leading to frustration and aggression.

Finally, I saw the negative effects of physical manipulation with Chloe and Hugo.

Sometimes, when Chloe was acting out in the days after her father left for work, or when

Hugo was acting out (age-appropriately) for attention at the table, their parents would use

physical force and hit them to discipline them. This usually happened when both the children

and parent were frustratedfor example, when Chloe was experiencing attachment

frustration after her father leaving, and her mother was frustrated from working all day and

coming home late, left alone again with two children acting out. The effects of physical
discipline on Chloe and Hugo were hugely negative. It severed attachment between Chloe

and her mother, and with me as well. She would refuse to talk to us for the rest of the

evening, and shut herself in her room. She became scared of her mother, therefore would not

continue the bad behaviour with her, especially when a fesse (spanking) was used as a

threat. However, because she knew I would never hit her, she continued to be rude and

aggressive with me. With both Hugo and Chloe, I saw them mimic their parents by pretending

to hit each other. Every time Hugo went through an experience where his dad hit him, he

would go through a phase at daycare where he would hit other children. It was obvious to me

that physical manipulation taught children nothing but fear. In most cases, no conversation

was had, and the children didnt really understand why they were being punished, or what

behaviour warranted that type of punishment. Bad behaviour would continue to occur, just out

of their parents eyeshot: with me, at school, at daycare, or with friends parents. The children

were learning no lessons about respect or proper behaviour from these experiences, and

whats more, these experiences were weakening their attachment bonds to their parents and

adults in general. I found this to be an extremely detrimental form of disciplinedetrimental to

forming attachments with adults and detrimental to ethical and moral development.

Ultimately, with Chloe and Hugo I saw the benefits of children orienting towards the

adults in their lives, and I also saw what happens when those strong attachments break

down. I think in most cases minor breakdowns in attachment connections are inevitable, such

as the cases where Chloe and Hugos father had to leave for work. I think Chloe, and Hugo

especially, benefitted from having an au pair as a constant caregiver alternative when their

parents were unavailable. In addition, I saw the importance of reconnecting or collecting

after these minor breakdowns, and bridging between their caregivers and their parents. In

Part II, I will go into more detail of how we dealt with these breakdowns and some things I

would suggest that would help the children adjust and adapt to attachment frustration.
 Part II: Assessment of Interventions

My first point in Part I was about the importance of attachment between children and

adults in French culture, and how I saw Chloe and Hugo demonstrating signs of these

attachments. This is a positive point, therefore I would suggest no intervention. These

children oriented toward a cohesive and caring network of adults in their lives, composed

primarily of their parents, their grandparents, their godparents, and myself. Chloe and Hugo

were both personally able to form healthy attachment relationships with the adults they

encountered in their lives.

Although Chloe and Hugo were able to form relationships with adults in their lives,

those relationships were not always maintained to the best of their ability. The groundwork

was there, however physical separation and harsh disciplinary moves would often threaten

these relationships. Firstly, with the pattern of their father leaving for work every two weeks, I

would suggest bridging techniques to be used. I explained how the absence of Chloe and

Hugos father would often result in attachment frustration. According to Neufeld, this

frustration could be bridged by drawing attention to what stays the same or the next point of

contact. I think most people appreciate being informed about what is going on around them,

and having time to adjust to changes. I also believe that sometimes as adults, we forget that

children also have this need to know what is going on around themwe might think they dont

notice or dont care. With Chloe and Hugo, I think it would be a conversation to have at

dinner, the night before their father left for work. A short conversation where he explained to

them he would be leaving and establish his expectations for their behaviour while he was

gone, referring to their au pair and mother has people they should orient towards. This type of

clear and basic communication can often seem unnecessary to us, but it is actually an

important step to take to maintain attachments and allow for adaptation.

 The second intervention I would suggest would be to completely stop with physical

discipline, and in replacement model the concept of respect. In Part II I outlined how I saw

physical discipline result in counterwill. Neufeld describes counterwill as an instinctive

resistance to any sense of being forced. Counterwill grows as attachment wanes, which is

what I saw with Chloe and Hugo every time they encountered physical discipline from their

parents. Physical hurt breaks attachment, and attachment frustration fuels aggression.

Attachment to a parent creates a model out of that parent, therefore Chloe and Hugo, who

were both very attached to their parents, were placed in a confusing scenario when someone

they modeled behaviour from hit them. I believe that the aforementioned bridging technique

would remove the occurrence of many of these situations, as these disciplinary tactics were

often fuelled by attachment frustration. However in the cases where attachment frustration did

present itself, or other types of misbehaviour that parents felt validated discipline, Neufeld

would an advise a type of discipline that does not divide. This type of discipline is based on

connection and solicitation of good intentions through modeling and scripting good behaviour.

Basically, it all comes down to maintaining that attachment, because with that connection

comes the value of mutual respect. I think there is also a valid point in waiting until the

scenario is over to debrief what was learned, for it is extremely hard to have any teachings

sink in when emotions are running high.

When I finally spoke to Chloe and Hugos parents about my thoughts on physical

punishment, they were surprised and interested in my views as they were quite revolutionary

to their culture. It is interested to me how conducive French culture is to creating attachments

between adults and children, but also how contradictory their traditional forms of punishment

are to maintaining those attachments. Physical discipline is something quite accepted in

French culture still today. In the parents in this studys case, it was something that they

experienced from their parents and teachers, so it is accepted as something that they would
inevitably encounter with their children. Although Chloe and Hugos parents were very close

to their children, they were also very strict, to the point that it jeopardized their close

relationship. Once they saw what was at risk, they re-evaluated the need to use physical

discipline with their kids.

Chloe and Hugo formed strong attachments to adults, partly due to their culture, which

values and respects the relationships between children and adults. For the most part, Chloe

and Hugos attachment relationships were well nurtured. From the dynamics Ive seen at play

and in relation to Gordon Neufelds theories of attachment, I would suggest bridging

techniques and discipline that maintains connection and mutual respect with these children, in

those times where attachment frustration occurs.