Any mental health people? Can a child remaining unnamed for 9 weeks have some affects?

Before being taken in by my grandfather

I think the reasons for this are likely to be more significant during childhood than lack of a name for a short time

I don't think OP is looking for problems, they are looking for answers.

No

No, no one really calls their baby by its name anyway, that’s more for toddlers.

Agree with @BertieBotts and @Bushmillsbabe — early babyhood is huge in terms of attachment. The lack of conscious memory of those times is irrelevant.

My brother wasn't named for 3 months back in the early 90s and it hasn't caused him any issues. You're looking for problems that aren't there.

It sounds like you need to educate yourself. Babies learn healthy attachment from birth. They may not make long-term narrative memories but they are banking information all the time.

There are many reasons that a baby isn't named or called by its name immediately, but in this scenario it sounds like it could be one small piece of a bigger pattern of neglect. And newborns are wired to create attachments to their caregivers: if those caregivers are uninterested or abusive, that is going to affect what neural pathways and survival mechanisms the child develops. Babies aren't unfeeling little potatoes who can be treated any old how with no ill effect, they are stashing information all the time that they'll carry throughout their lives.

oh come on, it was nine weeks. That is not going to cause lasting trauma, fgs!
Nine weeks!!

But you lay down behaviours, emotional responses, the brain is constantly rewiring at every age, but most brain development happens by 3 years old. You will remember abstract feelings from a very early age, but not concrete memories

I don't think newborn attachment really centres on names. Some people name their child in utero and use the name before they are born whereas others don't, the bonding is not affected. Many children also develop nicknames after they are born.

I agree with the poster saying whatever happened to you in the 9 weeks where nobody thought it important to give you a name would be vastly more important - those are crucial weeks where attachment is supposed to be forming. DS2 was in NICU for just one day and I honestly think that it is part of why he is so sensitive and hypervigilant. (I could be wrong).

In the past in some places it was actually fairly common not to name a child until they were christened (or similar ceremony for other religion) at about 6-8 weeks old, because a lot of babies died shortly after birth you'll see on family trees and old cemetaries "Baby boy/girl Surname" or "Unnamed baby Surname" sometimes. And it's not that uncommon even today for a baby to be given a name at birth and then for it to be changed over the next few weeks or months. It's also not unusual for parents to use a nickname or term of endearment rather than the baby's name directly until they are a bit older.

I was just looking at some studies relating to grandparent influence last night and one of the things mentioned was that children who are brought up by grandparents have almost always experienced some level of adverse childhood events in order to have ended up with their grandparent(s) rather than their parents, so studies in general show that children who are raised by grandparents do less well on average but it is not necessarily because there is anything wrong with grandparents as childrearers, it's more likely because children have been through difficult circumstances before they came to the grandparent.

I think the situation behind the lack of naming is more likely to be a source of underlying trauma.

However, we are shaped by very early interaction or lack of it and can be triggered by specifics that go back into very early childhood. For example, my premmie baby could not lie in a baby gym. He was all smiles with most things but not being under things. HV said it related back to the incubator.

Mental health people?! Professionals ….

Yes here I am. No. No is your answer.

Amazes me always how people WANT trauma, and seek it out.

Sure, but that’s not what the OP asked. She asked about not being named. From her post, she already knew the circumstances, just not that she wasn’t named immediately.

Lots of people missing the point. Those babies that weren't named straight away (or given a nickname) were loved, provided for and had their needs met. It sounds as though OPs weren't. That is the issue. Sorry OP. I hope you can find the support you need.

If you've only just found out then it couldn't have had that much of an effect?

Of course not. DS wasn’t finally named till we were actually walking to the registrar’s office, and he was ten weeks. Before that (and for weeks afterwards) he was called by his in utero nickname. He was a planned and wanted baby.

I went to uni with a guy who wasn't named until he was 10 weeks old and his parents had been taken to court. Faced with a potential fine, they finally named him... Daniel. A name so common* that we had nicknames for at least 7 of them. He was loved and unharmed.

I would think that any other neglect that caused you to be taken in by your grandfather, and growing up without actively involved parents, is what caused you harm. I'm sorry you had a difficult start to life and I hope you are able to get whatever support you need to move on from it to a happy life soon.

• Edited to add - I thought about excluding his name as identifying, but of course it's just so common that it isn't at all identifying.

Better than the Viking way eg Ragnar, son of Ragnar. Or just sticking another i after a well used name Henry i/ii-viii. I named my babies just on the end of the 6 weeks, their names all have special meanings.
That won't have affected you, a lot of babies are named, then nicknames/shortenings used. Babies start to attach at 12 weeks. It's best to have a primary care giver and be settled by 10 months. What is it you are looking for? I'd say it's how your grandfather attached to you and how he cared for you and helped you navigate not being brought up by your birth parents, that matters.

I don’t think I called DD by her real name until she was many months old. We’d call her sweat pea or peanut. Yes, talking about her we’d use her real name but when talking to her, it was always by a term of endearment.

Not a psychologist but there seems to be a bigger picture here if you were "taken in" by your grandparents as a small baby. The not giving you a name is maybe part of that.

No.

We called Ds Tiddler for months. It’s was just his sweet nickname and nothing like his actual name. He was named at birth

In lots of cultures it's normal to wait a while before giving a baby a name. Some cultures traditionally change a child's name at the end of childhood. Not having a name for the first week's of your life won't, in itself, have had any impact at all. But I agree with PPS that it might indicate problems in how your family was relating to you that could have caused issues.

I would imagine, if there were effects, that it might be whatever led to you needing to be taken in by your grandfather, rather than the naming itself, per se.

The treatment you receive as a baby absolutely matteres in terms of how it affects the developing brain and healthy attachment patterns etc. A baby learns to walk and talk before it lays down memories but those are both influenced by the care it receives.

But I agree with others that it's not the lack of name that is likely the issue, it's the reasons that went along with it.

What do you think the effects are? I'm not sure how a 9 week old baby can be psychologically affected by anything, they don't have the capacity surely