Treating children younger than their years

[findwords]

I have seen comments here about treating children as though they are younger than their years. Please could someone point me in the direction of research based guidance online in relation to this? Thank you very much.

It isn't about treating them younger than they are it is about recognising that chronological age and developmental age don't always align.

Have a read of anything by Bruce Perry. Look up Neruosequential Model of Therapeutics.

The basic concepts is that the brain develops bottom up in a set sequence. If damage is caused at any stage (through trauma) then it is hard to move successfully on to the next. So there is no point in trying to fix something in the 'high' brain area if you are ignoring that fact that something is missing in the 'base' brain area. You need to fix that first.

Simply put, you aren't just magically able to cope with something because of your age but because of all the learning you did in the run up to that age. If you didn't get to do the learning because you were to busy simply surviving (so permanently in a state of flight or flight), or you had a parent who wasn't able to teach it to you then you won't be there.

Obviously, the real literature will explain it better. What reading have you done on trauma already that doesn't support this?

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6691036/

It isn't something limited to supporting adopted children either. I recall a few years ago a clinic that treated anorexia nervosa through essentially taking people back to bottle feeding and then weaning them. Including spoon feeding, heaps of praise, rocking them etc.

You’re a builder, you’ve built a lovely four bed house but the contractor has cocked up the foundations. The house has large cracks, and half of it is sinking. To solve this you have two options. Option 1 keep using filler on the cracks in the walls. Option 2 repair the foundations.

Option1 is the same as treating a child according to their chronological age.
Option 2 is the same as treating a child according to their developmental age.

Thats an interesting why of describing it @SimonJT

Having adopted a child at 8, my experience is that in some respects he was way ‘older’ than he was, way too independent and I really had to pull him back so he understood that there were things that were my job because I’m mum and he’s a child and shouldnt have to worry about some things.

In other respects I had a five year old.

@Hotwaterbottlelove

It isn't about treating them younger than they are it is about recognising that chronological age and developmental age don't always align I agree with this, and also with what @ted27 has said that in some respects a child might have taken on an older role in some ways and in other ways be "young" for their age. I am asking about the advice I see given about treating a child younger than their age and where the advice includes assumed estimates - like "treat them 2 years younger than they are" in a global sense rather than taking on board that a child might be "younger" in some ways and not others. So for example advice that even if a child is saying they are not a baby, treat them like a baby, make decisions for them, wrap them up like a baby, treat them younger than they are in a global sense.

Does anyone know of research based guidance on treating a child as younger in this way?

Thank you very much

I recall a few years ago a clinic that treated anorexia nervosa through essentially taking people back to bottle feeding and then weaning them. Including spoon feeding, heaps of praise, rocking them etc

Apparently this is a controversial and certainly not research based for anorexia or attachment problems?

From what I have read it IS about treating them and responding to them as if they were younger than they chronologically are. There is no point in recognising they are developmentally not at their chronological age and then to behave as if they were. However, this is not about forcing them into something they don't want, but about responding to their needs. As others have pointed out, the developmental delay in some areas and children might be bigger than in others. Sorry, I can't remember where I have read it, because I have read and heard it so many times.

My understanding is that it's about meeting a child where they actually are and disregarding expectations based on age. Work done by Beacon House shows that children alter their attachment style based on the situation they find themselves in. It is also possible that children can be different ages depending on which aspect of their lives we are looking at, 'reading age' is one example of this. Children who have become parentified often appear much older in many ways.

yolande7 my worry is that the advice you have read and heard so many times isn't evidence based and does not take into consideration the complexities. That it would take someone with expertise in development to assess exactly where a child is at, and in what ways.

If you know a child is 2 years behind emotionally, then you would handle emotional outbursts as though they were 2 years behind, I can see that. But you wouldn't be treating your child as though they were 2 years younger in every respect, and you would be working towards helping them with their emotional development with advice from therapists?

I hope that makes sense. I cannot find anything which is evidence based in relation to babying and so if it is out there I would be really pleased to see it. On the other hand, children will sometimes like to be treated like a baby ime, ie they initiate it, but it is very much child led and it isn't related to attachment problems.

@findwords

I don’t think I’ve come across people talking about ‘babying’, which sounds different to me than ‘think younger’.

I don’t think I ever babied my son but as @ifchocolatewerecelery says I met him where he was, without any expectations based on his age. Sometimes I thought younger, at other times I respected where his life experiences had left him.

It isn't something limited to supporting adopted children either. I recall a few years ago a clinic that treated anorexia nervosa through essentially taking people back to bottle feeding and then weaning them. Including spoon feeding, heaps of praise, rocking them etc.

I can’t imagine that would in any way be a clinically appropriate way of treating anorexia. I’d be interested in any research supporting that view.

In terms of children, I think this is one of those things that’s git a touch of the Chinese whispers about it - eg the idea is based on sound theory about raising the child you have based on their developmental age, coupled with the knowledge that infants tend to regress following significant change ie in terms of feeding, toileting etc which turns into “treat them like they’re younger” as a short hand.

What I mean is, like so much in adoption, there’s been a conflagration of a few different concepts we know through research which is distilled into very simplistic advice where 2+2 =4, or not.

I think it’s good sense to parent the child you have, who may present older in some areas and younger in others, and to offer them nurture in a way that feels accessible to them. I won’t however be taking my 9 year old back to bottle feeding.

The anorexia clinic was in NZ, I believe. If I remember correctly it wasn't a treatment that they were advocating for everyone with the eating disorder but rather certain people who through more conventional talking therapy had been identified as needing a different approach. And yes, it wasn't about 'babying' them as a whole, just around food. Sorry, I can't even remember where I watched it!

Try looking up Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy (DDP) - it is based on the research on attachment theory and how children who experience trauma can be supported by treating them at their developmental age rather than their chronological age.