Foundation for the Future

This post first appeared on my substack, @lucybeney

As statistics across the developed world continue to demonstrate, far too many children are currently failing to thrive.  A lot of children feel ‘untethered’, and experience the knock-on effects of this, which include anxiety and depression.  To address this effectively, we need an open discussion about how, as a society, we may have taken a wrong turn where children’s wellbeing is concerned.  Rather than ‘pulling people out of the river downstream’, we should be looking upstream, to stop them from falling in, in the first place.

Last Friday, I attended Foundation for the Future, an international conference on early childhood and family policy, held at the House of Lords, in London, with further discussion afterwards at the independent think-tank, Civitas.  The Conference was organised by the European Federation of Parents and Carers at Home (FEFAF), and its UK branch, campaign group Mothers At Home Matter.

It was refreshing to hear an alternative story put forward in the heart of Westminster, to counter the ubiquitous background clamour for ever more government investment in ‘quality child care’ outside the home.  Participants from around the world were unequivocal about the primary importance of mothers – and fathers – in the raising of happy and healthy adults.  People with a wealth of knowledge and experience offered evidence to counter the mainstream narrative – evidence which closely mirrors my own experience as a therapist in practice.

We know that mental and emotional wellbeing rests primarily on the quality of our relationships, environment and experiences – especially in the early years. The Conference offered a fearless challenge to the accepted consensus of the last few decades, which seeks to encourage new mothers back into full-time work as soon as possible.  This challenge is necessary if we are to begin to address the roots of the ‘mental health crisis’ in young people, which we have collectively – and unwittingly – brought about.

Leaders in researching this field sparked a different kind of discussion on how we can shape family policy to help children and families flourish.  The emphasis of the conference was very much on the developmental needs of children, which remain unchanged, rather than the expectations of adults – or indeed the devices and desires of finance ministers, whose main interest is to see as much tax revenue as possible.

Opening the meeting, Anne Fennell, chair of FEFAF, emphasised three current attitudes which are widespread in much of the developed world, and which need to be challenged:

1. Children are seen as a ‘burden’, which institutional child care can solve.  In addition to the negative effect on parents and would-be parents, children also hear this narrative, which can be deeply damaging.

2. There is a growing distrust of the role of parents in raising children, in favour of handing children’s day-to-day care over to ‘child care professionals’. This abdication of age-old responsibility can undermine important aspects of children’s natural development.

3. There is a lack of both understanding and interest in the effects of child care policies on children. Policy currently centres on what governments – and some parents – would like.  A way needs to be found to reframe this and ask ‘what do children really need?’.

These themes were taken up by keynote speaker Erica Komisar, an internationally acclaimed psychoanalyst, social worker, parenting specialist and writer.  She reiterated that, in order to address the ongoing ‘mental health crisis’ among children and young people, we first need to change the prevailing culture.  Only then can we hope to see child care policies improved.

She explained that currently, we labour under three myths, which need to be debunked:

1. The needs of caregivers/mothers must come first.

2. Spending quality time with children is enough.

3. Children are ‘like self-cleaning ovens’ - they can take care of themselves.

Fresh from her inspiring contribution to the recent Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC) Conference in London,  Erica explained how the current widespread inability of children to regulate their emotions is, in fact, indicative of anxiety and depression.  This is being handed down within families – “not genetically, but generationally”.  She suggested that Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) should actually be renamed ADH, without the final D.  What we are witnessing is not a huge rise in diagnosis of a ‘disorder’, but in a natural stress response – and stress resilience is directly related to attachment security.  To be securely attached, children under the age of three need a consistent, responsible and responsive care-giver, who is physically and emotionally present, as much of the time as possible.

The conference heard how it takes only three generations “to kill maternal instincts”.  The resulting lack of security leads to an increase in attachment disorders which pass from mother to child, and which underlie so much of our current emotional distress.  Erica suggested that every parent asks the question, “why would you think that the state could raise children better than you?”.  She went on to stress that an imperfect mother is usually better for a child than an alternative care-giver.

While he works to promote positive experiences in early education, Ole Henrik Hansen, a professor at universities in both Sweden and Norway, told the meeting that research has shown that children in day care may have elevated levels of the stress hormone cortisol.  He also explained that non-cognitive development, which depends primarily on the parents’ relationship with their children, must come before children’s cognitive development.

This reminded me of Ian McGilchrist’s explanation in his book, The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World, of how “feeling came, and comes, first, and reason emerged from it”. Parents – especially mothers – have a key role to play in helping children to regulate their feelings and “buffer” difficult situations.  There are, however, huge differences in parents’ ability to engage with their children, which is one reason why a greater focus on supporting and educating parents is needed.

Eminent Professor Lea Pulkinnen, from Finland, then took up the theme.  First she described the ten pillars of a healthy childhood, before demonstrating how these are being threatened by seven current and intensifying trends within society.  These threats are polarisation, fragmentation, urbanisation, ‘schoolification’, intellectualisation, utilisation and isolation.

Another leading contributor to the Conference was David Goodhart, author of The Care Dilemma and a commissioner on the Equality and Human Rights Commission.  He reminded the meeting of how the ‘precautionary principle’ has been thrown out with regard to the wholesale move towards institutionalised child care in the early years, and uncertainty about its long-term effects on children.

Nobel prize-wining economist James Heckman also addressed the conference remotely from the United States.  He believes that society has a very narrow way of viewing women and equality, limited to the idea that “50% of everything should be female”.  This means that the value of mothers and household output is ignored, when the engagement of family – not schools – is the key to successful child development. He believes that the “psychic value” in the raising of children is being consistently overlooked.  I feel that what we are seeing now, in terms of emotional distress, often results from that oversight.

Everyone present at the conference was clear – this is not an attack on working mothers, or on those who have no choice but to work outside the home.  It is a plea to ensure that society places a far greater value on children and parents, and that mothers fully understand how important their role is, especially in the early years of a child’s development when they function as the child’s ‘central nervous system’.

It is also a call to government and policy makers to offer parents a a genuine choice, so that they are supported in doing what is best for their children, as well as for themselves.  We all need to recognise that while it is possible to do it all – be a mother and have a career – it is just not in children’s best interests to try to do it all at the same time, while children are very young. Too many insecurely attached children are suffering with sky-high levels of anxiety and depression, and too many feel alone in the world.  We owe it to these young people to explore all options for finding a better way forward, even if it involves significant personal sacrifice.