Right attitude towards RAD children

On the web I read some suggestions for adoptive parents (just curious, I am not planning to adopt a child), and they were discussing about attachment disorders, and problematic behaviours.

Where I get confused, it's that I don't like to abuse people, when I am in a powerful position. I hate it, and I don't act that way. But sometimes, abused children seem to expect your bad behaviour; they seem to believe that you are an idiot if you act differently.

I have no deep experiences about it 'though. Just some occasional observation, and things you read.

Let's imagine: I adopt a child, he is used to being beaten if he behaves “badly”. I just don't want to beat him. Then, he thinks that I am a weak or stupid person, as I don't punish him so hardly as he is used to, and his bad behaviour increases more and more.

I refuse to behave as he would “want”. It disgusts me, I feel pain, and I think that it's not right towards him. I have an intuition about the underlying reasons, for his childish or dysfunctional behaviour.

Beating is just an example, perhaps it's excessive, and doesn't give the idea. But some things are against my nature. As far as I can, I like to be delicate in my social exchanges.

But when you read suggestions for adoptive parents, on some website, they write that you need to be very hard, because these children need a leadership, to feel safe. Otherwise, they don't feel safe.

I am confused.

Furthermore, I think that these people have a too much simplistic idea of “strength” and “weakness”. During a war, things often look the opposite of what they are.

When I behave harder than I wish, to demonstrate my son that “I am the leader”, am I really strong? I am acting against my nature to obtain his approval, and I am violent towards myself and my feelings, if not his.

Maybe I am stronger if I follow myself, and I act sweeter.

But does the child get it? I guess it depends on each individual child?

I wonder if it's right, to lead the way in this:

I have the strength and the courage to be vulnerable (too)

as opposite to

I am so weak and vulnerable, that I need to be “strong” with you (it's not a real strength btw)

But websites write that children with attachment disorders don't feel safe, if you don't demonstrate that you are the leader: it seems that you need to engage in this power war, and win them.

I am not writing that I intend to be a submissive victim, surely not. But the intent to dominate them sounds excessive and disagreeable to me.

Even more, I fear that this attitude is destructive, considered that power war and power abuse are their trauma.

What do you think about all that? (I am particularly interested in @DaturaInnoxia's opinion, as I know she is experienced).

So to start with, perspective is extremely important.
PhD Ross Greene (I really respect his opinions and have found the concepts he presents helpful) says, if they could do better they would.
It's a lack of skills.
So I find it essential to try to take out (judgmental) negatively subjective language because it influences the way you are with them.

So you'd want to take out your opinion that they think you're "weak" or an "idiot" and I'd take out "childish" because they're severely traumatized and using they best survival skills they know of

And it's worth recognizing that what outsiders label as "dyfunctional" has been effective so far because everything they've done up until this point has helped them survive up until this point.

HSS wrote:But websites write that children with attachment disorders don't feel safe, if you don't demonstrate that you are the leader: it seems that you need to engage in this power war, and win them.

I feel this approach is the worst thing you can do with them.

Anyone who feels unsafe, uncomfortably vulnerable and out of control, needs to feel more in control, more safe and more secure.

Demonstrating you're a leader isn't the same as a dictatorship where you overthrow or force leadership (as you already pointed out).

Power struggles usually cause them to act out worst.
If you think about it, wild animals are the most viscious and deadly when cornered and injured.
^
RAD kids are operating with that same part of their brains.

To feel safe, they need everything to be predictable and as stable as possible.

It's predictability and stability that makes them feel safe.

Engaging in power struggles and trying to achieve dominance is a very #######5 way of offering that predictability.

Privileges can be removed if necessary, but never ever ever withhold needs or try to induce discomfort.
No silent treatments
No yelling
No guilt trips
No aggressive or passive-aggressive body language
No berating
They're hypervigilant.

There's a neuropsychiatrist (Bruce Perry) who's perspectives I really like.
He suggests attachment in traumatized kids is the absolute core before anything else.

Even though I'm against forcing attachments, I believe some type of rapport or connection is key with RAD kids.

You demonstrate leadership by demonstrating things like honesty, genuineness, respect for them and their boundaries, sense of humour or light heartedness, and most of all, transparency.

Who wants a "leader" they don't believe in?

Be fully aware that they'll turn on you in a heart beat, but care about them anyways.

Don't take their attempts at gaining the upper hand personally (be it different forms of intimidation, attempts at violence or blackmail, triangulation etc.)
^
They have no trust. In their eyes, the only safe position for them to be in is when they're in full control.

I'm not saying to cosign it or act like it's ok, I'm just saying it's important to know it's not personal.

Avoid looking at triangulation as manipulation by trying to disregard it and bring them back to the topic at hand and be clear about who you have open communication about them with.

Don't set them up for failure.
^
If you're dealing with a kid who likes to steal, don't leaving anything lying around.
Same with damaging property or chances at harming animals, etc.

They're walking lie detectors and they don't believe others are looking out for them.
^
Find genuine reasons to care about and show concern for them personally (without getting too close)
^
Know that if you get too close before they're ready, they can become dangerous.

Know that if you remove (even "dysfunctional") coping mechanisms without putting adequate replacements in place, they're going to act out worst.

Take the time to offer to explain anything they question (even if it seems like it's just disagreeableness) = can increase a sense of control and feeling respected

I also strongly believe even the most predatorial of kids should feel worthy of protection < It doesn't matter if they pose danger to others.
It doesn't matter if they can look out for themselves - a child (aka a minor) shouldn't have to.
The ability to look out for themselves is a good skill to have, but it shouldn't be their only option.
^
I've also found it can decrease some of that behavior.

Rapport can be about meeting needs or increasing positive experiences.
Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs is good to look at for this



Starting where they're at to build rapport can start with ensuring their core physiological needs are met.
^
Then the next layer: a sense of safety, control and security to continue building rapport.

I think it's helpful for them to feel as independent as possible - that they can access they're needs without you if they'd like (especially at the beginning).

I feel it increases a sense of control.

A lot of kids with RAD have gone long periods of time without even their physiological needs met, so focus there.

Meals at the same time every day, access to snacks, etc.

Go get clothing with them (thriftstores, proper stores whatever) and let them select whatever makes them happy and (unless completely outrageous like a 12 year old trying to dress as if going to a club, etc) accept it without issue.

Offer as many choices as possible even if it's what type of fabric softener they want.
Anything to naturally increase a sense of control.

Do everything as authentically as possible and unconditionally = you won't get anything in return = it's only so they feel safer.

Sleep is important for mood as well.

Don't suck up or be fake.
Choose wording carefully - try to find ways of saying "no" without using the word "no"

Have rules - discuss them when they're calm and "front load" them by outlining what happens if not followed.

When there's an issue, non-violent crisis intervention suggests starting with a positive
^
Weird Random Example (be mindful I worked with youth 12+ not children)
If you call them and they say they don't feel like coming home, you could say

"If you're at _____ location at your curfew time, I'd love to pick you up as planned.

If you miss curfew, you know I have to report it and you're probation might end up getting extended like you discussed at your last meeting with them."
^
And then allow them to decide their consequences and follow through what you have to do.
Then let it go, don't be disapproving, etc. of their choice.
^
If they make the right decision and you have the rapport, outline what they did right and what positive qualities they showed (responsiblity, tolerance, cooperativeness, etc.)
^
Always follow through with both when you say you'll do something for them as well as consequences < that demonstrates predictability and boundaries - without power struggles.

If they really escalate, remove yourself from the situation.
^
Say where you'll be and to come get you if they need anything (to indicate that you will not be withholding any type of need from them).

If they're violent, you might have to go into a room that locks, but let them know to come get you when they calm down (or work that out ahead of time).
^
Don't be punishing when they're done either.
Collaborative Problem Solving is great though.

Also, if you're going to require that they follow rules - you should lead by example
I think it worked in my favor that, even though I followed through, it was quite visible that I hated causing them problems.
^
Speaking of which if you speak with other professionals be it teachers, psychiatrists, social workers, probation officers - only use objective language. Don't add negative opinions on what they've done, etc. - and don't allow those people to $#%^ talk your youth to you either.

And honestly, these are all just steps towards connecting and gaining a little trust or authentic "leadership"

My sleep schedule is so sporadic and disrupted that I'm brain dead and rambling. I want to write more a bit later.

To add, it's the way I am by nature anyways due to my own life experiences.

I like to drift and come around only when necessary, lol, so it was a comfortable fit for me

I was never able to gain control even when I desperately wanted to, so I just learned to fade away into another world.

It's interesting that when I worked I could get my $#%^ together and act like a proper adult, but at any other time I'm barely functional and a failure at life (I'm ok with the failure part, but being more functional would be nice)

Also, a lot of "they're"s in my last reply should have been "their"s

Being “childish” is not bad for me.

I am aware that some adults take a snobbish tone towards childish people, that being childish is not socially “cool”. It's just snobbery and hypocrisy at my eyes.

The past doesn't go really away. The “passing” of time isn't a “passing”, it's a sum and more like a layering than a line.

We all have a childish state (as Berne writes too - I liked his book!), and the truth is that we all learn everything we need thanks to our childish attitude... even maturity.

Childish people are usually smarter, creative, and they have a clearer knowledge of themselves, as they didn't forget our roots. On the opposite some mature people are predictable and boring.

For dysfunctional, it was just a mechanical repetition of a term I often read, it was quite a neutral use.

That written, I realize that your work requires many skills.

Some points are already part of my daily behaviour, but I would struggle with others.

I felt some performance anxiety reading your answer and figuring to act that way; btw it was just a

theoretical question.

HSS wrote:Being “childish” is not bad for me.

I am aware that some adults take a snobbish tone towards childish people, that being childish is not socially “cool”. It's just snobbery and hypocrisy at my eyes.

I agree. Childlike can be good - and a lot of "cool" is more false-self more than anything.

HSS wrote:The past doesn't go really away. The “passing” of time isn't a “passing”, it's a sum and more like a layering than a line.

That's a great point. I never looked at it like that.

HSS wrote:We all have a childish state (as Berne writes too - I liked his book!), and the truth is that we all learn everything we need thanks to our childish attitude... even maturity. 

That's a good reminder - I'd forgotten it.
So you did like it?

HSS wrote:For dysfunctional, it was just a mechanical repetition of a term I often read, it was quite a neutral use....
...theoretical question.

My rant wasn't intentionally towards your words or direction.
Some people view them in very disrespectful and ineffective ways and it gets me going.

I get really intense about somethings and forget the context under which I was writing.

Lol, I did try to (relatively unsuccessfully) narrow down the extra I said I wanted to add

^
Taking that into account, please feel free to bypass the following if you don't feel like reading (I'm still going to post it lol)

More about earning a position of trust / leadership / rapport:

When I worked, I was very clear about what rules I had to follow and what types of things would require that I would have to break their confidentiality. 
^ that demonstrated respect, predictability, and transparency.

I also gave reminders if I thought they’d say things that would cross that line. 
*However, if they ever do make threats at you or try to blackmail, you take it seriously by passing on their threats and everything you did before and after to cover your own ass. 

Tangent, back when I worked at an adult drug/alcohol rehab, we would always address issues with two staff to make sure there was a witness of what was said and how things were done. 

I think it would be ideal in a youth's situation too (for the worker's protection and the youth's) because some studies have found people are more likely to maintain their professionalism when frustrated while in the presence of their coworkers.

HSS wrote:Where I get confused, it's that I don't like to abuse people, when I am in a powerful position. I hate it, and I don't act that way. But sometimes, abused children seem to expect your bad behaviour...

Sometimes the "devil you know is better than the one you don't" 

Whether it's violence, maltreatment, neglect, etc., they've based their survival skills around their environment. 

Take them out of their environments and now their survival skills aren't effective anymore and they're surrounded by a new form of unpredictability. Now they have nothing - not even coping skills applicable to their new situation 
^
Another reason people should try increase the kid's sense of control, safety and predictability.

Learning a little about non-violent crisis intervention is great too because every behavior has some sort of antecedent (no matter how small it seems). 

Though severity of behavior and speed of escalation can vary quite a bit person to person, there's stages

1. Anxiety 
2. Defensiveness 
3. Behavior / Acting Out 
4. Tension Reduction 

If you learn to recognize the (often unique to the individual) signs of anxiety (or stress or agitation if you want to call it), you have a really good chance of successfully de-escalating the situation - especially if you know what they need 

If they get to stage three, it needs to run its course, so you want to be on alert for stage one. 

Point being, if you learn the person's triggers and understand the process, you can avoid most issues. 

Briefly, leads me over to Greene who I've mentioned already:

When talking about a lack of skills, he also brought up how some kids have naturally low or discontent / uncomfortable moods. 
^
I thought that was interesting because that's common for RAD kids < given they tend to experience a lot of irritability and anhedonia (inability to feel pleasure) - and a lack of affect which influences how people react to them. 

He has an approach he calls "Collaborative Problem Solving" which is awesome. 
^ if there's any book I recommend on kids, it's his "The Explosive Child"
^ He says there's 3 ways of addressing things with children. 

A. You can attempt dominance "my way or the highway" (ineffective with kids who have behavioral issues). 

C. You can give in to them (ineffective for getting things done)

B. Collaborative Problem Solving
^ 
You learn to bypass their triggers or find out what's wrong when they're escalating by listening and showing you hear what they're saying > Then bringing to the table what your goal in the situation is and why > Then ask them for suggestions and offering alternatives or a middle path.
^ 
It's not about getting things done at the beginning so much as building rapport, illiciting cooperation, and seeing where they lack skills and how to address that.

Which momentarily leads me back to non-violent crisis intervention where you offer choices when asking them to do things - especially if they have very oppositional natures.

Instead of "would you please empty the dishwasher?"

You can be like "For your daily chore, would you prefer to empty the dishwasher or sweep the floor?"
(gets trickier if youth gets upset by choices).

Or offer incentives
"How about you empty the dishwasher so we can go to _____ like we planned?"

Another thing some like are (respectful) reminders because shifting tasks can be very difficult for some people.
If they find it helpful, 20 minutes before then 10 then 5 minutes before and then on time, etc.

In the beginning, the priority is ensuring their success rather than the success of the goal or task.

Be careful what you say (so it's not used against you), but find a way to admit when you're wrong and try to make up for it respectfully - not as a bribe. 

No matter what they do, make them your priority and see if you can find out what's going on for them before looking at what they've done (even if it was harmful and will have serious consequences).
^
Why were they distressed enough to assault someone or to think trying to poison their teacher was a good idea? 
^
Why are they distressed enough to tell you they're going to throw the computer through the window? (even if they look totally calm when they say it)

Doing that from a place of genuineness is a big area where rapport or leadership occurs. 
^
Why would they trust or bond to people who aren't looking out for them? 

You'll start to see your leadership in little things like when they roll their eyes and scowl because they know they're going to put in the effort of being more tolerant and cooperative with you than they feel like and have been doing.

And when they start to use you as social referencing (look to your body language, reactions and behaviors for cues on how to deal with the situation at hand). 

Same with when they have an opportunity to act out in a way that would harm you, but they aren't as desperate to search for the upper hand so they don't do it.
^
Show acknowledgement and appreciation but keep in mind they'll still turn on you < so don't set them up for failure by purposefully placing them in a situation where they have that opportunity. 

The other thing, according to Dr. Perry (also previously mentioned), things happen in stages 

First: What he calls Attachment (but in my situations it was more about having rapport and a connection which was most of what my last rant was about. *Though, I'll add that studies have shown RAD kids are capable of forming attachments, but forming and utilizing them aren't the same thing).

Second: Regulation which, according to childhood development perspective (Piaget or Vygotsky), normally stems from Coregulation through a primary attachment figure who can act as a base of security. 

As someone mentioned in another subforum, we learn this from our caregivers / attachment figures. 

With youth, I think it's also with the outside help they should recieve, but often they don't or it's very inadequate. 

Note: Caregivers shouldn't play as therapists or counsel.
Where I worked, it was not allowed. 

It's too close to have someone know about you so personally and be in your space when you have no trust. 

Also, I feel coping skills are more important than emotional appeal - and I was told by youth they would have been more receptive to help if that had been the case - and I think they could have opened up accordingly. 

People say they play games with the professionals in their lives, but it's worth noting, even adults play along with obligations they're forced into. 

What would be ideal, is to offer information in ways that requires no give from them until they're comfortable. 
(I also think withholding information from anyone under the hypothesis that they'll use it to become more "exploitive" etc. is a very stupid reason to withhold information that could be helpful).

Even the most "manipulative" youth I've talked to have said that they would be interested in learning coping skills if it didn't involve psychotherapy style counseling or going into how things felt for them, or anything that was too vulnerable for them (at that time), etc. 

Third is what Perry calls Affiliation. This is where they'd finally be stable enough to start connecting with others 
^
And then going on to the fourth Attunement where they'd begin addressing concern for others outside of themselves (again, as someone mentioned in another subforum these things are learned and if you aren't taught you won't be good at it or have it at all). 
^ 
This would be the place of development of interpersonal skills would start and the Conscience Development that is often necessary for RAD kids. 

Later would come the fifth and sixth respectively: Tolerance for differences and celebration of them as labeled Respect.

Also, to tie Greene and Perry's perspectives together a little more, Greene says part of an adult's job with a kid is to act as a "Surrogate Frontal Lobe" (given their's aren't developed) and this is where Perry's Stage Two (regulation and skill building) begins. 

However; obviously you need Perry's Stage One "attachment" (or rapport, trust, or as you called it, leadership) before you can utilize it much. 

The effective method is not fast and it takes a lot of time and a lot investment - something society doesn't have much use for hence why there's so little success (and why people turn to pumping pharmaceuticals - and the forced dominance and control wars you alluded to) 

HSS wrote:...felt some performance anxiety...

^^^
My issue is when they start improving because we don't live in a reality that's fair < just because they improve themselves, doesn't necessarily mean others around them will improve or even appreciate it (and they might have their heads so far up their own asses they don't even notice). 
^
You gave a good example in a conversation in a different subforum a while ago: that some people latch onto and enable people for their aggression/status/dominance/power/etc. - which applies to changes in the youth's peer and interpersonal relations as they start improving their conduct - it can cause problems because it can come off as a punishment for improvement

Another thing I learned about was every ongoing relation we have with others, has a state of "homeostasis" meaning when (even positive) change occurs in one party, it will destabilize the others involved (at least a little) which can cause them to consciously or unconsciously behave in a way that tries to get the other to return to their normative state (get back to a state of homeostasis).
^
The youth may improve but another person like a worker or teacher or parent may have a very poor reaction due to trying to fulfill that inner drive. Things could even get worse for the kid before they get better. Another reason why a therapist is good. 

It's sad and scary that when they change, they don't always get the rewards they deserve (at least not right away) especially since it's one of the main things that humans are motivated by.

I need to remember human beings are resilient and nothing is permanent. 
I'm also not an authoritative person so I have to work around that too, or should I say, had to.

* To add, when I mentioned "Paiget or Vygotsky," I was trying to reference Vygotsky's concept that kids' cognitive and social development (as well as other "higher psychological functions") are deeply influenced by the teaching and learning from "More Knowledgeable Others" - who are often what Bowlby called primary attachments

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Sometimes the "devil you know is better than the one you don't" 

Whether it's violence, maltreatment, neglect, etc., they've based their survival skills around their environment. 

Take them out of their environments and now their survival skills aren't effective anymore and they're surrounded by a new form of unpredictability. Now they have nothing - not even coping skills applicable to their new situation

 

Okay, it makes sense, very clear.

If you learn to recognize the (often unique to the individual) signs of anxiety (or stress or agitation if you want to call it), you have a really good chance of successfully de-escalating the situation - especially if you know what they need [...] Point being, if you learn the person's triggers and understand the process, you can avoid most issues

I experienced that it works with many people.

Be careful what you say (so it's not used against you), but find a way to admit when you're wrong and try to make up for it respectfully - not as a bribe.

 

I can't imagine a way to admit my mistake that doesn't involve that risk...

No matter what they do, make them your priority and see if you can find out what's going on for them before looking at what they've done (even if it was harmful and will have serious consequences).

That is a slippery issue. I assume that you worked in a specialized structure, where you were with RAD kids only. It can be difficult when there are different children, and a problem between them.
We should be careful to different needs: our (right) empathy towards an aggressive child shouldn't lead into ignoring/ not protecting the child that has been harmed, especially when he is the weaker part; if we empathize with the attacker's reasons in the presence of the attacked one, the second boy could feel that he is alone, and that we like his attacker more than him.
Another point: I suspect that some adults in authoritarian position defend violent children' s acts just because these children are often charismatic. In these adults, you notice a mixture of strength's fascination, “sensitivity for social issues” and “selective empathy”: they exhibit “empathy” towards the attacker because of his difficult environment, and show a subtle mockery or disesteem towards his victim, especially when she is shy and boring. It's a hypocritical tactic: they choose the most playful boy, while ignoring that their actions are due to their “comfort”, and claiming that they are sensitive, so that they can preserve a moral self-image.

Imo, quite paradoxically they aren't helpful for the violent child: they lack to defend his REAL SELF, that could be totally opposite to the shining mask (and perhaps similar to the boy he is abusing).

Third is what Perry calls Affiliation. This is where they'd finally be stable enough to start connecting with others

I don't understand how this is different from first step/Attachment. Could you explain?

Also, to tie Greene and Perry's perspectives together a little more, Greene says part of an adult's job with a kid is to act as a "Surrogate Frontal Lobe" (given their's aren't developed) and this is where Perry's Stage Two (regulation and skill building) begins. 

What is the Frontal Lobe function, and how do you act as its surrogate? Is acting as a surrogate a help for gradually developing their Frontal Lobe, or is it just an external support?

HSS wrote:

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Be careful what you say (so it's not used against you), but find a way to admit when you're wrong and try to make up for it respectfully - not as a bribe.

I can't imagine a way to admit my mistake that doesn't involve that risk...

Yeah it can be a tough one.

I think at the very least it's been safe to authentically point out their patience with me, or whatever good quality they demonstrated etc. (like you would with people in any other area of your life)

Or saying something like, "In the future, I'd like to handle this situation by...(and then add what I should have done instead without directly addressing mistake if it's likely to be used against me)"

Or "It would have been better if I had ...(add more ideal thing)" etc.

HSS wrote:

DaturaInnoxia wrote:No matter what they do, make them your priority and see if you can find out what's going on for them before looking at what they've done (even if it was harmful and will have serious consequences).

That is a slippery issue. I assume that you worked in a specialized structure, where you were with RAD kids only. It can be difficult when there are different children, and a problem between them.

Usually one to one support for youth with extreme behaviors.

HSS wrote:We should be careful to different needs: our (right) empathy towards an aggressive child shouldn't lead into ignoring/ not protecting the child that has been harmed, especially when he is the weaker part;

Normally, the youth with the behavioral struggles were not left unsupervised with other vulnerable individuals.

When I first worked with my one of my favorites, even individual adults weren't allowed to be alone with them. It was almost always two adults with them.

HSS wrote:... if we empathize with the attacker's reasons in the presence of the attacked one, the second boy could feel that he is alone, and that we like his attacker more than him. 

I think I hear what you're saying.

Separating them to be address what happened and offering support individually is ideal to make sure no one feels that way.

HSS wrote:Another point: I suspect that some adults in authoritarian position defend violent children' s acts just because these children are often charismatic.

In these adults, you notice a mixture of strength's fascination, “sensitivity for social issues” and “selective empathy”: they exhibit “empathy” towards the attacker because of his difficult environment, and show a subtle mockery or disesteem towards his victim, especially when she is shy and boring. It's a hypocritical tactic: they choose the most playful boy, while ignoring that their actions are due to their “comfort”, and claiming that they are sensitive, so that they can preserve a moral self-image.

You're right, but favoritism, etc., is enabling the youth rather than what I was intending to describe.

There's the saying Acceptance Doesn't Mean Approval

You can unconditionally accept and care for and have positive regard for someone without thinking some of the things they do and say are ok.

1. Whatever they experienced that brought about the behavior is valid and should be addressed.

2. It does not mean the actions were ok.

The "adults in authoritarian position" you refer to, are honoring both 1 & 2.

Whilst others dismiss both 1 & 2 in full sympathy to the victim.

You need to honor 1 but not 2.

HSS wrote:Imo, quite paradoxically they aren't helpful for the violent child: they lack to defend his REAL SELF, that could be totally opposite to the shining mask (and perhaps similar to the boy he is abusing).

I agree completely.

Doing this can also lead to more serious consequences later down the road like jail when they finally meet someone who won't enable them.

HSS wrote:

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Third is what Perry calls Affiliation. This is where they'd finally be stable enough to start connecting with others

I don't understand how this is different from first step/Attachment. Could you explain?

1. Attachment (ideally) is when they connect with you enough to use you as a base of security.
RAD kids in the system were more about a rapport, connection and some trust that enabled them to take themselves further and to be reasoned with/taught.

2. From there, they can learn to Regulate themselves from both the sense of security and learning.

3. Once they have begun to navigate a human connection and have started regulating themselves, they begin to be stable enough to start connecting (Affiliating) with more people in a give and take manner

4. Attunement is where "conscience building" / empathy really begins

Until you have 1, you have no valid leadership (I like your word more than authority) in their eyes.

HSS wrote:

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Also, to tie Greene and Perry's perspectives together a little more, Greene says part of an adult's job with a kid is to act as a "Surrogate Frontal Lobe" (given their's aren't developed) and this is where Perry's Stage Two (regulation and skill building) begins.

What is the Frontal Lobe function, and how do you act as its surrogate? Is acting as a surrogate a help for gradually developing their Frontal Lobe, or is it just an external support?

Frontal lobe is about "higher thought processes" like reasoning, problem solving, self regulation, communication skills, etc.

There are many ways of acting as Greene's term "surrogate frontal lobe"

In his collaborative problem solving, generally finding out why they're frustrated in a situation and honoring the aforementioned "1" serves as a type of regulation in itself.

From there, eventually they'll be grounded enough and more open to hearing you out when you bring up a goal.

Now that both parties understand each other, you (respectfully) turn it over to them to try to problem solve and figure it out.

When you implement the solution they came up with or tweak it a little or brainstorm (etc.) you've just supported the development of them applying the upper part of their brains (frontal lobe).

If it's a situation where they declined or were unable to find their own solution, you can say you have an idea and ask if you can add something. They're still learning and developing this way too.

*keep in mind this is idealized here and more messy in real life.

All kids have underdeveloped frontal lobes; that's why teenagers are stereotyped for making such poor decisions.

It's for both gradually developing the frontal lobe and external support (how much of each will depend on the youth).

Adults are similar - especially those with trauma. Neuroplasticity is a beautiful thing.

I'm going to see if I can find an open source pdf to the book to post

I haven't found a link as of yet; however, I find my posts sound too "saintly" for lack of better word.

I want to add that if people really trigger us, out of professionalism and ethics, you should find someone else to work with that youth, so you don't negatively impact them or yourself (which is also why people should think long and hard before adopting, etc.)

I dealt with one youth who's constant personalized lashing out at me brought me to the point that it would not have been in their or my best interest if we kept working together.

It's a sign of humility and care to be willing to follow those ethics/professionalism