Clarification of Answer by
chellphill-ga
on
21 Jun 2003 11:12 PDT
benfranklin-ga,
Here is the information that you requested. I have listed the links,
along with excerpts containing
information that I felt might be relevant to your situation. While
researching your question, I found the subject so interesting that I
continued to explore it even after I posted my answer. As a result, I
am adding some new information that I thought might be beneficial to
you as well.
I noticed that once my answer was posted, that a few of the links did
not display correctly. If you have any problems with the links in my
clarification please let me know.
I do hope the material I have listed provides you with the information
you were needing.
If there is any more that I can do for you, please don’t hesitate to
ask!
Thanks again, and best of luck to you!
chellphill-ga
Court Cases
http://www.specialtylaw.com/MNFL/CASES/4318.HTM
(Although not specifically said to have been diagnosed with
depression, the Mother in the following case suffered from symptoms
that are not unlike those of depression. You can skim through the
highlights below to see if this might be relevant to your situation.)
Yang v. Yang
C0-02-1674
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
May 27, 2003
Excerpts:
" In reaching his conclusion that the father should nonetheless have
custody, the evaluator noted that he "was impressed with the strength
of the older children's conviction regarding their mother's inability
to provide appropriate ongoing care for [A.Y.]," because she was
"physically rageful at times, as well as emotionally distant." He
recognized a close bond between the brothers and found that A.Y.'s
interaction and interrelationship with his brothers was positive and
appropriate. Besides recognizing the sons' concerns, the custody
evaluator also expressed concern about the mother's mental health.
Specifically, he was concerned the mother's "reported defensiveness
and inconsistencies," her inability to accept reality, and her
inability to accept responsibility for her actions."
" Also troubling to the custody evaluator were the mother's
unsubstantiated claims of abuse allegedly perpetrated by the father,
because it appeared that the mother made the claims in order to
manipulate the legal system. The custody evaluator's report included
issues of domestic abuse and factors concerning whether joint physical
and/or legal custody would be appropriate. The custody evaluator
recommended that the father have sole legal and physical custody of
A.Y."
http://www.specialtylaw.com/CAFL/CASES/03-0902.HTM
Ramona C. v. Superior Court of San Diego County
No. D041797
Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division 1
June 10, 2003
Excerpts:
" Ramona C. (the mother) seeks review of juvenile court orders denying
her reunification services under Welfare and Institutions Code [fn 1]
section 361.5, subdivision (b)(11) and setting a section 366.26
hearing. She contends the court erred in denying her reunification
services without making the prerequisite finding that she failed to
make reasonable efforts to treat the problems that led to her son, Z.
C.'s, removal and any finding she failed to make reasonable efforts is
not supported by substantial evidence. She also argues she was not
provided reasonable services because she was not given psychiatric
treatment for her depression, and termination of her parental rights
will violate her right to due process. We deny the petition."
"Dr. Barnes said the mother is anti-social, acts impulsively and
defies authority, is rebellious and resentful, has poor social
judgment, does not profit from experience and is not able to be
independent or to set goals. He could not rule out the possibility she
would return to the father. He recommended she undergo a psychiatric
examination for depression and opined it was doubtful she would
benefit from reunification services unless she overcame her
depression."
" At the disposition hearing on March 10, 2003, the social worker
recommended denying reunification services because the parents had not
benefited from domestic violence services in the past and their rights
had been terminated to the four older children. She noted Dr. Barnes
recommended a psychiatric evaluation and opined that treatment for the
mother's depression may resolve some long-standing issues. The social
worker said in the past the mother did not benefit from services aimed
at helping her become more independent or resolve domestic violence
issues. She opined depression was not the mother's only issue."
" The mother contends the failure to provide her with psychiatric
treatment constitutes an impermissible failure to provide reasonable
services. She argues the Agency should have first become aware of her
need for psychiatric treatment for depression when the psychologist
who evaluated her on December 31, 2000, wrote that at the time she was
"experiencing a fair amount of depression and may feel trapped in a
hopeless situation." She claims her depression was again apparent
when, on February 25, 2003, Dr. Barnes described her "pronounced
depression" that "may render her debilitated, unmotivated, and unable
to advance," and opined that psychopharmacology may be necessary."
http://www.specialtylaw.com/CAFL/CASES/03-0612.HTM
(In this case, depression of the parent is not the sole factor of the
decision, as substance abuse was an issue as well. However the
severity of the father’s depression is a major factor. This case cites
several times that the parent’s depression risks a negative impact on
the child's physical and emotional well-being)
In re James H.
No. B159929
Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division 5
April 22, 2003
Excerpts:
"The child[']s . . . father . . . suffers from a mental and emotional
disability, including but not limited to major depression and panic
disorder with agoraphobia which has resulted in father being
involuntarily hospitalized, limiting his ability to care for the
child. Further, on numerous occasions at the child's school, the
child's father has demonstrated numerous mental and emotional
problems, including but not limited to, being irrational and
incoherent. Such conduct on the part of the child's father endangers
the child's physical and emotional health and safety, placing the
child at risk of physical and emotional harm and damage." The juvenile
court found, by clear and convincing evidence, "[S]ubstantial danger
exists to James' physical and or mental health." The father was
ordered to: undergo a drug rehabilitation program; participate in
conjoint counseling with the child; obtain regular psychiatric
treatment; and take all prescribed medications."
" The juvenile court's exercise of jurisdiction over the child was
governed by section 300, subdivision (b). Under section 300,
subdivision (b), the juvenile court may adjudge a child to be a
dependent of the court when it finds, by a preponderance of the
evidence (In re Shelley J., supra, 68 Cal.App.4th at p. 329; In re
Basilio T. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 155, 168) that, "The child has
suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer,
serious physical harm or illness, as a result of the failure or
inability of his . . . parent . . . to adequately supervise or protect
[him], or the willful or negligent failure of the child's parent . . .
to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical
treatment, or by the inability of the parent . . . to provide regular
care for the child due to the parent's . . . mental illness . . . or
substance abuse." (¤ 300, subd. (b).) The dispositional order,
removing the child from the father's physical custody, was governed by
section 361, subdivision (c)(1), requiring clear and convincing
evidence of any of the following circumstances: "(1) There is a
substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or
physical or emotional well-being of the minor or would be if the minor
were returned home, and there are no reasonable means by which the
minor's physical health can be protected without removing the minor
from the minor's parents' . . . physical custody. [¦] . . . [¦] (3)
The minor is suffering severe emotional damage, as indicated by
extreme anxiety, depression, withdrawal, or untoward aggressive
behavior toward self or others, and there are no reasonable means by
which the minor's emotional health may be protected without removing
the minor from the physical custody of his . . . parent . . . ." (¤
361, subd. (c)(1), Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1456(d); In re Basilio
T., supra, 4 Cal.App.4th at pp. 169-170; In re Kristin H.(1996) 46
Cal.App.4th" 1635, 1654.)
"The father: had for several years been in therapy for anxiety and
depression; was voluntarily hospitalized in 1997; and had recently
been diagnosed as suffering major depression "with psychotic
features," panic disorder with agoraphobia, and "[d]elusional
[d]isorder, persecutory type." The father's condition was chronic,
although his prognosis, with continued treatment, was good."
" The foregoing evidence demonstrated the father was incapable of
supervising or protecting the child. Although the child was receiving
counseling, his behavior, school attendance, and academic performance
remained poor. The child was "very `out of control,'" and the father
was not capable of rectifying that situation. The child was placed at
substantial risk of serious physical and emotional harm because of:
the father's ongoing criminal conduct, dating from 1988 to the
present; the father's consistent and ongoing abuse of drugs and
alcohol over many years; the father's inability to provide a stable
home; the father's failure to control the child; and the father's
chronic mental health problems. The Courts of Appeal have held: "`In
determining whether the child is in present need of the juvenile
court's protection, the court may consider past events. [Citation.]'
(In re Petra B. (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 1163, 1169 [].)" (In re Diamond
H., supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 1135.) As stated in the case of In re
S.O., supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at page 461, "`[P]ast conduct may be
probative of current conditions' if there is reason to believe that
the conduct will continue." (Quoting In re Rocco M. (1991) 1
Cal.App.4th 814, 824.) Substantial evidence supported the
jurisdictional and dispositional orders."
http://www.specialtylaw.com/CAFL/CASES/03-0686.HTM
Robert E. v. Superior Court of San Diego County
No. D041531
Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division 1
April 30, 2003
Excerpts:
"Robert was receiving disability payments due to a mental condition
that he described as depression and "slight schizophrenia."
Jurisdiction was assumed under section 300, subdivision (b) based on
the mother's and father's mental conditions rendering them incapable
of providing regular care for Isaiah and on the father's parental
rights as to two half-siblings recently having been terminated due to
the father's substance abuse."
" In the 12-month status review report and addenda, Agency recommended
services to the parents be terminated and the matter be referred to a
section 366.26 hearing. The mother's therapist reported the mother was
showing some improvement but that the severity of her history of
depression warranted her being closely monitored for at least one year
without suicide or homicide attempts and that there be no unsupervised
visitation during that time."
" At the time the court concluded Isaiah could not be safely returned
to his father at the 12-month hearing, it had before it multiple
psychological evaluations diagnosing Robert with anti-social
personality disorder and expressing concerns about Robert's parenting
ability as well as the opinions of both the social worker and the
former therapist that return to Robert presented a substantial risk of
detriment to Isaiah. The record also included evidence the father
presented well and was adept at manipulating or conning people to his
own benefit, minimized the severity of the mother's mental problems
(characterizing a homicidal/suicidal woman who suffered from major
depression and schizoid personality disorder as suffering from
"occasional mental problems"), exhibited poor judgment in not
complying with the conditions and recommendations regarding the
mother's release from her board and care facility, demonstrated little
insight into his own problems..."
http://www.specialtylaw.com/CAFL/CASES/03-0815.HTM
Excerpts:
" On January 4, 2002, the juvenile court sustained the first amended
juvenile dependency petition filed on November 8, 2001. The juvenile
court sustained the following allegations in the amended petition: (1)
mother used illicit drugs and had a history of substance abuse; (2)
father had a long history of unresolved substance abuse; (3) mother
and father had a history of domestic violence; (4) mother and father
failed to ensure that Amanda regularly attended school; (5) mother had
been diagnosed as suffering from depression and because of her
limitations she was unable to provide the children with ongoing care
and supervision; (6) mother was under the care of a psychiatrist and
had been prescribed psychotropic medication; (7) on March 24, 2001,
the children's home was found in a filthy and unsanitary condition;
(8) the child Zachary suffered from hydrocephalus which required
regular medical examinations and the parents failed to keep these
appointments in May 2001; and (9) mother had entered into an agreement
for voluntary supervision under a voluntary family maintenance
contract, but family preservation services had been terminated because
of mother's and father's lack of compliance."
http://www.specialtylaw.com/CAFL/CASES/03-0909.HTM
In re Williams A.
No. D040757
Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division 1
June 10, 2003
Excerpts:
" In August 2000, the San Diego County Health and Human Services
Agency (Agency) filed a petition in the juvenile court alleging one-
month-old William was at substantial risk because E. L. was mentally
ill. Specifically, the petition alleged E. L. had major depression and
borderline intellectual functioning that resulted in lack of insight,
poor judgment, emotional lability and poor impulse control. E. L.'s
mental illness manifested in claims that William laughed at her and
tried to be mean to her."
"Several service providers believed William was at risk of neglect.
The court sustained the allegations of the supplemental petition,
removed William from E. L.'s care, placed him in foster care and
ordered both supervised and unsupervised visits. E. L. did not
appeal."
"The social worker believed William remained at high risk and there
was no substantial probability of returning him to E. L.'s custody.
William was physically and developmentally delayed, but was active and
needed close supervision, which E. L. could not provide. E. L. did not
process information clearly and became easily frustrated when William
did not cooperate with tasks she needed to complete. William's age and
special needs, coupled with E. L.'s history of instability, left him
susceptible to neglect and abuse."
" E. L. testified she was participating in therapy, parenting classes
and visitation when services were terminated. She had been under
psychiatric care since 1999 but no longer needed medication. E. L.
said she was capable of handling life and everyday routines if she had
the proper support and environment. She had learned coping skills that
helped her deal with stress and relieved her depression. She completed
a 52-week parenting class after her services were terminated. E. L.
continued to visit William five hours a week. During visits, she read
to him, played with him, fed him and disciplined him appropriately. E.
L. was on a waiting list for government subsidized housing and wanted
William to live there with her."
" Social worker Elisa Kendall testified it would not be in William's
best interests to return him to E. L. because she was not able to be a
full-time parent"
" William Hamilton, M.D., testified E. L. was his patient since 1999.
She no longer was depressed or suicidal. Dr. Hamilton had no concerns
about E. L.'s ability to care for a child, although he had never seen
her with William. She had been stable and off medication for almost
two years. Dr. Hamilton's evaluation of E. L.'s progress was based on
her self-reporting."
" After considering the evidence and hearing argument of counsel, the
court denied the section 388 petition, finding E. L. had not shown
changed circumstances. Although E. L.'s insight and judgment in
parenting had improved, these changes were not substantial in light of
William's needs. The court further found even if E. L.'s circumstances
had changed, it was not in William's best interests to return him to
E. L.'s care."
http://www.michbar.org/opinions/us_appeals/2000/060700/7298.html
"In 1992 and 1993, Bartell suffered through bouts of depression and
was hospitalized after a suicide attempt. After being released from
the hospital, Bartell continued to receive treatment for her physical
and mental ailments. Simultaneously, William's behavior became
increasingly uncontrollable, and in August 1993, Bartell voluntarily
placed him in the Chelsea Home for Boys. William stayed at the Chelsea
Home for approximately one year, when his behavior proved more than
the Home could handle. Toward the end of his stay at Chelsea, William
was hospitalized at the University of Michigan's Children's
Psychiatric Unit to receive more specialized care. Thereafter, the
Chelsea Home discharged William because of his hospitalization and its
inability to contain his behavior."
" During William's voluntary placement in foster care, FIA asserts
that Bartell visited William erratically and that his behavior became
agitated and uncontrollable during her visits. Claiming that she had
sufficiently resolved her psychological maladies to re-assume her
son's care, Bartell asked to resume custody of her son in December
1994. See id. at 642-43. Shortly thereafter, Lohiser and FIA initiated
custody proceedings in Jackson County Probate Court, asserting that
William's behavioral and emotional disorders, coupled with Bartell's
mental and emotional problems, prevented her from providing the care
William needed. The Probate Court denied FIA's request, and Bartell
was re-united with William on March 1, 1995. The next day, however,
FIA filed a second petition to place William in temporary custody. On
March 9, 1995, the Probate Court granted the petition and thereby
continued William's temporary out-of-home placement. In granting the
petition, the court concluded that the out-of-home placement was
necessary to protect William from a substantial risk that he would be
mentally or physically harmed while in Bartell's care."
" In early 1996, LSS petitioned to have Bartell's parental rights
terminated, and on May 15, 1996, the Probate Court held a hearing on
this issue. Among other evidence, LSS proffered an examination of
Bartell performed by Dr. Frank Van Goethem. Dr. Van Goethem's report
provided that Bartell was "intellectually limited" because she "was
not very articulate," had "a limited vocabulary," and scored 74 on the
verbal IQ test. J.A. at 113-115. Van Goethem also found that Bartell
suffered from dependent personality disorder, serious depression, low
self-esteem, and self-abusive, pathological behavior. See Bartell, 12
F.Supp.2d at 643-44. Based on these findings, Van Goethem concluded
that it was "unwise to reunite Ms. Bartell with her children" and that
he "seriously question[ed] if Ms. Bartell ha[d] the intellectual and
necessary emotional resources to provide optimal parenting for the
children." J.A. at 119. A second evaluator, psychologist Gary
Rutledge, also opined that Bartell was unable to care properly for
William."
" Notwithstanding the reports of Moore-Newberger and Jacobs, the
Probate Court granted LSS' petition, concluding that Bartell "fail[ed]
to provide proper care and custody for William and there is no
reasonable likelihood that she will be able to provide proper care and
custody within a reasonable time." J.A. at 216. The court further
concluded that there was a "reasonable likelihood" that William would
be harmed by the mental and emotional incapacities of his mother, and
that irrespective of Bartell's benign intentions, this potentiality
legally required that her parental rights be terminated. See J.A. at
216."
" Accordingly, we underscore that our holding does not rest on the
State's characterizations of Bartell's intellectual disabilities, but
on its specific findings pertaining to Bartell's history of both
receiving and delivering abuse, depression, suicide attempts,
pathological conduct, and her ultimate inability to control a child
who presents unique behavioral and psychological challenges. Based on
these findings, we hold that Bartell has not demonstrated that her
parental rights were terminated in contravention of the Due Process
Clause."
Research:
http://www.mhafc.org/pwmi-custody.htm
"The major reason states take away custody from parents with mental
illnesses is the severity of the illness, and the absence of other
competent adults in the home."
"Although mental disability alone is insufficient to establish
parental unfitness, some symptoms of mental illness, such as
disorientation and adverse side effects from psychiatric medications,
may demonstrate parental unfitness. A research study found that nearly
25 percent of caseworkers had filed reports of suspected child abuse
or neglect concerning their clients."
" If a mental illness prevents a parent from protecting their child
from harmful situations, the likelihood of losing custody is
drastically increased."
http://www.mhafc.org/pwmi-risk.htm
The Mental Health Association of Franklin County
"The parental diagnosis of mental illness alone is not sufficient to
cause problems for the child and family. Rather, it is how the
diagnosis affects the parent's behavior as well as familial
relationships that may cause risk to a child. The age of onset,
severity and duration of the parents' mental illness, the degree of
stress in the family resulting from the parents' illness, and most
importantly, the extent to which parents' symptoms interfere with
positive parenting, such as their ability to show interest in their
children, will determine the level of risk to a child."
"Children whose parents have a mental illness are at risk for
developing social, emotional and/or behavioral problems. An
inconsistent and unpredictable family environment, often found in
families in which a parent has mental illness, contributes to a
child's risk."
"Families at greatest risk are those in which mental illness, a child
with a difficult temperament, and chronically stressful family
environments are all present"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10467895
"This article proposes a developmentally sensitive, integrative model
for understanding children's risk in relation to maternal depression.
Four mechanisms through which risk might be transmitted are evaluated:
(a) heritability of depression; (b) innate dysfunctional
neuroregulatory mechanisms; (c) EXPOSURE TO NEGATIVE MATERNAL
COGNITIONS, BEHAVIORS, AND EFFECT; and (d) THE STRESSFUL CONTEXT OF
THE CHILDRENS LIVES.
Three factors that might moderate this risk are considered: (a) THE
FATHER'S HEALTH AND INVOLVMENT WITH THE CHILD, (b) the course and
timing of the mother's depression, and (c) characteristics of the
child"
*Emphasis mine
http://www.polkonline.com/special_sec/stories/092302/spe_depressed.shtml
"They studied 136 depression patients and their 299 biological
children, whose ages ranged from 10 to 40, in Pittsburgh and New York.
Eighty-one parents had made a suicide attempt and more than half had
made multiple attempts.
Twelve percent of the attempters' children tried to kill themselves
vs. 2 percent of those whose depressed parents had never made an
attempt"
"The researchers noted that children had a higher suicide attempt risk
if their suicidal parents had ever
been sexually abused, which was true for most of them."
http://www.medicine.uiowa.edu/ICMH/reports/BTREPORT.pdf
"One factor that may contribute to the high rates of behavior problems
in the children of depressed mothers is the parenting difficulties
found among depressed mothers. Depressed women tend to be less
responsive to their children and more rejecting of their children
(Gelfand & Teti, 1990)."
http://www.aboutourkids.org/letter/janfeb03.pdf
"Children of depressed mothers have been found to have difficulty in
establishing secure relationships, which may put them at risk for
later difficulties"
"Research has identified other areas in which developmental problems
may arise. Young children of depressed mothers have been rated as more
drowsy, passive, more temperamentally difficult, less able to tolerate
separation, more afraid or more anxious, then children of nondepressed
mothers. Studies have shown that depressed mothers are less involved
with their children; they are inconsistent, sometimes nurturing and
sometimes withdrawn. They have been found to: Be slow to respond to
overtures for verbal or physical intereractions by their children.
Make critical comments. Have difficulty in encouraging the childs's
speech and language facility. Have difficulty asserting authority and
setting limits, which would help the child learn to regular his or her
behavior"
"Children mirror their mother's mood and even at a young age, the
children of depressed mothers have been shown to be oversensitive to
their mother's negative moods. "
"Compared to children of non-depressed mothers, school-age and
adolescent children of depressed mothers have been found to function
more poorly in a number of areas. They have more school problems, poor
peer relationships, lower levels of self-esteem, more behavior
problems, and to be at risk for a variety of depressive and anxiety
disorders."
"Protective factors. A child's risk for developing emotional problems
my reduced by an intact marriage, free of conflict, favorable family
circumstances, such as sufficient economic resources, A HEALTHY, WELL
FUNCTIONING FATHER WHO IS INVOLVED IN THE CHILD'S LIFE, EXPOSURE TO
FEWER EPISODES OF MATERNAL DEPRESSION..." *emphasis mine
http://www.fhs.mcmaster.ca/slru/paper/wp9710.htm
"It has been well established that children growing up in a family
with a depressed parent are at increased risk for emotional, social
and academic problems in childhood (Hammen, 1991), and psychopathology
in adulthood (Weissman, Gammon, John, Merinkagas, Warner, Prusoff and
Sholomkas, 1987)."
http://www.healthscout.com/static/news/8005629.html
“The study concludes brief major depression or prolonged mild
depression by their mother puts a child at greatest risk of
depression. Researchers also say exposure to maternal depression at
any time during the first 10 years of life equally predicts youth
depression, even if the mother was only depressed once.”
http://www.echinaherbs.com/E-more.asp?aid=448
“"Many studies have shown that mothers who are depressed can adversely
affect the
development of their child, including reading ability and motor
skills. We wanted
to see if maternal depression affects the child's health as well,''
said lead
investigator Dr. Jenn A. Leiferman of the Carolina Population Center
at the
University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill.”
“Mothers who are depressed are more likely to smoke around their
youngsters and less
likely to place their children in car seats or give them vitamins,
results of a study
indicate.”
“"We found that women who were chronically depressed throughout the
child's
developing years do have a negative affect on the child's health,''
Leiferman
explained”
“Numerous studies suggest that parenting behavior is affected by the
presence of mental illness, and that parenting has a strong influence
on child outcomes. Research indicates that mothers with mental illness
show a range of difficulty with parenting, and that these difficulties
may differ somewhat as a function of diagnosis. Mothers with
schizophrenia and affective disorder diagnoses both show decreased
verbal and emotional responsiveness compared to well parents (Goodman
& Brumley, 1990). Mothers with schizophrenia appear to express less
anger and hostility than either well mothers or mothers with
depression (Goodman & Brumley), while mothers with depression have
been found to express greater levels of hostility that well mothers
(Goodman & Gotlib, 1999). In addition, mothers with depression exhibit
latent, less contingent responses, increased expression of sadness,
and irritability, and less expression of positive emotions (Goodman &
Gotlib).”
“These parenting characteristics in turn, have been shown to be
associated with poorer attachment (Radke-Yarrow et al., 1995), and
developmental delays in language, attention, and social competence
among infants and toddlers (Goodman & Brumley). Additional work with
depressed mothers has indicated that they tend to withdraw from
confrontation and conflict with children, rather than engage in
negotiation (Kochanska, Kuczynski, Radke-Yarrow & Welsh, 1987), and
that depressed affect in mothers may influence decreased expressions
of anger by other family members including children. Such parenting
styles may influence the development of maladaptive coping styles and
interpersonal skills associated with depression and anxiety in
children (Goodman & Gotlib). More research is needed to support links
between specific parenting behaviors and specific child outcomes.”
“Depressed mothers also show differences in cognitive processing from
non-depressed mothers. Parents with depression engage in more negative
information processing, and are more likely to have negative
attribution styles and to evaluate themselves poorly as mothers
(Goodman & Gotlib, 1999). Studies have shown that children of
depressed mothers have similar cognitive styles and negative
self-concepts (Garber & Robinson, 1997; Nolen-Hoeksema, Girgus, &
Seligman, 1992); and that these styles may be somewhat dormant under
positive conditions, but can be "turned on" by exposure to situations
that raise negative emotions (Taylor & Ingram, 1999). Thus, depressed
parents may be modeling cognitive styles that increase their child's
vulnerability to depression.”
“Environmental Stressors. Chronic and/or acute stressors outside the
family can also moderate the impact of parental mental illness on
children. More specifically, the stress associated with minority
status, low levels of education, single parenthood, social isolation
and poverty increases the likelihood of emotional and behavioral
problems in children of parents with mental illness (Beidel & Turner,
1997; Hammen et al., 1987; Harnish et al., 1995; Sameroff & Seifer,
1983)”
“Child gender also appears to be an important and potentially complex
moderating factor in the relationship of parental mental illness and
child outcome. Some studies have shown that girls are more adversely
affected than boys by a parent's depression (Davies & Windle, 1997;
Hops, 1996), while other studies have shown that boys fare worse
(Gross, Conrad, Fogg, Willis, & Garvey, 1995). Studies also show that
girls and boys may show divergent responses, with girls more likely to
develop depression, and boys more likely to show conduct problems
(Cummings & Davies, 1994). A recent study further indicated that
gender may interact with family functioning such that poor family
functioning secondary to maternal depression predicts conduct problems
in girls, but not in boys (Davies & Windle).”
,
0 Comments
)