Was the twins' future up for discussion?

[APRIL]

I’m not doubting what you read, April, but studies prove that Schizophrenia does not get worse. It CAN do if left untreated, like any illness, but as Schizophrenia is so apparent it’s unlikely anyone would go unnoticed if they had it and not be treated for it.

What or where you read that Dr Ferguson supposedly said Sheila could get worse, I can only assume it was a misquote or had been taken out of context, or was simply just part of Dr Ferguson’s prognosis report and didn’t show the whole thing in its entirety
.

Here’s one link for you, and a screenshot too


https://www.helpguide.org/articles/mental-disorders/schizophrenia-treatment-and-self-help.htm

WHOA!!! This is going WAY too far. I haven't attempted to read a specific meaning to the words he spoke, or to assess what he MAY have meant. I DO have reservations about his view that Sheila had  a "mild" case, as I know about what Schizophrenia does/doesn't do, even more so does Dr Ferguson when he told Colin that Sheila -and I can ONLY believe it to have been his initial assessment of her- would, presumably without medical intervention, worsen. He must have sent her home adequately medicated, ie to prevent a re-occurrence. Re the "mild" case? Maybe it was his way of reassuring Colin? I'm just guessing he'd have made a judgement call about what Colin was capable of taking on board.

[G-Unit]

I'm as good at finding cites, as are you, but you may take it as read that Dr Ferguson undoubtedly DID tell Colin that Sheila's condition would worsen. It's something Jeremy's supporters have used against Sheila since I first joined a forum. If you fully read my post, you'll have seen my suggestion that it was said when Sheila was first admitted and diagnosed, an assessment of her condition prior to intervention. It was NOT the prognosis she left hospital with, adequately medicated.

Dr Ferguson told Colin that Sheila would always have the illness and that relapses would become more frequent and intense. [CAL p115]. That was why he decided to keep the boys with him. June wanted them to stay at White House Farm, but they didn't want to go and became upset. Colin allowed her to see them at Sheila's flat, but that also upset them when she made them kneel and pray. [CAL p116].

It seems to me that the twins would be staying with Colin going forward and that June's influence on them would be restricted by him. I find it believable therefore that June, fearing losing any influence or even contact in the future, was likely to be racking her brains for a different solution. 

[Holly Goodhead]

It was indeed a situation which fulfilled the parent's needs rather than those of the children.

Normally an Adoption Society choose who will be offered a child for adoption, but in Sheila's case it was her natural grandfather who decided that she should go to the Bambers. Apparently he knew Nevill Bamber from their service with the RAF. [CAL p22]. That was highly unusual and has never been explained, but it happened regardless of June's mental instability. A few months after the adoption June had another breakdown and was given electroshock therapy as an in-patient. Sheila was, therefore, shuffled around quite a bit. A spell with her natural mother, then a couple of months in a children's home, then being cared for by family members and a nanny. There was little chance imo that she and June were able to bond during all that.

I note that you refer to SC's birth mother as her "natural mother".  Do you think there's something unnatural about adoptive mothers? 

[Caroline]

I note that you refer to SC's birth mother as her "natural mother".  Do you think there's something unnatural about adoptive mothers?

I don't think she meant that.

[G-Unit]

We have several adoptees here - how different were N&J as far as your own experiences go? What preparation did parents receive before having a baby handed to them? Someone having a biological child, have time to prepare both practically and emotionally - it sounds to me like they were left to get on with it. I imagine they did their best and certainly didn't deserve to die in such horrendous circumstances just because they adopted two kids.

I don't think adoptive parents received any preparation; it was a time when women were expected to be maternal by nature. Adoption Societies screened prospective adopters to ensure they were 'respectable'; ie churchgoers of good repute and financially stable. These days they probably have other concerns too, but in those days the emphasis was on providing babies to those unable to conceive rather than on protecting the children from parents unsuited to raising unrelated children.

I'm also sure that the Bambers did their best, but June's unhealthy focus on religion caused problems for the children. Jeremy turned to his father and Sheila felt more comfortable with and closer to her aunt Pamela and granny Speakman than to her mother. June wasn't to blame for what happened but her mental problems obviously contributed, just as they were disturbing her relationship with her grandchildren. They, however, were able to compare her behaviour to that of their father and his family and they had their father to support them. Their mother and uncle had to just endure June's behaviour.

[Eleanor]

I note that you refer to SC's birth mother as her "natural mother".  Do you think there's something unnatural about adoptive mothers?

There sometimes is.  Especially in this case.

[Holly Goodhead]

We have several adoptees here - how different were N&J as far as your own experiences go? What preparation did parents receive before having a baby handed to them? Someone having a biological child, have time to prepare both practically and emotionally - it sounds to me like they were left to get on with it. I imagine they did their best and certainly didn't deserve to die in such horrendous circumstances just because they adopted two kids.

I've posted the following previously and I think it's the best possible description of the dynamics:

Infertility is not usually something that "happens".  Rather, it is a reality that is forced on a couple over a period of months which then stretch on into years.  It includes anxieties about sexual performance and bodily intergrity.  It includes medical investigations and the possibility of drugs and of surgical interventions.  It includes the allocation of responsbility for the infertility - to the man, to the woman or to both.  And it requires mourning.

I use the term "mourning" deliberately, as infertility implies some very significant losses.  There is the loss of an image of oneself or of one's partner as biologically intact and capable of conceiving a child.  There is the loss of the hoped-for status of biolgocial parent (which includes a fantasy of presenting a grandchild to one's own parents).  And there is the loss of the hoped-for biological child, a child who carried both one's own genes and one's own dreams.  This last loss, is for many people, an especially painful one.  Paradoxically (except within a psychoanalytic framework) it is this loss of which they often are not conscious.  Fantasies regarding their imagined biological child often remain hidden until they are exposed by a discrepancy between the real adopted child and the imagined biological child.

Unfortunately the adoptive parents' fantasies regarding their (nonexistent) biological child are not at all inactive.  They silently colour many aspects of the relationship between the adoptive parents and their adopted child.  And, of course they are not alone in this process; sooner or later the adopted child also develops his own fantasies about his biological parents.

These fantasies whether they reside within an adoptive parent or within the adopted child - are not necessarily pathogenic.  However, the clinical literature contains many examples of families in which such fantasies prevented one person from seeing the real person in front of them.  (The adopted playwright, Edward Albee, uses an especially powerful example of such fantasies as the focal point for his play, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?  In this play the "son" of the two major protagonists, George and Martha, is gradually revealed to be a fantasy - a fantasy who has himself wondered if, perhaps, he was adopted.)

If the adoptive parents are to be able to see their adopted child for whom he is, and if the adopted child is to be able to see his adoptive parents for whom they are, they must mourn the loss of their respective fantasied biological child and fantasied biological parents.  The lost (fantasied) relationships must be mourned before the new (real adoptive) relationships can flourish".

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Psychology-Adoption-David-M-Brodzinsky/dp/0195082737

[G-Unit]

I don't think she meant that.

True. it's just another way of saying birth mother. I don't think that being adopted is always harmful; in fact birth parents can be just as harmful as adoptive parents. Also some children are able to deal with difficult parents and some aren't, just as some children are able to deal with bullies and some aren't. Adoption just adds another layer of difficulty to the challenges of growing up which all children face. In the end it's up to the individual to become someone they're happy being whatever their parent's opinions are. I jettisoned religion and some of my mother's priorities but the Bamber children chose to accept their parent's control to some extent, probably because they never became financially independant.

[Nicholas]

I note that you refer to SC's birth mother as her "natural mother".  Do you think there's something unnatural about adoptive mothers?

This thread is titled Twins Future - aren’t you off topic?

[G-Unit]

I've posted the following previously and I think it's the best possible description of the dynamics:

Infertility is not usually something that "happens".  Rather, it is a reality that is forced on a couple over a period of months which then stretch on into years.  It includes anxieties about sexual performance and bodily intergrity.  It includes medical investigations and the possibility of drugs and of surgical interventions.  It includes the allocation of responsbility for the infertility - to the man, to the woman or to both.  And it requires mourning.

I use the term "mourning" deliberately, as infertility implies some very significant losses.  There is the loss of an image of oneself or of one's partner as biologically intact and capable of conceiving a child.  There is the loss of the hoped-for status of biolgocial parent (which includes a fantasy of presenting a grandchild to one's own parents).  And there is the loss of the hoped-for biological child, a child who carried both one's own genes and one's own dreams.  This last loss, is for many people, an especially painful one.  Paradoxically (except within a psychoanalytic framework) it is this loss of which they often are not conscious.  Fantasies regarding their imagined biological child often remain hidden until they are exposed by a discrepancy between the real adopted child and the imagined biological child.

Unfortunately the adoptive parents' fantasies regarding their (nonexistent) biological child are not at all inactive.  They silently colour many aspects of the relationship between the adoptive parents and their adopted child.  And, of course they are not alone in this process; sooner or later the adopted child also develops his own fantasies about his biological parents.

These fantasies whether they reside within an adoptive parent or within the adopted child - are not necessarily pathogenic.  However, the clinical literature contains many examples of families in which such fantasies prevented one person from seeing the real person in front of them.  (The adopted playwright, Edward Albee, uses an especially powerful example of such fantasies as the focal point for his play, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?  In this play the "son" of the two major protagonists, George and Martha, is gradually revealed to be a fantasy - a fantasy who has himself wondered if, perhaps, he was adopted.)

If the adoptive parents are to be able to see their adopted child for whom he is, and if the adopted child is to be able to see his adoptive parents for whom they are, they must mourn the loss of their respective fantasied biological child and fantasied biological parents.  The lost (fantasied) relationships must be mourned before the new (real adoptive) relationships can flourish".

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Psychology-Adoption-David-M-Brodzinsky/dp/0195082737

My mother's dream was for a little blond girl. She got one too, but she didn't get the compliance she didn't realise was part of her dream until it failed to materialise. Then the battle began. In later years she once told me that she envied me because I didn't fear life, I just went for it. It seems life frightened her, which isn't surprising really as she had good reason to be fearful, her life was harder by far than mine was.

[G-Unit]

This thread is titled Twins Future - aren’t you off topic?

Reading the thread 'Sheila's nightdress' it seems to me that being on topic isn't normally something you care about.

[APRIL]

Dr Ferguson told Colin that Sheila would always have the illness and that relapses would become more frequent and intense. [CAL p115]. That was why he decided to keep the boys with him. June wanted them to stay at White House Farm, but they didn't want to go and became upset. Colin allowed her to see them at Sheila's flat, but that also upset them when she made them kneel and pray. [CAL p116].

It seems to me that the twins would be staying with Colin going forward and that June's influence on them would be restricted by him. I find it believable therefore that June, fearing losing any influence or even contact in the future, was likely to be racking her brains for a different solution.

Many thanks for validating my post, G-Unit

[Eleanor]

This thread is titled Twins Future - aren’t you off topic?

The Twins have No Future.  The whole Thread is Off Topic.

[Holly Goodhead]

We have several adoptees here - how different were N&J as far as your own experiences go? What preparation did parents receive before having a baby handed to them? Someone having a biological child, have time to prepare both practically and emotionally - it sounds to me like they were left to get on with it. I imagine they did their best and certainly didn't deserve to die in such horrendous circumstances just because they adopted two kids.

From what I've read about NB he sounds similar to my own adoptive father.  Although you would not find my dad having anything to do with religion.  In terms of my adoptive mother again she has no interest in religion, although wasn't as anti as my dad, but she is far more Liberal minded than June.

Babies put up for adoption during the so-called 'baby-scoop era' were in the main as a result of societal stigma attached to illegitimacy which was to some extent all bound up with the Church and religion.

To my mind I think June finding herself infertile and adopting children created real paradoxes for her:  Why had God denied her birth children and how could she bond with these babies who represented everything she despised ie babies conceived outside of marriage?  And this is before you have all the dynamics I described above.

It was only ever going to end in tears 

[Caroline]

True. it's just another way of saying birth mother. I don't think that being adopted is always harmful; in fact birth parents can be just as harmful as adoptive parents. Also some children are able to deal with difficult parents and some aren't, just as some children are able to deal with bullies and some aren't. Adoption just adds another layer of difficulty to the challenges of growing up which all children face. In the end it's up to the individual to become someone they're happy being whatever their parent's opinions are. I jettisoned religion and some of my mother's priorities but the Bamber children chose to accept their parent's control to some extent, probably because they never became financially independant.

My mum wasn't adopted per se, but she was brought up by her grandparents, only finding out that the person she thought was her oldest sister, was actually her birth mother. She had a good childhood but has always felt rejected since finding out aged about 7 years old from another sister (actually her aunt) after a disagreement. It's affected my mum all of her life because it was never openly discussed and I think she always felt like she was a dirty secret. They all probably thought they were doing the best for everyone, but, her real mum (my gran) went on to have other children and my mum missed out on getting to know them and they had no idea about my mum until recently. One  big mess really that had ramifications for everyone.