Questions are often asked about the effect of adoption on JB along with his experiences at boarding school. Imo the questions are often asked in such a way implying that these experiences were negative and somehow gave way to murderous intent.
But we know SC and JB's backgrounds were similar: adopted as babies, brought up by NB and June and both went to boarding school.
We also know there doesn't appear to be anything adverse in their biological backgrounds eg a history of anti-social personality disorder etc. Although nothing is known about SC's birth father. Bearing in mind also SC and JB were adopted in the 50's/60's due to societal stigma attached to illegitimacy as opposed to being at risk of abuse/neglect by birth parents. Babies/children adopted today tend to have suffered abuse/neglect within their birth families and/or harm in-utero from alcohol/drugs putting the developing foetus at risk of problems in later life.
According to SC's second cousin, Helen Grimster, who testified at court, SC did not enjoy her time at the first boarding school she attended in Sussex where she claims she was bullied.
I think BC claimed JB was sexually assaulted at boarding school but I've no idea how reliable this is. If it is true it doesn't seem to be something JB discussed with others.
The relatives often pass comment on the fact SC and JB were adopted and went to boarding school. This ranges from RWB's excerpts in his diary where he states JB was regarded as the b........ at school to DB claiming JB probably felt insecure because he was adopted and went to boarding school.
What seems to fall under the radar is how well, or not, NB and June adjusted to their adopted babies/children and status as adoptive parents. The following is an excerpt from a book entitled 'The Psychology of Adoption'
https://www.amazon.com/Psychology-Adoption-David-M-Brodzinsky/dp/0195082737 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".It seems to me June did not adjust well to her status of adoptive mother. NB and June married in 1949. June suffered a mental breakdown requiring in-patient psychiatric care during 1955 as a result of her inability to conceive birth children. SC was born in July 1957 and placed with the Bambers during October 1957 and formally adopted shortly afterwards. By 1959 June once again suffered a mental breakdown requiring in-patient psychiatric care and electro-convulsive treatment. The cause appears to have been once again bound up with her inability to bear birth children and her decision to adopt (Dr Ferguson's wit stat attached below). I doubt someone goes from fine one day to requiring in-patient psychiatric care and electro-convulsive treatment the next. I guess there's a gradual decline over weeks, months or possibly years. My concern here is how well was June able to meet SC's needs and interact with her on a day-to- day basis leading up to her breakdown in 1959?
The scientific evidence relating to 'attachment' shows that babies/children who have been unable to forum secure attachment with caregivers are at risk of suffering the sort of issues SC suffered:
- underachieved at school
- victim of bullying at school
- unplanned pregnancies during teenage years
- unable to form stable relationships
- unable to hold down permanent employment
- difficulty parenting children
- drug abuse
- mood swings
- mental illness
The following link provides access to a resource library from the world's experts:
https://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/The links relating to reports and working papers entitled the 'Science of Neglect' and 'Maternal Depression' seem particularly relevant but I think all this is probably best illustrated by Dr Tronick's 'Still Face Experiment':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apzXGEbZht0&list=PL829spV3rkSySvSQUpxrTlbHsjpoJYxbbHow might it have been for SC if June was unresponsive most of the time due to her mental health issues and how might this have altered SC's brain architecture?
