I agree with this blogger, this kind of sweeping judgments isn’t doing anybody any good:
“There is no greater threat to a child’s emotional well-being than being separated from a primary caregiver. Even if it was for a short period, for a child, that’s an eternity,” said Johanna Bick, a psychology professor at the University of Houston who studies adverse experiences in childhood.
It’s possible that the professor was misquoted or edited in some way. If that’s the case, she should make a big stink because she’s being portrayed as a quack. I mean, children of what age can’t be away from mommy even for a short time? Two days, two months, two years, seven years? Fifteen? And what’s a short time? Two minutes or two months?
No self-respecting scholar would make such grandiose pronouncements in a professional context.
Clarissa's Blog 
Reading the quote, it sounds to me like we’re missing the context of the conversation between the professor and the reporter. I would happily bet that in the context of what the reporter was asking, the answer made sense, and was later butchered and presented as as entirely separate, unhinged sounding quote.
In my experience, reporters don’t give a flying fuck about how they present their sources or how correctly they provide information, as long as their article has the correct emotional resonance to inspire outrage.
LikeLike