Anonymous wrote:Yikes! After reading up on the physical description, I had to examine my DS. He doesn't have developmental delays but he has dyslexia. Some of the physical characteristics are similar to our ethnic blend - as in we're part Latino. He was wide-spaced eyes that are slightly almond shaped (as do I) and he has a slightly flatter nose than Caucasians, which also is within the range of normal for Latinos. That fold above his mouth is there but isn't super deep. His chin seems normal. He has a full upper lip.

I don't really think he has FAS. He doesn't have anything similar to ASD/ADHD. Just plain boring dyslexia. But, those physical characteristics caught my eye. He looks like me, though, and I don't have FAS. My mom didn't drink. I can't recall really drinking when I was pregnant. Maybe 1-2 drinks all together for the full 9 months?

1-2 drinks is not going to cause FAS. Kids get SN from bad luck, birth or other injury, genetics. No one really knows as studies are just generic guesses looking at populations. They aren't always as helpful as people make them sound to believe. You didn't do anything to harm your child. He's perfect the way he is and hopefully with the right help with the Dyslexia, he'll do great in life.

It would take multiple drinks a day to get to the level of FAS or FASD and while it impacts every kid differently more than likely light drinking or a few isn't going to do it.

I wish people would stop trying to scare each other. YOU DID NOT DO THIS TO YOUR CHILD. Don't look for something not there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yikes! After reading up on the physical description, I had to examine my DS. He doesn't have developmental delays but he has dyslexia. Some of the physical characteristics are similar to our ethnic blend - as in we're part Latino. He was wide-spaced eyes that are slightly almond shaped (as do I) and he has a slightly flatter nose than Caucasians, which also is within the range of normal for Latinos. That fold above his mouth is there but isn't super deep. His chin seems normal. He has a full upper lip.

I don't really think he has FAS. He doesn't have anything similar to ASD/ADHD. Just plain boring dyslexia. But, those physical characteristics caught my eye. He looks like me, though, and I don't have FAS. My mom didn't drink. I can't recall really drinking when I was pregnant. Maybe 1-2 drinks all together for the full 9 months?

You are not making any sense.

My son is half Latino and also looks like the FAS characteristics. It’s why they are a marker, not definitive. Much more common for some ethnicities and backgrounds.

Look, this is all way off base. This thread has footer out of hand. The diagnosis is useful when deciding whether to adopt and to spread awareness of the devastation it can cause. It’s not helpful as numerous people have pointed out as a label for purpose of school or get to services. The presentation varies so widely that it is meaningless. The actual issues, like ID, learning issues, ADHD, are all more important for those purposes and carry less stigma. In part to deter the stigma for the child which is so out of hand for this diagnosis it’s not helpful to them to go into school with this label.

Anonymous wrote:Yikes! After reading up on the physical description, I had to examine my DS. He doesn't have developmental delays but he has dyslexia. Some of the physical characteristics are similar to our ethnic blend - as in we're part Latino. He was wide-spaced eyes that are slightly almond shaped (as do I) and he has a slightly flatter nose than Caucasians, which also is within the range of normal for Latinos. That fold above his mouth is there but isn't super deep. His chin seems normal. He has a full upper lip.

I don't really think he has FAS. He doesn't have anything similar to ASD/ADHD. Just plain boring dyslexia. But, those physical characteristics caught my eye. He looks like me, though, and I don't have FAS. My mom didn't drink. I can't recall really drinking when I was pregnant. Maybe 1-2 drinks all together for the full 9 months?

You are not making any sense.

How does one develop dyslexia?

Yikes! After reading up on the physical description, I had to examine my DS. He doesn't have developmental delays but he has dyslexia. Some of the physical characteristics are similar to our ethnic blend - as in we're part Latino. He was wide-spaced eyes that are slightly almond shaped (as do I) and he has a slightly flatter nose than Caucasians, which also is within the range of normal for Latinos. That fold above his mouth is there but isn't super deep. His chin seems normal. He has a full upper lip.

I don't really think he has FAS. He doesn't have anything similar to ASD/ADHD. Just plain boring dyslexia. But, those physical characteristics caught my eye. He looks like me, though, and I don't have FAS. My mom didn't drink. I can't recall really drinking when I was pregnant. Maybe 1-2 drinks all together for the full 9 months?

I know that people tell the general public ASD when there are different more scary diagnoses. (eg Adam Lanza) I would think a bio mom would only reveal a FASD diagnosis to her closest and dearest friend.

I have read the entire thread, although the medical stuff is over my head a bit. To answer OP's origional question, no, I don't think drinking or anything I did contributed to my dd's ASD.

I actually do not drink at all (I just don't like it) so dd was never exposed. FASD was never brought up. I don't really know if light, early drinking can cause it. I mean, I don't drink, but lots of women have some alcohol before they know they are pregnant. You'd think there would be a ton of FASD if that was the case.

Sometimes, these kinds of questions are upsetting. There was that study out a few months ago about some possible link from foods to autism (it was weak and not reliable imo). So now it's like, hey did that hotdog I had on the Fourth of July in 2014 cause her ASD? I KNOW it didn't but it messes with you. As a mom, I can't wonder all the time, and for us, it's certainly genetic.

Anonymous wrote:
I said I have never seen a child diagnosed with FASD who didn't have physical features AND didn't have a documented history of prenatal alcohol exposure (e.g. mom said she didn't drink, and there isn't something like a documented blood test during pregnancy to call into question her story). Have you seen a child who doesn't meet either of those criteria who has gotten a FASD diagnosis? The chart you linked seems to imply that you do need one of those two things. What lead them to conclude that the issue was FASD?

I don't disagree that the diagnosis requires either one or both of 1)certain physical features and/or 2)documented history of prenatal exposure. That's just what the current criteria require.

I did disagree with the following claims, whether made by you or someone else:

1) "If mom comes in, swears she didn't drink, and there's no physical evidence, then the kid will get a different diagnosis that explains their symptoms."
[there are other criteria for establishing prenatal evidence of exposure even if the woman "swears she didn't drink," including eyewitness accounts of the drinking -- which it looks like someone (you?) added later, but then the expanded list was not what I was disagreeing with, just the original claim]

2) FASD does not have clear diagnostic criteria at this time. [the updated guidelines give clear diagnostic criteria for all diagnoses included under FASD]

3) There are no formal diagnostic criteria for ARND at this time [there are]

4) The 2004 criteria that were linked were current and accurate [they are not]

And I couldn'tt explain why you weren't familiar with the full range of current guidelines for diagnoses, other than that you may not have seen much, or you didn't understand fully what was going on, or the people you draw information from might not be up to date.

But no, I do not disagree with the claim that the diagnosis requires either one or both of 1)certain physical features and/or 2)documented history of prenatal exposure. Again, that's just what the current criteria require.

I trust we are on the same page now?

Anonymous wrote:

But there are ways to document prenatal alcohol exposure even if the "mom comes in [and] swears she didn't drink." See the third picture above.

I don't know what you mean by third picture above, but by "physical evidence" I mean either signs on the child (e.g. small philtrum, wide set eyes) or physical evidence that the mother has abused alcohol (e.g. a blood test taken while she was pregnant). Without either of those, or verbal report, or I guess maybe an eye witness, I have never seen them diagnose FASD.

The pictures referenced are near the bottom of page 7. The first is the flow diagram of diagnosis (abbreviated), the middle one is a very long and blurry list of the various diagnostic criteria, and the last is the accepted means of documenting prenatal alcohol exposure without the relating of it directly by the mother.

There could be a lot of reasons why you might not have seen the full range of diagnostic methods. The people you have watched might have been using outdated criteria, or they might not have specified all of the thought process, or you might not have seen children evaluated who fell outside the criteria you expected but still within guidelines, or there might be political or therapeutic reasons for a given practitioner, or what have you. Nonetheless, these are all accepted ways to make the diagnosis.

It's complicated, and even moreso now that it was 15 years ago.

I am confused. As I read it the charts still say that you need either to see physical features on the child OR something that supports the idea that the mother drank during pregnancy. The chart on page 4, if you follow the pathway that leads from symptoms to no documented exposure, to no dysmorphology, you get "other diagnoses" which implies that kids who hae neither of those things don't get the diagnosis. But then you say that there are kids who have neither of those things but are still within the guidelines. Can you tell me where those kids are on the chart? Or is there another chart?

No. I said you might not have seen certain situations because you might not have seen diagnosis of children "outside the criteria you expected but still within guidelines."

I'm not entirely sure what your expectations were/are, given the guidelines you linked. It's possible you only understood or noticed what you had reference for. (That's not intended as a slam. If someone is using criteria you've never heard of and they don't specify each step out loud, of course you wouldn't fully understand what was going on.)