Attachment goes to court: child protection and custody issues
Abstract
Attachment theory and research are drawn upon in many applied settings, including family courts, but misunderstandings are widespread and sometimes result in misapplications. The aim of this consensus statement is, therefore, to enhance understanding, counter misinformation, and steer family-court utilisation of attachment theory in a supportive, evidence-based direction, especially with regard to child protection and child custody decision-making. The article is divided into two parts. In the first, we address problems related to the use of attachment theory and research in family courts, and discuss reasons for these problems. To this end, we examine family court applications of attachment theory in the current context of the best-interest-of-the-child standard, discuss misunderstandings regarding attachment theory, and identify factors that have hindered accurate implementation. In the second part, we provide recommendations for the application of attachment theory and research. To this end, we set out three attachment principles: the child’s need for familiar, non-abusive caregivers; the value of continuity of good-enough care; and the benefits of networks of attachment relationships. We also discuss the suitability of assessments of attachment quality and caregiving behaviour to inform family court decision-making. We conclude that assessments of caregiver behaviour should take center stage. Although there is dissensus among us regarding the use of assessments of attachment quality to inform child custody and child-protection decisions, such assessments are currently most suitable for targeting and directing supportive interventions. Finally, we provide directions to guide future interdisciplinary research collaboration.
Cite this
Tommie Forslund, Pehr Granqvist, Marinus H. van IJzendoorn, Avi Sagi-Schwartz, Danya Glaser, Miriam Steele, … Robbie Duschinsky (2021). Attachment goes to court: child protection and custody issues. Attachment & Human Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2020.1840762
@article{tommie2021attachment,
title = {Attachment goes to court: child protection and custody issues},
author = {Forslund, Tommie and Granqvist, Pehr and IJzendoorn, Marinus H. van and Sagi-Schwartz, Avi and Glaser, Danya and Steele, Miriam and Hammarlund, Mårten and Schuengel, Carlo and Bakermans‐Kranenburg, Marian J. and Steele, Howard and Shaver, Phillip R. and Lux, Ulrike and Simmonds, John and Jacobvitz, Deborah B. and Groh, Ashley M. and Bernard, Kristin and Cyr, Chantal P. and Hazen, Nancy L. and Foster, Sarah and Psouni, Elia and Cowan, Philip A. and Cowan, Carolyn Pape and Rifkin-Graboi, Anne Elise and Wilkins, David and Pierrehumbert, Blaise and Tarabulsy, George M. and Cárcamo, Rodrigo A. and Wang, Zhengyan and Liang, Xi and Kaźmierczak, Maria and Pawlicka, Paulina and Ayiro, Lilian and Chansa, Tamara and Sichimba, Francis and Mooya, Haatembo and McLean, Loyola and Veríssimo, Manuela and Gojman-de-Millán, Sonia and Moretti, Marlene M. and Bacro, Fabien and Peltola, Mikko J. and Galbally, Megan and Kondo‐Ikemura, Kiyomi and Behrens, Kazuko Y. and Scott, Stephen and Fresno, Andrés and Spencer, Rosario and Posada, Germán and Cassibba, Rosalinda and Barrantes‐Vidal, Neus and Palacios, Jesús and Barone, Lavinia and Madigan, Sheri L. and Jones‐Mason, Karen and Reijman, Sophie and Juffer, Femmie and Fearon, Pasco R. M. and Bernier, Annie and Cicchetti, Dante and Roisman, Glenn I. and Cassidy, Jude Anne and Kindler, Heinz and Zimmermann, Peter and Feldman, Ruth and Spangler, Gottfried and Zeanah, Charles H. and Dozier, Mary and Belsky, Jay and Lamb, Michael E. and Duschinsky, Robbie},
year = {2021},
journal = {Attachment & Human Development},
doi = {10.1080/14616734.2020.1840762}
}Citations in this library
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 148 citations exist upstream.