As a domestic relations mediator and Guardian ad
Litem, I frequently see parties and attorneys bandying about the concepts of "attachment" and "attachment disorder" for greater leverage in the dispute, and "[t]he concept of attachment can readily tip the scales in custody and parenting-time cases involving infants and young children." See Pamela S. Ludolph & Mildred D. Dale, Attachment in Child Custody: An Additive Factor, Not a Determinative One, Family Law Quarterly, Vol. 46, No. 1, Spring 2012. However, as Ludolph & Dale detail, "attachment is often incompletely understood in both the legal and mental health communities."
In the most general terms, attachment theory describes "the propensity of human beings to make strong affectional bonds to particular others." See John Bowlby, The making and Breaking of Affectional Bonds 151 (1979-/1989). "In particular, the theory holds that young children attach to their parents, usually their mothers, and that their later functioning can be explained by the quality of this attachment." See Ludolph & Dale.
As Ludolph & Dale point out, "[a]ttachment theory appeals as a an intuitive, almost romantic theory;" but they warn that "some of the[] ideas arise more from intuition than from science." In particular, while attachment theory has important insight to offer, "it is far from empirically strong enough" by itself to be "determinitive" of parenting plans.
Attachment theory was first published by John Bowlby in 1969, based on his observations dating from the the 1940s. His most prominent student, Mary Ainsworth, added to his work with her "Strange Situation" procedure, which seeks to measure the security of a child's attachment by observing their responses to strange situations. Later researchers theorized "disorganized attachments."
Due to the times, Bowlby's and his students focused on the role of mothers to the exclusion of fathers, who were "posited to be a much more secondary attachment figure, in the same category as regular babysitters and grandparents." Mothers, in contrast, were seen as as a "'secure base' from which the child could draw affective sustenance and begin to move out to explore the world." The first three years were viewed as a critical time to form a strong attachment, and during this time separation from the mother was believed to be "as pscyhologically devastating to infants as life-threatening diseases."
In my view, this has been a captivating theory because it fits with our intuition about sex roles and our historical family organization, but not necessarily accurate. Clearly, however, it is strongly believed by some psychologists, who then teach attachment theories to lawyers, judges and mediators. I remember well a psychologist speaker at a domestic relations mediation terrifying myself and other students that we had permanent damaged infants and toddler by permitting the negotiation of parenting plans that afforded fathers over night visits during the first three or four years of a child's life. And I remember this caused me--and presumably others--considerable psychic discord, because the fathers we mediators generally deal with love their children and simply deal with being denied overnight visitation for the first three or fours years of their children's' lives.
Thankfully, however, challenges to the use of attachment theory are increasing today. Researchers have identified a number of flaws in the empirical data related to attachment. First, the findings of prior research by Bowlby and his followers was not scientifically robust, but rather subjective and anecdotal. "[T]here was little pattern to the findings of many isolated studies, and many were not replicated." Moreover, a number of longitudinal studies have tested attachment theory, using the Strange Situation or other mechanisms, and found it wanting.
The Minnesota Study of Risk and adaption from Birth to Adulthood demonstrates that "[e]arly disturbances in attachment security ... show[] variable outcomes, with cumulative measures of care and negative life events more strongly predicting adult psychiatric disturbances." Two other twenty year studies found that although divorce had a "significant impact on attachment security during adolescence" the children came to terms with divorce by adulthood "such that it was no longer a major factor for many." A third longitudinal study found other factors besides divorce were also likely to increase the likelihood of a change in attachment status, such as loss of a parent, life-threatening illness of a parent, a parent's mental disorder, and abuse by a family member. These and other researchers now urge "other potential moderators of attachment status be considered," in particular "inborn characteristics" such as temperament, personality traits and early childhood experiences. (See Hamilton; Waters, Merrick et al; Waters, Weinfield &Hamilton; and Belsky & Pluess.) These new critics seek a "more flexible view, stressing the resilience of the child and the multiple paths to psychological health, even when an infant demonstrated early difficulties."
A second and related problem with the use of attachment theory in divorce is the empirical weakness of attachment measures--"[i]f the measures are questionable, then so is the research." For instance, the strange situation measure can have skewed results with children of divorcing parents because the parents are likely to be "shaky attachment figures" during divorce because they are "preoccupied, angry, and worried ... although not necessarily for very long." Additionally, researchers have found that the strange situation is not a good measure for attachment in fathers, because of the unique play-orientation of a father's attachment with his children, in contrast to the "nurturing" nature of a mother's attachment.
A final problem with use of attachment theory in divorce is its gender bias. Later research has confirmed what Bowlby himself began to suspect in his latter years and the last volume of his research: that there is no inherent reason a child cannot form a co-equal and contemporaneous attachment to the father as to the mother. As Ludolph & Dale write, "[e]mpirical studies, beginning as early as the 1960s, have consistently confirmed that infants are attached to their fathers in ways that are similar to their attachments to their mothers and that the father-child relationships can be as important as mother-child relationships in determining the future functioning of their children. Late in life [by 1988], even Bowlby came to include fathers in his secure base concept."
Moreover, more recent research "fails to confirm Bowlby's earlier notion of hierarchical or primary attachment." This research shows that in their first year, infants "form distinct attachments to both their mothers and their fathers, despite having three or four times more interaction with their mothers[;] ... toddlers protest separation from both their mothers and their fathers[; and] ... [b]y the second year, boys often developed a distinct preference for their fathers" and "girls showed no distinct preference for either parent."
As already intimated, it appears children's attachment and preference shifts as they develop, and that they look to each parent for unique attachment or security needs. For instance, in early toddlerhood, "many children prefer their mothers for confort, while often preferring their fathers for play." For all these reasons, the authors encourage "a more ecological view" represented by the "Cooperative Parenting Model," rather than an exclusive focus on attachment relationships. The Cooperative Parent Model "understands all child development as occurring withing the context of a restructuring" and "potentially ... binuclear family," with attachment representing "only a small frame of the child's life" and being subject to developmental variations.
So what does all this have to do with parenting plans? As I mentioned earlier, old views suggested that fathers could not safely have overnight time with their infants and toddlers. However, consistent with the Cooperative Parent Model and the limitations of attachment theory discussed, research shows "there are no compelling empirical or theoretical reasons to believe that overnight parenting time in itself will create difficulties for a young child who has experienced a meaningful relationship with with the noncustodial parent before the parental separation."
For this reason, I submit that courts and legal and mental health professionals need to abandon dated and rigid ideas of attachment and overnight visits. However, Ludolph and Dale still recognize some value in the use of attachment theory, when not relied on in isolation. "First, early attachment status can be a measure of the warmth and supportiveness of the early relationship between parent and child," which is in turn informative for establishing a parenting plan. Second, "[a]ttachment status does seem to have a robust concontemporaneous and short-term association" with ... a child's social and emotional adjustment." For instance, children with secure attachments in infancy will manage their anger better and be better at navigating "complex emotions" as toddlers. (However, these results cannot be traced reliably into later years except in the case of severely disorganized attachment disorders as a result of extensive abuse or neglect. And, oddly, extensive neglect appears to have worse affects than extensive abuse, such as the disorganized attachment seen in institutionally raised children.)
Accordingly, Ludolph & Dale submit that attachment theory can be informative in assessing other factors that DO properly go into making a health and successful parenting plan:
- the parent's relationship history with the child;
- the child's relationship history with each parent and others;
- the parent's future commitment to rearing the child, including specific plans for supporting this commitment;
- the level of family violence and abuse; and
- the nature of the coparenting relationship
Attachment theory was first published by John Bowlby in 1969, based on his observations dating from the the 1940s. His most prominent student, Mary Ainsworth, added to his work with her "Strange Situation" procedure, which seeks to measure the security of a child's attachment by observing their responses to strange situations. Later researchers theorized "disorganized attachments."
Due to the times, Bowlby's and his students focused on the role of mothers to the exclusion of fathers, who were "posited to be a much more secondary attachment figure, in the same category as regular babysitters and grandparents." Mothers, in contrast, were seen as as a "'secure base' from which the child could draw affective sustenance and begin to move out to explore the world." The first three years were viewed as a critical time to form a strong attachment, and during this time separation from the mother was believed to be "as pscyhologically devastating to infants as life-threatening diseases."
In my view, this has been a captivating theory because it fits with our intuition about sex roles and our historical family organization, but not necessarily accurate. Clearly, however, it is strongly believed by some psychologists, who then teach attachment theories to lawyers, judges and mediators. I remember well a psychologist speaker at a domestic relations mediation terrifying myself and other students that we had permanent damaged infants and toddler by permitting the negotiation of parenting plans that afforded fathers over night visits during the first three or four years of a child's life. And I remember this caused me--and presumably others--considerable psychic discord, because the fathers we mediators generally deal with love their children and simply deal with being denied overnight visitation for the first three or fours years of their children's' lives.
Thankfully, however, challenges to the use of attachment theory are increasing today. Researchers have identified a number of flaws in the empirical data related to attachment. First, the findings of prior research by Bowlby and his followers was not scientifically robust, but rather subjective and anecdotal. "[T]here was little pattern to the findings of many isolated studies, and many were not replicated." Moreover, a number of longitudinal studies have tested attachment theory, using the Strange Situation or other mechanisms, and found it wanting.
The Minnesota Study of Risk and adaption from Birth to Adulthood demonstrates that "[e]arly disturbances in attachment security ... show[] variable outcomes, with cumulative measures of care and negative life events more strongly predicting adult psychiatric disturbances." Two other twenty year studies found that although divorce had a "significant impact on attachment security during adolescence" the children came to terms with divorce by adulthood "such that it was no longer a major factor for many." A third longitudinal study found other factors besides divorce were also likely to increase the likelihood of a change in attachment status, such as loss of a parent, life-threatening illness of a parent, a parent's mental disorder, and abuse by a family member. These and other researchers now urge "other potential moderators of attachment status be considered," in particular "inborn characteristics" such as temperament, personality traits and early childhood experiences. (See Hamilton; Waters, Merrick et al; Waters, Weinfield &Hamilton; and Belsky & Pluess.) These new critics seek a "more flexible view, stressing the resilience of the child and the multiple paths to psychological health, even when an infant demonstrated early difficulties."
A second and related problem with the use of attachment theory in divorce is the empirical weakness of attachment measures--"[i]f the measures are questionable, then so is the research." For instance, the strange situation measure can have skewed results with children of divorcing parents because the parents are likely to be "shaky attachment figures" during divorce because they are "preoccupied, angry, and worried ... although not necessarily for very long." Additionally, researchers have found that the strange situation is not a good measure for attachment in fathers, because of the unique play-orientation of a father's attachment with his children, in contrast to the "nurturing" nature of a mother's attachment.
A final problem with use of attachment theory in divorce is its gender bias. Later research has confirmed what Bowlby himself began to suspect in his latter years and the last volume of his research: that there is no inherent reason a child cannot form a co-equal and contemporaneous attachment to the father as to the mother. As Ludolph & Dale write, "[e]mpirical studies, beginning as early as the 1960s, have consistently confirmed that infants are attached to their fathers in ways that are similar to their attachments to their mothers and that the father-child relationships can be as important as mother-child relationships in determining the future functioning of their children. Late in life [by 1988], even Bowlby came to include fathers in his secure base concept."
Moreover, more recent research "fails to confirm Bowlby's earlier notion of hierarchical or primary attachment." This research shows that in their first year, infants "form distinct attachments to both their mothers and their fathers, despite having three or four times more interaction with their mothers[;] ... toddlers protest separation from both their mothers and their fathers[; and] ... [b]y the second year, boys often developed a distinct preference for their fathers" and "girls showed no distinct preference for either parent."
As already intimated, it appears children's attachment and preference shifts as they develop, and that they look to each parent for unique attachment or security needs. For instance, in early toddlerhood, "many children prefer their mothers for confort, while often preferring their fathers for play." For all these reasons, the authors encourage "a more ecological view" represented by the "Cooperative Parenting Model," rather than an exclusive focus on attachment relationships. The Cooperative Parent Model "understands all child development as occurring withing the context of a restructuring" and "potentially ... binuclear family," with attachment representing "only a small frame of the child's life" and being subject to developmental variations.
So what does all this have to do with parenting plans? As I mentioned earlier, old views suggested that fathers could not safely have overnight time with their infants and toddlers. However, consistent with the Cooperative Parent Model and the limitations of attachment theory discussed, research shows "there are no compelling empirical or theoretical reasons to believe that overnight parenting time in itself will create difficulties for a young child who has experienced a meaningful relationship with with the noncustodial parent before the parental separation."
For this reason, I submit that courts and legal and mental health professionals need to abandon dated and rigid ideas of attachment and overnight visits. However, Ludolph and Dale still recognize some value in the use of attachment theory, when not relied on in isolation. "First, early attachment status can be a measure of the warmth and supportiveness of the early relationship between parent and child," which is in turn informative for establishing a parenting plan. Second, "[a]ttachment status does seem to have a robust concontemporaneous and short-term association" with ... a child's social and emotional adjustment." For instance, children with secure attachments in infancy will manage their anger better and be better at navigating "complex emotions" as toddlers. (However, these results cannot be traced reliably into later years except in the case of severely disorganized attachment disorders as a result of extensive abuse or neglect. And, oddly, extensive neglect appears to have worse affects than extensive abuse, such as the disorganized attachment seen in institutionally raised children.)
Accordingly, Ludolph & Dale submit that attachment theory can be informative in assessing other factors that DO properly go into making a health and successful parenting plan:
- the parent's relationship history with the child;
- the child's relationship history with each parent and others;
- the parent's future commitment to rearing the child, including specific plans for supporting this commitment;
- the level of family violence and abuse; and
- the nature of the coparenting relationship
If you are
interested in child-related mediation or GAL (guardian ad litem) services, please contact Pilar Vaile, P.C. at (505) 247-0802, or
info@pilarvailepc.com.
