Search

Scholarly discussion suggests prevalent, overconfident use of attachment classifications in child protection (CP) investigations but no systematic research has examined actual prevalence, the methods used to derive such classifications, or their interpretations. We aimed to cover this gap using survey data from a nationally representative sample of Swedish CP workers (

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 o 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. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

Attachment theory, research, and assessments have become increasingly applied to settle child custody cases. We discuss such applications in relation to admissibility criteria for scientific evidence and testimony proposed by Faigman et al. (2014). We argue that attachment theory and research can provide valid "framework evidence"; group-based attachment research has yielded general principles suitable as a frame of reference for pertinent court decisions. In particular, child custody decision-making should generally be guided by research indicating that children benefit from attachment networks. In contrast, assessments of attachment quality fall short of providing valid "diagnostic evidence"; information that a specific individual/dyad is a "true" instance of a general group-level principle. In particular, such assessments do not yield valid information about whether a particular caregiver has better caregiving skills than another caregiver and will better support child development. We conclude that attachment theory and research should be admissible for framework but not for diagnostic testimony.

Research has suggested highly elevated levels of interpersonal trauma (IPT) among parents with intellectual disabilities (ID), and that such experiences may contribute to the caregiving and child developmental problems often seen in this population. Conflicting results have however been reported, and there is no systematic review on this matter. This study therefore systematically reviewed the empirical evidence concerning (a) prevalence of IPT among parents with ID, and links with (b) caregiving-relevant and (c) child developmental outcomes, in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and PTSDpubs. Peer-reviewed empirical articles reporting exposure to any form of systematically assessed IPT (unspecified IPT, physical, sexual, and emotional abuse, neglect, prolonged childhood separations from caregivers, witnessing abuse in the family) among parents with ID were included, yielding a final selection of 20 studies. Findings consistently indicated markedly elevated levels of IPT among parents with ID, with a majority (>50%) having experienced some form of IPT. Estimates for both unspecified and specific forms were typically higher than corresponding estimates in other groups at elevated risk, and than meta-analytical general population estimates in comparable countries. Findings regarding caregiving-relevant outcomes were mixed but indicated links with adverse outcomes, particularly regarding parental mental health. Reports pertaining to child developmental outcomes were scant and inconsistent. We highlight important limitations in the extant literature and provide directions for future research and clinical practice.

Prior research indicates links between parents' experiences of interpersonal trauma and emotion-interpretation difficulties, and between such difficulties and child attachment insecurity and disorganization. Although mothers with mild levels of intellectual disability (ID) are at heightened risk for trauma and emotion-interpretation difficulties, and their children for attachment insecurity, corresponding links in this population have not been examined. We therefore investigated emotional interpretations among mothers with mild levels of ID (n = 23) and matched comparison mothers without ID (n = 25), in relation to mothers' experiences of trauma and their children's attachment representations. Mothers with mild levels of ID were not less accurate than comparison mothers with regard to general positive and negative emotion-interpretation accuracy, but they were significantly more likely to misinterpret shame and anger. Among mothers with mild levels of ID, misinterpretations of shame were positively related to maternal experiences of trauma, and to child attachment insecurity and disorganization.