Child custody evaluations: Attachment theory as a method for assessment
Abstract
In the case that a divorce leads to a custody dispute among parents the legal system may become involved. Highly volatile and argumentative parents may need the court to determine which parent may be more suitable to have custody. Psychologists may be required to provide their professional opinion by assessing the parent and child, and the parent-child relationship. Due to limited amounts of research on the validity of assessment measures used in the way custody cases, it is important for the psychologist to consider a theoretical approach to their assessment. This post will address how attachment theory may provide essential information of the parent-child relationship to the court about which parent should gain full or partial custody privileges. Furthermore attachment assessments measures will be considered, as well as, addressing the limitations of custody evaluations, cultural considerations and recommendations.
Keywords: attachment, child custody, divorce, parent-child relationship
Introduction
Divorce and child custody cases can be volatile. In custody cases, it is important to give the child a voice and not deem which parent may be a better parent. Psychologists should serve the role of helping the legal system consider the various options that are appropriate for the child. Child custody and access (C&A) assessments are used by psychologists to advise the court in decisions about parental custody. A child’s welfare may be dependent on this decision based on the affect it may have the child’s living arrangements, financial support, and overall caregiver ability. One important component of a C&A assessment is the parent-child relationship. Currently, there are no empirically valid tests that directly assess “children’s needs” and “parents’ ability to meet those needs,” (Symons, 2010). Thus, it is of paramount importance that the psychologist understands developmental factors pertaining to the child and to the family. One such developmental factor is the parent-child relationship, which understood from an attachment theory perspective may give significant insight into this relationship and may further determine a child custody arrangement.
Moreover, this paper will address the basic tenants of attachment theory, how attachment is conceptualized in terms of measures and its application to understanding of parent-child relationships, how custody evaluators can use attachment measures in C&A assessments effectively, limitations of current custody evaluations, cultural issues (fathers as caregivers, notion of only needing mother), recommendations, and the need for further research.
Attachment Theory
Historically, Bowlby and Ainsworth (1991) viewed human attachment patterns as part of “human behavioral equipment” that served as a biological function throughout life, which could be compared to eating or sexual behavior in terms of evolutionary theory. Findings suggest that infants have a natural behavioral disposition to comply with the wishes of their principle attachment figure (Bowlby & Ainsworth, 1991). Modern theorists describe attachment theory as the infant or young child’s emotional connection to an adult caregiver when needing comfort, support, nurturance or protection (Zeanah et al., 2011). The relationship to this attachment figure ultimately influences intrapsychic structures affecting relationships throughout life (Lodolph, 2009). Ultimately, the relationship with the caregiver, usually the parent, will determine how a child forms bonds throughout their lifetime, as well as, how a child will cope with distress in relationships. Attachment relationships provide the child with protection against harm and with a sense of emotional security, that is, a “secure base” (Byrne et al., 2004).
The Strange Situation Procedure (SSP) is the “gold standard” among attachment assessment measures that identifies parent-child relationship patterns. The SSP originally developed by Mary Ainsworth in the 1970’s, involves a series of interactions between a 12- to 20-month-old infant, a caregiver, and a female “stranger.” Differences in how infants organize their attachment and exploratory behaviors, especially during reunion episodes, can be reliably classified as secure, avoidant, or ambivalent/resistant (Zeanah et al., 2011). The SSP exemplifies distinct differences between secure and insecurely attached infants, and delineates between avoidant and ambivalent-resistant types of insecure attachment (Bowlby & Ainsworth, 1991). Further research describes a third insecure style, disorganized type, and involves incoherence and lack of organization of attachment behavior (Connors, 2011).
Attachment Assessment Measures
The SSP as an assessment measure can be used to understand the presence or absence of child behaviors that reflect proximity-seeking, avoidance, resistance or disorganization in response to distress; thus may be useful in highlighting strengths and weaknesses in the parent–child relationship, as well as, how a child regulates their emotions (Zeanah et al., 2011). The SSP as an assessment measure in custody evaluations is typically used with children under the age of three, but can be used with preschool age children. This measure has widespread use across many community and clinical populations (George et al., 2011). However, since the SSP is done in a laboratory setting the ecological validity may be in question. Ludolph (2009) suggests that the amount of training necessary to educate new coders whose results can be trusted may be unrealistic for many researchers and professionals, including most of those who do evaluations for the courts.
Another assessment tool used in evaluations is the Attachment Q-sort (ASQ) an observations assessment of a child and a caregiver’s behavior in the home typically over 2–3 visits for a total of 2–6 hours’ observation. The ASQ consists of a large number of cards (75, 90, or 100). On each card a specific behavioral characteristic of children between 12 and 48 months of age is described. The observer sorts 75, 90, or 100 descriptors of the child into nine piles, according to how descriptive each is of the child during the observation (Ludolph, 2009). Piles range from ‘‘most descriptive of the subject’’ to ‘‘least descriptive of the subject,’’ and thus by comparing the resulting description with the behavioral profile of a prototypical secure child a score for attachment security can be derived (van IJzendoorn et al., 2004). Determining the attachment security may give insight into the parent-child relationship and how the child copes during stressful events. The observer and the parent should take care not to illicit fear or stress in child, as to not confound the results. In comparison to laboratory based settings (like the SSP) home-based assessments, like the ASQ, allow for a broad range of behaviors (Ludolph, 2011).
Other child attachment measures may include Attachment Story Completion Task or Attachment Doll Play Assessment. These representational attachment assessments are determined by attachment-based story stems and the evaluator must be able to assess for defensive structures, indications of stress, and coping mechanisms (George et al., 2011).
Measures of adult attachment quality can be incorporated into a clinical assessment as one predictor of the parent’s caregiving strengths and risks, and as an aid to understanding sources of a parent’s caregiving deficits (Zeanah et al., 2011). Useful assessment measures may include the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI), the Adult Attachment Projective Picture System (AAP), the Caregiving Interview, the Caregiving Helplessness Questionnaire (CHQ), or the Parent Development Interview. An important note to consider is that caregiving assessment addresses current parent-child relationship, but does not refer to parent-child interactions that may predict attachment patterns and coping mechanisms based on the attachment pattern (George et al., 2011). Lastly, attachment formation in infancy, in regards to a divorce or separation context, is aided by the quality of caregiving, with regular times allowing a range of warm interactions, including feeding, playing, soothing and comforting (McIntosh, 2011). Attachment may not be solely based on time-spent with the child, but rather the caring and attuned interactions a parent may have with their child.
Limitations of Custody Evaluations
A definitive set of empirical papers about attachment processes and divorce do not exist (McIntosh, 2011). The term “attachment” is in regular use in the context of custody and is explicitly referred to in some guidelines (Byrne et al., 2005). However, in when being discussed in terms of child custody, family law, and attachment theory there does not appear to be a common definition. In many legal cases the use of the term “attachment” is not meant to convey the theory and research tradition of Bowlby and Ainsworth; in other cases there is a clear misunderstanding and misapplication of attachment theory ideas (Byrne et al., 2005). McIntosh (2011) suggests family law professionals abandon the short hand term, and spell out what they mean by attachment.
The psychologist must be aware of legal and ethical issues that will assure the psychologist is following appropriate practice, as well as, having the appropriate knowledge, education, training, experience, and skills. The most important principle to remember is to keep within one’s role and not be tempted (or pushed by a client, attorney, or judge) to make statements beyond the confines of that role (Zimmerman, 2009). Standards 3.05 (a) and (c), Multiple Relationships, of the APA Ethics Code (APA, 2002) are pertinent to this issue. Standard 3.05 (a) applies to a psychologist taking one professional role with a person (e.g., custody evaluator) and at the same time, or in the future, entering into another role with that person (e.g., individual psychotherapist). Standard 3.05 (c) relates to a requirement by law (e.g., a judge who asks for a custody recommendation from a parent’s psychotherapist) that asks the psychologist to serve in more than one role in a judicial proceeding. In custody cases, it is important to give the child a voice and not deem which parent may be a better parent. Zimmerman (2009) suggests psychologists should serve the role of helping the system consider the various options that are appropriate for the child. Psychologists should also remember to never give legal advice, and practice within the scope of their profession. However, the psychologist needs to be competent with laws to perform best practice, including state laws about authorization of child treatment by way of custody (Zimmerman, 2009).
Judicial decisions about child custody are needed only for the small proportion of highly-conflicted families who cannot come to the necessary agreement, and are thus interventions to a family crisis (Mercer, 2009). Byrne et al. (2005) report that in their clinical impression, where empirical evidence is lacking, is that managing the stresses of frequent separations from parents that occur in joint physical custody are difficult for the infant and preschooler, but may be more manageable by the school-aged child. Attachment measures should not be a substitute for clinical evaluations. When applied and interpreted skillfully, attachment measures can contribute significantly to custody and parenting assessments, in deepening, corroborating and even challenging other observations (McIntosh, 2011). The current situation is that measures of the parent-child relationship with extensive validation are not generally used in clinical settings, and that measures developed for custody evaluations have not been subjected to empirical scrutiny (Byrne et al., 2005). Thus, attachment measures should be used in conjunction with other types of evaluation methods. Additionally, there are many components of the parent-child relationship besides attachment, including teaching, disciplining, and caring for the child’s physical needs, which also require careful assessment (Byrne et al., 2004). It is difficult to derive measures for older children based on age-appropriate definitions of attachment security and insecurity, while still ensuring faithful adherence to the pioneering work of Ainsworth (Ludolph, 2011).
Cultural Considerations and Recommendations
Interestingly, Americans are more likely than Europeans or Japanese to tell pollsters that they value marriage highly, and they still marry at higher rates than almost any other industrial country, as well as, the percentage of people who believe it is acceptable to cheat, lie, or keep secrets in a marriage has fallen over the past 40 years (Coontz, 2007). It appears there may be hope for many couples starting new families or trying to salvage disenchanted relationships. However, for those who are going through a divorce tension and conflict can great affect the well-being of children and the parent-child relationship. Below are recommendations that may help in assuaging some of the pressures faced by those going through a custody dispute.
- Rather than allowing each parent to call upon their own “expert” witness-advocates, that specialists be retained and utilized solely by the court. These specialists will then assemble a comprehensive profile of the situation, independent of the parties involved (Main et al., 2011).
- It would be optimal if custody evaluators and attend trainings for the purposes of learning administration of Q-Sort, SSP, and AAI and become certified in these procedures (Main et al., 2011).
- Long-term therapy might represent an opportunity to revise internal working models in the direction of overall secure attachment status (Connors, 2011).
- Infants do not have gender biases when it comes to attachment formation. Their bias is for responsive, attuned, predictable, warm care within one consistent caregiving relationship, and then, subsequently, others (McIntosh, 2011).
- For babies, visits two to three times per week focused around warm, loving, caregiving interactions with the second parent were thought to be optimal, provided visits could be well managed between parents (McIntosh, 2011).
- Repeated overnight stays away from the primary caregiver in the first year or two may strain the infant and disrupt formation of secure attachment with both parents (McIntosh, 2011).
- There is a growing evidence base about effective attachment derived early childhood interventions that have been shown to be effective. They share an emphasis on enhancing caregivers’ appreciation of the complexity of the emotional development of young children, the power caregivers have to affect their children, and the kinds of factors within and around the caregiver that may interfere with providing what young children need (Zeanah et al, 2011).
- The finding that fathers’ satisfaction is anchored in their perceptions of the behavior and opinions of their mothers and ex-wives points to the need to help fathers, and especially divorced fathers, establish an independent parenthood in which they would view and conduct themselves as parents with no relation to the conduct of the women in their lives (Cohen & Finzi-Dottan, 2005).
- Psycho-educational intervention, during or after the divorce, could provide divorced fathers with needed legitimization and practical guidance (Cohen & Finzi-Dottan, 2005).
- Therapists might also help divorced fathers to build their paternity by working with them on identifying such things as what is important to them in their relationship with their children, what they enjoy doing with their children, what they can do with them, and what they can do independently and what requires negotiation with their ex-wives (Cohen & Finzi-Dottan, 2005).
Conclusion
The best interest of the child determinations should be informed by more factors than attachment alone, unless serious disturbances of attachment with either parent are evident (Zeanah et al., 2011). Neurologists argued specifically that attachment drives brain development, particularly the young child’s growing capacity to know express and self regulate their emotional world (McIntosh, 2011). It may be seen that although some measures of attachment may not be ecologically valid predictors to assess for which parent is more suitable in a child custody evaluation. However, the parent-child relationship, as conceptualized by attachment theory, is a significant component to a child’s future ability to adapt to future stressors (Bowlby & Ainsworth, 1991). Attachment research and measures have been shown to be reliable and valid and among the best predictors of current and future social and behavioral development in the child (Byrne et al., 2005). Attachment assessments may play an important role in discerning current parent-child relationships, as well as, give insight into how a child copes during distress (George et al., 2011; Zeanah et al., 2011). Thus, using attachment assessments (but not limited to) included in the battery of C&A assessment measures may give insight into a more broad and integrative evaluation.
References
Ainsworth, M., & Bowlby, J. (1991). An ethological approach to personality development. American Psychologist, 46(4), 333-341.
American Psychological Association. (2002). American Psychological Association ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. APA. Retrieved February March 9, 2012 from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.html
Byrne, J. G., O’Connor, T. G., Marvin, R. S. & Whelan, W. F. (2005), Practitioner Review: The contribution of attachment theory to child custody assessments. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46: 115–127.
Cohen, O., Finzi-Dottan, R. (2005). Parent–child relationships during the divorce process; from attachment theory and intergenerational perspective. Contemporary Family Therapy, Volume 27, Number 1, March 2005 , pp. 81-99(19)
Connors, M. (2011). Attachement theory: A “secure base” for psychotherapy integration. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 21(3): 248-362.
Coontz, S. (2007). The origins of modern divorce. Family Process, 46(1), 7-16.
George, C., Isaacs, M. . and Marvin, R. S. (2011). Incorporating attachment assessment into custody evaluations: The case of a 2-year-old and her parents. Family Court Review, 49, 483–500.
Ludolph, P. (2009). Answered and unanswered questions in attachment theory with implications for children of divorce. Journal of Child Custody, 6:8-24.
Main, M., Hesse, E. & Hesse, S. (2011). Attachement theory and research: Overview with suggested applications to child custody. Family Court Review, 49,426–463.
McIntosh, J. E. (2011). Guest editor’s introduction to special issue on attachment theory, separation, and divorce: Forging coherent understandings for family law. Family Court Review, 49: 418–425.
Mercer, J. (2009). Child custody evaluations, attachment theory, and an attachment measure: the science remains limited. The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice: Objective Investigations of Controversial and Unorthodox Claims in Clinical Psychology, Psychiatry, and Social Work, 7(1), 37-54.
Symons, D. (2010). A review of the practice and science of child custody and access assessment in the Untied States and Canada. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 41(3), 267-273.
Van Ijzendoorn, M., Vereiken. C., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M., & Riksen-Walraven, J. (2004).
Assessing attachment security with attachment Q sort:Meta-analytic eveidence for the validity of the observer AOS. Child Development, 74(4), 1188-1213.
Zeanah, C. H., Berlin, L. J. & Boris, N. W. (2011).Practitioner review: Clinical applications of attachment theory and research for infants and young children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52: 819–833.
Zimmerman, J. (2009). Ethical and professional considerations in divorce and child custody cases. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40(6), 539-549.