Reder and Duncan's well-known studies of the 1990s on fatal child abuse drew attention to how parental scripts regarding their children could dangerously distort relationships in ways that were sometimes fatal to children. This article reports on a new system for assessing the 'meaning of the child to the parent', called the Meaning of the Child Interview (MotC). Parents are interviewed using the established Parent Development Interview, or equivalent, and the transcript of the interview is then analysed according to parental sensitivity and likely risk to the child. The MotC constructs were developed from those used in observed parent-child interaction (specifically, the CARE-Index) and the form of discourse analysis used in the Dynamic Maturational Model - Adult Attachment Interview, allowing a more systemic and inter-subjective understanding of parenting representations than often put forward. This article discusses the theoretical background to the MotC, gives a brief review of similar measures and then introduces the coding system and patterns of caregiving. The validity of the MotC is addressed elsewhere.
Parental attachment refers to the protective and comforting role of parents toward their children. This role has been violated in cases of maltreatment. Understanding the attachment of parents who endanger their children can illuminate the psychological processes behind the harmful behaviour of parents. This paper proposes assessing parental attachment with the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI), classified according to the Dynamic‐Maturational Model of Attachment and Adaptation (DMM). We discuss meta‐analyses of the ‘gold standard' Berkeley method for extracting AAI information. AAIs of maltreating adults classified with the Berkeley method have an improbably high rate of secure attachment, making it inadequate for family forensic applications. In contrast, the DMM uses a theory‐based, developmental expansion of Ainsworth's infant categories to describe a wide array of dimensionally related protective strategies for coping with danger across the lifespan. DMM‐AAIs, classified by trained, reliable professionals and integrated with data from other sources to create an individualised family formulation, meet evidentiary requirements. We call for a programme of research of court‐involved families comparing DMM‐AAI formulations to outcomes of usual methods for determining family services. Key Practitioner Messages Childhood exposure to danger is crucial to understanding maltreating parents' behaviour. Adult Attachment Interviews, classified with the DMM method by authorised experts, can reveal motivating psychological processes that are not apparent in parental behaviour. Information about parents' attachment, together with other information, can help child protection personnel gauge the risk that parents pose to their children and organise personalised treatment plans to reduce that risk. ABCD Berkeley AAI classifications are not suitable for forensic use.
2017), 'The Meaning of The Child Interview (MotC)-The initial validation of a new procedure for assessing and understanding the parent-child relationships of 'at risk' families,
This study explored the caregiving and attachment relationships of parents of autistic children, analysing 16 Parent Development Interviews conducted as part of a larger project. The interviews were analysed using attachment theory–driven discourse analysis, namely, the Adult Attachment Interview and Meaning of the Child Interview methods of evaluating relational discourse for transformations of meaning with a self-protective function. A multiple case-study approach was used to build an explanatory model of the caregiving and parent–child relationships of the whole sample. The study found a high level of trauma in the parents’ early childhood that shaped the way they interpreted their child and the parent–child relationship, often undermining these parents’ intentions to form more positive relationships with their own children. An interpersonal understanding of the problems of these families is suggested, seeing difficulties as residing in relationships, maintained by a circular process of ruptures, as parent and child seek to protect themselves from the pain and shame inherent in the experience of ‘disconnection’, and the apparent failure of the parents’ hope for a better relationship with their children than they experienced as children. This may be exacerbated by commonly available autism narratives, which tend to essentialise problems, mechanise parental understanding of their children and encourage parents to experience their child as fundamentally separate, challenging the caregiving system. Clinicians supporting families with autistic children may be assisted by attending to this meaning-making process, seeking creative alternatives to help these parents realise their positive intentions that do not support a shame-based cycle.
Two methods for classifying Adult Attachment Interviews (AAI) for family court decisionmaking, Berkeley and DMM, differ in their usefulness for family court. Both expand Ainsworth's three ABC infant categories. The Berkeley method adds a fourth Disorganised/Unresolved category in adulthood, but has low specificity and validity for risk parents. The DMM method identifies an expanding array of strategies across the lifespan, as neurological development makes more complex strategies possible. This study examined DMM-AAI classifications in a sample of 332 British AAIs and compared the results to published meta-analyses of the Berkeley AAI. Six a priori hypotheses addressed the central question raised: which classificatory method for the AAI is more useful for child protection? DMM-AAI classifications differentiated between (i) normative adults, (ii) parents with mental health problems, (iii) parents in family court proceedings and (iv) incarcerated violent criminals on attachment, psychological trauma and pervasively high or low arousal. We assert that the DMM-AAI is sufficiently valid and discriminating for court use and that it can contribute to court decision-making when integrated with other assessments and clinical reports.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.