Assessing attachment for family court decision making

Abstract

Purpose-Attachment has long been considered relevant to child care proceedings. However, compared to other forms of evidence, it has been limited by the lack of consistent methods of assessment, training of experts, and empirical evidence. To reduce these limitations, The International Association for the Study of Attachment (IASA) has developed a Family Attachment Court Protocol for assessment and formulation of attachment issues. The purpose of the Protocol is to act as a guide to good practice and to begin a process of improving the application of attachment to family court proceedings. Design/methodology/approach-The Dynamic-Maturational Model of Attachment and Adaptation (DMM) and its associated assessments were adapted for forensic use. The resulting Family Attachment Court Protocol was trialed in cases before 15 judges in five countries and modified based on feedback. Findings-The judges and most of the professionals working for the court expressed approval of the new Protocol. Research limitations/implications-Implementation of the Protocol will require additional authorised experts. Practical implications-The primary practical implication is that the courts will receive verifiable evidence on attachment can be tested and, thus, validated or disproven. Social implications-If accepted, the IASA Protocol will reduce the idiosyncratic nature of child care proceedings and increase the rigour of professional qualification to address attachment. Originality/value-The IASA Protocol is new and valuable because its theoretical underpinnings in the DMM are based on both clinical and also neurological evidence about protection from danger, and it can replace untestable expert opinion about attachment with evidence-based assessment and transparent formulation of recommendations.

Attachment goes to court: child protection and custody issues

“…Whereas some attachment researchers have advocated for the use of attachment measures in family courts (e.g. Crittenden et al, 2013;Isaacs et al, 2009), others have cautioned against their use in this context (van IJzendoorn et al, 2018a(van IJzendoorn et al, , 2018b. The lack of consensus depends on several factors.…”

Measuring parenting capacity for disabled children using a child protection assessment

“…On an international scale, the practice of commissioning external 'experts' and consultants to undertake parenting capacity assessments for the appreciation of the court or otherwise, has been evident, more recently (Stevenson, 2012). This is linked to the vexed question of whether social workers conclusively espouse parenting assessment expertise, including knowledge competency in associated areas such as attachment theory (Crittenden et al, 2013). Therefore, in complex cases where the welfare of disabled children is at issue, practitioners may seek, or be compelled toward consulting external expertise (Budd et al, 2011;Stevenson, 2012).…”

Using Parental Attachment in Family Court Proceedings: An Empirical Study of the DMM‐AAI

“…Some of these authors have posited that Berkeley attachment assessments should not be admitted to court, while others have proposed that attachment assessments should only be part of a validated set of assessments and conducted by trained and reliable coders, used together with other information. Given the latter are the same recommendations that we have made (Crittenden et al, 2013;Spieker & Crittenden, 2018), the question to be resolved is which classificatory method for the AAI, Berkeley or DMM, is more useful for family forensic cases.…”