Research and Resources Bulletin 12: special issue on Attachment Theory, Separation,
Divorce and Family Law
A special issue of the Family Court Review (volume 49 no. 3, 2011) was devoted to the
implications for family law of attachment theory, bringing together some of the leading
experts across the globe, and edited by Jennifer McIntosh, who has led a lot of the recent
research from Australia into their family law system. In addition to a specially commissioned
research review, many of the articles are transcripts of conversations/interviews between
McIntosh and others. There is a great deal in every article on the implications of attachment
theory for shared parenting, on the different roles of fathers and mothers, and some
excellent examples and case vignettes. The abstract of the opening introduction sums up the
objectives of the issue:
‘Every day in family law courts and mediation rooms across the world, complex decisions are
made about postseparation parenting that affect the developmental outcomes of countless
children. Attorneys, judges, parents, and even mental health professionals are often poorly
equipped to accurately apply developmental knowledge to these decisions, including
knowledge from the vast field of attachment theory. A mounting body of research from
developmental psychology and neuroscience confirms attachment relationships to be a
central axis of the child's developmental pathway, in every family, in every culture throughout
the world. The health of a child's attachments can influence multiple and far-reaching
outcomes. As such, attachment theory and knowledge deserve a place in the family court's
deliberations and planning for children, but to date, that place remains ill defined.
Inconsistencies and misunderstandings, conundrums and complexities of applying
attachment knowledge to divorce and separation matters are evident throughout the field.
This Special Issue went in search of a shared praxis of meaning about attachment. The
resulting collection of papers and interviews documents the views of multiple, eminent
attachment experts, who discuss advances in the theory and consider guidelines for legal
and mental health practitioners in applying attachment concepts to post-separation decision
making.
In the introduction, McIntosh, J E: (‘Guest editor’s introduction to special issue on attachment
theory, separation and divorce: Forging coherent understanding for family law’, Family
Court Review 49: 3 (2011): 418-425) sets out the many questions that arise, provides
examples of the misuse of attachment theory, and summarises the key messages from the
following papers. This is followed by a lengthy, specially commissioned overview from M
Main et al (‘Attachment Theory and research: Overview with suggested applications to child
custody’ Family Court Review 49: 3 (2011) 426 – 463) which offers a short history of
attachment theory and its development over the last 50 years. It then considers attachment
theory and research, common misconceptions, and how it could be used in family court,
particularly advocating the use of the Strange Situation procedure, the Attachment Q-sort
and the Adult Attachment Interview as validated ‘gold standard’ methods of assessment.
In ‘Divorce and Attachment Relationships: The Longitudinal Journey’, Family Court Review
49: 3 (2011): 464-473, Alan Sroufe & McIntosh discuss Sroufe’s 30 year research on the
Minnesota Longitudinal Study of Childhood, one of the leading sources of attachment
research. Sroufe suggests that attachment develops and changes over the lifespan, with
different and multiple attachment figures. He raises concern about ‘shared parenting’ for
babies and the different roles of fathers and mothers in attachment and child development,
and claims that there is nothing in attachment theory to support the need for fathers to put
their baby to bed and be the first to see them in the morning in order to develop attachment:
what matters is regular contact. When parents separate the important thing is for the child to
have one secure base established first, and other attachments with the other parent,
grandparents etc will develop from this.
In Waters, E & McIntosh, ‘Are We Asking the Right Questions about Attachment’, Family
Court Review 49: 3 (2011):474 – 482, Waters suggests that the main question for a court is
‘Do you think this parenting arrangement will interfere with secure-base support, or support
exploration...? Waters argues that Bowlby was wrong in thinking that only the early years
were important in developing a secure base, and that it continues into late adolescence. He
also comments on shared parenting.
George, C., Isaacs, M B & Marvin, R S (‘Incorporating Attachment Assessment into Custody
Evaluations: The case of a 2-year-old and her parents’, Family Court Review 49: 3 (2011):
483 – 500, provides examples of some attachment assessments applicable to divorce and
custody evaluations, and apply them to a case study.
In the next article (Schore & McIntosh, ‘Family Law and the Neuroscience of Attachment,
Part 1’, Family Court Review 49: 3 (2011):501-512), Schore offers, in simple language, an
account of how recent neuroscience research has supported and developed attachment
theory, particularly around the role of ‘emotion’ and ‘affect’ (which Schore has written three
books on), and how secure attachments encourage brain development. This is developed in
‘Family Law and the Neuroscience of Attachment, Part 2’, Family Court Review 49: 3
(2011): 513 – 520, by Daniel Siegal & McIntosh in which Siegal explains how neurons work
in the brain, and how attachment relationships are secure if they promote neural integration
across the nervous system. Attachment security has no genetic basis. Eight integrative
functions that emerge from attachment experience are set out:

Balancing your body

Attuning to others

Balancing your emotions

Extinguishing fear

Response flexibility

Insight

Empathy

Morality
In high conflict divorce situations these can go wrong (‘neural disintegration’) leading to
disorganised attachment.
George, C., Solomon, J & McIntosh, in ‘Divorce in the Nursery: On Infants and Overnight
Care’, Family Court Review 49: 3 (2011): 521 – 528 contains reflections by George and
Solomon on their 1999 study of infant attachment in the context of overnight care, and how
they feel their research has been used and misused. They suggest that for most babies
under two years old then regular overnights away from their primary caregiver are stressful,
and instead favour overnight continuity with one parent and regular day time contact with the
non-custodial parent.
Lieberman, A. Zeanah, C & McIntosh (‘Attachment Perspectives on Domestic Violence and
Family Law’, Family Court Review 49: 3 (2011): 529 – 538) consider the direct and indirect
effects on domestic violence on attachment relationships and their implications for the court.
Bretherton et al (‘”If I could Tell The Judge Something About Attachment...”: Perspectives on
Attachment Theory in the Family Law Courtroom, Family Court Review 49: 3 (2011):539 –
548, brings together five leading researchers to discuss what a judge needs to be aware of
from attachment research, and the ‘costs to the child’ of a ‘wrong’ decision. The suggestion
is made that parents should provide the courts with a workable shared parenting plan, in
which the child is clearly excluded from any responsibility for the arrangements.
Finally, in Bowlby, R & McIntosh( ‘John Bowlby’s Legacy and Meanings for the Family Law
Field: In Conversation with Sir Richard Bowlby’ Family Court Review 49: 3 (2011): 549 –
556), Richard Bowlby reflects on the use of a secure base as a base for exploration and
risk taking, on the dangers of being a ‘pass the parcel child’.
Denis Jones
Cafcass Research Officer
28.05.2012