Ulrike Lux, Annie Bernier, Carlo Schuengel, Howard Steele, Andrés Fresno Rodríguez, Loyola McLean, Marinus H. van IJzendoorn, R. M. Pasco Fearon, Femmie Juffer, Michael E. Lamb, Ruth Feldman, Anne Rifkin-Graboi, Dante Cicchetti, Stephen Scott, Mårten Hammarlund, Lilian Ayiro, Philip A. Cowan, Rosalinda Cassibba, Chantal Cyr, David Wilkins, Maria Kazmierczak, Fabien Bacro, Danya Glaser, Gottfried Spangler, Nancy Hazen, Blaise Pierrehumbert, Sarah Foster, Sonia Gojman-de-Millán, Haatembo Mooya, Mary Dozier, Rosario Spencer, George M. Tarabulsy, Carolyn Pape Cowan, German Posada, Marlene M. Moretti, Jude Cassidy, Lavinia Barone, Heinz Kindler, Tamara Chansa, Kristin Bernard, Sheri Madigan, Robbie Duschinsky, Pehr Granqvist, Peter Zimmerman, Zhengyan Wang, Phillip R. Shaver, Rodrigo A. Cárcamo, Kazuko Y. Behrens, Xi Liang, Karen Mason-Jones, Elia Psouni, Mikko J. Peltola, Kiyomi Kondo-Ikemura, Tommie Forslund, Manuela Veríssimo, Marian J. Bakermans-Kranenburg, Jesús Palacios, Jay Belsky, Ashley M. Groh, John Simmonds, Megan Galbally, Francis Sichimba, Miriam Steele, Avi Sagi-Schwartz, Paulina Pawlicka, Glenn I. Roisman, Charles H. Zeanah, Deborah Jacobvitz, Sophie Reijman, Neus Barrantes-Vidal, Clinical Child and Family Studies, LEARN! - Child rearing, APH - Aging & Later Life, APH - Mental Health, Educational and Family Studies, Tampere University, and Welfare Sciences
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