View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Practitioner Review: The Contribution of Attachment Theory to Child Custody Assessments

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Practitioner Review: The Contribution of Attachment Theory to Child Custody Assessments
Language: English
Authors: Byrne, James G., O'Connor, Thomas G., Marvin, Robert S.
Source: Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. Feb 2005 46(2):115-127.
Availability: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Physical Description: PDF
Page Count: 13
Publication Date: 2005
Intended Audience: Practitioners
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Evaluative
Descriptors: Evidence, Child Custody, Attachment Behavior, Parent Child Relationship, Guidelines, Clinics, Resilience (Psychology), Evaluation, Measurement, Clinical Experience, Affective Measures
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00396.x
ISSN: 0021-9630
Abstract: Background: The area of child custody assessments continues to fail to meet the evidence-based threshold now established in clinical practice. This is despite the existence, for many years, of published guidelines governing the practice of custody assessments available from a number of professional bodies. Methods: This article reviews the potential of attachment theory to contribute to the conceptualization of custody evaluations, clinical assessment, and the development of evidence-based practice. Particular attention is paid to specific instruments used to assess attachment in clinic and non-clinic settings. Results: Guidelines concerning child custody assessments highlight the particular importance of assessing attachment and parent-child relationship quality. However, measures often used in the course of a custody assessment are not backed up with empirical research, and the measures that are supported by empirical research have been slow to influence practice. There may be conceptual and measurement advantages of considering an attachment research-informed custody assessment. Discussion: Attachment theory has obvious conceptual relevance for the child custody context. Further clinical research is needed to demonstrate the usefulness of attachment research measures; research of this kind may shed important light on the development and resilience of affectional bonds.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2012
Accession Number: EJ951546
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHvkKdsejc-jG1D1anWLPXrAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDOoiTyUyrh5J9d-eMQIBEICBmtcl247UsV57k4G90LKq0PO1rjtm8q-8Tus5nbqOC0kyfZMt5VCMwbfy6ifYvmJmK4vdS4ypUzCPGyF9WbxWPKX5Mott562deCdtKtp2lVLa4JrAhWhZqV42rIPuFpPtxhdlPtXLtSJw2WOWyTPoNXbiPKmgP7zrEi9BzZIrvljcs89NqqBa5bQBhBTpigH_zxRrVGsFqbc3Tzw=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0015806651;jyy01feb.05;2024Jun04.07:37;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0015806651-1">Practitioner Review: The contribution of attachment theory to child custody assessments. </title> <p>Background:  The area of child custody assessments continues to fail to meet the evidence‐based threshold now established in clinical practice. This is despite the existence, for many years, of published guidelines governing the practice of custody assessments available from a number of professional bodies. Methods:  This article reviews the potential of attachment theory to contribute to the conceptualization of custody evaluations, clinical assessment, and the development of evidence‐based practice. Particular attention is paid to specific instruments used to assess attachment in clinic and non‐clinic settings. Results:  Guidelines concerning child custody assessments highlight the particular importance of assessing attachment and parent–child relationship quality. However, measures often used in the course of a custody assessment are not backed up with empirical research, and the measures that are supported by empirical research have been slow to influence practice. There may be conceptual and measurement advantages of considering an attachment research‐informed custody assessment. Discussion:  Attachment theory has obvious conceptual relevance for the child custody context. Further clinical research is needed to demonstrate the usefulness of attachment research measures; research of this kind may shed important light on the development and resilience of affectional bonds.</p> <p>Keywords: custody evaluation; assessment; Attachment</p> <p>Evidence‐based practice has come to be accepted as a standard to be achieved in the practice of psychiatry and psychology. Application to child and adolescent mental health services is no exception, although it is recognized that progress in this area is just beginning ([<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref1">72</reflink>]). Progress in achieving the evidence‐based standard in forensic child and adolescent mental health has been slower still. In particular, despite many years of clinical experience and despite the existence of practice guidelines from many professional bodies, most clinicians would readily accept that there is a paucity of relevant research evidence on which to base the practice of child custody evaluations.1 This is all the more relevant given that the courts are moving from a sociologically based view of truth ('Truth is what experts in the field believe') towards a method‐based view ('Truth is what is discovered through the appropriate application of scientific methods'; [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref2">31</reflink>]). The aims of this article are to 1) review briefly guidelines concerning custody (or residence) determination and the role that attachment theory has come to play, 2) discuss the factors that may determine the custody decision, particularly the role of psychological input, 3) consider the potential of attachment theory for informing practice by reviewing clinical and research assessment strategies and evaluating how attachment theory has been integrated so far, and 4) provide practical recommendations for developing an attachment‐oriented evidence‐based model of custody evaluation.</p> <hd id="AN0015806651-2">1. Guidelines concerning current practice</hd> <p>Estimates of the number or percentage of parents with children seeking divorce that require a court hearing and a psychological evaluation to inform custody determination are difficult to obtain. Similarly, for the increasing numbers of parents seeking alternative dispute resolution, such as mediation, the degree to which outside psychological input is needed is difficult to discern. Whatever the figure may be in a particular country or jurisdiction, it is likely to be small because only a fraction of cases include outside psychological evaluation. However, it is almost assured that those cases that do proceed through the court system and require a psychological evaluation are the more difficult and complicated cases, characterized by contested views of custody, current and past conflict between separating partners, and inability to negotiate emotionally challenging and upsetting matters; accusations by one or both parents of mistreatment of the child are also not uncommon ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref3">39</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref4">46</reflink>]). Parents who are working together for the interests of the child(ren) are unlikely to require the input of the court system and a psychological evaluation (although sometimes consultation with a mental health professional is sought).</p> <p>The principal objective of the custody assessment is to provide valid information to the court on the current and future impact on the child and family of alternative custody options. Practice parameters for meeting this objective have been published by numerous professional organizations2 and custody evaluation practices of various mental health professionals have been reviewed ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref5">1</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref6">45</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref7">47</reflink>]). Practice parameters reflect substantial agreement about what, in general, should be assessed in a custody evaluation. Examples include parental mental health, parenting style or parent–child interactions, the psychological and developmental needs of the child, and the 'fit' between these latter two. Practice parameters also typically recommend clinical interviews with each parent and with the child, as well as an observation of the interaction between each adult and child. Furthermore, existing practice guidelines also agree that conclusions and recommendations should be based, <emph>inter alia,</emph> on scientific procedures. Yet, practice parameters stop short of describing what these scientific procedures are or should be.</p> <p>Although most guidelines avoid the promotion of particular theoretical perspectives, child‐parent attachment is singled out by some (e.g., 'The assessment of the quality of the attachments between the parents and the children is the centerpiece of the evaluation'; [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref8">6</reflink>]). Nevertheless, how attachment is assessed is not discussed and what is meant by 'attachment' may be uncertain. Thus, for example, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry guidelines recommend that the evaluator should consider the child's 'level of attachment with adult figures.' The difficulty here is that the notion of a 'level' of attachment is not readily interpretable from existing theory or research (in contrast to, say, 'Secure' or 'Insecure'<emph>patterns of</emph> child–parent attachments). The more general point is that it is now common in practice to refer to attachment, but how attachment is assessed varies widely and, in some cases, is contrary to what is known from clinical and developmental research. Below, we discuss some of the difficulties connected with the popularization of attachment theory in child custody evaluation and then discuss how attachment theory might be successfully incorporated into current practice. However, we first outline the broader context for understanding how psychological theory may affect custody determination.</p> <hd id="AN0015806651-3">2. Standards, theories, and research findings and their influence on custody determination</hd> <p>Determination of custody is ultimately a legal decision. A much‐debated topic is how much scope there is or should be for psychological research and theory into the decision‐making process, and how prepared psychologists/psychiatrists are to contribute to this process ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref9">53</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref10">64</reflink>]). Custody determination will invariably reflect legal practice and statutes, which in turn mirror political and social expectations. This is underscored by an historical view of custody determination which reveals that substantial changes in legal practice occur in the absence of supporting evidence (see below). Furthermore, how the different inputs into the custody decision are weighed is hard to estimate, may be idiosyncratic, and will almost certainly vary across jurisdiction. Indeed, this variation is amply demonstrated among the different settings in which the authors work. The implication is that, to an important degree, a range of considerations weight legal decisions aside from whatever lessons psychological research may provide. Accordingly, it may be unreasonable to expect that research findings' impact on child custody decisions would be either immediate or direct.</p> <p> <bold>Standards. </bold> A number of legal standards – many of which have been incorporated into statute – have been applied to child custody determinations. These include a) the 'tender years' presumption that younger children would be best placed with their mother, b) the 'best interests of the child' standard which moved decision‐making toward child‐focused rather than parent‐focused concerns, c) the notion of the 'least detrimental alternative' which emphasized the need to balance risks and benefits of alternative options, d) the 'primary caretaker' presumption and, more recently, e) a tendency to favor joint over sole custody, and f) an increased tendency to favor equal physical custody ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref11">10</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref12">27</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref13">33</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref14">48</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref15">57</reflink>]). These standards have been criticized in the psychological and psychiatric literatures for being vague. That may be partly explained by the fact that, although these standards are often couched in psychological language, they are instead legal terms with no particular evidence base or theoretical background. Indeed, how, or if, these changing standards are reflected in the practice of child custody evaluations is uncertain. Therefore, rather than attach psychological significance to these terms, it may be best to view these terms as default positions for custody determinations to be relied on in the absence of overwhelming contrary evidence, such as that one parent is unfit.</p> <p> <bold>Psychological theory. </bold> Theories of child development do not figure centrally in discussions of custody assessments. Instead, psychological input into child custody determinations is often based on practical considerations (e.g., work schedules of parents) and generic mental health and relationship assessments (e.g., evidence of parental mental illness or of a history of abusive/neglectful parental care). The unspecified conceptual basis underlying psychological assessments is inevitable given the absence of relevant research. One consequence of this is that, if there were contrasting views expressed by experts of opposing parties, there would be no sound basis for favoring one approach over another. Subsequent sections of this article discuss the potential role of attachment theory as a conceptual framework for assessment and decision‐making.</p> <p> <bold>Research findings relevant to custody evaluations. </bold> Psychological evaluation and court counselors may play a decisive role in child custody determination (see, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref16">53</reflink>]), but the empirical base on which these clinical assessments are carried out is the subject of remarkably little systematic research. Studies that do exist are concerned with surveying measures used by practitioners. These findings demonstrate what common practice is rather than how reliable and valid these measures are. One conclusion from survey studies is that there is widespread use of personality, psychopathology, and intelligence assessments ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref17">1</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref18">40</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref19">44</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref20">47</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref21">67</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref22">71</reflink>]). This kind of information is valuable for making judgments about the mental health and psychological resources of parents and children, but does not provide sensitive information on issues more fundamental to the custody evaluation, notably parenting competence or parent–child relationship quality. An additional concern is that measures of parental personality or child behavioral problems that have been validated in population and clinical samples may be subject to particularly strong parental reporter bias when used in child custody evaluation ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref23">44</reflink>]). The general point is that measures that have been shown to be reliable and valid outside a custody evaluation context may not be valid when used in a custody evaluation. This is another way of saying that there are dangers of using psychological tests for purposes for which they were not developed, as noted in the [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref24">7</reflink>] guidelines. Additionally, some of the more commonly used measures for children have questionable validity; one such example is projective tests (see, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref25">51</reflink>]). A further limitation is that some measures routinely used in custody evaluations may be valid (e.g., IQ tests), but may not serve an obvious function in most cases.</p> <p>Another conclusion from survey studies is that there is a surprising lack of cross‐fertilization from other lines of clinical‐developmental research. One area that stands out is the parent–child relationship. The implication, from practice surveys, that evidence‐based measures for assessing parent–child relationship have no discernible place in the current practice of child custody evaluations is striking given the availability of valid and reliable measures of parent–child relationships and attachment ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref26">66</reflink>]). On the other hand, measures of the parent–child relationship that have been developed for, and are used in, custody evaluations ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref27">2</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref28">19</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref29">32</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref30">63</reflink>]) have not been adequately scrutinized in research. Furthermore, some measures developed for use in custody evaluation do not include methods for observing parent–child interactions, despite the fact that practice parameters recommend that this is an important part of the evaluation.</p> <p>Thus, 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. One suggestion for bridging clinical need and research expertise in custody evaluations is the inclusion of an attachment research model. The remainder of this article focuses on the prospects and challenges of such an approach.</p> <hd id="AN0015806651-4">3. Attachment theory and its relevance to custody assessments</hd> <p>As noted, the term 'attachment' is in regular use in the custody context and is explicitly referred to in some guidelines. For example, in his recent review, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref31">13</reflink>] explicitly states that the child's attachment to each parent should be assessed and that this information should feature in the written report. However, our reading of the available literature and experience with clinical and legal colleagues has taught us that, in many 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. The current state of confusion means that before we discuss how an attachment theory perspective may inform child custody evaluations, we need first to clarify what we mean by attachment and then specify evidence‐based assessment measures.</p> <p>Attachment theory, developed by [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref32">14</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref33">15</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref34">16</reflink>], and buttressed by considerable evidence from several decades of research of [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref35">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref36">4</reflink>]), places the parent–child relationship within an ethological, cognitive, control systems, and general developmental framework. It hypothesizes a biologically based need to form close affectional bonds, and a specific developmental course. It further proposes that the quality of the child's experiences with his/her attachment figures (mother, father, or other caregiver) plays a central role in personality and social development, and in the intergenerational transmission of caregiving quality. In the context of a custody evaluation, several specific features of the theory are especially important.</p> <p>First, attachment relationships provide the child with protection against harm and with a sense of emotional security, that is, a 'secure base.' A corollary of this is that threats to or disruptions in the attachment relationships – such as that associated with parental separation – would be expected to lead to fear/anxiety and accentuate attachment behavior (e.g., need for proximity to attachment figures, especially among young children). Second, consistent with the notion that attachment quality reflects the history of care the child receives in the relationship, a child may have different forms of attachment relationships with each parent (Steele, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref37">77</reflink>]). Therefore, in some situations, custody arrangements may involve the balancing of two secure or two insecure relationships, and in others it may involve a balancing of a secure and an insecure attachment relationship. In any event, an assessment of the child's attachment with both parents is needed. It is important to place this observation alongside the proposal that children develop attachment relationships with a limited number of caregivers and that there exists a hierarchy of attachment relationships. According to the theory, the primary attachment relationship (which may or not be the mother) is, in some biological and developmental sense, more 'significant' than other attachment relationships.</p> <p>Third, attachment theory proposes that the quality of care provided to the child, particularly sensitivity and responsiveness, leads to a Secure (optimal) or Insecure (non‐optimal) attachment relationship. These experiences are associated with later development by setting in place adaptive or maladaptive pathways. The term 'pathways' is used to make explicit that early attachment experiences or, for that matter, attachment experiences at any point in development, do not shape subsequent development in a fixed, deterministic manner ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref38">17</reflink>]). A Secure attachment relationship provides the child with resilience to cope with stress; in contrast, an Insecure attachment places the child at risk for subsequent developmental problems (e.g., problems in peer relationships in middle childhood) via a number of hypothesized mechanisms.</p> <p>Insecure attachment is not synonymous with pathology, just as a Secure attachment is not a guarantee against pathology. A particularly important finding from recent studies is that the form of Insecure attachment in infants and young children termed 'Insecure‐Disorganized' is strongly related to risk for psychopathology, compared with a Secure attachment and other more common forms of Insecure attachment, namely Avoidant and Ambivalent/Dependent ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref39">35</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref40">37</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref41">56</reflink>]). Following this observation, interventions have targeted Disorganized attachment as a focus for attention (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref42">61</reflink>]).</p> <p>A fourth component of attachment theory with particular relevance to the custody determination is that early attachment relationships are internalized and carried forward to influence expectations for other important relationships. Bowlby referred to the proposed mechanism mediating this process as an 'internal working model,' which can be described as an affective‐cognitive schema or set. Through a history of consistent and sensitive care with the parent, the child develops a model of self and others as lovable and loving/helpful that may make him/her comparatively more likely to cope with challenge and stress (e.g., by relying on others for support or guidance). Internal working models are 'working' insofar as they are responsive to input from real‐life experiences in the relationship; substantial changes in the quality of relationship would be expected to lead to changes in the security of the attachment relationship. For example, given that parent–child relationships may suffer in the short term following a separation (see, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref43">41</reflink>]), it might be expected that attachment quality might also be temporarily altered.</p> <p>Fifth, parental separation is a powerful challenge to the child's attachment relationships with mother and father ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref44">14</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref45">15</reflink>]). An application to the custody context is that joint physical custody involving frequent moves between houses may itself be a major source of stress. Young children are not designed to cope with the separation from their parents or with shared physical custody that involves alternating between two separate homes. What factors influence children's ability to cope with physical custody and visitation schedules are not well known, but the child's age is one important factor. Our clinical impression (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. Whatever the effects on young children (a topic addressed below), support for the possible positive effects of living in two households for school‐aged children was recently reported ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref46">30</reflink>]). However, one paradox here is that many judges are loath to order movement from one home to another after formal schooling has begun, but nevertheless order movement from one home to another earlier in the child's life, when the child may be less able to cope with such a change.</p> <p>Sixth, the potential contribution of attachment theory to the custody context is suggested by the many existing applications to clinical practice and policy. For example, several groups have developed effective interventions specifically based on attachment theory for a wide range of clinical problems ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref47">24</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref48">28</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref49">76</reflink>]; for reviews, see [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref50">9</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref51">55</reflink>]).</p> <p>Finally, it is important to note that attachment does not encompass the whole of the parent–child relationship. There are many components of the parent–child relationship besides attachment, including teaching, disciplining, and caring for the child's physical needs, that also require careful assessment.</p> <hd id="AN0015806651-5">Evidence‐based measures of attachment</hd> <p>Research on attachment theory has led to the development of several standardized measures. Some discussion of these measures is needed to illustrate the concepts of attachment and to distinguish those measures of attachment that are supported by scientific and clinical evidence.</p> <p>The most well‐researched measure is the Strange Situation ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref52">4</reflink>]), a structured laboratory or clinic‐based assessment in which the child is exposed to increasing stress, from play in an unfamiliar setting, to the introduction of a strange adult, to being left alone for a few minutes in the strange setting. Although initially devised for 12–18‐month‐olds, the Strange Situation and separation–reunion procedures have been adapted for children into the preschool and early school age ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref53">22</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref54">25</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref55">59</reflink>]). A key feature of the coding is the child's behavior upon the parent's return following a separation. Thus, having introduced a mild stress (i.e., separation), the assessment of attachment focuses on how well the child uses the parent as a secure base. That is, how well is the child able to seek out the parent for comfort, emotional regulation, and soothing, and then return to exploration? How the child expresses these behaviors changes with development. Whereas a secure infant will likely crawl to mother on her return to be picked up, the secure preschool‐aged child may make do with a bright greeting at a distance and personal conversation ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref56">23</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref57">65</reflink>]). An alternative to the lab‐based assessment is the Attachment Q‐sort, a system that relies on observations of child and caregiver behavior in the home, typically over 2–3 visits for a total of 2–6 hours' observation ([<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref58">69</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref59">81</reflink>]).</p> <p>For children from approximately 3 years through age 8 years, measurement of the child's representation or working model of attachment is increasingly measurable through cognitive‐ and language‐based assessments, such as story stem, doll play and related strategies. In these procedures, a child is shown toy figures and told the beginning of a story <emph>with an attachment theme</emph> (e.g., the child is hurt) and is asked to complete the story; the child is prompted for information about how the child and parent figures would feel and what would happen next. The content of the child's story is coded for instances of secure, avoidant, dependent, aggressive, chaotic, or other themes; in some cases the quality of his/her narrative is coded to reflect a coherent story with a clear beginning, middle, and end (resolution) versus a jumbled or incoherent style in which the 'story line' is hard to follow and make sense of ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref60">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref61">36</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref62">68</reflink>]). The narrative procedures are relatively new and their validation is modest, but they provide a useful window into the child's cognitive set or expectations for the behavior of self and attachment figures. Compared with typical projective techniques (e.g., drawings or apperception tests), these procedures provide an empirically grounded and conceptually sound method to conduct doll house/doll story assessments for children of this age.</p> <p>Until recently, late childhood and early adolescence was an age period for which there was no available measure of attachment. That is changing. One recent example is the Child Attachment Interview ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref63">43</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref64">78</reflink>]), an interview‐based method in which the child is asked to recall descriptors of relationship qualities and then asked to provide specific memories that support those descriptors; questions concerning instances of conflict and loss are also asked. Coding of the interview requires consideration of what the child says, but more importantly how he/she describes the relationship episodes. Narratives that are viewed as coherent and organized are distinguished from those that are incoherent, contradictory, minimalist, contain a poverty of emotional language, and/or have themes of neglect, strong rejection, violence or destruction without successful resolution.</p> <p>A key feature of the attachment measures is that they 'activate' the child's attachment system (either behaviorally or cognitively) by introducing mild stress in a standardized manner. The assessment strategy of inducing mild stress and examining how the child uses or represents the parent as a secure base contrasts with the more typical assessment of parent–child interactions in a low stress setting, such as a clinic playroom or the home. Observing parent–child interactions only during a play or other non/low‐stress assessment may be irrelevant to attachment (e.g., these observations are more relevant to parental support of the child's play). It would be inappropriate to make inferences about attachment quality from such an assessment – although our impression is that this is not uncommon.</p> <p>Measures of attachment quality in adults are also available and could 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. The most widely validated measure is the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI; [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref65">60</reflink>]). Adult attachment security as measured on the AAI is based on the adult's ability to talk in a coherent, organized, and reflective manner when talking about past experiences with parents while growing up; determining attachment security is less about what the adult mentions experiencing in the course of the interview and more about how the adult talks about these experiences, i.e., coherence of discourse. Of particular interest to the clinical setting is the finding that, for those adults who have experienced past trauma, the key consideration is not that a past trauma was reported but rather how the adult talks about these experiences and if s/he demonstrates some perspective on, or resolution of, these experiences. One of the most important and robust findings in the attachment literature is a high correspondence between the parent's discussion during the AAI and the child's attachment security assessed using the Strange Situation ([<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref66">80</reflink>]). As a result of this evidence, use of the AAI in clinic settings is gaining popularity.</p> <p>The preceding review covers the most empirically validated procedures for assessing child–parent attachment. There is uncertainty about how well these measures perform in the custody context, a topic to which we return later. The key take‐home message is that if attachment is to be incorporated into the custody assessment, then there are clear principles of measurement and that extant data support a restricted list of measures from which to choose.</p> <hd id="AN0015806651-6">A profile of strengths and limitations of an attachment theory model of custody evaluations</hd> <p>A central theme in this review is that measures most commonly used in child custody evaluations, especially for assessing parent–child interactions, have a weak empirical and conceptual base. We have proposed an attachment framework for child custody evaluations based on its strong empirical foundation and conceptual relevance to the context of custody evaluation. Further strengths could be added. For example, reflecting the increased awareness of children's rights, a number of international conventions (UN Convention on the Rights of the Child; European Convention on the Exercise of Children's Rights; [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref67">52</reflink>]) require that the child's wishes are accounted for in matters affecting his/her welfare. This can present significant difficulties for custody evaluations. Direct examination of the child's wishes in a custody evaluation or, more broadly, the child's‐eye view of the relationships may be exceptionally stressful, perhaps especially for younger (primary school‐aged) children, for children with a very insecure attachment, or children who feel pressured to defend one or both parents. These children have substantial difficulty knowing and reporting to outsiders what their wishes are. Attachment assessments based for this age group provide information about the child's perspective and experiences in a non‐invasive and non‐threatening manner. Furthermore, information gathered as part of a standard attachment assessment of the child–parent relationship may be less subject to the usual sort of bias that is common in custody evaluations ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref68">31</reflink>]) and may even offer the opportunity to evaluate the likely validity of the parent's perspective. Finally, it is worth considering how attachment theory may create and shape psycho‐educational opportunities for parents and the legal system. Specifically, an attachment evaluation can provide a context in which the parents and court can be informed about how best to respond to the child(ren)'s emotional needs during and following the separation proceedings (e.g., insuring availability of attachment figures) and how the separation process may affect the child(ren) (e.g., anger and heightened separation worries).</p> <p>Despite the ready acceptance of attachment theory to the custody context (e.g., as illustrated by existing guidelines), it is important to note several caveats and limitations. For instance, there are several examples of how attachment theory has been seriously misapplied to clinical problems. The most striking example is the use of attachment theory to promote holding therapy for children with suspected 'attachment disorders' ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref69">54</reflink>]). An attachment theory perspective is, in fact, more antithetical than congruent with the brand of 'holding therapies' promoted for these children. There is also a risk that attachment concepts and measures would be misapplied and mis‐communicated in the child custody context. This is already happening. One recent example is the analysis by [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref70">8</reflink>], whose understanding of attachment theory was based on an amalgam of the research and theoretical work of Bowlby and Ainsworth and the more recent interest in holding and related therapies misleadingly referred to as attachment‐based theories. As a result, their appraisal of attachment theory as a tool for custody evaluations was predictably negative. As we have noted, careful attention must be paid to how attachment is conceptualized and operationalized as part of an assessment. The aim here is not to guard the use of the term 'attachment' for exclusive use by a certain minority, but instead to point out that there are contradictions and inconsistencies in what is meant by 'attachment,' even among health‐care professionals.</p> <p>A second set of limitations concerns the measure of attachment. For example, existing measures of attachment have not yet received scrutiny in the context of divorce and custody litigation. We do not yet know how robust the information gathered from the assessment is to the immediate stresses and conflicts occurring in the family, however temporary they may be. Nor do we yet know how children's responses in the attachment‐based assessments would be influenced by the context of custody evaluation. Clinical experience shows that these measures provide useful clinical information, but until systematic data are collated it is important to re‐state the potential concern of using measures for purposes other than those for which they were developed. Indeed, there is likely to be disagreement even among attachment researchers about the suitability of these measures for clinical settings, such as custody determination. In addition, questions have been raised about the stability of assessments, even over comparatively short time periods. To some extent, discontinuity may reflect real changes in the circumstances that impair or improve the parent's sensitivity, but instability has been found even in the absence of major disruptions to the parent–child relationship ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref71">12</reflink>]). A related concern is that the prediction from one form of assessment to another (e.g., Strange Situation to story stem method) is moderate rather than strong. This may reflect 'lawful' discontinuity, but may also mean that we have not yet identified the age‐based 'equivalent' manner of assessing child–parent attachment from infancy to adolescence. In addition, there are practical limitations of applying an attachment perspective. Chief among these is that some assessments require additional resources (e.g., videotaping) and the coding requires extensive training that is costly and may be difficult to obtain. Also, given that assessments of the child(ren)'s attachment with both parents is needed, the procedures may become cumbersome, especially if there are several children involved. Concerns about repeating the attachment assessment with the child for each parent (e.g., is the situation as 'strange' on the repeat assessment?) might also be raised, although if the visits are conducted on different days (as is usual practice), this is not likely to be a major concern. Finally, whether or not these assessment approaches are more or less cost‐effective than other approaches is not clear.</p> <hd id="AN0015806651-7">Summary</hd> <p>As a summary statement, we suggest two levels of integration of attachment theory in the custody evaluation context. The first is conceptual. The above discussion indicates that there is much to recommend about attachment theory as a conceptual framework for the practice of child custody evaluations, and that this is already occurring. Attachment theory provides an interpretive framework for 'making sense of' the dynamics of children's behavior that may be distressing and confusing to parents. For example, increased clinginess to parents and anxiety about parents' whereabouts and safety make sense in the context of understanding the custody process as a threat to the child's felt sense of security. An additional illustration is that attachment theory suggests that the child's anger toward the resident parent upon return from visiting the non‐resident parent may reflect a natural response to separation and loss (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref72">14</reflink>]) – and not necessarily an undermining influence of the nonresident parent (although that does occur in some cases).</p> <p>A second level of integrating attachment in the child custody context is more practical and much less easily answered: whether or not to use evidence‐based measures of attachment as part of the formal assessment. On the one hand, attachment research 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. Thus, in any context, they would be preferable to the largely unsupported and under‐researched measures of parent–child relationship quality currently used in custody evaluations. On the other hand, there is not an evidence base to support their use specifically in the custody context. Our clinical experience indicates that these measures are useful for characterizing the child–parent attachment relationship, identifying parenting strengths and weaknesses, and forecasting likely outcomes of alternative custody options. In any event, they warrant careful consideration. What is needed to increase the evidence base of an attachment model of custody evaluation is a programmatic set of studies. This is the topic of the final section.</p> <hd id="AN0015806651-8">4. Practical application: translating theory into research to inform practice</hd> <p>In this final section we outline some of the kinds of research that could move the inclusion of attachment theory in child custody determination from theoretical appeal to an evidence‐based decision. Before sketching out a research agenda, some general points about this line of research deserve mention.</p> <p>A positive feature of this research agenda is that it breaks down the (largely artificial) distinction between 'basic' and 'applied' research, and toward a situation in which there is a genuine dialectic between theory and clinical practice (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref73">79</reflink>]). On the other hand, research into custody evaluation is complicated. One major challenge is that the 'real world' context in which research on custody would take place means that we need to balance the demand of scientific rigor with the constraints of what is ethically and practically possible. Ordinary research concerns about, for example, experimental design and random assignment cannot easily be met; instead, this area is better approached as a 'natural experiment.''Real world' challenges come in several forms. For instance, at the time the family presents for assessment and likely for research, they are in an intense period of distress (e.g., initial non‐adversarial strategies have failed) and there is likely to be a <emph>de facto</emph> custody arrangement in place (e.g., the child's contact with the father may already be inconsistent by the time the custody determination begins). Clearly, it would be better to start following families prior to this crisis period for both scientific reasons and ethical and practical concerns about getting consent. That may be possible where close links exist with family law courts and therapists in the community. Another consideration is that custody placement at the point of separation is better viewed as a fluid than final decision; children regularly change households, and anecdotal evidence suggests that few of these changes are prompted by or even known to the courts.</p> <p>A further difficulty is determining what good outcomes measures are for research. We suggest that custody determination is not a good outcome for research purposes and that judicial decision is not a useful criterion against which to evaluate the usefulness or validity of measures used in a custody evaluation. As noted earlier, many factors determine custody decisions; different judges – even in the same jurisdiction – may weight other information as more relevant, or accepted practice may bias against an open consideration of the evidence presented (e.g., a value of joint custody may be viewed as more compelling than results from psychological evaluations). Other variables might be substituted as outcomes, such as judges' reports of how helpful or influential the psychological assessment was to the custody evaluation. Information of that kind may be important, but might well be regarded as the wrong focus of attention – i.e., it is the well‐being of child and parents that is of central importance. Moreover, experience tells us that there is wide variation among judges in the value placed on psychological assessment material. Instead, we suggest that research efforts be focused on a) providing independent support for the measures when used in custody evaluation, b) evaluating the extent to which attachment theory and measures enhance our understanding of what predicts optimal outcomes, and c) broadening the focus of attachment to address un‐addressed questions and links with existing research on the post‐divorce family.</p> <p>We expand on these three tasks for research below.</p> <p>The first task for research concerns the use of attachment measures in the custody context: is information gathered from attachment measures as valid and reliable when collected as part of a custody evaluation as during other clinical contexts? One approach to this task is to determine if the construct validity of the measures is challenged. This could be assessed in several ways. For example, is there the ordinarily high concordance between results from the child's Strange Situation and results from the parent's Adult Attachment Interview when this information is collected during the custody evaluation? This connection has been proposed by some to be among the strongest demonstrations of construct validity of the measures; if this condition is not met when data are collected in the course of a custody assessment, then that would be a major source of concern. In addition, do the patterns of attachment behavior and classifications observed in custody assessments conform to those found in a range of normal and high‐risk samples studied to date; or, is there an increased rate of 'unclassifiable' and atypical behaviors as judged by an independent coder? If the latter is the case, then that would also be a source of concern about the measures. Moreover, if, as some have hypothesized, the custody context may be so threatening to the child as to increase rates of Disorganized attachment, then we would expect elevated rates of Disorganization in those undergoing evaluation (accounting for the likelihood that Disorganized attachment is associated with co‐occurring risks that may also be evident in families requiring psychological consultation, such as maltreatment or serious parental mental illness). If there is an elevated rate of Disorganization in children when assessed in a custody evaluation, then the clinician would need to be more wary about interpreting the Disorganization as an index of heightened risk for maladjustment. That is, if Disorganization is 'exaggerated' by the immediate stresses of the peri‐separation and custody context, it may not be as predictive of child adjustment as it is for children who are classified as Disorganized in more routine community and clinical research settings. A further test of the integrity of attachment measures is whether the information obtained in the course of a custody evaluation is reliable, using conventional criteria such as test–retest reliability. Findings from the sorts of studies outlined above cannot 'rule in' the appropriateness of attachment measures, but would represent a first test of whether attachment data have comparable meaning when gathered in a custody evaluation as during other periods.</p> <p>A second task which bears directly on the 'best interests' standard is to determine how <emph>predictive</emph> an attachment model is of post‐separation/decision adjustment. This kind of research capitalizes on the previously mentioned observation that judicial decision will, with some regularity, contradict recommendations made on the basis of attachment theory and data. The point here is not to test the hypothesis that attachment data should be the sole deciding factor in custody determination (it should not be, as we have stated). Rather, the aim of this sort of research is to get an empirical hold on the significance of other competing or complementary factors – from parental work situations to biases favoring maternal or joint custody – for optimal custody outcome, and what sort of balance among competing factors may be most appropriate. This type of research is more intensive insofar as it requires longitudinal follow‐up into the post‐divorce period, with detailed assessments that would not be part of the custody evaluation. Studies that did collect that kind of data would be in a position to determine if children whose custodial placement contrasts with the attachment data showed poorer outcomes compared with children whose custody placement was congruent with the attachment assessment information. Gathering attachment data in the course of the custody evaluation would also allow clinical investigators to examine if children with Insecure attachment patterns (perhaps especially Disorganized) are more likely to show a greater relative increase in behavioral/emotional problems in the course of the custody process and into the post‐separation period, as compared with children with attachment relationship(s) judged Secure.</p> <p>Whether or not attachment data are included in the custody evaluation, attachment data may provide valuable insights into the <emph>effects</emph> of custody determination. One of the rare studies of this type was reported by [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref74">75</reflink>]. They found that infants who had overnight visits with both divorced parents (i.e., some degree of joint physical custody) were more likely to show Disorganized attachments, compared with infants who did not have overnight visits with the non‐resident father and infants in non‐divorced families. This was especially the case when there was parental conflict over custody and/or visitation. Of course, the higher rate of Disorganized attachment in the overnight visitation group could be attributed to the increased stress of repeated separations, conflict, and compromised parenting that <emph>preceded</emph> the divorce. Therefore, it cannot be concluded if the visitation arrangement had any causal role in the child's Disorganized attachment. The findings require replication and further consideration.</p> <p>In fact, there is currently a great deal of social and scientific controversy concerning joint physical custody, the amount of visitation that is optimal or minimal to maintain attachment relationships with the non‐resident parent, the conditions under which attachment to non‐resident parent should be fostered – even in the face of ongoing and severe parental conflict, the effects on the child of stopping contact between him/her and a parent, and whether relocation of one parent should be granted if it means that contact with the other parent would be severely affected (see, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref75">34</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref76">49</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref77">50</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref78">74</reflink>]). Decisions on these matters are part of most custody cases involving psychological input; unfortunately, for none of the above topics is there adequate evidence guiding decisions one way or another. Whether joint physical custody should be granted for parents of infants and young children is a case in point. On the basis of research findings pointing to the fact that infants form attachment with both parents and that young children learn to manage transitioning between attachment figures (e.g., in the case of childcare providers), [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref79">49</reflink>] reasoned that joint physical custody for infants should be encouraged, alongside complementary efforts to facilitate co‐parenting between separated parents; they also noted that failing to support the infant's attachment to one parent would be harmful. In contrast, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref80">74</reflink>] espoused the opposite view, based on the findings of [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref81">75</reflink>] and the observation that maintaining a stable setting should be prioritized for young children. The fact that opposite conclusions can be reached based on attachment theory and available research illustrates how critical the need is for directly relevant, rigorous research. Whether opposing views would be proposed for older children is not clear, but research on older children is just as important given the regularity with which school‐age and adolescent children are forced to cope with separating parents.</p> <p>A third task for research is to expand the boundaries of attachment theory by exploring questions that would be otherwise difficult to address and by linking attachment concepts in to the substantial set of studies on children's adjustment in post‐divorce families ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref82">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref83">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref84">20</reflink>]; Dunn, Davies, O'Connor, & Sturgess, in press; [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref85">38</reflink>]). The first kind of expansion capitalizes on divorce and the custody context as a natural experiment to address novel questions. One such opportunity would be to examine the concept of attachment to the broader family system. Several theorists have suggested that attachment is not only a dyadic concept, but also illuminates family systems processes ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref86">21</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref87">42</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref88">62</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref89">82</reflink>]). In the context of custody and separation, the clinical and research question is, what is the effect on the child of a disrupted attachment to the family? Thus, even a child who maintained secure attachment relationships with both parents during the separation process would undergo 'attachment stress'; that is, the child's sense of safety and security might well be threatened despite having secure attachment with both parents. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref90">26</reflink>] model for researching the child's emotional security in the context of marital conflict may provide one empirical strategy for consolidating dyadic attachment and family systems approaches to understanding the psychological dynamics and effects of parental separation.</p> <p>Similarly, there are opportunities to broaden attachment research by linking it with other lines of research on children in post‐divorce families. For example, data from several countries show that children's contact with the non‐resident father drops substantially during the period following the separation ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref91">58</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref92">70</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref93">73</reflink>]). Research has investigated the non‐resident parent–child relationship in terms of the predictors of contact, the role of the resident parent, and the impact of contact as distinct from quality of relationship ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref94">5</reflink>]; Dunn et al., in press). However, the child's <emph>attachment</emph> relationship with the non‐resident parent has been neglected. An attachment perspective would pose novel and important questions for this line of research, such as what is the effect of the reduction in contact/loss of relationship on the child? Does the non‐resident parent cease to serve as an attachment figure even if there is regular (albeit) infrequent contact, such as one weekend a month? How does the child's developmental level modify the amount of contact that is optimal for maintaining the attachment relationship and the desirability of infrequent visitation? Numerous questions that regularly arise in clinical practice now need to be subjected to clinical research.</p> <p>Many pressing and perplexing questions confront the clinician involved in custody assessments: should a child be placed with the primary caregiver even if the primary caregiver is judged to be a less competent parent than the non‐primary caregiver? Is joint physical custody to be recommended if the infant child shows Secure attachment to both parents and both parents share the primary caregiving role? Not all of these questions – as they pertain to the individual case – can be firmly answered by clinical experience or research findings, and there is certain to be dissent among clinicians, even those knowledgeable about attachment. Ultimately, therefore, the incorporation of attachment principles and measures into practice will also depend not on its ability to provide fool‐proof answers, but on whether the clinician perceives insights into the case that might otherwise be difficult to obtain and whether an attachment perspective offers a 'user‐friendly' way of communicating findings and recommendations to parents and the legal system.</p> <hd id="AN0015806651-9">Conclusion</hd> <p>Practice guidelines from professional bodies and numerous books and articles do not reflect, and have not led to, evidence‐based practice for child custody determination. In this review we tackled one way of improving the fit between science and practice in this area, namely, by describing how attachment theory might be applied in custody evaluations. Specifically, we articulated why attachment theory may be of particular value, described the reliable and valid measures that have been used to index attachment processes, and outlined the kinds of evidence that are (still) needed to develop an attachment‐oriented evidence‐based model for practice.</p> <ref id="AN0015806651-10"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref5" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> The focus in this article is on custody evaluation in the context of separation/divorce rather than child protection in the case of maltreatment or other family problems, although some of the ideas and implications are similar in both kinds of custody determination. In addition, we refer in this article to 'custody' because that is the term most often used internationally, but other terms (e.g., 'residence' in the UK) are also used.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref27" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Child custody evaluation guidelines are available from: American Psychiatric Association. (1982). Child custody consultation: Report of the task force on clinical assessment in child custody. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; American Psychological Association. (1994). Guidelines for child custody evaluations in divorce proceedings. <emph>American Psychologist</emph>, 49, 677–680; 
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. (1997). Practice parameters for child custody evaluation. <emph>Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry</emph>, 36, 57s–68s; 
Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC). (1994). Model standards of practice for child custody evaluation. <emph>Family Conciliation Courts</emph>, 32, 504–513; 
Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry [GAP], Committee on the Family. (1981). <emph>Divorce, child custody and the family</emph>. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0015806651-11"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Ackerman, M.J., & Ackerman, M.C. (1997). Custody evaluation practices: A survey of experienced professionals (revisited). Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28, 137 – 145.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ackerman, M.J., & Schoendorf, K. (1992). ASPECT: Ackerman–Schoendorf Scales for Parent Evaluation of Custody. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref35" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Ainsworth, M.D.S. (1985). Attachments across the life span. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 61, 792 – 812.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref36" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Ainsworth, M.D.S., Blehar, M.C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the Strange Situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref82" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Amato, P.R., & Gilbreth, J.G. (1999). Nonresident fathers and children's well‐being: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 557 – 573.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref8" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. (1997). Practice parameters for child custody evaluation. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 36, 57s – 68s.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref24" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> American Psychological Association. (1994). Guidelines for child custody evaluations in divorce proceedings. American Psychologist, 49, 677 – 680.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref70" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Arredondo, D.E., & Edwards, L.P. (2000). Attachment, bonding, and reciprocal connectedness: Limitations of attachment theory in the Juvenile and Family Courts. Journal of the Center for Families, Children, and the Courts, 2, 109 – 127.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref50" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bakermans‐Kranenburg, M.J., van IJzendoorn, M.H., & Juffer, F. (2003). Less is more: Meta‐analysis of sensitivity and attachment interventions in early childhood. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 195 – 215.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bartlett, K.T. (1999). Improving the law relating to postdivorce arrangements for children. In R.A. Thompson & P.R. Amato (Eds.), The postdivorce family (pp. 71 – 102). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bauserman, R. (2002). Child adjustment in joint‐custody versus sole‐custody arrangements: A meta‐analytic review. Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 91 – 102.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Belsky, J., Campbell, S., Cohn, J., & Moore, G. (1996). Instability of attachment security. Developmental Psychology, 32, 921 – 924.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bernet, W. (2002). Child custody evaluations. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Clinics of North America, 11, 781 – 804.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. II Separation: Anxiety and anger. New York: Basic Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. III. Loss: Sadness and depression. New York: Basic Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. I. Attachment (2nd edn). New York: Basic Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bowlby, J. (1988). Developmental psychiatry comes of age. American Journal of Psychiatry, 145, 1 – 10.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bretherton, I., Ridgeway, D., & Cassidy, J. (1990). Assessing internal working models of the attachment relationship: An attachment story completion task for 3‐year‐olds. In M.T. Greenbergh, D. Cicchetti, & E.M. Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years (pp. 273 – 308). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bricklin, B. (1990). PORT handbook: Perception‐of‐relationships test. Furlong, PA: Village.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Buchanan, C.M., Maccoby, E.E., & Dornbusch, S.M. (1996). Adolescents after divorce. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Byng‐Hall, J. (1999). Family and couple therapy: Towards greater security. In J. Cassidy & P.R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment (pp. 625 – 645). New York: Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cassidy, J., Marvin, R.S., & The MacArthur Working Group on Attachment (1992). Attachment organization in preschool children: Coding guidelines (4th edn). Unpublished manuscript, University of Virginia.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P.R. (Eds.) (1999). Handbook of attachment. New York: Guilford.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cicchetti, D., Rogosch, F.A., & Toth, S.L. (2000). The efficacy of toddler–parent psychotherapy for fostering cognitive development in offspring of depressed mothers. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 28, 135 – 148.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crittenden, P.M. (1992). Quality of attachment in the preschool years. Development and Psychopathology, 4, 209 – 241.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davies, P.T., & Cummings, E.M. (1984). Marital conflict and child adjustment: An emotional security hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 387 – 411.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Derdeyn, A.P., & Scott, E. (1984). Joint custody: A critical analysis and appraisal. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 54, 199 – 209.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dozier, M., Stovall, K.C., Albus, K.E., & Bates, B. (2001). Attachment for infants in foster care: The role of caregiver state of mind. Child Development, 72, 1467 – 1477.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dunn, J., Cheng, H., O'Connor, T.G., & Bridges, L. (2004). Children's relationships with their non‐resident fathers: Influences, outcomes, and implications. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 553 – 566.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dunn, J., Davies, L., O'Connor, T., & Sturgess, W. (2001). Family lives and friendships: The perspectives of children in step‐, single‐parent and nonstep families. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 272 – 287.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Galatzer‐Levy, R.M., & Ostrov, E. (1999). From empirical findings to custody decisions. In R.M. Galatzer‐Levy & L. Kraus (Eds.), The scientific basis of child custody decisions, (pp. 32 – 57). New York: Wiley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gerard, A.B. (1994). Parent–Child Relationship Inventory (PCRI): Manual. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goldstein, J., Freud, A., & Solnit, A.J. (1980). Beyond the best interests of the child. London: Burnett Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gould, J.W., & Stahl, P.M. (2001). Never paint by numbers: A response to Kelly & Lamb (2000), Solomon (2001), and Lamb & Kelly (2001). Family Court Review, 39, 372 – 376.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Green, J., & Goldwyn, R. (2002). Annotation: Attachment disorganization and psychopathology: New findings in attachment research and their practical implications for developmental psychopathology in childhood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43, 835 – 846.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Green, J., Goldwyn, R., & Stanley, C. (2000). A new method of evaluating attachment representations in young school‐age children: The Manchester Child Attachment Story Task. Attachment and Human Development, 2, 48 – 70.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Greenberg, M.T. (1999). Attachment and psychopathology in childhood. In J. Cassidy & P. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment (pp. 469 – 496). New York: Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gunnoe, M.L., & Braver, S.L. (2001). The effects of joint legal custody on mothers, fathers, and children controlling for factors that predispose a sole maternal joint versus legal award. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 25 – 43.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Halikias, W. (1994). Forensic family evaluations: A comprehensive model for professional practice. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 50, 951 – 964.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heinze, M., & Grisso, T. (1996). Review of instruments assessing parenting competencies used in child custody evaluations. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 14, 293 – 313.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hetherington, E.M., & Clingempeel, W.G. (1992). Coping with marital transitions: A family systems perspective. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 57 (2–3, Serial no. 227).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hill, J., Fonagy, P., Safier, E., & Sargent, J. (2003). The ecology of attachment in the family. Family Process, 42, 205 – 221.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Humfress, H., O'Connor, T.G., Slaughter, J., Target, M., & Fonagy, P. (2002). Generalised and relationship‐specific models of social cognition: Explaining the overlap and discrepancies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43, 873 – 883.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hysjulien, C., Wood, B., & Benjamin, G.A.H. (1994). Child custody evaluations. A review of methods used in litigation and alternative dispute resolution. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 32, 466 – 489.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jameson, B.J., Ehrenberg, M.F., & Hunter, M.A. (1997). Psychologists' ratings of the best interests of the child custody and access criterion: A family systems assessment model. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28, 253 – 262.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnston, J.R., & Campbell, L.E. (1993). A clinical typology of interparental violence in disputed‐custody divorces. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 63, 190 – 199.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keilin, W.G., & Bloom, L.J. (1986). Child custody evaluation practices: A survey of experienced professionals. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 17, 338 – 346.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kelly, J.B. (1994). The determination of child custody. The Future of Children, 4, 121 – 142.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kelly, J.B., & Lamb, M.E. (2000). Using child development research to make appropriate custody recommendations and access decisions for young children. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 38, 297 – 311.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kelly, J.B., & Lamb, M.E. (2003). Developmental issues in relocation cases involving young children: When, whether, and how ? Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 193 – 205.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klein, R.G., (1986). Questioning the clinical usefulness of projective psychological tests for children. Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 7, 378 – 382.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kovera, M. & McAuliff, B.D. (1999). Child witnesses in custody cases: The effects of system and estimator variables on the accuracy of their reports. In R.M. Galatzer‐Levy & L. Kraus (Eds.), The scientific basis of child custody decisions (pp. 157 – 187). New York: Wiley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kunin, C.C., Ebbesen, E.B., & Konecni, V.J. (1992). An archival study of decision‐making in child custody disputes. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 48, 564 – 573.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levy, T.M. (2000). (ed.) Handbook of attachment interventions. New York: Academic Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lieberman, A.F., & Zeanah, C.H. (1999). Contributions of attachment theory to infant–parent psychotherapy and other interventions with infants and young children. In J. Cassidy & P. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment (pp. 555 – 574). New York: Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lyons‐Ruth, K. (1996). Attachment relationships among children with aggressive behavior problems: The role of disorganized early attachment patterns. Journal of Clinical and Consulting Psychology, 64, 64 – 73.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maccoby, E.E., & Mnookin, R.H. (1992). Dividing the child: Social and legal dilemmas of custody. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maclean, M., & Eekelaar, J. (1997). The parental obligation: A study of parenthood across households. Oxford: Hart Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Main, M., & Cassidy, J. (1988). Categories of response to reunion with the parent at age six: Predictable from infant attachment classifications and stale over a one‐month period. Developmental Psychology, 24, 415 – 426.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Main, M., & Goldwyn, R. (1998). Adult attachment rating and classification systems. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Psychology.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marvin, R.S., Cooper, G., Hoffman, K., & Powell, B. (2002). The circle of security project: Attachment‐based interventions with caregiver–pre‐school child dyads. Attachment and Human Development, 4, 107 – 124.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marvin, R.S., & Stewart, R.B. (1990). A family systems framework for the study of attachment. In M.T. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, & E.M. Cummings (Eds.). Attachment in the preschool years (pp. 51 – 86). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McDermott, J.F., Tseng, W.S., Char, W.S., & Fukunaga, C.S. (1978). Child custody decision making: The search for improvement. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 17, 104 – 116.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Melton, G.B., Petrika, J., Poythress, N.G., & Slobogin, C. (1987). Psychological evaluations for the courts. New York: Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (2001). Child‐care and family predictors of preschool attachment and stability from infancy. Developmental Psychology, 37, 847 – 862.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Connor, T.G. (2002). Annotation: The 'effects' of parenting reconsidered: Findings, challenges, and applications. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43, 555 – 572.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Donohue, W., & Bradley, A.R. (1999). Conceptual and empirical issues in child custody evaluations. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 6, 310 – 322.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oppenheim, D., Nir, A., Warren, S., & Emde, R.N. (1997). Emotion regulation in mother–child narrative co‐construction: Associations with children's narratives and adaptation. Developmental Psychology, 33, 284 – 294.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pederson, D.R., & Moran, G. (1996). Expressions of the attachment relationship outside of the strange situation. Child Development, 67, 915 – 927.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pryor, J., & Rodgers, B. (2001). Children in changing families: Life after parental separation. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quinnell, F.A., & Bow, J.N. (2001). Psychological tests used in child custody evaluations. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 19, 491 – 501.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ramchandani, P., Joughlin, C., & Zwi, M. (2001). Evidence‐based child and adolescent mental health services: Oxymoron or brave new dawn ? Child Psychology and Psychiatry Review, 6, 59 – 64.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seltzer, J.A. (1991). Relationships between fathers and children who live apart: The father's role after separation. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 79 – 101.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Solomon, J. & Beringen, Z. (2001). Another look at the developmental research: Commentary on Kelly and Lamb's 'using child developmental research to make appropriate custody and access decisions'. Family Court Review, 39, 355 – 364.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Solomon, J., & George, C. (2001). The development of attachment in separated and divorced families: Effects of overnight visitation, parent and couple variables. Attachment and Human Development, 1, 2 – 33.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Steele, M., Hodges, J., Kaniuk, J., Hillman, S., & Henderson, K. (2003). Attachment representations and adoption: Associations between maternal states of mind and emotion narratives in previously maltreated children. Journal of Child Psychotherapy, 29, 187 – 205.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Steele, H., Steele, M., & Fonagy, P. (1996). Associations among attachment classifications of mothers, fathers, and their infants. Child Development, 67, 541 – 555.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Target, M., Fonagy, P., & Shmueli‐Goetz, Y. (2003). Attachment representations in school‐age children: The development of the child attachment interview (CAI). Journal of Child Psychotherapy, 29, 171 – 186.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Toth, S.L., Maughan, A., Manly, J.T., Spagnola, M., & Cicchetti, D. (2002). The relative efficacy of two interventions in altering maltreated preschool children's representational models: Implications for attachment theory. Development and Psychopathology, 14, 877 – 908.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van IJzendoorn, M.H. (1995). Adult attachment representations, parental responsiveness, and infant attachment: A meta‐analysis on the predictive validity of the Adult Attachment Interview. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 387 – 403.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Waters, E., Vaughan, B., Posada, G., & Kondo‐Ikemura, K. (1995). Caregiving, cultural, and cognitive perspectives on secure‐base behavior and working models: New growing points in attachment theory and research. Monographs for the Society for Research in Child Development, 60 (2–3, serial No. 244).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wynne, L.C. (1984). The epigenesis of relational systems: A model for understanding family development. Family Process, 23, 297 – 318.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By James G. Byrne; Thomas G. O'Connor; Robert S. Marvin and William F. Whelan</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref93"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ951546
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Practitioner Review: The Contribution of Attachment Theory to Child Custody Assessments
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Byrne%2C+James+G%2E%22">Byrne, James G.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22O'Connor%2C+Thomas+G%2E%22">O'Connor, Thomas G.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Marvin%2C+Robert+S%2E%22">Marvin, Robert S.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Child+Psychology+and+Psychiatry%22"><i>Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry</i></searchLink>. Feb 2005 46(2):115-127.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: PhysDesc
  Label: Physical Description
  Group: PhysDesc
  Data: PDF
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 13
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2005
– Name: Audience
  Label: Intended Audience
  Group: Audnce
  Data: Practitioners
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evidence%22">Evidence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Child+Custody%22">Child Custody</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Attachment+Behavior%22">Attachment Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parent+Child+Relationship%22">Parent Child Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Guidelines%22">Guidelines</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Clinics%22">Clinics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Resilience+%28Psychology%29%22">Resilience (Psychology)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evaluation%22">Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Measurement%22">Measurement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Clinical+Experience%22">Clinical Experience</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Affective+Measures%22">Affective Measures</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00396.x
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0021-9630
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Background: The area of child custody assessments continues to fail to meet the evidence-based threshold now established in clinical practice. This is despite the existence, for many years, of published guidelines governing the practice of custody assessments available from a number of professional bodies. Methods: This article reviews the potential of attachment theory to contribute to the conceptualization of custody evaluations, clinical assessment, and the development of evidence-based practice. Particular attention is paid to specific instruments used to assess attachment in clinic and non-clinic settings. Results: Guidelines concerning child custody assessments highlight the particular importance of assessing attachment and parent-child relationship quality. However, measures often used in the course of a custody assessment are not backed up with empirical research, and the measures that are supported by empirical research have been slow to influence practice. There may be conceptual and measurement advantages of considering an attachment research-informed custody assessment. Discussion: Attachment theory has obvious conceptual relevance for the child custody context. Further clinical research is needed to demonstrate the usefulness of attachment research measures; research of this kind may shed important light on the development and resilience of affectional bonds.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2012
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ951546
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ951546
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00396.x
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 13
        StartPage: 115
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Evidence
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Child Custody
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Attachment Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parent Child Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Guidelines
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Clinics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Resilience (Psychology)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Measurement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Clinical Experience
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Affective Measures
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Practitioner Review: The Contribution of Attachment Theory to Child Custody Assessments
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Byrne, James G.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: O'Connor, Thomas G.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Marvin, Robert S.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 02
              Type: published
              Y: 2005
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0021-9630
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 46
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
              Type: main
ResultId 1