Family Lore Focus

Attachment Theory and Parental Alienation
L.F. Lowenstein
2008

Abstract

Following an acrimonious divorce or separation arguments are frequently presented as to why
a child should not be with a non resident parent. The custodial parent whether a father or a
mother uses the concept of a child being attached to him/herself and therefore this should
prevent them from having actual or reasonable contact with the absent parent. This view is
based on antagonism between the former partners rather than the importance of the
attachment theory being relevant. The attachment theory is also used to discredit the
intentions of the non custodial parent. This is especially the case for the younger child. With
older children this is not likely to be as relevant. The history of the development of the
“attachment theory” commencing with Bowlby and Ainsworth are presented and the counter
arguments are also presented. Attachment to mother is obviously important initially but
attachment to father is equally important to the child and such bonding is likely to lead to
positive emotional and behavioural development. It is therefore argued that both fathers and
mothers have an important role to play and are or should be responsible for the rearing of
children. The acrimony between the couple should not be considered as relevant as it is in
fact the real reason why attachment theory is used against a non resident parent.

Attachment Theory and Parental Alienation

Introduction

Following an acrimonious divorce and a considerable degree of antagonism between the
former partners, use is frequently made by the custodial parent of the importance of the
“attachment theory”. It is used for the purpose of discrediting the intentions of the non
custodial parent in seeking contact with a child.

It will be the intention to describe this particular theory and its founder John Bowlby in regard
to infants and young children and their need to be closely attached to one figure, usually the
female, in a relationship. As an expert witness to the courts, particularly in family problems,
where there is a dispute as to whether the absent parent, be it father or mother, should have
contact with his/her children, I am constantly being requested to comment on the value of
considering the attachment theory as a reason for not allowing contact between an absent
parent, (usually the father) and his children. When this occurs my response tends to be
based on the research that has been conducted over a period of many years as to whether an
attachment to one parent should mean the lack of attachment or association with the other
parent.

It must first of all be stated that research into this area has been considerable commencing
in the 1940s and continuing to be researched in 2007. I will illustrate this technique through
an example of a particular court appearance wherein I played the role of the independent
expert witness.

Example of use of attachment theory to prevent contact

Mrs X and Mr Y were involved in a constant dispute over many years dealing with a number of
children. Mr Y had requested regular contact with all his children but each time Mrs X with the
support of certain specialist paediatricians and psychiatrists had refused such contact. She
claimed Mr Y would disrupt her child’s capacity for being close to herself and this feeling she
had was more important than having contact with their father. It was a typical example of 19
cases the current psychologist has met where this ploy of using the attachment theory had
been used, sometimes successfully and sometimes unsuccessfully.

Comments on the research conducted into attachment theory

According to Bowlby the infant is primarily seeking proximity with an identified attachment
figure and will experience considerable distress and alarm if this is not provided (Bowlby,
1951, 1999). Reference has even been made that failure to provide such attachment is likely
to result in a dismal future for such young people, including their turning to juvenile
delinquency (Bowlby, 1944). The attachment theory has been found as being dominant in the
understanding of early social development in children (Schaffer, 2007). There has also been
criticism of attachment theory, most especially the theory of maternal deprivation published in
1951 (Bowlby, 1951). Bowlby stressed however that this closeness of attachment need not be
to one person alone but for the child to have a secure relationship with a number of care
givers was necessary to improve normal social and emotional development. Hence the role of
fathers and siblings has not been found to be ignored since here too attachments are made
which provide for further security for the infant and young child.

Mercer et al. (2006) emphasised the importance of human attachment behaviour and
emotions as being based one evolution and involved a selection for social behaviour that
makes individuals or groups more likely to survive. It is encouraged that toddlers and very
young children benefited from being with familiar people from the point of view of safety and
learning early to adapt to others. It must also be said that toddlers in their first months have
no preference for their biological parents over strangers and are equally friendly to anyone
who treats them kindly. Preference for particular people, and behaviour which solicits their
attention and care, develop over a period of time (Bowlby, 1958). On the whole infants
become attached to adults who are sensitive and responsive in social interactions with the
infant and who remain consistent care givers for some time, and this could include fathers,
mothers, brothers and sisters (Bowlby, 1969; Ainsworth, 1969).

There are critical periods. Certain changes in attachment, such as the infant’s coming to
prefer a familiar care giver and avoid strangers are most likely to occur within a fairly narrow
age range. The period between 6 months and 2-3 years is likely to be the time that a specific
care person might be preferred. Attitudes to care givers whether father or mother does
change with both real and vicarious experiences (Mercer et al., 2003, 2006; Bowlby, 1973).
The attachment attitude involves the seeking of proximity to other persons and may include
a variety of other attachment behaviours and for the protection of unfamiliar persons
(Ainsworth, et al 1974).

Attachment theory accepts the customary primacy of the mother as the main care-giver, but
there is nothing in the theory to suggest that fathers are not equally likely to become
principal attachment figures if they happen to provide most of the child care (Holmes, 1993).
Hence the infant and young child will form attachment to any consistent care givers who are
sensitive and responsive to social interaction with the child.

Rutter (1995) considers four main changes to have taken place over the years to 1995. He
finds that it has become apparent that there are more differences than similarities with
imprinting. It appears to be of value to children to be involved with a small number of people
but the involvement should be close and as early as possible (Bowlby, 1988).

According to David Levy (1935) in a very early study of adopted children, early emotional
deprivation of meaningful adults could have a disastrous affect in the long term on such
children. It is also for this reason that some children reared in an institution and receiving
care there are likely to be limited in their emotional development compared with children
raised by two parents (Bowlby, 1988).

Bowlby took considerable interest in the work of ethologists such as Lorenz and the work of
Tinbergen. This research showed how attachment works in the animal world. Bowlby
collaborated with Robert Hind (Van der Horst et al.,2007) on the subject of attachment and
human development. A study by Sir Michael Rutter (2002) showed that there is a considerable
amount o of optimism in the manner in which children who have been rejected in early life in
Romania and who were adopted by British citizens make considerable progress with their new
families. It must be remembered that they were separated from familiar people in Romania.

Sroufe & Walters (1977) consider there are different ways by which children achieve security at
different ages and in different environments. Hence there are different attachment styles.

Measurement of attachment styles

Ainsworth and others sought to construct a way of determining the type of attachment which a
child may have towards its mother:

1. Secure attachment – the child protests the mother’s departure and quiets promptly on the
mother’s return, accepting comfort from her and returning to exploration.
2. Avoidant attachment – the child shows little or no signs of distress at the mother’s
departure, a willingness to explore the choice, and little response to the mother’s return.
3. Ambivalent attachment - The child shows sadness on the mother’s departure, ability to be
picked up by a stranger and even warms to the stranger and on the mother’s return shows
some signs of ambivalence, signs of anger, reluctance to warm to her and return to play.
4. Disorganised attachment – a child presents stereotypes on the mother’s return after
separations, such as freezing for several seconds or rocking. This appears to indicate the child’
s lack of coherent coping strategy. Children who are disorganised are also given a
classification of secure, ambivalent or avoidant, based on their overall reunion behaviour.
5. Secure attachment – the attachment figure responds appropriately, promptly and
consistently to the emotional as well as the physical needs of the child. She helps her child
transition and regulates stress, and as a result, the child uses her as a secure base in the
home environment.
6. Avoidant attachment – here the attachment figure shows little response to the child when
distressed. She discourages her child from crying and encourages independence and
exploration. The avoidantly attached child may have lower quality play than the securely
attached child.
7. Ambivalent attachment – The attachment figure is inconsistent with her child; she may at
some time be appropriate and at other times neglectful to the child. The child raised in an
ambivalent relationship becomes preoccupied with the mother’s availability and cannot
explore his environment freely or use his mother as a secure base. The ambivalently
attached child is vulnerable to difficulty coping with life stresses and may display role reversal
with the mother.
8. Disorganised attachment – this can be associated with frightened/disorientated behaviour,
intrusiveness/negativity and withdrawal, role/boundary confusion, affective communication,
errors and child maltreatment.