Family Lore Focus

Attachment Theory and Parental Alienation (Continued)

It must be said that this assessment procedure can equally be used with fathers as with
mothers and the result is likely to be an effective way of assessing the attachment between
the child and that parent.

Using the attachment theory is one of the more insidious, wrong, unfair and unjust arguments
offered by parents who do not wish their former partner to have any/or most limited contact
with their children. This view is then supported by a number of psychologists, psychiatrists and
paediatricians who, instead of being independent in their views, have sided with the custodial
parent, usually the mother.

There is of course evidence that under normal conditions, a baby or very young infant gains
in security by being closely attached to the primary care givers. This is usually the mother but
father’s influence can and should soon follow. The father when given custody will often also
prevent the children being in contact with the mother providing similar reasons to that
previously mentioned.

Whoever has custody, the argument for parenting or limited contact between the non resident
parent and children is unsound, and not in the best interests of the children. Neither Bowlby
(1969), nor Ainsworth (1969) ever considered that their research and theory should be used
to lead to the nullification of either a father’s or mother’s contact with their mutual children
(Garber, 2007). Bowlby (1969) in his conducted research often speaks of the undeniable bond
between infants and their primary care givers (Eagan, 2008).

More currently, research indicates that whilst mothers may be the primary care giver for a
short time, fathers and other family members including grandmothers and grandfathers, can
and often do play an important role in promoting attachment to a number of people.
Attachment can be defined as the strong bond that develops first between the parents and
the child and later other individuals on both sides of the family. Divorce between parents can,
but need not necessarily lead to detached attachment bonds and the possibility of the
process of alienation.

Many parent who truly care for their children consider what is in the children’s best interest.
Such parents, whether fathers or mothers, do as much as possible to praise the absent
parent rather than depreciating the absent parent. In this way children will continue to feel a
close attachment towards the absent parent despite the separation of the parents
themselves. This will be of real value to the children in the short and long term and also their
separated or divorced parents. This will allow children to feel they are loved and cared for by
both parents equally.

It is the implacable hostility between the parents that destroys the capacity of the custodial
parent to encourage good contact between the child and the now absent parent. The child
needs to feel a positive and valuable attachment to both parents to do as well as possible in
his/her development. Parents who put the welfare of their children first do not practice
alienating the children against the other parent, because of an acrimonious relationship and
separation. They put their love and knowledge of what is in the best interest of the children
first, and their acrimony towards the other parent second, whatever the reason for the
relationship ending.

Such parents realise the importance of encouraging the attachment, not merely towards
themselves, but towards the now absent parent. They do not use the “attachment theory” for
the purpose of obliterating the contact between the children and the now non resident parent.
It is unfortunate that the Judiciary fail to note this fact.

Hence, the family courts often listen to, and adhere to the advice provided by inexperienced
experts and unprincipled experts who are not truly independent but favour one of the parents
who has custody and who benefits, at least in the short term, by obliterating the guidance and
love that could be provided by the absent parent. That now absent parent being deprived of
contact resolves despite the fact there was in the past very often a positive relationship
between the child and that now absent parent. Hence the attachment theory used and hence
misused and abused in the manner described helps the custodial parent unfairly and
unjustifiably to retain total control of a child/children leading to what is not in the best interest
of these children.

It must be reiterated that no expert would or should allow or encourage contact between
children and sex or physically abusing adults, “once this has been proven as fact”.
Unfortunately it is not always proven by factual evidence when the custodial parent alleges
that physical or sexual abuse between the child and the now absent parent has occurred. This
is also used as a weapon for curtailing or totally eliminating contact between children and the
now absent parent (usually the father).

This again is evidence of how the attachment theory has been misused as an argument,
albeit a false one based on keeping a parent at bay. Even a study of adopted children shows
that positively formed attachment heightens the chance for a well adjusted life regardless of
the biological or non biological relationship of the attachment figure (Juffer, Stams & van
Ijzendoorn, 2002). Also Harlow (1958) found that infant monkeys became attached to
surrogate mothers in the form of heated cloth covered objects when they had no contact with
their real mother.

The effect of divorce on children

There is a large list of studies considering the effect of divorce on children and the resulting
loss of one parent. (Booth et al. 2000; Lowenstein, 2007) referred to various national studies
when stating that poor school performance, low self-esteem, behaviour problems, distress
and maladjustment is often associated with divorce.

In adolescents from divorced families, it has been noted that there are more instances of
delinquent behaviour, early sexual activity and continued academic issues and problems.
Blakeslee & Wallerstein, (1989) add that small children may suffer from sleep problems. Boys
especially suffer from lack of contact with a major attachment figure and causes them to have
troubles in school (Amato & Keith, 1991; Amato, 2001). Parents who remain together in
severe conflict are also not immune to producing problems in children (Blakeslee &
Wallerstein, 1989).

It is unfortunate that as a result of divorce, one of the parents loses his/her position in the
family and hence there is the threat that the attachment to the absent parent by the child
may be damaged or destroyed (Cordero, 2008). The child is at the same time powerless to
influence the situation, especially when the custodial parent, who is all powerful, discredits the
absent one. The child may also have formed a negative impression of the absent parent
during the trouble between the parents. This may be independent of, or combined with, the
alienation process conducted by the custodial parent (Garber, 2004) against the non custodial
and now absent parent.

When, however, as Garber (2004) states the main or custodial parent encourages by word
and action good contact with the non custodial parent, this will increase the child’s security and
attachment to the now non resident parent. It also leads to a positive relationship between
the non custodial parent and the custodial parent. This can often be achieved with the help of
a therapist (Freeman et al., 2004). It is, however, difficult to achieve when there is ongoing
alienation being practised by the custodial parent (Lowenstein, 2007) while the therapy is
taking place. The process of alienation or brain-washing against the absent parent, as
already mentioned, causes much to harm the child in the short as well as the long term. The
child has already witnessed much unpleasant acrimony between the two most important
supports of his/her life. When this is followed by separation of the parents and one or both
parents are determined in seeking to turn the child against the other parent, this ongoing
vilification destroys the child’s security. The child’s mind is being manipulated mostly by the
more powerful custodial parent (Kopetski, 1998).

The attachment theory, unfortunately used as an argument is especially powerful with the
younger child with the unjustified claim being made that visits to the alienated parent causes
the child distress! This distress, it is claimed is for two main reasons:

1. The child has been separated from the parent with whom he/she has a strong
“attachment” in the past.
2. The child is unhappy being with the alienated and now vilified parent because it has not
“formed an attachment” to that parent and therefore does not want to be with that parent due
to the influences received, mainly by the custodial parent.

The child will eventually identify totally with the view of the custodial parent since there is no
counter presence or influence from the absent parent. The influence of the absent parent and
the potential for attachment to the child becomes less and less strong when there is
decreasing or no contact. Eventually, the child wishes no further contact at all, or very limited
contact with the absent parent since the attachment has to some degree been severed of
broken. The impact of maligning the absent parent as evil, immoral, untrustworthy,
irresponsible and feckless, has turned the child away from a formerly loved parent.

The court, noting the situation of the child’s lack of desire for contact with the now absent
parent accepts this unquestioningly. The view expressed by the court is that the child’s rights
must be protected. The child’s need for two rather than one parent only is not accepted.
Instead the child’s right to make allegedly his own choice is paramount. The courts, fail due
to the element of subterfuge which has led to the child making the decision he/she makes.
The concept of the attachment theory cleverly lends itself well to this kind of scenario of
deception.