Attachment disorders diagnosed by community practitioners:a replication and extension

Background: While considered a rare diagnosis, reactive attachment disorder (RAD) is simultaneously the subject of considerable debate. A recent report suggested that RAD is overdiagnosed in community settings and that conduct problems may be used to make a diagnosis of RAD (Woolgar & Baldock, Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 20, 2015, 34–40). This study seeks to replicate and extend these findings. Method: Clinical assessment data from 100 consecutive admissions of maltreated foster and adopted children (ages 3–17) to a specialty treatment clinic in the United States were reviewed. Measures included semi-structured interviews of RAD and disinhibited social engagement disorder (DSED) symptoms and caregiver-report questionnaires of emotional problems, conduct problems, and the quality of the parent–child relationship. Results: Of the 100 cases reviewed, 39 presented with a diagnostic history of RAD, DSED, or ‘attachment disorder’. Of these cases, three were diagnosed in-clinic with DSED; no cases met diagnostic criteria for RAD according to DSM-5 criteria. However, analyses found that those diagnosed with RAD by community-based clinicians were significantly more likely to display conduct problems and to be adopted (as opposed to in foster care). Conclusions: These findings confirm those of Woolgar and Baldock (Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 20, 2015, 34–40). It appears that the diagnostic criteria of RAD are commonly being inaccurately applied in general community-based practice. Clarification of diagnostic criteria for RAD in recent revisions of diagnostic taxonomies, the accumulation of empirical data on RAD, and improved instrumentation are either poorly disseminated or inadequately implemented in community-based practice settings

El Apego Va a Juicio: Problemas de Custodia y Protección Infantil1

Attachment theory and research are drawn upon in many applied settings, including family courts, but misunderstandings are widespread and sometimes result in misapplications. The aim of this consensus statement is, therefore, to enhance understanding, counter misinformation, and steer family-court utilisation of attachment theory in a supportive, evidence-based direction, especially with regard to child protection and child custody decision-making. This article is divided into two parts. In the first part, we address problems related to the use of attachment theory and research in family courts, and discuss reasons for these problems. To this end, we examine family court applications of attachment theory in the current context of the best-interest-of-the-child standard, discuss misunderstandings regarding attachment theory, and identify factors that have hindered accurate implementation. In the second part, we provide recommendations for the application of attachment theory and research. To this end, we set out three attachment principles: the child’s need for familiar, non-abusive caregivers; the value of continuity of good-enough care; and the benefits of networks of attachment relationships. We also discuss the suitability of assessments of attachment quality and caregiving behaviour to inform family court decision-making. We conclude that assessments of caregiver behaviour should take center stage. Although there is dissensus among us regarding the use of assessments of attachment quality to inform child custody and child-protection decisions, such assessments are currently most suitable for targeting and directing supportive interventions. Finally, we provide directions to guide future interdisciplinary research collaboration

Attachment goes to court: child protection and custody issues

Attachment theory and research are drawn upon in many applied settings, including family courts, but misunderstandings are widespread and sometimes result in misapplications. The aim of this consensus statement is, therefore, to enhance understanding, counter misinformation, and steer family-court utilisation of attachment theory in a supportive, evidence-based direction, especially with regard to child protection and child custody decision-making. The article is divided into two parts. In the first, we address problems related to the use of attachment theory and research in family courts, and discuss reasons for these problems. To this end, we examine family court applications of attachment theory in the current context of the best-interest-of-the-child standard, discuss misunderstandings regarding attachment theory, and identify factors that have hindered accurate implementation. In the second part, we provide recommendations for the application of attachment theory and research. To this end, we set out three attachment principles: the child’s need for familiar, non-abusive caregivers; the value of continuity of good-enough care; and the benefits of networks of attachment relationships. We also discuss the suitability of assessments of attachment quality and caregiving behaviour to inform family court decision-making. We conclude that assessments of caregiver behaviour should take center stage. Although there is dissensus among us regarding the use of assessments of attachment quality to inform child custody and child-protection decisions, such assessments are currently most suitable for targeting and directing supportive interventions. Finally, we provide directions to guide future interdisciplinary research collaboration