TY - JOUR
T1 - El Apego Va a Juicio: Problemas de Custodia y Protección Infantil
AU - Forslund, Tommie
AU - Granqvist, Pehr
AU - van IJzendoorn, Marinus H.
AU - Sagi-Schwartz, Avi
AU - Glaser, Danya
AU - Steele, Miriam
AU - Hammarlund, Mårten
AU - Schuengel, Carlo
AU - Bakermans-Kranenburg, Marian J.
AU - Steele, Howard
AU - Shaver, Phillip R.
AU - Lux, Ulrike
AU - Simmonds, John
AU - Jacobvitz, Deborah
AU - Groh, Ashley M.
AU - Bernard, Kristin
AU - Cyr, Chantal
AU - Hazen, Nancy L.
AU - Foster, Sarah
AU - Psouni, Elia
AU - Cowan, Philip A.
AU - Cowan, Carolyn Pape
AU - Rifkin-Graboi, Anne
AU - Wilkins, David
AU - Pierrehumbert, Blaise
AU - Tarabulsy, George M.
AU - Cárcamo, Rodrigo A.
AU - Wang, Zhengyan
AU - Liang, Xi
AU - Kázmierczak, Maria
AU - Pawlicka, Paulina
AU - Ayiro, Lilian
AU - Chansa, Tamara
AU - Sichimba, Francis
AU - Mooya, Haatembo
AU - McLean, Loyola
AU - Verissimo, Manuela
AU - Gojman-De-Millán, Sonia
AU - Moretti, Marlene M.
AU - Bacro, Fabien
AU - Peltola, Mikko J.
AU - Galbally, Megan
AU - Kondo-Ikemura, Kiyomi
AU - Behrens, Kazuko Y.
AU - Scott, Stephen
AU - Rodriguez, Andrés Fresno
AU - Spencer, Rosario
AU - Posada, Germán
AU - Cassibba, Rosalinda
AU - Barrantes-Vidal, Neus
AU - Palacios, Jesús
AU - Barone, Lavinia
AU - Madigan, Sheri
AU - Mason-Jones, Karen
AU - Reijman, Sophie
AU - Juffer, Femmie
AU - Fearon, R. Pasco
AU - Bernier, Annie
AU - Cicchetti, Dante
AU - Roisman, Glenn I.
AU - Cassidy, Jude
AU - Kindler, Heinz
AU - Zimmerman, Peter
AU - Feldman, Ruth
AU - Spangle, Gottfried
AU - Zeanah, Charles H.
AU - Dozier, Mary
AU - Belsky, Jay
AU - Lamb, Michael E.
AU - Duschinsky, Robbie
AU - Forslund, T., Granqvist, P., van IJzendoorn, M H., Sagi-Schwartz, A., Glaser, D., Steele, M., Hammarlund, M., Duschinsky, R
N1 - Funding Information:
Financiaci?n. El trabajo ha recibido apoyo financiero del Swedish Research Council (Grant 2017-03315) y the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare (Grant 2017-01182) concedidos a Pehr Granqvist y Tommie Forslund, as? como del Medical Humanities Investigator Award from the Wellcome Trust (Grant WT103343MA) concedido a Robbie Duschinsky.
Publisher Copyright:
ISSN: 1133-0740/© 2022 Colegio Oficial de la Psicología de Madrid. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
PY - 2022/2
Y1 - 2022/2
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Attachment theory
KW - Best interests of the child
KW - Child custody
KW - Child protection
KW - Consensus statement
KW - Family court
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85123509640&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85123509640&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.5093/APJ2021A26
DO - 10.5093/APJ2021A26
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85123509640
SN - 1133-0740
VL - 32
SP - 114
EP - 139
JO - Anuario de Psicologia Juridica
JF - Anuario de Psicologia Juridica
IS - 1
ER -