Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 46:2 (2005), pp 115–127 doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00396.

Practitioner Review: The contribution of

attachment theory to child custody assessments
James G. Byrne,1 Thomas G. O’Connor,2 Robert S. Marvin,3
and William F. Whelan3
1
Lucena Clinic, Dublin, Ireland; 2University of Rochester, Rochester, USA;
3
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

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 concep-
tualization 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 affec-
tional bonds. Keywords: Attachment, custody evaluation, assessment.

Evidence-based practice has come to be accepted as determine the custody decision, particularly the role
a standard to be achieved in the practice of psychi- of psychological input, 3) consider the potential of
atry and psychology. Application to child and ado- attachment theory for informing practice by review-
lescent mental health services is no exception, ing clinical and research assessment strategies and
although it is recognized that progress in this area is evaluating how attachment theory has been integ-
just beginning (Ramchandani, Joughlin, & Zwi, rated so far, and 4) provide practical recommenda-
2001). Progress in achieving the evidence-based tions for developing an attachment-oriented
standard in forensic child and adolescent mental evidence-based model of custody evaluation.
health has been slower still. In particular, despite
many years of clinical experience and despite the
existence of practice guidelines from many profes- 1. Guidelines concerning current practice
sional bodies, most clinicians would readily accept
Estimates of the number or percentage of parents
that there is a paucity of relevant research evidence on
with children seeking divorce that require a court
which to base the practice of child custody evalu-
hearing and a psychological evaluation to inform
ations.1 This is all the more relevant given that the
custody determination are difficult to obtain. Sim-
courts are moving from a sociologically based view of
ilarly, for the increasing numbers of parents seeking
truth (‘Truth is what experts in the field believe’) to-
alternative dispute resolution, such as mediation,
wards a method-based view (‘Truth is what is dis-
the degree to which outside psychological input is
covered through the appropriate application of
needed is difficult to discern. Whatever the figure
scientific methods’; Galatzer-Levy & Ostrov, 1999).
may be in a particular country or jurisdiction, it is
The aims of this article are to 1) review briefly
likely to be small because only a fraction of cases
guidelines concerning custody (or residence) deter-
include outside psychological evaluation. However, it
mination and the role that attachment theory has
is almost assured that those cases that do proceed
come to play, 2) discuss the factors that may
through the court system and require a psycholo-
gical evaluation are the more difficult and compli-
1
The focus in this article is on custody evaluation in the con- cated cases, characterized by contested views of
text of separation/divorce rather than child protection in the custody, current and past conflict between separ-
case of maltreatment or other family problems, although some
ating partners, and inability to negotiate emotionally
of the ideas and implications are similar in both kinds of
custody determination. In addition, we refer in this article to
challenging and upsetting matters; accusations by
‘custody’ because that is the term most often used interna- one or both parents of mistreatment of the child are
tionally, but other terms (e.g., ‘residence’ in the UK) are also also not uncommon (Halikias, 1994; Johnston &
used. Campbell, 1993). Parents who are working together
Ó Association for Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 2004.
Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
116 James G. Byrne et al.
for the interests of the child(ren) are unlikely to re-
quire the input of the court system and a psycholo-
gical evaluation (although sometimes consultation
with a mental health professional is sought).
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 nu-
merous professional organizations2 and custody
evaluation practices of various mental health pro-
fessionals have been reviewed (Ackerman & Acker-
man, 1997; Jameson, Ehrenberg, & Hunter, 1997;
Keilin & Bloom, 1986). Practice parameters reflect
substantial agreement about what, in general,
should be assessed in a custody evaluation. Ex-
amples 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, inter alia, on scientific procedures. Yet,
practice parameters stop short of describing what
these scientific procedures are or should be.
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 be-
tween the parents and the children is the centerpiece
of the evaluation’; AACAP, 1997). 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 Ado-
lescent 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’ patterns of
child–parent attachments). The more general point is
2
Child custody evaluation guidelines are available from:
American Psychiatric Association. (1982). Child custody con-
sultation: Report of the task force on clinical assessment in
child custody. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Associ-
ation; American Psychological Association. (1994). Guidelines
for child custody evaluations in divorce proceedings. American
Psychologist, 49, 677–680;
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;
Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC). (1994).
Model standards of practice for child custody evaluation.
Family Conciliation Courts, 32, 504–513;
Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry [GAP], Committee on
the Family. (1981). Divorce, child custody and the family. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
that it is now common in practice to refer to attach-
ment, 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 con-
text for understanding how psychological theory may
affect custody determination.
2. Standards, theories, and research findings
and their influence on custody determination
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 con-
tribute to this process (Kunin, Ebbesen, & Konecni,
1992; Melton, Petrika, Poythress, & Slobogin, 1987).
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 re-
veals that substantial changes in legal practice occur
in the absence of supporting evidence (see below).
Furthermore, how the different inputs into the cus-
tody decision are weighed is hard to estimate, may be
idiosyncratic, and will almost certainly vary across
jurisdiction. Indeed, this variation is amply demon-
strated among the different settings in which the
authors work. The implication is that, to an im-
portant degree, a range of considerations weight le-
gal decisions aside from whatever lessons
psychological research may provide. Accordingly, it
may be unreasonable to expect that research find-
ings’ impact on child custody decisions would be
either immediate or direct.
Standards. 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 (Bartlett, 1999; Derdeyn & Scott,
1984; Goldstein, Freud, & Solnit, 1980; Kelly, 1994;
Maccoby & Mnookin, 1992). These standards have
been criticized in the psychological and psychiatric
literatures for being vague. That may be partly
 Practitioner Review: The contribution of attachment theory to child custody assessments
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 prac-
tice of child custody evaluations is uncertain.
Therefore, rather than attach psychological signific-
ance to these terms, it may be best to view these
terms as default positions for custody determina-
tions to be relied on in the absence of overwhelming
contrary evidence, such as that one parent is unfit.
Psychological theory. 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 his-
tory of abusive/neglectful parental care). The
unspecified conceptual basis underlying psycholo-
gical 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.
Research findings relevant to custody evalua-
tions. Psychological evaluation and court coun-
selors may play a decisive role in child custody
determination (see, Kunin et al., 1992), 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 con-
cerned with surveying measures used by practi-
tioners. 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, psycho-
pathology, and intelligence assessments (Ackerman
& Ackerman, 1997; Heinze & Grisso, 1996; Hysju-
lien, Wood, & Benjamin, 1994; Keilin & Bloom,
1986; O’Donohue & Bradley, 1999; Quinnell & Bow,
2001). 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 par-
ental reporter bias when used in child custody
evaluation (Hysjulien et al., 1994). The general point
is that measures that have been shown to be reliable
and valid outside a custody evaluation context may
117
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 American Psy-
chological Association’s (1994) guidelines. Addition-
ally, some of the more commonly used measures for
children have questionable validity; one such
example is projective tests (see, Klein, 1986). A fur-
ther 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.
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 evid-
ence-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 (O’Con-
nor, 2002). On the other hand, measures of the
parent–child relationship that have been developed
for, and are used in, custody evaluations (Ackerman
& Schoendorf, 1992; Bricklin, 1990; Gerard, 1994;
McDermott, Tseng, Char, & Fukunaga, 1978) have
not been adequately scrutinized in research. Fur-
thermore, some measures developed for use in cus-
tody 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.
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 sug-
gestion 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.
3. Attachment theory and its relevance to
custody assessments
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,
Bernet (2002) 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 litera-
ture 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
118 James G. Byrne et al.
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.
Attachment theory, developed by Bowlby (1973,
1980, 1982), and buttressed by considerable evid-
ence from several decades of research of Ainsworth
and others (1985; Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, &
Wall, 1978), 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 fur-
ther proposes that the quality of the child’s experi-
ences 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 spe-
cific features of the theory are especially important.
First, attachment relationships provide the child
with protection against harm and with a sense of
emotional security, that is, a ‘secure base.’ A corol-
lary 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, consist-
ent with the notion that attachment quality reflects
the history of care the child receives in the relation-
ship, a child may have different forms of attachment
relationships with each parent (Steele, Steele, & Fo-
nagy, 1996). Therefore, in some situations, custody
arrangements may involve the balancing of two se-
cure or two insecure relationships, and in others it
may involve a balancing of a secure and an insecure
attachment relationship. In any event, an assess-
ment 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 devel-
opmental sense, more ‘significant’ than other
attachment relationships.
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 devel-
opment 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 (Bowlby, 1988). 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.
Insecure attachment is not synonymous with
pathology, just as a Secure attachment is not a
guarantee against pathology. A particularly import-
ant 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 Inse-
cure attachment, namely Avoidant and Ambivalent/
Dependent (Green & Goldwyn, 2002; Greenberg,
1999; Lyons-Ruth, 1996). Following this observa-
tion, interventions have targeted Disorganized
attachment as a focus for attention (e.g., Marvin,
Cooper, Hoffman, & Powell, 2002).
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 his-
tory of consistent and sensitive care with the parent,
the child develops a model of self and others as lov-
able 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, Hetherington & Clingempeel, 1992),
it might be expected that attachment quality might
also be temporarily altered.
Fifth, parental separation is a powerful challenge
to the child’s attachment relationships with mother
and father (Bowlby, 1973, 1980). 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 in-
volves 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
 Practitioner Review: The contribution of attachment theory to child custody assessments
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 (Dunn, Davies,
O’Connor, & Sturgess, 2001). However, one paradox
here is that many judges are loath to order move-
ment from one home to another after formal school-
ing 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.
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 attach-
ment theory for a wide range of clinical problems
(Cicchetti, Rogosch, & Toth, 2000; Dozier, Stovall,
Albus, & Bates, 2001; Steele, Hodges, Kaniuk, Hill-
man, & Henderson, 2003; for reviews, see Baker-
mans-Kranenburg, van IJzendoorn, & Juffer, 2003;
Lieberman & Zeanah, 1999).
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.
Evidence-based measures of attachment
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 distin-
guish those measures of attachment that are sup-
ported by scientific and clinical evidence.
The most well-researched measure is the Strange
Situation (Ainsworth et al., 1978), 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 (Cassidy,
Marvin, & the MacArthur Working Group on At-
tachment, 1992; Crittenden, 1992; Main & Cassidy,
1988). A key feature of the coding is the child’s be-
havior upon the parent’s return following a separ-
ation. 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
119
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 conver-
sation (Cassidy & Shaver, 1999; NICHD Early Child
Care Research Network, 2001). 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 (Pederson
& Moran, 1996; Waters, Vaughan, Posada, & Kondo-
Ikemura, 1995).
For children from approximately 3 years through
age 8 years, measurement of the child’s representa-
tion 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
with an attachment theme (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 fig-
ures 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 (Bretherton,
Ridgeway, & Cassidy, 1990; Green, Goldwyn, &
Stanley, 2000; Oppenheim, Nir, Warren, & Emde,
1997). 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 proced-
ures provide an empirically grounded and concep-
tually sound method to conduct doll house/doll
story assessments for children of this age.
Until recently, late childhood and early adoles-
cence was an age period for which there was no
available measure of attachment. That is changing.
One recent example is the Child Attachment Inter-
view (Humfress, O’Connor, Slaughter, Target, &
Fonagy, 2002; Target, Fonagy, & Shmueli-Goetz,
2003), an interview-based method in which the
child is asked to recall descriptors of relationship
qualities and then asked to provide specific mem-
ories that support those descriptors; questions
concerning instances of conflict and loss are also
asked. Coding of the interview requires considera-
tion of what the child says, but more importantly
how he/she describes the relationship episodes.
Narratives that are viewed as coherent and organ-
ized are distinguished from those that are incoher-
ent, contradictory, minimalist, contain a poverty of
emotional language, and/or have themes of neglect,
strong rejection, violence or destruction without
successful resolution.
120 James G. Byrne et al.
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 relev-
ant to parental support of the child’s play). It would
be inappropriate to make inferences about attach-
ment quality from such an assessment – although
our impression is that this is not uncommon.
Measures of attachment quality in adults are also
available and could be incorporated into a clinical
assessment as one predictor of the parent’s caregiv-
ing strengths and risks, and as an aid to under-
standing sources of a parent’s caregiving deficits.
The most widely validated measure is the Adult
Attachment Interview (AAI; Main & Goldwyn, 1998).
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 find-
ing 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 experi-
ences. One of the most important and robust find-
ings 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 (van IJzendo-
orn, 1995). As a result of this evidence, use of the AAI
in clinic settings is gaining popularity.
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.
A profile of strengths and limitations of an
attachment theory model of custody evaluations
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 chil-
dren’s rights, a number of international conventions
(UN Convention on the Rights of the Child; European
Convention on the Exercise of Children’s Rights;
Kovera & McAuliff 1999) 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-threat-
ening 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 evalu-
ations (Galatzer-Levy & Ostrov, 1999) and may even
offer the opportunity to evaluate the likely validity of
the parent’s perspective. Finally, it is worth consid-
ering how attachment theory may create and shape
psycho-educational opportunities for parents and
the legal system. Specifically, an attachment evalu-
ation 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 pro-
cess may affect the child(ren) (e.g., anger and
heightened separation worries).
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 seri-
ously misapplied to clinical problems. The most
striking example is the use of attachment theory to
promote holding therapy for children with suspected
‘attachment disorders’ (Levy, 2000). An attachment
theory perspective is, in fact, more antithetical than
congruent with the brand of ‘holding therapies’ pro-
moted for these children. There is also a risk that
attachment concepts and measures would be mis-
applied and mis-communicated in the child custody
context. This is already happening. One recent
example is the analysis by Arredondo and Edwards
(2000), whose understanding of attachment theory
was based on an amalgam of the research and
 Practitioner Review: The contribution of attachment theory to child custody assessments
theoretical work of Bowlby and Ainsworth and the
more recent interest in holding and related therapies
misleadingly referred to as attachment-based theor-
ies. 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 incon-
sistencies in what is meant by ‘attachment,’ even
among health-care professionals.
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 re-
sponses 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 suit-
ability 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 (Belsky, Campbell, Cohn, & Moore,
1996). 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, al-
though if the visits are conducted on different days
(as is usual practice), this is not likely to be a major
121
concern. Finally, whether or not these assessment
approaches are more or less cost-effective than other
approaches is not clear.
Summary
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 concep-
tual framework for the practice of child custody
evaluations, and that this is already occurring.
Attachment theory provides an interpretive frame-
work for ‘making sense of’ the dynamics of children’s
behavior that may be distressing and confusing to
parents. For example, increased clinginess to par-
ents 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 re-
sponse to separation and loss (e.g., Bowlby, 1973) –
and not necessarily an undermining influence of the
nonresident parent (although that does occur in
some cases).
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 meas-
ures 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 rela-
tionship, identifying parenting strengths and weak-
nesses, and forecasting likely outcomes of
alternative custody options. In any event, they war-
rant careful consideration. What is needed to in-
crease the evidence base of an attachment model of
custody evaluation is a programmatic set of studies.
This is the topic of the final section.
4. Practical application: translating theory into
research to inform practice
In this final section we outline some of the kinds of
research that could move the inclusion of attach-
ment theory in child custody determination from
theoretical appeal to an evidence-based decision.
122 James G. Byrne et al.
Before sketching out a research agenda, some
general points about this line of research deserve
mention.
A positive feature of this research agenda is that it
breaks down the (largely artificial) distinction be-
tween ‘basic’ and ‘applied’ research, and toward a
situation in which there is a genuine dialectic be-
tween theory and clinical practice (e.g., Toth, Mau-
ghan, Manly, Spagnola, & Cicchetti, 2002). 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 de-
mand of scientific rigor with the constraints of what
is ethically and practically possible. Ordinary re-
search 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 de facto 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 cus-
tody placement at the point of separation is better
viewed as a fluid than final decision; children regu-
larly change households, and anecdotal evidence
suggests that few of these changes are prompted by
or even known to the courts.
A further difficulty is determining what good out-
comes measures are for research. We suggest that
custody determination is not a good outcome for re-
search purposes and that judicial decision is not a
useful criterion against which to evaluate the use-
fulness 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 evalua-
tions). Other variables might be substituted as out-
comes, 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 assess-
ment material. Instead, we suggest that research
efforts be focused on a) providing independent sup-
port for the measures when used in custody evalu-
ation, 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.
We expand on these three tasks for research
below.
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 evalua-
tion? 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 atyp-
ical 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 undergo-
ing 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 mal-
treatment 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 inter-
preting the Disorganization as an index of
heightened risk for maladjustment. That is, if Dis-
organization 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 set-
tings. 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
 Practitioner Review: The contribution of attachment theory to child custody assessments
measures, but would represent a first test of whether
attachment data have comparable meaning when
gathered in a custody evaluation as during other
periods.
A second task which bears directly on the ‘best
interests’ standard is to determine how predictive 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 rec-
ommendations 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 re-
quires longitudinal follow-up into the post-divorce
period, with detailed assessments that would not be
part of the custody evaluation. Studies that did col-
lect 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 especi-
ally 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.
Whether or not attachment data are included in
the custody evaluation, attachment data may pro-
vide valuable insights into the effects of custody
determination. One of the rare studies of this type
was reported by Solomon and George (2001). 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 com-
promised parenting that preceded the divorce.
Therefore, it cannot be concluded if the visitation
arrangement had any causal role in the child’s Dis-
organized attachment. The findings require replica-
tion and further consideration.
123
In fact, there is currently a great deal of social and
scientific controversy concerning joint physical cus-
tody, 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 fos-
tered – even in the face of ongoing and severe par-
ental 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, Gould & Stahl, 2001; Kelly &
Lamb, 2000, 2003; Solomon & Beringen, 2001).
Decisions on these matters are part of most custody
cases involving psychological input; unfortunately,
for none of the above topics is there adequate evid-
ence 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), Kelly and Lamb (2000) rea-
soned 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, Solomon and Beringen (2001) espoused the
opposite view, based on the findings of Solomon and
George (2001) and the observation that maintaining
a stable setting should be prioritized for young chil-
dren. The fact that opposite conclusions can be
reached based on attachment theory and available
research illustrates how critical the need is for di-
rectly 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.
A third task for research is to expand the bound-
aries 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 (Amato & Gilbreth, 1999; Bauserman, 2002;
Buchanan, Maccoby, & Dornbusch, 1996; Dunn,
Davies, O’Connor, & Sturgess, in press; Gunnoe &
Braver, 2001). The first kind of expansion capitalizes
on divorce and the custody context as a natural ex-
periment to address novel questions. One such op-
portunity 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 sys-
tems processes (Byng-Hall, 1999; Hill, Fonagy,
Safier, & Sargent, 2003; Marvin & Stewart, 1990;
Wynne, 1984). In the context of custody and
124 James G. Byrne et al.
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 de-
spite having secure attachment with both parents.
Davies and Cummings’ (1984) model for researching
the child’s emotional security in the context of mar-
ital conflict may provide one empirical strategy for
consolidating dyadic attachment and family systems
approaches to understanding the psychological
dynamics and effects of parental separation.
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 (Maclean & Eekelaar, 1997; Pryor &
Rodgers, 2001; Seltzer, 1991). Research has investi-
gated 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 (Amato & Gilbreth, 1999;
Dunn et al., in press). However, the child’s attach-
ment 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 con-
tact, such as one weekend a month? How does the
child’s developmental level modify the amount of
contact that is optimal for maintaining the attach-
ment relationship and the desirability of infrequent
visitation? Numerous questions that regularly arise
in clinical practice now need to be subjected to
clinical research.
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 in-
fant 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 know-
ledgeable 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.
Conclusion
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. Specific-
ally, 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.
Correspondence to
Gerard Byrne, Lucena Clinic, Blessington Road,
Tallaght, Dublin 24, Ireland, or Tom O’Connor,
Department of Psychiatry, University of Rochester
Medical Center, 300 Crittenden Blvd, Rochester, NY,
14642, USA; Email tom_oconnor@urmc.rochester.
edu
References
Ackerman, M.J., & Ackerman, M.C. (1997). Custody
evaluation practices: A survey of experienced profes-
sionals (revisited). Professional Psychology: Research
and Practice, 28, 137–145.
Ackerman, M.J., & Schoendorf, K. (1992). ASPECT:
Ackerman–Schoendorf Scales for Parent Evaluation of
Custody. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological
Services.
Ainsworth, M.D.S. (1985). Attachments across the life
span. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine,
61, 792–812.
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.
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.
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.
(1997). Practice parameters for child custody evalu-
ation. Journal of the American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, 36, 57s–68s.
American Psychological Association. (1994). Guidelines
for child custody evaluations in divorce proceedings.
American Psychologist, 49, 677–680.
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.
Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J., van IJzendoorn, M.H., &
Juffer, F. (2003). Less is more: Meta-analysis of
 Practitioner Review: The contribution of attachment theory to child custody assessments
sensitivity and attachment interventions in early
childhood. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 195–215.
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.
Bauserman, R. (2002). Child adjustment in joint-cus-
tody versus sole-custody arrangements: A meta-ana-
lytic review. Journal of Family Psychology, 16,
91–102.
Belsky, J., Campbell, S., Cohn, J., & Moore, G. (1996).
Instability of attachment security. Developmental
Psychology, 32, 921–924.
Bernet, W. (2002). Child custody evaluations. Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry Clinics of North America, 11,
781–804.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. II Separa-
tion: Anxiety and anger. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. III. Loss:
Sadness and depression. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. I. Attach-
ment (2nd edn). New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1988). Developmental psychiatry comes of
age. American Journal of Psychiatry, 145, 1–10.
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.
Bricklin, B. (1990). PORT handbook: Perception-of-rela-
tionships test. Furlong, PA: Village.
Buchanan, C.M., Maccoby, E.E., & Dornbusch, S.M.
(1996). Adolescents after divorce. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
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.
Cassidy, J., Marvin, R.S., & The MacArthur Working
Group on Attachment (1992). Attachment organiza-
tion in preschool children: Coding guidelines (4th edn).
Unpublished manuscript, University of Virginia.
Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P.R. (Eds.) (1999). Handbook of
attachment. New York: Guilford.
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.
Crittenden, P.M. (1992). Quality of attachment in the
preschool years. Development and Psychopathology,
4, 209–241.
Davies, P.T., & Cummings, E.M. (1984). Marital conflict
and child adjustment: An emotional security hypo-
thesis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 387–411.
Derdeyn, A.P., & Scott, E. (1984). Joint custody: A
critical analysis and appraisal. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 54, 199–209.
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.
Dunn, J., Cheng, H., O’Connor, T.G., & Bridges, L. (2004).
Children’s relationships with their non-resident
125
fathers: Influences, outcomes, and implications. Jour-
nal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 553–566.
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.
Galatzer-Levy, R.M., & Ostrov, E. (1999). From empiri-
cal 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.
Gerard, A.B. (1994). Parent–Child Relationship Inven-
tory (PCRI): Manual. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psy-
chological Services.
Goldstein, J., Freud, A., & Solnit, A.J. (1980). Beyond
the best interests of the child. London: Burnett Books.
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.
Green, J., & Goldwyn, R. (2002). Annotation: Attach-
ment disorganization and psychopathology: New
findings in attachment research and their practical
implications for developmental psychopathology in
childhood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychi-
atry, 43, 835–846.
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.
Greenberg, M.T. (1999). Attachment and psychopathol-
ogy in childhood. In J. Cassidy & P. Shaver (Eds.),
Handbook of attachment (pp. 469–496). New York:
Guilford Press.
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.
Halikias, W. (1994). Forensic family evaluations: A
comprehensive model for professional practice. Jour-
nal of Clinical Psychology, 50, 951–964.
Heinze, M., & Grisso, T. (1996). Review of instruments
assessing parenting competencies used in child
custody evaluations. Behavioral Sciences and the
Law, 14, 293–313.
Hetherington, E.M., & Clingempeel, W.G. (1992). Cop-
ing with marital transitions: A family systems per-
spective. Monographs of the Society for Research in
Child Development, 57 (2–3, Serial no. 227).
Hill, J., Fonagy, P., Safier, E., & Sargent, J. (2003). The
ecology of attachment in the family. Family Process,
42, 205–221.
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 Psycho-
logy and Psychiatry, 43, 873–883.
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.
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
126 James G. Byrne et al.
assessment model. Professional Psychology: Re-
search and Practice, 28, 253–262.
Johnston, J.R., & Campbell, L.E. (1993). A clinical
typology of interparental violence in disputed-custody
divorces. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 63,
190–199.
Keilin, W.G., & Bloom, L.J. (1986). Child custody
evaluation practices: A survey of experienced profes-
sionals. Professional Psychology: Research and Prac-
tice, 17, 338–346.
Kelly, J.B. (1994). The determination of child custody.
The Future of Children, 4, 121–142.
Kelly, J.B., & Lamb, M.E. (2000). Using child develop-
ment research to make appropriate custody recom-
mendations and access decisions for young children.
Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 38, 297–311.
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.
Klein, R.G., (1986). Questioning the clinical usefulness
of projective psychological tests for children. Devel-
opmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 7, 378–382.
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.
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.
Levy, T.M. (2000). (ed.) Handbook of attachment inter-
ventions. New York: Academic Press.
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.
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.
Maccoby, E.E., & Mnookin, R.H. (1992). Dividing the
child: Social and legal dilemmas of custody. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Maclean, M., & Eekelaar, J. (1997). The parental
obligation: A study of parenthood across households.
Oxford: Hart Publishing.
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.
Main, M., & Goldwyn, R. (1998). Adult attachment
rating and classification systems. Unpublished
manuscript, University of California, Berkeley,
Department of Psychology.
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.
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). Chi-
cago: The University of Chicago Press.
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.
Melton, G.B., Petrika, J., Poythress, N.G., & Slobogin,
C. (1987). Psychological evaluations for the courts.
New York: Guilford Press.
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (2001).
Child-care and family predictors of preschool attach-
ment and stability from infancy. Developmental
Psychology, 37, 847–862.
O’Connor, T.G. (2002). Annotation: The ‘effects’ of
parenting reconsidered: Findings, challenges, and
applications. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychi-
atry, 43, 555–572.
O’Donohue, W., & Bradley, A.R. (1999). Conceptual and
empirical issues in child custody evaluations. Clinical
Psychology: Science and Practice, 6, 310–322.
Oppenheim, D., Nir, A., Warren, S., & Emde, R.N.
(1997). Emotion regulation in mother–child narrative
co-construction: Associations with children’s narrat-
ives and adaptation. Developmental Psychology, 33,
284–294.
Pederson, D.R., & Moran, G. (1996). Expressions of the
attachment relationship outside of the strange situa-
tion. Child Development, 67, 915–927.
Pryor, J., & Rodgers, B. (2001). Children in changing
families: Life after parental separation. Oxford, UK:
Blackwell Publishers.
Quinnell, F.A., & Bow, J.N. (2001). Psychological tests
used in child custody evaluations. Behavioral
Sciences and the Law, 19, 491–501.
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.
Seltzer, J.A. (1991). Relationships between fathers and
children who live apart: The father’s role after separa-
tion. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 79–
101.
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.
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.
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 mal-
treated children. Journal of Child Psychotherapy, 29,
187–205.
Steele, H., Steele, M., & Fonagy, P. (1996). Associations
among attachment classifications of mothers,
fathers, and their infants. Child Development, 67,
541–555.
 Practitioner Review: The contribution of attachment theory to child custody assessments
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.
Toth, S.L., Maughan, A., Manly, J.T., Spagnola, M., &
Cicchetti, D. (2002). The relative efficacy of two
interventions in altering maltreated preschool chil-
dren’s representational models: Implications for
attachment theory. Development and Psychopathol-
ogy, 14, 877–908.
van IJzendoorn, M.H. (1995). Adult attachment repre-
sentations, parental responsiveness, and infant
attachment: A meta-analysis on the predictive valid-
127
ity of the Adult Attachment Interview. Psychological
Bulletin, 117, 387–403.
Waters, E., Vaughan, B., Posada, G., & Kondo-Ikemura,
K. (1995). Caregiving, cultural, and cognitive per-
spectives on secure-base behavior and working
models: New growing points in attachment theory
and research. Monographs for the Society for Re-
search in Child Development, 60 (2–3, serial No. 244).
Wynne, L.C. (1984). The epigenesis of relational sys-
tems: A model for understanding family development.
Family Process, 23, 297–318.
Manuscript accepted 1 July 2004