Admissibility of attachment theory, research and assessments in child custody decision-making? Yes and No!

IF 3.4 3区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL
Tommie Forslund, Mårten Hammarlund, Pehr Granqvist
{"title":"Admissibility of attachment theory, research and assessments in child custody decision-making? Yes and No!","authors":"Tommie Forslund,&nbsp;Mårten Hammarlund,&nbsp;Pehr Granqvist","doi":"10.1002/cad.20447","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Attachment theory, research, and assessments have become increasingly applied to settle child custody cases. We discuss such applications in relation to admissibility criteria for scientific evidence and testimony proposed by Faigman et al. (2014). We argue that attachment theory and research can provide valid \"framework evidence\"; group-based attachment research has yielded general principles suitable as a frame of reference for pertinent court decisions. In particular, child custody decision-making should generally be guided by research indicating that children benefit from attachment networks. In contrast, assessments of attachment quality fall short of providing valid \"diagnostic evidence\"; information that a specific individual/dyad is a \"true\" instance of a general group-level principle. In particular, such assessments do not yield valid information about whether a particular caregiver has better caregiving skills than another caregiver and will better support child development. We conclude that attachment theory and research should be admissible for framework but not for diagnostic testimony.</p>","PeriodicalId":47745,"journal":{"name":"New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development","volume":"2021 180","pages":"125-140"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20447","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/12/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Attachment theory, research, and assessments have become increasingly applied to settle child custody cases. We discuss such applications in relation to admissibility criteria for scientific evidence and testimony proposed by Faigman et al. (2014). We argue that attachment theory and research can provide valid "framework evidence"; group-based attachment research has yielded general principles suitable as a frame of reference for pertinent court decisions. In particular, child custody decision-making should generally be guided by research indicating that children benefit from attachment networks. In contrast, assessments of attachment quality fall short of providing valid "diagnostic evidence"; information that a specific individual/dyad is a "true" instance of a general group-level principle. In particular, such assessments do not yield valid information about whether a particular caregiver has better caregiving skills than another caregiver and will better support child development. We conclude that attachment theory and research should be admissible for framework but not for diagnostic testimony.

依恋理论在儿童监护权决策中的可采性、研究与评估?是和不是!
依恋理论、研究和评估越来越多地应用于解决儿童监护权案件。我们将根据Faigman等人(2014)提出的科学证据和证词的可采性标准来讨论此类应用。我们认为依恋理论和研究可以提供有效的“框架证据”;以群体为基础的依恋研究已经产生了适合作为相关法院判决参考框架的一般原则。特别是,儿童监护决策一般应以表明儿童受益于依恋网络的研究为指导。相比之下,依恋质量的评估不能提供有效的“诊断证据”;一个特定的个体/双体是一般群体级原则的“真实”实例的信息。特别是,这种评估并不能提供关于某一特定照料者是否比另一照料者具有更好的照料技能以及是否能更好地支持儿童发展的有效信息。我们的结论是,依恋理论和研究应该被接受的框架,而不是诊断证词。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
3.60%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: The mission of New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development is to provide scientific and scholarly presentations on cutting edge issues and concepts in the field of child and adolescent development. Each issue focuses on a specific new direction or research topic, and is peer reviewed by experts on that topic. Any topic in the domain of child and adolescent development can be the focus of an issue. Topics can include social, cognitive, educational, emotional, biological, neuroscience, health, demographic, economical, and socio-cultural issues that bear on children and youth, as well as issues in research methodology and other domains. Topics that bridge across areas are encouraged, as well as those that are international in focus or deal with under-represented groups. The readership for the journal is primarily students, researchers, scholars, and social servants from fields such as psychology, sociology, education, social work, anthropology, neuroscience, and health. We welcome scholars with diverse methodological and epistemological orientations.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信