Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Primary Attachment Theory

How is this used in court? What do we understand about childrens' counsellors and what purpose do the children's counsellors provide in the court process

I know we may have dealt with this but I am struggling to understand what purpose the children's counsellors provide in the court process. Surely they are only there to find abused children and identify a violent abusive parent?

I can't understand the primary attachment theory and its purpose - unless its a subtle way to say a parent is an abuser?

For if a child has attached more strongly to one parent over the other - what does the judge do?

Give the child to the "attached" parent thus denying any attachment to the other parent?

Surely logic and the best interests of the child would say - give the child to the "UN-attached parent" fulltime so the child can "attach" and because the other "attached" parent has already "attached" and hence doesn't need to have the child as much?

Have I missed something - what are they thinking?

Do they really believe the stuff they dish out or expect us to believe the lunacy?

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
The purpose of a family report is not "screening for abuse", they are looking at the family dynamic and how the child interacts with both parties.

The FC explained to me, that she was looking at a "snapshot" of the day. She would get most of it "right" and some of it "wrong" and some of it, I would find confronting because it was an external view and objective.

My impression and reading is that the FC looks at each family unit and the competing proposals and then makes assessments as to the type of arrangement that they believe the child would benefit from. The judge/FM is the ultimate person to decide this. Some judges go completely on the advice of the FC, others completely appear to disregard it.

I don't recall attachment being mentioned in the report.

Primary attachment to one parent was widely debunked many years ago. With daycare as the new evil, the focus changed to secure and insecure attachment.

Some children are insecurely attached (there are many reasons why, depression in a parent etc) and it means that they fret if mum leaves the room, and so on.

The problem is that psychology terms, that have specific definitions, have their meaning changed when the general public latch onto them. Quite often the descriptor is mis-used.

I will try and find some more good links on attachment.

Junior Executive of SRL-Resources

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (Look for the Avatars). Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
Artemis is correct - the Family Report is a 'snapshot' only and is used to provide a third party reference point outside the adversarial Court process

Primary attachment really is about very young children and any involvement they might have in a report is limited to their presence with a parent and the report writers observations of the interactions
 

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
I recall the family law counselor at the conference in Canberra talking about their role and I thought he was expressing the idea of "attachment" - to the extent he was advising all counselors to use it.

My point remains - - what difference does it make what happened in that past - unless it was actual abuse. What actual logic is used to use the family report - parent X WAS a better parent than parent Y? (prior to the huge change in circumstances)

What good are they - except to trawl for abuse?

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
You have 2 potential families, moreso if one or both spouses/partners have repartnered. The focus is not abuse, although that's something they look for, but to review the family dynamic (in both families).

Mum may be saying Dad is a loser who couldn't look after a child (as in our case) and the consultant will either debunk or support this, depending on her observations on Dad and the child.

Dad may say Mum is neurotic/depressed - and so on.

Report writers are looking at the current situation and making determinations with that and the proposals in mind.

The FM/Judge is free to throw this out, or rule along the lines as suggested - whatever they feel like on the day.

Junior Executive of SRL-Resources

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (Look for the Avatars). Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
See here's the thing.

DOCS will barely remove any child under EXTREME circumstances - yet in family law circumstances - character opinions of 'betterness' *9Whatever the prevailing 'theory' of the day) is used to REMOVE a child from a parent - either partially, significantly or fully.

Doesn't anyone find that a problem?

Do you all think that divorcing couples should be treated differently (more invasively - less rights - more scrutiny - more cost) than the rest of society - and why?

Is the idea that people who divorce are bad parents? Who came up with that idea and where's the evidence?

IS it the notion that people (women) who divorce are escaping an violent abusive sexual deviant (why else) and hence the deviant needs to be uncovered?

What is the underlying bias in the system - what is the logic? Why are people treated differently?

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
Jon Pearson said
See here's the thing.

What is the underlying bias in the system - what is the logic? Why are people treated differently?
Because the people who don't separate amicably drag in every known agency and trick to settle their issues on what THEY want, and usually that involves one party using the kids as collateral in their war and also try to apply extreme roles i.e. abusive male, bad mother, to up the ante on their claims.

When you are swimming down a creek and an eel bites your cheek, that's a Moray.
The people who end up in court are the minority and usually it's not both, but one party being difficult. I guess these extreme cases and extreme people are why the system is so intrusive.

Unfortunately, you can't divide a child down the middle. Until shared parenting becomes the norm, children will spend more time with one than the other. In that scenario, when people can't decide this, courts have to and they need justification to do so.

Divorce is technically "no fault" but it is human nature to lay blame. You are still looked at differently when you tell people you are divorced, especially during that awkward time when you are not ready for another relationship.

All this comes into play.

Junior Executive of SRL-Resources

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (Look for the Avatars). Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
Even with 50/50 it hard to re-establish your credentials so to speak.

When I go to school I don't know what the X has said to who or what teacher and who she has personal relationships with.

Some of the mothers have got to know me and find I'm not the typical false stereotype that media shoes us to be.

Society is set up to believe the worst quicker than to believe the best and this creates bias that does show through in all including government bodies.

I think it's called public conception and public conception these days is controlled in many differing ways, those close to you may see your value those who know of you will be indifferent, those who have heard of you will be split and if you go wider out general opinions and conceptions are what the family court balance on. Problem is the top level of family court are in a bubble that is slow to change and adapt new ideas so they seem to operate in a time flux that will never catch up with social changes.

Mind you this is all just my slant on things anyway.
D4E.

Should that in reality be public misconception as opposed to public conception.

It's a little like the average family of 2.4 children (Ok going back some time and it's a UK figure); there is no such thing, but that was the average family.
Sorry my bad, I was being sarcastic about how readily people accept the spin rather than look on their door step to see truth.

But it is how people truly conceive situations as truth by blind expression.

It only becomes a misconception when they are educated or truth is seen.

So we need to educate as many people as possible just how important both parents are to children ( generally )
The thing is - what story has the government bought (or did buy) that made counsellors and investigations into children and parents the norm in FC?

Is there a rational basis for government agencies doing what they do.

Why allow support for people to win (large amounts of money and damage) by using the system against another person (who they hate). Why do they build systems which allow people to claim things - for financial and personal advantage against another person? (in the very circumstances where they will be encouraged to).

I have no respect for the role of the family court counselors in children matters - who are they and what the hell do they think they are doing - who asked them to and how do they measure their 'success' - 'another villain removed from their children'?

If they pedaled their wares on the street - would anyone buy it?

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
D4E and Mike, I had a giggle. Public conception is how you get the children that you will then go on to squabble over  :lol:

Public perception (what the public perceive/see) is often made up of misconceptions (badly founded ideas).

Jon: I guess that's why the push to the less adversarial system. FRCs and then a more concilliatory process with a judge is way different from the adversarial system.  I just wish division 12 (or whatever it's called) was across Australia and not just being implimented "down south".

Junior Executive of SRL-Resources

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (Look for the Avatars). Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
Jon Pearson said
The thing is - what story has the government bought (or did buy) that made counsellors and investigations into children and parents the norm in FC?

Is there a rational basis for government agencies doing what they do.

Why allow support for people to win (large amounts of money and damage) by using the system against another person (who they hate). Why do they build systems which allow people to claim things - for financial and personal advantage against another person? (in the very circumstances where they will be encouraged to).

I have no respect for the role of the family court counsellors in children matters - who are they and what the hell do they think they are doing - who asked them to and how do they measure their 'success' - 'another villain removed from their children'?

If they pedalled their wares on the street - would anyone buy it?
As you are very well aware the Government never bought any stories. The issue of expert witnesses to produce information has been an intrinsic part of the entire legal system.  The difference is that they act for the Court and not for the parties.

If anything the Family Courts have been successful at limiting the number of expert witnesses others the Courts would degenerate into the US 'Frye' scenario.

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
Artemis said
D4E and Mike, I had a giggle. Public conception is how you get the children that you will then go on to squabble over  :lol:

Public perception (what the public perceive/see) is often made up of misconceptions (badly founded ideas).

Jon: I guess that's why the push to the less adversarial system. FRCs and then a more conciliatory process with a judge is way different from the adversarial system.  I just wish division 12 (or whatever it's called) was across Australia and not just being implemented "down south".
Don't you get arrested for public conception?

It's all perception and reality - politics is 90% perception and 10% reality and the Courts 75% perception and 25% reality.

12A is only for the FCoA -if it works CFM Pascoe will have to do some fine tuning at the FMC.

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 

Perception

5. beginning; origination.

6. the act or power of forming notions, ideas, or concepts.

7. a notion; idea; concept.

8. a design; plan.

perception
perceptional, adjective.

/puh'sepshuhn/

noun

1. the action or faculty of perceiving; cognition; a taking cognisance, as of a sensible object.

2. an immediate or intuitive recognition, as of a moral or aesthetic quality.

3. the result or product of perceiving, as distinguished from the act of perceiving.

4. Psychology a single unified meaning obtained from sensory processes while a stimulus is present.
   [late ME, from L: a receiving, hence apprehension]

Not meaning to contradict Artemis just the English language get sooooooooooo confusing at the best of times.

We are fed information to conceive and then we judge that information to perceive

Jon I don't think the government has bought anything instead I think they simply manipulate it to their own devices to what best suits them and as the family law court does not work on justice it becomes easy to manipulate the views of those who reside there.

As Artemis suggested if the system used it's powers to create a more conciliatory process it would work out better for all concerned, the power is already there to do this it's just it is not being used in it's true design.

My experience with court councillors concerning children's issues puts them as redundant narcissistic teratogenic pellicle.

But I'm too nice to call them nasty names  ;)
Artemis said
The people who end up in court are the minority
I am glad you re iterated the point. All too often because of this, and similar sites, there is a 'perception' that the entire system is broken because people often do not get what they think they are entitled to.

Court is adversarial because the parties are there - because they do not agree.

Mental Aberration from one or both.

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
You do have to take into account those who do not make it to court and do not know their rights who feel they where pushed into an agreement through lack of choice and have grievance with it.

In my mind the system is broken and court is over adversarial and can become more so if one party is considered by the other to refuse to come to a reasonable agreement.

Many give up because they can neither avoid the money or mental strain I'm sure to these souls the hurt is great and prejudice against the system strong.
  
One quote that I heard, I think by Michael green but I'm not sure, was something like: "A court does not give justice, it gives a chance for justice to be done".
D4E said
You do have to take into account those who do not make it to court and do not know their rights who feel they where pushed into an agreement through lack of choice and have grievance with it.

In my mind the system is broken and court is over adversarial and can become more so if one party is considered by the other to refuse to come to a reasonable agreement.

Many give up because they can neither avoid the money or mental strain I'm sure to these souls the hurt is great and prejudice against the system strong.
D4E you are coming from the DIDS viewpoint, but also remember Tony's words: "there are three sides to every story".

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets