Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Social Research in relation to "PRIMARY ATTACHMENT

Is the PRIMARY ATTACHMENT" theory used as justification for making a decision without considering any evidence at all?

Today, and a few weeks ago, I listened to a Magistrate spout at length about the "SOCIAL RESEARCH" in relation to "PRIMARY ATTACHMENT" theory as justification for making a decision without considering any evidence. At first thought I thought he father concerned might have achieved a diffent outcome if he had presented himself better. Today I know better, it was preordained. The magistrate concerned was very careful to state it was NOT a GENDER thing but a matter of PRIMARY ATTACHMENT to the PRIMARY CARER and that all subsequent relationships were dependant on the security of the PRIMARY ATTACHMENT.

I have read a few of the works relating to PRIMARY ATTACHMENT theory, and I am absolutely convinced that PRIMARY ATTACHMENT theory will soon go the way of many other theories of the 60's and 70's in the context of Parenting and family breakdown. It will be prove to be a load of craap.

What will eventually be proven to be accurate is that the primary attachemnts (NOTE THE PLURAL) a child develops with his or her parents need to be mutually supportive to and develop in parallel for a child to reach their full potential in future and wider relationships.


For me - Shared Parenting is a Reality - Maybe it can be for you too!
The head of the counselling groups was at the conference in Canberra and presented his theory on Attachment. He also explained he thought it was an "Objective" process and he was advising all staff to use it.

Several problems exist in that - there are some fundamental issues here - even if you swallow the theory.
  1. Mother's generally have first contact before during and after birth
  2. Fathers can do different roles (like all the other roles and things required) to keep the household running

Even then if you think about it - why would anyone award custody and the basis of who they were attached to? - ITS BECAUSE IF THEY ARE NOT ATTACHED TO THE OTHER PERSON THERE MUST BE A REASON (Violence, Molestation, Abuse, etc).

So its being used as a surrogate for - 'fear the other parent'

Also the logic is strange too because its says - Give children to more attached parent at separation - but then How will the children EVER 'attach' if they hardly see the parent?????

Its is of course ,madness, and entirely consistent with the 'thinking' which eminates from 'social' workers.

On predecided outcomes - My view is most cases are decided before you enter the court room - they know what they are going to say and do.You of course have no idea - you think its a fair trial but in reality they have made up their mind and will try and test and trick you so they can confirm their hypothesis (and thus be "Right"). What they wont do is this:

"We have looked at all the written material and have decided that the key concerns for the court are a) b) c) and we would like you to address those issues after this recess please. Take this time to go through your material and we will look at these issues."


This is because its about using a criminal like system - and you need to be tricked to divulge facts ( so everyone can go "ahah") This processing methodology encourages Lawyers and BARRISTERS at great expense to be clever and tricky - "see how we got other party to say blah blah"


 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
A way to rebutt this may be to go down the route of secure attachment and insecure attachment. If psycho babble is going to be used, fight it with more psycho babble, I say.

How can you have a primary attachment with someone who has PND?

I am astonished at the bond my partner has with his son. Despite the best efforts of the ex to break it, it remains.

My partner held his son for 12 hours after the birth and dozed with him in his arms.

Tell me this is not primary 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. 

Sensitive managment could see children living with NON-Primary Carer re 'Attachment'

oneadadc said
… I listened to a Magistrate spout at length about the "SOCIAL RESEARCH" in relation to "PRIMARY ATTACHMENT" theory as justification for making a decision without considering any evidence. At first thought I thought the father might have achieved a diffent outcome if he had presented himself better. Today I know better; it was preordained. The magistrate was very careful to state it was NOT a GENDER thing but a matter of PRIMARY ATTACHMENT to the PRIMARY CARER and that all subsequent relationships were dependant on the security of the PRIMARY ATTACHMENT.

I have read a few of the works relating to PRIMARY ATTACHMENT theory, and I am absolutely convinced that PRIMARY ATTACHMENT theory will soon go the way of many other theories of the 60's and 70's in the context of Parenting and family breakdown. It will be prove to be a load of biased nonsense.

What will eventually be proven to be accurate is that the primary attachementS (NOTE THE PLURAL) a child develops with his or her parents need to be mutually supportive to and develop in parallel for a child to reach their full potential in future and wider relationships.
Coming in from left field (as our American cousins might say), if, as outlined in the article below, young babies can be parent/family swapped via good/sensitive management, then there is little to stop post-separation contact and residency with Dad:

Quote: Professor Jay Belsky, director of Britain's Institute for the Study of Children, Families and Social Issues, takes a much more sanguine approach. If handled sensitively, he says, such situations need not be traumatic, though this depends on the age of the child. A few days or weeks old is fine, but eight years isn't. And in between? "Between 10 and 18 months babies can go through a process where they get wary of strangers and cling on to those they know, but given time they can establish additional attachments," Belsky says. "I think the trick here is for both sets of parents to agree to give up the babies they've been caring for, but to commit to not rushing this process. "The important thing is that these babies love their current parents and are intensely emotionally attached to them. Abruptly breaking those bonds in a cold-turkey fashion is in nobody's interests, including the biological parents'. But there's no reason to believe that if this process is done in a sensitive manner it shouldn't be a blessing." The babies could end up with double the amount of love and attention, he suggests, and the two sets of parents could even act as babysitters for each other. Belsky advocates a transition period lasting three to six months during which both sets of parents and babies spend increasing amounts of time together. It helps, too, if both families have similar styles of childcare and manage to keep the babies' needs foremost in their minds. A letting-go is required, of course: the baby you have raised must be allowed to develop an equally close relationship with its biological parents.

Also, note the focus in the article, on the mothers, as though they are the only 'real' parents.



The Sydney Morning Herald
2 November 2007 - 3:12PM

The love of another mother
By Anne Karpf

It started, as it often does, with a tiny doubt that refused to be sedated. When Libor Broza's drinking mates ribbed him about his baby Nikola, as blond as he and his partner, Jaroslava Trojanova, were dark, he decided to silence them by taking a DNA test.

As the story broke last week, it was revealed that the test showed the 10-month-old baby, still being breastfed by her mother, wasn't their biological child. That baby was called Veronika and was living with another couple 30 kilometres away. Staff at the hospital where both mothers had given birth, near Brno in the Czech Republic, had accidentally swapped the babies. Once the mistake was discovered, the couples made the excruciating decision to swap the babies back. The situation, as Libor's partner put it, is awful.

Neither parents nor babies will take comfort from the fact that this isn't a particularly rare occurrence. In Sicily seven years ago, Gisella Franco went to the pre-school of her three-year-old daughter, Daniela, only to encounter Chiara, a classmate who looked far more like Gisella than Daniela did. The sighting confirmed what Gisella herself had long suspected: that Chiara wasn't her biological child.

Nine years ago, in Charlottesville, Virginia, it took three years to discover that a pair of baby girls had been inadvertently switched at birth. In thrillers, a jealous or crazed mother swaps the baby in the cradle. In more mundane reality, human error is usually responsible.

There are probably scores more cases that are never uncovered: babies grow up perfectly happily with parents who aren't their biological ones and no one is any the wiser. In some sense, it's not the initial mistake so much as the discovery of it that creates the angst and moral dilemma: to swap back or not?

Just consider: you've brought your baby home from hospital and started to develop loving feelings towards him or her. You have introduced them to the other members of your family and your friends. You've become attuned to their likes and dislikes. And suddenly you face the prospect of treating them like something you picked up in the supermarket, which now needs to be exchanged for another brand. Something deep inside most of us recoils at the thought of the suffering caused to parents and babies.

Professor Jay Belsky, director of Britain's Institute for the Study of Children, Families and Social Issues, takes a much more sanguine approach. If handled sensitively, he says, such situations need not be traumatic, though this depends on the age of the child. A few days or weeks old is fine, but eight years isn't. And in between?

"Between 10 and 18 months babies can go through a process where they get wary of strangers and cling on to those they know, but given time they can establish additional attachments," Belsky says. "I think the trick here is for both sets of parents to agree to give up the babies they've been caring for, but to commit to not rushing this process.

"The important thing is that these babies love their current parents and are intensely emotionally attached to them. Abruptly breaking those bonds in a cold-turkey fashion is in nobody's interests, including the biological parents'. But there's no reason to believe that if this process is done in a sensitive manner it shouldn't be a blessing."

The babies could end up with double the amount of love and attention, he suggests, and the two sets of parents could even act as babysitters for each other.

Belsky advocates a transition period lasting three to six months during which both sets of parents and babies spend increasing amounts of time together. It helps, too, if both families have similar styles of childcare and manage to keep the babies' needs foremost in their minds. A letting-go is required, of course: the baby you have raised must be allowed to develop an equally close relationship with its biological parents.

But here's a heretical thought: does it really matter if your baby was swapped at birth? It matters because of what you now know and can't unknow. It matters because we live in a culture where a biological link to a child is more highly valued than the connection that comes from raising the child. But what has made you that baby's parent is not so much that you gave birth to it as the fact that you have loved and cared for it. In a sense, baby-swap parents become like adoptive parents and those parent-child bonds can be as intense as those between a birth mother and child.

This isn't to say that biology is a negligible part of our attachment to our kids but biology is often as much a matter of attribution as science: we think we see Granny's cheekbones or Dad's curl of the lip in little Johnnie and, in the process of imputing, we make a family chain. Undoubtedly, members of the same family have genetic similarities but discerning them is to some extent also a social and psychological process - the work that parents do in making a child their own.

These baby-swap cases can also excite other anxieties. The initial suspicion might come from a father, concerned, as Libor Broza was, that his baby doesn't resemble him. Such situations can strike at a man's confidence in his ability to father a child, and foster doubts about the fidelity of his partner.

In other cases, colour is an issue. In Memphis, 13 years ago, a woman refused to handle the baby she brought back from hospital because she was convinced that it wasn't her own. Meanwhile, the other mother was disturbed by the fact that her baby's skin pigment was different.

When most babies were born at home, such mistakes didn't happen, but with the shift of childbirth into hospitals, staff are often overstretched and several babies might be born within minutes of each other. Another factor is the practice of removing a baby from its mother to allow her some sleep: babies who spend all their time with their mother are less likely to end up with the wrong parents.

Most hospitals have some sort of procedure to avoid such mistakes - an identifying bracelet, or ankle- or wristbands. The technology of birth and its removal from the home have helped to create these cases but technology also provides DNA testing. Before such tests, parents could never know for sure whether their babies had been swapped.

Not all parents choose, as Nikola and Veronika's have done, to go down the swapping-back route. In 1995 two South African women discovered that their babies had been accidentally switched at birth six years earlier. Though they sued the hospital for negligence, they decided to keep their non-biological children because, despite the anxiety and depression they had suffered on finding out about the mistake, they had formed such deep bonds with their sons.

As with surrogacy, donor eggs and adoption, baby-switching cases such as these remind us that being a "natural parent" is not as easy as we sometimes like to think.

Guardian News & Media
oneadadc said
Today, and a few weeks ago, I listened to a Magistrate spout at length about the "SOCIAL RESEARCH" in relation to "PRIMARY ATTACHMENT" theory as justification for making a decision without considering any evidence. At first thought I thought he father concerned might have achieved a diffent outcome if he had presented himself better. Today I know better, it was preordained. The magistrate concerned was very careful to state it was NOT a GENDER thing but a matter of PRIMARY ATTACHMENT to the PRIMARY CARER and that all subsequent relationships were dependant on the security of the PRIMARY ATTACHMENT.

I have read a few of the works relating to PRIMARY ATTACHMENT theory, and I am absolutely convinced that PRIMARY ATTACHMENT theory will soon go the way of many other theories of the 60's and 70's in the context of Parenting and family breakdown. It will be prove to be a load of craap.

What will eventually be proven to be accurate is that the primary attachemnts (NOTE THE PLURAL) a child develops with his or her parents need to be mutually supportive to and develop in parallel for a child to reach their full potential in future and wider relationships.
I have some material to post from Tom Altobelli on primary attachment theory (when I get the time) but I can briefly summarise it

"Its Rubbish".

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

Dr.Tom's rubbish

Dear Mr.Agog.

Please post Dr.Tom's rubbish - It could come in handy for some poor lad!

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

Australian Family Court modern witch trails

Agog said
oneadadc said
Today, and a few weeks ago, I listened to a Magistrate spout at length about the "SOCIAL RESEARCH" in relation to "PRIMARY ATTACHMENT" theory as justification for making a decision without considering any evidence. At first thought I thought he father concerned might have achieved a diffent outcome if he had presented himself better. Today I know better, it was preordained. The magistrate concerned was very careful to state it was NOT a GENDER thing but a matter of PRIMARY ATTACHMENT to the PRIMARY CARER and that all subsequent relationships were dependant on the security of the PRIMARY ATTACHMENT.

I have read a few of the works relating to PRIMARY ATTACHMENT theory, and I am absolutely convinced that PRIMARY ATTACHMENT theory will soon go the way of many other theories of the 60's and 70's in the context of Parenting and family breakdown. It will be prove to be a load of craap.

What will eventually be proven to be accurate is that the primary attachments (NOTE THE PLURAL) a child develops with his or her parents need to be mutually supportive to and develop in parallel for a child to reach their full potential in future and wider relationships.
I have some material to post from Tom Altobelli on primary attachment theory (when I get the time) but I can briefly summarise it

"Its Rubbish"
SURPRISE SURPRISE I have experienced all this in an Australian Family Court Trail in Melbourne.  I was treated like a witch on trail. I WAS PROVEN GUILTY BEFORE BEING ALLOWED TO BE PROVEN INNOCENT.  NOW MY SON CAN NOT SEE HIS MOTHER TILL HE IS 18..

I haven't seen him for 3 years I HAVE MEDICAL EVIDENCE I AM NOT DANGEROUS TO MY CHILD.

Please take a look at Finnish Family Law where children and parents have rights.  Lawyers and Legal Professionals including Family Court Judges have strict guidelines to following concerning Ethical Conduct in the Family Law Courts and UN basic human rights for children and parents which includes human rights in a Court of Law.  Finish Law also covers the rights of a minor as a patient. The right to receive Medical Treatment recommended by a Medical Professional so that the minor child can receive the proper Medical Treatment the child needs.

This is a Criminal offence for a person or persons to prevent a child from receiving recommended Medical Treatment.   Not in Australia it seems a Child's own Child Representative can stop this from happening in the Australian Family Court convincing a Family Court Judge to ignore and refuse to allow his client's own Doctor the Right to Freedom of Speech and to be a ds in MELBOURNE FAMILY COURT.  Only in Australia.  Child Protection Victoria investigate myself being dangerous to my son but surprise after talking to my son's child Representative and my son's Doctor. They have now documented evidence they inform me I am a loving caring mother but my 2 daughters can continue to be in my care and my son be in his fathers care.  Child Protection say the matter is a matter for the Family Court to deal with not them even though they admitted to me my son's Doctor is very concerned about my son's ongoing health and well being in the care of his father and recommends it is important to my son's psychological health and well-being He see a Child Psychologist.  Child Protection don't want to be involved in that issue they state that's the Child Representatives Duty of Care not my son's Doctors.

OH PLEASE does anyone in Australia from Government departments want to recognise what's going on and make stricter ethical guidelines for PROFESSIONALS to follow and be accountable for!
The point of all these theories is this - They are an excuse to intervene in your life. There are code for identifying risk issues for children (in the magistrates eye).

The court - being asked to intervene - uses any theory, stats, legislation, precedents, etc it thinks to do what it thinks. As long it is tasked with intervention in families it will do this.

Take away the REASONS for going to court and this ever increasingly complex , hurtful and time consuming process can be abolished.

basically - the children theories are - in their nature - divisive - no matter what they are. They are all based on making one person look worse than another or one situation worse than another.

There is nothing worse  than being judged by someone - it doesn't happen to 'intact' couples. The bar is much higher before governments feel inclined to intervene or 'judge'.


 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough

After speaking to many parents and working 100's of children

Parenting requires teamwork, and is best delivered as a joint effort. It should not be about competition between parents.

None of us are perfect parents, yet by functioning as part of a parental team, we can adjust for gaps in each's parenting skills.

To suggest that it is only about "My Time" is insulting.

The truth is MOST parents are trying to do the best for their children. Some are better at this than others.

But for any parent to take the attitude that "I have priority be cause I MADE you" or "Because I wear the PANTS" is to ignore the child's needs.

For me - Shared Parenting is a Reality - Maybe it can be for you too!
From the age of six months or so my daughter was nurtured by myself due to having to go onto the bottle, her mother did not like getting out of bed so pretended to be asleep of physically pushed me until I got up. I did 90% of the night stuff for all the kids and 50% to 70% of the day stuff depending what she could be bothered doing.

My daughter grew up with myself as the main source of comfort who talked to her and sang to her.

It was also myself not her mother who talked to her in the womb as well as played games with her through the skin of her mother, This carried on for over three years till her mother removed her from that security.

So exactly who's time and who's rights are you talking about?

Certainly not my daughters.

Perhaps fewer mother need to think less about " I brought you into this world " and concentrate more on " I want you to be part of this world "

And if a father is trying to increase his contact as revenge he also need to consider this.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets