The in/appropriate application of attachment theory by mental health professionals in custody cases : a systematic review of literature

Abstract

In the context of custody cases, attachment theory is often applied. This qualitative systematic review explores the way attachment theory inappropriately or appropriately applied by mental health professionals in this situation. To contribute to the current body of literature on attachment theory and custody cases, this systematic review addresses the following review question: “How is attachment theory inappropriately or appropriately applied by mental health professionals in custody cases as reported in literature?”. To be able to answer this question, a methodologically sound qualitative systematic review was conducted using the 10 Key STEPS and sub-steps in the systematic review process as the research design. Inclusion and exclusion criteria (eligibility criteria) were set to identify all available and relevant primary studies on attachment theory and custody cases, nationally and internationally, from 1986 to 2020. Keywords were identified and then used to search EBSCO Discovery Services (EDS), according to international guidelines for review studies. The following databases were selected: Academic Search Complete, APA PsycArticles, APA PsycInfo, Medline, Science Direct, Scopus, and SoccINDEX with Full Text. To complement and supplement this search activity, Google Scholar was searched using the same keywords. The search activities initially identified a total of 135 potential studies. After applying the inclusion criteria, it was found that only 10 studies met all the inclusion criteria. These findings or results; and discussion or conclusion sections of the 10 included studies were analysed by means of thematic analysis. Two themes emerged: multimethod assessments and understanding attachment theory: scientific meaning. The findings of this systematic review study suggest that most mental health professionals are aware of the ways in which attachment theory can be inappropriately applied in custody cases. As a result, these mental health professionals applied attachment theory appropriately in custody cases. In the

light of the findings of this research study, the recommendation is that mental health professionals base custody decisions on the best interests principle together with the three attachment theory principles relevant to court practice. This should ensure that they apply attachment theory appropriately in custody cases. Further research should be conducted on the definition of the best interests principle, together with the three attachment theory principles relevant to court practice, to develop context specific models to determine best practice.