• Parent-based applications (apps) are an emerging trend for helping parents and caregivers create stimulating early home learning environments for their young children.
• New evidence shows that a digital app-based intervention can boost parents’ self-efficacy for supporting their child’s development in the first 1,000 days.
• Researchers need to build the evidence base on the impact of parent-based apps.

This article will explore baby parenting apps and their effectiveness through the six following elements:

1. The importance of a baby’s first 1,000 days
2. Supporting the early home learning environment
3. The growing presence and popularity of parent-based apps
4. Evaluating a new parent-based app
5. Using the parent-based app increased parental self-efficacy
6. Parent-based apps may be a promising avenue for education

1. The importance of a baby’s first 1,000 days

The first 1,000 days of a child’s life, from conception to age two, are an important period for child development. For example, although the human brain continues to develop and change throughout life, the first 1,000 days are a period of rapid brain development. However, during this time large differences across a range of child outcomes begin to emerge between children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and their peers from more affluent backgrounds. One reason for these differences is that disadvantaged children are less likely to experience high-quality early home learning environments.

Photo: PNW Production. George Pak, Pexels.

2. Supporting the early home learning environment

High-quality early home learning environments typically consist of early play and learning opportunities, including parents and caregivers engaging with their young children through play and verbal responsiveness. Research shows that in-person interventions that help parents and caregivers understand how to create stimulating and supportive early home learning environments can significantly benefit parenting knowledge and practice.

Digital interventions can have significant benefits for parents and caregivers in their child’s first 1,000 days.

These interventions can also support strong parent-child interactions, such as increasing parents’ sensitivity and responsiveness to their child’s interests and needs when playing and communicating with them. Interventions have also been shown to improve child development outcomes.

New digital technologies, in the form of parent-based applications (apps) used on smartphones or tablets, have recently emerged as a way to increase access to these supportive services for parents.

3. The growing presence and popularity of parent-based apps

Parent-based apps are primarily designed to be used by parents or caregivers. They are intended to encourage offline interactions and learning opportunities with children. The number of parent-based apps available to download has grown significantly, from three apps released in 2010 to between 42-46 new apps per year between 2018 and 2020.

This is also a rapidly growing sector with venture capital investments currently worth nearly $1.4 billion.

However, very little research has evaluated the impact of these new digital technologies during children’s first 1,000 days. This research is needed to help parents and other stakeholders make informed decisions about whether this kind of support is suitable for their needs.

Photo: PNW Production. Pexels.

4. Evaluating a new parent-based app

To address this gap, I evaluated a new parent-based app in a pilot randomized control trial with parents of children from birth to six months old in the United Kingdom. (The opportunity for this study arose from a previous collaboration with the app developer).

The app includes 1,026 daily age-appropriate activities for parents to choose from across eight areas of child development, such as language, socioemotional, sensory, and physical/ motor skills. Each of the activities explains to parents what to do and how to do it, using low-cost resources easily accessible in most homes.

In our study, we sought to understand whether the app could help boost parents’ self-efficacy during their child’s infancy. Parental self-efficacy encompasses parents’ beliefs or judgments about their ability to be successful in their role as caregiver. It helps guide their interactions with their young child and plays an important role in the parent-child relationship, as well as in child development outcomes and parents’ mental health. We focused on parents of children aged 0-6 months because of the emerging evidence on parental self-efficacy in the earliest months, as well as the availability of parental self-efficacy measures in this age range.

What research has shown

Research has shown that parent interventions aimed at increasing parents’ skills and knowledge also boost parents’ self-efficacy. In our study, we asked whether digital delivery of parent education, through the parent-based app activities, would also positively affect parent self-efficacy.

Parent-based apps could offer an accessible and affordable solution for boosting parents’ self-efficacy and improving the early home learning environment.

Randomized Control Trial Design

Seventy-nine parents of children from birth to six months took part in the study. On average, parents were 33 years old and children were three-and-a-half months. Parents were recruited from a convenience sample, and mostly consisted of White British mothers with a university-level education.

Half of the parents were randomly assigned to the treatment group and were asked to use the app with their child every day for four weeks. The other half were assigned to the active control group and were sent weekly e-mails that contained three activity ideas. The activities were selected from the ideas in the app, but the e-mails provided only brief descriptions of what to do for each activity. No additional details were provided, and activities were not tailored to the age or stage of development of the child as they were in the app.

5. Using the parent-based app increased parental self-efficacy

Ninety percent of parents in the treatment group reported feeling “confident” or “very confident” on all the standardized questions about parental self-efficacy. This group’s self-efficacy ratings were also significantly higher than those of the active control group. Moreover, in the treatment group, those who used the parent-based app more times per week over the four-week period also reported greater self-efficacy.

6. Parent-based apps may be a promising avenue for accessible parent education

This new evidence establishes proof of concept that digital interventions can have significant benefits for parents and caregivers in their child’s first 1,000 days. Given the widespread use of mobile phone technology by adults around the world, these parent-based apps could offer an accessible solution for boosting parents’ self-efficacy and improving the early home learning environment.

Photo: RDNE Stock project. Pexels.

Researchers need to continue to build the evidence base for the effectiveness of parent-based apps. For example, studies can help establish the impact of these innovations on child development outcomes as well as with parents from different backgrounds.

Our results are limited to the specific parent-based app we evaluated. Additional research is needed to evaluate the quality and impact of other parent-based apps and to identify which specific content or features are most beneficial. Researchers should also examine how parent-based apps can be disseminated most effectively, such as through partnerships with early childhood education and care providers.

It is important to ask questions about the effectiveness of parent-based apps, including under what circumstances they are most suitable and for whom they work best.

The post Baby parenting apps: A new way to help caregivers in their child’s first 1,000 days appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

• Although most parents strive to provide a loving, gentle and supportive environment for their children, they sometimes rely on harsh parenting practices to instill discipline and rules.
• Our research shows that harsh parenting, such as hitting or shouting, may have a damaging effect on children’s behavior and emotional development. Not to mention their educational attainment.
• This is a two-way relationship: Children struggling with big emotions or having trouble behaving appropriately (as any child will during their development) may also increase the strain on their caregivers’ parenting behaviors.
• This can lead to a self-perpetuating loop in which harsh parenting practices increase children’s mental health problems, which leads to further increases in harsh parenting practices, thus further exacerbating children’s mental health difficulties.
• Policies and services for parents should emphasize the benefits of positive parenting practices over harsh parenting practices.

Harsh parenting negatively affects children’s mental health

In many parts of the world, including the United States, England, and Northern Ireland, physically punishing children is still officially permitted. This is problematic considering that several studies suggest that harsh parenting practices, such as hitting or shouting, negatively affect children’s behavioral and emotional development.

Such practices have been linked to an increased risk of mental health issues, including anxiety, depression, and aggression. They have also been associated with poorer academic performance, lower self-esteem, and impaired social skills.

Using harsh parenting practices such as hitting or shouting is not only ineffective as a disciplinary tool but may harm children’s mental health.

How does children’s mental health affect parenting behavior?

While research has primarily considered the effect of parenting behavior on children’s development, effects may also occur in the opposite direction. Children who act out frequently or struggle with controlling their emotions may also place unique strains on parenting behavior. As a result, children’s mental health may negatively affect parenting.

For example, a child who has trouble controlling their emotions may throw frequent temper tantrums, which can lead to parental frustration and negative reactions, such as yelling or physical punishment. This, in turn, may lead the child to struggle with controlling their emotions even more.

Such two-way relationships have received limited attention in research. By recognizing the influence that a child’s behavior can have on parenting, interventions can be designed to target both the child’s emotional and behavioral difficulties and the parent’s reactions and coping mechanisms. Supporting parents in managing their child’s difficulties in a positive and effective way can ultimately lead to better outcomes for both the child and the family.

Photo: Monstera. Pexels.

Exploring two-way relations between parenting and children’s mental health

My colleagues and I conducted a study to explore the two-way relations between parenting behaviors and children’s mental health. We investigated whether harsh parenting tactics such as hitting and shouting show two-way relations with children’s behaviors across early to middle childhood (when children are three, five, and seven years old).

The behavioral effects we studied included two externalizing behaviors – conduct problems (e.g., throwing temper tantrums) and hyperactive/inattentive behaviors (e.g., being easily distracted). We also looked at emotional problems (e.g., symptoms of depression and anxiety).

Our study included 14,037 children (49% female, 84% White) and one of their parents (primarily mothers) who were part of the UK Millennium Cohort Study. Participants came from a variety of socioeconomic backgrounds, ensuring that the study was representative of the UK population.

Evidence for two-way relations between harsh parenting and children’s mental health

Using harsh parenting techniques, such as shouting at or hitting three- to five-year-olds, led to children showing more symptoms of hyperactivity and inattention, and more emotional problems when they were five and seven. These findings are consistent with previous research showing that harsh parenting practices have a negative effect on children’s mental health.

Harsh parenting practices can increase children’s mental health problems which, in turn, lead to further increases in harsh parenting practices.

This is not a one-way relation. Parents of children who showed more conduct problems and hyperactive/inattentive behaviors and parents of children with higher levels of emotional problems were more likely to increase their harsh parenting in the subsequent year. Thus, harsh parenting may have negative effects for children through a negative self-perpetuating loop: In this way, harsh parenting practices can increase children’s mental health problems which, in turn, lead to further increases in harsh parenting practices.

Photo: Luke Pennystand. Unsplash

How can parents support children with behavioral or emotional issues?

1. Support children’s ability to meet expectations

First, our findings suggest that using harsh parenting practices such as hitting or shouting is not only ineffective as a disciplinary tool but may harm children’s mental health. Other parenting techniques should be used to support children’s healthy development, such as ignoring unwanted behaviors, setting clear expectations, and explaining why certain behaviors are unwanted. (For additional examples, see the evidence-based Incredible Years Parent Programs.)

These approaches help children understand and learn from their mistakes without damaging their self-esteem or sense of security. Using such methods can lead to a more positive and supportive relationship between parent and child.

2. Consider socioemotional difficulties

Second, our findings underline the importance of addressing parenting difficulties in families with socioemotional difficulties to help prevent the accumulation of additional issues. Children experiencing big emotions or having trouble behaving appropriately can increase the stress and challenges of parenting. Thus, we encourage parents to reflect on their parenting strategies and seek the assistance of mental health professionals to develop ways to support their children in overcoming challenging behaviors without resorting to harsh parenting tactics.

Photo: Ahmed akacha. Pexels.

What does this mean for child development policy?

Our research supports recent policy changes in Scotland and Wales, which explicitly ban the use of physical punishment as a parenting tool. We encourage policymakers in other parts of the United Kingdom, the United States, and elsewhere to implement similar policies.

Policymakers should also prioritize providing interventions and services for at-risk children and families. This could include evidence-based parenting programs, mental health support for parents and children, and other forms of family support to help promote positive child development and prevent the escalation of behavioral and emotional difficulties and negative effects.

The post The Effects of Harsh Parenting: A negative self-perpetuating loop appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

• A brief, online program can help parents promote their children’s resilience following separation and divorce.
• Not all online programs for divorced and separated parents are the same. Evidence from research can help parents and practitioners identify online programs that work rather than ones that are just based on someone’s favorite approach.
• Programs that give parents simple, practical tools to strengthen parenting and reduce conflict between the parents are most likely to reduce children’s behavior problems.
• The eNew Beginnings Program provides an inexpensive but effective opportunity for court professionals and mental health practitioners to help parents promote their children’s resilience following separation and divorce.

An evidence-based online program for divorced and separated parents

Most divorced and separated parents are concerned about their children and ask themselves: “What can I do to protect my children from the problems that often follow divorce?” Although many online parenting-after-divorce programs offer advice, few are backed by solid research that show they actually work.

However, recent research provides new scientific evidence that one online parenting-after-divorce program can provide parents with the help they seek. In the first rigorous evaluation of an online program, this study showed that a brief, online parenting intervention for divorced and separated parents reduced interparental conflict and children’s behavior problems, and improved the quality of parent-child relationships and the effectiveness of parental discipline.

The online program, the eNew Beginnings Program (eNBP), was adapted by researchers Sharlene A. Wolchik and Irwin Sandler from their in-person group program for parents that reduced the mental health problems, drug and alcohol use, and risky sexual behavior of children from divorced families. The program also improved children’s self-esteem, grades, coping, and work competence. Several of the positive changes lasted up to 15 years after the program ended: When the offspring were young adults, they had lower rates of depression, substance use, and painful feelings about the divorce.

Despite the positive effects of the in-person program, few divorced parents could participate because it was expensive for agencies to offer. Moreover, parents faced practical barriers, such as travel, making time in their busy schedules, and finding child care.

Practical tools for parenting after divorce

To make the program affordable, more widely available, and easier for parents to use, Wolchik and Sandler adapted the in-person program into an online version. The eNBP is affordable, and parents can take part on their own time and in the comfort of their own homes. They need only a smartphone, computer, or tablet. The eNBP is a five-hour (20 to 30 minutes per session over 10 weeks) online program that includes all the material in the in-person version. Separate versions of the program were developed for divorced and separated fathers and for divorced and separated mothers.

The eNBP works by teaching parents practical tools to strengthen positive relationships with their children, create and use family rules that reduce the hassles often associated with discipline, and decrease the level of conflict with the other parent (i.e., the ex-partner). The program teaches these tools in a step-by-step, highly interactive way.

For example, sessions begin with a check-in when parents respond to questions about their use of the program tools and are provided with ways to address the challenges they experienced using them. This is followed by teaching a new tool using modeling videos, interactive exercises, and testimonials from prior participants.

The eNBP then prompts parents to set times to use the tool, identify barriers to using it, and select strategies to reduce these barriers. Parents receive downloadable tip sheets on how to address common challenges in using the tools, sheets to record their use of the tools, and handbooks that summarize what was covered in the session.

Photo: Tatiana Syrikova. Pexels.

Positive impacts of the online program on parents and children

The effectiveness of the eNBP was evaluated using the gold standard of program evaluation, a randomized controlled trial. One hundred thirty-one parents were randomly given access to the program or assigned to a waiting list. Parents were recruited from across the United States. Of the parents, 78% were non-Hispanic White, 8% were Hispanic, and 14% were of another race/ethnicity. Parents had various levels of education: 1% had less than GED or high school diploma, 14% a GED or high school diploma, 17% an associate degree, 29% some college or vocational training, and 39% a bachelor’s degree or higher. Annual income ranged from $10,000 to $175,000 (median = $30,001–$40,000). Parents were on average 41 years old; 60% were female. Children averaged 13 years old; 48% were female.

After completing the program, both parents and their children provided information about its effects. Parents and children reported that the program improved the quality of parent-child relationships, increased effective discipline, and reduced symptoms of anxiety and depression in the children. Both parents and children also reported reduced conflict between parents.

The program was equally effective when used by mothers and fathers. The improvements noticed by the children increase confidence in the study’s findings because the children did not take part in the program.

The improvements from the online program were as strong or stronger than those that resulted from the original in-person program, which has had remarkable effects in three randomized controlled trials. The program developers think this may be due to the high level of interactivity of the online program and the ease of using it.

The rate of program completion was also higher for the online than for the in-person program. Among the parents who completed the first session, only 16% finished the in-person version (Sandler et al., 2020), whereas 60% finished the eNBP. Parents were very satisfied with the program. Most felt that it helped them and helped their relationships with their children. And more than 80% of the parents said that family courts should recommend that divorcing or separating parents complete the eNBP.

Who can use the online divorce program?

The program is available in two formats, a 6-week program and a 10-week program. The same material is included in both formats; the 10-week program allows parents more practice and provides them with more feedback about the skills that are taught. The 6-week version is appropriate for those who are taking part in the program to fulfill a parenting class required by the court.

Family courts can use the eNBP in several ways. Family court judges, mediators, and attorneys can use the program as a tool to protect the well-being of children whose parents experience high conflict or are having difficulty developing a parenting plan.

Mental health practitioners can use the program in their work with individual clients. Parents could complete a session at home and then when meeting with the practitioner, the practitioner could address questions and help the parents solve any problems they had using the tools.

In summary, the eNBP is an effective research-based resource for fathers and mothers who want to protect their children following a divorce. It is easy to access and parents enjoy the program, as shown in these comments by parents who took part in the eNBP:

“It got me and my children closer to each other.”

“It was exactly what I needed.”

“There are several tools I used immediately that my kids are big fans of.”

Parents can directly access the program at www.divorceandparenting.com.

The post An online program for divorced parents can improve parent-child relationships, as well as children’s anxiety and symptoms of depression appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

These young people may have very different experiences, but children who show resilience almost invariably share at least one fundamental protective factor. Typically, in the background, there are people connected to these children – usually parents and teachers – who are holding it together amid chaos and trauma to buffer children in their care from the dangers that surround them.

For example, over the years, I have seen a lot of effective parenting in emergency shelters. Despite scary situations and uncertainty, many caregivers manage to hold steady, even when they do not know where their family is going to live or how they will feed their children.

Buffering children does not mean shielding them from all stress. But it does mean keeping stress manageable. Children need to learn how to handle stress, setbacks, and failure, as well as what to do when they become overwhelmed. As an analogy, consider the functioning of our immune systems. Research tells us it is unwise to protect immune systems from all exposure to germs, although it is helpful to bolster them with vaccinations.

“Parents have often felt as though they were the first and last line of defense.”

Likewise, children need some exposure to challenges, supported by effective caregivers and teachers who ensure that they are not exposed to overwhelming trauma. All lives have major blows and face many kinds of adversities. Problem-solving skills, social support, and confidence that one can overcome adversity are important for resilience, but they develop best when they grow over time, honed by experiences of overcoming manageable challenges.

Systems and families have protected children

During COVID-19, we have seen impressive examples of family, education, health, and other community systems mobilizing to protect children. Parents, schools, health care, and social services – as well as neighborhood communities – have stepped up to shield and buffer children. They have tried to provide safe spaces to play and learn despite turmoil and unseen dangers. Not all those efforts have been successful, in part because the pandemic was so disruptive. We also discovered profound gaps in our preparedness for this kind of widespread catastrophe. Yet clearly, many systems eventually succeeded in protecting children from at least some of the dangers around them.

Parents carried the burden

Parents, in particular, have often felt as though they were the first and last line of defense. This was particularly true during the early stages of the pandemic, when many schools and child care facilities did not function as they usually did. During this time, a heavier burden of educating and caring for children passed to parents, even though they, too, were often struggling. Parents were expected to keep their children safe, healthy, and learning, even when they were juggling nearly impossible demands of work and family, illness or loss, and worries about paying the rent.

It is remarkable how the resilience of multi-layered systems – such as families and communities – springs into action in times of such stress. The surge in support from these quarters has been impressive during the two-plus years of the pandemic. But systems cannot keep surging capacity indefinitely. It is essential for parents and other protective systems to recharge and replenish their capacity.

If support systems are not maintained and restored, they may not work well when they are needed to take the strain again. The same is true for systems surrounding children. That is why maintaining children’s resilience requires a clear focus on looking after those who carry the greatest load of responsibilities for protecting and nurturing children. Bolster children’s buffers and you will strengthen children’s capacities to withstand blows, recover, and even thrive, in spite of trauma or disaster.

Photo: risingthermals. Creative Commons.

Capacities to cope for long periods

We know from research that many people weather long-lasting, difficult situations. Studies of those who survive prolonged conflicts or natural disasters show that recovery is possible even in situations of severe and chronic adversity, especially when the recovery environment is supportive. People help each other, often relying on cultural and religious practices that provide comfort and concrete supports such as food to those in need.

Although the mobilization of resilience may lag behind the challenges confronting families in unexpected and severe situations of adversity, the complexity and speed of resilience responses can be impressive. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we have witnessed many striking surges in resilience capacity – from the expansion of intensive care units and globally coordinated vaccine development to individual volunteering and giving.

Such acts of kindness benefit not only recipients but can help the givers feel better, too. I saw this after Hurricane Katrina in the United States. Schools developed programs for children to help their community prepare and plan for future disasters, and taught them to make “go bags” or put together care packages for families. Kind and helpful activities provide children with positive feelings while at the same time countering the sense of helplessness and loss of control that often accompanies experiences of severe adversity.

“Maintaining children’s resilience requires a clear focus on looking after those who carry the greatest load of responsibilities for protecting and nurturing them.”

However, the length and complicated challenges of this pandemic have sorely tested the resilience of systems and individuals supporting children. The pandemic itself may continue, perhaps in a diminished form, for some time. Additionally, lingering consequences may continue to affect families well into the future.

Many parents, teachers, and health care workers already feel worn out, yet they must remain on the front lines of defending and fostering children’s well-being for the long term.

The burden is great among disadvantaged families

The experience of the pandemic has also exposed weaknesses in the supports that protect disadvantaged families. When child care centers and schools were closed or struggling to continue serving children, some better-off families could mitigate the worst effects of the resulting disruptions on their children. They could hire nannies and tutors, team up to create learning pods, and afford private education systems that were more likely to stay open than publicly funded schools.

In contrast, low-income families often struggled with poor digital access and food insecurity as they waited for public systems to swing into action. The pandemic amplified, at least in the United States, effects of long-term underinvestment in child care facilities, health care for children, parental leave, and public school systems.

Support those feeling burned out

Now that we may be starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel, there is an important and much-needed debate about how to help children “catch up” in their academic and social skills. But it is also vital to focus on how to support the people and systems that serve as the primary buffers for children in these difficult times.

Many caregivers and educators have run a marathon and they are exhausted. They need our collective support to recharge and carry on the crucial work of protecting children in the present and nurturing their resilience for the future. That support can take many different forms from family, friends, employers, NGOs, and governments, including listening, childcare, organized activities for children, family-oriented celebrations, flex-time, or tax credits. The well-being of children depends on the adaptive capacity of these unsung champions and, in turn, the future resilience of all our societies depends on developing resilience in children, preparing them for the life adversities they will inevitably encounter.

The post Protecting children from the pandemic’s impacts requires that we support their parents appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Start with acknowledging and celebrating the diversity of Latinx families and communities

The past 20 years have seen dramatic shifts in the location of Latinx communities, stretching beyond traditional jurisdictions in California, Texas, and New York into areas that are much less familiar with their needs and cultures. Indeed, the label “Latinx” does not capture the diversity of Latinx-identifying families and individuals born and raised in the United States versus recent and earlier arrivals who hail from different countries of origin and heritages, and who are fluent in different Spanish dialects and indigenous languages. (Latinx is a gender-neutral term used in the United States to refer to Latino/Hispanic individuals of Latin American or Caribbean heritage.)

This diversity can sometimes overwhelm rigid and unfamiliar systems, which can contribute to frustration, confusion, and tensions in receiving communities. Correspondingly, fear and distrust among Latinx populations and between Latinx populations and other groups can escalate. What may actually be misinformation or confusion among Latinx parents can be internalized as failure. In reality, Latinx parents bring with them hope, optimism, a sense of family cohesion, and a strong work ethic, which are key strengths that support children’s success.

Three key strengths: Optimism, work ethic, and family cohesion

It is hard to overstate the optimism that Latinx immigrants have today and have always had when they arrive in the United States. They feel they have had to risk everything, leaving behind family and the life they knew to move to a better life, one filled with hope of economic opportunity and promise for their children’s futures. This optimism carries them through difficult times. Such positivity protects their well-being and mental health and drives success.

Service and public infrastructure such as transportation, internet access, and schools can be extended in ways that capitalize on co-location of community organizations and neighborhoods that parents trust.

Optimism is just one of many strengths Latinx families bring with them, whether they are born in the United States or are recent immigrants. Their capacities include a strong work ethic, with many Latinx parents working long hours and producing high-quality output, rarely missing work or calling in sick, often at the risk of losing earned income and with no mechanism for recourse in case of injury or emergency.

This strong work ethic goes hand in hand with an equally strong commitment to their children, ensuring that they receive proper nutrition and feel safe, and attending to their children’s learning and education. As in all families, Latinx parents balance the competing demands of being a worker and a parent, and ensure that their children get not only resources but also their time.

Family cohesion is the hallmark of adapting and thriving in the United States. Latinx families provide love and support for each other in the form of social and financial capital. The strong family bond can protect them from adversity and provides a personal safety net that helps the family not only survive, but in many cases, thrive. An integral part of the family is the belief that children thrive when raised by two parents—mothers and fathers.

Photo: David Beoulve. Creative Commons.

Fathers’ role is not only to provide financially for their children, but also to be there for them and be involved in day-to-day parenting. Latinx fathers have a strong commitment to their family and their children, and their involvement in their lives matters for the development of children’s basic language and social skills. Fathers and mothers also co-parent and combine resources to ensure that their children have more opportunities than they had. 

Celebrating learning and education

The value placed on education and learning is infused throughout stages of child development, as demonstrated during children’s earliest years. Both Latinx mothers and fathers engage in active storytelling which is sustained through support of formal schooling.

Investments in early education in the United States have yielded high enrollment in programs serving preschool-age Latinx children, and the benefits to Latinx children, including dual language learners, sometimes outpace those of other groups of  children. Families also benefit from the role early education and care play in supporting parenting, access to other resources in the community, and connections to social networks.

The strong Latino parent work ethic goes hand in hand with an equally strong commitment to their children. As in all families, Latinx parents balance the competing demands of being a worker and a parent, and ensure that their children get not only resources but also their time.

Indeed, Latinx fourth and fifth graders’ math and reading achievement has increased over time, as have Latinx high school graduation rates and subsequent enrolment in post-secondary education programs. When researchers visit Latinx homes, parents ask about where and how they can purchase the educational toys used to observe children’s play. It is not unusual for young children to ask their teachers for more books to bring home from school, declaring: “One is for me, and one is for Mom.” Modelling good behavior is a tool parents use to inculcate in their children a love of learning, with many parents “doing homework” with their children. Family members, and sometimes entire communities, come together to participate in and witness schooling milestones, such as graduations.

Educational preparedness for many Latinx children includes fluency in two languages, mastering English and Spanish. Schools that embrace equity-oriented practices – including strategies to facilitate family engagement and family-school partnerships, and extended learning opportunities – have reduced disparities in Latinx students’ school progress compared to peers.

A foundation of good health

Across many metrics of children’s health, Latinx children fare well, notably in low rates of infant mortality. Latinx parents care deeply about the health of their children and the foundation that good health provides for their children’s educational attainment and economic opportunities. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Latinx families, like many other families, expressed concern about the social isolation and mental health of their children. They also experienced high rates of economic, food, and housing insecurities, which threatened the well-being of their children.

Yet their abilities to meet the physical and mental health needs of their children are often hindered by structural barriers to medical care, public services, and other resources needed to support children’s well-being. As one example, 12 states, many in the U.S. South, have chosen not to expand Medicaid, a health insurance program for low-income persons. Even with insurance, Latinx families can face a variety of barriers to care, including limited time off from work to obtain medical care, limited access to transportation, and a lack of culturally and linguistically appropriate services in the communities in which they live.

Pandemic challenges

Optimism can wear thin when families are faced with health risks and economic uncertainty over a prolonged period. During the first few months of the pandemic, the mental health of Latinx parents was initially buoyed by their optimism and strong co-parenting support, but high rates of unemployment, especially among Latina parents, reduced household income. Not all eligible Latinx families received pandemic-related government assistance.

Although most Latinx families did their best to keep children engaged in learning activities at home, Latinx children’s learning suffered because they did not receive the support they needed for education transmitted remotely or online. Latinx children did not have consistent access to technology or equipment, such as extra iPads or laptops. In some cases, children missed online testing because digitally accessible equipment, including a smart phone, was shared by an entire household. 

As Latinx parents struggled to cope with extra demands, Latinx teens and young adults were expected to help their younger siblings with learning.

Photo: Jhon David. Unsplash.

Opportunity for policy investment and the price of policy failure

These and other stories speak to Latinx family strengths. How can these strengths of optimism, work ethic, and family cohesion be harnessed – and not undermined – by investments in education, health care, and child care policy?

Latinx children arrive at formal schooling curious and eager to learn. Although Latinx children quickly catch up to their peers in some academic domains, lack of support for their home language and cultural barriers contribute to dashed hopes and disillusionment with educational opportunities. As economic pressures on the family, youth are forced to disengage from the educational system as they face competing demands, including working to financially support their family or sharing in the responsibility of raising younger siblings. This path can lead to lost years of formal education.

Child care providers have difficulty accommodating the complexities of work schedules among some Latinx parents, and early education and care arrangements are not always culturally responsive, lacking support for Spanish-speaking or dual-language parents and children and failing to adequately accommodate children with special needs. The supply of child care slots is low, resulting in fewer options to reconcile work and parenting commitments.

Many Latinx families with children are left out of health insurance because of discrimination against individuals whose immigration status is not regularized. Latina adolescents have some of the highest rates of depression and suicide attempts in the United States. Longer-term consequences are documented in poor cardiovascular health, diabetes, and suboptimal functioning in adulthood.

When family cohesion faces such stressors, how far can the safety net it provides its members be stretched before it snaps? It is hard to know precisely. Low-wage work is deeply problematic, setting tight limits on what parents can do for their children. When a mother works two or three jobs, who cares for her children? When can a mother or father engage with the school if they are both working long hours? When is there time to navigate the health care system?

How can parents ensure that child care is good? If work is unreliable and unstable, with no benefits and few hours required on short notice, children may have to be placed in three or four different child care arrangements. Typically, there is no formal child care on weekends, so low-paid Latinx families are forced into an informal network of supports, some of which are not of very high quality.

How do parents square the circle of wanting to spend loving time with their children and earning enough money to feed their family? One father we know works three jobs, getting home at 11 pm every night. His two-year-old naps until 10:30 pm, then is wakened so she can play with her father for half an hour – but she is tired the next day.

A manifesto for change

It is time for public programs and services to re-envision their engagement with Latinx families and support Latinx children’s paths to success. They must also respect the rights of Latinx individuals: Most young children of immigrants are U.S.-born, thus have rights and privileges equal to all other U.S. citizens such that their parents’ immigration status is not a barrier.

Service and public infrastructure more generally—including transportation, internet access and schools—can also be extended in ways that capitalize on co-location of community organizations and neighborhoods that parents trust. Community schools have proven their worth in, for example, improving access to children’s health care and reducing the administrative burden on hard-pressed parents of accessing other services.

Latinx families bring such strengths – so much energy, skill, and commitment – to raising their children well. A public commitment to policies and practices that harness and align with these strengths can go a long way to recouping returns to investments.

The post Investing in the strengths of Latinx families and children appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

They found that for most youth, rates of serious depression and anxiety were lower than rates in similar surveys before the pandemic, but rates did not decline for Hispanic and gender non-binary youth.

They also looked at how 10 potential drivers of mental health functioned overall and in different subgroups (defined by ethnicity, gender, and age).

The biggest influence on young people’s depression and anxiety during COVID-19, by a factor of 1.5-2, was how young people rated parent support, which was measured by two items: parents’ helpfulness in sorting out their feelings and low levels of stress caused by parents.

Many other studies have shown that COVID-19 has substantially increased levels of psychological disturbance among parents which, in turn, negatively affects parenting behaviors. On this basis, the main policy recommendation from Luthar and colleagues’ research is to ensure ongoing support for parents and other caregivers in times of crisis such as COVID-19. “Monitoring ongoing parent mental health and parenting needs, and intervening where appropriate, should be of high importance for public health efforts to promote child well-being,” the researchers suggest.

How the research was designed

The study included children and young people in middle and high school, that is, from 11 to 18 years  old. It took place during the first three months of COVID-19 in 2020 in the United States. Just over one third of the children were of color and just under one third lived in families that received financial aid.

“The biggest influence on young people’s depression and anxiety during COVID-19, by a factor of 1.5-2, was how young people rated parent support.”

The students were from 49 relatively high performing schools with high Standard Assessment Test scores – 40 independent/private day schools, 8 boarding schools and one public school. Previous research has shown that  students in these schools are at risk due to the very high pressures to achieve and the intense competition they face. At the same time, resilience studies indicate that findings on powerful risk and protective factors tend to generalize across different subgroups, meaning that the results from this study may have relevance beyond students in high-achieving schools.

The study asked students about 10 factors known from earlier research to influence mental health: (1) perceptions of parent support, (2) concerns heard at school, (3) adults to confide in, (4) friends to confide in, (5) learning effectiveness (“how well are you able to learn new school materials these days?”), (6) time for fun, (7) worry about grades, (8) worry about life after graduating, (9) worry about parents’ jobs and finances, and (10) worry about family health.

The findings

The first question addressed was whether there had been any changes in rates of serious depression and anxiety from 2019 to the first months of COVID-19. Levels of serious or clinically significant depression and anxiety, which had ranged from 5-10% in pre-pandemic 2019 research, were typically half those during COVID-19 in 2020. The notable exception to this were two groups: Depression in Hispanic young people hardly decreased at all and depression in gender non-binary young people increased a little.

Considering mental health as well as its potential drivers, the researchers drew attention to the unique experiences of several subgroups.

• Black youth reported lower levels of anxiety on average than White youth. At the same time, they reported somewhat lower parent support, more worry about family jobs, more concern about not having adults to confide in, and not having their concerns heard at school. Asian youth had the most confidence in their ability to learn during the pandemic. At the same time, they were more worried than White youth about their academic grades, their futures, and their families’ health and jobs.
• Hispanic youth were at a disadvantage compared to White youth on several dimensions, and unlike other groups of color, there was no area in which they fared better than White youth. Also, when tracked across the first 12 weeks of mandatory distance learning, students of Hispanic heritage showed steep increases in symptoms of anxiety, problems with learning, and worries about grades. Hispanic students described blatant experiences of discrimination at school and a relative lack of systematic attention to this.
• Even when comparisons of ethnic groups were statistically significant, the overall size of associations was small. By contrast, effects by gender were medium to large on both depression and anxiety. Compared to both males and females, gender non-binary youth reported higher levels of depression and lower levels of concerns heard at school and confiding in friends. This may have been because they had less access to support from professionals and friends as a result of being confined at home.
• Girls showed higher levels of depression and anxiety than boys, as is generally the case. They also reported somewhat less support from parents, less ability to confide in adults, less feeling that their concerns were heard at school, and more worries about family jobs and family health.
• Older students (high-school age) reported slightly higher levels of anxiety and depression than younger students (middle-school age), as well as less parent support. On two aspects of academics – effectiveness of learning and worry about their futures – older students were considerably more troubled than younger students.

The second question addressed in the study was, of the 10 drivers of mental health assessed, which ones were strongly related to students’ mental health?

“Hispanic youth were at a disadvantage compared to White youth on several dimensions, and unlike other groups of color, there was no area in which they fared better than White youth.”

Each of the 10 risk and protective influences listed earlier was statistically related to levels of depression and anxiety, but one stood out as the most influential: perceived parental support. This pattern of findings generally held true in different student subgroups based on students’ ethnicity, gender, and age (middle versus high school). Following parent support, other dimensions important for mental health were effectiveness of learning online, concerns heard by school adults, and worries about grades and about the future.

In addition to recommending support for parents, the researchers stressed the importance of supporting teachers, who have been pivotal in boosting young people’s mental health during COVID-19. When asked what was going well at school during school closures, students in this study mentioned support from their teachers most frequently. In the months ahead, schools will need to help buffer against burnout and emotional exhaustion among their faculty and staff as a result of high, longstanding burdens of caregiving.

The post Mental health improved during the early months of COVID-19 for most youth, but not for Hispanic or gender non-binary youth appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Based on years of research, the framework – called the Intergenerational and Cumulative Adverse and Resilient Experiences (ICARE) model – identifies 10 types of ACEs, as well as 10 protective and compensatory experiences (PACEs) that build resilience.

The ICARE model also recommends a wide set of interventions that address the many ways ACEs can harm children’s development. At the heart of the approach is supporting the protective factors that are already in place in families and helping families become stronger.

The ICARE model shows the pathway by which ACEs can disadvantage children’s future and harm the next generation.

Neurobiological and epigenetic impacts of ACEs

Prolonged activation of stress responses that are typically used in brief crisis-response situations results in biological and neurobiological changes that can become embedded in a child. The body’s immune system can be harmed, as well as the development of brain structures and functions. Epigenetic changes to DNA as a result of adversity – the methylation of certain genes that change how they function – embed the impact of ACEs, influencing how the child responds to stress later in life. Epigenetic changes are heritable, passed from mothers and fathers to their biological children.

The ICARE model shows the pathway by which ACEs can disadvantage children’s future and harm the next generation.

Developmental impacts of ACEs

The most significant developmental system in early childhood is attachment. Secure attachment evolves when an infant’s needs are consistently met, creating a safe and predictable place where caregivers can be trusted. Attachment also has a biological/neurobiological dimension, for example, with the action of the hormones dopamine and oxytocin. ACEs can disrupt attachment, which is associated with a wide range of behavioral, social, and emotional problems later in life.

ACEs can also damage cognitive development. Skills associated with executive function, such as working memory, inhibitory control, and focused attention, can be harmed in children who have experienced adversity. This can lead to problems with learning during education and training.

Intergenerational transmission

ACEs can disadvantage the next generation in two ways: Parents who have been adversely affected by ACEs in their own lives are more likely to struggle with parenting. And parents may pass to their children epigenetic changes that affect the child’s biological response to stress.

Strategies to mitigate the negative impacts of ACEs

The foundation of the strategic approach proposed by the ICARE model starts with assessing and mobilizing protective factors that already exist or could exist around the child. Researchers point to successful support programs in five categories:

1. Supporting parents and caregivers with their own psychological and emotional well-being
2. Supporting parents and caregivers with attachment and parenting skills
3. Supporting children directly, for example, by encouraging their participation in sports, hobbies, and friendships
4. Psychological therapies for children that address the past traumas
5. Play-based therapeutic activities for children and parents together

The authors of the framework explain that the ICARE model “suggests new opportunities to design and implement multilevel prevention and intervention programs across the various pathways by which adverse and protective experiences influence outcomes.”

The post How to protect children from the negative impacts of adverse childhood experiences – a comprehensive approach appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Parents influence children’s brain development in ways that can shape how we think about our experiences for a lifetime.

Early emotional experiences leave children with much more than memories. Neuroscience suggests how these experiences can literally shape the ways in which children – and the adults they become – think. These early experiences contribute to the development of the biological mechanisms that process and interpret past and future experiences. They can influence brain circuitry that makes meaning from what has happened and predictions for what happens next, sometimes throughout children’s lives.

These insights from neuroscience place parents – not only their actions but also their well-being — at the heart of children’s brain development for two reasons.

First, parents are usually the source of their children’s earliest experiences and those who are likely to influence brain development. The nature of this relationship highlights the importance of understanding these experiences.

Second, parents also provide a buffer between the world and young children’s brain development. If parents can manage the stresses the world throws at them, then children may learn how to manage challenges better. Children are also more likely to be protected from biological responses to adverse events. In contrast, when parents are overtaxed and have difficulty regulating themselves, children may be more vulnerable to external stressors.

This understanding of how moms and dads influence children’s brain development makes a fresh and compelling case for supporting parenting. It also demands action to help ensure that parents are supported and buffered. It means that, if we care about children, then we as a society should care a lot for their parents.

“A parent is an extension of a child’s developing neurobiology – like an interpersonal scaffolding that affords a long childhood.”

This understanding of children’s neural development springs from observing how the brain functions. My colleagues and I have looked at a key communication inside a particular part of the brain — between the subcortical brain regions and the medial prefrontal cortex. These areas support and link emotional learning with subsequent emotional behaviors.

Subcortical brain regions learn at a deep level about positive and negative events, and they create emotional memories. Meanwhile, the medial prefrontal cortex is involved in managing behaviors, as well as in planning and decision making. These two areas are connected and therefore, communicate with each other. The patterns individuals establish in making meaning seem to influence how they interpret what happens and how they make decisions.

We have observed how these regions of the brain are influenced by early experiences. We can also see how they are then used in later life. This helps us understand how childhood experiences may play out and influence subsequent adult behaviors.

Forming the neurobiology of the childhood brain

What happens in the early building of these brain regions? They develop rapidly during early childhood so they are very vulnerable to environmental influences, whether nurturing or maltreating. These areas of the brain learn about security and threat, create emotional memories, and are involved in managing behavior and decision making. Intriguingly, we have also found that these areas are very sensitive to parents and to the messages or cues parents send to children.

Photo: NeONBRAND. Unsplash.

Why does it serve human welfare to be so heavily influenced by these early experiences? Because, as a species, humans have evolved to learn from our early environments so we are ready for what we encounter once we reach maturity. The human brain develops very slowly compared with other species – it’s on a “slow cook” setting. This is a great adaptation that gives us a lot of time to learn from our environments.

Some have said that childhood is a dress rehearsal for the performance of adulthood. The longer the dress rehearsal, the longer we get to stay immature, and the more efficient and powerful the adult brain becomes to help us tackle the drama on life’s stage.

A child’s brain is primed to learn from its closest environment, especially early in life. That makes family and parents a big influence on emotional development. Human children spend a very long time with their parents, compared with other species. This time affords them a lengthy period of brain plasticity — the first two decades of life — during which they can do the massive amount of learning required for the sophisticated set of behaviors human adults need.

The role of parents’ neurobiology

Although parents are not the sole source of input, they provide the bulk of that learning. Part of that learning, especially early in life, springs from the way parents regulate their children’s stress biology (consciously or not). The neurobiology involved in social and emotional behavior is enriched with stress hormone receptors that prompt the body to respond biologically to what is happening. However, the mere physical presence of a parent can reduce the release of these stress hormones in a child.

Mom or dad can also decrease the firing of a child’s amygdala, one of the brain’s subcortical structures that is involved in learning about fear. A parent is an extension of a child’s developing neurobiology –like an interpersonal scaffolding that affords a long childhood. However, this scaffolding can also create a perilous situation when it is difficult for a caregiving environment to be an effective buffer of threat or may even be a source of threat, rather than security, to the child.

“(We must) ensure that parents are supported and buffered. It means that, if we care about children, then we as a society should care a lot for their parents.”

The power of parents as buffers has been demonstrated in studies with rodents. In an experiment that associated a meaningless stimulus – such as peppermint odor – with a mild shock to the foot, young rats learned to dislike the odor (as you and I would) and their amygdala responded to that learning. However, when the rat’s parent was present, the developing rodent, despite smelling the scent and experiencing the shock, did not avoid the smell. Functionally, the presence of the parent blocked the young rodent’s amygdala from reacting. Indeed, the rodent actually showed a preference for the odor. This sounds bizarre, but we have duplicated these findings in experiments with preschool-age children.

These reactions occur because early in life, humans are primed, as dependents on their parents, to form preferences for things associated with them – regardless of how pleasant or unpleasant the stimulus. For example, my father smoked cigars. I know the smell is unpleasant. However, that odor was learned in the context of my attachment to my father, so  I remain drawn to this stimulus. Most people can probably think of things associated with the home (“the nest”) to which they are attracted, regardless of whether they are pleasant or unpleasant. This response is part of a young animal’s survival strategy.

Usually this system works well — it keeps us close to our parents, the nest, and the developmental benefits mom and dad bring. However, this system may also explain why, even in the context of harsh early environments, children still form attachments to their parents and things associated with them. This understanding helps explain why children often resist being separated from a parent even where there is maltreatment. It highlights the difficult and complex issues involved in separating any child from his or her parent.

The adult brain and its inheritance from childhood

Next, let us think about the adult brain: How do these brain circuits, shaped by early experiences during childhood, work later in life? Studies show that these neural circuits are activated when adults are trying to manage strong emotions, say, after a really bad day at work or when someone needs to calm down. The same neurobiology – between the prefrontal cortex and the subcortical regions – is involved when we lack complete information and need to fill in the gaps to understand fully what is happening.

Taken together, these observations of the brain suggest that early experiences may influence future behavior by providing a template for understanding how the world works. One person’s templates differ from another’s. Such templates are presumably supported, at least in part, by subcortical regions and the medial prefrontal cortex.

In situations of incomplete knowledge, a template influences an individual’s predictions of what a situation means and guides the response. Thus, matching what behavioral psychologists described more than 60 years ago, neuroscience can provide a biological model of how early experiences with parents and other caregivers form templates that influence how adults operate socially and emotionally, sometimes throughout their lives.

To care for children, care for their parents

All this demonstrates how important it is that parents themselves feel supported and are well-regulated. When parents are overly distressed, they may find it difficult to effectively buffer their children’s stress biology. However, when parents themselves are well and feel relatively secure, they are probably more effective than any other intervention in managing their children’s emotional reactions.

Parents are powerful; they are the conduits of the emotional world to their children. This is easy to see in everyday life: If parents react well to something, their child often will do the same. If parents respond in a calm way, their child will likely follow that lead. In certain senses, parents are an extension of their children’s developing brain. For that reason, we should consider: How can we support families so parents regulate themselves well to help their children become well-regulated?

Certain policies around parenting place children’s mental health at risk. For example, imagine the problems caused by the policy of separating children from parents who tried to cross from Mexico to the United States without visas. There are other areas of policy to consider. For example, how should we shape employment practices to ensure that mothers and fathers are sufficiently present in their children’s lives to provide a calm buffer against adverse experiences? How can we ensure parents’ mental, physical, and economic well-being so their wellness protects their children?

Childhood adversity is the leading environmental risk factor for mental health problems. Many of these problems are preventable – they are not genetically determined from birth. That’s why, if we are serious about caring for children, we must care for parents.

Parents ask me, “What is the best parenting advice you can offer?” I tell them, “Do what you can to take care of your well-being, to make sure you are feeling safe, and to manage your own emotions in a healthy way. When you feel this way, that gets translated to your children in a powerful way.”

The post Care for children by caring for parents, says neuroscience appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Seventy attachment researchers with long track records in the field collaborated globally to produce a seminal statement concerning the widespread use of attachment theory in family courts.

The start of 2021 sees a major new contribution to family court practice by child development researchers. A 35-page “Consensus position based on the concerted body of attachment research” has been published, under the names of 70 leading attachment researchers. It is the most comprehensive statement ever produced on how attachment theory can be applied in family courts worldwide in the best interests of children. It also shows ways in which attachment theory is frequently misused.

This summary highlights the key points in the statement, but family court professionals who wish to learn more about this important topic should read the document in full. References to page numbers are included in this summary to enable quick access to the more detailed account.

The “best interests of the child” has become the fundamental consideration in family courts. The concept is included in the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989): “In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration (#3.1)” (p. 5).

This article addresses four issues:

1. The challenge of using attachment theory in family courts
2. What is attachment theory?
3. Three attachment principles for family court practice
4. Eight pieces of advice for family courts

1. The challenge of using attachment theory in family courts

A fundamental difficulty applying attachment science in family courts is that the science and the courts start from very different places. The measures used in attachment research are accurate enough to produce average scores that predict patterns of future child development across groups, but they are not sensitive enough to be used as diagnostic tools for individual families, which is what courts need (p. 5). Correlations found in attachment science, while statistically significant, may not be substantial, and rarely provide the basis for making a prediction about one individual (p. 21). Even the more fine-grained attachment assessments have been designed and validated for standardized contexts and may not apply in highly charged situations common in family courts.

“Family courts are under pressure to appear to base their decisions on evidence, and attachment theory has become by far the most popular theory among professionals working with children and families.”

Therefore, specific measures of attachment quality should be used with great caution. They may play a part, but only in combination with other assessments. Other measures include the child’s physical, cognitive, and socioemotional development, and very importantly, the capacity of a parent to provide care or be helped to develop caring skills. Above all, it is crucial to assess risk of harm to the child. Every one of these factors is hard to assess, not least because each can change over time, particularly if the assessment is made at a moment of heightened trauma and change (pp. 15-16, 20-21, 30-32).

Family courts are under pressure to appear to base their decisions on evidence, and attachment theory has become by far the most popular theory among professionals working with children and families. This creates an environment in which over-confidence about the application of attachment classifications or concepts to individual cases is common (p. 21). Because of the complexity of cases in family courts, proceedings can be influenced by personal opinions or cultural and social values and norms (pp. 5, 6, 32).

2. What is attachment theory?

2.1 Defining attachment

The 70 attachment researchers who contributed to the statement defined attachment this way:

Attachment refers to an affectional bond in which an individual is motivated to seek and maintain proximity to, and comfort from, particular familiar persons (Bowlby, 1969/1982). Children are born with a predisposition to develop this motivation in relation to significant others (“attachment figures”) who have been sufficiently present and responsive. For children, these persons are usually their caregivers. The motivation is held to be governed by an attachment behavioral system. This system seeks to maintain a certain degree of proximity between child and attachment figures, with the setting for desirable level changing dynamically in response to internal and external cues. The motivation to increase proximity is activated when a person is alarmed by internal cues (e.g. pain, illness) and/or external cues (e.g. fear-evoking stimuli, separation), and manifests in a tendency to seek the availability of an attachment figure. When the attachment system is strongly activated, some kind of physical contact with an attachment figure is generally sought, especially by infants, though this contact can also be achieved by non-physical means later in development … Caregivers who have regularly interacted with and protect the infant when the infant has been alarmed usually come to be represented by the infant as someone he or she can turn to when in need (i.e. as a safe haven). Importantly, even the most sensitive and responsive of caregivers necessarily “tune out” from time to time – to visit the bathroom, make tea, or even temporarily hand over caregiving to another trusted person familiar to the infant, while the caregiver attends to other matters. Thus, that a caregiver provides a safe haven does not necessitate that this person is constantly accessible for the infant physically, or even psychologically, or that the child is securely attached to that caregiver. Conversely, being physically present does not necessarily mean that a caregiver is emotionally available (pp. 7-8).

Photo: Yogendra Singh. Unsplash.

2.2 Attachment quality is measured by secure/insecure, not strong/weak

In attachment research, trained and certified coders measure the quality of attachment through standardized observation of children’s relative ability to use their caregiver as a safe haven to which they can turn for protection, and as a secure base from which they can explore the environment (p. 8).

Secure attachment manifests itself in the child’s expectation that the adult will be available in times of need. Insecure attachment manifests itself in the child’s expectation that the adult will be relatively unavailable (p. 8).

Insecure attachment is not weak and is extremely common and normal. Insecure attachment is an important strategy for children to maximize the potential availability of a caregiver who is unavailable or insensitive. An insecure attachment does not mean that the caregiver is never a safe haven for the child (pp. 10, 17).

Insecure attachment is observed in three forms:

• Insecure-avoidant is when the child does not seek his or her familiar person when mildly alarmed, but remains near (p. 17).
• Insecure-resistant is when the child seeks proximity but is not readily comforted and can show anger toward the caregiver. Both this and insecure-avoidant behavior are termed organized insecure attachment because they are coherent and work to increase the availability of less sensitive carers (p. 17).
• Disorganized attachment is when the child is conflicted, confused, or apprehensive about a family caregiver in a situation of mild to moderate alarm. It is often associated with frightened, frightening, or dissociative behavior on the part of the caregiver, or a caregiver’s hostility, withdrawal, or maltreatment (p. 18).

All these forms of insecure attachment correlate with later compromised child development, but even in the case of disorganized attachment, the associations are not strong enough to infer that observing insecure attachment foretells poor development outcomes for a specific child (p. 19).

Furthermore, researchers observe patterns of attachment in carefully controlled conditions that involve only mild to moderate stress for a child. Family courts commonly deal with children in situations of intense stress. Disorganized behavior on the part of a seriously stressed child does not necessarily imply disorganized attachment (p. 19).

“Specific measures of attachment quality should be used with great caution. They may play a part, but only in combination with other assessments.”

2.3 Attachment disorder differs from insecure attachment

The negative effects of insecure attachments, as presented earlier, are far surpassed by the potential damage of attachment disorder.

Two types of attachment disorder have been defined. Reactive attachment disorder is when a child shows a lack of care-seeking toward any caregiver when alarmed. Disinhibited social engagement disorder is when a child is over-friendly with unfamiliar people.

Reactive attachment disorder is seen in children who have experienced extremely inadequate caregiving in their early years, for example, those who have lived in institutions. The symptoms are reversible if the child is placed in a stable caregiving environment (p. 19).

2.4 Children form attachments with multiple caregivers

There is a widespread belief in the importance of one psychological parent, which emerges from the practice in some cultures of a single parent being the primary caregiver. A related idea has emerged: that an attachment with one person competes with other attachment relationships. Bowlby himself started with the idea of a single attachment in his 1969 book, but had changed his mind by the time he wrote his second book in 1984.

The reality is that children form attachment relationships with multiple caregivers simultaneously if they have sufficient time with the caregivers and if the caregivers provide enough of a safe haven in times of need. For decades, the vast majority of attachment researchers have believed that children benefit from having more than one safe haven (p. 6, 11-12).

The presence of multiple caregivers is the norm in many cultural settings across the world. Multiple caregivers and a network of attachment relationships constitute a protective factor in child development when caregiving is inconsistent (e.g., a caregiver is unwell or unavailable). This does not imply that the number of attachments is limitless, nor that a child may not prefer some caregivers over others. A child’s preferences are often shaped by the current accessibility of one carer over another and do not seem to depend on relative attachment quality with the caregivers. However, in the context of inter-parental conflict and custody disputes, less is known about how children’s preferences play out (p. 11-12).

While all attachments with regular caregivers are important, researchers’ opinions differ about whether a most familiar carer should be afforded priority in the early years. Variations in context – such as cultural and family factors – might influence the organization of continuous contact with different caregivers (p. 12).

“Insecure attachment is not weak and is very common – the average rate of insecure attachment in the general population is nearly half.”

2.5 New attachments can form

When a child and new caregiver spend sufficient time together, attachments usually form. The time together can activate not only the child’s attachment system but also a complementary caregiving system in the caregiver. Both are malleable. This is a relevant consideration in decisions about custody and overnight stays. However, no empirical research shows that overnight stays are a necessary condition for the development of an attachment relationship (p. 14).

Photo: Alan Wat. Creative Commons.

3. Three attachment principles for family court practice

In their statement, the researchers present three principles for family court practice based on a full consideration of attachment research.

Principle 1: A child needs to experience safe havens provided by particular, familiar, and non-abusive caregivers.

Two considerations are key:

• Limited contact with a caregiver makes it more difficult for a child to form, enhance, and maintain expectations of that caregiver’s availability in times of need.
• Almost all non-abusive and non-neglecting family-based care is likely to be better than institutional care (p. 25).

Principle 2: Safe, continuous, “good enough” care is in the child’s best interest and caregivers should be helped to provide it.

A safe haven requires particular familiar relationships and sufficiently continuous interaction with these caregivers. Even if another caregiving environment may be better in some way than the child’s current one, continuity of good enough care constitutes part of a child’s best interests. Disrupting existing attachments in favor of an “optimal” solution should be pursued with extreme caution (pp. 25-26).

Safe, continuous, good-enough care can be actively supported. Many studies and meta-analyses demonstrate effective interventions that improve caregiving quality. Many of these interventions are limited in time, typically lasting just 6 to 10 sessions (p. 26).

To this end, it is important to assess a caregiver’s potential to provide good enough care with sufficient support, not just the caregiver’s actual caregiving. The assessment also needs to consider a future time, if a current extreme state of distress diminishes the caregiver’s current ability (e.g., fear of loss of custody). Also, any particular intervention does not suit every caregiver, so alternatives should be made available (p. 32).

In families where roles were different prior to the separation, it is important to give the less experienced caregiver the opportunity to develop the ability to provide a safe haven (p. 12).

Bowlby put it this way in 1951: “Just as children are absolutely dependent on their parents for sustenance, so … are parents … dependent on greater society for economic provision. If a community values its children it must cherish their parents” (p. 28).

“The reality is that children form attachment relationships with multiple caregivers simultaneously.”

Principle 3: Maintain a child’s existing safe havens if they don’t pose a threat.

A decision to maintain a child’s existing safe havens does not provide a blueprint for allocating time in shared care arrangements. Time must be sufficient for attachment relationships to be developed and maintained (p. 28).

This principle can also apply to foster care, where relationships with biological parents can be maintained during fostering. Similarly, relationships with foster carers can maintained after foster care (p. 29).

In addition, grandparents, step-parents, siblings, and extended family members can often provide a safe haven for children (p. 29).

Photo: Frank Mckenna. Unsplash.

4. Eight pieces of advice for family courts

1. Do not equate attachment quality with caregiver sensitivity.

Caregiver sensitivity – the ability to notice a child’s signals, interpret them correctly, and respond to them appropriately and in a timely way – is, of course, important and correlates with attachment. However, gender norms can influence how care is expressed, and measures of safe haven and caregiver sensitivity may be shaped by gendered assumptions about caregiving (pp. 8-9). For example, sensitive caregiving in mothers predicts secure attachment more than it does in fathers, suggesting that other factors play a greater role in father-child attachment.

2. Do not equate attachment quality with relationship quality.

Relationships are made up of more than attachment alone. Other factors, such as basic physical care, play, supervision, teaching/learning, setting standards for conduct, and discipline, are also important (p. 9).

3. Do not interpret one-off behaviors of children as reliably indicating attachment quality.

Children’s behaviors depend on context. Attachment is measured in very controlled contexts. A very frightened child behaves differently than a less frightened child. A child in a highchair may cry in response to a threatening noise, but not cry if he or she is free to move to the caregiver. Children’s behaviors are also a function of their individual temperaments (p. 9).

4. The Tender Years Doctrine is wrong.

The Tender Years Doctrine holds that custody automatically goes to the mother for children under a certain “tender” age. While this concept has been formally replaced in most countries by standards related to the best interests of the child, it remains influential (p. 13). In Israel, it remains the policy: custody automatically goes to the mother for children under the age of six. The researchers state: “We are in full consensus that the ultimate establishment of a network of attachment relationships is generally a protective factor in the long term and thus a desirable outcome in child development. We are also in full agreement that losses of and permanent separations from attachment figure are in themselves risk factors that should be prevented wherever possible in child development.” (p.13)

5. Overnight care with a second parent is not inherently harmful for children.

In the 1990s, researchers concluded that co-parenting arrangements that included overnight visits to the co-parent were associated with insecurity in a child’s attachment with the resident parent (Solomon & George, 1999). However, the data presented in the study actually showed that parental conflict, not overnight stays, was  the problem. The inaccurate conclusion of this study has been quoted frequently to defend a position that is not supported by this or other evidence (p. 13).

The key question regarding decisions about overnight stays is whether the child experiences a safe haven with each caregiver. Of course, having a secure attachment does not preclude a child being unsettled for a time by unfamiliarity with, say, a new home. Also, the application of Principle 2 (safe, continuous, “good enough” care is in the child’s best interest and caregivers should be helped to provide it) requires attention to actively enabling the caregiver to develop a safe haven over time (p. 14).

“It is important to assess a caregiver’s potential to provide good enough care with sufficient support, not just the caregiver’s actual caregiving.”

6. Addressing and reducing conflict is key.

Inter-parental conflict and hostility undermine a parent’s own caring competencies and ability to let the other parent provide care. Interventions to reduce parental conflict are important (pp. 14-15).

If courts are clear about their decisions regarding custody and time allocation, they can increase parents’ capacity to overcome conflict. Similarly, if courts are clear about their commitment to the three principles outlined earlier, caregivers’ anxiety can be reduced and their motivation for cooperation increased (p. 33).

7. Ensure that family court professionals are adequately trained in attachment assessment.

While attachment theory is typically a mandatory part of professionals’ training, specialist training in assessing attachment quality is not. This can lead to attachment theory being either under-estimated or used with over-confidence. If assessments of attachment are used, they must be performed by formally trained observers (pp. 23, 31).

8. Take evidence directly from experts, not via representing parties.

Appeals to attachment in family courts would be less partial, more balanced, and more aligned with convergent evidence if courts called in experts, rather than the representing parties (p. 23).

The post How to apply attachment theory in family courts: The world’s leading experts weigh in appeared first on Child and Family Blog.