Oddly
enough it’s not only parents who will frequently ask this question but lawyers
and judges as well seem to be preoccupied with the notion that somewhere out
there someone has concluded that there is a “best” access schedule for children
of divorced parents.
I
often answer, in a feeble attempt at humor, that I am opening a children’s
clothing store in which I’m going to only sell one size of jeans and one size
of shirts. Silly, of course, but not a whole lot sillier than asking what the
best access schedule fits all children.
I
would like to believe that every thoughtful parent knows that one size does not
fit all and that when trying to devise the right kind of parenting schedule for
children there are endless numbers of factors that need to be considered: the
age of the child, the child’s individual temperament, the child’s level of
maturity, the accessibility of each parent, the support system that each parent
has in place, the past history of attachment between parent and child, and
perhaps most importantly, the ability that the parents have to manage any
reasonable access schedule in a civil and collaborative fashion.
In
this posting I’m certainly not going to address every one of these factors –
and, in fact, those I’ve mentioned above only scratch the surface of the many
variables that go into a thoughtful and appropriate parenting schedule. But
recently I’ve encountered a few cases which have led me to decide to write a
little bit here about the notion of “attachment”. First a brief description of
a family I am working with (names and other identifying characteristics are
significantly changed):
Joe and Laura were married for a brief period;
Laura (who had a history of drug addiction) gave birth to Sam, their son, and
soon after, abruptly left the home. Joe was left to raise Sam for the first 2 ½
years of his life. He petitioned and received full custody of his son from the
Court. (The couple also were formally divorced). During this time Laura stayed intermittently
in touch with Joe and visited with Sam every few months. However, not long
after Sam’s second birthday she announced that she had been clean for well over
a year and asked Joe whether he might agree to a change in the custody
arrangement. Joe refused. Laura went to court, was awarded periodic supervised
visitation, then overnights, and finally more substantial parental access. By
this time Sam was three years old and as part of their custody agreement they
were required to work with a parent coordinator – and decided to work with
me. Laura has complained bitterly that
Joe undermines her parenting and reinforces for Sam that Mommy cannot be
trusted and that she had left him. She describes a “barrier” between herself
and her son that she feels is being fostered by his father [and stepmother] –
so much so that apparently Sam will often spontaneously announce that he loves
Daddy more and that Diana (Joe’s wife) is his real mother. Joe denies having
ever spoken negatively to Sam about his mother. Further, he has strongly
suggested that he believes that it is extremely important that Sam have a good
relationship with his mother because he knows how hard it was for him [Joe]
that his mother died when he was a young child.
Where
do we first locate that "home base" from which we can go out into the
world and take the risks that are going to make a secure future possible for
us? I remember first being exposed to
the work of John Bowlby when I was in graduate school. Bowlby, often considered
the “father of attachment theory” made the remarkable observation of children
during World War II who had been removed from English cities in order to
protect them from bombing. They were cared for in very well appointed and
highly professional institutional settings and yet they seemed to be profoundly
unhappy despite the fact that their physical needs were being more than
adequately taken care of. What he concluded, and what has become the backbone
of our understanding of the early infant experience, was that providing for a
child’s physical needs does not go far enough in assuring that a child will be
emotionally and psychologically secure. In fact, he saw little connection
between the provision of food and shelter and a child’s psychological
well-being. (By the way, this flew in the face of the prevalent Freudian view
of the time that a child’s attachment grew from physical dependency).
What was particularly striking about Bowlby’s
work was his observation that these children were also having difficulty in
forming new attachments, despite the fact that the adults who were caring for
them did everything in their power to give them what they needed. Not surprisingly, Bowlby and many later
theorists made the assumption – not unreasonable, of course – that it was the
mother-infant relationship that was the primary and foundational one. What we
understand now, of course, as fathers have become more involved in primary
parenting – even of infants – is that this primary attachment can take place
between either parent and infant, or for that matter the infant and any
consistent care giver.
So
what Bowlby taught us is that the emotional security formed by that initial
close relationship with a loving parent provides us with solid beginnings of
trust and security that are the building blocks of a healthy personality.
So back to Joe, Laura, and Sam. There are many challenges
for both these parents and their child because if we apply what we know about
attachment theory we can begin to understand the difficulties that they are having.
Joe, of course, is convinced that there is some fatal flaw in Laura’s ability
to adequately and appropriately be a mother to her son, based on her own
history, her history with him, and a good deal of residual bitterness that he
bears toward her for abandonment. Laura has no doubt that the major obstacle
she faces in trying to create the kind of relationship that she wants to have
with her son is being prevented and poisoned by Joe’s refusal to allow it to
occur naturally. And three-year-old Sam? Sam’s a little young to understand all
the complexities of John Bowlby’s attachment theory. But what he does know –
and doesn’t even know he knows – is that the initial, foundational connection
in his life is with his father; that’s the connection, that’s the person, upon
whom he can unwaveringly depend and upon whom he has absolute trust.
My work with Joe and Laura (I’ve never met Sam) centers
around helping both of them to understand what the implications of attachment
theory are for their parenting Sam. One is that there is no victim or villain
here. The past, as they say, is history – and it can’t to be rewritten and it
is unfair of both parents to ask Sam to bear the burden of it. Understanding
the importance of that foundational attachment which Sam has with Joe can make
it possible for both parents to focus on what their son needs rather than upon
recriminating with each other about who is at fault. It’s not easy. Sam was
born into a bitter and unfortunate unraveling of his parents’ marriage – as
many kids are. The challenge for his parents is finding a way to focus on Sam’s
need to have both of them, to have two parents with whom he feels safe and
trusting. I’ve told Joe and Laura that Sam may need some help with this,
perhaps as he gets a little older, and can best benefit from some
psychotherapeutic intervention. Meanwhile, they’ve got the hard work to do and
that is to reinforce for Sam that each of them wants him to have a strong
relationship with the other.