Attachment Theory and the Family Violence Reforms

I should mention that although my paper doesn’t strictly follow the format of mypresentation at the conference, which was ‘question and answer’ style, all of the materialI presented (and indeed more) has been included.I don’t intend to discuss the 2011 reforms in exhaustive detail and for that reason I haveincluded an overview at appendix 1. The same applies to statistical data about sharedparenting arrangements following the 2006 reforms and about the nature and quality ofchild/parent relationships following the 2006 reforms. This data can be found atappendix 2.I must also emphasise that the views expressed in this paper are my own and are based onmy observations as a judge sitting at first instance and on appeal. They do not representthose of the Chief Justice or of the Family Court of Australia as a whole.An overview of attachment theory and family violenceAs the theme for the 49 th AFCC annual conference was structured around the specialedition of the Family Court Review and the work of Richard Bowlby, the followingoverview of attachment theory and its relationship with family violence and high levelconflict is drawn from commentaries on Bowlby’s work. In doing so however, Irecognise that Bowlby’s conceptualisation of attachment theory is not uncontroversialand that the significance accorded by Bowlby and others to formative infant-motherinteractions in particular has been the subject of critical analysis. 5In their brief summary of attachment theory, Mikulincer and Shaver say the following:According to Bowlby, human beings are born with an innate psychobiologicalsystem (the attachment behavioural system) that motivates them to seek proximity3