Attachment Theory: A Barrier for Indigenous Children Involved with Child Protection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Attachment theory is an established theoretical understanding of the intimate relationships between parental figures and children. The theory frames the ways in which a child can be supported to develop within a secure base that prepares them for adulthood, including entering into and sustaining intimate relationships. The theory, built on the work of John Bowlby following World War II, has extensive literature supporting its application across multiple cultures and nations, although its roots are heavily tied to Eurocentric familial understandings. However, the theory has also been heavily criticized as not being appropriate for child intervention decision-making. Further, its application to Indigenous caregiving systems is also under question. Yet courts rely heavily on applying the theory to questions of sustaining Indigenous children in non-Indigenous care when return to biological parents is deemed impossible. METHODS: This article draws upon the consistent arguments used in leading Canadian child welfare legal decisions and case examples to show how Attachment Theory is applied relative to Indigenous children and families. RESULTS: Attachment Theory drawing upon Eurocentric framing, and as applied in Canadian child protection systems, as seen in precedent court decisions, is given priority over living in culture. This occurs even though the research reviewed has shown that the traditional dyadic version of the theory is not valid for Indigenous peoples. CONCLUSIONS: While all children will attach to a caregiver or caregiving system, such as kinship or community, leading legal decisions in Canada tend to rely on Eurocentric versions of the theory, which is contrary to the best interests of Indigenous children. Child protection needs to reconsider how attachment can be used from appropriate cultural lenses that involve the communal or extended caregiving systems common to many Canadian Indigenous communities. Child protection should also recognize that there is not a pan-Indigenous definition of attachment and child-rearing, so efforts to build working relationships with various Indigenous communities will be needed to accomplish culturally informed caregiving plans. In addition, continued advocacy in Canada is needed to have child protection decision-making conducted by the Indigenous communities, as opposed to Eurocentric provincial or territorial agencies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".