Q: What is a Bonding Assessment?
A: In cases where child protection agencies require feedback in deciding whether to work toward a return of custody – versus exploring options such as guardianship, continued foster placement or adoption – it is routine for psychologists to complete what is termed “bonding evaluations.” A bonding evaluation is a specialized type of assessment whose goal is to determine the nature and quality of the child’s attachments to birth and/or foster parents, often to address the question of who occupies the position of greatest centrality in a child’s emotional life. This is roughly equivalent to determining which adult(s) serve as the “psychological parent” to the child.

While each evaluator may conduct a bonding assessment in different ways, there are common themes. Typically the evaluator pays close attention to certain phenomena between the parent and the child such as:

• The frequency and nature of touching between parent and child as an index of comfort level;
• Comfort seeking and guidance seeking behavior by the child;
• The capacity of the parent to engage the child effectively and to respond to the child’s expressed needs in an appropriate manner;
• Whether the parent and child make eye contact and smile at each other;
• Whether the child displays signs of upset if a separation occurs during the session;
• How the parent responds to the child’s signals of hunger, thirst, or need to use the bathroom;
• Whether the child is willing to explore the environment while the parent is in the same room.

Attachment theory plays a prominent part in parent-child assessments. It is generally accepted that children who are securely attached to a caregiver usually appear relaxed, happy, and enthusiastic while interacting with that person. Stereotyped reactions such as a forced laugh and severely limited range of responses during a session are much more likely to be present in conflicted relationships. With young children in particular, it is especially important to examine the caregiver’s ability to recognize and respond to the non-verbal cues put forth by the child [e.g., eye contact, smiling, reaching, crawling toward, etc.]. While some have attempted to argue that adults in a bonding assessment will be on their best behavior and thus able to fool the examiner, this runs counter to attachment theory. Attachment cannot be faked and these evaluations are typically able to distinguish between behavior and emotion in the child that has been reinforced over time as opposed to the child’s short-term reactions to the immediate behavior of the parent. Children know intuitively when someone is genuinely invested in them.

One of the most important elements of the bonding assessment is the review of history. In many respects, this is the most important part of the procedure. History is often the single most important element in formulating conclusions and evaluators are encouraged to remember that the best predictor of future behavior has consistently been shown to be the individual’s prior behavior.

Another important element of a child’s history is the involvement of the birth parent with the child. Even in the case of a child who has been placed with a foster parent at birth, a fairly deep attachment is possible if the birth parent visits consistently and displays a responsive and loving attitude towards the child. In such cases, the consistent contact with the birth parent through regular visitation enables a young child to internalize an image of the birth parent as a caring and helpful figure. It is far more easy for such a parent to assume a position of centrality in a child’s life in the event of a return of custody than it is for a birth parent who was previously occupied or in an extremely peripheral position in the child’s inner mental life. It is far easier for a child to reconnect to a birth parent who is a well-defined, positively invested figure in the child’s internal mental world than to a birth parent who has been a nebulous image and toward whom the child has been ambivalent or overtly hostile because of prior frustration and traumatic experiences.

With respect to the term “bonding,” it is helpful to conceptualize this as a reciprocal attachment, which both parties want and expect to continue, and which is interrupted or terminated at considerable peril to the parties involved. Bonding can be specifically defined in four concrete and evidentiary ways, any one of which is sufficient to indicate its presence:

1. Time and place
2. The behavior of a child
3. Reciprocal attachment
4. Family identification

Humans bond by sharing important events in daily life such as eating, sleeping and playing with each other. Time spent together is one factual way to measure bonding. In a parent/child setting, bonding is likely after three months. Research indicates that this is the length of time that normal human beings take to adjust to new and/or difficult situations. This three-month period is reflected in many aspects of our culture: the grieving time following a death; the probationary period when starting a new job; and in the description of many psychiatric disorders. Bonding is probable after six months. Most children will adjust and attach well within this period. Many courts and states acknowledge this fact when selecting adoptive homes. The Indiana Child Welfare Manual, for example, recommends that preference for adoption be given to foster parents who have had the child in their home for six months or more.

Bonding is almost certain after one year, unless one is dealing with a severely disturbed child. One year is a long time in a life of a child. For this reason, the Adoption and Safe Families Act has attempted to set a limit on the time a child can be kept in temporary care. The Adoption and Safe Families Act recognizes that it is harmful—and even abusive—to move a child who has been with a family for one year or more.

Many state child welfare agencies have definitions of bonding that consider how the relationship is viewed by the rest of the community. This can include: a) the child identifies as a member of the family and the family considers the child to be a family member; b) the child is perceived to be a member of the family and is treated as such by the community such as school, friends, church, neighbors or extended family members; and c) the child has developed reliance upon and trust in the family while in their care.

Children form significant attachments to adults who meet their physical and emotional needs regardless of any biological connection. This bonding outweighs biological kinship, not because the biological parents may not have certain “rights,” but because these rights are superseded by the harm that can result from moving a bonded child. This model applies to other relationships, such as the marriage bond. The relationship of husband and wife is an emotional bond, amplified by a legal commitment. As such, it takes precedence over the spouses’ biological relationship with their parents.

Bonded relationships are critical in child development. When a bonded relationship is threatened or severed, trauma results. Interrupted bonding takes a heavy toll on human health and well-being. The younger the child and the deeper the bond, the more devastating will be the impact. Interrupted bonding commonly contributes to or causes many types of psychiatric disorders in children. Interrupted bonding may also lead to later and more serious adult disorders. It is this recognition that helps form the foundation of attachment theory. Multiple researchers throughout the years have consistently identified the correlation between disrupted bonding in infancy and the later development of significant psychiatric disturbance.

Fortunately, courts are recognizing the importance of bonding and attachment when considering placement decisions. The courts have used terms like “continuity of care” and “risk of transition” when describing the importance of attachment and keeping children in bonded relationships. The Washington Appellate Court, for example, wrote:

Evidence relevant to an adoptive placement decision may include, but is not limited to, the psychological and emotional bonds between the dependent child and its biological parents, its siblings, and its foster family; the potential harm the child may suffer if severed from contact with these persons as a result of placement decisions; the nature of the child’s attachment to the person or persons constituting the proposed placement; and the effect of an abrupt and substantial change in the child’s environment. An important objective is to maintain continuity in the child’s relationship with a parental figure and to avoid numerous changes in custody, if this is possible, without harm to the child. Where possible, the initial placement shall be viewed as the only placement for the child.

Finally, the Model Statute for Termination of Parental Rights, developed by the Neglected Children Committee of the National Council of Juvenile Court Judges notes that “Children have their own built-in time sense based on the urgency of their instinctual and emotional needs.” The Statute notes that what seems like a short wait for an adult can be an intolerable separation to a young child. Protection of children’s attachment to foster caregivers is mentioned in the Introduction, which asserts that repeated uprooting of children in placement who have become attached to serve their parents is “seriously detrimental to their physical, mental and emotional wellbeing.” The Model Statute mandates that courts take into account “Whether said child has become integrated into the foster family to the extent that his familial identity is with that family.” This is consistent with the purely psychological consideration of protecting the child’s mental health and personality development by supporting the placement alternative that causes the least harm to the child’s developing a positively valued sense of personal identify. The Statute instructs courts to note “the love, affection and other emotional ties existing between the child and the parent and his ties with the integrating family,” as well as “the capacity and disposition of a parent from whom he was removed as compared with that of the integrating family to give the child love, affection and guidance, and continuing the education of the child.”

Q: Is this a Service You Provide?
A: Yes. If the child is three years or younger, I do what is called a Bonding Assessment. If the child is four or older, I do what is called an Interactional Assessment. With the Bonding Assessment, particular attention is paid to the parent's ability to perceive and respond to the child's attachment cues [i.e., smiling, reaching, crying, and other 'signaling' behaviors]. With an Interactional Assessment, observation, interview, and testing is often integrated into the process.

Q: What is Done with the Data?
A: It depends. Sometimes the Court needs this information to make placement decisions. This is common in instances of adoption, foster care, termination of parental rights, and guardianship arrangements.

At other times, the information and data is used to help strengthen aspects of the parent-child bond or relationship. For example, I will sometimes videotape the sessions and then review them with the parent, without the child present. I point out areas of parental strength and weakness and help the parent to better identify the child's non-verbal attachment cues.