Attachment theory, research, and assessments have become increasingly applied to settle child custody cases. We discuss such applications in relation to admissibility criteria for scientific evidence and testimony proposed by Faigman et al. (2014). We argue that attachment theory and research can provide valid “framework evidence”; group-based attachment research has yielded general principles suitable as a frame of reference for pertinent court decisions. In particular, child custody decision-making should generally be guided by research indicating that children benefit from attachment networks. In contrast, assessments of attachment quality fall short of providing valid “diagnostic evidence”; information that a specific individual/dyad is a “true” instance of a general group-level principle. In particular, such assessments do not yield valid information about whether a particular caregiver has better caregiving skills than another caregiver and will better support child development. We conclude that attachment theory and research should be admissible for framework but not for diagnostic testimony.

中文翻译：

---

依恋理论、研究和评估在儿童监护决策中的可接受性？是与否！

依恋理论、研究和评估越来越多地应用于解决儿童监护案件。我们讨论了与 Faigman 等人提出的科学证据和证词的可接受性标准相关的此类应用。（2014）。我们认为依恋理论和研究可以提供有效的“框架证据”；以小组为基础的依恋研究已经产生了适合作为相关法院判决参考框架的一般原则。特别是，儿童监护权决策通常应以表明儿童从依恋网络中受益的研究为指导。相比之下，对依恋质量的评估未能提供有效的“诊断证据”；特定个人/二元组是一般群体级原则的“真实”实例的信息。尤其，此类评估无法得出有关特定照顾者是否比其他照顾者具有更好的照顾技能以及是否能更好地支持儿童发展的有效信息。我们得出结论，依恋理论和研究应该可以作为框架而不是诊断证词。