A theory is an idea that explains why something happens and shapes the way someone looks at a problem.
‘Attachment theory’ is the idea that the relationships people have during early childhood (especially with their main caregiver) will shape how they feel about themselves and how they connect with others later in life. The theory says that when a child feels safe, cared for, and understood, they are more likely to have healthy relationships as adults.
The theory also says that if these early bonds are weak or uncertain, this can make it difficult to trust people, handle emotions, or make close relationships.
The ‘Attachment theory’ came from the idea that babies feel the need to be with their caregivers, because it increases their chances of surviving. A researcher called Harry Harlow researched animals (monkeys), and he found that the monkeys chose the comfort of fake caregivers over things like food. This made scientists think that having a good attachment with a caregiver was an important step in a child’s development, making them feel secure.
Today, researchers say that having a good attachment means children grow up to handle negative experiences and feelings better than those with worse attachment.
‘Attachment theory’ is being used as a reason to keep Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children separated from their families and communities.
Our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children have relationships with many family and community members, and they can all have different but equal roles in taking care of our children, like grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins. But attachment theory is being used to say that the attachment between one caregiver and your child is the most important (Newton et al. 2025; Wright et al. 2025; White et al. 2019). This doesn’t look at the importance of kinship relationships and cultural identity development (SNAICC Family Matters Report 2024, page 37).
The system can choose the carers relationship over the parents relationship, even though attachment theory says all relationships are important.
“[The children’s] solicitor, his concern is because they’ve been in care for so long, the attachment issue and how that will work. When we had our – when we paid for our assessment to be done, we asked them to allow us to be assessed with the children. They had denied that, because they were like, we don’t want another face around them. They’ve got so many people.”
– Parent, Bring Them Home, Keep Them Home research
This parent’s experience is an example of DCJ not following the law and using attachment theory as the reason. Aboriginal parents have said that your child’s relationship with their carer is the first thing they consider, as the system sees it as the most important (for example, it is the “primary consideration” for section 90 leave). They then think your child and their carers relationship needs to be protected from their many relationships with parents, family, carers and kin, even though they can provide a sense of belonging (Wright et al. 2025 cited in Newton et al. 2025). DCJ are required to support an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child or young person to maintain connections to family, Community, culture and Country (section 12A of the Care Act).
The system makes families choose a ‘primary’ caregiver when looking at most stages of child protection. This doesn’t recognise Aboriginal ways of being and doing, because it ignores that multiple people can be this caregiver for children. When the system makes you choose who the primary caregiver is, they are usually looked at more than the others and it is usually the mother. They then have more evidence to use against the mother, and less evidence on the father, even if he is a person responsible for causing harm, for example, using violence.
Culture shapes the environment where a child grows up, through their behaviors, relationships, and people around them. Because of this, when a caseworker is using attachment theory, they should be asking you and looking at your child’s behaviour from your cultural perspective. But often this doesn’t happen, and caseworkers are looking at a behaviour on its own, without culture, or with their own (often Western) culture informing their questions or judgements.
An example of this is sleeping in the same bed as your child. For some cultures this is normal, and for others it isn’t, but what the family is trying to give to their kids could be the same (security). But if the system thinks there is only one way of ‘good parenting’ then they are more likely to label you as “lacking insight” (not understanding) when really you just don’t share the same culture as them.
An example of this is by writing timeframes into the law about how quickly decisions are made, based on their age and what attachment theory says are critical ages for attachment. ‘Attachment theory’ is also used when the Court is making decisions.
When deciding if a Section 90 should be approved (an application that can get your child home legally), the judge must consider what the law calls “primary considerations.” This includes looking at your child’s attachment to their carer, the stability of the placement and the effects of disrupting the ‘attachment’ between carer and child. One Children’s Court Judge from the Bring Them Home, Keep Them Home research said:
“Where there’s a Section 90 brought by parents who have overcome all the hurdles that caused the children to be removed but they’re young children still in that window of attachment and they’ve been very attached to whatever carer it is. Maybe a family carer or maybe someone else and the disruption to that attachment is a significant risk to their wellbeing so that it – no matter how well the parents have done they’re – there are some cases depending on the needs of the child where the interest of the child require that the child stays where it is…”
– Parent, Bring Them Home, Keep Them Home research
But DCJ and the Court decide what is in your child’s ‘best interest’, not you or your Aboriginal community. This is because Aboriginal children’s best interests are not respected when attachment theory is used by the system, and this is because attachment theory does not prioritise an Aboriginal worldview and the significance of connections to family, kin, community, culture and Country.
DCJ are not required to assess the risk to an Aboriginal child’s attachment to their family when they decide to remove. But once they are removed, the law requires the court to consider attachment to whoever they are placed with.
Aboriginal parents have said that attachment is used a lot by DCJ as a reason to not give back Aboriginal kids to their parents and family. The legal system gives parents limited time to get their child back home (restoration). They say this is so that children can have secure attachments (they also call this ‘permanency’). But this way of doing things doesn’t look at the long-term relationships a child might have with their family and chooses the legal and physical placement of a child, instead of looking at all of their relationships that make them feel secure.
Attachment theory does say that love and connection are still there in difficult times. But the system chooses to not give as much weight to this part of the theory.
Research says attachment theory isn’t being used right by the NSW child protection system. Below are some ideas from attachment theory research that you can use to advocate for your family. You can talk to your caseworker about them and send them the research behind it.
For example, you can say to your caseworker “I am asking to increase my family time. The research on attachment theory says that having strong attachment relationships (especially more than one) helps protect children from negative outcomes, especially during stress. It’s important to keep these relationships” (and send a link to the research you are talking about). If you are breastfeeding, this is especially important.
Most researchers on attachment theory agree that:
DCJ caseworkers should be respecting your cultural practices, including how you raise your children in your culture, and seek to understand your cultural worldview. They are required to view your family as experts in your culture (Standard 3.1 of the DCJ Practice Framework). If you think they are not doing this, you can ask your caseworker (in writing) to show how they are following or not following their practice framework standards or talk to the managers.
AbSec and our partners acknowledge the Traditional Custodians of Country throughout NSW and their continuing connections to land, waters, and communities. We also acknowledge the lands on which these stories were told, the lands of the Dharawal, Yuin and Wonnarua people.
We acknowledge the Elders, leaders and advocates that have led the way and continue to fight for our children. We also acknowledge the Stolen Generations who never came home and the ongoing impact of government policy and practice on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, young people and families.
This website shares the experiences and advice of Aboriginal families involved in the NSW child protection system who participated in the Bring Them Home, Keep Them Home research at UNSW. We acknowledge and thank the families who generously gave permission to share their stories.
These experiences reflect what worked for those families and do not constitute advice or views of AbSec. AbSec recommends seeking independent legal advice for your own circumstances.
