It takes a Village to raise a child.

This widely-held axiom might be seen to contrast with representations of Attachment Theory as a white, western, middle-class theory of the mother-infant relationship.

Is it right, then, to reject Attachment Theory in favour of theories that represent the role and importance of a collective of adults who raise a child to maturity?

I am not so quick to do so. The fact is, there is a problem with the way in which Attachment Theory is understood and practiced, particularly in the child protection arena, rather than with the Theory itself.

Consider this. In western child protection jurisdictions “secure attachment” is represented as a desirable goal for protection and care endeavours (and therapeutic ones, too). Yet, the population prevalence of secure attachment relationships with mum and/or dad in western countries is estimated at 60%. Forty percent of children are estimated to not have a secure attachment to mum and/or dad. What is the significance of this, especially in consideration of the reason for removing a child from the care of their parents, and for not returning them?

We need to make a distinction between “attachment relationship” and “attachment style”. Attachment style is based on diverse relationships and relational influences; not just those with mum and/or dad, or the child’s primary caregivers. We must also acknowledge that, though their first attachment relationships are very important, the child will make many attachments, perhaps across the lifespan.

In consideration of this, one can consider attachment theory to be aligned to the idea that “it takes a village to raise a child”.

Now, in a society based on the idea of the nuclear family, the relationship a child has with their parents exerts a pervasive and lifelong influence over their experience of, and approach to, life and relationships. This is just as true for children and young people growing up in out-of-home care. Though we might support their relationship with alternate caregivers, their relationship with their mother and father remains a powerful influence.

In fact, I would say that the relationship with mum and dad is the most healing relationship a child or young person recovering from a tough start to life might have.

So, as Bowlby once articulated, if we value our children we must cherish their parents.