Attachment Theory, originally developed by John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth in the mid-twentieth century, proposes that our relationships with caregivers in our infancy shape our expectations of safety, trust, and emotional connection in relationships throughout life.

Bowlby argued that children are biologically predisposed to seek proximity to caregivers as a survival mechanism, and that the quality of this bond forms an “internal working model” of self and others.

Ainsworth identified distinct attachment styles: secure, anxious-ambivalent, and avoidant, later expanded to include disorganised attachment. These patterns influence how individuals regulate emotions, respond to stress, and form relationships in adulthood.

Attachment theory has evolved through this century. Contemporary developments emphasise the impact of trauma, neurobiology, and relational patterns across the lifespan, as well as the potential for change through positive emotional experiences and therapeutic relationships. Put simply, human beings have a need for meaningful connection with each other. But they also fear rejection or harm and seek to avoid pain. Their early relationships with caregivers, combined with multiple other factors including their personality and environment, shape their attachments to themselves and others.

Someone with a secure attachment style can form close, emotionally intimate relationships without losing their sense of self. They don’t fear dependency, but they also don’t rely excessively on others for validation.

Avoidant individuals tend to keep others at arm’s length and avoid intimacy, as a way of staying safe. They value independence and may suppress their emotional needs.

Anxious-ambivalent individuals seek closeness and reassurance to feel secure, fearing abandonment, with a fragile sense of self and a greater need for validation from others.

People with a disorganised attachment style may have experienced chaotic, frightening or frightened caregivers who were both a source of comfort and fear and therefore lack a coherent attachment style. This creates an internal conflict which may lead to the instinct to approach and avoid being activated simultaneously.

Reading this summary, you’d be forgiven for thinking that the descriptions of insecure attachment sound pejorative. If you feel there is something of a stigma about having an insecure attachment style, consider these factors:

• First, your attachment style(s) are relational, not fixed. The attachment style of the other will interact with your own. It may activate a need for validation and emotional closeness or provoke a push for independence.
• Second, the attachment style you develop is a coping mechanism developed in response to infant, preverbal experiences, and should therefore be seen as an adaptive response to your circumstances, rather than a fault or a poor choice.
• Third, you are not stuck with an insecure attachment style for life. With self-awareness and a good therapeutic relationship, it’s possible to adapt your attachment style to become more secure.

So, what does Attachment Theory have to do with family law?

Attachment styles influence clients’ relationships with each other, our relationship with our clients, and the dynamic of our relationships with other professionals in the case. We have the ability to influence the dynamics, and therefore potentially, the whole outcome of the case, for better or for worse.

When a couple separates, their attachment systems tend to be activated under stress and the activation can intensify, if not handled with sensitivity. Take, for example, a couple where one partner is primarily avoidant, and the other is primarily anxious in relation to the other.

The anxious partner is likely to seek contact, clarification, and emotional connection. The avoidant partner will tend to disengage, limit communication, or push for distance, particularly where things become emotionally intense.

This creates a vicious circle: the more one pursues, the more the other withdraws. And the more one withdraws, the more the other escalates.

The anxious partner may appear highly emotional, reactive or difficult, especially if they feel shut out. The avoidant partner may appear uncooperative, detached or overly rigid, particularly if they feel criticised. So the “dance” becomes more and more highly charged, while in reality both partners are operating from an attachment-driven threat position.

Add to this dynamic, two lawyers who are doing their best to advance their client’s position. Their own attachment styles will influence how they approach the case, and how they perceive and interact with their client.

They may be drawn to the client’s anxious attachment style, and their communication with the other party can unintentionally amplify the emotion and ramp up the conflict.

Or a lawyer with an avoidant style may see the client as “difficult” and subconsciously disengage, triggering the client’s anxiety still further. This may lead to the client seeing the lawyer as unresponsive and not “on their side”.

The key to defusing the conflict and calming the client is to recognise the pattern and structure your behaviours around it.

An anxiously attached party will often benefit from predictability, clear communication, and reassurance through consistency. A lawyer with an anxious attachment style should be wary of the temptation to amplify the conflict by emotive communications with the other party. On the other hand, someone with a more avoidant style should resist the urge to ignore the client when they send multiple emails. Manage communication by setting realistic boundaries and observing those boundaries yourself.

An avoidant party is more likely to engage when processes are low-conflict, expectations are clearly defined and emotional intensity is reduced. On the surface, some clients will appear controlling and try to impose their own rules of engagement, because the reality for them is that the unpredictability of the situation is so threatening. As a lawyer it is important to remain assertive, whilst continuing to engage with the client, who may be feeling very defensive.

If we don’t account for these dynamics, the legal process can escalate the conflict and lead to an outcome that provides neither justice nor closure for either party.

But when we do and we work effectively with our client and others, we can lower reactivity, improve cooperation and navigate a path towards a fair and constructive settlement where both parties feel properly heard and represented.

Written by Helen Shaw, Psychotherapist, TCC