COMMENTARY ON WARSHAK'S “BLANKET RESTRICTIONS: OVERNIGHT CONTACT BETWEEN PARENTS AND YOUNG CHILDREN”

• Published date: 01 April 2002
• Author: Jennifer Greve‐Spees,Wynette Howard,Sarah Moore,Sayaka Sakoguchi,David Leigh,Zeynep Biringen,Larry Williams,Litsa Tanner
• Date: 01 April 2002
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.174-1617.2002.tb00831.x

COMMENTARY ON WARSHAK’S “BLANKET

RESTRICTIONS: OVERNIGHT CONTACT

BETWEEN PARENTS AND YOUNG CHILDREN”

Zeynep Biringen, Jennifer Greve-Spees, Wynette Howard, David kith,

Litsa Tanner, Sarah Moore, Sayaka Sakoguchi, and

Larry

Williams

In a previous issue of this journal, Richard

A.

Warshak provided a

summary

of the developmental literature as it

bears

on overnight restrictions during custody arrangements. Here, the authors comment on points of agreement and

disagreement with Warshak based on their reading

of

the

theoretical and empirical literature

on

development.

Par-

ticularreference

is

made to Warshak’s interpretation ofattachment theory and research. Points of agreement include

the importance of fathers and all caregivers in the infantlyoung child’s life

as

well

as

the overstatement in the litera-

ture of the significance

of

separation experiences and a “sensitive period’ for attachment. Points of cleardisagree-

ment include what the author contends is

an

erroneous review

of

the empirical literature on overnights with other

caregivers. Based on their review of the data on overnight visitation,

the

authors conclude on amore cautious note.

Richard

A.

Warshak

(2000)

recently presented a summary of the developmental research

bearing on overnight restrictions for infantdyoung children. We comment on points

of

agreement with his summary and then move to points of disagreement and/or inaccuracies of

reporting of data, per our own understanding and research

in

the area

of

attachment and

parent-child relationships.

We wholeheartedly agree that the child development literature has finally realized the

importance of fathers! Fathers are important in the child’s life, and fathers as well as mothers

can be effective parents. Similarly, other caregivers such as nannies, grandparents, and/or

professional caregivers can serve as important attachment figures in the child’s life. In other

words, we agree with Warshak that mothers should not be viewed as the

only

attachment fig-

ures (Lamb, 1977).

This

is true in divorced as well

as

nondivorced families (Hetherington,

Cox,

&

Cox, 1985). Custody arrangements in most cases need to take into account that both

parents should remain in the child’s life.

In addition, we agree that attachment theory has made important revisions to the idea that

separations are by their very nature bad for infants and young children. The work on daycare,

particularly the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development’s (NICHD’s)

(1997) Study of Early Child Care, has been influential in this respect.

This

study found that

children who attended daycare were no more likely to be insecurely attached than those who

did not attend daycare. Bowlby’s

(195

1)

work on maternal deprivation and its effects on chil-

dren was an overstatement

on

separation and, as Warshak pointed out, involved both mater-

nal and paternal separation. Such separations were also not under ideal circumstances, mak-

ing generalizations to today’s divorced family

a

stretch of the imagination. Revisions to

attachment theory further maintain that even longer separations under nurturing circum-

stances may mitigate the effect of separations from a primary caregiver (Robertson

&

Rob-

ertson, 1971).

Similarly,

the

view that there is a critical or a sensitive period in the development of

attachment is no longer argued (Bowlby, 1973). Rather, it

is

now well accepted that the entire

period of childhood and adolescence is important to parent-child attachment relationships.

FAMILY

COURT

REVIEW,

Vol.

40

No.

2,

April

2002 204-207

0

2002

Sage

Publications

204