Adapted from, “The Childhood Trauma Newsletter” by Beth Tyson, Childhood Trauma Consultant. June 17, 2025 edition.

It started with a shoe. It had Velcro instead of laces. Little kid size 10. And it zoomed past my head after a visit between a child and his mother in an under-resourced supervised visitation room.

He was 4 years old with curly hair. His words were few. But when his mother left after their hour together, he hurled the shoe at me with all the rage his little body could muster. Thanks to my cat-like reflexes, I was unharmed (in case you are wondering).

To the outside world, he looked “aggressive.” To some clinicians, maybe “oppositional.” But to me, because of what I’d learned through attachment theory, it was clear he was in protest. The kind of protest that only makes sense if you’ve had multiple people disappear on you again and again with no explanation.

That moment reminded me that attachment theory gave us a language to understand the complexity of human behavior. It taught us that behavior is never just behavior. Through the lens of attachment theory, his shoe wasn’t a weapon. It was a message. One hurled not at me personally, but at the valid, unbearable feelings of separation, confusion, and loss he didn’t have words for.

When a caregiver leaves, especially one who is inconsistently available or caught in a system that disrupts connection, young children don’t yet have the cognitive ability to make sense of it. What they do have is a nervous system wired for survival, and in that moment, his fight response showed up in the only way it knew how.

His protest wasn’t a conscious choice. It was a desperate attempt to say, “This hurts, and I don’t know what to do with the hurt.”

Attachment theory helps us see that, and reminds us that underneath what looks like aggression is often a longing to be seen, soothed, and safe.

A Theory That Changed Parenting Forever

Attachment theory, as shaped by Bowlby and Ainsworth, was revolutionary. It introduced the world to a profound insight: that consistent, responsive caregiving shapes not just behavior, but biology.

We now know that the developing brain is highly sensitive to patterns of interaction with primary caregivers in early life (Siegel, 2012), and secure attachment promotes resilience, emotional regulation, and mental well-being across the lifespan (Shonkoff et al., 2012). But, as with any framework, the way it’s used matters just as much as the theory itself.

“A securely attached child is free to concentrate on his play, to explore, and to initiate interaction with others because he is confident of the availability of his attachment figure should he need her.”
— Mary D. Ainsworth, Patterns of Attachment, 1978

When the Theory Is Misapplied

The visit ended. The shoe flew. And like many moments I’ve witnessed in family visitation rooms, what happened next was most important.

If another professional were sitting beside me, someone trained in traditional, behavior-first models, they might have written in the report:

“Child is aggressive following contact with mother.”
“Displays difficulty self-regulating after visits.”
“Suggest reassessing frequency of visitation.”
“No evidence of secure attachment observed.”

And just like that, a 4-year-old’s protest, an entirely developmentally appropriate reaction to relational rupture, might be framed as evidence that contact with his mother is harmful, that their relationship is broken beyond repair, or worse, that he’s destined for a disordered future.

When behavior is viewed through a narrow lens, we risk assigning false labels to children with trauma. For example:

- Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD)

- Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD)

- “Manipulative” or “attention-seeking”

These conclusions don’t just miss the mark, they could cause long-term damage. They can reinforce shame and push families further apart.

They also frame emotional survival as pathology, a practice currently too prevalent in our systems. While I recognize labels are often necessary to receive treatment, these labels also follow a child across schools, placements, or case plans, and can shape how every adult in their life responds to them.

What We Can Do Instead

Here are two research-backed, evolving strategies for therapists, parents, and anyone supporting children with trauma and loss:

1. Shift from Attachment Labels to Regulation Profiles

Rather than assigning global attachment categories (secure, avoidant, insecure, disorganized), consider how the child experiences and recovers from emotional dysregulation in relational settings.

We can ask:

- When the child is distressed, what helps them return to their window of tolerance? Do more of that.

- How do they respond to the availability or absence of their supportive adult? Various levels of distress in a child could be normative given their history with frequent loss of caregivers.

- What relational patterns of behavior support their feelings of safety (both physically and emotionally)? Increasing safety increases trust, which increases attachment.

This encourages a focus on relational capacity and stress recovery, which are far more useful for real-world support planning than static labels.

Contrary to early beliefs, attachment styles are not fixed traits. Emerging research shows that they can shift over time, especially when individuals experience consistent, emotionally attuned relationships with safe caregivers or partners, and engage in therapeutic work to process early relational wounds (Fraley & Roisman, 2019).

2. Prioritize Repair Frequency Over Responsiveness Alone

Classic attachment theory emphasized “sensitive responsiveness,” but that doesn’t tell the whole story, especially for families healing from trauma. Research by Dr. Ed Tronick and colleagues (1998) found that ruptures in caregiver-child attunement are inevitable, and that repair, not perfection, is what builds trust.

In homes where stress is high, trauma is present, and caregivers are stretched thin, the most hopeful and healing question we can ask is: “How often does this caregiver notice and repair a rupture in connection?”

Frequent, genuine repair helps children develop realistic expectations of relationships. The truth is, we ALL make mistakes with the children we love. The repair process is just as valuable. Be authentic, vulnerable, and put yourself in the child's shoes when repairing after angry words and harsh emotions are exchanged.

A Call for Gentle Evolution

That toddler and his shoe? He wasn’t trying to harm me. He was telling me a story. Our jobs as trauma-informed professionals and caregivers are to listen to the story beneath the behavior, not just check the boxes of a theory.

As a parent and trauma specialist, I frequently need to remind myself that relationships are the center of healing trauma, and a child's behavior rarely tells a complete story.

For more from Beth Tyson, please visit her website, https://bethtyson.com/

References

Fraley, R. C., & Roisman, G. I. (2019). The development of adult attachment styles: Four lessons. Current Opinion in Psychology, 25, 26–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.02.008
Siegel, D. J. (2012). The developing mind: How relationships and the brain interact to shape who we are (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
Shonkoff, J. P., et al. (2012). The lifelong effects of early childhood adversity and toxic stress. Pediatrics, 129(1), e232-e246.
Tronick, E., et al. (1998). The neurobehavioral and social-emotional development of infants and children. Harvard University Press.
Silberman, S. (2015). NeuroTribes: The legacy of autism and the future of neurodiversity. Avery.

The Power and Pitfalls of Attachment Theory for Children with Trauma