Jump to content

Talk:Attachment therapy/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

POV concerns

This article appears to be an essay. Consider the following sections:

  • An analysis of the actual theoretical basis of Attachment Therapy would be inappropriately lengthy )see mercer, 2003), but there are clear connections between AT and such psychoanalytic outliers as Fernczi, Groddeck, Rank, and Reich,all of whom emphasized the role of very early experience and considered physical interaction part of therapy.
  • In every case, the evidencepresented has failed to meet the criteria for evidence-based treatment (see Mercer, 2002). The most serious problem of these studies has involved the confounding of variables created by self-selection of treatment and comparison groups.
  • From the recently-deleted "Conclusions" section: Attachment Therapy, with the characteristics described above, are not appropriate otr effective mental health interventions for children. It should be noted that most conventional psychotherapies for children work with social relationships and with parent-child interactions and thus are effective techniques for dealing with problems of attachment where they exist.

All of this appears to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view and original research policies. WP:OR says this kind of writing is probably not acceptable: It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source... I'd suggest that someone who knows more about the subject clean it up to make it more balanced. Aplomado talk 22:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean that no article on Wikipedia can reject a dangerous or inappropriate practice-- that "pseudosymmetry" is a requirement?
As for sources, in this case, I, the author, am a reputable source, and I have cited my own work. I just didn't finish typing out all the references yet. Jean Mercer
Wikipedia can't "reject" anything. It's an encyclopedia, not a place to publish essays that draw conclusions. If there are people out there who say that this is a dangerous practice, then you can point that out and cite it using verifiable sources. However, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or essays. You can include information from public and verifiable work, but you cannot draw conclusions from them. Aplomado talk 00:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
This page should be completely deleted. It is written by a member of a fringe group, ACT whose leaders include mercer, sarner, and rosa. They are not interested in a NPVO. Alternative pages exist that address issues surrounding the diagnosis and treatment of children and teens, those with attachment issues, attachment disorder, and resarch in the area of attachment. DPeterson 00:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't ask whether Wiki could reject things-- I asked whether an article can do so, or whether the principle to follow is pseudosymmetry, the practice of appearing to present a balance of information when no such balance exists.I am a legitimate scholar and can provide a good deal of evidence to that effect, as i believe Mr. Peterson will see if he consults Google, which he should do before dismissing my comments. I would like to inquire of "Aplomado" why it is acceptable for an article to state that a practice has an evidentiary basis, but not acceptable for me to state that it does not? Surely both statements draw conclusions, although they don't stress that that's what they're doing. Jean Mercer

The problem with what you're doing is that you're saying Source A says this (which is acceptable), Source B says this (which is acceptable), so therefore I come to Conclusion C (not acceptable). If you have a source that can back up your conclusion in the same way you backed up your premises, then this would be acceptable. You can't cite yourself, I'm afraid, unless you have a published work to that effect.
Also, as DPeterson noted, "attachment therapy" has already been addressed at "Attachment disorder." Is there a reason why we need a seperate article? Aplomado talk 00:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
In Attachment therapy is already in existance. One final point, mercer is not a licensed mental health professioal nor a clinician, so while mercer may have some knowledge, mercer is not a professional therapist with experience in this area. DPeterson 01:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I have completed the reference list, as I said I would do when i had to stop yesterday. As you will see, where I cite myself, the material has been published, so the statements may be original to me, but they are not original to this article.

Now, Mr. Peterson, I must say that your arguments are not at all what I expected them to be. You say that there is already a discusssion of Attachment Therapy, but the only treatments discussed as far as I can see are Theraplay and DDP. You also take my comments on the connection between Bowlby's theory and Attachment Therapy and comment on them with respect to DDP. This would seem to indicate that you acknowledge DDP to be a form of Attachment Therapy as I've defined it in this article. If this is the case, I wonder whether you want to continue to defend these forms of treatment. If it is not the case, you will surely have to acknowledge that the topic of Attachment Therapy is not covered elsewhere in Wikipedia and that therefore there is a reason for this article.

Perhaps the best way to proceed here would be for you to state your definition of Attachment Therapy and to say whether you consider DDP to belong to the group of treatments as I have defined them here or as you define them yourself. That should help establish some rationale for inclusion or exclusion of the topic. Jean Mercer 13:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

This article has been largely taken over by Attachment Therapy proponents to whitewash their unvalidated practices. Please refer to the article on Quackwatch, the APSAC Task Force on Attachment Therapy, and childrenintherapy.org for accurate information. Particularly helpful are the latter's quotes pages where Attachment Therapists say more about how abusive AT is than any critic could. -- Health Consumer Advocate 8/31/06

The article is much improved now that a broad range of people have had an opportunity to edit and comment. I disagree with the previous comment. While the APSAC task force has many importnat things to say, it does not support the previous commentor's thesis. Quackwatch and Advocates for Children in Therapy are two closely related fringe groups that lack credibility, unlike APSAC. DPetersontalk 23:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

To correct an error in the comment by the previous editor, the APSAC Task force did not comment on "Attachment Therapy." The APSAC report does not describe "Attachment Therapy", it uses the term "attachment therapy" (no caps or quotation marks). They state, “The terms attachment disorder, attachment problems, and attachment therapy, although increasingly used, have no clear, specific, or consensus definitions. Pg 77 Furthermore, what seems to be focus of this proposed page only addresses a very narrow area, “Controversies have arisen about potentially harmful attachment therapy techniques used by a subset of attachment therapists.” Pg 76 Attachment therapy is better discussed in context, especially if the focus is on “a particular subset of attachment therapy techniques developed by a subset of attachment therapy practitioners” pg 77. The controversy is a narrow one and should be placed in context so that readers understand the full range of issues. “ The attachment therapy controversy has centered most broadly on the use of what is known as “holding therapy” (Welch, 1988) and coercive, restraining, or aversive procedures such as deep tissue massage, aversive tickling, punishments related to food and water intake, enforced eye contact, requiring children to submit totally to adult control over all their needs, barring children’s access to normal social relationships outside the primary parent or caretaker, encouraging children to regress to infant status, reparenting, attachment parenting, or techniques designed to provoke cathartic emotional discharge” pg 83. I hope this helps clarify the issues and clear up any misunderstanding or misconceptions. DPetersontalk 23:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Blanking the article

Isn't there a procedure for requesting the deletion of an article? Just blanking it, as "DPeterson" did, is an act of vandalism. (He has, I believe, committed other acts of vandalism, and has been warned.)

Yes, there is a need for a separate article. Attachment Therapy (note the proper name) is a separate phenomenon, especially in the United States. It is the subject of white papers and position statements by professional organizations. In addition to therapy, it encourages certain readily distinguishable child discipline (or parenting, or "teaching") techniques. It has been noticed by the media, prosecutors, and legislatures (including Congress).

Dr Mercer's original attempt at an article may indeed be more of an essay than an encyclopedic article, and consequently needs some work. I, and possibly others, would like to do that, but it should remain up for that purpose. I think the notices placed by Aplomado do more than enough to alert readers to the article's tentative editing state. We should be allowed to work on it.

I also want to protest the personal attacks here by DPeterson, who is possibly a sock puppet of Dr Becker-Weidman (they at least share the same IP address, 68.66.160.228). Attacking anyone's affiliations is specifically mentioned as a personal attack. Attacking anyone's right to comment or edit based on their alleged lack of clinical experience is diametrically opposed to Wiki philosophy. I (and separately, Dr Mercer) have had to put up with such boorishness elsewhere, but I'm going to have zero tolerance for it here, and will protest it immediately to Wiki administrators.

Larry Sarner 03:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

There already exits articles Attachment therapy Attachment disorder etc. This page is irrelevant and is being used as a forum for a fringe group, ACT, of which mercer and sarner are leaders. There was discussion and comment that this article was not Wikipedia appropriate. Larry Sarner continues to pursue personal attacks and is now taking his firght elsewhere since his attacks on the Bowlby page are not having the result he wants. His continued disrespect of Dr. Becker-Weidman and allegations that I am a "sock-puppet" when that has been shown to be false is clearly antagonistic and diametrically opposed to Wikipedia philosophy. It is a fact that neither Larry Sarner nor Mercer are clinicians, licensed mental health professionals, and have no clinical experience. DPeterson 04:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Shameful

Well, if the article survives, I suggest that the editors here obtain a copy of the full-text of the PubMed study I included, and simply refute any misinformation with the facts. This article reads like many of its nature: they include all kinds of medical references, which may have nothing to do with the price of beans in China, but make the topic appear to have medical respectability. The way to put out *accurate* information is to get the study, and quote it. Sandy 01:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Your additions are good. The reference is excellent...improves the article. DPeterson 21:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Clean Up

Most of what was on this page is on other pages. The Also See links can bring readers to those related pages. Also tried to make this article more appropriately neutral in its point of view. DPeterson 20:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I reverted your edits because all you did was axe 90% of the article. It would be far more beneficial if you instead added balance to the article by, perhaps, adding a criticism section that cites verifiable sources since this seems to be a controversial subject. Just chopping out large chunks of text you don't like doesn't really help the situation and is probably just going to provoke an edit war. Aplomado talk 00:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I have added material and tried to present additional information to present a NPOV on this very controversail topic. I believe the notices remain relevant as there is still dispute about this article (see the page comments on whether or not not to maintain the page. Since no consensus was reached on that, the page remains in dispute, therefore the notices are relevant, I think). In fact, most of the comments were against this being a separate page. DPeterson 02:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The APSAC report does not describe "Attachment Therapy", it uses the term "attachment therapy" (no caps). They state, “The terms attachment disorder, attachment problems, and attachment therapy, although increasingly used, have no clear, specific, or consensus definitions. Pg 77 Furthermore, what seems to be focus of this proposed page only addresses a very narrow area, “Controversies have arisen about potentially harmful attachment therapy techniques used by a subset of attachment therapists.” Pg 76 Attachment therapy is better discussed in context, especially if the focus is on “a particular subset of attachment therapy techniques developed by a subset of attachment therapy practitioners” pg 77. In which case, the material would belong on the existing pages, attachment therapy or Attachment therapy, which redirect the reader to Attachment disorder. The controversy is a narrow one and should be placed in context so that readers understand the full range of issues. “ The attachment therapy controversy has centered most broadly on the use of what is known as “holding therapy” (Welch, 1988) and coercive, restraining, or aversive procedures such as deep tissue massage, aversive tickling, punishments related to food and water intake, enforced eye contact, requiring children to submit totally to adult control over all their needs, barring children’s access to normal social relationships outside the primary parent or caretaker, encouraging children to regress to infant status, reparenting, attachment parenting, or techniques designed to provoke cathartic emotional discharge” pg 83.

To include the full range of issues on this proposed page would then have to duplicate material on the previously cited Wikipedia articles or duplicate the APSAC report. A better solution would be to include a reference and brief description of the controversy on the previously mentioned page with a link to the APSAC report for details 'DPeterson 02:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)'

OK, I'll leave the tags up. As for the capitalization, I tried to move it to "attachment therapy", but that has already been made into a redirect page. I may at some point in the future nominate that redirect for deletion so this page can be moved there. That way we can preserve the article history.
I honestly don't see your point on "duplicate material." I have found very little of the information in this article, if any, in the articles mentioned. If I'm missing something, feel free to point it out. However, I'd advise not turning this article into a redirect unless a consensus for deletion is reached, which we haven't accomplished yet. Aplomado talk 00:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed the original research tag. I put it up there originally because the author drew conclusions that were not cited, but the offending statements have since been removed so I don't think it applies anymore. I've left up the NPOV tag out of respect to the editors who still have a problem with the article, and I've left the wikify tag because the article could use some editing. Aplomado talk 00:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I see--- Attachment Therapy, capital A, capital T, is something that doesn't exist any more? But it must have at one time; Hughes said so (and so did Cline, Hage, Levy, Keith Reber, etc.). So I assume there will be no problem about a historical overview of these practices, which is certainly not included in any other topic? And I also assume that everyone contributing here objects to those old adjuvant practices such as withholding food or forcing food or water consumption? Or is there a POV problem, so that you'd all like to see discussion of the bright side of child starvation? (I know at least one of you has read Nancy Thomas, because he used to have a link to her material on his web site.) Jean Mercer 21:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Mercer, your snide comments are not relevant or helpful to this discussion. Your position as a spokesperson and leader of what some might call a fringe group, ACT, Advocates For Children in Therapy, may lead you to want to tar everyone who practices what your group considers evil...but the fact is that there is no "Attachment Therapy" as a field in the CPT code book or DSM or related texts. The literature I read discusses it as "attachment therapy." Additionally, to use past and old material to "discredit" is not professional. If you feel it is ok to do that, than I suppose you might feel it would be ok to continue to raise the fact that a cancer surgeon did "radicals" as a matter of course in treating breast-cancer (ten years ago, even though that is no longer part of the practice)? You do recognize that practice and practices change, don't you? Historical reviews, when relevant, are appropriate. When used for other purposes, it is not relevant...unless the author has some specific agenda; but that is not the purpose of an encyclopedia article; to argue points from a soapbox. RalphLender 21:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to tell us when Attachment Therapy ended? Or will you say it never existed because there was no code for it? If we could revert to my statement that this was/is a CAM practice, not in the mainstream, perhaps the intention of my original statements will be made clearer. Every edit and statement made here by certain users makes it appear more likely that they have something to gain by preventing the public from hearing any criticisms of physically intrusive treatments. A number of usernames have associated themselves with the view that there is no AT, maybe even that there never was, and therefore there's no need to discuss it-- what admirable motives could be associated with these actions? This obfuscation will certainly not bring dead children back to life, and it does make it more likely that there will be more deaths and injuries in the future. Why do it? Can you explain it either to me or to yourselves?Jean Mercer 12:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As a spokesperson and leader of the "fringe group" (meaning a group not recognized by such professional groups as APA, AMA, NASW, etc) you make their points very clearly. Put into a section marked "criticism" and with a "NPOV of this section is disputed" it might be appropriate; at least I would not object, unless an administrator felt it inappropriate. SamDavidson 13:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Others Comments

I would be interested in other contributor's and editor's comments about this topic. "Attachment therapy" is a broad name for a difuse range of interventions about which there is little agreement regading definition. For example, the AMA's CPT code book has nothing for this. In addtion, I know of no insurance company that covers "attachment therapy," primarily because it is not a "recognized" form of treatment in the same way that family therapy, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, EMDR, and other forms of treatment are (having a recognized body of literature and practice). DPeterson 02:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with you that the page may be redundant...it is now a fact of life and so I suggest focusing instead on helping make contributions so that the article is balanced, fair, and has a neurtal point of view. I have taken a step in that direction by explicitly making a distinction between "attachment therapy" as a coercive practice and more generally accepted methods. JohnsonRon 16:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Balnced and fair-- yes, please. Will someone kindly add some material that supports the use of physical intrusiveness and denial of ordinary physical needs? That would be most interesting. As for insurance company coverage, generally the billing states a diagnostic category such as 313.89, which is said to be treated-- in psychotherapy without medication, there would usually be no statement of the specifics of the treatment. The insurance covers treatment of reactive attachment disorder, not a specific intervention. Jean Mercer 21:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC) 'Not correct.' If you were a licensed mental health provider you'd be aware that you must state put a procedure code, such as "family therapy" on the form. In addition, the regular periodic reviews for quality and utilization purposes require detailed explainations of the specifics of the treatment and modality being used. Insurance benefits may cover the diagnosis of Reactive Attachment Disorder, or not, and will also only cover certain specific treatments and modalities. RalphLender 21:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The treatment code is extremely general, as you know. "Family therapy", for example, could cover anything from Minuchin to Martha Welch. But this is of course a red herring, aimed at evading the question about a fair and balanced presentation of abusive practices.Jean Mercer 12:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You have not addressed the specific point about periodic reviews for qualitya nd utilization purposes. Please address that issue. RalphLender

Copyediting and NPOV

I made these edits today. Most were just some copyediting, but I removed a few statements that were showing the problems of their original author. For example:

  • "The term (attachment therapy) would not be applicable to generally accepted and main-stream approaches to the treatment of children and adolescents and disorders of attachment. These accepted approaches used tested techniques which are not only congruent with attachment theory, but with other established principles of child development. In addition, nearly all mainstream approaches for the prevention and treatment of disorders of attachment disorder use attachment theory."
This is original research. It's acceptable to say "such and such says this is not an accepted approach to treating people with attachment disorder" and cite the appropriate source, but simply declaring it isn't acceptable.
  • "As in any profession, individuals may practice outside the scope of their training and provide "treatment" that is not ethical. Medical malpractice is a problem in all disciplines and across many domanins of practice."
The basic implication here is that an ethical cloud hangs over attachment therapy, so it is ripe for abuse. That's a judgment call and it also requires a "such and such said this" and a source.

--Aplomado talk 00:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

However, Aplomado, it's an excellent judgment call. I don't know whether you are aware of the deaths and injuries that have resulted from the types of treatments I attempted to describe here under the term Attachment Therapy (which I used because the APSAC task force started a new practice of using attachment therapy, lc,lc, in a more general way.) There is a serious need for the public to know that these treatments have existed in the very recent past, and that they should be avoided in spite of seductive Internet advertising. Jean Mercer 21:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC) Inserting your comments 'out of order is very disruptive' to the flow of discussion. In the future, please add your comments at the 'end of a section or create a new section.' If you don't mind I may move your comments to the appropriate point. You may respond either here or on my talk page. A final point, advertising your group's views and agenda (Advocates for Children in Therapy) has a place, but perhaps not on this page or in Wikipedia articles. It is best done, as you have done, on your webpage. Please consider that as you make comments and suggestions DPeterson 00:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Added citation and other material. The approaches listed as main stream all cite attachment theory as the basis for their work and congruence with many principles of child development that are generally accepted in the profession. What do you, Aplomado, think...OK?DPeterson 00:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It's better, but I still have a couple problems with it.

  • "Attachment therapy" is not a mainstream approach to treating children experiencing attachment disoder. The term is not applicable to generally accepted approaches to the treatment of children and adolescents with disorders of attachment. Treatment and prevention programs that use methods congruent with attachment theory and with well established principles of child development include: (etc.)
Saying things like "not applicable to generally accepted approaches" and "well established principles" really need a citation from a reputable organization or people are going to read over it and ask themselves "says who?"
  • "Attachment therapy" treatments may be accompanied by parenting interventions that are coercive, painful or shaming.
Is there some way you can quote from some source on attachment therapy that the interventions are indeed "coercive, painful or shaming"? I see a book cite, but I don't have the book on hand so I can't verify it. Perhaps I'm too reliant on internet sources. Is there an excerpt from the book that you could include that would explain this attitude?

--Aplomado talk 01:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

APSAC report would support the idea that "attachment therapy" is not mainstream or accepted generally, as would the Amer Assoc of Child and Adol Psychiatry's report.
The treatment methods listed, such as Floor time, etc are the sources for the statement that they are congruent with attachment theory and child development principles.
There are no "attachment therapy" sources as there is no such discipline. The APSAC report talks about not using such interventions and parenting methods...The problem is that there is no such discipline as "attachment therapy" or "holding therapy" and so there really are not sources as there are for Cognitive Behavioral Therapy or Floor Time or Circle of Security or even Family Therapy. DPeterson 02:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Added a few citation...better???DPeterson 02:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I think that'll be fine for now. I really would like more editors to weigh in though at some point. Aplomado talk 02:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I just hope that when others contribute it is not the same group that created the problems on the Bowlby page as this topic is another area of interest to that group. DPeterson 12:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Good points. I added some additional references. RalphLender 14:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe one problem here is the distinction between "attachment therapy" and "Attachment Therapy." Certainly most child psychotherapies today are relationship-focused, and therefore may be called "attachment therapies" for short. "Attachment Therapy" (capital A, capital T) is a term that has been used specifically for the practices I described in my draft of this page. Whereas other topics deal with the lc-lc attachment therapies, I don't see any that address the capital A, capital T group. I can't imagine that the other users in this discussion are claiming that the therapies they discuss elsewhere employ coercion and "rage reduction" and that therefore those treatments are covered elsewhere. If they are claiming this, perhaps they'd like to add material to this draft, supporting the use of holding and similar practices.

Would a change of vocabulary cover the objections that are being raised? Suppose the topic were changed to Coercive Restraint Therapies, with Attachment Therapy listed as one of the possible names? I suggest this although there is in fact a "discipline" called Attachment Therapy, with an extensive literature published primarily by small printer-ready publishing houses. It would be a simple matter to add a considerable list of references of that type.

I believe it is a mistake to simply deny the existence of these practices. The state of Georgia, for instance, is offering training to social workers that includes the Attachment Therapy belief system. The useof coercive approaches with children appears to be growing, rather than shrinking, and I believe that professionals-- and Wikipedia itself-- have some obligations to contribute to accurate public knowledge in this area. Jean Mercer 14:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be more beneficial to note how ambiguous the term "attachment therapy" is and note what falls under that umbrella. Aplomado talk 19:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Describing how ambiguous is the term and how it is not one used generally to characterize an approach would be helpful for readers. What falls under that umbrella, then, would be unclear and stated as such, would provide a NPOV on the issue. RalphLender 20:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
APSAC report uses attachment therapy...there is 'no recognized term "Attachment Therapy"' (See CPT book or DSM IV or Bergin's text on Psychotherapy Outcome Research.) AT may be a term you and ACT uses, but it has no meaning in the mainstream professional literature.

"Coercive Restrain Therapies" is a term mercer coined, which, again, has no meaning in the professional literature and is not used among licensed mental health professionals. If you make statements you must support them...what is the basis for stating that the use of coercive treatments is growing? Other than what is stated on the Advocates for Children in Therapy page?RalphLender 14:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That is true. The term "coercive restraing therapy" is not a term found in the literature on treatment, nor is it in the Bergin book. Dr. Arthur Becker-Weidman 18:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Strange that you say that about AT, because Daniel Hughes used that term to refer to Foster Cline's methods in his 1998 book, where he spoke of those methods as acceptable if other things didn't work. The constant alteration of terms and definitions made me and others propose CRT as descriptive of the intervention, but AT is fine-- that's why I originally used it. I want this matter to be talked about because I believe the practice is harmful and undesirable. Perhaps you could explain why you don't want this message to be conveyed to the public? Or, if it's simply a matter of language, name a term that you can deal with, that covers the interventions I described in this little article. Jean Mercer 15:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It is vital to maintain a 'NPOV' and that articles not become soapboxes for fringe groups or as venues for individuals to act as spokespersons for a particular group's point of view. Dr. Hughes recent publications provide a quite different presentation of material than his 1997 book. In addition, I don't believe the 1997 book, Facilitating Developmental Attachment describes Dyadic Developmental Psychotheray...I don't believe the name for the approach was coined till later. (Hughes, D., (2003). Psychotherapeutic interventions for the spectrum of attachment disorders and intrafamilial trauma. Attachment and Human Development 5-3, 271-279.) for a description of Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy. RalphLender 16:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Hughes also has an article in the 2004 issue of Attachment and Human Development. I'll look up that citation. Hughes, D. (2004). An attachment-based treatment of maltreated children and young people. Attachment & Human Development, 3, 263–278. 'Dr. Arthur Becker-Weidman 18:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)'
That is more current. Practice and therapeutic approaches do change over time as new research and practice wisdom accumulates. RalphLender 18:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Very good points. Current references are more useful than old ones. Practices do change and that must be recognized in any discussion. DPeterson 01:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

"Attachment Therapy" vs. "attachment therapy"

I must say that the distinction between "Attachment Therapy" and "attachment therapy" has me a bit confused. I found an explanation of "attachment therapy" by Arthur Becker-Weidman here: http://www.attachmentdisorder.net/Dr._Art_Treatment.htm. Among other things he says:

"Attachment therapy is the only form of treatment that is effective with trauma-attachment disordered children. It is the only "evidence-based" treatment, meaning that there has been research published in peer-reviewed journals. Attachment therapy is primarily an experiential-based treatment, designed to facilitate experiences of safety and security so that a secure attachment may grow."—The preceding unsigned comment was added by IPaddress (talk • contribs)..

Is "attachment therapy" something that Becker-Weidman still practices? Or is this an outdated page? How does the "attachment therapy" described by Becker-Weidman differ from "Attachment Therapy"? There does appear to be something called "Attachment Therapy," as this person claims to have studied it: http://www.dianefeinberg.com/; and these people claim to offer an "Intensive Attachment Therapy Program": http://www.attachmenttherapy.com/. At the same time, a U.S. Senate Resolution, while specifically critizing "rebirthing," also notes that several children have died from other forms of "attachment therapy": http://salazar.senate.gov/images/pdf/051018%20Rebirthing%20Resolution%20Res%20276.pdf (see the third "whereas" clause on page 2 of the document.)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by IPaddress (talk • contribs)..

I'm very confused. Could someone please enlighten me on this issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.233.237 (talk • contribs) -- Unsigned comments are not helpful for this disucssion. This person appears to have a somewhat suspect history. In fact most of this person's comments regard mercer and so could be that person or related in some way. This contributor may just be a sock-puppet for ACT, or not, but in any event this is suspect as it mirrors language by ACT and by the leaders of ACT.

The previous discussion elaborates that "Attachment Therapy is not a used term. "Attachment therapy is what the APSAC report refers to. Your quote of the article by Dr. Becker-Weidman is on a site and appears to be many years old, so its currency and value is unclear at this time. Probably a better references are his current articles and the book he co-edited, if you are wanted to cite his current thinking and practice. DPeterson 01:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, the comments are provocative and appear to be a soapbox harrangue. I suggest that such inflamatory comments be edited by an administrator. DPeterson 02:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not taking sides here. I just want to better understand this discussion. I am certainly not implying that Becker-Weidman's statements on the cited page are still his view. In fact, I specifically asked whether the page is "outdated."—Preceding unsigned comment added by IPaddress (talk • contribs) .
Ah, well it is outdated. Contact the site owner and this will be confirmed DPeterson 02:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
On what basis do you say that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.233.237 (talk • contribs)

So, your remaining hidden does raise the spectre of your merely being a sock-puppet and spokesperson for mercer (or relative of mercer?), ACT, and other leaders of ACT; We just don't know. This practice of continually making accusations and going on and on with the same accusation is quite similiar to the tactic of other leaders of ACT on Wiki pages. DPeterson 02:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As for remaining anonymous, due to the personal attacks that have been made as part of these topics, I'd rather stay that way.—Preceding unsigned comment added by IPaddress (talk • contribs) .
Anyway, if someone could clarify these issues it would be greatly appreciated. Clearly, if the U.S. Senate refers to people dying in "attachment therapy," it is a matter to be discussed. The current discussion seemed to a bit unfocused, and I was hoping that by raising these issues I could get some real dialogue going. The question is, what, precisely, are "attachment therapy" and "Attachment Therapy" as these terms have been used on the pages I linked to above? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.233.237 (talk • contribs)
Not U.S. Senate, but a private bill.
No, it's a resolution that was passed by the U.S. Senate: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SE00276:@@@L&summ2=m& (as noted at the link, "Passed Senate, without amendment") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.233.237 (talk • contribs)
I stand corrected. It refers to "rebirthing" which is a practice that no one accepts and which has no validity.DPeterson 02:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but it also says: "Whereas between 1995 and 2005, at least 4 other children in the United States have died from other forms of attachment therapy;" Look, I don't mean to imply in any way that Becker-Weidman is harming children. I have no reason to think that he is, and I don't think he is. My question is just a request for clarification. What was it Becker-Weidman was talking about versus what the U.S. Senate is talking about? If it were me, and I had written a past article saying I use "attachment therapy", and the Senate later makes these statements, I would try to clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.233.237 (talk • contribs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by IPaddress (talk • contribs) .

You are now misrepresenting the facts. The senate resolution speaks to "rebirthing." Show me anyting in Dr. Becker-Weidman's article or materials that promotes "rebirthing." I am sure you cannot. Your comments sound strikingly like those of sarner or other leaders of ACT. Using this forum as a soapbox is counter to the intention of Wikipedia and I encourage you to not use this as a platform to promote a provocative or fringe POV as that is not in the spirit of consensus building, which is a corner stone or Wikipedia. DPeterson 02:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know, the focus of the resolution is on "rebirthing." But it also says "Whereas between 1995 and 2005, at least 4 other children in the United States have died from other forms of attachment therapy;" What do they mean by "other forms of attachment therapy"? I don't know. I was just hoping someone could enlighten me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by IPaddress (talk • contribs) .
Just to be clear, I am not saying or implying that Becker-Weidman does anything that the Senate was referring to. I'm just trying to figure out what both are referring to when they use the term "attachment therapy." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.233.237 (talk • contribs)

So, your remaining hidden does raise the spectre of your merely being a sock-puppet and spokesperson for mercer (or relative of mercer?), ACT, and other leaders of ACT; We just don't know. DPeterson 02:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's avoid making accusations of sock-puppetry. Assume good faith.
To IP Address 69.170.233.237, you need to sign your comments by putting ~~~~ at the end of your comments regardless. It's a requirement for talk pages. Aplomado talk 03:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, sorry. I had seen other comments where people did not sign, so I didn't realize it was a rule. Anyway, I really would like some clarification here, so if anyone has thoughts they would be welcome. 69.170.233.237 03:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Unless I am mistaken, I don't see anything inflammatory in the user's comments, and frankly I don't understand the implications of the terms myself. The article needs better writing to help the article make sense to a reader who is unfamiliar with the term. Aplomado talk 03:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that seems to be the point. The terms have no generally accepted meaning and are not descriptive of a professionally recognized approach as, as family therapy or Cognitive Behavioral Therapy are. As mentioned somewhere, in the "bible" of Psychotherapy outcome research, Bergin & Garfield's text, there is no mention of the term "Attachment Therapy." RalphLender 14:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It was pretty clear what was being discussed until someone edited it to make it ambiguous, presumably with the goal of supporting deletion of the whole topic. Jean Mercer 12:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't let that discourage you from continuing to edit. If you think those previous edits would clear things up, I would like to see them. Just make you cite verifiable sources and avoid original research. Aplomado talk 15:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Appropriate References

I see that the reference by Jean Mercer was deleted. Self-promotion is not allowed in encyclopedia articles. I agree with this deletion. SamDavidson 13:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

While I see your point that the reference appears to be self-promotion, I disagree with deleting the reference. I think it is fine if Dr. Jean Mercer puts it in. Dr. Mercer is certainly clever enough to be able to create material in the article for which her book is an appropriate citation. Whether or not that is still self-promoting, I'll leave to an administrator to decide. While the text is more of a polemic or broad-side by the leaders or spokespersons of ACT (Mercer, Sarner and Sarner's spouse, Rosa) presenting their positions and views, it is still a published reference in the public domain. So, if Dr. Mercer wants to put the reference back, I have no objection. Dr. Arthur Becker-Weidman 14:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Referencing the article with one's own material is very likely a conflict of interests. See: Wikipedia:External links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, where it says, "A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link." Although this rule specifically pertains to external links, I think the spirit of the law applies here.
References also have to meet certain criteria. See: Wikipedia:No_original_research#Reputable_publications and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources. Aplomado talk 15:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with that. I beleive a reference, such as was deleted by SamDavidson, represents just such a conflict and should be avoided. RalphLender 17:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Good points. MarkWood 20:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise JPotter 21:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, that would not apply here since mercer is not a licensed mental health professional nor has mercer done any clinical practice or research in this area. But, be that as it may, can you point me to the exception for that in the Wikipedia policies, such as those Aplomado cited? Thanks. DPeterson 22:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Sure. It's in the second paragraph of Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources JPotter 16:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. That reinforces the opinion of the majority of those who have posted here that the mercer citation would not re appropriate and would violate the exception when there is a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise. Mercer is not a licensed mental health professional and the text is more of a polemic for an advocacy group. RalphLender 19:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This is certainly an interesting approach. By the line of reasoning above, in which one can't cite one's own work, it would appear that only people who have done no work in a field can write for Wikipedia-- if they identify themselves. Those who refuse to identify themselves can of course cite themselves freely. Perhaps I should have imitated Jane Austen and signed "A Lady".

For those who are interested in my expertise, I have provided a link to my c.v. below (in a later part of this discussion). I leave it to you to judge.

In any case, all these issues are simply red herrings to conceal the fact that DPeterson & Co. want to prevent the public from having information about holding therapy,Dyadic Synchronous Bonding, Prolonged Parent-Child Embrace, or any of the flock of names I've categorized as Attachment Therapy, following Foster Cline, and, of course, Daniel Hughes.Jean Mercer 12:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Please keep your comments 'neutral' and try to 'avoid personal attacks.' This is not helpful to building conensus. A review of your CV shows you are not 'a licensed mental healh provider' and do not have expertise in the fields of child therapy or expereince in treatment or as a researcher doing research on treatment efficacy or related subjects. As such you do not fit the defination of an expert. For example, you would not be allowed to testify in those areas as your testimony would not meet the "Daubert" test. The book is really a publication by the leaders of ACT (Rosa being the Executive Director, Sarner being her husband, and you being a leader of the group). RalphLender 19:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth,Daubert applies only to systematic empirical research, not to a narrative discussing a case and its background. And testimony does not meet Daubert standards-- it's the evidence on which the testimony is based that has to meet them. And of course, your statements about my background are perfectly accurate, as anyone can see who looks at my c.v. However, people can look at my c.v.; your background and identity remain, shall we say in our clinical way, confidential. Jean Mercer 14:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you RalphLender. It is vital that comments aim to build consensus and avoid personal attacks...so a neutral point of view is more productive. Since mercer's expertise is not in this area, it would be good to continue to collect material from those who are not affilitated with ACT and who have a clinical background. If it is not true that mercer is a leader of ACT, then she should say so. In a related matter, postings and references that are promote ones book and activities in which one has a financial interest (as mercer has regarding the book and related activities) is not consistent with Wiki policy. SamDavidson 16:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

"Attachment Therapy" vs. "attachment therapy" - One more try

My first attempt at a clarification failed miserably, so I'm going to try one more time with a slightly altered version of my question. There does appear to be something called "Attachment Therapy," as this person claims to have studied it: http://www.dianefeinberg.com/; and these people claim to offer an "Intensive Attachment Therapy Program": http://www.attachmenttherapy.com/. At the same time, a U.S. Senate Resolution, while specifically critizing "rebirthing," also notes that several children have died from "other forms of attachment therapy": http://salazar.senate.gov/images/pdf/051018%20Rebirthing%20Resolution%20Res%20276.pdf (see the third "whereas" clause on page 2 of the document.) 69.170.233.237 21:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Could anyone offer some thoughts on what the "attachment therapy" and "Attachment Therapy" referred to in these documents are? 69.170.233.237 21:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

"Attachment therapy" also sometimes called "holding therapy" is an 'ambiguous' term which is sometimes used to describe a form of treatment for behavioral difficulties in children suffering from attachment disorder. However, because 'the term has no common meaning', its actual definition is unclear. As such, it has 'little commonly agreed upong meaning' in the professional literature. For example, it is not a term found in the Amereican Medial Association's Physician's Current Procedural Manual. A number of advocacy groups, such as Advocates For Children in Therapy have undertaken to label nearly all treatments for children with disorders of attachment as "attachment therapy" and attempt to discredit those therapies. Some components of "attachment therapy" have been disapproved by a task force of the American Professional Society on Abuse of children (APSAC). (Chaffin et al.,2006, PMID 16382093). Specifically, the task force addressed coercive methods and practices as inappropriate for treatment. So, who knows what those documents mean by this ill-defined and ambiguous term. DPeterson 21:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Citation Needed

I don't have a citation for the reference, but maybe someone else can provide that. Otherwise, maybe just a link to the other page may suffice. Perhaps Mercer (IP 69.170.233.237) could provide one, or other contributors. DPeterson 23:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, I am not Mercer. 69.170.233.237 23:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I assumed that since you are in FL and mercer is in FL.
Those geographic IP traces are not always as accurate as they purport to be. I have seen a number of instances where the IP my ISP assigns shows up as a very different location than where I actually am. Anyway, just to repeat, I am not Mercer. 69.170.233.237 00:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, but you are her son. You go by the previous name or mercer, Lester, and proport to be a graduate of Harvard Law. DPeterson 00:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
You are certainly free to speculate all you want, but given what I've seen on these pages in terms of personal attacks in the past, I'm not going to identify myself. 69.170.233.237 00:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, whoever that is who's writing, I'm not in Florida. I'm in New Jersey, where I live and work. I sign my name (although occasionally I seem to have flubbed my sign-in), I'm not afraid to have people identify me-- and if you'd all like to examine my c.v. it's at http://www.jeanmercer.org/jeanmercercv.pdf. You are in NY and your son is in FL. RalphLender 19:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sir, do you think I don't know where I live? Jean Mercer 14:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

So what RalphLender reports is correct regarding you and your son. ok, whatever that implies.SamDavidson 15:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
RalphLender said "NY" -- she said "New Jersey". Not quite the same thing. 74.225.124.98 16:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

User 74.225...may be mercer's son (Miami Fla again) and she lives in NJ. OK, good to know.DPeterson 17:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I think the word you want is "purport", DPeterson.Jean Mercer 12:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Care to comment on your son? You certainly don't dispute that you, mercer live in NJ and your son lives in FL, do you?DPeterson 01:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


Let's leave the material up there for a few days and see what develops. If a citation can be provided that might help. What do other editors think?DPeterson 00:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Pro:

Con:

No Opinion:

DPeterson 00:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe this issue is settled. Citations have been provided to support the material. RalphLender 19:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

A Proposal

I wonder if the following might be helpful for this topic. First, a page on the "History and Origins" of attachment therapy. Questions such as these could be answered: Who coined the term? What did it mean to that person? What was involved in the practice of attachment therapy at this time? Second, a page on the "Subsequent Development" of attachment therapy, focusing on these questions: How did attachment therapy develop over time? What kinds of practices were involved? At what point did harmful practices such as "rebirthing" enter into it? Who were some of the groups performing it? What does the term mean to those who still practice it now? 69.170.233.237 23:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you write something and post it here and then editors can comment on the value of what you prepare. DPeterson 00:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I am completely unqualified to do anything like that, unfortunately. I was proposing it in the hopes that someone with some expertise in this area might do it. 69.170.233.237 00:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Good point, since you are completely unqualified in this area, your off point suggestions and points now are understandable. "Attachment therapy" also sometimes called "holding therapy" is an 'ambiguous' term which is sometimes used to describe a form of treatment for behavioral difficulties in children suffering from attachment disorder. However, because 'the term has no common meaning', its actual definition is unclear. As such, it has 'little commonly agreed upong meaning' in the professional literature. For example, it is not a term found in the Amereican Medial Association's Physician's Current Procedural Manual. A number of advocacy groups, such as Advocates For Children in Therapy have undertaken to label nearly all treatments for children with disorders of attachment as "attachment therapy" and attempt to discredit those therapies. Some components of "attachment therapy" have been disapproved by a task force of the American Professional Society on Abuse of children (APSAC). (Chaffin et al.,2006, PMID 16382093). Specifically, the task force addressed coercive methods and practices as inappropriate for treatment. So, a history and origin section would have no scope and there would be no basis for that. Your questions presume that "attachment therapy" is an organized field as is Cognitive Behavioral Thearpy or, even, EMDR. If it were, your suggestions would be good ones and possible. Given the amorphous and uncertain nature of the terms involved, it is not really possible for this vague subject. DPeterson 00:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, DPeterson doesn't like the idea, but if anyone else would like to take it up, I really think it would be valuable here. 69.170.233.237 00:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

'Pro:'I have asked for assistance from WikiProject Medicine on this topic and on Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, where the nature of evidence-based treatment is an issue. I would like to hold off on any decisions or editing until someone from that group becomes involved.Jean Mercer 12:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

1.

'Con:'

'1' See my points above on why it may not be possible to answer those questions. The subject areas is ill defined, with no clear meaning to the terms and therefore no agreement. May be difficult or impossible to create material with a 'NPOV' DPeterson 01:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

'2' I have agree with the reasoning of DPeterson on this. The term is very vague and has no common body of knowledge or clear defination as a treatment modality in the same way that family therapy does or play therapy, for example.

'No Opinion:'

1. DPeterson 00:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added some references to work that specifies a set of treaments by using the terms "attachment therapy" in quotation marks or Attachment Therapy with caps. I tried to remove the quotation marks that did not refer to this type of treatment. Much more editing is needed-- the references to Lieberman and so on are really irrelevant -- but the advice of the WikiProject Medicine people should be useful. I would appreciate it if people would not delete the references to my work, which followed other authors in the use of the terms. I have not deleted the previously added references, but someone should.Perhaps in writing this there should be some thought given to the potential reader who would be very confused as things stand.Jean Mercer 20:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Self-serving references cannot be included are are not a NPOV. Citing your own book, which is a merely a bit of broadside and polemic for the fringe group, Advocates for Children in Therapy, of which you are a leader is not NPOV and represents a conflict of interest as well as a financial conflict since you and your group get support form those publications. You have already been warned once about this.

The references to Lieberman are quite relevant to make a clear distinction between an ill-defined vague "approach" and other approaches that are clearly defined and unrelated. Your material could lead a naive reader to think that Lieberman and other's are using coercive and unacceptable methods since "attachment therapy" and therapy using attachment principles or based in attachment theory are so similiar. RalphLender 23:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is true. Again, it is a conflict to be promoting a book in which you and your colleagues have a financial interest, as well as your gorup, Advocates for Children in Therapy. SamDavidson 16:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, what it is to be rich! Rich on the royalties from an obscure book put out by a poor but respectable publishing house! You all must wish you were rolling in wealth the way we are, but you don't get that kind of money from The Old Oaken Bucket Publishing Company.... You know, in early childhood circles, your line of argument is known as "I'm rubber, you're glue...". I can only gather that you folks are determined to use any foolishness to make sure that the public has as little access as possible to the facts about physically intrusive treatments. Are you prepared to do the same thing with respect to denying "age regression" techniques? If so, perhaps a little alteration of some web sites would be in order. Jean Mercer 17:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Please respond to the 'salient' issue. Wikipedia 'disallows your promoting your book' since you have a financial interest in it and are directly connected with ACT (Advocates for Children in Therapy)(as a leader of that advocacy group) and there is also a financial interest there. The fact that so few people have considered the text worthy of purchase that you are not getting "rick on the royalties from an obscure book," is beside the point. DPeterson 19:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I already responded elsewhere, as well as earlier on this page. Citing is not promoting-- if it were, I would never have cited Monica Krenner or Terry Levy, or Becker-Weidman for that matter. And I have disclosed my entire puny commercial interest. Your turn!
Why do I keep up this annoying interaction? You must wonder. Well, it's that periodically I receive e-mails from people who are concerned about specific children who have been in Attachment Therapy (I believe you're familiar with the term)and who need guidance about what to do next. I also get messages from therapists who are trying to help families who have been caught up in AT-- I'm talking to one who's working with children in Massachusetts who had received periodic "intensive" visits from a fellow who lives in Evergreen, until the parents caught on that this was not a good idea. There's another noncustodial mother whose child lives in upstate New York with a stepmother who's into AT, which the mother didn't know enough about to prevent at the beginning. My goal is to try to prevent other people from having to make uninformed decisions. If they have the information and still want to have someone help abuse their children, there's not much I can do about it.
Not being a licensed mental health professional or an expert in this topic I wonder about your ability to adequately advise such individuals and why they would contact you in the first place. If you are practicing outside the scope of your licensure that might be a problem and you should be very cautious. Citing anon stories is interesting, but the veracity of what your stories is in question without sources and, frankly, is not relevant to this discussion. DPeterson 01:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
It will be interesting when I write an article about what's been said here. This I can do with impunity, because of course I have no idea who you are, so I can't name you-- and my name is already known, so there's no problem about naming myself.Jean Mercer0:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I do note that many of your "publications" are '"self-promotional"' letters and notes in "publications" in which you are in a deciion making role and largely are a function of your role as a leader of ACT. DPeterson 01:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, you are off point. You self-promotion is against Wiki policy. You should respond to the salient issue
You are promoting your book which you have a financial interest in and with your fring advocacy group, ACT, has a financial interest in. This is just not acceptable. Please respond to the point and side issues or red-herrings. Responding to the salient issue would do much to achieving some resolution of this problem. DPeterson 01
11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Attachment therapy/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →

Last edited at 19:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 20:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Attachment_therapy/Archive_1&oldid=1084063206"