Attachment: A South African Case Example

Attachment: A South African Case Example

Being South African, based in South Africa, and being relatively familiar with the unique spectrum of issues children and their families face, I thought it useful to touch on some of these issues in relation to ruptured or ill-developed attachments, as well as some reflections on solutions to these problems.

What you will see is that South Africa, like many other Global South societies, is riddled with social and economic issues which often unavoidably make their way into the family dynamic and disrupt attachment possibilities all on their own. Given our country's painful social and political history, which legacies still enduring today, many South African parents landed up in positions of living, working, and being which they never would've chosen for themselves. So many people face difficulties in living and working which make them susceptible to financial, health, and wellbeing risks which all impact on the attachment relationship with their children.

This needs to be acknowledged, especially before labelling parents as ignorant or poor caregivers.

South Africa

In South Africa we have a high number of diverse families and orphaned children staying in foster care. These children’s primary needs are being met by them being placed with a primary caregiver and being provided maintenance money and food. However, so many of these children still have significant behavioural and schooling issues.

Now, their issues are complex and there are multiple things contributing to them, but one of these is very often poor or disrupted attachment. The child may have many of their needs provided for, but they do not experience those feelings of emotional safety and security, which we have seen are crucial to their overall healthy development. They are often left to live their own lives.

Many of these children may have lost their parents at a very early age through illness or abandonment while they were still forming an attachment relationship. Even something as simple as breastfeeding, which does a lot for bonding in the first few months can fall away for a number of reasons.

"Parentlessness" is an epidemic of massive proportions within this country. Due to our country's high burden of disease, resulting in premature parental death, and some other factors I discuss below, we have millions of children who have been separated from their biological parents at an early age. While, a consistent primary caregiver is quite effective and excellent for a child, I am a firm believer that remaining with biological parents is always the best for them.

Migrant parents

This is a big one. I have recently seen a bit of research on this topic. Particularly in Africa, we have what are called “migrant parents”. These are parents who have to leave their children at home, often in rural areas to go and live far away in cities for work purposes. Essentially, within the same country or continent, parents migrate, leaving their families behind. Often, it’s the father, many times it can be the mother, and even other times, it is both parents. These children get left behind with a relative to raise them.

Now, this is not really a matter of cultural preference most times, it is really a norm that comes out of a need. When there is not enough provision for the children at home, the parents have to go out far away and find that provision. These parents move to work often lower wage jobs which do not afford much time to visit their children.

This kind of lifestyle meets the physical needs of the child, but often not the emotional needs and forms a kind of distance in the relationship between parent and child which holiday visits alone are unlikely to repair. The child may know who their parent is, but often feel no real connection to them, resulting in a strained relationship. They may develop more of a relationship with the person taking care of them instead. We see this too in more westernised contexts where children form more of a bond with a nanny who better understands them than their own parent.

Thankfully, these children are not often left completely alone, but in the care of another family member or neighbour. This person then becomes their primary caregiver and the one they attach to. What I have seen though, is that sometimes after a long while, the parent brings their child over to live with them. These children can struggle to adjust, especially older children because, even though you may be their biological parent, you are not their primary caregiver – the one they have formed an attachment relationship with. While younger children can adapt more easily to this kind of change, it is not an easy one for them.

Children without parents

Group homes, adoptive homes, and family homes are useful to discuss here too.

When we consider children who have been separated from their parents, there are often one of three places they will go: a group home, a family home, or a whole new home (foster care or adoption). These three environments each have different dynamics.

Foster care or adoption is often one of the best options children can have. In adoption, the family caring for the child has chosen to have them and often has the resources needed to look after them. They treat this child as their own, often giving them the love and care a child in a loving, biological home would get. With foster care, the child is placed with another stranger, though temporarily, who looks after them until a better home can be found for them.

These both can often be just as good as if the child was with their biological parent as long as they can attach to their new primary caregiver. The main issue is that with foster care, the child is living in uncertainty about whether they will remain with these people, as they may sometimes be moved from home to home with no chance to attach to or trust anybody.

A family home, something which is quite promoted in South Africa is where children are sent to live with their closest living relative who can look after them. This is called foster care as well and is the most popular option in the country. While the child’s needs might be attended to, if their family member does not care for or treat them well, it is just the same as if they had been placed with a stranger.

Having the same blood does not ensure bonding.

Often caregivers are looking after multiple other children, including their own, and are often strapped for resources which can make this dynamic difficult for the child and caregiver to attach. Financial incentives are often attached (as with a group foster home), but that is not a guarantee that a child will find a loving, responsive environment. Too often it's the opposite.

Group homes are the last option, and truly not a good option, in my opinion. Though there is not much the state can do to avoid these. These could be children’s homes, group foster care homes, or orphanages where there is often a higher ratio of children to staff. Children are often just one face of many This is one of the more popular options because, when a child has absolutely nowhere else to go, this is often where they go. And often, it should be a better option than a family home or the streets.

Consequently, the child may not have someone consistently taking care of them physically or emotionally. Therefore, such children may struggle to attach and bond. These kinds of places also have higher staff turnover with staff not often staying long, therefore the child does not have someone who stays there long enough for them to form an attachment with.

Besides neglect that happens, even where caregivers mean well, they may not often have the capacity to simply be with the child often because they have so many other children to care for. Moreover, contrary to popular belief, caregivers in these homes have often not had the adequate training and understanding of child development to be as attentive as they should.

This is more than just conjecture or assumption. Sometime in the 80s there was an issue of Romanian orphans. These were children who had lost their parents and were all bundled into a single home. These children were often left unattended to for days on end. Not because their caregivers were inherently cruel, there were just so many of them and too few caregivers, coupled with difficult circumstances.

These children often didn't receive much of any affection or decent socialisation. This was extremely damaging for them. The problems that arose in their development have become notorious in psychological and other academic and highlighted the need to consider caregiving factors beyond just the basic, physical survival for children.

I discuss these different forms of caring for children without caregivers because it is a pervasive social reality affecting a huge proportion of our population.

However, like I said, children will always attach to someone or something so there is opportunity for repair.

Child-headed Households

There is a fourth "option" where children go when they've been separated from their caregivers, and that (if we are not counting the street - because babies are not often found on the street, although very young children are) is a child-headed household.

We have a large number of child-headed households in South Africa. These are households where an individual younger than 18 is in charge of the household with their younger siblings or family members and there is no adult present or able to take care of the family. This child is in charge of providing for the family and taking care of the younger children.

Often this happens because their parents have abandoned them or passed away from disease and they have no one to go to, and don't want to end up separated or moved in a foster care system. These kinds of children generally have no one to attach to other than each other. The child in charge of the household is still a child themselves and quite overstimulated.

They often do not have the capacity to understand and meet the needs of the younger children fully, resulting in difficulties for all their development. These children do, however, stick incredibly tightly together with strong bonds. However, their worldviews and ways of navigating the world may be affected.

Interacting systems

The South African contextual example demonstrates what I was discussing about Bronfenbrenner's theory way back in Issue 1 and shows the importance of approaching issues from an integrated approach to better understand and influence them. We can never discuss child development on its own as though it is isolated from very real social factors often outside of the child or caregiver's control.

Additionally, it demonstrates that if we want to see a real, impactful change in child-caregiver relationships, there needs to be a larger shift at the societal level which results in less children being separated from their parents.

The takeaway

Attachment and responsive caregiving are a crucial part of a young child’s development. Unfortunately, there are myriad uncontrollable factors which can get in the way. South Africa, just one country, is riddled with so many issues, and sadly, these issues are not unique to this country. When we discuss attachment and ways to support it, it’s so important to consider these social dynamics so as not to exclude anyone from the conversation.

Still, the central message still rings true, even in the face of these overwhelming odds: as long as there is someone who genuinely loves and cares for a child consistently, who can be come that safe space for them, no matter who they are, and no matter the circumstances, that child has a fighting chance.

Share your Comments Below!

Please feel free to reach out with any comments, questions, and child-related stories