IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, EX REL.JASON EDWARD VAUGHN ANDCHRISTY LYNN VAUGHN2821 Plantation CourtSellersburg, Indiana 47172

Relators

V.

JUDGE DENISE NAVARRE CUBBONLucas County Juvenile Court1801 Spielbusch AvenueToledo, Ohio 43604

Respondent

CASE NO. 10-1375

ORIGINAL ACTION IN PROHIBITION

EXPEDITED: This action involves the

adoption of a minor - S.Ct.Prac.R. X(10)

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR STAYBY RELATORS' JASON AND CHRISTY VAUGHN

Michael R. Voorhees (0039293)

Voorhees & Levy LLC11159 Kenwood RoadCincinnati, Ohio 45242Telephone: (513) 489-2555Facsimile: (513) 489-2556mikena ohioadot7tionlawyer.com

Counsel for Relators

John A. Borell (0016461)Assistant Prosecuting AttorneyLucas County Courthouse700 Adams Street, Suite 250Toledo, Ohio 43624Telephone (419) 213-2001Facsimile: (419) 213-2011

Counsel for Respondent

I

Now come the Relators, Jason and Christy Vaughn, by and through counsel, and hereby

submit this emergency motion requesting an immediate order from this Supreme Court to stay all

orders of Respondent under Case Number JC 08-180254 of the Lucas County Juvenile Court because

there are persons today, September 3, 2010, attempting to enforce Respondent's orders prior to this

Supreme Court considering the requested Writ in this action and prior to the final resolution of the

adoption proceeding, which is based upon the lawful placement of the child with the Relators. No

one has a right to disrupt the adoptive placement until all appeals and proceedings relating to the

adoption are resolved or disposed. Any and all custody proceeding are not yet ripe. In supportof

this requested stay, Relators submit the following:

1. Grayson Thomas Vaughn (birth-name: Grayson Thomas Bocvarov; birth-date: October

29, 2007) was placed for adoption by his birth-mother, Drucilla Bocvarov, on November 1, 2007,

upon her signing of her voluntary permanent surrender. The adoptive placement was with the

Relators, who are Indiana residents, through Adoption By Gentle Care (the "Agency"), a duly

licensed Ohio private child placing agency. The adoptive placement received Interstate Compact on

the Placement of Children ("ICPC") approval on November 8, 2007.

2. The Relators were at the hospital when Grayson was born. Grayson was discharged from

the hospital into the care of the Relators. Grayson has "lived with" only the Relators his entire life.

Grayson has continuously resided in the Indiana home of the Relators in a supervised adoptive

placement since the ICPC approval date of November 8, 2007.

3. Based upon this lawful ICPC approved placement, the adoption of Grayson is still

pending. Under Case No. 2009-2355 of this Ohio Supreme Court, a Motion for Reconsideration is

2

pending. Pursuant to S.Ct. Prac. R. 11.4, the slip opinion is not the final order of the Court until this

Court rules upon the Motion for Reconsideration and the mandate is issued by this Court. Further,

even if this Court denies the Motion for Reconsideration, Relators have the right to file a petition for

writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court requesting a review of this Court's decision.

All remedies on the initial adoption proceeding are not yet exhausted and no one has the right to

disrapt the lawful ICPC approved adoptive placement.

4. Any and all custody proceeding are not yet ripe for another reason. Drucilla Bocvarov

signed her voluntary permanent surrender for "the purpose of adoption." Her rights are statutorily

terminated and will forever remain terminated, unless the adoption is never completed. Drucilla

Bocvarov has not been able to assert any custodial rights because the adoption is still pending.

However, if the adoption ultimately fails, then her parental and custodial rights are restored.

Drucilla Bocvarov will have the right under R.C. 3109.042, as the unmarried mother, to claim

custody of this child. The adoption has not yet completely failed and any custody proceeding is

premature and the lawful ICPC approved adoptive placement must be maintained until such issues

are ripe.

5. Further, the best interest of the child have not been addressed. An expert has issued a

report that Grayson will be harmed by removing him from the only home he has ever known.

Grayson has a fundamental interest in his relationship with his established, non-biological family.

In the case of In re Bridget R. (1996), 41 Cal. App. 4th 1483, 49 Cal. Rptr. 2d 507, the California

court ruled that a custody hearing may be constitutionally compelled in the wake of a failed adoption,

given the child's constitutionally protected liberty interests in maintaining familial ties with his

bonded non-biological family and in protecting him against precipitous or traumatic removal from an

existing custodial environment. We are not yet to the point of a failed adoption and the lawful ICPC

3

approved adoptive placement must be maintained until such issues are ripe. Then, and only then,

should a court with proper jurisdiction conduct a full and fair hearing relating to the custody of

Grayson, with all interested parties participating, and with due consideration to the rights of Grayson.

WHEREFORE, the Relators, Jason Edward Vaughn and Christy Lynn Vaughn, by and

through counsel, respectfully request this Court to enter an emergency order that stays all orders of

Respondent under Case Number JC 08-180254 of the Lucas County Juvenile Court. Respondent has

not even suggested a transition plan for this child, which is unheard of and the indifference to the

best interest of this child is quite appalling. There will no harm in granting this stay and maintaining

the lawful ICPC approved adoptive placement and the only home that Grayson has ever known,

unless until all courts with proper jurisdiction can properly addresses all issues. There will be

irreparable harm if Grayson is actually removed from his bonded family and home without proper

due process.

Respectfully submitted,

Michael R. Voorhees (0039293)Voorhees & Levy LLC11159 Kenwood RoadCincinnati, Ohio 45242(513) 489-2555 phone(513) 489-2556 faxmikekohioadoptionlawyer comCounsel for Relators, Jason and Christy Vaughn

4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the Motion has been sent by fax this 3rd day of September,

2009 to: John A. Borell, Attorney for Respondent, Lucas County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney,

Lucas County Courthouse, 700 Adams Street, Suite 250, Toledo, Ohio 43624.

,LQAAJ

Michael R. Voorhees (0039293)

5

09/03/10 13:09 UOORHEES & LEUY 4 916143261205

V01/0112062 17:58 5028592277

.,l !.Y ^^•z^r'.9`x , : ,r,^r J2f

c1^ t^^'f

CH.iLD/FAMILY EVALUATION

NO.939 D01

PAGE 01

F'PITIiERt JasonE. Vaughn. D,O.B: 11-26-1971

MOTHBRs Ctriety L.Vaughn D.O.B: 03-07-1974

CHILD: Jackson Vaughn D.O.S, 1242,2002

CFIII,D: Crrayson Thomas Vaughu D.O.B. 10-29-20G7

CHA.,D: Addison Vaughn D.O.B. (}3-19-2008

.+#DIfRESS_ 2821 Plantation Dr,iva, 5elleraburg, IN 47172

EVAI.UA.TORa yatbleen M. K.irby, Ed.T]., Ph.D.

DAATE Ok'EVA.I.UA'CION: 5-22-09

REAISO E"1R_REjgBBAU Adoption and Custody Issues

Ptnt=rrurr a TTTII.i7.ED: Behavioral & Farnily Observation and Interview

Rar^[GRU>!1>^ INFORMATIOrL•.

The Vaugbu family sought an evaluation to determine tha integrity of their family unit.The farniiy is in the process of finalizing the adaptinn of Grayaon, 20 months of age.Gxaysou has been wi.th the Vangbtxs since his birth. Christy Vaughn was in the delivery

room during the birth and was the first to bold him. The Vaughns had decided to expand

their fat7tily througlt adopt,ion after suffering a Series of miscarriages after the birth oftheir older son, Jackson. To their Rttrprise, Christy becsme pregnant durirrg the adoptive.

process. The birthmother invited the family to share her pregnancy. When Christy'spregnancy was confirmed, they realized that they had bonded with their unborn adoptive

child aad decided to continiae the adoptive proceas. Their daughter, Addison, was btyrtt

five months after Grayson's birth. Since that time, Grayson and Addison have shared a

ronm. Rerently Grayson is wanting to s]eep in Jackson's room.

09/03/10 13:09 V00RHEES & LEVY 4 916143261205

01/i71/'Lt7b'L 1 !: 5FS SbCeb7Gw'! I

NO.939 002rftt7C tl L ,

'1he parertts keep in touch with Grayson's bitthmother whc has told them that she soughtto place her unborn child in an adopt3ve home because she was concerned of the impactof his father who evidently has several felony charges and possible convictions includingAesault, I3isorderly Conduct, Drug ifaraphernalia, Disorderly Conduct with Petsistnnce,and Negligent Assautt. The birthmothcr told of one incident when the birthfather becameangry and drove 100 mph with her in the vehicle. Wben the birthtnother asked thebirthfather to slow down he desetted he,r, on the side of the road. At one point in theineident the birthfather was wielding a tira iron.

RF'1YAVIORAI.OSSE VATIONS•

'I'he behavioral observations took place in a special room within the exantiner's ofFtcesuite that is dediCated to observing family interaction. The room, is often used foreoaehing parposes when parenting is an issue. The family was observed over the period

of 2'/z hours.

It was olear that Grayson was attached to his family. Whenever he was startled orappeared insccure Grayson would seek out his mother, father or older brotber, Juckson.He also turned to thetn, when he was curious and/or needed assistance in his investigationof toys and otber iteras within the room. Grayson demonstrated an age-appropriate levelof stranger anxiety and also sought their reassurance when f enter,ed the room. After hisparenc5 and brother indicated there was no danger, Grayson interactsd with me in an age

appropriate fashion.

Grayson displayed a serane tcrnperantont and was rttethodiGal and cautiouS in his actions.I3c appears te be developirtg in a norm8l manner,. He was aware af his sttrroundlAgc- Heis above age level in his ability to makc eye contact, especially in settings that are notfamiliar to him. He alearl engages others. A.cquisition of spaech and langua&e is ageappropriate. Grayson spealc,c cleariy. He also evidenced a n,atural. ouriosity regarding anew environrnent and looked to his parenGs for reassuranm when he wanted to explare.

In true sibling fashion, Grayson appeared to want whatever toy his sister Addison wasusing although he gravitated tnward what would be described as more '1x>y' toys-Although lie often appeared to mimic some of .Tackson's behavior, Grayson was never farfrout his sister, ltddison. Thcy danced together and the parents reported that the dancing

spontaneously occurs several time a day.

I?uring the observation, Graywan instinctively souglit Itis tnother's attention. sat besidelaer and cradled her hand- The connection was demonstrative and he both kissod andbugged bis mother. Grayson also showed affection to his father, brother and sister.

The family reports that they eat together rnost of the time. If one parent is late, the otherparent (usually Christy) will feed the children and the family will sit down together whenthe two parents eat. Often both parents will hold Addison and Graysoti in their laps wbile

they eat.

2

09i03i10 13:09 VOORHEES & LEUY 4 916143261205

plirtll/1nnL lr:9n OqLO^7^''L/1

NO.939 P03

F'Akst tl d

Mr. and Mxs. Vaughn stated that both sets of grandparcnts are actively involved in thefamily and Grayson enjoygCamily visits.

The Vaughns are mci.ubers Csf. the Northside Christian Church which providessocialization for children in a nursery school type setting. Gr,ayson is the `f.avorite' of theChild care staff. Grayson and Addison also aecompany their mother to the local Y Centerwhare Christy works out and the children play in the supervised child care area. Thefamily also takes two vacations per year. Last year they vacationed in Florida and

Gatlingburg, Tennessee.

SOCIA[. AND EMOTIONAL F[INC'I'IONIIVG, DEVELOPMEN'i' AND HEALTH

Grayson bas had excellent medical care. His pediatrician, Dr. Nassim, is bi$hly regardedin the Southern Indiana area. Developmentally Graysan is at or above the normal oxexpected develr,pment in language, concepts, gross and fine motot skills, and exprss.sive

and receptive langttage as measured by the V'inedand Adaprive Behavior Scales, Second

Edition (Vinel.and-11) and the Muflen Scales of rarly Learning.

Attaclunent theory provides a model for undCrstanding how the attachment stylesform in infaney and systematically affect subseqnent psychological funetioning acrossthe life slsan, f'rttachment styles provide tha cognitive schemas, or working modals,through whi.ch individuals perceive and relate to their worlds. Suhsequently, thesaschernas predispose the developtnent of psychapathologies and influence outcames in

wide and varying areas.

According to attachment theory, our in. terpersonal styles are ingrained through prolongedearly childhood interactions with primary caregivers. In tum, these interpersonal stylesare thought to shape how we percaive and respond to otltcrs and to our environrnentaacross the lifc span (see Bowlby,1982). Bowlby bypothesize that ch,i,ldren developcogttitive, behavioral, and emotional schemas that are specifically tatlared to maintainingproximity to parents.l3eeause parents diverge in their child-rcaring styles, the schemascltildre.u develop tend to aame tngether into distinctly i.dentiCahle patterns. T.h.esecharacteristic patterns, or attacbment styles, become the roadmaps (i,c., working modeis)for navigating social environrnents and act as self ftil#illing prapheoies in wbichindividuals behave in ways tltat elicit schema eonarttent behaviors from others, Theresponses from otbers then strengthen the working models untal. those models becamedeeply embedded personality structures. Thereby, not only do attachment stylesadvance positive perceptions and dcveloptnents, thcy also may incline individuals toexperience diverse forms of psyehopathology.

5horey & Snyder (2406) propose that personality disorders (a lifc long pattern of severerneutal health disorders) can be thougbt of as disorders of attachment. Moreover, becauseattacbment styles shape perceptions and reactions to otliers, it follows that attacbmentstyles also should influcnee how i.udividuals are att.racted to individuals and form

3

09/03/10 13:09 UOORHEES & LEVY i 916143261205 N0.939 P04rr+u^ aµ

uL^Yly^ceuL l^:^n ^oLea^ce<<

friendships and intimate relationships leads to tlle conclusion tlrat attachment theory notonly is a useful fratnework fot tutderstanding life span development, personalit9, andpsychopathulogy, but it also provides the means of conccptualizing individuals' probltansin developing positive relational skills and ability to craft an emotionally fulfilling life.

Current attachment research uses tnodels that are similar to the one proposed by JohnBowiby more than 30 yeaTs ago (see Bowlby, 1. 982).1)issatisfied with psychoanulytictheories proposing that a child forms a strong bond to the mother because she is thesource of food, BowYlby sought guidance from his contemporaries in the biologicalsciences. A.ccordingly, Bowtby (1988) postulated that: (a) emotional conrtecdoas

between individuals have survival value; (b) attachment bebaviots have neural rorollaries

in the steuetura of the central nervous system; (c) each partner in an at'taohment dyad

buil.ds intetnal mental representalions of the other (e.g.wo.r,l.d.ng models) in ordcr tomaintain a sensc vf proximity in the event of separation; and (d) developrnent occursconstanfly.ratherthan in discrete pbases.

In addition, Bowlby (1988) proposnd that the attachment styles developed and

internalixed in early childhood are maintain across the life span and have direct 3mpacts

on adult mental health. Building on Bowlby's theory. Mary Ainsworth and her

colleagttes (1979; Atnsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978) developed the "8ttange

5ituation" paradigm in order to study the behaviors of infants who were sepatatedtermporaril.y from their mothers, Out o,f, this research, Ainsworth identified three infantanachment stylos-secure, anxious-ambivalent, and avoidant.

Ainswotth's securely attached infants acted somewhat distressed when. their mothers left,.H.owever they greeted thetn eagerly and warmly upon their returns. Anxious-ambivalentinfants were distraught and protested when their mothers loft; upon their mothers'returns, these infants continued to be distre.qsed and protested even though they wanted tobe comforted and held. Avoidant infants, in eontrast, seemed relatively undisturbed bothwhen their mothers left and returned. Such behavioral avoidance, however, should not betaken to mean that such avoidant children do not want to maintain proximity to theirmothers. Aetnally, this style is what enables these chil.dren to maintain prox.imity toparents who atberwise may raject them. Regardlass of the type of attachno.ent, it isassumed that all childron seek close proximity to their parents (Ainsworth et aI.,1978).The attachment styles in early childbood arc harbingers of things to come.

In addition to the original three attachment styles that were identified by Ainsworth et al.(1978), contemporary researchers have identified a foureb childhood attachmant style thatlacks consistent behavior patterns (Carlson, 1998; Iyt.ain,1996). This dis qrganized

attachment style is characterized by chaotic and conflicted behaviors in response to dhe

$trange Situation task. Such qbserved behaviors have included children exhibitingsimultaneous approach and avoidance behaviors (i.e., ^pproaching the caregiver and then.f..reezing midstride,; Main & Solomon, 1990). The advantage of adding ehis disorganizedaltatchmcnt style is that it alIows the classifying of cirildren who previously did not fitinto any of Ainswo.Mh's qrigiral categories (.Main & Sotomon, 1990).

4

09i03i10 13:09 UODRHEES & LEVY 4 916143261205

^'Jl/L'Jl/Ltlp€ 1t :70 J^'JLGJ34G,l

N0.939 D05rwur_ uu

Because the overriding goal in early childhood is to acquire and maintain sscurity(I3owdby,198x), cltildren develop attachment styles that are suited specifically ta thetypes of parenting that they encountcr. For exarnple, Ainsworth formd that parents ofsccurc infants were sensitive, attuned, accepting an.d consistent (Ainsworth ot al., 1978).Their children, then, viowed their attachment Cgures as dependable and available.Thereby, acc,ording to M'ikutincer and Shaver (2003), beeause aecurely attached childrenara not worried about sacurity needs, they are free to di.rect thcir attentions and cnergiestoward exploring the environment and other non-attachment-telated activities. Ratberthan cngaging in exp]oratory behaviozs, insecnre infants are cornpelled to direct theirattentions and vigor toward maintaining their attachrnents to inconsistent, ttnavailable. orrejecting parents. For example, because a child is only able to maintain praxizttity to theparents by behaving as if the parents are not needed, that child may learn to rlot expressneeds for closeness or attcntion (Main,199(1). Thus, avoidant children suppressexpressions of overt distress. Over time, such suppression may ocCUr below the lovel ofcon.cciousnes•s such that avoidant youngsters may not even recognize their own distress.Additionally, rather tttan risking further rejection by the unavaiiability of the attaehmentfigure, they may give up on their proximity efforts to maititain a cioeeness to theirparents. Taken togother, these emotion regulation and behavioral pattenas have come tobe labeled as "deactivating strategies" (sec lYIikulincer & Shaver, 2.003).

Anxious•ambivalent children display their own, response pattern. Instead ofsupressing their attachment systems, anxious-ambivaleut children utilize "activation"strategies (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003). Even though the parents of anxious-amliivalentchildren may not be overtly rejecting, they often are unpradictable and inconsistent intheir responses. Fearing potential earegiver abandonment, t.hese children Tnaximirye theirefforts to maintain close parental attachntents (Main, 1990). The anxious-ambivalentchildren beeome hypervigilant constantly scanning for threat cues and any signs ofrejecCion. In contrast to those young chilciren who persistently use their avoidant andanxious-ambivalent styles to maintain nearness and attachments to parenis, disorganizedinfants seem incapable of emp.loying any consistent strategy to bond with their pa.rents. Intbis sase, these conflicted and disorganiaed child bebavinrs refleet theirbest attempts at gaining some sense of security From parents who arc perceived a,5frightening (Carlsot7,1998). For example, when afraid and needing rea5surance, a childmay.have no option other tban to seek support,from a caregiver who also is frightening.In such situations, thc parents may be hostile or tbey may be fearful and un,able to hidctbeir apprebensions from their children In eitlter case, the child's anxietyand distrem are not lessened. Instead, one source of stress is simply traded far another,ieaving these children with no workable coping options (Carlson,19i3$).

Although thc children with disorganized attaclurtents typically do not achieve sonses ofbeing cared for, the avoidant and anxious•ambivalent ch,ildren do cxperience qomesuccess in fulfilling their n"ds for care, Unfortunately these intermittcnt Faccesses maybe reachad to some extent. t.hrough cognitive distortionc. F'nr exar.qple, the child may use asplil:iirtg defertse (Lopcz, Fuendeling, Thomas, & Sagnla,1997) to susuain attachntent to arejecting or abusive parent. Such "splitting" involves the maintaining of'positive parentalimages in consciousness, and ushcring the nagativo views out of conscioucneSs

09/03/10 13:09 V00RHEES & LEVY 4 916143261205

b:l/bl/1tl17L 1l:5t5 5J[tla7ttr^

N0.939 D06

r,wc no

by internalizing them or by assigning them to more distal others (iCernberg, 1975).splitting therehy pennits children to balieve, even in the face of opposing evidence, thattheir parents will value and protect them. If rejected, such children are likely to interrtallyascribe the rejecting parental behaviors to their having been bad children as opposed tothe less attractive view that their parents s%mply do not care.

This example illustrates how children"s in5ocure aitaelunent styl.es attempt their besteffort to get their security needs met when primary caregivers behave in aversive andunrewarding ways (Main,1990). The priee exacted for this apparent security is high,howevet, bacause these early cbildhood working models are quite likely to devolop intomaladaptive behaviors in later adolescent and adult relationships especially in the areawsof friendships or romance.

Although, as Bowlby (1982) suggcsted,, the behaviors of parents toward their children aremost often assooiated with the type of attachments that the childran develop, thecogn,itive schema underlyittg thase attaoltment style.s begin to take on live8 of their owtYonce they are internaliaed by the chil,dren. Acting as self-fulfilli.ng prophesies, theeeattachment styles lead the developing child to bebavc in ways that are consistent withhow he or she expects to be treated by others (see Naaan,199Z, cited in $atgos &l.eadbcater, 1994). In turn, such child behaviors elicit reactlons fro.m. others that areconsistent with the child's expectations (Alleii, Coyne, & liuntoon,1998).Correspondingly, attachmcnt•related working models are reinforced throughout ihedevelopmenial yeats and they become the road maps for pereeiving, interpret.ing, andrespDnding tO environmente as children mature into adulthood (see liatgos & Leadbeater,1994; Miekel.son, Kessler, & Shaver, 1997). As they tnauure, children develop cogstitivefratnework-R (expectations) that are built upon these worldng models.

Evcn when infant attaGhment styles do not prcdict adult attachment styles, tliey do predictadult psychopathology (Carlson,1.998). For exarnple, Carlson (1998) investiyrated therelationship between disorganized attachment and later attachment style and adjustment,Children were assessed at ages 12 months and i 8 months ttsing the Strange Situationprocedure. The subjecte were then assessed for psychopathology usinS the KiddieSc6odule for Affecti.ve Disorders and Schizophrenta (ICSADS; Amborsini, Metz,Prabueki, & Lee,1982) at ages 17.5 and 19 years.

pisorgattixed infants, as opposed to rlae infants with other attachment styles, exhibitedappreciably more problems i:hrougllout the'tr developmental histories, They exhibitedbehavior probl.emS in preschool as well as intemaliaing problems and dissoei.ation inelementary school and high scltool. Some of the interMediate outco.mes, such aselementary school problem behaviora, and parent-child relationship quality at age 73,also made distinctive contributions to the prediction of later adolescent psycbopathology.

Car.lson (1998) proposed that these results suggested a two-way interactive processwhereby carly distottiens in tho regulation of emotions and hehaviers expc.r"ten.ced in thvparentm-cltild relationship lead to later disturbanCes which lead to feed back andconsolidate insecure attachment patterns (Carlson,1998). She also posited that the early

6

09/03/10 13:09 UOORHEES & LEUY 4 916143261205

n},1^;/2e17L 1f:Dtl pYJGe7at1t f

disreguNation of emotional systems leads to loag-term conscqucncos for the infant'sneurological organization. Contemporary theorists propose that severe failures of earlyattachment relationships, and specifically the abuse and neglect a,ssoci.ated witbdisorganizcd attachment pa•tterns, are tikely to impair the rigltt brain's regulatory stress-and coping-related functions and, by extension,create maladaptive infant and adultmental health (Perry, Pollard, Blakley, Baker, & Vigilante,1.995; Scltbre, 2001)-

Aithough researehers have found :Few intervening effeets between early parenting andadult mental health (Gittleman, Klein, Smider, & Essex,199t3), Carlson found thatattachment organization mediated the relationslaip between carly caregivistg and latexpsychopathology, and partly mediated the relationship laetween early caregiving anddissociation ratings. Shorey, Snyder, Yang, & Lewin, (2003)1'ound that adult attaClnnentrnoderated the t+elationship between recoUected parenting and hope and, in turn, that hopepartially mediated the relationchip bet.ween attachment and adult mental health.

Spacif'ieally, individuals with insecure at.tachment experience anxiety, fear and insecnriry.Although researcbers have found that a majority of borderline patients endorsed anavoidant attachment style (68%), preoccupied attachment also has been fonnd to relatespecifically to Borderline persanality disorder

The preceding theory and research by preeminent expert.s strongly suggests that chiidrenshould be placcd and remain. in the relationship thit has provided attachment.Attathmant cannot be 'handed off" nor can it be reformed. Early loss takes its toll and, inthe case of Grayson Thotnas Vaughn, the lilcelihood of irreparable harm is more thanlikely; it is inevitable. Have ehildren sorvived this type of tutotional uphGaval? Yes.However, surviving and thriving are t.wo separate issttes. Current recearch underscaresthe envir.onment necessary for secure attachtnent and the later life consesluences ofavoidant, anxious, detached and disorganized. attachmant. .

ItECOMMENDATION

A,a Grayson Thomas Vaughn bas developed a securc attachment to his adoptive family, it

is imperative that he remain in this loving and enriehing home. His social/emodonal

development depend upon the safet.y and aecurity that he has developed with his adoptivc

family.

Please contact me if I can be of service to elarify or expand on the information above.

Sincerely,

Kathlcen M. )i;'3rhy, .Ed.D., Ph.I].

D07rr-xa. u.

.

Lieensed Psychologist & Healthcare Provider