{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016853932584269662, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.601851851851852, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Children's resiliency versus vulnerability to attachment trauma in guardianship cases

In recent New Jersey termination of parental rights cases, expert witnesses opined that children can be resilient, recovering from loss of their psychological parents by “rebonding” to biological parents. N.J. Supreme Court judges concluded that there is a scientific conflict between research on children's resiliency and research on bonding, a conflict that raises doubt regarding the likelihood that severe and enduring harm is caused by breaking bonds to psychological parents. This article reviews the scientific evidence upon which this testimony is based and provides a framework for questioning experts in such cases.