John Bowlby

The inconvenient biological reality of attachment security Societal shifts in the last half-century have prioritized adult autonomy and careerism, often at the expense of the silent observers in the home: children. Erica Komisar, a psychoanalyst and parenting expert, argues that we have become dangerously desensitized to the fragility of infants. The human brain is not a static organ; it is an architected structure that requires specific environmental conditions to build its stress-regulating systems. The first three years of life represent a period of unprecedented plasticity, where 85% of the right brain grows. During this window, children are not resilient; they are neurologically fragile organisms that depend entirely on the presence of a primary attachment figure to buffer them against the world. Komisar asserts that attachment security is both a physical and emotional state. It involves skin-to-skin contact, the regulation of the infant's heartbeat and breath, and, most critically, the keeping of cortisol levels at a baseline low. When we treat children like "self-cleaning ovens" that can handle stress independently, we fail to recognize that they lack the biological machinery to do so. In many Western cultures, the push for mothers to return to work almost immediately after birth creates a "shot clock" of stress. This stress isn't just an emotional burden; it is a chemical one. High levels of cortisol in the mother can inhibit breast milk production and is transmitted directly to the baby, potentially altering the architecture of the developing amygdala. Why fifty-fifty custody treats children like possessions The modern legal standard of 50/50 custody, while rooted in a desire for gender equality and fairness between parents, often ignores the developmental needs of the child. Komisar argues that the court system frequently lacks psychological awareness, treating children like a "sack of potatoes" or a piece of property to be split down the middle. This "King Solomon" approach to divorce assumes that if parents are equal in the eyes of the law, they are interchangeable in the eyes of an infant. However, neurobiology suggests otherwise. Mothers and fathers produce different nurturing hormones that drive distinct behaviors. Mothers generally produce higher levels of oxytocin, facilitating sensitive, empathic nurturing and moment-to-moment emotional regulation. Fathers produce more vasopressin, which drives protective, playful, and tactile stimulation. Both are essential, but they are not the same. In the first three years, taking a breastfeeding baby away from their primary attachment figure for multiple nights to satisfy a father's "right" to fairness can be deeply traumatizing. Komisar suggests that for the best emotional outcomes, fathers must be willing to take a "sacrifice on the chin." This doesn't mean the father is unimportant; rather, it means recognizing that the baby’s need for stability and a primary residence outweighs the parent's desire for equal time. The most successful co-parenting situations occur when the non-primary parent maintains daily access through visits and routines but allows the child to maintain a stable home base. This child-centric approach requires adults to suppress their own pain and "infantile yelps" for support to remain the stable platform the child requires. The trauma of moving tectonic plates The 2-3-2 custody schedule, common in many jurisdictions, is particularly damaging. For a child, moving between houses every few days feels like living on moving tectonic plates. They lose the ability to feel "tethered" to a secure base. Adolescents often look back on these arrangements with resentment, describing the exhausting nature of never truly having a home. True stability involves knowing where your head will hit the same pillow every night. Komisar even recommends "nesting" for the first year of a split—where the child stays in the home and the parents move in and out—as a way to mitigate the immediate shock of separation. Stress, the amygdala, and the myth of ADHD Chronic stress in early childhood has profound implications for long-term mental health. When a child is exposed to constant parental conflict or the sudden loss of a primary attachment figure, their amygdala—the brain's survival center—enters a state of hypervigilance. Komisar makes a provocative claim regarding the modern epidemic of ADHD. She suggests that what we often diagnose as a genetic condition is, in many cases, a symptom of overexposure to stress. A child in "flight" mode appears distractible because they are subconsciously searching for threats. A child in "fight" mode appears aggressive or impulsive. This hypervigilant state essentially "shrinks" the parts of the brain responsible for emotional regulation. If the brain’s stress-regulating system is forced to go online too early or too intensely, it can shrivel and become dysfunctional by adulthood. This explains why we see an increase in young adults who cannot regulate their emotions, suffering from chronic anxiety and depression. While some conditions like Schizophrenia have clear genetic precursors, Komisar argues there is no genetic precursor for depression or ADHD that isn't heavily influenced by the environment. Even babies born with a "sensitivity gene" (a short allele on the serotonin receptor) can be neutralized by sensitive, empathic nurturing. Conversely, neglect or high-stress environments exacerbate these genetic predispositions. The worst and best windows for separation If divorce is unavoidable, timing matters significantly. Komisar categorizes childhood into stable and unstable periods of development. The two worst periods to divorce are 0-3 (the period of greatest growth) and 9-25 (the period of "pruning" and great plasticity). Specifically, the window between ages 11 and 14 is the most torturous time to introduce the trauma of divorce. At this age, children are already navigating puberty, social drama, and the fragile process of identity formation. Destabilizing them during this transition can cause them to become "stuck" in a regressed emotional state, unable to move forward into healthy adulthood. There is no "good" time for a family to break apart, but a window of relative stability exists between the ages of 6 and 11. During these years, the brain is in a less volatile state of growth. Another sensitive period is the transition to college. Many parents wait until their child is 18 to divorce, thinking the child is "cooked." In reality, the move to college is an incredibly fragile transition where the child needs to feel tethered to a secure base to successfully individuate. Komisar suggests waiting until the child is fully launched—around age 23—if parents have already waited that long. Challenging the daycare and corporate narrative Komisar is notoriously critical of universal Daycare, which she describes as "day orphanages." From a biological perspective, putting a baby in an institutional setting with a 5:1 or 8:1 caregiver ratio is a recipe for high cortisol. A single caregiver cannot provide the moment-to-moment emotional attunement required to regulate an infant's nervous system. While society values careerism, Komisar argues that the corporate world is a "ruse" that offers women the illusion of agency while demanding they sacrifice the most transformative years of their lives. She encourages women to seek work that offers real flexibility—service-based fields where they can be their own boss—rather than striving to "identify with the aggressor" by adopting the same high-stress, absentee habits traditionally associated with men. The feminist movement's second wave, she argues, mistakenly devalued the essential work of mothering in a bid to gain financial power. To raise healthy children, both parents must be willing to accept that they can do everything in life, but they cannot do it all at the same time. The quality of a child's attachment is the primary predictor of their future stability, and that attachment requires physical and emotional presence, not just "quality time." Conclusion: the legacy of love over status Ultimately, Erica Komisar challenges us to re-evaluate what we value as a society. If the purpose of life is the accumulation of status and material wealth, then the demands of a child will always feel like an intrusion. However, if the higher purpose is to love and be loved, then the sacrifices required in the first three years of a child's life are not a burden, but a foundational investment. Divorce, when it must happen, should be child-centric rather than fair-centric. It requires adults to find a deep respect for the partner they once loved, ensuring the child never feels they were a mistake or a possession. By acknowledging the biological truths of attachment, parents can mitigate the trauma of separation and provide their children with the resilience needed to navigate an increasingly complex world.