Attachment Theory By John Bowlby, Child Developmental Model

Introduction
There is general consensus in social work training that “The concept of theory is a social construct” ”( Payne ,1997, p. 26), (Boisen, 2004) (Gilson, 2002), (Turner, 1996), which represents “a set of propositions which postulate the nature of the relationships between predefined constructs or variables” (Glynis et al., 1995, p. 5). It has been observed in practice that theory application may not always leads to desired outcomes. However, it provides a systematic base for SW processes. The dilemma arises in process of selecting a particular perspective in a context where no particular theory is implicitly comprehensive and proves only to be contextually appropriate (Walsh, 2010; Boisen & Syers, 2004).
Thereby, Payne (1997, p. 36)

Erikson, “Labelling Theory” by Howard Baker, “Social Learning Theory” of Bandura and “System Theory” by Urie Bronfenbrenner. In general is based on relevance rather than convenience. All these theories appear to be most applicable in present case study in explaining the circumstances. This preference is based on the premise that personality developmental problems in early childhood usually arise due to either neglect and failure to establish secure attachment. Child Development Theory of Erikson explains certain behaviours of the child due to unresolved challenges in each developmental stage. Social Learning/Modelling theory helps in understanding observational learning in personality development. The system theory in general informs about the inner and outer network around a person and its impacts on the

The proposition here is that lack of secure attachment in early childhood have been responsible for problems in this case study (Sutton, 2001). Bernie’s illicit drug dependence have resulted in, as anxious avoidant attachment behaviour in Lucas, which has created an inconsistency and unresponsiveness in internal working model. His school record shows that he appears shy and remain socially withdrawn and timid in classes. This view is further strengthened by the findings of Lucas low self-esteem and confidence, aggressive behaviour towards younger and weaker fellows. His absence from home and school is also indicative of this behaviour to avoid