The Harmful Myth of Holding Time

In her powerful work Sleeping Giants, René Denfeld writes about survival with an unflinching gaze, particularly when it comes to vulnerable children. Her books explore the resilience of those who have endured immense suffering, revealing both the damage inflicted by misguided interventions and the extraordinary strength of survivors. One such intervention, holding time, was a controversial practice once touted as a therapeutic approach to attachment disorders but has since been widely discredited due to its potential for harm.

Denfeld shares in Sleeping Giants that as a young mother, she first heard about holding time in the context of reactive attachment disorder (RAD), a condition sometimes diagnosed in children who have experienced severe neglect or trauma. The premise of holding time was based on a troubling belief: that forcing physical closeness—pinning a child down, making them maintain eye contact, even resisting their cries to be released—could somehow “reset” their attachment system. Instead of fostering trust, however, these coercive methods often retraumatized already vulnerable children, reinforcing a sense of powerlessness and fear.

The History of Holding Therapy and Its Dangers

Holding time was popularized in the 1980s and 1990s by Dr. Martha Welch, who published a book named for the intervention in 1988. In it, she claimed that forcibly holding children while they resist—sometimes for extended periods—would eventually lead to emotional breakthroughs and a stronger bond with their caregiver. Welch's approach built upon earlier, equally controversial attachment therapy techniques, many of which have been linked to severe psychological distress and even fatalities.

In one infamous case from the year 2000, Candace Newmaker, a 10-year-old girl undergoing a form of attachment therapy known as “rebirthing,” died after being wrapped in blankets and restrained in an attempt to force emotional catharsis. Her death shed light on the dangers of coercive therapies, prompting greater scrutiny of holding time and similar practices.

The American Psychological Association (APA) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) have since denounced these approaches, emphasizing that attachment and trust cannot be forced—they must be built through safety, consistency, and emotional attunement. A study published in Child Abuse & Neglect (Chaffin et al., 2006) found that coercive attachment interventions, including holding time, lacked empirical support and often had damaging consequences for children who had already suffered trauma.

Why Coercion Fails—and What Vulnerable Children Actually Need

For children with histories of neglect or abuse, forced physical closeness does not heal wounds; it deepens them. The very foundation of healthy attachment is choice—the ability to trust that a caregiver will respect one’s autonomy and emotional needs. For children who have experienced abuse, holding time replicates the power dynamics of their trauma, reinforcing fear rather than fostering security.

René Denfeld’s work often illuminates the complexity of survival, particularly how trauma shapes a child's inner world. In Sleeping Giants, her writing echoes what research has long confirmed: Children need safe relationships where they are given space to heal on their own terms, not forced into intimacy before they are ready. Healing happens through predictable routines, gentle connection, and an understanding that trust takes time.

Dr. Bruce Perry, a leading expert in child trauma, emphasizes in The Boy Who Was Raised as a Dog that traumatized children do not respond well to rigid, high-intensity interventions. Instead, Perry’s research underscores the importance of rhythmic, relational interactions—small, consistent moments of connection that build safety over time. Whether through shared play, storytelling, or simply sitting together, these moments create the neural pathways for secure attachment, something holding time cannot force.

A Better Way Forward

Attachment is not something that can be imposed upon a child. It is something that must be earned. The best way to help children with attachment wounds is not through coercion but through patience, reliability, and emotional presence.

As Denfeld’s work reminds us, survival is a story of resilience, not compliance. We must advocate for approaches that honor a child’s right to safety, choice, and trust. Holding Time was a dangerous detour in our understanding of attachment—but we now have better tools to help vulnerable children heal.

Attachment Essential Reads

"Jeong": A Korean Word for the Felt Sense of Connectedness

Is Problematic Smartphone Use Predicted by Nomophobia?

Real love is never forced. And real healing begins with respect.