Interpreting Physical Touch-Seeking Behaviours in Children with SEMH

Children with Social, Emotional and Mental Health (SEMH) needs often exhibit behaviours that challenge conventional educational and care paradigms. SEMH refers to a broad spectrum of difficulties that impact a child’s ability to manage emotions, build relationships, and engage effectively in everyday life. These challenges may present as anxiety, depression, conduct disorders, or social interaction difficulties, and are increasingly recognised in mainstream educational settings in England (Dimitrellou and Hurry, 2018).

Among the diverse presentations of SEMH, one particularly nuanced behaviour is the overt seeking of physical touch or the desire to be held. This might include leaning against a trusted adult, requesting hugs, or clinging when distressed. Such behaviours often emerge when a child feels overwhelmed, dysregulated, or unsafe—signalling a non-verbal plea for comfort, regulation, or emotional proximity.

These touch-seeking behaviours frequently provoke mixed reactions from professionals. While some may respond with empathy and care, others may feel apprehension—understandably so, given contemporary safeguarding protocols, professional boundaries, and the potential for misinterpretation. However, to respond appropriately, practitioners must move beyond surface-level interpretations and explore the deeper neurobiological, psychological, and relational underpinnings of such behaviours.

This document frames touch-seeking not as a wilful or manipulative act but as a meaningful form of communication. In many cases, it is rooted in a child’s history of trauma, disrupted attachment, or neurodevelopmental differences. It calls for a response that is informed, reflective, and attuned—balancing empathy with professionalism, and safety with human connection.

Relevance and Challenges in Educational and Therapeutic Settings

The display of touch-seeking behaviours in educational and therapeutic environments presents professionals with complex and sensitive dilemmas. Maintaining appropriate professional boundaries while offering a compassionate response to a distressed child is a delicate balancing act.

Contemporary safeguarding guidance, such as Keeping Children Safe in Education (DfE, 2025), rightly emphasises the importance of protecting both children and staff. As such, unsolicited physical contact or perceived over-reliance on particular adults may raise concerns and must be managed with transparency, training, and supervision. Yet, overly rigid or dismissive responses can inadvertently deepen a child's emotional pain, reinforce feelings of rejection, and hinder the formation of safe, trusting relationships.

The challenge lies in interpreting these behaviours through a trauma-informed and developmentally aware lens—validating the child’s underlying need while upholding clear professional boundaries. When touch-seeking is misinterpreted or rejected without explanation, the child may internalise this as further evidence that they are not safe, not valued, or do not belong. This is particularly significant for pupils already identified with behavioural difficulties, who frequently report a reduced sense of belonging and fewer positive relationships with adults and peers (Dimitrellou and Hurry, 2018).

Social and emotional difficulties among young people are well-documented, particularly within educational and therapeutic contexts. Among this group, a specific and often misunderstood presentation involves children who display a persistent and overt inclination toward physical contact with adults.

This behaviour may take many forms: a child might repeatedly attempt to hold a practitioner’s hand, lean into their personal space, ask for prolonged hugs, or become visibly distressed when physical closeness is denied. These actions are commonly observed across diverse settings—during academic frustration in the classroom, while processing difficult emotions in therapy, or amid transitions between structured activities.

The intensity and frequency of such behaviours often increase during periods of emotional dysregulation, perceived threat, or heightened stress. For example, a child experiencing sensory overload may instinctively reach for an adult’s arm as a means of self-soothing. Another might display intense clinginess on a Monday morning, following a weekend marked by instability or unmet emotional needs at home.

These behaviours are rarely isolated incidents. Rather, they represent consistent patterns that suggest a deeper functional purpose—beyond simple affection-seeking or attention. They often reflect a child’s attempt to access co-regulation, safety, or containment in moments when internal resources are overwhelmed.

Presentation of Touch-Seeking Behaviours in Children with SEMH

Take, for example, the case of Leo, an eight-year-old pupil diagnosed with SEMH needs following a history of early relational trauma.

Leo found transitions and unstructured moments in the school day particularly distressing. During these times, he frequently sought close physical contact—climbing into a teaching assistant’s lap, tightly gripping their clothing, or leaning heavily into them. These actions often coincided with visible signs of anxiety or confusion.

When staff attempted to redirect Leo or gently discourage the physical contact, his distress would often escalate. He might resort to loud vocalisations, exhibit signs of withdrawal, or begin rocking back and forth in an effort to self-soothe. At times, his bids for physical connection were intense—bordering on forceful—highlighting a need not just for attention, but for physical containment and emotional anchoring.

Such episodes were particularly pronounced following perceived reprimands or unexpected changes in routine. While staff recognised Leo’s distress and the therapeutic intention behind his actions, they also expressed discomfort and concern. The demands of a busy classroom environment, combined with safeguarding expectations, made it difficult to respond in ways that felt both compassionate and appropriate.

Verbal reassurance alone was rarely effective in reducing Leo’s anxiety. This highlighted the depth of his unmet relational needs and the importance of understanding physical touch-seeking as a form of communication, not simply a behavioural challenge.

The behaviours described are rarely arbitrary. Rather, they reflect a complex interplay of neurobiological responses, past experiences, and attempts at communication. A comprehensive understanding requires a multi-lens approach—integrating insights from sensory processing, attachment theory, developmental psychology, and trauma research.

Children who exhibit persistent touch-seeking behaviours often do so as a result of dysregulated emotional states and disrupted developmental experiences. Early childhood trauma, particularly complex trauma, can lead to neurobiological changes that affect brain development and function (Guidetti et al., 2023). These changes may impair a child’s ability to regulate emotions, manage stress, and engage in reciprocal social interactions—factors that increase susceptibility to distress and anxiety (Lucassen et al., 2015).

Sensory Regulation and the Role of Proprioception

For many children with SEMH needs—especially those with neurodevelopmental differences such as autism or sensory integration difficulties—touch-seeking can serve as a form of sensory regulation.

The proprioceptive system, which processes input related to body position, pressure, and movement, plays a vital role in helping the brain feel grounded and in control. Deep pressure input (e.g. from a firm hug, leaning into someone, or being held) activates the parasympathetic nervous system, promoting a calming, self-regulating effect. This input can help reduce physiological arousal and restore a sense of internal balance.

Children with difficulties in internal sensory regulation may instinctively seek external sources of pressure or closeness to soothe themselves. This is not a conscious behavioural choice, but rather an automatic nervous system response to internal disarray. Research supports the link between disruptions in emotional regulation systems and issues such as anxiety, heightened sensitivity, and neuroticism (Ikeda et al., 2015).

Attachment Histories and Developmental Factors

Disrupted or insecure attachment histories are often key contributors to touch-seeking behaviours. When early caregiving relationships are inconsistent, neglectful, or traumatic, children may struggle to develop a secure internal working model of safety and trust. This lack of consistent, attuned caregiving may result in persistent feelings of unsafety and an increased drive for external regulation through physical closeness.

Attachment theorists emphasise the importance of affective attunement—the ability of caregivers to sensitively respond to a child’s emotional cues—as a foundation for both psychological and neurobiological development (Guidetti et al., 2023). When such attunement is lacking, a child may regress to earlier developmental strategies, such as proximity-seeking or clinging, especially during times of distress or uncertainty.

In these cases, the child’s need to be held may represent more than comfort; it may reflect a profound longing for the containment and co-regulation that were unavailable during early relational experiences. This drive to restore a felt sense of safety is protective, not manipulative, and must be understood within a developmental and relational context.

Children with histories of insecure attachment are also more likely to experience difficulties forming positive relationships with peers and educators (Dimitrellou and Hurry, 2018), which may further reinforce their reliance on physical connection as a core form of relational engagement.

Communication of Emotional Distress and Safety-Seeking

Children who struggle to articulate their emotional states—whether due to trauma, limited emotional literacy, or developmental language difficulties—often rely on non-verbal behaviours to communicate distress. In such cases, physical touch becomes a primary expressive channel.

Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are known to impact a child’s biological, emotional, and social functioning (Guidetti et al., 2023). When overwhelmed or dysregulated, these children may lack the capacity to name or explain what they are feeling. Touch-seeking then becomes a non-verbal message: “I need help,” “I feel unsafe,” or “Please don’t leave me.”

In trauma-affected children, the nervous system may remain in a hyper-vigilant state, constantly scanning for threat. This persistent activation fuels a desperate search for safety—often through physical proximity to a calm, predictable adult. Even when verbal reassurance is offered, it is often the physical presence and attuned posture of the adult that signals safety most powerfully.

The desire to be physically close is not merely a behavioural problem, but an embodied expression of an unmet emotional or sensory need. It is a relational communication that requires thoughtful, trauma-informed interpretation—rather than punitive redirection.

Responding to touch-seeking behaviours requires a nuanced and compassionate approach—one that prioritises the child’s emotional and sensory well-being while upholding safeguarding principles and professional integrity. This calls for adaptable strategies that meet the underlying need for regulation, safety, and connection without relying solely on direct physical contact.

Professional Boundaries, Safeguarding, and Consent

Maintaining clear professional boundaries is essential in any setting involving children, particularly where emotional vulnerability and past trauma are factors. Practitioners must navigate physical interactions in ways that are both supportive and ethically sound. This includes ensuring that any physical contact is appropriate, intentional, and, where possible, consensual.

For children who actively seek touch, it is helpful to establish consistent expectations around personal space and appropriate interaction. This may involve using simple, validating language such as:

"My job is to help you feel safe. I can’t give hugs, but I can sit near you and stay with you while you calm down."

Visual aids or social stories can also help children understand these boundaries and feel prepared for consistent adult responses.

Crucially, any physical contact that does occur should be initiated by the adult in a calm and controlled manner, always aligning with institutional safeguarding policies. Professionals should avoid reactive or spontaneous contact, particularly in emotionally charged moments.

Transparency is vital. Regular communication with parents, carers, and colleagues about observed behaviours and agreed strategies helps ensure consistency and reduces the risk of misinterpretation. Where touch-seeking behaviours are intense, persistent, or raise concerns, it is best practice to involve safeguarding leads or the wider multidisciplinary team. This allows for thorough risk assessment and ensures the response is coordinated, safe, and reflective of the child's full context.

Alternative Regulation Strategies and Environmental Adaptations

When direct physical touch is not appropriate—or when alternative tools are needed to meet sensory or relational needs—offering structured regulation strategies is essential. These alternatives can help meet the child’s underlying drive for grounding, connection, or containment without physical contact.

For sensory regulation:

Children seeking deep pressure may benefit from:

• Weighted resources such as blankets, lap pads, or compression vests
• Proprioceptive activities, including carrying heavy items, wall pushes, chair push-ups, or pushing a loaded trolley
• Sensory corners or calming zones with soft furnishings, dim lighting, noise-reducing headphones, or tactile/fidget items

These options can replicate the regulatory effects of physical contact by engaging the proprioceptive system, helping the nervous system settle and organise.

For emotional connection and co-regulation:

Children who seek closeness for emotional reassurance may benefit from:

• Predictable routines to increase emotional safety
• A consistent, calm adult presence who responds with attunement and patience
• Reflective listening to validate feelings
• Offering choices to promote agency and reduce helplessness
• Guided breathing or rhythm-based regulation tools (e.g. squeeze balls, metronome apps)

The creation of an emotionally safe environment—where children feel heard, valued, and respected—is foundational. Research indicates that children with SEMH needs often struggle with belonging and secure relationships in school settings (Dimitrellou and Hurry, 2018). Providing emotionally attuned alternatives helps reduce the anxiety that often fuels proximity-seeking and supports the development of internal regulation over time (Khalid, 2019).

Effective intervention for children exhibiting touch-seeking behaviours requires a systematic, compassionate, and collaborative framework. The aim is not merely to manage the visible behaviour, but to understand and address the underlying need it communicates.

Observational Approaches and Contextual Analysis

Professionals should adopt a curious, non-judgemental stance when observing touch-seeking behaviours. Careful observation and record-keeping—detailing the timing, context, and presentation of behaviours—can reveal important patterns and triggers that inform more meaningful support.

Key questions to guide contextual analysis:

• What preceded the touch-seeking?
• What was the child’s emotional state?
• What was the environment like (e.g. noisy, chaotic, unpredictable)?
• How did the adult respond?

Such reflection helps determine whether the behaviour serves a sensory-regulatory, emotional, or communicative function. For instance:

• If the behaviour consistently occurs during transitions, the child may benefit from increased predictability, preparation, and sensory support.
• If it appears after a perceived failure or reprimand, the behaviour may signal a need for emotional validation or containment.

This information is invaluable for developing personalised intervention plans that reduce distress and promote regulation.

Collaboration with Multidisciplinary Teams

A holistic approach is most effective when professionals collaborate across disciplines. This includes:

• Special Educational Needs Coordinators (SENCOs) for planning and monitoring support strategies;
• Occupational Therapists (OTs) to assess sensory needs and recommend targeted regulation tools;
• Educational Psychologists to offer insights into attachment dynamics and learning;
• Mental Health Professionals to support emotional development and address trauma.

Regular communication and a shared understanding among the team help ensure a consistent, attuned approach across settings. This consistency supports the child in developing secure, predictable relationships and regulation strategies.

A collaborative, multidisciplinary lens also enables a broader, evidence-based understanding of the child's needs. For example, children’s perceptions of their relationships with teachers are strongly linked to their overall sense of school belonging (Dimitrellou and Hurry, 2018)—highlighting the power of relational safety.

Facilitating Safe Self-Regulation and Emotional Security

The ultimate goal is to help children internalise regulation strategies and develop a felt sense of safety. This begins with the teaching of explicit self-regulation skills, such as:

• Deep breathing techniques
• Body scans or grounding exercises
• Emotion labelling and verbalisation
• Mindfulness or rhythm-based regulation

Visual supports, social stories, and consistent verbal prompts can reinforce these practices and enhance accessibility, especially for children with additional learning needs.

Environmental strategies should also include:

• A predictable daily routine
• Calm, emotionally attuned adult responses
• A low-arousal environment for de-escalation
• Non-punitive responses to distress

For children with a history of trauma or adversity, these strategies align with trauma-informed care principles, which remain a recommended foundation for practice (Guidetti et al., 2023).

At the heart of any successful intervention is relationship. Building warm, respectful, and consistent relational connections creates a secure base from which children can explore their emotions and develop autonomy. When a child feels truly seen, valued, and understood, they are better positioned to trust others—and eventually, to trust in themselves.

This relationship-based approach, rooted in empathy and curiosity, empowers children to meet their own needs in safer, more adaptive ways.

Implementing a comprehensive strategy to support children with SEMH needs who exhibit touch-seeking behaviours requires a phased, structured approach. It should involve all relevant stakeholders across the educational or care setting. The emphasis must remain on consistent, trauma-informed practices embedded in daily routines, rather than isolated or reactive interventions.

The implementation strategy should be reviewed regularly and adapted based on the child’s progress, staff feedback, and changes in context.

Developing Consistent, Trauma-Informed Practice Across Settings

The initial phase focuses on professional development for all staff, including educators, support workers, pastoral leads, and administrators. Training should cover:

• Trauma-informed care principles
• Sensory processing and regulation
• Attachment theory and developmental trauma
• Interpreting touch-seeking behaviours through a relational lens
• Safe, appropriate non-physical responses

Following this, individualised Behaviour Support Plans (BSPs) should be developed for children identified as displaying significant touch-seeking behaviours. These plans should:

• Incorporate contextual analysis and multidisciplinary input
• Clearly outline triggers and underlying needs
• Recommend appropriate regulation strategies
• Provide specific adult responses for consistency

Environmental audits should then be undertaken to create or enhance designated calm spaces or sensory corners. These should be equipped with tools that offer safe regulation options—e.g. weighted resources, tactile items, visual supports.

Finally, a system of ongoing observation and data collection should be embedded into practice. Monitoring the frequency, intensity, and context of behaviours—alongside the outcomes of strategies—creates a responsive feedback loop. This ensures support remains adaptive and child-centred. Importantly, regulatory tools (such as sensory kits or proprioceptive activities) should be introduced proactively, not only during crises.

Evaluating the success of support strategies requires a framework that prioritises the child’s emotional well-being and regulation capacity, not simply the suppression of touch-seeking behaviours.

Measuring Emotional Wellbeing and Behavioural Outcomes

Quantitative measures may include:

• Reduction in frequency/intensity of distress-related touch-seeking
• Increased use of alternative regulation strategies (e.g. seeking sensory items, requesting space, using visual cues)

Qualitative indicators include:

• Increased observable calm and engagement
• Reduction in anxiety or agitation
• Positive changes in relational behaviour with peers and adults

Feedback from staff, parents/carers, and the child (where appropriate) can provide rich insight into perceived safety, trust, and connection. Evaluations should also track improvements in the child’s ability to:

• Express emotions and needs appropriately
• Cope with transitions or stressors
• Sustain regulated engagement in learning and social activities

The true measure of success is the child’s growing capacity for self-regulation and their strengthened sense of emotional security within the setting.

Touch-seeking behaviours in children with SEMH needs are not superficial or manipulative actions—they are profound, embodied expressions of sensory, emotional, and relational needs. These behaviours often signal dysregulation, a longing for safety, or an attempt to reconnect with what may have been missing in early relationships.

By adopting a trauma-informed, attachment-aware, and neurodiversity-affirming perspective, professionals can move beyond surface-level responses. Instead of viewing these behaviours as challenges to be managed, they become opportunities for therapeutic connection and emotional growth.

Through consistent observation, cross-disciplinary collaboration, and the implementation of alternative regulation strategies, professionals can foster environments that feel safe, nurturing, and empowering. Within these environments, children learn that their needs will be met with empathy and understanding—even when physical contact is not possible.

Ultimately, supporting these children is not about removing their need for connection. It is about responding in ways that help them feel truly seen, contained, and supported—so they can develop the tools they need to navigate the world with greater confidence and emotional resilience.