We've had royal commissions into these things in this country. It is a complex and difficult problem, and yes, very sad and harrowing. However the conclusions advocates and experts have reached is that reunification with the bio family is nearly always in the best interests of the child. This is for various reasons. One of them being snobby people judging small things more harshly sometimes (but academics will call this cultural something or other I think). Does anyone have a summary of the royal commission? Or an article explaining it.
@organised_chaos ?
Facs appears to have gone against what we have learned over the years as a country imo and the entitlement shown by say a FF who doesn't want the kids to call BM "mum" suggests something about their character in the context of other pointers etc imo.
@Naobh I am not sure which commission you are referring to? Can you let me know
Secondly, I think you are touching on acculturation and cultural identity?
Firstly, sorry for the long post. dot points used to make for quick reading. First lot of info from 2018 research (so would include the approach used at the time of WT & LT being removed from bio parents). Second lot of info from child protection framework.
taken from:
https://www.sydney.edu.au/content/d...ies/A2-R2P-Forum-2018-Elizabeth-Fernandez.pdf
Reunification is defined as:
• The return of children in foster care placements to the home of their birth family
• A process aimed at helping children in out of home care attain the optimum level of reconnection with their birth family. This optimal level of reconnection may fall somewhere on a continuum from physical return through to lesser forms of contact or visitation (Maluccio et al. 1996)
• Reunification is a primary goal of foster care systems, the most common permanency planning decision
Family reunification
Fewer programs aim at reunifying families than programs aimed at preserving intact families or maintaining children in care
Reunification decision-making and the process of reintegrating children into birth families after care remain under-researched
Few controlled studies: available evidence is mixed and based largely on non-experimental designs or nonequivalent comparison groups
Family structure and disadvantage
Family disadvantage - a robust predictor of delayed reunification (Berrick, 2009; Courtney 1994; Esposito et al. 2014; Farmer, 2011; Fernandez, 1996, 2017; Frame et al. 2000; Jones 1998; Choi & Ryan, 2006).
Reunification rates are also typically lower when there are lower levels of formal and informal family support (Berrick, 2009; Festinger, 1996).
Jones noted that poor accommodation particular was found to be a factor, this being the most damaging aspect of poverty and deprivation. Residence in public housing, marginal housing and transient accommodation predicted lower rates of reunification in some Australian studies.
A parent being in employment at the time of placement increased the likelihood of reunification, and loss of benefits following placement decreased the likelihood (Kortenkamp et al. 2004).
Children from single parent families return at a slower rate – in some studies 3 times less likely to return (Landsverk et al. 1996; Wells and Guo, 1999). Similar trend reflected in Australian Studies. Jones found similar results and applied additional statistical controls and found economic deprivation rather than the pathology of the single parent family was associated with reunification and re-entry.
There are parental profiles associated with reduced probability of reunification including mental illness, substance misuse.
Paternal engagement has been found to be associated with reunification (Malm & Zielewskil, 2009)
Children entering care due to substance misuse were found less likely to return to the care of their birth families than children whose parents did not have such substance abuse problems (Shaw, 2010; Hines et al, 2007).
Completion of a drug rehabilitation program was however found to be associated with reunification (Smith, 2003). Marsh et al (2006) found that only 21% of children who entered care because of mother’s addition were restored on average within 22 months.
Presence of domestic violence also lowers the odds of reunification (Fernandez et al, 2012; Shaw, 2010)
Parental visitation/contact
• Studies have found a strong association between consistent and regular contact and early reunification (Bullock et al. 1998; Davis et al. 1996; Fernandez, 1999; Sinclair, 2005).
• Bullock et al note that contact in conjunction with other variables (child’s retention of a role in the family, inclusiveness of care plans) and direct work on existing attachments (Cleaver 2000) was predictive of reunion.
• Contact highly correlated with plans for returns (Sinclair et al, 2015).
• Davis et al noted maternal and paternal visiting were strongly associated with reunification for over 75% of children studied.
• Working with contact is helpful in making returns work (Biehal, 2007, Thoburn et al, 2012)
Facilitators of reunification
Random controlled trials of specialist family reunification (e.g. Fraser et al. 1996; Lewandowski and Pierce, 2002) have identified some predictors of success:
• Strong parent/worker partnerships
• Parent focused services – which assist family coping, meet practical needs (material transport, bolstering support from wider family and community
• Promoting inclusivity and support through involving wider family and community in decision making processes.
Facilitators of reunification
• Family achieving at least 50% of treatment goals.
• Assisting parents in making improvements in habitability of housing
. • Assisting parents with disciplinary and anger management skills. • Parental motivation and willingness to change (Sinclair et al , 2015).
• Families who receive a large number of practical services (day care, home necessities, housing support) achieve timely returns (Rzepmicki, 1997)
Systemic barriers to reunification
• Agency lack of attention to reunification goals.
• Lack of community based reunification services
. • Large geographical distance between placement and child’s family.
• Family’s perception of being discouraged and ignored by child protection services.
• Lack of services for ameliorating the circumstances and behaviours which precipitated placement.
• Parent and child determination provoked reunification (Farmer & Parkes, 1991).
• Differences in orientation between local authorities impact on chances of return home (Sinclair et al, 2005).
• Insufficient services locally to help parents make and sustain changes (Farmer & Patsios, 2016).
taken from:
Reunification is more than returning a child home | Child Safety Practice Manual
The Child Welfare Information Gateway (2011) describes four aspects of family engagement which underpin effective reunification outcomes:
- the relationship between case worker and family, which is built through regular and frequent contact
- facilitation of contact between the parent and child and the active use of this as an opportunity to build and observe parental skills
- the involvement of foster carers to mentor and guide parents
- the inclusion of a network of support for parents to help them navigate the complexities of the child protection system.
Reunification is not just the return of a child to the care of their parent/s. It is a process along a continuum of service delivery. It includes maintaining family relationships, important connections and routines while a child is in short-term care, responsive case planning and ongoing support after a child returns home (DHSS, 2016). As the preferred permanency option, reunification requires careful consideration and decisive action from the point a child first enters care to address the presenting child protection worries and ensure a return to home is possible.
‘Reunifying a child with his or her birth parents is not a one-time event. Rather, it is a process involving the reintegration of the child into a family environment that may have changed significantly from the environment the child left’. (Wulczyn, 2004, p99)
