Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T20:03:22.301Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Understanding the Behaviour of Children in Care before and after Parental Contact

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 February 2017

Frank Ainsworth  and
Patricia Hansen
Frank Ainsworth*
Affiliation:
School of Social Work and Community Welfare, James Cook University, Townsville Campus, Townsville, QLD 4811, Australia
Patricia Hansen
Affiliation:
Hansen Legal, Parramatta, NSW 2150, Australia Australian Catholic University, Sydney, NSW 2135, Australia
*
addresses for correspondence: Frank Ainsworth, Senior Principal Research Fellow (Adjunct), School of Social Work and Community Welfare, James Cook University, Townsville Campus, Townsville, QLD 4811, Australia. E-mail: frankainsworth@hotmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is not uncommon to hear foster carers and child protection case workers comment about a child's behaviour both before and after parental contact. Frequently these comments are negative, the view being expressed that contact should be reduced because the children get upset at seeing their parents for a limited time, and then at having to separate from them. The child's resultant distress seems too difficult to manage for foster carers. Some foster parents even go so far as to suggest that parental contact should completely cease. This article sets out the rationale for parent–child contact after a Children's Court has ruled that there is “no realistic possibility of restoration” of a child to parental care. In doing so, the article revisits many of the old arguments put forward for reducing parent contact. However, alternative ways of approaching children's difficult behaviours both pre- and post-contact are also proposed to suggest different ways of managing these behaviours. The legislation and child protection practice in New South Wales provides the frame of reference for this article.

Keywords

parental contactchildren's behaviourfoster carersadoptive parents
Type
Commentary
Information
Children Australia , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , March 2017 , pp. 5 - 8
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ainsworth, F., & Hansen, P. (2014). Understanding difficult parental behaviours during a child protection investigation. Children Australia, 40 (1), 20–23.Google Scholar
Ainsworth, F., & Hansen, P. (2016). Establishing adoption as a route out of care in New South Wales: A commentary. Children Australia, 41 (3), 232–236.Google Scholar
Anglin, J. (2002). Pain, normality and the struggle for congruence. Binghampton, NY: Haworth Press.Google Scholar
Atwool, N. (2013). Birth family contact for children in care: How much, how often and who with? Child Care in Practice, 19 (2), 181–198.Google Scholar
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bullen, T., Taplin, S., Kertesz, M., Humphreys, C., & McArthur, M. (2015). Literature review on supervised contact between children in out-of-home care and their parents. Canberra: Australian Catholic University, Institute of Child Protection Studies.Google Scholar
Child Welfare Information Gateway (2012). Adoption disruption and dissolution. Washington, DC: Children's Bureau.Google Scholar
Cox, E., Moggach, L., & Smith, T. (2007). Participation and decision making in older age adoption. Developing Practice, 19, 16–24.Google Scholar
Dunn, J. H., Flory, B. E., & Berg-Weger, M. (2004). An exploratory study of supervised access and custody exchange services. The children's experience. Family Court Review, 42 (1), 60–73.Google Scholar
Fulcher, L., & Moran, A. (2013). Sisters of Pain: An ethnography of young women living in secure care. Claremont, SA: CYC-Net Press.Google Scholar
Hansen, P., & Ainsworth, F. (2009). The “best interests of the child” thesis: Some thoughts from Australia. International Journal of Social Welfare, 18 (4), 431–439.Google Scholar
Morrison, J., Mishna, F., Cook, C., & Aitken, G. (2011). Access visits: Perceptions of child protection caseworkers, foster parents and children who are Crown wards. Children and Youth Services Review, 33, 1476–1482.Google Scholar
Neil, E., Beek, M., & Ward, E. (2015). Contact after adoption: A longitudinal study of post-adoption contact arrangements. London: CoramBAAF.Google Scholar
NSW (1998). Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998. Retrieved from http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/act/1998/157/whole Google Scholar
NSW Family and Community Services (FaCS) (2014). Planning for contact changes. Discussion paper. Sydney: NSW Family and Community Services.Google Scholar
NSW Family and Community Services (FaCS) (2015). Pathways of care longitudinal study: Outcomes of children and young people in out-of-home care in NSW. Research report 1. Sydney: NSW. Retrieved from http://www.community.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/file/0004/335866/pathways_of_careresearch_report.pdf Google Scholar
NSW Legal Aid (2015). Care and protection section 86 contact mediations. Information for children's legal representatives. Retrieved from http://www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au/what-we-do/family-law/care-and-protection-services/care-and-protection-section-86-contact-mediations Google Scholar
Parliament of South Australia (2015). Interim report of the Select Committee on Statutory Child Protection in South Australia. Adelaide: Parliament of South Australia. Retrieved from http://cfc-sa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/bsk-pdf-manager/64_InterimReport_SelectCommittee_2015.pdf Google Scholar
Rigby, E., Gair, S., & Thorpe, R. (2016). Surviving intervention: Grandparents’ struggle to maintain relationships with their grandchildren following contact with child protection services. Children Australia, 41 (2), 98–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schofield, G., & Beek, M. (2006). Attachment handbook for foster care and adoption. London: BAAF.Google Scholar
Selwyn, J., Wijedasa, D., & Meakings, S. (2014). Beyond the adoption order: Challenges, interventions and adoption disruption. Bristol: Hadley Centre for Adoption and Fostering, University of Bristol.Google Scholar
Stein, M. (2015). Supportive pathways for young people leaving care. Lessons learned from four decades of research. In Whittaker, J. K., del Valle, J. F. & Holmes, L. (Eds.), Therapeutic residential care with children and youth: Developing evidenced based international practice (pp. 189–202). London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
United Nations (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/library/ethics/un-convention/ Google Scholar