In this commentary, Kevin Browne and Shihning Chou focus on the issues raised by the critical responses to their article in Adoption & Fostering (Chou and Browne, 2008).1
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrowneK D, ‘A European survey of the number and characteristics of children less than three years old in residential care at risk of harm’, Adoption & Fostering29: 4, pp 23–33, 2005a.
2.
BrowneK D, Final Consultancy Report to UNICEF and the Government of Latvia on situation of children's services in Latvia, Geneva: UNICEF Office of the European Region, 2005b.
3.
BrowneK D, Final Consultancy Report to UNICEF and the Government of Lithuania on situation of children's services in Lithuania, Geneva: UNICEF Office of the European Region, 2005c.
4.
BrowneK D, Final Consultancy Report to UNICEF and the Government of Montenegro on deinstitutionalising and transforming services for children in Montenegro, Podgorica: UNICEF Country Office Montenegro, 2007.
5.
BrowneK D, The Risk of Harm to Young Children in Institutional Care: Report to Save the Children UK, London: Save the Children, 2008.
6.
BrowneK DChouSVettorS, Final Consultancy Report to UNICEF and the Government of Romania on the Development of Strategies and Actions Related to the Prevention of Infant Abandonment in Romania, Bucharest: UNICEF Country Office Romania, 2006.
7.
BrowneK DVettorSDejanovicV, Final Consultancy Report to UNICEF and the Government of Serbia on deinstitutionalising and transforming services for children in Serbia, Belgrade: UNICEF Country Office Serbia, 2006.
8.
BrowneKHamilton-GiachritsisCJohnsonROstergrenM, ‘Overuse of institutional care for children in Europe?’, British Medical Journal332, pp 485–87, 2006.
9.
CarterR, Family Matters: A study of institutional childcare in Central and Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union, London: Everychild, 2005.
10.
ChouSBrowneK DKirkaldyM, ‘Intercountry adoption on the internet’, Adoption & Fostering31: 2, pp 22–31, 2007.
11.
ChouSBrowneK D, ‘The relationship between institutional care and the international adoption of children in Europe’, Adoption & Fostering32: 1, pp 40–48, 2008.
12.
ColombaniJ MMorelAVassalloBZellerP, Rapport sur l'adoption, Paris: La Documentation française, 2008.
13.
Government of Romania, Child Welfare in Romania: The story of a reform process, Bucharest: Ministry of Labour, Social Solidarity and Family's National Authority for the Protection of Child Rights, 2006.
14.
JohnsonRBrowneKHamilton-GiachritsisC, ‘Young children in institutional care at risk of harm’, Trauma Violence and Abuse7: 1, pp 34–60, 2006.
15.
KadlecM BCermakS A, ‘Activity level, organisation, and social-emotional behaviours in post-institutionalised children’, Adoption Quarterly6: 2, pp 43–57, 2002.
PACE, Disappearance of newborn babies for illegal adoption in Europe, Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee, Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 2007.
18.
TobisD, Moving from Residential Institutions to Community Based Social Services in Central and Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union, New York: World Bank, 2000.
19.
UNICEF, Implementation Handbook for the Convention on the Rights of the Child, New York: UNICEF, 1998.
20.
UNICEF, ‘Alternative care’, in UNICEF (ed), Child Protection: A handbook for Parliamentarians, Geneva: Inter-Parliamentary Union, 2004.
21.
UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, MONEE project, Innocenti Social Monitor, New York: UNICEF Headquarters, 2004.
22.
VladI, ‘Parents discover their stillborn babies are alive for months after birth’, British Medical Journal328, p 248, 2004.
