This paper reports on survey work and group discussion by a Scottish parent-led support group (Parents Advocacy and Rights – PAR) that supports parents with children in the care system. A previous paper has been published discussing an overview of the survey results (www.pfan.uk/uncovering-the-pain/). The present paper delves further into parents’ particular experiences of contact. The responses are preceded by a critical retrospective of the concept of contact. Our retrospective covers the language of contact, contact’s origins, continuing confusions of meaning and the lack of appreciation of the parental experience and points to the artificiality of contact, the impracticalities of contact arrangements and the toll taken by these. We conclude by pointing out that we are in the fourth decade of recommendations about contact between parents and children in state care. We make the observations that there is a continuing failure to empathise with parents’ experience of deprivation and loss, a lack of comprehension of the depth of detriment to parental identity caused by the process and practices of contact and avoidance of discussion of the damage to the parent–child relationship which, irrespective of the ultimate destination of a child in state care, cannot be obliterated.
AinsworthFHansenP (2017)
Understanding the behaviour of children in care before and after parental contact. Children Australia42(1): 5–8.
2.
BaginskyMGorinSSandsC (2017) The fostering system in England: Evidence review.
London:
Department for Education.
3.
BilsonABarkerR (1995)
Parental contact with children fostered and in residential care after the Children Act 1989. British Journal of Social Work25: 367–381.
4.
BilsonABywatersP (2020)
Born into care: Evidence of a failed state. Children and Youth Services Review116. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105164
5.
BoddyJStathamJDanielsenIGeurtsEJoin-LambertHEuilletS (2013) Beyond contact: Work with families of children placed away from home in four European countries.
London:
Nuffield Foundation.
6.
BoyleC (2017)
What is the impact of birth family contact on children in adoption and long-term foster care? A systematic review. Child and Family Social Work22: 22–33.
7.
BroadhurstKMasonC (2017)
Birth parents and the collateral consequences of court-ordered child removal: Towards a comprehensive framework. International Journal of Law, Policy and The Family3: 41–59.
8.
BronfenbrennerU (1979) The ecology of human development.
Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
9.
BullenTTaplinSMcArthurMHumphreysCKerteszM (2017)
Interventions to improve supervised contact visits between children in out of home care and their parents: A systematic review. Child and Family Social Work22: 822–833.
10.
BullockRLittleM (1989) Managing the family contacts of children absent in care, professional and legislative issues: The experience of England and Wales. In: HudsonJGalawayB (eds) The State as Parent.
Dordrecht:
Springer, pp. 83–92.
11.
Children’s Rights Director (2009) Keeping in touch: A report of children’s experiences by the Children’s Rights Director for England.
Manchester:
Ofsted.
12.
ClaptonG (2020a) Child protection anxieties and the formation of UK child welfare and protection practices. In: TsalikiLChronakiD (eds) Discourses of anxiety over childhood and youth across cultures.
London:
Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 75–98.
13.
Clapton G (2020b) Uncovering the pain: Parents’ experiences of child protection. Parents, Families and Allies Network. Available at: www.pfan.uk/uncovering-the-pain/
14.
CleaverH (1997)
Contact: The social worker’s experience. Adoption & Fostering21(4): 34–40.
15.
CleaverHFreemanP (1995) Parental perspectives in cases of suspected child abuse.
London:
HMSO.
16.
Department of Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) (2010) The Children Act 1989 guidance and regulations volume 2: Care planning, placement and case review.
Nottingham:
DCSF Publications.
Fargas-MaletMMcSherryDLarkinEKellyG (2010)
Young children returning home from care: The birth parents' perspective. Child & Family Social Work15: 77–86.
GerringCKempSMarcenkoM (2008)
The Connections Project: A relational approach to engaging birth parents in visitation.Child Welfare87(6): 5–30.
21.
HaightWBlackJMangelsdorfSGiorgioGTataLSchoppeSSzewczykM (2002)
Making visits better: The perspectives of parents, foster parents, and child welfare workers.Child Welfare81(2): 173–202.
HoltS (2016)
‘Quality’ contact post-separation/divorce: A review of the literature. Children and Youth Services Review68: 92–99.
24.
HoneyAMayesRMiceliM (2018)
Mothering after child removal: Living under the rule of Greek gods. Child and Family Social Work23: 417–426.
25.
HumphreysCKiralyM (2009) Baby on board: Executive summary of report of the infants in care and family contact research project.
Melbourne:
University of Melbourne.
26.
Illinois Government (2019) Social services, Chapter iii: Department of children and family services, Subchapter A: Service delivery, Part 301: Placement and visitation services. Available at: www2.illinois.gov/dcfs/aboutus/notices/Documents/rules_301.pdf
IyerPBoddyJHammelsbeckRLynch-HugginsS (2020) Contact following placement in care, adoption, or special guardianship: implications for children and young people’s well-being. Evidence Review.
London:
Nuffield Family Justice Observatory.
30.
JenkinsSNormanE (1972) Filial deprivation and foster care.
New York:
Columbia University Press.
31.
KahanB (1979) Growing up in care.
Oxford:
Blackwell.
32.
LassonI (1981) Where's my mum?
Birmingham:
Pepar.
33.
MacAskillC (2002) Safe contact?Children in permanent placement and contact with their birth relatives.
Lyme Regis:
RHP.
34.
MaluccioA (1981) Casework with parents of children in foster care. In: SinanogluPMaluccioA (eds) Parents of children in placement: Perspectives and programs.
New York:
Child Welfare League of America, pp. 15–25.
35.
McFaddenPCampbellATaylorB (2015)
Resilience and burnout in child protection social work: Individual and organisational themes from a systematic literature review.British Journal of Social Work45: 1546–1563.
36.
MilesJLindleyB (2003) Contact for children subject to state intervention. In: BainhamALindleyBRichardsMTrinderL (eds) Children and their families: Contact, rights and welfare.
Oxford:
Hart, pp. 223–252.
37.
MillhamSBullockRHosieKHaakM (1986) Lost in care: The problems of maintaining links between children in care and their families.
Gower:
Basingstoke.
38.
MorrisonJMishnaFCookCAitkenG (2011)
Access visits: Perceptions of child protection workers, foster parents and children who are Crown wards. Children and Youth Services Review33: 1476–1482.
NeilEHoweD (2004) Conclusion: A transactional model for thinking about contact. In: NeilEHoweD (eds) Contact in adoption and permanent foster care: Research, theory and practice.
London:
BAAF, pp. 224–254.
41.
NeilECopsonRSorensonP (2020) Contact during lockdown: How are children and their birth families keeping in touch?
London:
Nuffield Family Justice Observatory.
42.
NeilEGitselsLThoburnJ (2020)
Returning children home from care: What can be learned from local authority data?Child & Family Social Work25: 548–556.
43.
NeilEYoungJHartleyL (2018) The joys and challenges of adoptive family life: A survey of adoptive parents in the Yorkshire and Humberside region.
Norwich:
Centre for Research on Children and Families and University of East Anglia.
44.
PackmanJJordanB (1991)
The Children Act: Looking forward, looking back. British Journal of Social Work21: 315–327.
45.
PyeJReesA (2019) Factors that promote positive supervised birth family contact for children in care. In: MannayDReesARobertsL (eds) Children and young people ‘looked after’? Education, intervention and the everyday culture of care in Wales.
Cardiff:
University of Wales Press, pp. 113–126.
46.
RossNCocksJJohnstonLStokerL (2017) ‘No voice, no opinion, nothing’: Parent experiences when children are removed and placed in care.
Newcastle, NSW:
University of Newcastle.
47.
RoweJLambertL (1973) Children who wait.
London:
Association of British Adoption Agencies.
SainiMVan WertMGofmanJ (2012)
Parent–child supervised visitation within child welfare and custody dispute contexts: An exploratory comparison of two distinct models of practice. Children and Youth Services Review34(1): 163–168.
50.
SchofieldGMoldestadBHojerIWardESkilbredDYoungJHavikT (2011)
Managing loss and a threatened identity: Experiences of parents of children growing up in foster care, the perspectives of their social workers and implications for practice. British Journal of Social Work41: 74–92.
51.
SchofieldGSimmondsJ (2011)
Contact for infants subject to care proceedings. Adoption & Fostering35(4): 70–74.
52.
Scottish Government (2010) Guidance on looked after children regulations 2009.
Edinburgh:
Scottish Government.
53.
SimpsonJE (2020)
Twenty-first century contact: The use of mobile communication devices and the internet by young people in care. Adoption & Fostering44(1): 6–19.
54.
SladeA (2010) A guide to best practice in supervised child contact.
London:
Coram.
55.
Social Work Scotland (2020) Rights, relationships and resilience: A framework for decision-makers to help children in care maintain contact with their families during Covid-19 pandemic.
TriseliotisJ (2010)
Contact between looked after children and their parents: A level playing field?Adoption & Fostering34(3): 59–66.
58.
WeitzYSKarlssonM (2021)
Professional or authentic motherhood? Negotiations on the identity of the birth mother in the context of foster care. Qualitative Social Work20(3): 703–717.
59.
WilsonKDevaneyJ (2018)
Promoting contact for children in state care: Learning from Northern Ireland on the development of a framework for assessing contact. Child Care in Practice24(3): 288–303.
