Based on interviews with children, birth parents, foster carers and social workers in the province of Ontario, Kathleen Kufeldt, James Armstrong and Marshall Dorosh explore some of the benefits and pitfalls of fostering as an effective response to children ‘in need’ of substitute care. Among the more surprising findings of their study is the high percentage of respondents who assert that, in retrospect, coming into care was the best solution to their particular situation. At the same time, the majority among all four sets of participants are in favour of maintaining ties and involvement in the form of continuity, connection and contact with birth families. Other positive findings show that children, especially pre-adolescents, often have quite a realistic understanding of the situation leading up to their placement in care with less of a tendency to blame themselves or idealise their birth families than has previously been suggested.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BerridgeDCleaverH, Foster Home Breakdown, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1987.
2.
BlumenthalKWeinbergA, Establishing Parent Involvement in Foster Care Agencies, New York: Child Welfare League of America, 1984.
3.
BullockRLittleMMillhamS, Going Home: The return of children separated from their families, Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishing, 1993.
4.
ColonF, ‘Family ties and child placement’, Family Process173, 1978, pp 289–312.
5.
Family Rights Group, Promoting Links: Keeping children and families in touch, London: Family Rights Group, 1986.
6.
FanshelD, ‘Parental visiting of children in foster care: Key to discharge?’, Child Welfare, 553, 1975, pp 143–1.
7.
GalawayBNutterRHudsonJ, ‘Birth parent participation in treatment foster family care’, in BradMcKenzie (ed), Current Perspectives on Foster Family Care for Children and Youth, Toronto: Wall & Emerson Inc, 1994, pp 74–82.
8.
HessP MProchK O, Family Visiting in Out-of-Home Care, Washington DC: Child Welfare League of America, 1988.
9.
HolmanR, ‘The place of fostering in social work’, The British Journal of Social Work, 51, 1975, pp 3–29.
10.
KufeldtK, Temporary Foster Care: Theoretical perspectives and participants perceptions, Ann Arbor, Michigan: UMI Dissertation Abstracts, 1981.
11.
KufedltK, ‘Listening to children – Who cares?’, British Journal of Social Work, 143, 1984, pp 257–64.
12.
KufeldtKAllisonJ, ‘Fostering children, fostering families’. Community Alternatives21, 1990, pp 1–17.
13.
KufeldtKArmstrongJDoroshM, ‘In care, in contact?’, in HudsonJGalawayB (eds), The State as Parent: International research perspectives on intervention with young persons, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Publishers, 1989.
14.
MillhamSBullockRHosieKHaakM, Lost In Care, Aldershot: Gower, 1986.
15.
SkinnerH, ‘Self-report instruments for family assessment’, in JacobT (ed). Family Interaction and Psychopathology, New York: Plenum Publishing Corporation, 1987.
16.
SteinhauerPDSantaBarbara JSkinnerH, ‘The process model of family functioning’, Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 292, 1984, pp 77–88.
17.
SteinhauerP D, The Least Detrimental Alternative, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993.
18.
TriseliotisJBorlandMHillMLambertL, Teenagers and the Social Work Services, London: HMSO, 1995.
