This article presents the results of a qualitative study whose objective was to collect information on the perceptions of changes in parents and their children who are in the Spanish foster care system after completing a positive parenting programme.
Findings
The participants in the focus groups included 66 parents and 57 children. Triangulation of the voices of all protagonists identified findings that suggest the need for changes regarding understanding foster care measures and the process of family resilience; the quality and content of visits and contact between parents and children; and the role of professionals involved in the case.
Applications
The findings indicate the efficacy of the intervention proposed in the ‘Walking family’ programme with the direct and active involvement of children as they become a driver of change for the parents. However, when this does not occur, professionals must work from a critical approach and should provide a realistic view of the family to children.
ArranzE.OlabarrietaF.ManzanoA.BarretoF. B.RoncalloC. P.SánchezM.RekagorriJ.GarciaM. D. (2019).
Assessment and preventive education for families, based on the principles of positive parenting. Early Child Development and Care,
189(5), 792–801. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2017.1344234
2.
BalsellsM.PastorC.AmorósP.MateosA.PonceC.NavajasA. (2014).
Child welfare and successful reunification through the socio-educative process: Training needs among biological families in Spain. Social Sciences,
3(4), 809–826. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci3040809
3.
BalsellsM. À.MateosA.UrreaA.VaqueroE. (2018).
Positive parenting support during family reunification.Early Child Development and Care,
188(11), 1567–1579. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2018.1491559
4.
BalsellsM. À ,Pastor, C.AmorósP.Fuentes-PeláezN.MolinaM. C.MateosA.VaqueroE.PonceC.MateoM. I.ParraB.TorralbaJ. M.MundetA.UrreaA.CiuranaA.NavajasA.VázquezN. (2015). Caminar en familia: Programa de competencias parentales durante el acogimiento y la reunificación familiar [Walking family. Programme of parental skills during foster care and reunification]. Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad, Centro de Publicaciones. www.caminarenfamilia.udl.cat/
5.
BalsellsM. À.UrreaA.PonceC.VaqueroE.NavajasA. (2019).
Claves de acción socioeducativa para promover la participación de las familias en procesos de acogimiento [Socio-educative key actions to promote family participation in foster care processes].Educación XX1,
22(1), 401–423. https://doi.org/10.5944/educxx1.21501
6.
BenbenishtyR.Davidson-AradB.LópezM.DevaneyJ.SprattT.KoopmansC.KnorthE.WittemanC.Del ValleJ. F.HayesD. (2015).
Decision making in child protection: An international comparative study on maltreatment substantiation, risk assessment and interventions recommendations, and the role of professionals’ child welfare attitudes.Child Abuse & Neglect,
49, 63–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.03.015
7.
BernedoI. M.SalasM. D.FuentesM. J.García-MartínM. Á. (2014).
Foster children’s behavior problems and impulsivity in the family and school context. Children and Youth Services Review,
42, 43–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.03.022
8.
BiehalN. (2014).
A sense of belonging: Meanings of family and home in long-term foster care. British Journal of Social Work,
44(4), 955–971. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcs177
9.
CuencaM. E.CamposG.GoigR. M. (2018).
El tránsito a la vida adulta de los jóvenes en acogimiento residencial: El rol de la familia [Young people’s transition from residential care to adulthood; the family’s role]. Educación XX1,
21(1), 321–344. https://doi.org/10.5944/educxx1.20201
10.
DakofG. A.CohenJ. B.HendersonC. E.DuarteE.BoustaniM.BlackburnA.VenzerE.HawesS. (2010).
A randomized pilot study of the Engaging Moms Program for family drug court.Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment,
38(3), 263–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2010.01.002
11.
DelfabbroP.FernandezE.McCormickJ.KettlerL. (2013).
Reunification in a complete entry cohort: A longitudinal study of children entering out-of-home care in Tasmania,Australia. Children and Youth Services Review,
35(9), 1592–1600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.06.012
12.
EllingsenI. T.ShemmingsD.StørksenI. (2011).
The concept of ‘family’ among Norwegian adolescents in long-term foster care. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal,
28(4), 301–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-011-0234-0
13.
FarmerE. (2014).
Improving reunification practice: Pathways home, progress and outcomes for children returning from care to their parents. British Journal of Social Work,
44(2), 348–366. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcs093
14.
FarmerE.WijedasaD. (2013).
The reunification of looked after children with their parents: What contributes to return stability?British Journal of Social Work,
43(8), 1611–1629. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcs066
15.
FuentesM. J.BernedoI. M.SalasM. D.García-MartínM. A. (2018).
What do foster families and social workers think about children’s contact with birth parents? A focus group analysis. International Social Work,
62(5), 1416–1430. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872818775475
16.
GibbsG. (2012). El análisis de datos cualitativos en investigación cualitativa [Analyzing qualitative data]. Ediciones Morata.
17.
GoemansA.VanderfaeillieJ.DamenH.PijnenburgH.Van HolenF. (2016).
Reunification of foster children: Factors associated with reunification outcomes in Flanders and the Netherlands. Children and Youth Services Review,
70, 284–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.09.023
18.
GoodyerA. (2014).
Children’s accounts of moving to a foster home. Child & Family Social Work,
21(2), 188–197. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12128
KiralyM.HumphreysC. (2013).
Perspectives from young people about family contact in kinship care: “Don’t push us-listen more”. Australian Social Work,
66(3), 314–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2012.715658
LeónE.PalaciosJ. (2004).
Las visitas de los padres y la reunificación familiar tras el acogimiento [Parent visits and family reunification after foster care]. Portularia,
4, 241–248.
23.
LietzC. A.StrengthM. (2011).
Stories of successful reunification: A narrative study of family resilience in child welfare. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services,
92(2), 203–210. https://doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.4102
24.
Llosada-GistauJ.MontserratC.CasasF. (2017).
Cómo influye el sistema de protección en el bienestar subjetivo de los adolescentes que acoge [How does the child protection system influence the subjective well-being of adolescents in care?]. Sociedad e Infancias,
1, 261–282. https://doi.org/10.5209/SOCI.55830
25.
LópezM.Del ValleJ. F. (2015).
The waiting children: Pathways (and future) of children in long-term residential care. British Journal of Social Work,
45(2), 457–473. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bct130
26.
MaltaisC.CyrC.ParentG.PascuzzoK. (2019).
Identifying effective interventions for promoting parent engagement and family reunification for children in out-of-home care: A series of meta-analyses. Child Abuse & Neglect,
88, 362–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.12.009
27.
MateosA.VaqueroE.BalsellsM. A.PonceC. (2017). ‘
They didn’t tell me anything; they just sent me home’: Children’s participation in the return home. Child & Family Social Work,
22(2), 871–880. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12307
MurphyD.JenkinsonH. (2012).
The mutual benefits of listening to young people in care, with a particular focus on grief and loss: An irish foster carer’s perspective. Child Care in Practice,
18(3), 243–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/13575279.2012.683772
30.
NybellL. M. (2013).
Locating “youth voice”: Considering the contexts of speaking in foster care. Children and Youth Services Review,
35(8), 1227–1235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.04.009
31.
OsterlingK. L.HanM. (2011).
Reunification outcomes among Mexican immigrant families in the child welfare system. Children and Youth Services Review,
33(9), 1658–1666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.04.020
32.
PotgieterA.HoosainS. (2018).
Parents’ experiences of family reunification services. Social Work,
54(4), 436–451. https://doi.org/10.15270/54-4-671
33.
RodrigoM. J. (2010).
Promoting positive parenting in Europe: New challenges for the European society for developmental psychology. European Journal of Developmental Psychology,
7(3), 281–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405621003780200
34.
RodrigoM. J. (2016).
Quality of implementation in evidence-based positive parenting programs in Spain: Introduction to the special issue. Psychosocial Intervention,
25(2), 63–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psi.2016.02.004
35.
RodrigoM. J.AmorósP.ArranzE.HidalgoM. V.MáiquezM. L.MartínJ. C.MartínezR.A.OchaitaE. (2015). Guía de buenas prácticas en parentalidad positiva. Un recurso para apoyar la práctica profesional con familias [Good Practice Guide on positive parenting. A resource to support professional practice with families.]. Ministerio de Sanidad, Política Social e Igualdad. www.mscbs.gob.es/ssi/familiasInfancia/ayudas/docs2013-14/GuiadeBuenasPracticas2015.pdf
36.
ThoburnJ.RobinsonJ.AndersonB. (2012). Returning children home from public care.
Social Care Institute for Excellence.
37.
ThomasM.ChenotD.ReifelB. (2005).
A resilience-based model of reunification and reentry: Implications for out-of-home care services. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services,
86(2), 235–243. https://doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.2458
38.
TurcotteD.HélieS. (2012).
Child protection policy reform in Quebec: Its impact on placement and stability in substitute care. Child Welfare,
91(6), 125–148.
39.
WilkinsM.FarmerE. (2015). Reunification. An evidence-informed framework for return home practice.
National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.
