The Family Reunification Project: Facilitating Regular Contact among Foster Children, Biological Families, and Foster Families.
Saved in:
| Title: | The Family Reunification Project: Facilitating Regular Contact among Foster Children, Biological Families, and Foster Families. |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Simms, Mark D., Bolden, Barbara J. |
| Source: | Child Welfare. Nov-Dec 1991 70(6):679-690. |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 12 |
| Publication Date: | 1991 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Descriptive Information Analyses |
| Descriptors: | Biological Parents, Foster Children, Foster Family, Mental Health Workers, Parent Child Relationship, Parenting Skills, Pilot Projects, Program Descriptions, Social Support Groups |
| Geographic Terms: | Connecticut |
| ISSN: | 0009-4021 |
| Abstract: | A 16-week pilot program, sponsored and carried out by mental health practitioners, created a neutral setting for structured visits of biological parents, their children in placement, and the children's foster parents. Results were sufficiently promising to warrant planning for a more extensive, research-based program. (GLR) |
| Entry Date: | 1992 |
| Accession Number: | EJ436466 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwF_jjpCnMZRkrrSEodLWOqDAAAA6DCB5QYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHXMIHUAgEAMIHOBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDMSo3azdLdHaeKK_gAIBEICBoLrjnEascKnTY1wp2fwXNRP22zOh1LojWpjJ9mYlif3Nqn3U1FSIe5HRkUxje1bvKyyZUQV0rIBVosKwIyGD9GZobQMAmNPVLMdZnkr4dLwT26hjbFYZ41B9V5wfzHzKf5fUykdEcigsqrENvhp5SPPVtK_wlNyR9_Zx3cTKW3XVtXXzYXlIqQxa_yJkKJzuAoHN28qLN79KA1_nJuESz88= Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN9202104372;cwf01nov.91;2006Nov21.13:10;v2.2.460</anid> <jsection id="AN9202104372-1"> SPECIAL REPORT</jsection> <title id="AN9202104372-2">The Family Reunification Project: Facilitating Regular Contact Among Foster Children, Biological Families, and Foster Families </title> <p>A 16-week pilot program, sponsored and carried out by mental health practitioners, created a neutral setting for structured visits of biological parents, their children in placement, and the children's foster parents, in which several activities could take place. The results were sufficiently promising to warrant planning for a more extensive, research-based program.</p> <p>Each year thousands of children are placed in foster homes with the intention of returning them to their family's care in a short time. A large proportion of these children come from families where major problems such as illness, substance abuse, criminal activity, and lack of adequate housing exist, and where the parents lack even the most basic parenting skills [Kliman et al. 1982; Jenkins and Norman 1975; Kluger et al. 1986]. Recent federal statutes require that agencies make an effort to facilitate reunification of placed children with their families whenever possible [Public Law 96-272), and available research has demonstrated a positive correlation between continued contact with the parent during placement and both the adjustment of the child to the foster home and the probability of being returned home [Weinstein 1960; Sherman et al. 1973; Thorpe 1974; Holman 1973; Fanshel and Shinn 1978; Fanshel 1982; Milner 1987]. Visiting, however, often involves considerable stress for all parties-foster child, biological parents, and foster parents. Foster children often feel a conflict of loyalties between the biological parents and their foster parents, and react in an angry and confused manner during and after visits [Gean et al. 1985]. Few parents enjoy visiting, and for some it is a painful ordeal [Kadushin and Martin 1988; McAdams 1970]. Fanshel [1982] found that many parents engaged during visits in inappropriate behavior reflecting their negative feelings about the placement. A high degree of tension and competitiveness often exists between the foster parents and the biological parents. Lacking an appreciation of the importance of the biological parents in the child's life, foster parents may frustrate and discourage visiting by the biological parents [Cautley 1980]. Indeed, the continued stress of visiting may contribute to the breakdown of the placement.</p> <p>Studies of children returned from foster care and followed for as little as one and one-half years have demonstrated recidivism rates ranging to 35% [Fein et al. 1983; Block 1981; Fanshel and Shinn 1978]. The alarmingly high failure rate of reunification demands that additional attention be paid to this problem. Lacking specific information concerning the biological parent's true parenting ability, child welfare agency personnel and judges tend to make hopeful, but too often erroneous, decisions. The mere fact that a biological parent has made an effort to visit her child is frequently considered evidence of a strong parent-child bond and may result in a decision favoring reunification. Disruption of the parent-child relationship caused by the forced separation and the difficulty of maintaining any positive aspects of the relationship appears to contribute to an eventual breakdown once the children are returned home. It is clear that without support services during placement and after reunification, permanency may not in fact take place. Yet studies have found that few parents receive direct rehabilitative services [Stone 1969; George 1970; Yoshikami 1984; Turner 1984] and most communities lack services that teach basic skills to seriously impaired parents. Thus what begins as a temporary placement often becomes a protracted placement.</p> <p>This article describes a pilot program developed to facilitate the reunification of families by addressing the needs of the biological parents, the foster parents, and the foster children during the visiting process.</p> <hd id="AN9202104372-3"> Development of the Program </hd> <p>The program was an outgrowth of our previous work directed at helping foster children with special needs, which provided services to help foster parents cope with developmentally and emotionally handicapped children placed in their homes [Simms 1983]. The children's biological parents were not included in the initial program because of staffing and financial constraints, and stabilization of the foster home placement was the principal goal. The possibility of including a component for the biological parents, however, using visiting as a focus to assist the reunification process, was apparent.</p> <p>The authors have had a special interest in foster children for many years, and have collaborated in the development of several programs to assist children and families with multiple needs. In 1984, we conducted a survey of 70 preschool foster children in the Waterbury, CT area and found only 44 (63%) whose parents were actively visiting them. One year later, 41% of the children who had been visited regularly by their parents had returned home, in contrast to only 8% of the children who were not visited. That survey also revealed that 80% of the visits took place in the foster home; the rest were divided between relatives' homes, the agency office, the state prison, and the biological parents' home. The caseworker was rarely present during the visits unless they took place at the agency office or at'the prison. Many of the foster parents complained that visits that took place in their homes were disruptive and distressing for themselves and the children.</p> <p>In 1985, a multidisciplinary and multiagency Foster Care Clinic was established to evaluate the needs of children entering foster care [Simms 1989). In the course of our work, it became apparent that a program was needed to assist foster parents, foster children, biological parents and agencies attain the stated goal of eventual reunification. The opportunity arose to operate a pilot visiting program at the Child Guidance Clinic of Waterbury in the spring of 1989 when the state Department of Children and Youth Services (DCYS) granted permission to work with families in the process of reunification. The program was able to run only for a 16-week period because of significant budgetary and staffing restrictions. The name Family Reunification Project (FRP) was chosen to emphasize the main focus and goals of the program.</p> <hd id="AN9202104372-4"> Goals </hd> <p>The following goals were established for the Family Reunification Project:</p> <olist> <item> To provide a neutral, nurturing, and educational environment for foster children, foster parents, and biological parents in which regular visits would take place while the children were in foster home placement;</item> <item> To help biological parents and foster children maintain their relationships during the placement period;</item> <item> To assist biological parents in improving their parenting skills;</item> <item> To assist foster parents in understanding their roles in the foster care system;</item> <item> To provide educational and supportive services to foster parents in order to enhance the stability of foster home placements;</item> <item> To provide access, after reunion, to those services necessary for the family to function appropriately;</item> <item> To accumulate data that could be used by agencies and courts in making reunification decisions.</item> </olist> <hd id="AN9202104372-5"> Target Population </hd> <p>The program served families with children ranging in age from birth through 12 years, in three modules: infant/toddler (zero to three years), preschool (three to five years) and school age (six to 12 years).</p> <p>Any foster child placed in a licensed foster family home whose foster parents and biological parents agreed to participate was eligible for the program.</p> <p>Biological parents were advised that their progress in the program would be discussed with their caseworkers, and that this information would be used by the agency in making planning decisions. Participation in the program depended upon the biological parents' consent.</p> <p>Referrals for individual and family psychotherapy in the regular Child Guidance Clinic programs were also available to biological parents, but they were advised that they could participate in the FRP without accepting therapy.</p> <hd id="AN9202104372-6"> Staff and Referral Sources </hd> <p>The staff consisted of an M.S.W. program supervisor and two clinical M.S.W. social workers who were experienced in family therapy techniques, two case managers, and two volunteers, one of whom was an art therapist. A child psychiatrist, a developmental pediatrician, an educational consultant, and the executive director of the Child Guidance Clinic provided additional support. Referrals to the program came principally from the Waterbury Regional Office of DCYS, but no DCYS social work staff members were directly involved in the program. Families were also referred by the juvenile court and by the Foster Care Clinic.</p> <hd id="AN9202104372-7"> Program Description </hd> <p>Each visit lasted two hours. The first hour consisted of a structured session for the foster children and their biological parents. A foster parent support and training group met concurrently in a separate location. At the conclusion of the visit the foster parents and the children left and a second hour consisted of a support group for the biological parents.</p> <hd id="AN9202104372-8"> The Experience of the Pilot Program </hd> <p>The pilot phase of this project took place between March 1, 1989, and June 23, 1989. During those 16 weeks the program served a total of eight foster children (six boys and two girls) five through nine years old. Three biological mothers (two Hispanic and one white), one biological father (Hispanic) and four foster mothers (three white and one Hispanic) participated in the program.</p> <p>Sessions took place weekly at the Child Guidance Clinic of Waterbury. Not all of the children and biological parents lived in the Waterbury area, and DCYS made transportation available where necessary. One foster parent drove with her foster children approximately 70 miles to participate in the program. One biological father traveled approximately 30 miles to visit his children at the program.</p> <hd id="AN9202104372-9"> Structured Visit </hd> <p>During the first hour the foster children and their biological parents participated in a group activity facilitated by the art therapist. Two or three staff members moved through the play area observing and providing assistance to parents, and intervening when behavior seemed inappropriate. There were several small areas where the parents could sit and talk with their children separately and read or listen to music with them. Comfortable furniture, books, puzzles, and games were available to provide the atmosphere of a home. Outside, a small playground area offered a swing and a slide. Weather permitting, the children and their parents were encouraged to go there. Milk, juice, popcorn, and other snacks were provided for all to enjoy.</p> <p>During these visits, short (20-minute) individual family therapy sessions were conducted by the staff social worker. Each parent and child left the group and were observed as a family unit. Upon completion of this segment, the child was sent back to the group and the parent had a short conference with the social worker to reinforce positive changes in his or her style of parenting. The number of children and parents attending the sessions varied each week. Biological mothers were encouraged to bring their spouses or boyfriends to the sessions. If a foster parent was unable to obtain babysitting for her other children, she was allowed to bring them to the program.</p> <p>Initially, many parents appeared ill at ease in spontaneous play with their children. Some grumbled about coming to the program to play with their children. Most appeared unable to see how benefit could be derived from play activities. Within a short time, however, and through the help of the staff, they began to feel comfortable, participating fully in the group activities and appearing to enjoy the time they spent with their children. Their attendance record was excellent, with all of the parents attending over 90% of the sessions. As a result of progress made during these meetings, one of the parents had the frequency of visiting increased by her caseworker.</p> <p>At the onset of the program, the staff social worker carried out a clinical family assessment of each family. At the end of each session, the staff members processed and recorded their observations of the day's activities.</p> <hd id="AN9202104372-10"> The Foster Parent Support Group </hd> <p>A clinical social worker conducted the foster parents' group in a conference room separate from the visiting area. The first issue raised by the foster parents concerned their role within DCYS. Some were unclear about the agency's expectations, even though they had all been active foster parents for several years. Their problems with the agency centered primarily on the reality that caseworkers rarely asked for their opinions about children who had been in their care for 18 to 48 months! Even when foster parents had been invited to attend a particular child's case review, their opinions were never solicited. They also complained of their meager contact with caseworkers, which varied from once a year to only during a crisis.</p> <p>Another issue that deeply concerned the foster parents was the manner in which children were removed from their care. Usually there was little or no time to prepare the child for the impending change. Even if he or she were to go home with the mother or father, the time allotted for preparation was insufficient. Foster parents were more distressed by situations in which the child was changed to another foster home than when children were returned to their biological parent's care.</p> <p>During the latter part of the four-month period, the discussions shifted from agency issues to those that directly affected the children. Occasionally they questioned whether the biological parents were ready to care for their children. Most of the foster parents were able to understand the merit of returning the children, if appropriate support was provided to the parents. Children often displayed behavioral difficulties associated with visits, but most foster parents recognized that the children longed to live with their biological parents and that the emotional ambivalence they experienced was expressed in aggressive behaviors. The most notable outcome of these sessions was the cohesion and support the foster mothers developed for each other. They appeared to use the group to overcome their frustrations in dealing with the agency bureaucracy, to gain insight into the importance of the visiting process, and to develop increased empathy and understanding toward the biological parents.</p> <hd id="AN9202104372-11"> The Biological Parent Group </hd> <p>After the foster parents took the children home, the biological parents met as a group with the social worker. They spoke about their problems with the agency, the caseworkers, and the foster parents, discussed their needs and their desire to improve their ability to care for their children. They all found the program to be a helpful and nonthreatening way of visiting their children. One mentioned that she had never met another mother with children in foster care. The prohibition of physical modes of discipline by the agency was difficult for them to accept or understand. In discussions of their own personal problems, substance abuse, family violence, inadequate housing, and AIDS were identified as critical. The biological parents seemed open and honest during these sessions. Some were clear about the process necessary to get their children back; others were less informed and somewhat ambivalent about their own capacity to provide a healthy, wholesome environment for their children. Each parent struggled with the issue of whether or not the reunification was really in the best interests of the child.</p> <hd id="AN9202104372-12"> Discussion </hd> <p>A unique aspect of this project was its provision of direct services for foster parents, foster children, and their biological parents in a single coordinated program. It is a flexible model that can accommodate varying numbers of participants and differing degrees of parenting ability.</p> <p>A key element was the collaboration between the child welfare agency and other community resources in providing a neutral and supportive environment for the visits to take place. Although it is customary for agency caseworkers to try to facilitate visits [Kadushin and Martin 1988], the conflicting roles inherent in advocating for both the child and the parents are great, especially when there are significant parent-child interaction problems. That the vast majority of visits take place in foster homes and that most caseworkers lack training in family therapy techniques only compound this difficult but vital process.</p> <p>It has been found that biological parents are wary of discussing their concerns with caseworkers. For example, Thoburn [1980] noted that the relationship between biological parents and caseworkers often started with suspicion and dislike before the placement and turned to resignation during the placement period. Positive feelings often did not develop until the child was returned and the family was doing well. In a study of biological families in New York, Fanshel [1982] noted that more than half were unable to discuss their personal problems with caseworkers, were defensive about themselves, or were excessively dependent.</p> <p>Although community mental health professionals can provide supportive and therapeutic services to assist families in reuniting, research has shown that they are often perceived by social workers as inaccessible to their clients [Schimke 1984]; few families are referred for counseling by agency caseworkers [Fanshel 1982]; and few families utilize them when they are referred [Turner 1984]. The use of a mental health facility, such as the Child Guidance Clinic, as a site for visiting can encourage greater cooperation in the care of these families between child welfare and mental health practitioners. Although the biological parents were not required to enter into individual counseling in order to participate in the visiting program, several in this study did avail themselves of these services after beginning the FRP.</p> <p>In the FRP, the use of both group and individual activities stimulated useful parent-child interactions. Although the focus was to have a pleasant time together with their children, parents had opportunities to learn and practice appropriate parental behavior in this protected setting. The FRP staff members were skilled at working with psychologically impaired parents and were thus available to model and teach appropriate behavior to the biological parents. And even if the biological parent was unable to visit, the child was never totally disappointed, because there were still many things for the child to do, and other children and adults with whom to play.</p> <p>From the outset, regular communication between the project staff members and the caseworkers was essential to the acceptance of the program by the agency. As noted earlier, biological parents were told before enrollment that their progress in the program might be used by the caseworkers in the making of permanency planning decisions. Despite this stipulation, the parents generally viewed the program as a positive and supportive way to work toward the return of their children and welcomed the opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to their children. In fact, the biological parents voiced great disappointment when the pilot program ended.</p> <p>Although observations of parent-child interaction during the sessions were collected systematically and given to agency caseworkers, too few families were involved for too short a period to determine whether the information had an impact on case planning. It is of note that after the project started, one local juvenile court judge began referring families to the program, showing that the potential of this type of program to provide needed services and information was recognized by some members of the legal community. In addition to its direct support services, its potential to aid permanency planning decisions is perhaps one of its most significant attributes.</p> <p>Foster parents were encouraged to bring the children and to participate and receive support and training in a group. Foster parents' attitudes and behaviors have been found to significantly influence the child's response to visiting and his or her resolution of the trauma of placement. Walker [1971] noted that those foster parents who had difficulty coping with separation and loss themselves, and whose own personal emotional needs caused them to "exploit" children for love, generally had children with many unresolved problems. In contrast, children in the care of foster parents who were able to recognize the children's emotional needs and who were not threatened by aggressive reactions and narcissism had children with much better adjustment patterns. Gean et al. [1985] found that foster parents who were opposed to, or who expressed significant anxiety about visiting had children with the greatest number of behavioral symptoms. Therefore, a program component designed to assist foster parents explore their own needs and feelings can contribute significantly to the success or failure of the visiting process. Although the FRP pilot program was too short to determine whether significant change occurred in the foster parents' attitudes or whether placements were made more secure, it did offer an opportunity for foster parents to voice their concerns, frustrations, and hopes for the children; to explore their role in the care of the children; and to better understand the importance of the children's ties to their biological families.</p> <p>To assist the process of reunification it was necessary to explore with the biological parents the full range of issues that led to the placement of their children. During the 16 weeks of this pilot program we were impressed by the range and depth of the problems we only began to uncover. The pain, hurt, and sense of shame and guilt felt by these parents were strong. We found that most of the biological parents had experienced massive deprivation of nurturing by their own parents during childhood and lacked any role model for appropriate parenting. Although the families who participated in the program were felt by the agency to be good candidates for reunification, during the group sessions it became clear that the children were destined to return to a precarious and fragmented family structure at best, with few community or extended family supports available to the parents. Limited financial resources and employment opportunities combined with meager parenting skills appeared to predict a poor long-term outcome for these families. Even though the parents were able to discuss their problems and seemed receptive to the help the program offered them during the 16 weeks of this pilot, the staff members felt that much more work was needed to ensure success. Based on this initial experience it would appear that at least nine to 12 months of participation would be necessary.</p> <p>If the family appears capable of managing reunification, the children might be returned home during the nine to 12 month period and continued participation in the program might be made a part of the reunification plan. In this way the families who were recently reunited could use the FRP program as a source of ongoing support, and even assist those families who aspire to reunify. Alternatively, reunification should be delayed if the family demonstrates significant continuing dysfunctions during the course of the program. As stated previously, although reunification for each family is the goal of this program, it may not be an appropriate one for every family.</p> <hd id="AN9202104372-13"> Plan for an Expanded Program </hd> <p>Currently we are seeking funding to operate this program on a full-time basis. In addition to serving a larger clientele, a more comprehensive evaluation component will be added. Process measures will include both the foster and biological parents' attitudes, behavioral management skills, and patterns of visiting. Outcome measures will include length of time in placement, stability of foster home placement, and success of the permanent placement (whether return to home or adoption).</p> <hd id="AN9202104372-14"> Considerations for the Replication of this Model </hd> <p>Because of its simplicity and flexibility, this model should be replicable in almost any community. The necessary element is a staff with sufficient training and experience in working with dysfunctional parents and their children. Additionally, a cooperative working relationship with the foster care agency is essential, since it must fully sanction the program and encourage referrals. Because the program depends on the involvement and active participation of both foster and biological parents, logistical problems may arise. Although it is not necessary for each to be present at every session, there must be sufficient attendance for the program to influence the attitudes and behaviors of both parties.</p> <p>The main costs are for the physical site and the program staff. Based on this pilot we estimate that it will cost approximately $2,000 per child to serve 100 children over a period of one year. This compares favorably with the current cost of maintaining a child in foster care in Connecticut (approximately $4,000 per child per year). If the program can successfully accelerate the reunification process and decrease the recidivism rate of placement of children reunited with their families, a significant net saving to the foster care system will result.</p> <p>Finally, the staff must be prepared to confront the overwhelming nature of the problems leading to the placement of the children. The current failure rate of families that are reunified indicates that success is not a simple matter of parental desire and good attendance at visits. Families must also have access to basic community social service, medical, educational, mental health, employment, and financial supports. Although a program of this nature can serve as a critical support for families before, and for a period of time following, reunification, it cannot replace those services.</p> <p>The authors would like to thank Delores Woodward, Ph.D., and Mrs. Lauren Graham-Leichner, from the Connecticut Department of Children and Youth Services, for their cooperation and support in this project. Mrs. Lorraine Young and Mr. Raymond J. Paradise were instrumental in carrying out the project. Mark M. O'Brien, M.D., reviewed the manuscript and Benjamin C. Berliner, M.D., kindly provided editorial comments.</p> <p>(Address requests for a reprint to Mark D. Simms, M.D., St. Mary's Hospital-PAC, 56 Franklin Street, Waterbury, CT 06706.)</p> <p>© 1991 Child Welfare League of America</p> <ref id="AN9202104372-15"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Block, N. M. "Toward Reducing Recidivism in Foster Care." CHILD WELFARE LX, 9 (November 1981): 597-610.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Cautley, P. W. New Foster Parents: The First Experience. New York: Human Sciences Press, 1980.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Fanshel, D. On the Road to Permanency: An Expanded Data Base for Service to Children in Foster Care. New York: Child Welfare League of America, 1982.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Fanshel, D., and Shinn, E. B. Children in Foster Care: A Longitudinal Investigation. New York: Columbia University Press, 1978.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Fein, E.; Maluccio, A. N.; Hamilton, V. J.; and Ward, D. E. "After Foster Care: Outcomes of Permanency Planning for Children." CHILD WELFARE LXII, 6 (November-December 1983): 483-558.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Gear, M. P.; Gillmore, J. L.; and Dowler, J. K. "Infants and Toddlers in Supervised Custody: A Pilot Study of Visitation." Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry 24, 5 (1985): 608-612.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>George, V. Foster Care: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, Ltd., 1970.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Holman, R. Trading in Children: A Study of Private Fostering. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, Ltd., 1973.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Jenkins, S. and Norman, E. Beyond Placement: Mothers' View of Foster Care. New York: Columbia University Press, 1975.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib10" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Kadushin, A., and Martin, J. A. Child Welfare Services (4th ed.). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1988, 398.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib11" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Kilman, G. W.; Schaeffer, M.; and Friedman, M. J. (eds.) Preventive Mental Health Services for Children Entering Foster Home Care: An Assessment. White Plains, NY: Center for Preventive Psychiatry, 1982.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib12" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Kluger, M.; Fein, E.; Maluccio, A.; and Taylor, J. An Examination of Long-Term Foster Care: Brief Report. Department of Health and Human Services Grant #90-CW-0721; July, 1986.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib13" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>McAdams, J. "The Parent in the Shadows." Journal of Public Social Services 1, 4 (December 1970): 84-90.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib14" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Milner, J. "An Ecological Perspective on Duration of Foster Care." CHILD WELFARE LXVI, 2 (March-April 1987): 113-123.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib15" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Public Law 96-272. The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib16" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Schimke, K. Interagency Cooperation and Coordination. In Establishing Parent Involvement in Foster Care Agencies, edited by Karen Blumenthal and Anita Weinberg. New York: The Child Welfare League of America, 1984, 97-116.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib17" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Sherman, E.; Neuman, R.; and Shyne, A. W. Children Adrift in Foster Care — A Study of Alternative Approaches. New York: Child Welfare League of America, 1973.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib18" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Simms, M. D. "The Foster Parenting Center: A Multidisciplinary Resource Program for Special Needs Children." Infant Mental Health Journal 4, 2 (Summer 1983): 116-125.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib19" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Simms, M. D. "The Foster Care Clinic: A Community Program to Identify Treatment Needs of Children in Foster Care." Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics 10, 4 (June 1989): 121-128.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib20" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Stone, H. D. Reflections on Foster Care — A Report of a National Survey of Attitudes and Practices. New York: Child Welfare League of America, 1969.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib21" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Thobum, J. Captive Clients: Social Work with Families of Children Home on Trial. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1980.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib22" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Thorpe, R. "Mum and Mrs. So and So." Social Work Today 4, 22 (July 1974): 691-695.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib23" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Turner, J. "Reuniting Children in Foster Care with Their Biological Parents." Social Work 29, (November-December 1984): 501-505.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib24" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Weinstein, E. The Self-image of the Foster Child. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1960.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib25" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Yoshikami, R. T. Assessing the Implementation of Federal Policy to Reduced the Use of Foster Care: Placement Prevention and Reunification in Child Welfare, Volume 1. Washington, DC: U.S. Children's Bureau, 1984.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib26" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Walker, C. W. Persistence of Mourning in the Foster Child as Related to the Foster Mother's Level of Maturity. Smith College Studies in Social Work 61 (1971): 173-246.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Mark D. Simms and Barbara J. Bolden</p> <p></p> <p>Mark D. Simms, M.D., M.P.H., is Medical Director, Pediatric Ambulatory Care Unit, The Waterbury Regional Department of Pediatrics, St. Mary's Hospital, Waterbury, CT.</p> <p>Barbara J. Bolden, A.C.S.W., C.I.S.W., is Coordinator of Community Programs, The Child Guidance Clinic of Waterbury, Inc., Waterbury, CT.</p> </aug> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ436466 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: The Family Reunification Project: Facilitating Regular Contact among Foster Children, Biological Families, and Foster Families. – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Simms%2C+Mark+D%2E%22">Simms, Mark D.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bolden%2C+Barbara+J%2E%22">Bolden, Barbara J.</searchLink> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Child+Welfare%22"><i>Child Welfare</i></searchLink>. Nov-Dec 1991 70(6):679-690. – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 12 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 1991 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Descriptive<br />Information Analyses – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Biological+Parents%22">Biological Parents</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foster+Children%22">Foster Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foster+Family%22">Foster Family</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mental+Health+Workers%22">Mental Health Workers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parent+Child+Relationship%22">Parent Child Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parenting+Skills%22">Parenting Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pilot+Projects%22">Pilot Projects</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Descriptions%22">Program Descriptions</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Support+Groups%22">Social Support Groups</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Geographic Terms Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Connecticut%22">Connecticut</searchLink> – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 0009-4021 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: A 16-week pilot program, sponsored and carried out by mental health practitioners, created a neutral setting for structured visits of biological parents, their children in placement, and the children's foster parents. Results were sufficiently promising to warrant planning for a more extensive, research-based program. (GLR) – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 1992 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ436466 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ436466 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 12 StartPage: 679 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Biological Parents Type: general – SubjectFull: Foster Children Type: general – SubjectFull: Foster Family Type: general – SubjectFull: Mental Health Workers Type: general – SubjectFull: Parent Child Relationship Type: general – SubjectFull: Parenting Skills Type: general – SubjectFull: Pilot Projects Type: general – SubjectFull: Program Descriptions Type: general – SubjectFull: Social Support Groups Type: general – SubjectFull: Connecticut Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: The Family Reunification Project: Facilitating Regular Contact among Foster Children, Biological Families, and Foster Families. Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Simms, Mark D. – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Bolden, Barbara J. IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 01 Type: published Y: 1991 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 0009-4021 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 70 – Type: issue Value: 6 Titles: – TitleFull: Child Welfare Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
