THE ADOPTION OPTION Exploring Adoption as a permanent placement in the substitute care context.

1
THE ADOPTION OPTION Exploring Adoption
as a permanent placement in the substitute
care context.

• Frances Evans, Wesley Dalmar Research Unit
• frances.evans_at_wesleymission.org.au

2
LOOKING AFTER KIDS IN NSW FIRST This review
will put the needs of children young people in
OOHC firstfocus DoCS efforts on adoption and
permanency planning in this state
DoCS Media Release 4th July 2006
3

• WHERE DOES THIS EVIDENCE COME FROM?
• International Research
• Australian Research
• Consultation

Listening Collaborating
Measuring
4
WHAT IS ADOPTION?

• What is adoption in an OOHC context?
• Ethical
• Open
• Culturally appropriate
• Supported
• One aspect of a seamless spectrum

5
Why should we use it? The Evidence Base

• Security Stability
• Legal
• Emotional Social
• Flexibility
• Breakdown Disruption

6

• Outcomes
• Health and Well being
• Parenting Factors
• Non Welfare Based Model of Care
• Childrens Views

7
Who should we use it for?Research on Placement
Decision Making

• The Child
• Age
• Behavioural Physical
• Needs
• Birth Family
• Cultural Heritage
• The Childs Voice

8

• The Placement
• Restoration Contact
• Family Characteristics
• Types of Placement

9
How should we use it? Promising Practice in
Service Models

• Concurrent Planning
• Casework
• Birth Family Restoration
• Decision Making
• Resource Foster Families

10

• Family Group Conferencing
• Permanency Conference
• Conflict Resolution
• Participation
• Casework Models Tools
• Adoptions Training
• Legal Caseworkers
• Birth Family Workers

11

• Post Adoption Support
• Practice Elements
• System Elements
• Types of services
• Guardianship
• Legally permanent
• Flexibility
• A middle ground?

12
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

• Listening
• Collaborating
• Measuring

Further Discussion Policy Development Training P
rograms Evaluation Further Research
13
FURTHER RESEARCHChurchill Fellowship 2006
A critical evaluation of adoption and other
legally permanent placement options for
children in care.

• Government departments, NGOs, university research
  centres and peak bodies in NZ, USA, Canada UK
  in relation to
• Adoption, Guardianship other legally permanent
  placements
• Legislation and policy models
• Casework and permanency planning practices
• Recruitment, assessment and training of families
• Legal processes
• Post Adoption support services

• particular attention will be paid to the unique
  needs of -
• Children with additional needs
• Indigenous and CALD children
• Older children and sibling groups

14
ReferencesACWA, 2005, Discussion Paper
Consideration of Adoption for Selected Groups of
Children in Long Term Out of Home Care,
AustraliaAustralian Institute of Health and
Welfare Child Protection Australia 2004
Available online www.aihw.gov.auAustralian
Institute of Health and Welfare Adoption
Australia 2004. Available online www.aihw.gov.au
Barth, 2000, Rights and Realities in the
permanency debate, Children Australia, v25 no 4
2000, pp 13 17Barth, 1999, After Safety, what
is the goal of Child Welfare Services
permanency, family continuity or social benefit?
International Journal of Social Welfare, v8,
pp244 252Brown L Lupton C, 2002, Role of
Family Group Conferencing in Child Protection,
Bath Nuffield Foundation Centre for Evidence
Based Social ServicesCasey Family Services,
2002, An Approach to Post Adoption Services A
white paper, Washington USACashmore J Paxman
M, 1996, Longitudinal Study of Wards Leaving
Care, Report of Research Commissioned by the NSW
Department of Community Services, Social Policy
Research Centre University of NSW, NSW
AustraliaCashmore, 2000, What the research tells
us permanency planning, adoption and foster
care, Children Australia, v25 no4, pp17 22
15
Cashmore, 2001, What Can we learn from the US
experience on Permanency Planning?, Australian
Journal of Family Law, v15 no 3 2001, pp215
229Cashmore J Ainsworth F, 2004, Audit of
Australian Out of Home Care Research, ACWA Inc,
Sydney AustraliaChild Welfare Information
Gateway, 2005, Issue Brief Concurrent Planning,
What the Evidence Shows, Department of Health
Human Services Administration for Children and
Families, Washington DC USADelfabbro Barber,
2003, Placement Disruption psychological
outcomes findings from the 3 year South
Australian Longitudinal Study, 8th Annual
Australian Institute of Family Studies
Conference, Melbourne AustraliaDepartment of
Health UK, 2000, Adoption A new Approach a
white paper, The Stationary Office, Federal
Government UKDepartment of Community Services
NSW, 2006, DoCS Annual Statistical Report
2004/05Department of Community Services NSW,
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection)
Amendment (Permanency Planning) Bill 2000 Issues
Paper, available online www.community.nsw.gov.au
Department of Families Queensland, 2003,
Discussion Paper Stopping the drift Improving
the Lives of Queenslands children and young
people in long term care, Queensland
AustraliaDoran L Berliner L, 2001, Placement
Decisions For Children in Long Term Foster Care
Innovative Practices Literature Review,
Washington State Institute for Public Policy,
Washington USAEvan B Donaldson Adoption
Institute, 2004, Whats working for children, a
policy study of adoption stability and
termination, New York USA
16
Fisher et al for Casey Outcomes Decision Making
Project, 1999, Improving the Quality of
Childrens Services, AHS, WashingtonGoldstein J,
Solnit A Freud A, 1996, The best interests of
the child the least detrimental alternative,
Free Press, New YorkHollingsworth L, 2000,
Commentary Adoption policy in the US a word of
caution, Social Work Research, v45(2), pp 435
446Howe D, 1998, Adoption Outcomes Research
Practical Judgement, Adoption Fostering,
vol2(2), pp 6 15Institute for Child Protection
Studies, Good Practice for Placement Planning,
ACT, AustraliaIvaldi G, 1998, Children Adopted
from Care, BAAF, Russell Press, NottinghamKiely
P, 2005, A longitudinal Evaluation of Family
Group Conferencing, presented at the 9th
Australian Institute of Family Studies COnference
, MelbourneLutz L, 2003, Achieving Timely
Permanency for Children in the Welfare System
pioneering possibilities amidst daunting
challenges, NY Hunter College School of Social
Work, National Resource Centre for Foster Care
Permanency Planning, NY USAMaluccio, Fein
Olmstead, 1986, Permanency Planning for Children
concepts and methods, Tavistock Publications, New
YorkMaluccio, Ainsworth Thoburn, 2000, Child
Welfare Outcomes research in US, UK and
Australia, CWLA, Washington DCMcDonald, Billings
Moore, 2002, Achieving Timely Adoption
Placement, OKDHS Child Family Division,
Oklahoma USAMonck E, Reynolds J Wigfall V,
2003, The role of Concurrent Planning, Making
Permanent Placements for young children, BAAF,
LondonNickman et al, 2005, Children in Adoptive
Families Overview and Update, Journal of
American Academy of Child Adolescent
Psychiatry, 4410 October 2005, pp 987 995
17
Office of the Childrens Guardian, 2004,
Permanency Planning Issues Paper, NSW
AustraliaONeil C, 2000, Support, timelines
hard decisions, Children Australia, vol25 no
4Parker (Ed), 1998, Adoption Now Messages from
Research, Chichester WileyParkinson, 2003, Child
Protection, Permanency Planning and childrens
right to family life, International Journal of
Law, Policy and the Family, v17 i2 2003,
p147Parkinson, 2000, The Children (Care and
Protection) Amendment (Permanency Planning) Bill
2000, Forum on Permanency Planning, ACWAPlunket
R Osmond M, 2004, Permanency Planning Choosing
Between Long Term Foster Care Adoption, OACAS
Journal, Spring 2004 vol48 no1, pp 7 14Potter
C.C Klien-Rothschild S, 2002, Getting Home on
Time predicting timely permanency for young
children, Child Welfare, v81(2), pp 123
130Quinton D Obrien K, 2000, The Beacon
Council Scheme, Adoption Output 2 Review of
Issues Research, University of Bristol,
UKRath, 2001, Parliament of NSW Briefing Paper
Permanency Planning and AdoptionSchmidt-Tieszen
McDonald, 1998, Children who wait Long Term
Foster Care or Adoption?, Children Youth
Services Review v20 n1-2, pp 13-28Sellick,
Thoburn Philpot, 2004, What Works in Adoption
and Foster Care, Barnardos, UKSelman P Mason
K, 1997, Alternatives to Adoption for Looked
After Children, Scottish Executive, UK
18
Selwyn J, Frazer L Quinton D, 2006, Paved with
Good Intentions the Pathway to Adoption and the
costs of delay, British Journal of Social Work
v36, pp561 576Testa, 2004, When Children
Cannot Return home Adoption Guardianship,
Children, Families Foster Care, v14(1), pp 116
129Thoburn, 2000, A comparative Study of
Adoption, University of East Anglia, UKThoburn J
for Making Research Count, 2002, Briefing 5
Adoption Permanence for Children who cannot
live safely with birth parents or relatives,
Research in Pratice, UKThomas C, Beckford V,
Murch M Lowe N, 1999, Adopted Children
Speaking, BAAF, Russell Press, NottinghamThorpe,
2002, Examining the Evidence in Out of Home Care,
ACWA Conference 2002Tregeagle, Voigt, Smith
Moggach,2005, Secure Legal Belonging an
important factor for children permanently removed
from their families, Developing Practice no 12,
Autumn 2005Treseliotis, Shireman Mundelby,
1997, Adoption Theory, policy practice,
Cassell, London UKTreseliotis, 2002, Long Term
Foster Care or Adoption? The evidence explained,
Child Family Social Work, v7 2002, pp 23- 33
19
Web Based ResourcesThese sites have a wide
variety of information from research
publications and data to placement decision
making tools and program evaluations. Not to
mention links to other useful resources!USA
Child Welfare Information Gatewaywww.childwelfare
.gov Chapin Hall Center for Children
University of Chicagowww.chapinhall.orgResearch
In Practice www.rip.org.uk Casey Family
Services www.casey.orgBritish Association for
Adoption Foster Carewww.baaf.org.uk