Upload
martina-eaton
View
213
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Beyond the Adoption Order
challenges, interventions and disruptions
Julie Selwyn, Dinithi Wijedasa and Sarah MeakingsUniversity of Bristol, School for Policy Studies, Hadley
Centre for Adoption and Foster Care Studies www.bristol.ac.uk/hadley
Background
No national studies on adoption disruption in the UK or USA
Inconsistent use of the term disruption
Limited analysis
Establish the rate of adoption disruption post-order and to compare with the stability of Residence Orders and Special Guardianship Orders
Investigate the factors associated with disruption
Explore the experiences of adopters, children, and social workers
Provide recommendations on how disruptions might be prevented
Aims
Methods
National data from DfE
• SSDA903 • Adoption file
(2000-2011) • Looked after
children (2002-2011)
Survey
• All adoption managers to collect info on disruptions 2000-12
• Survey in 13 LAs of all those who legally adopted a child between April 2002 and March 2004
• Open survey on AUK website
Interviews
• 35 where the child had left prematurely and 35 where the parents described parenting as very challenging
• 12 young people
• 12 adoption managers
Measures
• SDQ• ACA-SF• HADS• PSOC• IER-S• PTG• FACESIV• COPE• SWLS
Has the introduction of SGOs influenced the number of children leaving care on Adoption Orders?
20012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220130
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500Adoption Order Special Guardianship Order Residence Order
Comparison of children’s characteristics on different orders.
Adoption (n=37, 335) • Younger, white children
who entered on Section 20
• Had experienced more moves in foster care
• Had experienced more delay in getting to final placement
SGO (n=5,921) and RO (n=5,771)
• Ethnic minority children more likely to be on a SGO or RO
• Majority (68%) of SGOs made to kin, as were 39% of ROs
• Children on ROs tend to be the older children and had more failed reunification attempts
Adoption disruption rate over 12 years 3.2%
Older at entry to care
More moves in care
Placed over 4 yrs of age
Delay placement to order
Being a teenager
Not associated
GenderEthnicityAdopted by former foster carer
Rate varies by LA 0-7%
SGO disruption rate over five years 5.7%
Reason for entry to care other than maltreatment
Number of moves in care
Placed over 4 years of age
Order made to unrelated carers
Rate varies by LA 0-17%
Residence Order disruption rate 25% over a 6 year period
Number of moves in care
Order made to unrelated carer
Age at entry to care
Rate varies by LA 0-33%
Comparing disrupted placements
Adoption
• Adoption most stable
• Most disrupted 5 or more years after the order was made
• Most children over 11 years of age
SGO and RO
• ROs least stable • Most disrupted
within 2 years of the order.
• Most children under 11 years of age
Interview sample (n=70)
83% approved by a LA and 17% by a VAA
76% of households other adopted children and 23% birth children
21% change in marital status since approval
Age at time of study ‘Left home’ children av 18yrs compared with 15yrs av. ‘At home’
Children who had left home older at entry to care, at placement and time of order than those ‘At home’
Background factors associated with later disruption
Domestic violence
Neglect
Sexual abuse
Older at entry to care
Quality of foster care
She was meticulous actually and met all his physical needs. She said to us, “I’m not here to show him affection or love, it’s your job.” So, she just did the basics.
Poorly managed introductions
Poor timing – adoption workers away goodbye meetings
Poor planning- organising of visits and accommodation
Rushed – determined by foster carer’s agenda and not the child’s needs
Foster carers’ support during the introductions and transition
• She told us what he likes to eat, what his routine is, how he is with animals and how he is with other children, what he didn’t like - (At home)
Majority (61%) described carer as
welcoming
• Difficulty letting the child go, did not approving of choice of adoptive parents, or wanted child out as fast as possible.
29% obstructive
On the day, that he actually came to stay [carer] just handed him over at the door. She was crying and Jacob was crying. I just don’t think that was good … it was just like a parcel being passed over really …She was just breaking her heart. (At home)
When they came to live with us, they came with nothing. Oscar didn't even have a cuddly toy. Not even any clothes, so that was all a bit [upsetting]. (Left home)
Early challenging behaviours
Difficulty forming close relationshipsAvoidant of intimacy and comfort Controlling/manipulativeInability to playSleep problemsLack of affect Smearing
Self harm and sexualised behaviours
He would sit there banging himself in the head and banging his head against the wall, “I hate myself, I am rubbish. I want to die.” And I thought I’ve never heard a four year old talking about wanting to die. I’m sure at four I had no concept that could happen - you think that you’re going to live forever when you’re four or five.
My underwear started to go missing, a lot, until it all disappeared. And I asked his sister what's happened to my underwear … and she said, “It's Billy, he's taken your underwear, even out of the wash basket and he's had it in his mouth, in his backside, and he made me do the same.
Early Aggression
It’s always been very, very challenging. My husband didn't feel that, it was strictly between me and Kieran - he had something about the mother from day one. He kept me at arm's length for three years, he wouldn't let me anywhere near … and I'll tell you something, which I absolutely am adamant about, is that I felt threatened from day one with Kieran. From day one, there was something … Kieran has made me feel very ill at ease – always. (Left home)
What is child to parent violence?
Behaviour considered to be violent if others in the family feel threatened, intimidated or controlled by it and if they believe that they must adjust their own behaviour to accommodate threats or anticipation of violence.
Paterson et al. (2002) Adolescent violence towards parents: maintaining family connections when the going gets tough. ANZFT 23:2 90-100
Child to parent violence
41 of the 70 families
Key factor in 28/35 disruptions
Statistically more likely to be boys but also used by 14 of the 32 girls
Type and severity of violence did not differ by gender
Knives used by 27% of the young people
From the minute he got up to the minute he went to bed he just terrorised us … threatening us with knives … throwing stones at us, throwing buckets of water at us, squirting us with bleach … the TV was locked in his bedroom… You would be walking along and he would suddenly just punch you in the back for no reason … You couldn’t even leave the dogs with him. If they were laying in here and Freddie walked in they would leave and I’ve known one of them [ the dogs] to wet herself [in fear]. [Husband] was beaten round the head with a broom. I can remember one night … we went to bed and lay there and I can remember crying and then he came in and he punched me in the back and he said, “Yes, you cry you bitch.”
(Left home)
Challenging behaviours 80% early onset:20% puberty
Left home (n=35) • 28 CPV• 23 running away• 18 self harm• 14 depression• 13 anxiety/ OCD• 14 alcohol/drug misuse• 10 serious crime
At home (n=35) • 13 CPV• 17 running away • 19 self harm • 18 depression• 20 anxiety/OCD• 3 alcohol/drug misuse• 1 serious crime
Accessing services
• Not knowing what was available
• Criteria• Waiting lists• Funding arguments
I just sat on the phone all day long, just phoning everybody - the doctor - social services - post adoption support … I thought I’m just going to sit and phone and phone, until somebody takes notice of me.
(At home)
Children’s Services and CAMHS response
• Refusal to provide services• Response of the wrong intensity or wrong type• Often offering only what could be provided in-
house• Poor quality life story/direct work• Inflexible respite care • Same intervention offered repeatedly• Some professionals at a loss to know what to
offer.
Blame
We go into a system and we’re put in with other abusive parents. I am not an abuser. Don’t you dare treat me like one … I have to remind people actually that a lot of these issues were about long before Christina met me … I cannot be responsible for Christina’s low self-esteem, and yet we are [blamed] … All I’ve ever done is to ask for help and it hasn’t been there. (Left home)
Child wellbeing
• 37% had a statement of SEN• SDQ – 97% of the Left home and 82% of the At
home scores in the clinical range.• Multiple diagnoses. Three most common
disorders diagnosed– Attachment (27%) – Autistic Spectrum (23%) – ADHD (20%)
Assessment checklist for adolescents
Marked level Left home %
At home %
Severe avoidant- insecure attachment style
79* 56
Indiscriminate social relating
79* 50
Distorted social cognition 94 82
Dissociation/Trauma symptoms
36* 21
Disruptions
Young people very vulnerable at the point of disruptionAdoptive parents felt excluded from care planning and their views discounted. Families felt abandoned. Most parents still fighting on behalf of the yp for support and servicesLack of attention to reunification /parenting at a distance
Post disruption
74% of young people became looked after
Placements/accommodation often unsuitable and very unstable
Further violent attacks on foster carers, care workers, police and public
Young people’s mental health deteriorated – self-harm/exploited/abuse
13 child/parent relationship strained/deteriorated
16 child/parent relationships improved
6 recent disruptions – no change