Objectives:
Until recently Flemish family foster care was a temporary measure with as its most important goal the reunification of the foster child with his/her birth parents. Knowledge about reunification rates and associated factors can be useful in critically evaluating reunification decisions and adjusting practices. However, in Flanders, knowledge on reunification and associated factors is nonexistent. The present study seeks to shed light on this topic.
Methods:
Case files of 127 Flemish foster children who exited foster care in 2007, were analysed. Dependent variables were type of foster care placement outcome (reunification, successful placement without reunification or breakdown) and place of residence after placement ending (with birth parents, extended family, foster family, residential care or living independently). Analysed foster child characteristics were: gender, age at entry and exit of placement, ethnic background (autochthonous/non-autochthonous), internalizing and externalizing behavioural problems during placement and placement history. Placement characteristics were: placement duration, referring authority (voluntarily or juvenile court), reasons of removal, type of foster family (kinship versus non-kinship), removal of siblings and if so where they were placed. Birth parents characteristics were: substance abuse and imprisonment at start and end of the placement.
Results:
After placement ending only 40% of the foster children went living with their parents, including foster children who were reunified (26%) and foster children who moved to their parents after placement breakdown (14%). Mainly characteristics of the foster children were associated with a reunification. Foster children who were younger at start and at the end of placement, and with fewer internalizing and externalizing behavioural problems were more likely to be reunified, as were children placed in non-kinship care. There was a trend that the duration of placement was shorter for reunified children compared to non-reunified children (p=.09).
Conclusion:
First, the finding that only 26% of the foster children were reunified, is striking given that during the study period, the principle of permanency was not yet anchored in Flemish or Belgian legislation. Second, an additional 14% of the foster children went living with the birth parents after placement disruption. This means that 14% of the foster children returned to a home environment that probably had not yet sufficiently improved. Third, the association of mainly characteristics of the foster child and in particular the absence of behavioural problems, with the likelihood of a reunification points out that the presence of behavioural problems of the foster child has an important role in child welfare decision-making. Indeed, only foster children who are easier to parent are reunified. It may also indicate that (too) little is focused on the improvement of competencies of the birth parents and on the (future) home environment. These results may point out that foster care workers consider the home environments of birth parents as continuously fragile parenting environments. In addition, paying insufficient attention to competency building during placement can reinforce this opinion. In conclusion, interventions should not solely focus on the foster child but also on the birth parents in order to avoid a too long stay in foster care.
Assessment and decision making in child welfare , Family foster care and adoption
