Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T02:41:04.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Family reunification: Rhetoric and risks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 February 2016

Brenda Clare
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper explores the recent emphasis on family reunification as an intervention strategy with ‘high-risk’ families whose children have been placed in the care of the State for reasons of significant abuse and/or neglect. It considers some of the dominant ideas and ideologies around reunification as an intervention strategy and reflects on the many layers of complexity involved in seeking to reconnect children and families under circumstances of risk Finally, it considers the ‘systemic factors’ that compound the inherent difficulties involved in returning children to the care of their parents and offers some practice strategies aimed at recognising and minimising those risks and maximising the likelihood of a successful and safe outcome.

Type
Research Article
Information
Children Australia , Volume 27 , Issue 3 , 2002 , pp. 19 - 25
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adcock, M. & White, R. (1985) Good-enough Parenting: a Framework for Assessment, London: BAAF.Google Scholar
Ainsworth, F. (2001) ‘Family preservation, family reunification and related issues: Recent news’, Children Australia, 26(4), 29–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ainsworth, F. & Maluccio, A.N. (1998) “The policy and practice of family reunification’, Australian Social Work, 51(1), 3–8.Google Scholar
Atherton, C. (1993) ‘Reunification - parallels between placement in new families and reunifying children with their families’, in Marsh, P. & Triseliotis, J. (Eds.), Prevention and Reunification in Child Care, London: B. T. Batsford/B.A.A.F, pp.184–202.Google Scholar
Barth, R. & Berry, M. (1987) ‘Outcomes of child welfare services under permanency planning’, Social Services Review, LXI, 71–90 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beal, J., Blom-Cooper, L., Brown, L., Marshall, P. & Mason, M. (1985) A Child in Trust: The Report of the Panel of Inquiry into the Circumstances Surrounding the Death of Jasmine Beckford, London: London Borough of Brent.Google Scholar
Bullock, R., Gooch, D. & Little, M. (1998) Children Going Home: The Reunification of Families, Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Clare, B. (1993) Worker Authority and Change-Agent Activity as Essential Bookends for Family Centred Practice, proceedings of 2nd National Family Preservation Conference (Melbourne).Google Scholar
Clare, B. (1995) Risking All in a Residential Context: Developing a Reunification Programme, proceedings of the National Conference of the British Association of Social Workers, Brighton, England.Google Scholar
Clare, B. (2000) ‘An Investigation into the Health Needs of, and General Practice Services for, Children in Out-of-Home Care in Perth’, report for the study: Understanding and Improving the Provision of General Practice Services to Children in State Care, funded by the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care: Principal researchers: ProfessorUnderwood, P. and MrClare, M..Google Scholar
Clare, B. (2001) ‘Managing the care journey: Meeting the health care needs of children in out-of-home care’, Children Australia, 26(1), 27–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clare, M. (2000) ‘Educating Family Group Coordinators; a “family of origin” perspective’, Children Australia, 25(2), 21–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Community Services Commission (2000) Inquiry into the practice and provision of substitute care in NSW: Forwards, Backwards, Standing Still…, Sydney: Community Services Commission.Google Scholar
Department of Health and Social Security (1985) Social Work Decisions in Child Care: Recent research findings and their implications, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Department of Health. (1991) Patterns and Outcomes in Child Placement, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Department of Health (1995) The Challenge of Partnership in Child Protection: Practice Guide, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Department of Health (2000) Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Farmer, E. (1993) ‘Going home - what makes reunification work?’, in Marsh, P. & Triseliotis, J. (Eds.), Prevention and Reunification in Child Care, London: B.T. Batsford / BAAF, pp. 147–166.Google Scholar
Frame, L., Berrick, J. D. & Brodowski, M. L. (2000) ‘Understanding reentry to out-of-home care for reunified infants’, Child Welfare, 79(4), 339–69.Google ScholarPubMed
Gelles, R.J. (1993) ‘Family Reunification / Family Preservation: Are Children Really Being Protected?’, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 8(4), 557–562 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelles, R.J. (1996) The Book of David: How Preserving Families can Cost Children's Lives, New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Hardiker, P., Exton, K. & Barker, M. (1997) A Framework for Analysing Services. Childhood Matters: Report of the National Commission of Inquiry into the Prevention of Child Abuse, Vol. 2: Background Papers, London: The Stationery Office, pp. 12–42.Google Scholar
Kagan, R. & Schlosberg, S. (1959) Families in Perpetual Crisis, Markham, Ontario: Penguin Books Canada.Google Scholar
Littell, J.H. & Schuerman, J. R. (1995) A Synthesis of Research on Family Preservation and Family Reunification Programs, prepared for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Department of Health and Human Services, Chicago: The Chapin Hall Center for Children / the University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Moore, J.G. (1985) The ABC of Child Abuse Work, London: Gower.Google Scholar
Morrison, T. (1996) ‘Partnership and Collaboration: Rhetoric and Reality’, Child Abuse and Neglect, 20(2), 127–140 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mostyn, L.W.O. (1997) Childhood Matters: Report of the National Commission of Inquiry into the Prevention of Child Abuse, London: House of Lords.Google Scholar
Petre, C.G. & Entriken, C. (1995) ‘Service System Barriers to Reunification’, Families in Society: the Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 76(9), 523–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reder, P. & Duncan, S. (1999) Lost Innocents: A Follow-up Study of Fatal Child Abuse, London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Reder, P., Duncan, S. & Gray, M. (1993) Beyond Blame: Child abuse tragedies revisited, London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Roberts, V.Z. (1994) ‘The Self-assigned Impossible Task’, in Obholzer, A. & Roberts, V.Z. (Eds.), The Unconscious at Work, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 110–118.Google Scholar
Sanders, R. (Ed.) (1999) The Management of Child Protection Services, Appendix 7. Aldershot, Hants: Ashgate Arena.Google Scholar
Smith, C. (1993) ‘Restoring Children from Foster Care to their Parents’, in Marsh, P. & Triseliotis, J. (Eds.), Prevention and Reunification, London: B T. Batsford / BAAF, pp.5–23.Google Scholar
Thompson, N. (2000) Understanding Social Work: Preparing for Practice, London: Macmillan Press.Google Scholar
Triseliotis, J. (1993) ‘The Theory Continuum -Prevention, Restoration and Permanence’, in Marsh, P. & Triseliotis, J. (Eds.), Prevention and Reunification, London: B.T. Batsford / BAAF, pp.5–23.Google Scholar
Wise, S. (1995) ‘Feminist Ethics in Practice’, in Hugman, R. & Smith, D. (Eds.), Ethical Issues in Social Work, London: Routledge, pp.104–119.Google Scholar