Transcript Beyond the Adoption Order: Adoption disruption and

Beyond the Adoption Order
challenges, interventions and
disruptions
Julie Selwyn, Dinithi Wijedasa and Sarah Meakings
University 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
Aims
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
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?
Adoption Order
Special Guardianship Order
Residence Order
4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
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
Rate varies by LA 0-7%
Delay
placement
to order
Being a
teenager
Not associated
Gender
Ethnicity
Adopted by former
foster carer
SGO disruption rate over five years
5.7%
Order
made to
unrelated
carers
Placed
over 4
Number of years of
age
moves in
care
Rate varies by LA
Reason for entry to
care other than
0-17%
maltreatment
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
SGO and RO
• Adoption most
stable
• Most disrupted 5 or
more years after the
order was made
• Most children over
11 years of age
• ROs least stable
• Most disrupted
within 2 years of the
order.
• Most children under
11 years of age
Survey responses
LA Survey (n=379)
38%
34%
28%
AUK Survey (n=308)
31%
25%
21%
9% 8%
4%
No major Highs and It is difficult Disruption
concerns
lows
(going well) (mainly
highs)
1%
Living
separately
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
Majority (61%)
described
carer as
welcoming
29%
obstructive
• 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)
• Difficulty letting the child go, did
not approving of choice of adoptive
parents, or wanted child out as fast
as possible.
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
relationships
Avoidant of intimacy and
comfort
Controlling/manipulative
Inability to play
Sleep problems
Lack 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 inhouse
• 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 selfesteem, 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 disruption
Adoptive 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 services
Lack 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
Summary
• Disruption rate low
• Many families remain committed and parent
children with very challenging behaviours
• Services, especially mental health inadequate.
• Urgent need for training on CPV for all
professionals
• Disruption not the end but the beginning of a
new phase