Reuniting Looked After Children with their Families: A Review of Research
| Published date | 01 October 2006 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/17466660200600017 |
| Pages | 72-73 |
| Date | 01 October 2006 |
| Author | Roger Bullock |
72 Journal of Children’s Services
Volume 1 Issue 2 October 2006
©Pavilion Journals (Brighton) Ltd
Book reviews
Reuniting Looked After Children with their Families: A Review of Research
Nina Biehal
London: National Children’s Bureau, 2006
118pp, £13.95 paperback
ISBN 1 904 787 64 9
Just after the Second World War, the psychologist
John Bowlby highlighted the risks to children’s
psychosocial development posed by the separation of
children from their mothers. His rather rigid views
held sway for a number of years until tempered by
other researchers, particularly Michael Rutter, who
argued that the effects depended on the context – the
circumstances under which the child was separated
as well as what happened next. So, by the 1970s a
reasonably authoritative body of knowledge on
separation was in place.
Exploration into its corollary, ie. return, was much
slower to develop and it was another 20 years before
issues surrounding children’s return home generated
research interest. In the UK, children in care (or
‘looked after’ in UK parlance) were causing particular
concern as a growing proportion of them had
experienced abuse and neglect bytheir natural
families and their return home inevitably raised fears
of further harm. Indeed there had been several
fatalities. The issue was also of intellectual interest
as conflicts between rights and risks, as well as
pragmatic realities, were all enshrined in an
individual child.
Nina Biehal’s review assesses the evidence on
the family reunification of looked-after children. In
particular, she examines the factors associated with
the likelihood and timing of reunion, the
contribution of specialist interventions and the
outcomes for children. The book considers 66
relevant studies, including those undertaken since
1973 in the US (ie. since ‘drift’ became an issue),
since 1989 in the UK (ie. since the implementation
of current legislation) and any that evaluate
specialist reunification services.
However, selecting the studies proved relatively
easy as it was the comparison of samples,
definitions, sources of data and methods of analysis
that became a veritable minefield. When considering
the studies of specialised reunification services, for
example, she found that four used RCTs and four
used other control methods, calling into question
whether the first group should be given more weight
than the second. Even studies that appear to
replicate others posed problems. For example,
Fanshel and Shinn’s 1978 study in the US and
Millham and colleagues’ 1986 UK studies both
looked at a large cohort of children in care, yet,
because of different selection criteria, only 13% of
the latter group would have qualified for inclusion in
the US study. Somehow, we have got to get down to
comparing groups of children with similar needs of
similar severity rather than juxtapose large cohorts
selected on administrative criteria.
The conclusions drawn at the end of each
chapter are too numerous to report in a short
review and some are well-established practice.
Particularly interesting to me were the findings that
children presenting challenging behaviour are likely
to return home more quickly than those who have
been harmed, but it is harm from neglect rather
than physical or sexual abuse that is most
significant. In addition, the effect of family contact
on the probability of reunion is not direct but
influential through other factors predictiveof
return. It is also disappointing that the evidence on
the effectiveness of specialist reunification services
is so mixed: four studies indicated enhanced
results, while three found that ‘routine’ services
were just as good. But, again, as reunification rates
varied from 21% to 93% other factors must be at
work, reiterating the value of comparisons at the
individual level.
Nearly all follow-up studies report some re-abuse
after the child’s return home. Some have also found
that returnees do worse in terms of emotional
development, social functioning, educational
attainment and anti-social behaviour, so it is easy to
conclude that separation is a good thing. Yet the
hazards of return have to be set against the problems
inherent in continued separation. The sad fact is that
when care options run out, the child’s natural family
is often the only consistent feature in his or her life
and most eventually settle in some part of it. Much
moreevidence is needed on this I am afraid.
Part of the problem is that we tend to view the
child’s family as all or nothing – as completely good or
bad, or as consistently dangerous. But children’s
relationships with specific relatives vary and families
can change for the better. Perhaps the best way to help
separated children is to ensure that the components of
their care experience are concordant and cumulative.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting