Your assignment must be completed in an essay format. You must .docx

Your assignment must be completed in an essay format. You
must also submit your assignment according to the following
format: typed, double-spaced, 12-point, Times New Roman font
with one-inch margins. Late assignment submissions will be
penalized accordingly (per the syllabus). The is due on Friday,
December 14th by 4:00 pm, via TURNITIN, and serves as your
final.
Section I: Identification
Compose short but full and complete paragraph answers (6-8
sentences in length) that describe the historical significance of
four (4) of the fifteen (15) terms below. Historical significance
is more than a simple definition. Your terms should clearly
show detailed evidence for how they are important in both the
context of the historical period in question and broader course
themes.
Choose 4 from the 27 terms below:
Tennis Court Oath
The Berlin Conference
Johann Gottlieb Fichte
mercantilism
Realpolitik/Weltpolitik
Manifest Destiny
Tanzimat reforms

Zionism
War Capitalism
Dec. of Rights of Man & Citizen
Bourgeoisie/Proletariat
Creole
Simón Bolívar
Liberalism
Casement Report
Enlightenment
nationalism
industrial capitalism
Nation-building
secularism
Olympe de Gouges

Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Theodor Herzl
nation-state
New Empire
Industrial Revolution
Napoleon Bonaparte
Section II: Short Essay –
Compose a short, two-three - (2-3) - paragraph essay (8-10
sentences in length each) in answer to one (1) of the following
questions:
Choice A – Define nationalism in nineteenth-century Europe.
Give and critically analyze one country-specific examples in
your answer.
Choice B – Compare “old” and “new” imperialism in the
context of the early modern and modern West.
Choice C – Explain the transition from a mercantilist to a
capitalist economy in the late-early-modern West and use Sven
Beckert’s book to support your answer.
Choice D – Explain and compare the historical significance of
Sven Beckert’s concepts of war capitalism and industrial
capitalism?
Choice E – What impact did European colonization (from the
1500s-1800s) have on non-western populations around the
world?

Choice F – How did the Scientific Revolutions of the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries influence the Enlightenment
movement of the eighteenth century?
Choice G – Discuss citizenship in the context of the French
Revolution. Use the Declaration of the Rights of Man and
Citizen and the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen in
your answer.
Choice H- Explain the role that slavery played in the history of
early modern Atlantic World empire.
Section II: Long Essay –
Compose a long, four to five - (4-5) - paragraph essay (8-10
sentences in length each) in answer to one (1) of the following
questions (support your answers with my lectures, the textbook,
and all appropriate supplementary readings):
Choice A – How did cotton become global? Use Sven Beckert’s
Empire of Cotton as a springboard for connecting his thesis to
course material on nationalism, industrialization, and empire in
the 18th and 19th centuries.
Choice B - Explain and analyze globalization in the late-
nineteenth century with that of globalization in the 1100s-
1300s.
Choice C – How did the French Revolution lay the foundations
for the modern nation-state?
Choice D – What role did nationalism play in the development
of modern states during the nineteenth century?
Choice E – What was the relationship between industrialization
in the nineteenth century and Enlightenment-era thinking and
ideas in the eighteenth century?
Choice F – Compare the political revolutions of the eighteenth
and early nineteenth centuries in the Atlantic World.

Choice G – Explain some of the positive and negative
consequences of Enlightenment era thinking and politics.
Choice H – Discuss the relationship between religious toleration
laws and political changes and reform in the early modern
world.
Extra Credit: Optional Essay worth an additional 5 points on
your assignment
Compose a short, two-three - (2-3) - paragraph essay (8-10
sentences in length each) in answer to the following question:
What have you learned in the course that’s been most
meaningful to you? Why?
*Use a simple, MLA-style of parenthetical citation to reference
course materials.
*Do not use any outside material; use only what has been made
available to you through the course. Assignment will be
automatically failed for including outside source material.
PAGE
1
O R I G I N A L P A P E R
Maltreated Children’s Social Understanding and Empathy:
A Preliminary Exploration of Foster Carers’ Perspectives
Nikki Luke • Robin Banerjee
Published online: 11 February 2011
� Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Abstract Previous research suggests that parental abuse
and neglect can have adverse effects on children’s peer
relationships and self-perceptions. Emerging theoretical
and empirical work suggests that children’s social under-
standing and empathy could play a key role as mediators of
these effects, but we have little knowledge about the via-
bility of such a model in explaining the everyday experi-
ences of children in care. Thus, in order to gain an in-depth
insight into the potentiality of this conceptual model, a
focus group and detailed semi-structured individual inter-
views were conducted with a total of 10 foster carers. First,
a thematic analysis revealed that problematic self-percep-
tions and peer relationships were indeed commonplace.
Crucially, in line with our theoretical model, carers readily
identified children’s difficulties with social understanding
and empathy as relevant explanations for their socio-emo-
tional problems. Carers reported using a variety of strate-
gies to help children, but expressed a need for a clearer

training package of practical strategies that could be used to
encourage social understanding and empathy in children,
with the aim of improving their social relationships.
Keywords Foster care � Physical abuse � Neglect �
Child development � Qualitative research
Introduction
Foster carers are regularly faced with the challenge of
looking after children with social and emotional difficul-
ties. Research has shown that physically abused or
neglected children are at greater risk of problematic peer
relationships and negative self-perceptions than their
nonmaltreated peers (e.g., Anthonysamy and Zimmer-
Gembeck 2007; Toth et al. 1997). Understanding the
mechanisms by which such socio-emotional problems may
arise is crucial for informing the design of intervention
strategies and support for foster carers.
Two inter-related constructs likely to play a role in the
developmental trajectory of maltreated children are social
understanding and empathy. Social understanding, incor-

porating what has been termed ‘theory of mind’, involves
an appreciation of mental and affective states, including
beliefs and desires, and the role that they play in social
behaviour and interactions (Carpendale and Lewis 2006).
Empathy is defined in terms of emotional responses to
another person’s affective state, specifically those in which
the recognition of the other’s state produces a similar
emotion in the observer (Eisenberg et al. 1996). Problems
with social understanding and empathy may serve as
mediators of maltreatment effects on socio-emotional
functioning, because existing research suggests that they
can influence the way children behave with their peers
(Dekovic and Gerris 1994), which in turn relates to peer
status outcomes (Anthonysamy and Zimmer-Gembeck
2007) and self-perceptions (Bolger et al. 1998).
Emerging research provides tentative support for the
link between maltreatment and problems with social
understanding and empathy. This is a relatively recent area

of research, and the variables have not yet been fully
explored; for instance, there exists little research on
N. Luke (&) � R. Banerjee
School of Psychology, University of Sussex, Falmer,
Brighton BN1 9QH, England, UK
e-mail: [email protected]
123
J Child Fam Stud (2012) 21:237–246
DOI 10.1007/s10826-011-9468-x
maltreated children’s empathic reactions, and none on
more advanced social understanding (e.g., knowing that
one person can misunderstand a second person’s beliefs).
However, the small number of studies that have been
conducted so far are consistent with the proposal that social
understanding and empathy may act as mediating influ-
ences on maltreated children’s socio-emotional well-being.
Maltreated children perform worse than their peers on tasks
measuring false belief understanding (Cicchetti et al.

2003), and are more likely to attribute hostile intent to
others in ambiguous situations (Price and Glad 2003).
Maltreated children also underachieve relative to peers on
tests of emotion recognition (Fishbein et al. 2009), and
their understanding of the causes and consequences of
emotions is poor (Sullivan et al. 2008). Furthermore, this
lack of understanding may affect children’s behavioural
responses: Main and George (1985) found that maltreated
children were less likely to show an empathic response to
another’s distress than their peers.
Notwithstanding the research described above, we know
little about the role played by social understanding and
empathy in maltreated children’s socio-emotional out-
comes. However, this hypothesis fits comfortably with the
propositions of attachment theory, which represents a
dominant theoretical perspective in practitioners’ work
with children (Kelly 2000). The maltreated child’s internal
working model (IWM) of the self in relation to others is

based on the quality of the relationship with the primary
carer, and acts as a template shaping the child’s expecta-
tions and interpretations of subsequent relationships. Mal-
treated children have often received poor or inconsistent
information from caregivers about their thoughts, beliefs
and feelings, impeding their ability to interpret these in
other people (Pears and Fisher 2005). Attachment theory
can help us appreciate the role of social understanding and
empathy as part of the insecurely attached child’s gener-
alised representations of social relationships.
Moving beyond a simplistic view of negative attach-
ment, social understanding and empathic awareness can be
seen as skills which emerge in the context of social rela-
tionships, and whose development may be impaired in
atypical rearing environments such as those provided by
maltreating parents. In line with social learning theory
(e.g., Bandura 1973), children may view the high levels of
narcissism and limited empathy seen in maltreating parents

(Wiehe 2003) as a model of acceptable behaviour.
However, children’s interactions with their parents may
provide a more powerful learning device than passive
observations of behaviour. From a Vygotskian perspective,
parent–child communications provide the context in which
children are taught the tools for successful social exchan-
ges, which are then internalised to become part of the
child’s intrapersonal repertoire of skills (Vygotsky 1978).
Viewed in this way, impoverished or distorted interactions
with caregivers may jeopardise children’s chances of
developing a full complement of socio-emotional skills. As
an example, maltreating mothers engage in less discussion
about the internal states (IS) of self and others than non-
maltreating mothers (Edwards et al. 2005), and maltreated
toddlers’ IS lexicons are consequently delayed and
impoverished (Beeghly and Cicchetti 1995). Moreover,
abusive mothers’ production of less recognisable facial
expressions (in comparison with nonabusive mothers;

Camras et al. 1988) may account for children’s poor
emotion recognition skills (Fishbein et al. 2009). Although
repeated exposure to the displays of anger preceding
harmful interactions may account for the superior recog-
nition of this emotion in physically abused children (Pollak
et al. 2009), inconsistent information about the antecedents
of emotional displays may explain why these children find
it difficult to recognise the situations that provoke anger
(Pollak et al. 2000).
The present study builds on these theoretical consider-
ations and emerging research findings to explore a pro-
posed mediational model. Our review of the literature gives
us reason to expect that interactions with parents in a
maltreating context may compromise the development of
children’s skills of social understanding and empathy, and
that this might impact negatively on their peer relationships
and self-perceptions. We therefore propose that the rela-
tionship between negative parenting experiences and chil-

dren’s peer relationships and self-perceptions is likely to be
mediated by children’s social understanding and empathy.
However, we know little about whether such a conceptual
model provides a viable and plausible account of the
everyday experiences of maltreated children in care.
In order to make an initial evaluation of the viability of
this theoretical formulation, we used focus groups and
individual interviews to explore foster carers’ accounts of
maltreated children’s difficulties with social understanding
and empathy, and how these related to peer relationships
and self-perceptions. As an exploratory study, the choice of
our methodology was based on two considerations. Firstly,
we wanted to draw on the experience of those who had the
most frequent and prolonged contact with children in the
care system. We felt that foster carers could offer a unique
perspective on the details of children’s interpersonal skills
and their impact on socio-emotional outcomes: it is only by
listening to them that practitioners can discover how best to

support them in looking after children. Secondly, we also
wished to ascertain carers’ current conceptualisation of the
potential mediating role of social understanding and
empathy. Gathering carers’ current understanding of the
importance of these skills would also enable us to assess
the need for training on ways to support children in
developing social understanding and empathy.
238 J Child Fam Stud (2012) 21:237–246
123
We approached the current study with two research
questions in mind: (1) Do carers’ experiences with mal-
treated children support a model in which difficulties in
social understanding and empathy mediate the relationship
between maltreatment and problematic self-perceptions
and peer relations? And (2) What is the current status of
carers’ knowledge about—and attitudes towards—ways of
supporting the children who have difficulties with these

skills in order to improve their socio-emotional well-
being?
Methods
Participants
The study consisted of two parts. In the first part, foster
carers from the Local Authority’s Intensive Placement
Team (IPT) attending a regular meeting were asked to
participate in a focus group discussion on the subject of
social and emotional problems in the children they had
fostered. The focus group sample consisted of six foster
carers who were members of the IPT and two social
workers. Five of the carers were female, as was one of the
social workers. The age of participants was not requested.
The focus group was recruited as a whole via their lead
social worker. Group members gave written consent for the
audio recording of the discussion.
For the second part of the study, we recruited four of the
carers from the focus group and a further four carers from

outside of the IPT. Two of these were approached by their
social workers following an appeal to the social work team
by the researcher. One carer was a student at the authors’
university; she recruited a friend who was also a carer as
the final interviewee. All of the carers participating in
individual interviews were female and lived in urban or
suburban areas in the South East of England. As in the
focus group, carers’ ages were not requested.
One carer had been fostering for 2 years, five had been
carers for 6 to 10 years, while two had been carers for
19 years. Of those able to calculate the number of place-
ments they had experienced, two had looked after one or
two children, three had cared for seven to ten, and two
counted between 30 and 45 children. The ages of the
children and young people in these placements ranged from
birth to young adulthood. Five of the carers discussed the
length of their current placement: one was in its third year,
three were currently at 5 to 7 years, and one carer had been

looking after the same young person for 18 years. Only one
of the carers did not have a current placement; her most
recent placement lasted over 5 years, and ended several
weeks before the interview.
Procedure
A provisional interview schedule was developed to explore
the topics of socio-emotional well-being in maltreated
children and the potential role of social understanding and
empathy in influencing these outcomes (see Appendix A
for the final version). The focus group was used as both a
testing ground for our provisional interview questions, and
as a source of data in its own right (Morgan 1996). The
discussion took around 75 min of a 2-h session, and was
recorded using a digital voice recorder. At the beginning of
the session, carers were asked to share their experiences of
children who had difficulties getting on with their peers;
this discussion accounted for most of the session. As par-
ticipants warmed to the discussion they began questioning

each other and less input was required from the researcher.
However, when carers spontaneously mentioned children’s
difficulties with social understanding and empathy as
potential contributors to problematic peer relations they
were questioned about this further. The interview schedule
was largely unchanged following this session, although
following an interesting avenue of discussion during the
session a question was added about children’s ability to
practise their social understanding in emotionally over-
whelming social situations.
Volunteers for individual interviews were contacted by
telephone or email to arrange a convenient appointment.
Interviews took place in private in participants’ homes and
were also audio recorded. The interview followed a semi-
structured design, which permitted flexibility in the use of
questions and probing of participants’ responses (Burman
1995). Interview length was determined by participants’
responses, lasting from 45 to 74 min. All interviewees were

made fully aware of the purposes of the interviews prior
to commencement and gave written consent for their
participation.
The interviews began with questions about the carers’
length of experience and number of placements. Carers
were then asked to provide examples of Looked After
Children who had difficulties getting on with peers
(‘‘Does this child have difficulty getting on with other
children?’’), or who displayed a negative perception of
themselves (‘‘Do they feel very bad about themselves?’’).
Carers were also asked to speculate what might have led
to these difficulties (‘‘Why do you think they might have
had these difficulties?’’). Next, a range of questions cov-
ered specific cognitive, emotional, and behavioural prob-
lems which might lead to difficulties in peer relationships;
for example, ‘‘Have any of the children you mentioned
had difficulties seeing things from someone else’s point of
view?’’; ‘‘Have any of them had difficulties responding

appropriately to someone else’s emotions?’’ Our intention
in asking these questions was not simply to establish if
J Child Fam Stud (2012) 21:237–246 239
123
carers could recognise these difficulties, but to understand
the extent to which carers could clearly identify specific
and detailed examples of children fitting the descriptions.
Finally, carers were asked about the sort of strategies they
might use to support children’s social understanding and
empathy (‘‘How did you try to support them/work to
improve their skills?’’), and whether they felt they would
benefit from training in these strategies (‘‘Would you find
this useful—for you?—for the foster child?’’). See the
Appendix A for a copy of the full interview schedule.
Analytic Strategy
A thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006) was con-
ducted to identify patterns in carers’ experiences with the

children they had looked after. Transcripts of the focus
group and individual interviews were examined and re-
examined for recurring themes as data were collected.
Coding of the data was performed using NVivo, a quali-
tative analysis software package which allows for the
organisation of themes in a hierarchical structure. In the
present study, we started with a number of theoretically-
derived a priori categories corresponding to our research
questions. These categories are listed below:
a. Self-perceptions—direct references to children’s neg-
ative self-perceptions or behaviour implying negative
self-perceptions.
b. Peer relations—references to difficulties in establish-
ing or maintaining peer relationships, or behaviours
that might lead to such difficulties.
c. Carers’ explanations for outcomes—references to
aspects of children’s backgrounds or individual
differences presumed to have led to difficulties with

self-perceptions or peer relations.
d. Social understanding and empathy—references to
children’s specific difficulties with social understand-
ing or empathic responding.
e. Foster carers’ strategies to support children—refer-
ences to specific or general support provided by carers
or others, which might aid the development of
children’s social understanding and empathy.
Within these broad categories, initial coding of the data
from the focus group suggested a number of potential
themes where a particular idea seemed to recur across
participants’ accounts. The themes were revised and
refined as data collection and analysis progressed to ensure
that the final list of themes incorporated the full range of
experiences and beliefs referred to in participants’
accounts. The full set of themes is shown in Fig. 1.
Results
Results are presented here under the headings of the five

major categories. In the interests of brevity, we provide a
narrative summary of the themes relating to self-perceptions,
peer relations, and carers’ explanations for these outcomes.
Then we turn to our core interest in themes pertaining to
social understanding and empathy, with illustrative excerpts
to help us to address our key research questions. Labels
following the quotes indicate the contributions of foster
carers (C1–C10). As an overall summary of the data set,
Table 1 shows the number of individual interviews in which
each theme was clearly identified as a relevant issue.
SELF-PERCEPTIONS
Direct reference to negative self-
perceptions
Behaviour implying negative self-
perceptions
PEER RELATIONS
REJECTED BY PEERS DUE TO:
Inappropriate learned behaviours
Age-inappropriate behaviour

Out of control
Need to control situations
Needy/desperate behaviour
BUT:
Wish to belong
CARERS’ EXPLANATIONS FOR
OUTCOMES
Parenting
Parents’ general behaviour
Child’s role in the birth family
Individual differences
SOCIAL UNDERSTANDING AND
EMPATHY
PROBLEMS WITH:
Seeing others’ perspectives
Lack of empathy
Understanding others’ emotions
Recognising motivations/desires
influencing behaviour

Negative/hostile interpretations of
others’ behaviour
Understanding consequences of own
behaviour
Social understanding present but
overwhelmed by emotional need
FOSTER CARERS’ STRATEGIES
TO SUPPORT CHILDREN
Specific strategies to aid social
understanding and empathy
General carer support
Involvement in groups and clubs
Access to support network
Training needs
Fig. 1 Hierarchical
representation of categories and
themes arising from foster carer
focus group and interviews
240 J Child Fam Stud (2012) 21:237–246
123

Self-perceptions
When asked whether they had looked after children who
felt badly about themselves, almost all of the carers could
provide examples of children who had expressed negative
self-perceptions. However, children’s low opinions of
themselves were not always explicitly stated, and all carers
spoke of some children whose general behaviour led them
to draw inferences of negative self-perceptions.
Peer Relations
The common view amongst carers was that most of the
children they had looked after had had difficulty getting on
with their peers. Carers talked about children who had been
actively rejected by peers, as demonstrated when no-one
turned up to their birthday parties. The foster carers’
responses clearly indicated a number of different behav-
iours which proved challenging for the formation and
maintenance of friendships. Often children would display
inappropriate learned behaviours, such as stealing food;

these behaviours had helped them cope with a difficult
home life, but now created problems in peer interactions.
Most carers also had experience of children displaying age-
inappropriate behaviour. This was seen as more of a
problem with increasing age, when former friends would
begin to grow up and grow away from them. All carers had
looked after children whose behaviour or emotions were
out of control, making it difficult for peers to feel com-
fortable around them. In contrast, some children’s reaction
to their background expressed itself in a need to control
situations, which was not viewed kindly by peers. Other
children were so desperate to have friends that they
frightened peers off with their needy behaviour. Yet,
importantly, in discussing the range of social difficulties for
Looked After Children, carers expressed the belief that
these children were not socially isolated by choice. There
was a clear consensus that the children were motivated to
seek out social relationships with peers and families,

revealing a fundamental wish to belong.
Table 1 Number of interviews in which each theme was
mentioned
Category Theme Number of interviews
(max. 8)
Mentioned in focus
group (y/n)
Self-perceptions Direct reference to negative self-perceptions 7
n
Behaviour implying negative self-perceptions 8 y
Peer relationships Rejected by peers 7 y
Inappropriate learned behaviours 6 y
Age-inappropriate behaviour 6 y
Out of control 8 y
Need to control situations 7 y
Needy/desperate behaviour 5 y
Wish to belong 8 y
Carers’ explanations Parenting 8 y
Parents’ general behaviour 3 y

Child’s role in the birth family 4 y
Individual differences 4 y
Social understanding and empathy Seeing others’ perspectives 7
y
Lack of empathy 5 y
Understanding others’ emotions 8 y
Recognising motivations and desires influencing behaviour 6 n
Negative and hostile interpretations of behaviour 6 y
Understanding consequences of own behaviour 7 y
Social understanding overwhelmed by emotional need 6 y
Foster carers’ strategies Specific strategies to aid social
understanding and empathy 8 y
General carer support 7 y
Involvement in groups and clubs 4 y
Access to support network 6 y
Training needs 7 n
J Child Fam Stud (2012) 21:237–246 241
123

Carers’ Explanations for Outcomes
When asked for their thoughts on why children expressed
particular difficulties, carers referred to a range of possible
influences. Perhaps unsurprisingly, much was made of the
effects of good or bad parenting. However, carers also
appreciated the influence of children’s observation of par-
ents’ social behaviour. In half of the interviews carers also
discussed how the child’s role in the birth family might
affect their self-perceptions or peer relationships. For
example, one carer traced a child’s attempts to dominate
peer relationships back to the reversal of caring roles she
had experienced with her suicidal mother. In addition, half
of the interviewees expressed the belief that individual
differences in children’s temperaments and coping strate-
gies might moderate the effect of parenting experiences.
Social Understanding and Empathy
Our key interests in the role played by social understanding
and empathy were reflected in several questions to ascer-

tain carers’ experiences of children who had difficulties in
this area, and to determine whether this might help to
explain the relationship between children’s backgrounds
and their social and emotional problems. Overall, this
seemed to be a widespread issue: all carers were able to
provide several examples from current or previous place-
ments. All but one had encountered general problems with
seeing others’ perspectives:
What he did wrong in that school is, he came home to
me the second day and he said to me, ‘I’ve told
everybody that you’re my Nan’, and I said… ‘I don’t
mind what you call me, but all the children from your
primary school, only six went to a different school,
all the others went to your school and some of them
were in your class, so they know I’m not your Nan,
and I think you’ve dug a little bit of a hole for
yourself’. And that’s why they tease him, and he just
can’t handle it at school (C5).
More specific difficulties were also described. Examples

where children showed a lack of empathy towards another
person’s emotional situation were given by over half of the
interviewees. Carers explained this in terms of an inability
to understand the other’s emotions:
I lost my horse that I’d had for 20 years just before
Christmas, and I can’t tell you how devastated I
was… And [girl] couldn’t say anything comforting at
all, she just kept really quiet, but couldn’t wait to tell
anyone that she knew that the horse had died [laughs]
and how sad it was, but she didn’t actually understand
really. Although she got extremely upset when one of
her chickens died, because that was more personal to
her. So even though she’d felt those feelings herself,
she couldn’t give me any comfort at all (C8).
The lack of empathic awareness was seen as playing a
critical role in the children’s social interactions:
[Boy] has got no compassion at all. That’s why we
bought him the cat, to look after, so that he could see

that other things hurt. If he can’t feel it, it doesn’t
hurt. He’ll say things to people that are really unkind,
but he can’t see it… (C5).
As well as problems with understanding and responding
to emotions, carers also cited cases where children strug-
gled to recognise the underlying motivations and desires
influencing others’ behaviour. One girl failed to understand
that a boy was only sending her text messages to persuade
her to pass on the telephone numbers of her good-looking
friends. For some children, however, the problem was not
lack of understanding but misunderstanding. These were
the children who displayed a negative or hostile bias in
their interpretations of others’ behaviour, which foster
carers perceived to have emerged as a result of their
maltreatment:
Well, she’s got this thing of feeling that she’s under
attack, even when she isn’t. It’s a lot better than it
used to be now, she used to hit out straight away if

she thought that somebody said something that she
felt was an attack on her. Or if somebody touched her
when she wasn’t expecting it and she thought she was
being attacked, she’d hit out or kick. That’s a lot
better, but she still does the verbal reaction to stuff. I
know it’s a protective thing that she’s learned, but she
says really unkind things (C2).
Many children discussed by carers also had problems
understanding the consequences of their own behaviour, in
terms of other people’s reactions to what they had done:
Although they all want friends, they don’t understand
that if you shout and scream at someone they won’t
want to be your friend. But they don’t want people to
do it to them. I mean [boy] used to be terrified if
anyone was aggressive towards him, although he
could be aggressive really easy, be very very
aggressive towards people (C8).
There were plenty of examples, then, of children dis-

playing difficulties with various dimensions of social
understanding. However, foster carers also described some
children who showed this understanding when interacting
with their carers, but were unable to access it when
socialising with peers. This was seen as a case of social
242 J Child Fam Stud (2012) 21:237–246
123
understanding being present, but being overwhelmed by
emotional need in stressful social situations:
You’d talk to her about personal space, and you’d ask
her to explain it back to you and all that sort of thing
she’d get it, but… I think again it’s just that despera-
tion of friendships and the thought processes going
out, not even there when it’s happening… I think she
gets herself into such a state concentrating on them
being her friend that any, those rules and regulations
don’t even come to the forefront sort of thing, they’re
just at the back of the mind rather than the front, so I

think it doesn’t even occur to her. But if you then spoke
to her afterwards she would be able to tell you (C10).
Foster Carers’ Strategies to Support Children
Questions about the ways in which carers might tackle
children’s difficulties revealed a number of specific strat-
egies used by carers to aid children’s social understanding
and empathy. For most, the principal strategy was to talk
through social situations with the children, encouraging
them to draw on their own experiences in order to under-
stand others’ points of view. This technique had been
expanded by one carer to include everyday discussions
about the possible thoughts and feelings of characters in
television shows. Another carer had encouraged a child
involved in a bullying incident to think about how their
victim might be feeling and write them a letter of apology.
Carers also made use of resources provided by practitio-
ners, including cartoon strips and story books to encourage
emotion understanding and consequences of behaviour,

pictures of faces to develop emotion recognition, and
specialist board games to stimulate discussion of social
cues. The strategies described had met with mixed success.
To close the interviews, carers were asked to identify
any training needs around the areas discussed. Most were
able to name courses they had attended which had touched
on some aspects of social understanding or self-percep-
tions, but none could recall a course that had specifically
covered strategies to encourage social understanding and
empathy with the aim of improving peer relationships and
self-perceptions. All but one agreed that such a course
would be welcomed.
Discussion
Our interviews with foster carers allowed us to draw on
their unique perspective on the day-to-day behaviour of
Looked After Children, in order to address our research
questions. A thematic analysis revealed that problematic
self-perceptions and peer relationships were commonplace

among the children discussed by these carers. The carers
frequently attempted to interpret socio-emotional difficul-
ties in the light of information about experiences within the
birth family. Moreover, in line with our theoretical model,
carers readily identified features of children’s social
understanding and empathy as relevant explanations for
their socio-emotional difficulties. While some children
were perceived to lack the understanding that might help
them negotiate peer relationships, others had acquired this
understanding but were unable to access it during stressful
social interactions. There were also important differences
in individual children’s empathic responses to others’ dis-
tress. Interestingly, carers reported using a variety of
strategies to help children in these problem areas. This
work was seen as a long, slow process, and success was not
guaranteed. Carers said they would welcome a training
package of practical strategies that could be used to
encourage social understanding and empathy in children,

with the aim of improving their social relationships.
Our primary purpose in conducting this study was to
determine whether carers’ experiences with maltreated
children would provide preliminary support for a model in
which difficulties in social understanding and empathy
mediate the relationship between maltreatment and prob-
lematic self-perceptions and peer relations. In fact, carers
often supplied spontaneous examples of children’s diffi-
culties with these skills when asked about their socio-
emotional well-being. Similarly, when specific questions
were posed about social understanding and empathy,
carers’ accounts of children who had trouble with these
skills also made reference to the socio-emotional effects of
such problems. This gives added strength to our proposed
mediational model as a framework for understanding the
psychosocial adjustment of maltreated children in care.
First, carers had little trouble in providing examples of
children displaying difficulties with what might be termed

‘mind-reading’ or ‘mentalization’: the ability to take
another’s perspective and to recognise their motivations
and desires. While developmental progress in these skills
was not a focus of our investigation, age differences might
be expected; however, carers’ accounts included examples
of difficulties with mentalization skills across the full range
of age groups looked after, from infants to young adults.
These difficulties may develop in the context of the mal-
treating family where identifying with the caregiver’s
mental state can undermine the child’s own mental state by
making them feel worthless (Fonagy et al. 2002). This lack
of understanding extended to affective as well as mental
states. In line with previous research (Quinton et al. 1998),
carers also gave accounts of children who had difficulties
in understanding and responding to emotions in others.
For some of the children discussed, the problem was a
misinterpretation of others’ behaviour. Specifically, these
J Child Fam Stud (2012) 21:237–246 243

123
children were perceived to display a hostile bias in the way
they processed their interactions with others. Pollak et al.
(1998) suggest that this may be because the traumatic
experiences associated with particular emotional displays
in maltreating families can guide children’s interpretation
of events and their choice of behavioural responses to
produce a hostile bias.
That foster carers’ accounts suggested that many mal-
treated children showed difficulties with social understand-
ing and empathy was in line with our proposed model.
However, while some children lacked the understanding that
might help them negotiate peer relationships, others had
acquired this understanding but were unable to access it
during stressful social interactions. Even for children mak-
ing good progress in foster care placements, stressful situ-
ations can prompt a return to the defensive strategies they

developed to survive in times of maltreatment (Schofield
and Beek 2005b). It has been suggested that affect regulation
is a precursor of mentalization (Fonagy et al. 2002); our
findings would suggest that even when mentalizing abilities
have developed, the regulation of affect and behaviour is a
necessary requirement for children to put this ability into
practice. This may prove more difficult for children in foster
care, as maltreatment has been linked to inferior affect
regulation (Robinson et al. 2009).
A key part of the foster carer role is to support children
with such difficulties in the move towards more adaptive
cognitions and behaviours (Stovall and Dozier 1998). The
results of our analysis indicate that one avenue for carers
and practitioners to target in tackling maltreated children’s
socio-emotional problems is through enhancing their skills
of social understanding and empathy. Our interviewees
expressed a desire to improve their knowledge of methods
of support for children who have difficulty with developing

or expressing these skills. The majority of our interviewees
felt that they would benefit from specific training on ways
to enhance children’s skills, and that this could have a
positive impact on social relationships and self-percep-
tions. Offering carers the training they need to support
children can combat feelings of inadequacy, which can
have a greater effect on carers’ satisfaction and intention to
continue fostering than even the perceived emotional and
behavioural difficulties of children (Whenan et al. 2009).
The carers’ positive attitude to training in this area is
therefore extremely encouraging.
Helping a socially isolated child to learn the skills
necessary for successful social interactions may have a
significant impact on their quality of life (Daniel et al.
1999). Children who lack these skills are not a lost cause,
and the foster placement should be viewed as a key context
in which change is possible (Wilson 2006). Indeed, Scho-
field and Beek (2005a) identified that the promotion of

children’s capacity to reflect on self and others—precisely
what may be lacking in many of the illustrative difficulties
cited in the present investigation—is a key parenting
dimension for foster carers, and one which predicted good
progress in children’s behaviour and relationships. More-
over, a review of the evidence has shown that in order for
interventions for emotional and behavioural difficulties in
Looked After Children to be effective, they must be
administered directly by or in close liaison with foster
carers (Rushton and Minnis 2002). Given that attention to
social and emotional well-being is part of the UK Gov-
ernment’s statutory guidance for Looked After Children
(Department for Children, Schools and Families 2009),
designing training to address the antecedents of children’s
difficulties with peer relations and self-perceptions is vital.
Conclusions
Our interviews with foster carers have provided support for
the proposed model, in which difficulties with social

understanding and empathy mediate the relationship
between maltreatment and children’s problematic peer
relations and self-perceptions. Additional work is now
required to explore the model further as a potential
developmental explanation for maltreated children’s socio-
emotional difficulties. Clearly, we must recognise that the
experiences related here are associated with a particular
group of individuals and may not reflect the reality for all
carers. Accordingly, it is crucial for further research to
evaluate the model presented here with larger and more
varied samples, and with full attention to the perspectives
of the Looked After Children themselves. In addition, we
propose a longitudinal test of the proposed model, in which
the role of social understanding and empathy as predictors
of maltreated children’s self-perceptions and social rela-
tions is assessed over the course of Looked After Chil-
dren’s changing experiences.
Such work will benefit from the use of a battery of

measures to produce a more detailed assessment of chil-
dren’s social understanding and empathy than is currently
offered. The experiences related here by carers support the
idea that maltreated children are not a homogenous group,
as it was apparent that individual children displayed
varying strengths and difficulties in social understanding
and empathy. This is only to be expected; for example,
physically abused children might be hyper-sensitive to
displays of anger and more likely to show a hostile bias
(Keil and Price 2009), while neglected children are likely
to have had an impoverished education in all types of
emotion (Pollak et al. 2000). Knowledge of these differ-
ences will help in the design of individualised support
plans that can be delivered by foster carers to improve
children’s socio-emotional well-being.
244 J Child Fam Stud (2012) 21:237–246
123

Acknowledgments We are indebted to the foster carers and
social
workers who took part in the focus group and individual
interviews,
and to all those who helped in the recruitment of participants.
Special
thanks also go to the staff at the Local Authority’s Fostering
and
Adoption Team for their advice and support in conducting this
study.
Appendix A: Interview Schedule
Background
How long have you been a foster carer?
How many children have you looked after?
What age range do you foster?
Tell me a bit about your current placement.
Self-Perceptions and Peer Relationships
Thinking about this child/these children, do they….
…have difficulty getting on with other children?
…feel very bad about themselves?
What kind of reputation do they have?—How do other
children respond to them? Teachers? Other adults?
Have you also seen this with any children you’ve

fostered previously?
In your experience, how common are these difficulties in
foster children?
Why do you think they might have had these difficulties?
What is it that makes you think that?
Social Understanding and Empathy
Have any of the children you mentioned had diffi-
culties….
…seeing things from someone else’s point of view?
…understanding someone else’s emotions?
…understanding why someone else has done something?
…responding appropriately to someone else’s behaviour?
…responding appropriately to someone else’s emotions
(e.g., when you are sad they become happy/angry/
frustrated)?
…controlling their own behaviour? [If yes:] Do you
think that’s because they don’t understand what is
appropriate behaviour, or do they understand but can’t
control it?
Support and Training
How did you try to support them/work to improve their

skills?
Why did you choose to do it that way?
What effect did it have, if any?
Can you think of a child you’ve fostered who….
…got on well with other children?
…felt good about themselves?
Why do you think these children didn’t have the same
difficulties as the others?
What is it that makes you think that?
Have you received any training on….
…why children’s parenting backgrounds might lead to
these difficulties? (If yes, what and how much?)
…ways of supporting children in these areas/working to
improve their skills? (If yes, what and how much?)
If no, would you find this useful—for you?—for the
foster child?
What sort of effect might it have?
References
Anthonysamy, A., & Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J. (2007). Peer
status and
behaviours of maltreated children and their classmates in the
early years of school. Child Abuse and Neglect, 31, 971–991.

Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis.
Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Beeghly, M., & Cicchetti, D. (1995). Child maltreatment,
attachment,
and the self system: Emergence of an internal state lexicon in
toddlers at high social risk. In M. E. Hertzig & E. A. Farber
(Eds.), Annual progress in child psychiatry and child develop-
ment. New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Bolger, K. E., Patterson, C. J., & Kupersmidt, J. B. (1998). Peer
relationships and self-esteem among children who have been
maltreated. Child Development, 69, 1171–1197.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in
psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.
Burman, E. (1995). Interviewing. In P. Banister, E. Burman, I.
Parker,
M. Taylor, & C. Tindall (Eds.), Qualitative methods in
psychology: A research guide (pp. 49–71). Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Camras, L. A., Ribordy, S., Hill, J., Martino, S., Spaccarelli, S.,
&
Stefani, R. (1988). Recognition and posing of emotional
expressions by abused children and their mothers. Developmen-

tal Psychology, 24, 776–781.
Carpendale, J., & Lewis, C. (2006). How children develop
social
understanding. Oxford: Blackwell.
Cicchetti, D., Rogosch, F. A., Maughan, A., Toth, S. L., &
Bruce, J.
(2003). False belief understanding in maltreated children.
Development and Psychopathology, 15, 1067–1091.
Daniel, B., Wassell, S., & Gilligan, R. (1999). ‘It’s just
common sense
isn’t it?’ Exploring ways of putting the theory of resilience into
action. Adoption & Fostering, 23, 6–15.
Dekovic, M., & Gerris, J. R. M. (1994). Developmental analysis
of
social cognitive and behavioral differences between popular and
rejected children. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology,
15, 367–386.
Department for Children, Schools and Families. (2009).
Statutory
guidance on promoting the health and well-being of looked after
children. Retrieved from http://publications.education.gov.uk/
eOrderingDownload/Promoting_Health.pdf.
Edwards, A., Shipman, K., & Brown, A. (2005). The
socialization of

emotional understanding: A comparison of neglectful and
J Child Fam Stud (2012) 21:237–246 245
123
http://publications.education.gov.uk/eOrderingDownload/Promo
ting_Health.pdf
http://publications.education.gov.uk/eOrderingDownload/Promo
ting_Health.pdf
nonneglectful mothers and their children. Child Maltreatment,
10, 293–304.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Murphy, B., Karbon, M., Smith,
M., &
Maszk, P. (1996). The relations of children’s dispositional
empathy-related responding to their emotionality, regulation,
and social functioning. Developmental Psychology, 32, 195–
209.
Fishbein, D., Warner, T., Krebs, C., Trevarthen, N., Flannery,
B., &
Hammond, J. (2009). Differential relationships between
personal
and community stressors and children’s neurocognitive func-
tioning. Child Maltreatment, 14, 299–315.
Fonagy, P., Gergely, G., Jurist, E. L., & Target, M. (2002).
Affect

regulation, mentalization, and the development of the self. New
York: Other Press.
Keil, V., & Price, J. M. (2009). Social information-processing
patterns of maltreated children in two social domains. Journal
of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 30, 43–52.
Kelly, G. (2000). The survival of long-term foster care. In G.
Kelly &
R. Gilligan (Eds.), Issues in foster care: Policy, practice and
research (pp. 12–39). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Main, M., & George, C. (1985). Responses of abused and
disadvan-
taged toddlers to distress in agemates: A study in the day care
setting. Developmental Psychology, 21, 407–412.
Morgan, D. L. (1996). Focus groups. Annual Review of
Sociology, 22,
129–152.
Pears, K. C., & Fisher, P. A. (2005). Emotion understanding and
theory
of mind among maltreated children in foster care: Evidence of
deficits. Development and Psychopathology, 17, 47–65.
Pollak, S. D., Cicchetti, D., Hornung, K., & Reed, A. (2000).
Recognizing emotion in faces: Developmental effects of child

abuse and neglect. Developmental Psychology, 36, 679–688.
Pollak, S. D., Cicchetti, D., & Klorman, R. (1998). Stress,
memory, and
emotion: Developmental considerations from the study of child
maltreatment. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 811–828.
Pollak, S. D., Messner, M., Kistler, D. J., & Cohn, J. F. (2009).
Development of perceptual expertise in emotion recognition.
Cognition, 110, 242–247.
Price, J. M., & Glad, K. (2003). Hostile attributional tendencies
in
maltreated children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31,
329–343.
Quinton, D., Rushton, A., Dance, C., & Mayes, D. (1998).
Joining
new families: A study of adoption and fostering in middle
childhood. Chichester: Wiley.
Robinson, L. R., Morris, A. S., Heller, S. S., Scheeringa, M. S.,
Boris,
N. W., & Smyke, A. T. (2009). Relations between emotion
regulation, parenting, and psychopathology in young maltreated
children in out of home care. Journal of Child and Family
Studies, 18, 421–434.
Rushton, A., & Minnis, H. (2002). Residential and foster family
care.

In M. Rutter & E. Taylor (Eds.), Child and adolescent
psychiatry
(4th ed., pp. 359–372). Oxford: Blackwell Science.
Schofield, G., & Beek, M. (2005a). Providing a secure base:
Parenting
children in long-term foster family care. Attachment & Human
Development, 7, 3–25.
Schofield, G., & Beek, M. (2005b). Risk and resilience in long-
term
foster care. British Journal of Social Work, 35, 1283–1301.
Stovall, K. C., & Dozier, M. (1998). Infants in foster care: An
attachment theory perspective. Adoption Quarterly, 2, 55–88.
Sullivan, M. W., Bennett, D. S., Carpenter, K., & Lewis, M.
(2008).
Emotion knowledge in young neglected children. Child Mal-
treatment, 13, 301–306.
Toth, S. L., Cicchetti, D., MacFie, J., & Emde, R. N. (1997).
Representations of self and other in the narratives of neglected,
physically abused, and sexually abused preschoolers. Develop-
ment and Psychopathology, 9, 781–796.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of
higher
psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Whenan, R., Oxlad, M., & Lushington, K. (2009). Factors

associated
with foster carer well-being, satisfaction and intention to
continue providing out-of-home care. Children and Youth
Services Review, 31, 752–760.
Wiehe, V. R. (2003). Empathy and narcissism in a sample of
child
abuse perpetrators and a comparison sample of foster parents.
Child Abuse and Neglect, 27, 541–555.
Wilson, K. (2006). Can foster carers help children resolve their
emotional and behavioural difficulties? Clinical Child Psychol-
ogy and Psychiatry, 11, 495–511.
246 J Child Fam Stud (2012) 21:237–246
123
Copyright of Journal of Child & Family Studies is the property
of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.

Child and Family Social Work 2002, 7, pp 35–45 © 2002
Blackwell Science Ltd
I N T R O D U C T I O N
Many researchers have singled out continuing contact
between the foster child and his or her natural parents
as a prerequisite for the successful development of
self-identity and esteem (e.g. Weinstein 1960; Colon
1978). Furthermore, findings suggest that more
regular contact is associated with ‘greater feelings of
closeness and identification’ to the family when the
child grows up (McDonald et al. 1996, p. 139). On
the other hand, the preservation of natural family ties
can be to the detriment of the attachments the child
could develop with his or her foster families.There are
also cases where contact is maintained through court
order although it is visibly disturbing to the child. The
issue has been hotly debated for some time (Quinton
et al. 1999; Ryburn 1999; Kelly 2000) and remains
unresolved.
While various studies have examined different
aspects of parental visiting over several decades (e.g.
Fanshel & Shinn 1978; Poulin 1992), there is still a
great need to determine the effect that contact pat-
35
‘Contact Irregular’: a qualitative analysis of the impact of
visiting patterns of natural parents on foster placements
Deborah Browne* and Ann Moloney†
*Centre for Applied Psychology (Forensic Section), University
of Leicester, UK, and †Department of Applied Psychology,

University College, Cork, Ireland
Correspondence:
Dr Deborah Browne,
Centre for Applied Psychology
(Forensic Section),
6 University Road,
University of Leicester,
Leicester LE1 7RB,
UK
E-mail: [email protected]
Keywords: attachment, foster child,
natural parents, visiting patterns
Accepted for publication: May 2001
A B S T R A C T
Over the years there has been much debate about the effect of
parental visiting on children in foster care. While some contend
that
it is essential to maintain attachment bonds to the birth family,
others
argue that contact undermines the new relationship with the
foster
family. By studying descriptions of visiting patterns of 113
foster
placements this study attempts to examine how parental access
affects the foster child. A qualitative analysis of the written
accounts
offered by social workers yielded four distinct visiting patterns:
Regular and Frequent, Regular but Infrequent, Infrequent, and
No
Access. The nature of the analysis also allowed for a
redefinition of

placement outcome into three categories: Successful
placements,
Ambiguous placements and Crisis placements. Because the
categories
that emerged from the qualitative analysis were mutually
exclusive it
was possible to examine, using chi square, whether there was a
quan-
titative relationship between the variables ‘Placement status’
and
‘Visiting patterns’. Analysis of the categorical data showed a
statisti-
cally significant relationship between visiting patterns and
placement
outcome. This relationship, however, was not based on how
visiting
related to Successful or Crisis placements. Instead it was
evident that
those placements categorized as Ambiguous were far more
likely to
report Infrequent visiting patterns. Case examples offer an
opportu-
nity to examine possible reasons for this relationship. The paper
also
describes qualitative accounts of how children reacted to the
visits.
The unique approach to defining placement status in this study
may help explain the conflicting findings on this topic over
recent
years.
Impact of visiting patterns of natural parents on foster
placements D Browne and A Moloney

terns have on children and young people in foster
care. The aim of this paper is to look again at how
visiting patterns affect placement outcome. It is
hoped that, by using more qualitative techniques than
previous studies, new associations will emerge. The
response to contact of those involved is also described.
The importance of continuing ties
The theoretical purpose of fostering is to provide a
temporary safe home for a child because his or her
parents are unable to do so, with the eventual aim of
returning the child successfully to the family of origin.
With this in mind it is important the child continues
to identify with his natural family. As Oyserman &
Benbenishty (1992, p. 541) state, ‘if children are to
return home . . . their emotional connection to their
biological parents must be promoted. One important
way to do this is via mutual visitation during the
child’s stay in foster care’.
Research indicates that such contact does indeed
help to promote biological attachments (Weinstein
1960; Aldgate 1977; Triseliotis 1989; O’Higgins
1993). After examining the case records of 92 chil-
dren in long-term foster care Poulin (1992), for
instance, concluded that there was a highly significant
relationship between kin visiting and biological family
attachment (BFA). The more a child was visited by
the natural family, the greater the attachment they had
to them. Children who were visited at least once a
month had highest average BFA scores, indicating
that regular and frequent visiting patterns gave chil-

dren the most positive sense of attachment with their
biological family.
Fanshel & Shinn (1978) reported that children
whose parents visited regularly were far more likely to
have been discharged by the end of their five-year
study than children who received infrequent visits or
children whose parents’ visits deteriorated over time.
Children who were frequently visited also showed
greater gains in IQ, better emotional adjustment, and
positive behaviour changes, and visiting was also a sig-
nificant predictor of overall classroom assessment
(Fanshel & Shinn 1978, p. 487).
The disadvantages of parental visiting
Because the evidence has suggested that ‘parental vis-
iting of placed children is essential to the resolution
of the function of placement in each family’s problem’
(Hess 1988), many agencies have concluded that they
should attempt to arrange visits at any cost. It should
also be acknowledged, however, that visiting patterns
may not always be conducive to success. Indeed, many
researchers have found that, after initial enthusiasm,
visiting patterns deteriorate as the placement pro-
gresses (e.g. Fanshel & Shinn 1978; Rowe et al. 1984;
Wilkinson 1988). There can be many reasons for this,
such as how the social worker encourages the natural
parent, or the attitudes of the foster parents to the
visits (Triseliotis 1989). Therefore, visiting cannot
always be seen as positive and desirable. Many chil-
dren may even react badly to an impending visit, or
will behave poorly after a visit (Rosenfeld et al. 1997;
Quinton et al. 1998). Additionally, parents may make
promises of reuniting the family that are unrealistic

and cause older children unnecessary confusion. The
reinforcing of these birth family ties may serve only to
endanger the new and more positive bonds with the
foster family. The issue is appropriately summed up
by Bowlby (1965, p. 141) who commented:
‘[T]he records of all agencies are full of evidence of the diffi-
culties created for children in long-term care by their parents’
inability to permit them to settle in a foster-home and feel part
of it . . . The children are left in a turmoil of conflicting loyal-
ties. In one child guidance clinic by far the most difficult
cases of disturbed foster-children were those whose parents
remained in a conflict of feeling about placement and “carried
on an active but irregular connexion with the child”.’
In these cases it would arguably be in the child’s best
interest to minimize birth family contact. Indeed
Quinton et al. (1997) argued that there was little evi-
dence that contact improved chances of a successful
outcome in any case. This view has fuelled an inter-
esting debate (e.g. Quinton et al. 1999; Ryburn 1999)
to which the current paper may provide some
answers.
The purpose of this paper is firstly to attempt to
redefine visiting patterns based on the accounts
offered by social workers, and then to examine what
effect, if any, these patterns have on the progress of
the placement. Case studies are offered to illustrate

the effects noticed in the analysis. In addition, the
children’s reactions to visiting are outlined.
M E T H O D
Participants
Seventeen social workers completed questionnaires
for 127 foster placements.The children in these place-
ments had been fostered for varying episodes over a
three-year period. They ranged in age from birth to
36
20 years. Seventy-four foster families participated in
the study. To give due regard to external validity it was
important that the sample was representative of the
population in general (Fernandez 1996). To this end,
social workers from both city community care teams
and a special fostering project were involved. This
ensured a wide spectrum of socio-economic groups
and backgrounds, as each area has a different eco-
nomic emphasis. Attempts were made to obtain
similar numbers from each community care area.
Materials
Social workers and foster parents completed ques-

tionnaires that examined various aspects of each foster
placement. The questionnaires were designed to look
at a wide variety of psychological issues that affect
foster children. Questions, or derivations of them,
used in previous studies (e.g. George 1970; Baxter
1989) were included where possible. This procedure
also served to enhance consensual validity (Fernan-
dez 1996, p. 73).
In relation to the current paper, social workers were
asked to give detailed accounts of contact patterns.
Specifically they were asked: ‘Please describe in detail
interaction between [child] and his or her natural
parents, mentioning such things as how often they
meet, where they meet, how the child looks forward
to these meetings, and how the child feels and behaves
after these meetings’.
The questionnaires also gave information that
determined how the placement would be classified in
terms of outcome. These details was derived from
questions that were asked of both the social worker
and the foster parent in relation to how the placement
was progressing, or the manner in which it had ter-
minated – whichever was applicable. Examples of the
type of information that was used to determine this
are given later.
Qualitative analysis
There are many ways of analysing qualitative data.
The approach adopted for the purposes of analysing
the written accounts of the social workers and foster
parents has been described as ‘interpretive’ (Miles &
Huberman 1994; Berg 2001). In this case the inter-
pretation is quite reductive, condensing the content of

the written data into units (or categories) that reflect
themes or concepts in an attempt to discover patterns
of meaning or explanation of what is happening in the
foster placement. Care is taken, however, not to lose
the impact of the written words of the social workers
by overemphasizing categories or quantities. This is
done by analysing sample statements and case studies.
The accounts given by the social workers and foster
parents were coded for meaningful words, phrases and
sentences. At this point every attempt was made to
follow the coding process described by Miles &
Huberman (1994). These ‘chunks’ of information
were then grouped into conceptually similar cate-
gories. After the categories had been generated, each
questionnaire was worked through again to record
whether the category was present or not.
Reliability of the categories generated through
qualitative analysis was tested using an independent
assessor. Unreliable categories (inter-rater score of
less than 85%) were dropped from the study.
Data that are reduced to categories in the manner
described here can be subjected to content analysis.
There is some debate about whether this is actually a
qualitative method at all (e.g. Silverman 1993) as it
emphasizes the quantity more than other qualitative
techniques (especially the more feminist approaches
that are commonly applied to this type of personal
account data). Berg (2001), however, argues that
content analysis is a valuable tool when used with
qualitative data as it ‘is a passport to listening to the
words of the text, and understanding better the per-
spective(s) of the producer of these words’ (p. 242).

Seale (1999) also advocates the use of numbers in
qualitative research, commenting that ‘there is a
variety of ways in which attention to quantification
can enhance qualitative work’ (p. 123). These views
reflect the beliefs of the present authors, and an
attempt is made to use numbers to help to explain and
interpret the themes and concepts found in the
written accounts.
R E S U LT S
Visiting patterns
Out of 127 foster placements, data on parental visit-
ing were unavailable for seven placements. The ques-
tion of visiting did not apply to a further seven, which
were either day fostering or of too short a duration for
parental visiting to be an issue. This left 113 foster
placements for which data were available on visiting
patterns during the index placement.
In most cases patterns of visiting were readily
identifiable and very easily recorded in a quantifiable
manner. For instance, in a large number of accounts
social workers indicated that contact occurred regu-
37

larly, with at least one parent, and also quite often. In
this case ‘regular’ means that the visit could be
expected to happen after a specified period of time.
For example:
‘. . . meets his family once every six weeks. Visits mother in
her
own apartment with his siblings. Met with mother on his own
every 4th week.’
‘[Child] loves his mother and loves seeing her and looks
forward to it. During current placement he sees his mother
once/twice a month for 2 hours approx. – quality is basic as
they have no appropriate accommodation. However, mother
of late has been visiting the foster home.’
‘. . . goes home to his natural family for an afternoon every 2
weeks. He sometimes goes for a visit on Sundays or foster
father takes his younger brother with him for a spin.’
‘. . . for past 2 years 6 weekly supervised access – try to vary
venues. Can be difficult to do so.’
In these cases it is clear that visits occur on a regular
basis, and also quite frequently, so they were catego-
rized as Regular and Frequent. They were distinguish-
able from other placements where visiting was also

regular (in that the child knew it would happen after
a certain period of time) but not as frequent as in the
examples given above. These cases were termed
Regular but Infrequent. Social workers reported:
‘. . . meetings about 6 times yearly at most.’
‘About twice a year . . . [child] went to stay with her mother
for 3 days at Christmas, and again for 3 days last August.’
‘Child meets her mother and sisters about twice a year (super-
vised access) at her own request.’
There were other cases where contact patterns could
not be described as regular at all. In these cases the
child did not know when he or she could expect to
meet his or her parents. For example:
‘Access now very irregular – at parents’ request.’
‘Occasional, irregular contact from mother (address
unknown).’
‘. . . meets mother about once a year.’
‘. . . father now lives in the USA. He writes to [child] occa-
sionally and phones him . . . [last year] he spent 6 weeks at
home and [child] spent weekends with his father . . . Mum
sees him infrequently – twice last year and not yet this year.’

Finally there were the cases where the child did not
have contact with his or her natural family, or where
contact had ceased. Social workers noted:
‘. . . has had no contact with her mother since late ’92.’
‘. . . has not seen her mother in a number of years.’
‘No access.’
In summary, then, four distinct placement patterns
were noticed. In the first, the child received Regular
and Frequent visits from at least one parent (regular
indicating that the child could expect the visit after a
certain time). It is interesting to note – as is evident
from the examples offered above – that social workers
describing these placements were more likely to offer
more information.This possibly reflects a positive atti-
tude to a perceived success in this area. Descriptions
of other visiting patterns tend to be more succinct, to
the point of abruptness in some cases.
The second pattern was also regular (as defined
above) but could be differentiated by the fact that
visits did not occur very often: Regular but Infrequent
visits could generally be expected to happen between
two and six times a year. The third pattern of visiting
was neither regular nor frequent: in the Infrequent
pattern, children were not sure when to expect visits,
and visits tended to happen about once a year or less.
In this pattern the quantity of visits was considered
less important than the fact that visits were never
certain or at fixed intervals (note for instance the
example where the child’s father lived in the USA).
The final pattern, No Access, consisted of those who

did not currently receive access visits. Once inter-rater
reliability scores confirmed that these categories were
valid, a content analysis was performed to discover
how the 113 placements were distributed across the
visiting patterns. Figure 1 illustrates this distribution.
As indicated by Fig. 1, most birth parents (n = 52)
visited on a Regular and Frequent basis. Parents in
only 17 cases visited in an Infrequent pattern and only
13 placements (12%) had parents who visited on a
Regular but Infrequent basis. Some of the children (17,
or 15% of those for whom data are available, and 21%
of those who received access visits) were allowed
weekend visits to their parents’ home. Thirty-one
placements, or 27% of the 113 for whom data are
available, were not in receipt of access visits, or access
had ceased during the index placement.
Reactions of children to contact
As Fig. 1 shows, 73% (n = 81) of the placements
looked at were receiving parental visits. Social workers
described a number of different ways in which chil-
dren reacted to these visits. As these reactions are
bound to have an impact, even if momentarily, on the
placement, it is useful to look at how social workers
perceived the children’s responses to visiting.
A large number of social workers described reactions
that could only be expressed as Positive. Table 1 notes
that 62% of all those who received parental visits had
some positive reactions. An interesting point that was
noted for this category is that social workers often
38

added a comment that the child did not react badly
(e.g. ‘Enjoys meetings with mother – does not show any
adverse reaction afterwards’; ‘Looked forward to these
meetings and he was not distressed after them’). This
appears to imply that the social workers are more aware
of negative consequences. Indeed, children in a very
high percentage (53%) of placements reacted nega-
tively to visits. Some of these reactions, as is illustrated
in Table 1, are quite extreme (e.g. ‘Fear, inability to
speak . . .’). A small number of children (n = 9)
appeared apathetic and indifferent towards the visits,
but it is possible that this hid deeper feelings. When
parents reacted negatively it was either because they
treated the child inappropriately or offered unrealistic
promises about a reunited family.
Another category that emerged was Situation
improving. While it was reported that only 13 of the
81 foster placements that were receiving access visits
had situations that were improving, this is still an
important category. Many social workers reported
that inadequate access was a cause of concern for
some children (e.g. ‘Very upset when they [meetings]
were cancelled – became very quiet in himself ’;
‘[Access] was often cancelled – in the beginning he
was very upset about this but as time passed he
accepted it more and more’), and when the situation
improved it can only be seen as a positive outcome.

In a small number of cases social workers indicated
that the child was suffering because of the behaviour
or reactions of their natural parent(s) to the visit. This
poor reaction was also not appreciated by the chil-
dren’s foster parents, who had to deal with upset chil-
dren after the visits (e.g. ‘Very difficult young mother.
Very upsetting visits to [fostering agency] what left
[child] very upset and I always had to be there for her’
[sic]). Quinton et al. (1998) reported similar reactions
in their study, where foster parents expressed concern
about mixed or inappropriate messages from birth
parents.
Table 1 describes the categories of reactions that
were recorded and the frequency with which each
category occurred. It should be noted that these
categories are not mutually exclusive, and that social
workers could describe more than one type of reac-
tion for each placement. It is evident from this table
that most of the response to visiting was either posi-
tive (62%) or improving (16%). Nonetheless, 53% of
placements with visits included some sort of negative
reaction of the child to the visit, and a further 11% of
children were apathetic towards contact. It is evident
that visiting was not always to the advantage of the
child.
Placement status
Probably because of the nature of the analysis, the
definition of placement outcome differed qualitatively
from other foster care studies. Three levels of place-
ment status emerged in the present study: Successful,
Ambiguous and Crisis. These can be defined as follows

(SW indicates social worker accounts, and FP indi-
cates foster parent accounts):
Successful placements
No serious problems were reported or expected to
occur. Comments on these placements were very
positive:
‘Placement is progressing very satisfactorily.’ [SW]
‘Children returned home . . . all settled down and outlook is
very promising.’ [SW]
‘He is treated like one of the family in every way. We all get
on well most of the time . . . he has also brought a bit of hap-
piness into our everyday routine . . . we will be sorry to see
him go but that is what fostering is all about.’ [FP]
‘[Child] has been integrated very successfully. Is greatly loved
and appreciated by all family members. Has improved in
school and gained in confidence.’ [SW ]
‘I think it is fair to say we all consider [child] very much part
of our family now. She is with us now for as long as she wants.’
[FP]
Ambiguous placements

One or two categories of uncertainty or specified
problems were reported by either the foster family or
the social worker. Examples of statements that made
a placement Ambiguous included:
‘Some anxiety on foster parent’s part in dealing with child’s
background (sexual abuse).’ [SW ]
39
Regular but
Infrequent
12%
Regular and Frequent
46%
No Access
27%
Infrequent
15%
Figure 1 Patterns of parental visits (n = 113).

‘[Child] happy at present with foster family . . . Problem is
with other family members and other foster children, which
may affect [child’s] placement . . . One [other foster place-
ment with the family] has recently broken down.’ [SW]
‘Both the child and the social worker are somewhat unsure of
the foster parents’ continuing commitment . . . these issues are
all going to arise during her adolescence.’ [SW]
‘[Child] has enormous difficulty trusting his foster parents.
The difficulty will be holding on to [child] during adoles-
cence.’ [SW]
Crisis placements
These are cases in which breakdown, imminent break-
down, report of the onset of serious problems, or three
or more examples of uncertainty or problems were
reported by the foster family or the social worker.
Comments by foster parents and social workers on
these placements were quite negative:
‘The whole family was falling apart while [child] was here
. . . she had a devastating effect on us all. I finally gave the
social worker a deadline when the child had to move on and
to be honest everyone was relieved when she left.’ [FP]

‘This child is unhappy in this placement. He was placed with
his brother originally but . . . it [the brother’s placement]
broke down after 11 months . . . his brother was transferred to
another family . . . [Child] is the same age as foster mother’s
own child and this has led to a number of difficulties . . . Child
also feels isolated . . . Foster parents place huge emphasis on
academic achievement and this has put a lot of pressure on
the child . . . These foster parents have advanced in age [and
I] would recommend that only short-term babies be placed
with them [in future].’ [SW]
‘We had reached no compromise with [child’s] drinking and
it was no longer possible for [him] to stay in our home and be
seen not to care what we thought or felt about his drinking
and his idea of why he was staying with our family . . . We
asked [child] to leave. I was very angry when [he] left.’ [FP]
Foster parents describing Crisis placements were likely
to give long and detailed accounts of the problems
that arose. The experience of completing the ques-
tionnaires appeared quite cathartic; it gave foster

40
Table 1 Reactions of foster children to parental visits
No. of % of placements
Reaction Illustration cases reported with access visits
Positive ‘Looks forward to these visits.’ 50 62
‘[Child] loves his mother and loves
seeing her and looks forward to it.’
Negative ‘Fear, inability to speak, refuses 43 53
to go on some occasions. Once
got physically sick.’
‘The foster parent said he was usually
upset and bedwetting for a few days
after the access visits.’
‘After last visit he was visibly upset.’
‘This contact invariably causes distress
for [child].’
Response to parent’s ‘Mother spends more time talking to 5 6
behaviour social worker than to children.’
‘Expects child to act in infantile manner.’
Apathy towards ‘Child has no interest in seeing natural 9 11
contact parents.’
‘[Child] would be ambivalent about these
occasions . . . her relationship with
[parents] appears to be fairly superficial.’

Situation improving ‘[Child] met her mother in July for the first
13 16
time in about 7 years …visits mother’s
home more now . . . looks forward to
these visits.’
‘Sporadic [visits] became more regular.
Eventually trial periods at home.’
No. of placements with access visits = 81.
parents the opportunity to vent a lot of anger and frus-
tration in relation to a very stressful event (something
that perhaps other foster parents with similar experi-
ences would benefit from). Social workers were more
likely to point out weaknesses on the foster parents’
side. Placements that were categorized as Ambiguous
were very often defined in this way because of state-
ments made by the social worker – foster parents
appeared more reluctant to prophesize problems in a
placement that was progressing satisfactorily on the
surface. The only exceptions were cases where the
foster parent pointed out that one or more family
members were unhappy with the placement.
The majority of placements were successful, and
the accounts of these were very positive indeed. Ulti-

mately, and despite the failures and the uncertain
cases, it is the heartening descriptions such as those
above that offer the most persuasive reason for con-
tinuing to develop fostering programmes. Fifty-two
(46%) of the 113 foster placements were classified as
Successful, 32 (28%) as Ambiguous, and 29 (26%) as
Crisis.
Two of these levels are similar to the concepts of
‘success’ and ‘failure’ as used in other studies (e.g.
Trasler 1960; George 1970; Berridge & Cleaver
1987). Crisis placements have traditionally been
referred to as ‘failed placements’, although not all of
them had actually suffered a breakdown at the time
of the study. Several previous studies have grappled
with the problem of defining a failed placement. Many
have used definitions based on the length of the place-
ment (e.g. Trasler 1960; Berridge & Cleaver 1987)
because alternative more abstract definitions (e.g.
social and personal adjustment as used by Fanshel &
Shinn 1978) are difficult to measure. The category
Crisis placements that emerged in this study is defined
not in terms of length of placement, but rather in
terms of whether it has reached a state of (literally)
crisis. The concept of Ambiguous is new. These place-
ments were not suffering serious problems (i.e. could
not (yet) be described as being in crisis), but could
not strictly be defined as Successful either. Two exam-
ples of Ambiguous placements are offered as vignettes
later in this paper. As discussed below, an interesting
relationship seems to have emerged between this level
of placement status and visiting patterns.
Visiting patterns and placement status

This section describes the relationship between visit-
ing patterns and placement status. Because these two
variables are made up of mutually exclusive levels, it
is possible to perform a chi-square analysis on the cat-
egorical data.
Table 2 illustrates how the patterns are divided
among the levels of placement status. It was found
that Successful cases were far more likely to follow
either Regular and Frequent (n = 18) or No Access (n =
22) patterns than the infrequent patterns. Crisis place-
ments were also more likely to fall into these two vis-
iting patterns. Chi-square analysis of these categories
showed that there was a significant relationship at the
0.05 level (c2 = 16.66056, P < 0.02) between ‘Parental
visiting patterns’ and ‘Placement status’. A closer
examination of how the contingency table is divided
reveals more details about this relationship (Figs 2
and 3).
Figure 2 illustrates what percentage of each level of
‘Placement status’ falls under each of the ‘Visiting
pattern’ headings. It can be seen that of all the Crisis
cases (total n = 29, as seen in Table 2), 51.7% had
Regular and Frequent visiting patterns. Indeed, for each
41
Table 2 Visiting patterns and levels of placement status
Parental visiting patterns
Placement status No Access Infrequent Regular but Infrequent
Regular and Frequent Total
Successful 18 4 8 22 52

Ambiguous 4 11 2 15 32
Crisis 9 2 3 15 29
Total 31 17 13 52 113
c2 = 16.66056, P < 0.02.
of the levels of placement status, Regular and Frequent
patterns were most common. The interesting infor-
mation to be derived from Fig. 2 is in the Ambiguous
column. Only 12.5% of Ambiguous placements (total
n = 32) were No Access, a frequency that more than
doubled for both other placement outcome variables.
It is also apparent that far more Ambiguous placements
had Infrequent visiting patterns compared with the
other two placement statuses.
As Fig. 3 illustrates, the No Access and both of the
Regular categories showed approximately one quarter
of cases as Crisis. These patterns all also showed the
highest percentage of Successful cases, especially the
Regular but Infrequent (total n = 15) pattern (61.5%).
When parental access was Infrequent (total n = 17),
however, most cases fell into the Ambiguous group
(64.7% of the Infrequent category).
The Ambiguous placements were ones where there
was a certain amount of uncertainty about their ability

to survive, and it is interesting that this status seems
to have a relationship with Infrequent patterns of
parental access (see Fig. 3). These patterns of access
were also uncertain, and often happened unexpect-
edly or after many unsuccessful attempts to establish
a visiting pattern. It is very possible that the unstable
and uncertain nature of the children’s relationship
with their birth family contributed to the ambiguous
nature of their foster placements.
Ambiguity and instability
To highlight the possibilities of this argument
further, individual foster placements were looked at
more closely. Below are two case examples of Infre-
quent access patterns (categorized on the basis of the
most recent pattern) as described by the social
workers.
Vignette 1
Annie’s placement was progressing quite well at the
time of the study, but the social worker expected prob-
lems to arise in the future. Because the foster parents
also made some reserved comments about Annie’s
behaviour and her future with them, this placement
was categorized as Ambiguous. Her social worker com-
mented on parental access.
‘Access was arranged by the [social work] department on a
regular basis but parents frequently failed to keep appoint-
42

34.6
12.5
31
7.7
34.4
6.9
15.4 6.3
10.3
42.3 46.9 51.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Successful Ambiguous Crisis
Regular and Frequent
Regular but Infrequent
Infrequent

No AccessP
e
rc
e
n
ta
g
e
Figure 2 Percentage of each visit-
ing pattern within each level of
placement status.
58.1
23.5
61.5
42.3
12.9
64.7
15.4
28.8
29
11.8
23.1 28.8
0
10

20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
No Access Infrequent Regular but
Infrequent
Regular and
Frequent
Crisis
Ambiguous
Successful
P
e
rc
e
n
ta
g
e
Figure 3 Percentage of each level
of placement status within each

visiting pattern.
ments. Access is now very irregular – at parents’ request. Child
has no interest in seeing natural parents.’
Vignette 2
John had been fostered for some time by parents who
had also fostered him the last time he came into care.
His social worker, however, had some significant
reservations about the placement’s ability to survive.
Although John’s behaviour was not difficult, his
foster parents were beginning to see it as such. He
was described as bright and articulate and his foster
parents might not have been able to cope with his
questions and opinions. Because of these problems,
his placement was categorized as Ambiguous. His
social worker described the access pattern in the
following way.
‘No access with mother over the past 12–18 months – mother
in prison – father involved in new relationship – seldom
contacts . . . visits rare . . . Initially 6 weekly access organized
by social worker – parents frequently failed to keep

appointments.’
These vignettes show a typically careless attitude on
the part of the natural parents in cases where access
was infrequent. It is evident that the two children do
not really have behavioural problems, but the unre-
solved issues that the social worker recognizes as
possible future crises can be associated with the
inconsistent patterns of contact. This attitude could
feasibly be linked to the confusion of the child. Such
a relationship is far more disconcerting than the more
stable relationship or the Regular access placements or
even the poor relationship of the No Access children.
This latter group may have formed a healthy identity
with their foster family because they are not confused
by erratic contact patterns; these are the ‘conflicting
loyalties’ that Bowlby (1965) mentioned, as discussed
earlier.
D I S C U S S I O N A N D C O N C L U S I O N S
Four different patterns emerged from the qualitative
analysis of the data about these visits:
∑ Regular and Frequent;
∑ Regular but Infrequent;
∑ Infrequent; and
∑ No Access.
It was noted that the children’s responses to these
visits were not always positive. This is a cause for
apprehension for many reasons. Besides the obvious
concerns over the welfare of the child, it must also be
remembered that foster parents are often left to deal
with an upset child without adequate support. It is
likely that the impact of visiting depends on a variety

of connecting factors including the natural parents’
involvement, their relationship with the foster parents
and how quickly the agency intervenes (e.g. Poirier
1998). Visiting patterns can have a long-term, and
apparently quite critical, influence on placement
outcome, so it is important that the immediate reac-
tions are monitored carefully.
This paper has demonstrated the interesting point
that the relationship between parental visiting pat-
terns and placement status was based not on certain
patterns being more associated with Successful or
Crisis placements, but on certain patterns being more
associated with Ambiguous placements. Infrequent vis-
iting patterns were far more likely to be Ambiguous.
This appears to indicate that those placements that
were experiencing less stable visiting patterns were
also those that had underlying but (so far) non-
disruptive problems. As far as family identity and
attachment is concerned, Infrequent visiting patterns
would be more likely to result in uncertainty about
their status for the children involved. As Bowlby
(1965) pointed out, these visiting patterns leave the
children somewhat in limbo. Unlike children who
maintained regular contact with their parents, or chil-
dren who had obviously been abandoned by their
natural families, these children were more likely to be
confused about their probable futures. This was
illustrated in the short examples highlighting the
situations of two children, Annie and John. The
theory is further backed up by the findings of other
researchers. Fanshel & Shinn (1978) found that
children who were visited infrequently were far less
likely to return home than children who were visited
regularly, which would indicate that children who
are visited infrequently have every reason to be con-

cerned about their futures. Poulin (1992) found that
the more often a child was visited by his/her parents
the greater the attachment s/he had for them. The
divided loyalty issue has been recognized by agencies
who realize the dangers of this (despite the benefits)
in the new ‘open’ policies for contact (Quinton et al.
1998).
The issues discussed in this paper – visiting pat-
terns, reactions to contact, and the impact of visiting
on placement outcome – relate to how visiting is
arranged and monitored by the fostering agency. Hess
(1988) commented that findings indicate that case-
worker contact with natural parents is infrequent.This
is probably due to heavy caseloads. Fanshel & Shinn
43
(1978, p. 483) maintain that ‘more careful monitor-
ing of parental visiting and judicious casework inter-
vention where visiting falters, particularly early in the
child’s placement, seems . . . to be a prime responsi-
bility faced by an agency’. One of the influential pre-
dictors of visiting patterns seems to be the relationship
between the foster family and the natural family
(Oyserman & Benbenisty 1992) and this is something
that needs to be carefully regulated by the agency.
If, as Oyserman & Benbenisty (1992) suggest, fre-

quency of home visits by the foster child are influ-
enced by the degree to which the foster family
encourages or enables a relationship with the child’s
family of origin, then it should be the duty of the fos-
tering agency to ensure that such encouragement
takes place.
Unfortunately, probably due to heavy caseloads and
a high rate of staff turnover, visiting patterns and
resulting problems are not monitored as carefully as
they might be. This is despite the fact that the evi-
dence, from both the present paper and previous
research, indicates that visiting patterns can deter-
mine how successful is the fostering process. This
success may be measured not only by a smooth and
successful return home, but also by the attachments
of the child or young person placed in care. It should
be remembered that the best interests of the child
might not necessarily be served by continuous contact
with the birth family at all costs. Without a doubt
regular contact is essential if the child is to maintain
healthy attachments to a birth family to which s/he is
likely to return. When this is not the case, however,
and contact is likely to be superficial and disruptive,
it may be best to minimize access to allow healthy and
uncomplicated attachment to develop with the foster
family. The question is not a simple one, though, and
cannot be dismissed with a perfunctory answer. More
research is needed to determine what contact patterns
are best for individual children.
R E F E R E N C E S
Aldgate, J. (1977) Identification of factors influencing
children’s

length of stay in care. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh.
Baxter, S. (1989) Fostering Breakdown: An Internal Study.
Department of Health and Social Services, Belfast.
Berg, B.L. (2001) Qualitative Research Methods for the Social
Sciences, 4th edn. Allyn and Bacon, Needham Heights,
MA.
Berridge, D. & Cleaver, H. (1987) Foster Home Breakdown.
Blackwell, Oxford.
Bowlby, J. (1965) Child Care and the Growth of Love. Penguin
Books Ltd, London.
Colon, F. (1978) Family ties and child placement. Family
Process,
17, 289–312.
Fanshel, D. & Shinn, E.B. (1978) Children in Foster Care.
Columbia University Press, New York.
Fernandez, E. (1996) Significant Harm: Unravelling Child
Protec-
tion Decisions and Substitute Care Careers of Children.
Avebury,
Aldershot.

George, V. (1970) Foster Care – Theory and Practice. Routledge
and Kegan Paul, London.
Hess, P. (1988) Case and context: detriments of planned visit
frequency in foster family care. Child Welfare, 67, 311–326.
Kelly, G. (2000) Outcome studies in foster care. In: Issues in
Foster Care (eds G. Kelly & R. Gilligan). Jessica Kingsley,
London.
McDonald, T.P., Allen, R.I., Westerfelt, A. & Piliavin, I. (1996)
Assessing the Long-term Effects of Foster Care. Child Welfare
League of America, Washington, DC.
Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analy-
sis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
O’Higgins, K. (1993) Family Problems and Substitute Care.
Paper
No. 9, Broadsheet Series. Economic and Social Research Insti-
tute, Dublin.
Oyserman, D. & Benbenishty, R. (1992) Keeping in touch:
ecological factors related to foster care visitation. Child and

Adolescent Social Work Journal, 6, 541–554.
Poirier, M.A. (1998) Maintaining links between children in
foster care and their parents. Canadian Social Work Review, 15,
9–23.
Poulin, J.E. (1992) Kin visiting and the biological attachment of
long term foster children. Journal of Social Service Research,
15,
65–79.
Quinton, D., Rushton, A., Dance, C. & Mayes, D. (1997)
Contact between children placed away from home and their
birth parents: research issues and evidence. Clinical Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 2, 393–414.
Quinton, D., Rushton, A., Dance, C. & Mayes, D. (1998)
Joining
New Families: A Study of Adoption and Fostering in Middle
Child-
hood. Wiley, Chichester.
Quinton, D., Selwyn, J., Rushton, A. & Dance, C. (1999)
Contact between children placed away from home and their
birth parents: Ryburn’s ‘reanalysis’ analysed. Clinical Child

Psychology and Psychiatry, 4, 519–531.
Rosenfeld, A.A., Pilowsky, D.J., Fine, P., Thorpe, M., Fein, E.,
Simms, M. et al. (1997) Foster care: an update. Journal of the
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 36,
448–457.
Rowe, J., Cain, H., Hundleby, M. & Keane, A. (1984) Long
Term
Foster Care. British Association for Adoption and Fostering,
London.
Ryburn, M. (1999) Contact between children placed away from
home and their birth parents: a reanalysis of the evidence in
relation to permanent placements. Clinical Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 4, 505–518.
Seale, C. (1999) The Quality of Qualitative Research. Sage,
London.
Silverman, D. (1993) Interpreting Qualitative Data. Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
44

Trasler, G. (1960) In Place of Parents: A Study of Foster Care.
Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
Triseliotis, J. (1989) Foster care outcomes: a review of the
research findings. Adoption and Fostering, 13, 5–17.
Weinstein, E.A. (1960) The Self Image of the Foster Child.
Russell
Sage, New York.
Wilkinson, C. (1988) Prospect, process and outcome in foster
care.
MPhil thesis, University of Edinburgh.
45

Your assignment must be completed in an essay format. You must .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Your assignment must be completed in an essay format. You must .docx

Similar to Your assignment must be completed in an essay format. You must .docx (20)

More from hyacinthshackley2629

More from hyacinthshackley2629 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Your assignment must be completed in an essay format. You must .docx