Beyond the Adoption Order

challenges, interventions and disruptions

Julie Selwyn, Dinithi Wijedasa and Sarah MeakingsUniversity of Bristol, School for Policy Studies, Hadley

Centre for Adoption and Foster Care Studies www.bristol.ac.uk/hadley

Background

No national studies on adoption disruption in the UK or USA

Inconsistent use of the term disruption

Limited analysis

Establish the rate of adoption disruption post-order and to compare with the stability of Residence Orders and Special Guardianship Orders

Investigate the factors associated with disruption

Explore the experiences of adopters, children, and social workers

Provide recommendations on how disruptions might be prevented

Aims

Methods

National data from DfE

• SSDA903 • Adoption file

(2000-2011) • Looked after

children (2002-2011)

Survey

• All adoption managers to collect info on disruptions 2000-12

• Survey in 13 LAs of all those who legally adopted a child between April 2002 and March 2004

• Open survey on AUK website

Interviews

• 35 where the child had left prematurely and 35 where the parents described parenting as very challenging

• 12 young people

• 12 adoption managers

Measures

• SDQ• ACA-SF• HADS• PSOC• IER-S• PTG• FACESIV• COPE• SWLS

Has the introduction of SGOs influenced the number of children leaving care on Adoption Orders?

20012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220130

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500Adoption Order Special Guardianship Order Residence Order

Comparison of children’s characteristics on different orders.

Adoption (n=37, 335) • Younger, white children

who entered on Section 20

• Had experienced more moves in foster care

• Had experienced more delay in getting to final placement

SGO (n=5,921) and RO (n=5,771)

• Ethnic minority children more likely to be on a SGO or RO

• Majority (68%) of SGOs made to kin, as were 39% of ROs

• Children on ROs tend to be the older children and had more failed reunification attempts

Adoption disruption rate over 12 years 3.2%

Older at entry to care

More moves in care

Placed over 4 yrs of age

Delay placement to order

Being a teenager

Not associated

GenderEthnicityAdopted by former foster carer

Rate varies by LA 0-7%

SGO disruption rate over five years 5.7%

Reason for entry to care other than maltreatment

Number of moves in care

Placed over 4 years of age

Order made to unrelated carers

Rate varies by LA 0-17%

Residence Order disruption rate 25% over a 6 year period

Number of moves in care

Order made to unrelated carer

Age at entry to care

Rate varies by LA 0-33%

Comparing disrupted placements

Adoption

• Adoption most stable

• Most disrupted 5 or more years after the order was made

• Most children over 11 years of age

SGO and RO

• ROs least stable • Most disrupted

within 2 years of the order.

• Most children under 11 years of age

38%

28%

21%

9%

4%

34%31%

25%

8%

1%

LA Survey (n=379)

Survey responses

Interview sample (n=70)

83% approved by a LA and 17% by a VAA

76% of households other adopted children and 23% birth children

21% change in marital status since approval

Age at time of study ‘Left home’ children av 18yrs compared with 15yrs av. ‘At home’

Children who had left home older at entry to care, at placement and time of order than those ‘At home’

Background factors associated with later disruption

Domestic violence

Neglect

Sexual abuse

Older at entry to care

Quality of foster care

She was meticulous actually and met all his physical needs. She said to us, “I’m not here to show him affection or love, it’s your job.” So, she just did the basics.

Poorly managed introductions

Poor timing – adoption workers away goodbye meetings

Poor planning- organising of visits and accommodation

Rushed – determined by foster carer’s agenda and not the child’s needs

Foster carers’ support during the introductions and transition

• She told us what he likes to eat, what his routine is, how he is with animals and how he is with other children, what he didn’t like - (At home)

Majority (61%) described carer as

welcoming

• Difficulty letting the child go, did not approving of choice of adoptive parents, or wanted child out as fast as possible.

29% obstructive

On the day, that he actually came to stay [carer] just handed him over at the door. She was crying and Jacob was crying. I just don’t think that was good … it was just like a parcel being passed over really …She was just breaking her heart. (At home)

When they came to live with us, they came with nothing. Oscar didn't even have a cuddly toy. Not even any clothes, so that was all a bit [upsetting]. (Left home)

Early challenging behaviours

Difficulty forming close relationshipsAvoidant of intimacy and comfort Controlling/manipulativeInability to playSleep problemsLack of affect Smearing

Self harm and sexualised behaviours

He would sit there banging himself in the head and banging his head against the wall, “I hate myself, I am rubbish. I want to die.” And I thought I’ve never heard a four year old talking about wanting to die. I’m sure at four I had no concept that could happen - you think that you’re going to live forever when you’re four or five.

My underwear started to go missing, a lot, until it all disappeared. And I asked his sister what's happened to my underwear … and she said, “It's Billy, he's taken your underwear, even out of the wash basket and he's had it in his mouth, in his backside, and he made me do the same.

Early Aggression

It’s always been very, very challenging. My husband didn't feel that, it was strictly between me and Kieran - he had something about the mother from day one. He kept me at arm's length for three years, he wouldn't let me anywhere near … and I'll tell you something, which I absolutely am adamant about, is that I felt threatened from day one with Kieran. From day one, there was something … Kieran has made me feel very ill at ease – always. (Left home)

What is child to parent violence?

Behaviour considered to be violent if others in the family feel threatened, intimidated or controlled by it and if they believe that they must adjust their own behaviour to accommodate threats or anticipation of violence.

Paterson et al. (2002) Adolescent violence towards parents: maintaining family connections when the going gets tough. ANZFT 23:2 90-100

Child to parent violence

41 of the 70 families

Key factor in 28/35 disruptions

Statistically more likely to be boys but also used by 14 of the 32 girls

Type and severity of violence did not differ by gender

Knives used by 27% of the young people

From the minute he got up to the minute he went to bed he just terrorised us … threatening us with knives … throwing stones at us, throwing buckets of water at us, squirting us with bleach … the TV was locked in his bedroom… You would be walking along and he would suddenly just punch you in the back for no reason … You couldn’t even leave the dogs with him. If they were laying in here and Freddie walked in they would leave and I’ve known one of them [ the dogs] to wet herself [in fear]. [Husband] was beaten round the head with a broom. I can remember one night … we went to bed and lay there and I can remember crying and then he came in and he punched me in the back and he said, “Yes, you cry you bitch.”

(Left home)

Challenging behaviours 80% early onset:20% puberty

Left home (n=35) • 28 CPV• 23 running away• 18 self harm• 14 depression• 13 anxiety/ OCD• 14 alcohol/drug misuse• 10 serious crime

At home (n=35) • 13 CPV• 17 running away • 19 self harm • 18 depression• 20 anxiety/OCD• 3 alcohol/drug misuse• 1 serious crime

Accessing services

• Not knowing what was available

• Criteria• Waiting lists• Funding arguments

I just sat on the phone all day long, just phoning everybody - the doctor - social services - post adoption support … I thought I’m just going to sit and phone and phone, until somebody takes notice of me.

(At home)

Children’s Services and CAMHS response

• Refusal to provide services• Response of the wrong intensity or wrong type• Often offering only what could be provided in-

house• Poor quality life story/direct work• Inflexible respite care • Same intervention offered repeatedly• Some professionals at a loss to know what to

offer.

Blame

We go into a system and we’re put in with other abusive parents. I am not an abuser. Don’t you dare treat me like one … I have to remind people actually that a lot of these issues were about long before Christina met me … I cannot be responsible for Christina’s low self-esteem, and yet we are [blamed] … All I’ve ever done is to ask for help and it hasn’t been there. (Left home)

Child wellbeing

• 37% had a statement of SEN• SDQ – 97% of the Left home and 82% of the At

home scores in the clinical range.• Multiple diagnoses. Three most common

disorders diagnosed– Attachment (27%) – Autistic Spectrum (23%) – ADHD (20%)

Assessment checklist for adolescents

Marked level Left home %

At home %

Severe avoidant- insecure attachment style

79* 56

Indiscriminate social relating

79* 50

Distorted social cognition 94 82

Dissociation/Trauma symptoms

36* 21

Disruptions

Young people very vulnerable at the point of disruptionAdoptive parents felt excluded from care planning and their views discounted. Families felt abandoned. Most parents still fighting on behalf of the yp for support and servicesLack of attention to reunification /parenting at a distance

Post disruption

74% of young people became looked after

Placements/accommodation often unsuitable and very unstable

Further violent attacks on foster carers, care workers, police and public

Young people’s mental health deteriorated – self-harm/exploited/abuse

13 child/parent relationship strained/deteriorated

16 child/parent relationships improved

6 recent disruptions – no change

Summary

• Disruption rate low• Many families remain committed and parent

children with very challenging behaviours• Services, especially mental health inadequate. • Urgent need for training on CPV for all

professionals • Disruption not the end but the beginning of a

new phase