Search

The context of this paper is family situations where young people are experiencing significant behavioural and emotional problems. Based on a qualitative study, it offers an empirical and theoretical contribution to the understanding of family‐related factors that promote or hinder behaviour change. Data were collected through face‐to‐face, semi‐structured group interviews with nine families (28 participants), all of them mandatory recipients of child welfare services in Croatia. Thematic analysis comprised primary coding designed to elicit information about individual family members' capacity for change and secondary coding of family‐level phenomena. The results indicated 10 phenomena that were judged to represent factors that helped or hindered change. The discussion section suggests three broad categories of capacity to change at family level (Goals and Priorities; Problem solving dynamics; and Development of role relationship). This analysis is offered as the basis for an examination of the concept of family capacity for change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Siblings are key actors in the social network of young people in care. This paper explores young people's perceptions of changes in the quality of sibling relationships and the pathways relationships follow during the transition from the biological family into care. A thematic analysis of interviews with young Norwegian people (n = 25) in care showed that, in the biological family, sibling relationships are characterized by alliances, parentification, conflicts or nonexistence. After admission to child welfare services care, sibling relationships developed along multiple pathways. Their sibling relationships reshaped into either close and supportive, conflictual or completely broken relationships. Sibling relationships were dynamic, complex, with the pathway, and its impact on well‐being, being unique to each young person. Sibling relationship quality in the biological home did not predict relationship quality after admission to child welfare services. The implications for social worker practice are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]