Search

The mental health of children in public care has received considerable attention in recent years. There are significant differences in the prevalence rates compared to children living at home and not in public care and these are added to by other adverse lifestyle issues. Considerable attention has been focused on the importance of stable and secure placements supported by access to a range of services including education, health and mental health. Identifying and classifying mental health needs proves to be challenging as the child's genetic inheritance, pre- and post-birth experiences, including maltreatment, interact with the uncertainty and delays commonly associated with child protection processes, action in the legal system and the difficulty in establishing secure and permanent placements. Clinical need is also related to the age of the child and the reasons they came into care and the length of time they remain. A case illustrating many of these issues, publicly reported in the court's judgement, is used as the basis for exploring the complexity for the identified child in understanding and making sense of their experiences as placement plans are made for them. These are used to explore the difficulties in establishing clinical protocols such as those recently published in the USA. Particular emphasis is given to the issues faced by children and their carers in establishing new family relationships which address the child's inheritance from their family of origin especially where these are traumatic and conflicted in origin.

The article discusses highlights of the sixth International Conference on Adoption Research held in Montreal, Quebec in July 2018. The conference set out the continuing significance of adoption as a policy and practice framework. The ambivalence that exists in most countries to the use of adoption for children in care has been identified. A keynote talk on a study about adoption disruption was given by Jesus Palacios from the University of Seville.

For some years now, concerns have been raised about whether the frequency and the arrangements for contact between infants and parents during proceedings are in the best interests of infants. Could these arrangements be better managed to safeguard the development of the infant while maintaining effective contact and supporting the possibility of reunion with the birth parents? A recent study by Kenrick (2009) has provided detailed accounts of the stressful and negative impact on infants of high levels of contact during care proceedings. Research from Australia has raised similar concerns (Humphreys and Kiraly, 2011). A multi-disciplinary working group, hosted by Coram, has been meeting to discuss these issues and in December 2010 the President of the Family Division's annual debate was titled 'Infant Contact: Keeping the Baby in Mind'. This article by Gillian Schofield and John Simmonds draws on that debate as well as out- lining the legal, research and practice contexts. The aim here is to explore this controversial area and to identify questions which need to be considered in planning infant contact, both in the pre-proceedings phase and throughout care proceedings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Attachment theory and therapy have established themselves as major constructs in foster care and adoption practice. The depth of the explanatory power of attachment theory and research have done much to both identify the source of developmental difficulties in adopted and fostered children, and of the significant changes that can be made when these children are placed with `autonomously' classified carers. However, the power of the concept has also led to a proliferation of ideas, particularly therapeutic models that can, in some cases, stray a long way from the core of what is effective, safe and ethical clinical practice. Holding therapy is one of these models. The British Association for Adoption and Fostering developed a position statement on this practice, setting it within a broader framework of assessment and intervention. But like the model, the development of the position statement became controversial in its development. The article charts some of the critical issues and identifies the very significant dilemmas for parents and carers caught up in the maelstrom of challenging behaviours and disturbing feelings. The conclusion turns to one of the key components of an attachment-based idea: The critical importance of finding the space to think and to feel what the child is communicating without resorting to dangerous retaliation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]