Descriptive Analysis of Foster Care Adoptions in New South Wales, Australia

ABSTRACT

This paper describes the population of children in care in New South Wales, Australia, who were adopted by their foster families (N = 372) from 2003 to 2014. Data pertaining to 370 of these adoptees were available and obtained from administrative records accompanying adoption applications. Most of these children had been placed with their subsequent adoptive family during infancy. However, adoption orders occurred much later in their lives. According to the available information at the time of adoption, these children did not suffer the high levels of mental health problems typically identified in populations of children in foster care. Though the data do not include follow-up to determine if the contact agreed upon at the time of adoption orders translated into practice, the most frequently postadoption arrangement recorded was face-to-face contact, four times a year with mother and siblings. The high levels of openness and face-to-face contact in Australian adoptions from care are a significant point of difference with other adoption models, and presents a need for research in the area.

IMPLICATIONS

• Following the change of legislation in New South Wales, Australia, that prioritises open adoption over foster care, social workers in the field of child protection are well placed to assist in this process.

• Social workers can assess children entering care to identify those who will benefit from adoption in a timely manner; undertake casework and administrative aspects of the adoption process; work closely with the child, and birth and adoptive families by delivering pre- and post-adoption supports; and conduct longitudinal research on the outcomes for children adopted from care.

本文描述了2003至2014年之间澳大利亚新南威尔士372个家庭领养儿童的情况。我们获得了其中370个家庭的资料，它们来自与领养申请相关的管理记录。这些儿童多是在婴儿时期即与领养家庭相处。但提出领养却要晚得多。跟据我们获得的信息，这些儿童在领养时并未出现监护儿童一般都会出现的严重心理健康问题。尽管资料并不包括追踪调查——确认提出收养时同意的接触是否落实——但大多数收养后的安排通常是一年四次与母亲和兄弟姐妹之间面对面的接触。澳大利亚收养高水平的公开性和面对面接触，是与其他收养模式的一个重要不同，需要本领域的进一步研究。

KEYWORDS:

• Australian Adoptions
• Foster Care Adoptions
• NSW Adoptions
• Open Adoptions
• Out-of-home Care Adoptions

Discussion

This study has provided demographic information in relation to 370 foster care adoptions conducted from 2003 until 2014 through the public child protection agency, FACS, in NSW Australia. More than half of the adopted children were born after 2000, and approximately one-third had at least one culturally or linguistically diverse birth parent. Most of them were placed in OOHC with their eventual adoptive family when they were younger than 5 years of age. However, by the time they were adopted almost half the adoptees were older than 10 years. Most children spent between 5 and 10 years in foster care within the family prior to being legally recognised as part of the family through adoption. On the basis of the available records, a very small number of children were born with drug dependence, suffered neurodevelopmental disorders, or displayed behavioural and emotional problems. The majority of adoptive parents were married couples who had biological children. The analysis showed that most adoptions had taken place in metropolitan areas of the State and only 6% had been formally contested. Most postadoption contact arrangements included plans for face-to-face visits, generally with the child’s birth mother and siblings.

The gaps of information in the administrative records and the numbers involved do not allow the type of statistical analyses that would enable a generalisation of findings to the population of children adopted from care as a whole, or to establish meaningful comparisons with children who remain in foster care. However, there are implications for practice in relation to the timing of placement in OOHC, time taken from placement to adoption orders, availability of adoption services across the State, families who succeed in adopting a child, and postadoption contact. With respect to the timing and stability of placement, these children who were placed in care at an early age, and had continuity of care since infancy, experienced seemingly small numbers of behavioural and emotional disorders. This is a point of difference with the high rates of complex psychopathology (attachment difficulties, relationship insecurity, sexual behaviour, trauma-related anxiety, conduct problems, defiance, inattention or hyperactivity, self-injury, food maintenance behaviours) identified in the population of children in care (Tarren-Sweeney, 2008). It is plausible that while these children may have been exposed to some degree of perinatal stressors, they were not subject to the placement instability commonly faced by the OOHC population. These apparent positive developmental outcomes may only apply to those adopted children who are placed in favourable circumstances at a very early age. This possibility highlights the importance of early child-focused decisions in child protection. However, the timing of placement in OOHC poses inevitable challenges to workers in this field. Given the significance of a child’s removal from their family, caseworkers must conduct extensive administrative investigations, obtain specialist assessments, or assist parents with accessing services to determine whether their parenting can benefit from a nonintrusive approach prior to a child’s placement in OOHC.

The apparent low incidence of mental health problems observed in adopted children at the time of adoption order may have alternative explanations beyond early placement age and placement stability. First, the finding may suggest that the agency is more likely to pursue an adoption application if the child does not experience high needs. Second, the finding may be the product of the timing of the data collection. An English study suggested that children adopted from care have similarly high rates of mental health problems to those who remain in care (DeJong, Hodges, & Malik, 2016; Selwyn, Wijedasa, & Meakings, 2014). However, the data were gathered some years after adoption, whereas the present study describes functioning at the time of adoption. Therefore, a longitudinal study under the new legislative arrangements is required to determine if this outcome is enduring. This study should include comparison groups featuring children placed early in stable foster placements to ensure that any developmental outcomes observed are not erroneously attributed to placement type.

There was an observed time delay between placement with the adoptive family and adoption order, the reasons for which cannot be ascertained from this study. However, this could have been due to a number of factors, such as: failed restoration attempts or organisational issues. In the past 24 months FACS has disseminated updated evidence-based knowledge on adoption; allocated a larger number of adoption caseworkers in regional areas; implemented a process to discuss the potential suitability of adoption as soon as a child comes into OOHC; opened adoption information lines for those wanting to make inquiries; and, established an Adoptions Transformation Program which is reviewing adoption processes with a view to streamlining processes to avoid unnecessary delays.

It was observed that the concentration of adoptions in metropolitan areas of the State is not consistent with the number of children in OOHC in those regions, with higher levels of metropolitan adoptions noted. This over-representation may be due to the greater availability of staff resources in those regions. The adoption process typically requires specific skills and a significant amount of administrative and case management time in preparation to seek adoption orders from the court. It is anticipated that the increased allocation of specifically designated adoption staff, training, ongoing outsourcing of case management, and other responsibilities of OOHC children to the nongovernment sector will translate into a more consistent service delivery across the State.

The low rates of formally contested adoptions within the current study could be attributed to a number of factors. Some parents may support the adoption as in the best interest of the child. Alternatively, parents may be less likely to contest the orders after having the opportunity to voice their views and have at least some of their wishes contemplated in the adoption plan. While other parents may feel profoundly disempowered and too hopeless from the time when the child enters care to pursue legal avenues. There was a small number of parents who did not sign consents but were supportive of the adoption. Parents in these circumstances report finding this legal step extremely emotionally challenging and not wishing to be perceived as voluntarily relinquishing their child. Finally, a large number of parents did not consent to the adoption. There is a potential for the numbers of nonconsented adoptions to rise in the current policy framework where adoption is being promoted as a preferred option to long-term foster care in the best interest of the child. While there is little doubt about the good intent of this measure, caution is required so as not to reproduce the past mistakes of forced adoption practices in a different historical context.

Regarding the adoptive families, most of them were married at the time of the application for adoption. Single people were scarcely represented in the adoptive family population. This could be due to financial reasons. Single foster carers on one source of income may be less likely to prove that they can sufficiently provide for a child. The very low representation of adopting same sex couples is likely to be linked to the fact that such adoptions have only been allowed in NSW since 2010 when the Adoption Amendment Act (NSW, 2010) was assented.

In regards to the arrangements for postadoption contact recorded in adoption plans, some important issues emerged. There is an ongoing commitment in Australia to preserve birth family connections despite legal severance of parental rights, as demonstrated by the frequency of face-to-face contact provisions in the current sample. This is in contrast to the English approach that favours indirect letterbox contact twice a year for the exchange of information (Dodgson, 2014). This discrepancy is consistent with the traditionally more restricted role attributed to contact in England (i.e., identity maintenance as opposed to relationship maintenance). In addition, contact plans suggested the NSW Supreme Court attempts to contemplate fluid circumstances as well as consideration for broader birth family ties. This is consistent with recommendations from international literature (Neil, Beek, & Ward, 2013). It is important to note that contact has been demonstrated to be a highly fluid situation (Neil et al., 2013) and occurs across a child’s lifetime. Thus, a single contact plan is unlikely to meet a child’s needs as they develop. Likewise, further exploration of the impact of face-to-face contact on children’s wellbeing is necessary to inform Australian practice, given its infrequent use in other settings.

The recent NSW legislative changes are consistent with the English approach regarding the emphasis on increasing adoption of children in care and securing placements early in life. Only time will tell whether these changes will translate into improved psychosocial outcomes for vulnerable children. Areas of difference remain with England regarding who can adopt children from care and the purpose and form of postadoption contact. These require further longitudinal exploration to ascertain their impact on child development and wellbeing.

Limitations

This study has some limitations in relation to the data made available for analysis. In some instances, there were ambiguous, inconsistent recording and missing information in some files. Furthermore, the researchers did not have direct access to the data, which would have enhanced the independence of the study. These limitations aside, this descriptive study on NSW foster care adoption provides an initial framework for discussion and future research questions to inform future adoption practice.

Additional research should also be conducted in Australia to examine the current functioning of the adoptees; their relationship with the adoptive family; sustained level of birth-family contact; and, the impact of this contact (or lack thereof) on the adoptee and adoptive family relationships. Other areas to explore further are: the implications of sibling separation as a result of adoption; the impact of limiting adoptions from care to current foster carers; and, whether there are avenues to expedite the administrative and legal process of adoption without diminishing the rights of any party. Giving a voice to the adoptees in future research would be an invaluable contribution to practice.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.