Disabled Children In The Looked After System - Research Proposal Example

Disabled Children In The Looked After System Order No: 202761 No. of pages: 6 Premium – 6530 Introduction: Disabled children are a very vulnerable group and hence have to have the support of family and society at large in order to survive with a certain amount of dignity. Children with limited disability return home from time to time, but children who are completely disabled and depend totally on support for survival do not return home but stay in foster homes and hardly get picked up for adoption. This research study tends to have an in-depth view on this situation and pinpoint the relevant factors and identify the areas of particular difficulties faced by disabled children. According to the author Dr. Claire Baker, disabled children were more at a risk of going through an experience called the “reverse ladder of permanency”. (Dr. Claire Baker, 2007) By this she meant that children who were ‘clearly disabled’ reached a higher degree of permanence with the system of care. The analysis made use of 596 children who were more than three years old and the results were drawn up after taking into consideration the implications of various practices and policies. The Problem: The main core of the problem was vested in the fact that children who are being looked after by the care system should be sent back to their families, or should they be allowed to go into ‘substitute families’. The main idea behind this action was to ensure that the children have a stable life and could rely on their family and feel welcomed and wanted. Having a safe and secure home whether it be the family or an adoption centre provided better outcomes than children who did not have a permanent place of stay. Another problem area of this study was to make an assessment on the likeliness of disabled children finding a permanent home when compared to their non-disabled peers. Based on these findings, the study tended to analyze the issue to see which situation offered the best solution that encouraged much better outcomes that would benefit disabled children in a better manner. It was during the period of the mid seventies, when there were a lot of changes that took place socially as well as demographically, that the practice of allowing disabled children to be taken care of in foster homes or at adoption centers began gaining momentum. Before such a proposition could come into force, disabled children who were unable to be taken care of by their parents were placed in residential homes. ‘Parents were expected to get on with the job of parenting as best they could, and if they couldn’t, to leave their child in residential care with the minimum of fuss’. (Argent, 1996, p.1) But it was rather unfortunate to find that the quality of the residential accommodation was of a low standard. According to Oswin, (1978, 1998) depicted a situation in which children languished long- term in institutions’. This movement gained impetus and became ‘almost a crusade’. (Borderland et al., 1991) ‘As a result, the demand for babies for adoption outgrew supply’. (Phillips, 1998) But this situation boomeranged into another major problem which resulted in the losing contact with the birth family and there was a dearth for planning for the disabled child to have a permanent home in the happy environment of a family. The Methodology: This scenario demanded a radical change and therefore the response to this was what was called ‘Permanency Planning’. This method was thought to be the best method that would help not only the children but also their families. ‘Children need to know that life has predictability and continuity; they need the reliability of knowing where they will be growing up’. (Maluccio and Fein, 1986, p.3) The methodology chosen in this respect was to draw up a permanency agenda that included disabled children who were referred to as ‘special needs’ or ‘hard to place children’. (Fratter et al., 1991) Many voluntary agencies such as the Parents for Children in Britain and Spaulding for Children in America did yeomen service in catering to the needs of disabled children through their various family placement projects that enabled children and others with specialized needs to live in the community rather than going to residential institutions. These agencies put in a lot of time and effort to demonstrate that substitute families could be found for children with special needs irrespective of the degree of impairment. In lieu of testing or checking out the efficacy of this method research was carried out in this area by taking surveys of the early placements which were monitored and evaluated. The outcome of this was that it was found that family placements coupled with strong support from the family was indeed a very successful method that could be used when dealing with disabled children. Studies involving family placements also proved that disabled children experienced a much better quality of life and felt much safer than ever before. Hence the principles underlying this method of direction, was generally accepted. Yet, even though these methods were universally acceptable, it was felt that disabled children were denied the care that foster homes or adoption centers offered and hence recent studies carried out in the U.K showed that disabled children were likely to enroll in residential placements than their non- disabled peers. According to Morris, ‘disabled children experience a tolerance of patterns of care that would not be accepted for non- disabled children’. (Morris, 1995, 1998a, 1998b) Moreover, there was a problem of finding placements for them because there was little or no choice. Besides this, there was the difficulty of recruiting in- house staff to take care of the disabled children. As a result, ‘there was a need to use specialist residential placements’. (Morris, 1995) Evidence from studies has proved that disabled children have a high incidence of risk in experiencing a ‘reverse ladder of permanence’ and are less likely to be adopted or to go home. Some of the reasons for this would be inappropriate placements, little choice of placements, scarcity of foster-care staff, learning disabilities and poor health conditions or physical disabilities. Another issue to contend with is the ‘possible consequence of the lesser use of adoption for disabled children is a tendency for some disabled children to remain in care for longer’ (Biehal, 2006). (Cleaver, 2000). A study conducted in America by Rosenberg and Robinson (2004) stated that ‘children in foster- care with developmental and health problems were likely to have longer stays in foster- care and a decreased likely hood of return to parental care. Adoption as a method: This method offers disabled children another form of permanence when it is not possible for them to return home. In a survey taken, social workers and foster –care givers looked upon adoption as a favorable method because it catered to the safety, security and guidance of the disabled children. This method offered a more permanent setting for the growth and development of the child. However, small children below the age of six stood a better chance of adoption than bigger children, but children who had a learning impairment problem were not likely to be adopted. My Interpretation: Based on the findings in this article, I feel that disabled children with either a learning or physical impairment stand a lesser chance of being adopted though adoption is one of the best methods that offer a permanent, safe and secure environment for the children to be nurtured and have a hassle free life with individual attention being given to them. However, the next best option to help care for disabled children would be getting them into a foster – home that offers good care and treatment to lessen the burden of their disability. Since it is very difficult finding people to adopt these children at a later stage, the best thing would be to send them back to their homes and families where they would receive a lot of care and attention from their parents and other family members. But if there is not much improvement in the child’s disabilities, then it becomes less likely that they would return to their families even after a lengthy period spent at the foster- home. According to me, if and when the disabled children are sent home to their families, there should be regular visits from the foster- care givers to follow up the child’s progress and development. In case they find that the child is not getting the attention and care it needs, they should be brought back to home and cared for. It is a known fact that disabled children were most likely not to be adopted and would spend their days in residential care. If after three years the child was not able to find a placement, it was considered that the child had a ‘permanent home’ where it felt safe and secure. Another issue to be taken care of is that, ‘Foster-care lacks the legal status of a ‘fully permanent’ placement’. (Triseliotis, 2002) Conclusion: More research in the area of the looked after system of disabled children should be carried out as it is lacking in evidence. Though this study had intended to examine the risk of disabled children experiencing what is called the ‘reverse ladder of permanency’, yet this study has turned out to be much more complicated where the hypothesis is concerned. The outcome of the study helped to identify three broad findings in lieu of its research – Firstly, it found that children with learning disabilities were less likely to be adopted and later the disabled children tended to be adopted by their care-givers. Secondly, children with impairments were not so likely to go home and if they did, they went home much later than their non- disabled peers. Thirdly, the group that was likely to achieve permanence in their foster home was the ‘clearly disabled group’. The most vital point to be considered by the social services is to see that their follow- up and monitoring procedures are extremely efficient in identifying and giving care to all groups of disabled and non- disabled children and helping them to achieve permanent placements that are safe and secure and helping them to overcome the barriers that they may encounter during their selfless pilgrimage of trust and love. References: Argent, H. (1996) The Placement of Children with Disabilities, Practice Note 34, London, British Association for Adoption and Fostering. Pp. 1173-1188. Argent, H. (1998) Whatever happened to Adam? Stories of Disabled People Who were Adopted or Fostered. London, British Association for Adoption and Fostering. Pp. 541- 559. Biehal N. (2006) Patterns and Outcomes of Reunion: A Review of the Research on Reuniting Looked After Children with their Families, London, National Children’s Bureau. Pp. 807 – 823. Borland, M., O’Hara, G. and Triseliotis, J. (1991) ‘Placement outcomes for children with special needs’. Adoption and Fostering, 15 (2), pp. 18 – 28. Cleaver, H. (2000) Fostering Family Contact, London, The Stationery Office. Fratter, J., Rowe, J., Sapsford, D. and Thornburn, J. (1991) Permanent Family Placement: A Decade of Experience, London British Association for Adoption and Fostering. Maluccio, A. and Fein, E. (1986) Permanency Planning for Children: Concepts and Methods, London Routledge. Morris, J. (1995) Gone Missing? A Research and Policy Review of Disabled Children Living Away from their Families, London, The Who Cares? Trust. Morris, J. (1998a) Still Missing? Volume1. The Experience of Disabled Children and Young People Living Away from their Families, London, The Who Cares? Trust. Morris, J. (1998b) Still Missing? Volume2. Disabled Children and the Children Act, London, The Who Cares? Trust. Vol. 8, pp. 91 - 108 Oswin, M. (1998) ‘An Historical Perspective’ in Robinson, C. and Stalker, K. (eds.) Growing Up With Disability, London, Jessica Kingsley Publisher, pp. 29 – 41. Phillips, R. (1998) ‘Disabled children in permanent substitute families’, in Robinson C. and Stalker, K. (eds.) Growing up with Disability, London, Jessica Kingsley Publisher. Pp. 224 Rosenberg, S. Robinson, C. (2004) ‘Out- of- home placement for young children with developmental and medical conditions’. Children and Youth Services Review, 26, pp. 711 – 23. Triseliotis, J. (2002) Long-term foster care or adoption? The evidence examined’ Child and Family Social Work, 7, pp. 23 – 33. Read More