An exploratory study on open adoptions from foster care in NSW,Australia: Adoptees’ psychosocial functioning,adoptive relationships,post-adoption contact and supports

Abstract

This is an exploratory study focused on open adoptions from foster care conducted through the public child protection agency in New South Wales, Australia. The results from an online survey completed by 23 respondents indicated that most of the adoptees were reportedly in the normative range of adjustment, had positive relationships with their adoptive parents and had ongoing contact with their birth families. Most of the adoptive parents had received pre-adoption supports to encourage post-adoption contact. These preliminary results are encouraging, but larger and preferably longitudinal studies are needed to guide decision-making regarding adoptions from foster care. The new challenge for the child welfare system is how to collect reliable data about the well-being of children already living in this permanent type of care and how best to support them.

Keywords

Australian adoptions child adoption foster care adoption open adoption out-of-home care adoption post-adoption contact

This study focused on adoptions from foster care through Family and Community Services (FACS), the public child protection agency in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, from 2003 (the year from which administrative data were available) to 2014. In 2014, the Child Protection Legislation in NSW was amended to prioritize adoption over long-term foster care for children who cannot live safely with their family. The change was inspired by accumulated evidence that suggests that in some cases, adoption – in contrast to long-term foster care – provides stability and a home for life for children unable to reside with their families of birth (Neil et al., 2013; Selwyn and Quinton, 2004; Selwyn et al., 2014; Triseliotis, 2002). The shift towards adoption as a way to ensure legal permanence for this population of children follows – to some extent – the approach adopted earlier by the United Kingdom and the United States. It is acknowledged that the legal permanency conferred through adoption does not per se translate into better outcomes, and there are alternative forms of out-of-home care arrangements by which permanency and good developmental outcomes can be achieved without severing parental rights for life (Dumaret et al., 2011). However, this study specifically focuses on adoptions by foster carers.

Currently in Australia, there are no studies or official rates of adoption breakdown or evidence of adoptees’ well-being. Although dramatic change in circumstances post-adoption may be identified through re-entries in care or reports to the child protection authorities, little is known about the adoptees’ adjustment. Obtaining evidence regarding post-permanency well-being is problematic due to the logistics of tracking and accessing families. In countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States – where permanency through adoption or guardianship has been actively promoted through legislation by encouraging targets and/or incentives – the new challenge for the child welfare system is how to collect reliable data about the well-being of children already living in this permanent type of care and how best to support them (as posed by Rolock et al., 2017). NSW has recently become the first state in Australia to prioritize adoption over long-term foster care, and the numbers are expected to increase. Therefore, there is a need to gain knowledge about the current circumstances of adoptees from care in this state. Prior to reporting the findings of our study, we provide a brief outline regarding adoptions in Australia and NSW.

Adoptions from foster care in NSW

Numbers and adoption process

In the year 2016–2017 there were 315 finalized adoptions, of which 177 occurred in NSW. In comparison with other types of adoption, ‘known child adoptions’ – where the child is already known to the adoptive parents – have increased. This is due to the change in policy in NSW. Known adoptions comprised two-thirds of all adoptions in the country (n = 204, 65%), and within this group, adoptions by foster carer were the most common (n = 154, 70%) and the most known adoptions by carer occurred in NSW (n = 131, representing 85% of this type of adoptions nationwide; Australian Institute of Health and Welfare [AIHW], 2017).

In NSW, children in foster care can only be adopted by their own carers after 2 years in the same placement, and these adoptions are open by legislation (Adoption Act, 2000). Unless under exceptional circumstances, birth and adoptive families have access to each other’s information to different extents, and there is an expectation of contact, preferably face-to-face.

In NSW, children can only be adopted from care by the child’s existing carers, provided there is no realistic possibility of restoration to the parents and guardianship with a relative or significant other is not deemed suitable. In addition, there are administrative and legal provisions to ensure that the rights of the child and the birth family are taken into consideration. This is – most times – a lengthy process.

During the adoption process, prospective adopters are required to undergo independent and comprehensive assessments of their specific circumstances, parenting capacity and willingness to facilitate contact or communication with the family of birth, followed by mandatory training. In addition, the agency with parental responsibility for the child (FACS in the majority of cases) makes an application to the Supreme Court for adoption orders. Only the Supreme Court, the highest court in the state, can make adoption orders to ensure a degree of independence from the initial legal process dealt with at the Children’s Court at the time of the child’s entry into care. The application is accompanied by an adoption plan, which includes contact provisions agreed to by the parties. Parental consent is required, but only after the parents have received independent counselling about the implications of adoption. However, this consent can be dispensed of if the Court is satisfied that adoption is in the best interests of the child. Only the child’s consent to adoption is needed when a child is 12 years of age or older, capable of consenting, and has lived with his or her carers for at least 2 years. Adoptions can be contested by the parents only on the grounds that the order or consent was obtained by spurious means. If adoption orders are obtained, adoptive parents receive a means-tested allowance. Following adoption orders, the state ceases involvement with the adoption parties. Therefore, there is no follow-up from the agency and there are no specific support services available for the child or their adoptive or birth family (Luu et al., 2018).

Data from administrative records

There were 372 adoptions from foster care between 2003 and 2014 through FACS in NSW. Data were available for 370 of the adoptees (192 males, 178 females: 49 sibling groups). A review of historical administrative records (see Del Pozo de Bolger et al., 2017) indicated that most of these adoptions took place from the year 2000 (n = 223, 60%, N = 370) – mostly by married couples (n = 282, 82%, N = 343) – and the great majority of adoptees (n = 317, 91%, N = 348) were placed in care with their eventual adoptive family when they were 5 years of age or younger. The mean age at the time of entry with the eventual adoptive family was 1.75 (standard deviation (SD) = 2.3, range = 0–11.5, N = 348,). However, almost half the children were older than 10 years by the time they were legally adopted (n = 177, 48%, N = 370). The mean adoption age was 10 years (SD = 4.85, range = 0–21, N = 370). This means that it took more than 5 years for most of the children to achieve legal permanency (n = 267, 78%, N = 348). A very small number of the children were born with drug dependence, suffered neurodevelopmental disorders or displayed behavioural and emotional problems at the time of adoption. In addition, there was a wide range of post-adoption contact arrangements with a strong focus on face-to-face contact, and mostly with the mother, grandparents and siblings, as recorded in the adoption plans. Only in a minimal number of cases, there were no current or future provisions for contact (N = 332, n = 25, 7.5%).

Conceptual model and research questions

Adoption from care – when deemed appropriate – can foster developmental reparation and resilience. Longitudinal studies on large samples with biological, psychological and social risk factors have revealed that the impact of these experiences in early life diminished with time, and outcomes became more dependent on the quality of the child-rearing environment and the emotional support provided by family members and/or other significant adults (Werner, 2001). Resilience enables human beings to recover from traumatic experiences and deprived backgrounds and to thrive in adult life. As described by Rutter (2013), resilience is the end product of buffering processes that do not eliminate risk and adverse conditions but allow individuals to deal with them effectively. In this perspective, the author emphasized the value of developing positive family atmosphere and ongoing relationships. In the context of adoption – as illustrated in Figure 1 – the early risk factors affecting the child (e.g. exposure to substances in utero, parental psychopathology, late entry into care or several placements in care) can be moderated by adoptive family factors (e.g. adopters’ relationship status, socio-economic status, attachment style, readiness to parent or flexibility) and relationship factors (such as adoptive parent–child relationship and birth parent–child relationship maintained by contact). In addition, system factors in the form of pre- and post-adoption support services may indirectly contribute to the child’s outcomes. Pre-adoption supports can assist prospective adopters to understand the importance and implications of open adoption. Similar supports are also required for birth parents to deal with grief, understand their legal rights and changes in legal status, and develop boundaries and positive ways related to the child during contact (Institute of Open Adoption Studies, 2018). Post-adoption supports need to be delivered along a spectrum, from preventive to problem-focused to clinical/therapeutic services (Rushton et al., 2002). (For a more comprehensive discussion on this model and the contributions to outcomes for children adopted from care, refer to Del Pozo de Bolger et al., 2016).

Figure 1.

Psychosocial adjustment of adoptees from foster care.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no previous study has focused on the current level of psychosocial adjustment of children adopted from care in Australia. With limited research available and an increased emphasis on adoption rather than foster care, the aim of this study was to gain an understanding of the current circumstances of children adopted from care in NSW. More specifically, we sought to address the following questions:

What is the adoptees’ current level of psychosocial functioning?

What is the quality of the adoptive parent–child relationship?

What proportion of foster care adoptees are accessing birth family contact and what are the characteristics of this contact?

Which adoption supports have been utilized by the adoptive families?

Method

Design

This was a cross-sectional study based on data collected from parents who adopted children from foster care in NSW between 2003 and 2014. Ethics approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee at the University of New England (UNE). Responses were gathered via anonymous survey (hosted by UNE) using Qualtrics survey software (Qualtrics, Provo, UT, USA). Consent to participate was provided by clicking an ‘I Consent to Participate’ button on the screen following the information sheet for participants. The survey questionnaire contained forced choice, Likert-type scales (quantitative) and open-ended (qualitative) questions.

Participants

The participation rate was modest (6% of N = 372), although expected when trying to trace families whose contact details date as far as one decade ago. A total of 23 participants, all born in Australia, completed the online survey (n = 20 female and n = 3 male). The participant sample is described in Table 1.

Table 1.

Adoptive parents’ characteristics.

Age	32–70 (M = 37, SD = 9.6)
Married	n = 16 (70%)
Same-sex relationship	n = 1 (4.35%)
Biological children	n = 10 (43%)
Previous fostering	n = 13 (56%)
Combined income	£45,600–£102,000; n = 11 (48%)Alternatively US$ 82,330-US$ 184,161
University education	n = 15 (65%)
Adopted one child	n = 21 (91%)

M: mean; SD: standard deviation.

At the time of the study, one-third of the adoptees were ⩽10 years of age. The youngest child was aged 4, and the oldest 18 (n = 6).

Procedure

FACS sent letters on behalf of the researchers to 372 adoptive families inviting their participation in an anonymous online survey. The letters were posted to the addresses that were current at the time of the adoption orders. Given that in some cases 10 years had passed since these orders were made, it is not known how many families received the invitation to participate.

Measures

Pre-adoption risk

To account for factors that might have affected the children’s development, a system of coding for ‘risk’ was devised based on data obtained from adoptive parents. ‘Risk’ takes into account factors identified in the literature as being associated with poorer developmental outcomes (e.g. birth parents’ mental health problems, exposure to drugs and alcohol in utero, history of physical abuse, history of neglect) (Wind et al., 2007). Each suspected or confirmed factor is counted as 1. A total score formed a continuous variable (0–11) representing an aggregate of the factors potentially impacting on the child’s adoption outcome.

Child adjustment

This variable was measured by the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) which screens common emotional and behavioural problems in children and young persons aged 4–17. The SDQ has 25 items divided into 5 subscales: emotional symptoms, conduct problems, hyperactivity/inattention, peer relationship problems and pro-social behaviour. Sub-scale scores range from 0 to 10. Total scores can be classified in band levels of functioning – ‘normal’ (0–13), ‘borderline’ (14–16) or ‘abnormal’ (17–40). Australian norms are available (Mellor, 2005). The SDQ is reported to have satisfactory internal consistency (mean α = 0.73) (Goodman, 2001) and test–retest reliability at 4–6 months (mean r = 0.62) (Australian Mental Health Outcomes and Classification Network (AMHOCN), 2005). The psychosocial functioning of adoptees older than 17 was explored through open-ended questions in the emotional, behavioural and social domains.

Adoptive parent–child relationship

The adoptive parent–child relationship was measured by using the Parent–Child Relationship Inventory (PCRI; Gerard, 2005). The PCRI assesses parents’ attitudes towards the task of parenting and how they feel about their children. It can be used in both research and clinical settings to identify specific areas of difficulty between parents and their children.

The PCRI is a 78-item self-report measure designed for use with mothers or fathers of 3- to 15-year-old children. It is to be completed by the parents for only one child in the family at a time, in which parents (either mothers or fathers) respond to each item using a 4-point Likert-type scale. The items are grouped into seven content scales: parent support, satisfaction with parenting, involvement, communication, limit setting, autonomy and the role orientation scale. There are 5 social desirability items and 10 pairs of highly correlated items to assess response inconsistency. The PCRI is reported to have satisfactory overall internal consistency (α = 0.70 and above) (Gerard, 2005) and an acceptable test–retest reliability (r = 0.55). The PCRI meets correlation expectations for detecting changes in the parent–child relationship (Ippen, 2005). The parent–child relationship of children aged 15 and older was explored with open-ended questions.

Characteristics of post-adoption contact with birth family

The characteristics of contact were measured with questions relating to who participates in the contact; the frequency of contact; the impact of contact on the child; the problems associated with contact; the involvement of the adoptive parent(s) (forced choice) and levels of satisfaction (Likert-type scales).

Pre- and post-adoption supports to encourage openness

To find out what resources/services were available to adoptive parents to encourage openness (i.e. connection between the child and the family of birth), the participants were required to answer ‘yes’ (2) or ‘no’ (1) to eight items adapted from Silverstein and Roszia (1999) and Roberts (2009) (e.g. discussions with the agency regarding the importance of post-adoption birth family contact). The values were added to represent an overall score of ‘supports to encourage post-adoption contact’ (range: 8–16).

Adoption supports

The participants were required to indicate from a list used in other studies (Roberts, 2009) the supports they had accessed and found beneficial and the supports they needed but were not available to them (e.g. respite care, advocacy with services, parenting training).

Data analysis

The quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics (percentages). Participants’ short responses to open-ended questions were quoted or reported following content analysis.

Results

Characteristics of the adoptive children

The participants reported on 23 children aged 4–10 years (n = 8), 10–17 years (n = 9) and 18 years (n = 6). Most of these children were placed with the family at younger than 1 year (n = 17) and all of them at younger than 6 years. The mean age of entry into the family was 1.57 (SD = 1.24, range = 1–6) years. Yet, most adoption orders occurred at age 5 or above (n = 21). The mean adoption age was 9.5 (SD = 4.72, range = 2–17) years. Of the current sample, only four of these adoptions had been contested in court.

Adoptees’ pre-adoption risks

The children in this sample had been exposed to a range of predictors of poor outcomes (Table 2) and obtained risk scores from 1 to 6 within a possible range of 0–11. The total risk score mean was 3 (SD = 1.2).

Table 2.

Children’s accumulated scores of risk.

Risk score	n (%)
1	2 (9)
2	7 (30)
3	7 (30)
4	5 (22)
5	1 (4)

The most commonly endorsed risks were exposure to drugs and/or alcohol in utero (n = 16) and previous placements in care (n = 15). Having at least one parent with mental health problems (n = 13) and history of neglect (n = 11) were also considered risk factors. In relation to foster care placements previous to the current family, approximately one-third of the children (n = 7) had had one, around another third had had between 2 and 5 (n = 9) and the rest (n = 7) had never been placed with another family. At the time of this study, less than a quarter of adoptees were taking psychotropic medication prescribed to treat behavioural problems (n = 6).

Adoptee’s current psychosocial functioning

The psychosocial functioning of adoptees aged 17 and younger was explored with the SDQ. The sample included 8 children between the ages of 4 and 10; 9 were between the ages of 11 and 17. None of the children displayed hyperactivity or difficulties with pro-social behaviour. Most children were within the normal range in emotion, conduct and peer domains. Similarly, most children fell in the normal range regarding total difficulties. However, there was a larger number of children with abnormal scores among those aged 11–17. The results are displayed in Table 3.

Table 3.

Psychosocial functioning of adoptees aged 4–17 (as per SDQ).

SDQ scale	Ages 4–10 (n = 8)			Ages 11–17 (n = 9)
	Normal	Borderline	Abnormal	Normal	Borderline	Abnormal
Emotional	6	–	2	5	1	3
Conduct	4	–	2	4	2	3
Peer	5	3	–	7	–	2
Hyper	8	–	–	9	–	–
Pro-social	8	–	–	9	–	–
Total difficulties	6	–	2	5	–	4

SDQ: Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire.

The psychosocial functioning of adoptees older than 17 was explored through open-ended questions. There were six young adults all aged 18 in the sample, four of whom continued living with the adoptive family, three who were working and one who was studying; none had had problems with the law, but one had drug and/or alcohol problems.

Except in one of the cases, in which the adoptee had a diagnosis of autism, these young adults appeared to be within the range of what is normatively expected during this developmental stage. In regards to emotional functioning, the adoptive parents described their children as ‘still immature’; ‘sound’; ‘well-adjusted’; ‘happy-go-lucky, looking forward to the future’; and ‘very frustrated lately in relation to difficulties finding employment’. In relation to the behavioural domain, the responses included ‘not responsible with money but good work ethics’; ‘sometimes struggling with adult responsibilities’; ‘most of the time aware of others’ needs, respectful and understanding’; ‘normal with a bit of risk taking’; and ‘responsible and well-behaved’. Regarding social relationships, the responses included that these adoptees had ‘healthy and stable social connections’, ‘long-term romantic relationships’ and ‘normal teenage–adult relationships’. The young adult with autism was reported to display problems typically associated with this disorder, such as difficulties with regulating strong negative emotions, being empathetic and establishing and maintaining relationships. However, despite this behaviour he had a close relationship with his adoptive family.

Adoptive parent–child relationship

The adoptive parents of children 5–15 years of age (n = 12) were required to describe their parent–child relationship on the PCRI, and the results are presented in Table 4. All these parents reported good levels of support, relationship satisfaction, and no problems with their ability to set limits or to promote the child’s independence. Similarly, the great majority (n = 10, 83%) reported a good level of involvement (i.e. interaction and knowledge) and communication with their child. None reported serious problems in any of the areas of the parent–child relationship.

Table 4.

Adoptive parent–child relationship for adoptees aged 3–15.

PCRI scales	Good	Some problems	Serious problems
Support	12	–	–
Satisfaction with parenting	12	–	–
Involvement	10	2	–
Communication	10	2	–
Limit setting	12	–	–
Autonomy	12	–	–

PCRI: Parent–Child Relationship Inventory.

Those adoptive parents with adoptees aged 16 and older (n = 11) were required to answer open-ended questions about their relationship with the young person. Most of them (n = 7) described it using positive statements (e.g. ‘a good, normal parent–child relationship’, ‘our communication is always easy and flowing’, ‘very much feels a part of our family’, ‘same loving relationship as I have with my biological children’ and ‘warm and respectful’). When asked to identify what had positively contributed to the relationship, parents mostly referred to factors that generally apply to all good relationships (e.g. love, sense of security, open communication, stability, spending time and having time together, clear boundaries). Other parents referred to issues more inherent to adoptive families. More specifically, one participant noted the importance of not interfering in the child’s relationship with the birth parents. Other participants referred to the impact of birth family contact on the adoptive relationship. This issue will be addressed later in this article.

Less than half of the parents of children aged 16 or older (n = 4) reported difficulties in their relationship with the child and described it as ‘extremely dysfunctional’, ‘difficult’ and ‘distant’. Serious relational problems were attributed to the adoptees’ mental health. One parent reported that their child aged 17 years, who had mental health problems, had left home, but that they were always available to support her. Two adoptive parents asserted that the agencies involved in facilitating placement or adoption for the child had contributed to these problems to some extent. One adoptive parent felt that the agency had indirectly undermined the parent–child relationship by failing to provide critical information about the child’s background (birth mother’s mental health) and denying help with support services ‘because the adoption had been finalized’. Another parent described the agency as ‘insensitive’ as they felt that the agency had imposed a regime of contact against the child’s wishes prior to the adoption. These arrangements were subsequently approved by the Court to remain in place post-adoption.

(…) This set the child up to feel betrayed by the carer who was perceived to be acting on behalf of the [name of the agency]. Not the child, nor the adoptive parents’ needs were ever addressed as being at the centre of the process.

Birth family contact

Participants answered questions about birth family contact: the regime initially agreed upon, reasons for non-adherence, and the current circumstances around contact (who with, how, how often, the child’s views about lack of contact and level of satisfaction).

More than half of the respondents reported that the frequency of contact established in the adoption plan approved by the Court was four times a year or more and face-to-face (n = 15). The reasons cited for non-adherence to this schedule or for lack of contact were issues pertaining to the child’s wishes and the birth parents’ circumstances. More specifically, children who were already apprehensive about contact prior to adoption refused to engage with birth parents after gaining orders. Yet some of these children had sporadic contact with other family members through social media. In turn, birth parents at times failed to establish communication with the adoptive family, sometimes due to illness and eventual death, or for other reasons unknown to the adoptive family.

Lack of contact with birth parents appeared to impact children in different ways. According to the adoptive parents, some of the children felt ‘relieved’, while others experienced ‘minimal’ consequences countered by ‘talking about (the birth family) and having contact with the extended family and siblings’. Conversely, one young person, whose birth father died after not having established contact for a long time, ‘had to visit his grave to gain closure’.

Some participants referred to the impact of birth family contact on the adoptive parent relationship. One parent referred to the absence of contact with the birth family as beneficial in avoiding the ‘foster child’ stigma (previous to adoption) and ‘making [the child] more part of our family’. On the contrary, one participant identified contact with the birth family as positive but also as a source of tension for the adoptive relationship when it was enforced on a very regular basis to satisfy the birth family’s demands (weekly for several years pre-adoption):

It is hard when she came back from birth family as their opposite values undermined our relationship. She was swayed by them, and they are very strong (…). We are always supportive of the birth family and encourage their relationship with her.

Adoptive parents were requested to identify which birth family members the child had adopted some type of contact with (Table 5). This birth family contact occurred most frequently face-to-face and was most commonly with siblings (n = 10), followed by grandparents (n = 9), mothers (n = 7), uncles/aunts (n = 6), cousins (n = 4) and fathers (n = 3). Telephone contact was the second most frequent contact type and occurred predominantly with siblings and grandparents. Communication through social media was the third most frequently reported contact mode and most regularly occurred among siblings. Two children had overnight stays with grandparents and siblings. Contact was predictable (i.e. occurring as planned in advanced) for most participants (n = 13), and most had contact with their birth family once or twice in the previous year (Table 6).

Table 5.

Number of children having birth family contact by type (n = 19).

	Contact	Face-to-face	Face-to-face supervised	Overnight	Phone	Mail	Email	Social media
Mother	13	7	5	0	5	0	2	3
Father	5	3	3	0	2	0	0	0
Sibling	16	10	3	2	7	3	3	9
Grandparents	12	9	3	2	7	3	1	2
Aunt/uncle	6	6	1	1	2	1	2	1
Cousins	3	4	1	1	1	1	1	0

Table 6.

Frequency of contact with birth relatives in the previous year (n = 19).

	Never	Once or twice a year	Four times a year	Six times a year	More often
Mother	10	5	1	1	1
Father	15	2	1	0	0
Sibling(s)	6	7	1	1	3
Grandparent(s)	6	11	0	0	1
Uncle/aunt	11	5	1	0	1
Cousin(s)	13	3	1	0	1
Other	17	1	0	0	0

A total of 17 participants responded to questions regarding the child’s attitude in anticipation of contact on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Most of these children reportedly had a positive attitude (n = 11), and none had a negative attitude. However, after contact, less children were reported to remain positive (n = 7) and some become negative (n = 3).

Adoptive parents were requested to identify the barriers to contact from a predetermined list of items. Time and distance, birth parents’ behaviour during contact or failing to attend, and the child not wanting contact (in this order) were the main reported obstacles.

A total of 18 respondents described their relationship with the birth family on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Most respondents (n = 12) reported having a positive relationship, and none described it as negative. A small number (n = 4) defined their relationship as neutral. The majority of adoptive parents (n = 13) reported that they participate in organizing and are actively involved in contact. Most adopters reported that the existing arrangements were meeting their child’s needs for birth family relationships and that they and the child were ‘very satisfied’ or ‘satisfied’ with contact (n = 11).

Preparation for post-adoption contact during pre-adoption stages

In relation to supports during the adoption process to encourage post-adoption contact, most participants had the opportunity to develop a relationship with the child’s birth family while he or she was in foster care (n = 17), had discussions with the agency regarding the importance of post-adoption birth family contact (n = 15), or met with the child’s birth family to discuss establishing or maintaining ongoing contact following the adoption (n = 10). Caseworker involvement (n = 8), training (n = 6) and contact with other adoptive families (n = 4) regarding contact was less frequently available. Involvement with post-adoption support groups only occurred for one of the participants. The results are displayed in Table 7.

Table 7.

Number of participants with pre-adoption exposure to activities to promote post-adoption contact (n = 23).

Pre-adoption supports to encourage contact	n
Discussions with the agency regarding the importance of post-adoption birth family contact	15
Training provided by the agency discussing post-adoption contact and the importance of attachment and children’s connection to their birth family	6
Contact with other adoptive families having post-adoption contact	4
Caseworker involvement to facilitate contact	8
A meeting with my child’s birth family to discuss establishing or maintaining ongoing contact following the adoption	10
Development of a relationship with my child’s birth family while he/she was in foster care with me/us	17
Involvement with post-adoption support groups	1

Post-adoption supports

As displayed in Table 8, most participants reported that they had not received post-adoption supports, and they did not need them at the time of the study (n = 16). However, a small number of participants stated that they needed therapeutic interventions for the child (n = 3), financial assistance (n = 2), advocacy with services (n = 1) and assistance with contact arrangements (n = 1). The most accessed source of support was peer and social support networks (n = 5), and this was found by parents to be mostly beneficial (n = 4).

Table 8.

Participants’ reports on adoption supports.

Type of support	Accessed	Beneficial	Needed
Contact arrangements	0	–	1
Therapeutic interventions for the adopted child	2	1	3
Peer and social support networks (online or face-to-face)	5	4	0
Respite care	1	1	0
Advocacy with services	2	1	1
Parenting training	2	2	0
Other	2 (mental health)	0	2 (financial)

Discussion

This study reported about the current circumstances of 23 adoptees from public care by their foster carers from a total population of 372 adoptees in NSW. The mean age of this sample at the time of entry into the family was 1.57, and the mean age in years at the time of adoption was 9.5 (M = 1.75 and 4.08, respectively, in the population of reference). Most adoptees had been adopted by married couples (only one same-sex couple) with a middle-class socio-economic background. Same-sex couples have only been allowed to adopt in NSW since 2010 (Adoption Amendment (Same Sex Couples) Act, 2010), and a means-tested allowance for eligible families was introduced in 2017. The findings about the current circumstances of this sample are discussed below, and where possible in relation to the information contained in administrative records for this population as documented at the time of adoption (Del Pozo de Bolger et al., 2017).

The sample’s overall functioning, which falls within the ‘normal range’, could be attributed to the fact that most adoptees (n = 17) were placed with their adoptive families when they were younger than 1 year old and therefore had limited exposure to adverse post-natal experiences due to early placement in an environment that was relatively free of major stressors, considering the adopters’ income and level of education. The current overall good level of psychosocial adjustment in this sample coincides with the low level of developmental problems recorded in administrative records at the time of adoption in relation to the population of reference. That is, the records of adoptions from public care indicated that a very small number of the adoptees were born with drug dependence, suffered neurodevelopmental disorders or displayed behavioural and emotional problems at the time of adoption. In addition, the seemingly positive characteristics of adoptive parent–child relationships may – to some extent – explain or reflect the overall good adjustment of this sample.

The reported nature of contact post-adoption in this study appears consistent with the emphasis on maintaining birth family connections in NSW policy and legislation. Contact was predictable, typically face-to-face, mostly with siblings, grandparents and mothers. Considering the administrative records of this sample’s population, the provisions for contact initially agreed upon by the parties in the adoption plan and approved by the Court seemed to be largely embraced and maintained by the adoptive families, with some adjustments. These adoption plans included a strong overall emphasis on face-to-face modes of contact, though notably generally with the birth mother, followed by siblings and grandparents. The frequency of contact appeared to be slightly lower post-adoption than was established in the adoption plan at the time of adoption orders (i.e. once or twice rather than four times a year). Given that adoption plans are created at the point of adoption order and are not subject to review, it is perhaps unsurprising that contact may vary post-order in response to children’s evolving needs (Neil et al., 2013). Alongside the variation in frequency, in this sample it appeared that the initial expectation that adoptees would be more likely to meet with the birth mother did not materialize in practice. This empirical evidence may suggest that parents who previously had their children removed due to child protection concerns continue to struggle with stressors that interfere with their capacity to sustainably engage with their children, and may highlight support needs for birth parents to enable continued contact post-adoption (Neil et al., 2013). Nonetheless, members of the extended families were willing to and capable of having an ongoing positive presence in the adoptees’ life. Similar international studies have also identified that over time, adopted children are more likely to have contact with birth relatives rather than parents (Frasch et al., 2000).

Birth family contact was not reported to pose a threat to the child’s long-term well-being or the adoptive placement, but was suggested to strain the adoptive parent–child relationship at times. It is notable that these difficulties only applied to those cases in which contact was enforced against the child’s wishes or was perceived by adoptive parents to be scheduled too frequently.

The use of technology (email, social media and video call) as a means of maintaining contact was not a predominant form of communication for the participant sample. However, such contact appeared to occasionally complement other more direct forms of contact or was used to communicate with extended birth family members and in this way did not prove to be disruptive.

The ongoing nature of contact in the study’s sample suggests that the approaches applied in practice to create awareness about the importance of birth family relationships are effective. Previous studies have indicated that adequate training, support and preparation can be key to providing potential adoptive parents with the tools and strategies they need to feel more in control of the open adoption process (Ryan et al., 2011). In the NSW context, the importance of openness is emphasized to potential adoptive parents in a number of training sessions, alongside messaging from both agencies and the Court. As many international models of adoption are moving towards openness in adoptive relationships, the preparation undertaken with NSW adoptive parents to support openness in practice appears to be an efficacious model upon which other jurisdictions could draw as they support their adoptive parents to embrace openness.

Most participants did not receive and did not report requiring post-adoption supports. This may reflect the fact that adoptees in the current study had spent the majority of their lives residing with their adoptive families and had overall good levels of psychosocial functioning. However, a small number of participants stated that they needed assistance and were unsuccessful in obtaining this post-adoption. This has implications for future adoptions from foster care, especially for those in which children are placed in care at an older age and subsequently adopted, as older children are likely to experience a greater level of prior trauma and resulting need. In addition, the lack of adequate preparation and availability of post-adoption supports may impact other foster carers’ willingness to adopt if they currently care for a child with high needs (Edelstein et al., 2017). As stated by Hartinger-Saunders et al. (2015),

Although finalization of an adoption relieves the states of their legal obligation to the child, it does not ensure that adoptive parents are adequately prepared or supported as they take on this commitment’ (p. 256).

Considering the model previously discussed, a plausible preliminary interpretation of the findings – and possibly the basis for a hypothesis to be tested with a bigger sample – is that the impact of pre-adoption risk factors on psychosocial adjustment was mitigated by early placement in care (child-related factors) and subsequent adoption by families with low psychosocial stressors and a willingness to promote birth family relationships (adoptive family factors) as encouraged by the agency during the pre-adoption stage (system factors). The model may guide the study of resilience for the population of children adopted from welfare.

Limitations

Our study contains a number of limitations. First, our findings are based on the experiences of a small sample from a small population. However, these recruitment issues were expected, given difficulties in identifying current contact details for participants in the absence of ongoing contact with the agency. Second, the overall positive findings may be the product of a self-selection bias, that is, adoptive parents with good experiences could have been more inclined than others to participate. Third, the findings are mostly based on a sample of children removed from adverse environments very early in life and adopted by their long-term foster carers. As such, the results may not generalize to the adoption of children who were placed in care at an older age and/or were adopted by strangers. Future research should focus on conducting longitudinal studies on larger samples of children adopted from care, in order to obtain conclusive findings about outcomes and to produce timely information about the needs of adoptive families.

Conclusion

The above limitations aside, this exploratory study provides encouraging preliminary findings about the psychosocial adjustment, adoptive parent–child relationships and contact in a sample of children adopted by their foster carers in Australia. In addition, the findings reiterate that Australian adoptions from care encompass much greater levels of openness and face-to-face contact than do adoptions in other settings, and this level of openness is perceived to be beneficial. Finally, the study provides a parsimonious model to approach the study of how resilience may develop in the population of children in permanent forms of care.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Dr Kaltner is a Principal Research Officer at the Department of Family and Community Services.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Andrea del Pozo de Bolger

Author biographies

Andrea del Pozo de Bolger is a Clinical Psychologist and Clinical Supervisor at the University of New England (UNE), Australia. Andrea’s interests are developmental trauma and transdiagnostic interventions.

Debra Dunstan is the Head of Schools of Health and Psychology at UNE. Debra is a Clinical Psychologist and Physiotherapist, and her research interest is injury rehabilitation to return to the workplace.

Melissa Kaltner is the Principal Research Officer at the Department of Family and Community Services, NSW, Australia. Melissa’s research interests are child adoption and abusive injuries in infants.

References

Adoption Act (2000) Available online at: http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au

Adoption Amendment (Same Sex Couples) Act (2010) Available online at: http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) (2017) Adoptions Australia 2016–17 (Child Welfare Series No. 67, Cat. No. CWS 61). Canberra: AIHW.

Australian Mental Health Outcomes and Classification Network (AMHOCN) (2005) Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire Training Manual. Gladesville: NSW Institute of Psychiatry.

del Pozo de Bolger

Dunstan

Kaltner

(2016) ‘A Conceptual Model of Psychosocial Adjustment of Foster Care Adoptees Based on a Scoping Review of Contributing Factors’, Clinical Psychologist 22: 3–15.

del Pozo de Bolger

Dunstan

Kaltner

(2017) ‘Descriptive Analysis of NSW Foster Care Adoptions’, Australian Social Work 70: 477–90.

Dumaret

Donati

Crost

(2011) ‘After a Long-Term Placement: Investigating Educational Achievement, Behaviour, and Transition to Independent Living’, Children & Society 25(3): 215–27.

Edelstein

Gonzalez

Langley

Waterman

Paasivirta

Paczkowski

(2017) ‘Preparing and Partnering with Families to Support the Adoption of Children from Foster Care’, Adoption Quarterly 20(1): 119–133.

Frasch

Brooks

Barth

(2000) ‘Openness and Contact in Foster Care Adoptions: An Eight-Year Follow-Up’, Family Relations 49: 435–46.

10.

Gerard

A.B.

(2005) Parent-Child Relationship Inventory (PCRI) Manual. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.

11.

Goodman

(2001) ‘Psychometric Properties of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire’, Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 40: 1337–45.

12.

Hartinger-Saunders

Trouteaud

Matos Johnson

(2015) ‘Post Adoption Service Need and Use as Predictors of Adoption Dissolution: Findings from the 2012 National Adoptive Families Study’, Adoption Quarterly 18: 255–72.

13.

Institute of Open Adoption Studies (2018) ‘Post Adoption and Guardianship Support’, April. Available online at: http://sydney.edu.au/education_social_work/research/centres_and_networks/IOAS/resources/Publications/postadoption-support.pdf

14.

Ippen

(2005) ‘Parent-Child Relationship Inventory’, NCTSN Measure Review Database. Available online at: https://www.nctsn.org/measures/parent-child-relationship-inventory

15.

Luu

Wright

A.C.

Pope

(2018) Open Adoption of Children in NSW Out-of-Home Care: General Public Perceptions and Motivations. Sydney: Institute of Open Adoption Studies, The University of Sydney. Available online at: http://sydney.edu.au/education_social_work/research/centres_and_networks/IOAS/research.shtml

16.

Mellor

(2005) ‘Normative Data for the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in Australia’, Australian Psychologist 40: 215–22.

17.

Neil

Beek

Ward

(2013) Contact After Adoption: A Follow-Up in Late Adolescence. Norwich: Centre for Research on Children and Families. Available online at: http://www.uea.ac.uk/documents/3437903/0/Contact+report+NEIL+dec+20+v2+2013.pdf/f2d766c7-39eb-49a3-93b7-1f1368a071a1

18.

Roberts

M.E.

(2009) ‘Post Adoption Contact With Birth Parents in Foster Care Adoptions’, Master’s Thesis, Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, IL. Available online at: http://thekeep.eiu.edu/theses/412

19.

Rolock

Pérez

A.G.

White

K.R.

Fong

(2017) ‘From Foster Care to Adoption and Guardianship: A 21st Century Challenge’, Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal 35: 11–20.

20.

Rushton

Dance

Argent

(2002) Adoption Support Services for Families in Difficulty: A Literature Review and UK Survey. London: British Association of Adoption and Fostering.

21.

Rutter

(2013) ‘Annual Research Review: Clinical Implications’, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 54(4): 474–87.

22.

Ryan

Harris

Brown

Houston

Livingston Smith

Howard

(2011) ‘Open Adoptions in Child Welfare: Social Worker and Foster/Adoptive Parent Attitudes’, Journal of Public Child Welfare 5: 445–66.

23.

Selwyn

Quinton

(2004) ‘Stability, Permanence, Outcomes and Support: Foster Care and Adoption Compared’, Adoption & Fostering 28: 6–15.

24.

Selwyn

Wijedasa

D.N.

Meakings

S.J.

(2014) Beyond the Adoption Order: Challenges, Interventions and Disruptions. London: Department for Education. Available online at: http://research-information.bristol.ac.uk/files/34004613/Final_Report_04_Nov_2014.pdf

25.

Silverstein

Roszia

(1999) ‘Openness: A Critical Component of Special Needs Adoption’, Child Welfare 78: 637–51.

26.

Triseliotis

(2002) ‘Long-Term Foster Care or Adoption? The Evidence Examined’, Child & Family Social Work 7: 23–33.

27.

Werner

E.E.

Smith

R.S.

(2001) Journeys Fom Childhood to Midlife: Risk, Resilience and Recovery. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

28.

Wind

L.H.

Brooks

Barth

R.P.

(2007) ‘Influences of Risk History and Adoption Preparation on Post-Adoption Services Use in U.S. Adoptions’, Family Relations 56: 378–89. Available online at: http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.une.edu.au/docview/213933379?accountid=17227