The achievement of legal permanence is not only a primary goal of U.S. child welfare policy but is also presumed to translate into relational permanence. This study examines whether state-sanctioned permanence translates into relational permanence among foster care alumni. In-depth interviews were conducted with a sample of 31 young adults who exited care as adolescents through adoption, guardianship, or relative placement to gain insights into how they make meaning of their relationships with caretakers over time. Constructivist grounded theory was used to develop a conceptual classification scheme of relational permanence that resulted in four types of young adult–caretaker relationships: enduring, ambivalent, spurned, and severed. Findings underscore the unintended consequences of solely focusing on legal permanence as an outcome, and implications for promoting relational permanence before and after foster care are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BellamyJ. (2008). Behavioral problems following reunification of children in long-term foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 216–228. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.09.008
2.
BrownI., LéveilléS., & GoughP. (2006). Is permanence necessary for resilience? Advice for policymakers. In FlynnR. J., DuddingP. M., & BarberJ. G. (Eds.), Promoting resilience in child welfare (pp. 94–114). Ottawa, ON: University of Ottawa Press.
3.
CharlesK., & NelsonJ. (2000). Permanency planning: Creating life long connections. What does it mean for adolescents?Tulsa, OK: National Resource Center for Youth Development.
4.
CharmazK. (2011). Grounded theory methods in social justice research. In DenzinN. K., & LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 359–380). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
5.
Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2012). Adoption disruption and dissolution.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children's Bureau.
6.
CourtneyM., DworskyA., BrownA., CaryC., LoveK., & VorhiesV. (2011). Midwest evaluation of adult functioning of former foster youth: Outcomes at age 26.Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago.
7.
CushingG., SamuelsG., & KermanB. (2014). Profiles of relational permanence at 22: Variability in parental supports and outcomes among young adults with foster care histories. Children and Youth Services Review, 39, 73–83. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.01.001
8.
FaulknerM., AdkinsT., & PérezA. (2016). Texas youth permanency study.Austin, TX: Texas Institute for Child & Family Wellbeing at the University of Texas School of Social Work.
9.
FreundlichM. (2009). Permanence for older children and youth: Laws, policy, and research. In KermanB., FreundlichM., & MaluccioA. N. (Eds.), Achieving permanence for older children and youth in foster care (pp. 127–146). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
HenryD. (2005). The 3-5-7 model: Preparing children for permanency. Children and Youth Services Review, 27, 197–212. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2004.09.002
12.
JonesA., & LaLiberteT. (2013). Measuring youth connections: A component of relational permanence for foster youth. Children and Youth Services Review, 35, 509–517. doi:10.1016/j. childyouth.2012.12.006
13.
KoolsS., McCarthyM., DurhamR., & RoberchtL. (1996). Dimensional analysis: Broadening the conception of grounded theory. Qualitative Health Research, 6(3), 312–330. doi:10.1177/104973239600600302
LincolnY. S., & GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry.Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
16.
PecoraP. J., WhittakerJ. K., MaluccioA. N., BarthR. P., DePanfilisD., & PlotnickR. D. (2009). The child welfare challenge: Policy, practice, and research (3rd ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
17.
RenneJ., & MallonG. P. (2005). Facilitating permanency for youth: The overuse of long-term foster care and the appropriate use of another planned permanent living arragement as options for youth in foster care. In MallonG. P., & HessP. M. (Eds.), Child welfare for the 21st century: A handbook of practices, policies, and programs (pp. 488–503). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
18.
RolockN. (2015). Post-permanency continuity: What happens after adoption and guardianship from foster care?Journal of Public Child Welfare, 9, 153–173. doi:10.1080/15548732.2015.1021986
19.
RolockN., PérezA. G., WhiteK. R., & FongR. (2017). From foster care to adoption and guardianship: A 21st century challenge. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal. doi:10.1007/s10560-017-0499-z
20.
SanchezR. (2004). Youth perspectives on permanency.San Francisco, CA: California Permanency for Youth Project.
21.
SchatzmanL. (1991). Dimensional analysis: Notes on an alternative approach to the grounding of theory in qualitative research. In MainesD. R. (Ed.), Social organization and social process (pp. 303–314). New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
22.
TestaM. (2008). New permanency stratergies for children in foster care. In LindseyD., & ShlonskyA. (Eds.), Child welfare research (pp. 108–124). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
23.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (2017). Adoption and foster care analysis and reporting system (AFCARS) final rule (ACYF-CB-IM-17-01). Retrieved from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/im1701.pdf
24.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children's Bureau. (2016). Adoption and foster care analysis and reporting system (AFCARS) FY 2015 data (October 1, 2014 through September 30, 2015). Preliminary FY 2015 estimates as of September 30, 2015 (23). Retrieved from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/afcarsreport23.pdf
