El papel del sistema de visitas en los casos de cese de acogimiento familiar una aproximación desde la perspectiva profesional

  1. Aurrekoetxea Casaus, Maite 1
  2. Pozo Cabanillas, Pilar 2
  1. 1 Universidad de Deusto, España
  2. 2 Universidad Nacional de Educación A Distancia, España
Zeitschrift:
Cuadernos de trabajo social

ISSN: 0214-0314,  1988-8295

Datum der Publikation: 2019

Ausgabe: 32

Nummer: 2

Seiten: 277-288

Art: Artikel

DOI: 10.5209/CUTS.58318 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen Access editor

Andere Publikationen in: Cuadernos de trabajo social

Zusammenfassung

A large number of studies explain the different factors that lead to the termination of family foster care, but few focus on a particular element of the foster care process: visits and the role that they play in the unexpected interruption of family foster care. The aim of this study is to explore the elements of the visiting system that provide stability to family foster care. A qualitative study was carried out involving the analysis of 13 interviews with professionals who have intervened in 48 cases of termination of family foster care as part of the Bizkaia Childcare Service. The data were processed using the MAXQDA programme. The findings indicate that parental visits are a key tool for intervention in family foster care and at the same time emphasise the fundamental role of the biological mother in the stability of the foster care process.

Bibliographische Referenzen

  • Balluerka, N., Gorostiaga, A., Herce, C. y Rivero, A. (2002). Elaboración de un inventario para medir el nivel de integración del menor acogido en su familia acogedora. Psicothema, 14(3), 584-571.
  • Bernedo, I.M., García-Martín, M.A., Salas, M.D. y Fuentes, M.J. (2016). Placement stability in nonkinship foster care: variables associated with placement disruption. European Journal of Social Work, 19(6), 917-930. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2015.1076770
  • Berrick, J., Barth, R. y Needell, B. (1994). A comparison of kinship foster homes and foster family homes: implications for kinship foster care as family preservation. Children and Youth Services Review, 16(1-2), 33-63.
  • BOE. (2015). Ley Orgánica 26/2015, de 28 de julio, de modificación del sistema de protección a la infancia y la adolescencia. Boletín Oficial del Estado, 180, 64544 a 64612, 29 de julio.
  • Crum, W. (2010). Foster parent-parenting characteristics that lead to increased placement stability or disruption. Children and Youth Services Review, 32(2), 185-190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.08.022
  • Davies, I.P., Landsverk, K., Newton, R. y Ganger, W. (1996). Parental visiting and foster care reunification.
  • Children and Youth Services Review, 18(4-5), 363-382. https://doi.org/10.1016/0190-7409(96)00010-2
  • Diputación Foral de Bizkaia. (2009). Guía de Acogimiento Familiar de la Diputación Foral de Bizkaia. Diputación Foral de Bizkaia. Disponible: http://www.bizkaia.eus/home2/Archivos/DPTO3/Temas/Pdf/Guia%20de%20acogimiento.pdf?hash=386f566db21e7663fada6da5e16d58b7&idioma=CA
  • Fisher, P., Stoolmiller, M., Mannening, A., Takahashi, A. y Chamberlain, P. (2011). Foster placement disruptions associated with problem behavior: Mitigating a threshold effect. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 79(4), 481-487. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0024313
  • Gerring, C.E., Kemp, S.P., y Marcenko, M.O. (2008). The Connections Project: A relational approach to engaging birth parents in visitation. Child Welfare, 87(6), 5-30.
  • Haight, W., Doner, J. y Black, J. (2003). Understanding and supporting parent-child relationships during foster care visits: attachment theory and research. Social Work, 48(2), 195-207.
  • Herce, C., Achúcarro, C., Gorostiaga, A., Torres Gómez de Cádiz, B. y Balluerka, N. (2003). La integración del menor en la familia de acogida: factores facilitadores. Intervención Psicosocial, 12(2), 163-177.
  • Hulburt, M., Chamberlain, P., DeGamo, D., Zhang, J. y Price, J. (2010). Advancing prediction of Foster placement disruption using Brief Behavioral Screening. Child Abuse and Neglect, 34(12), 917-926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2010.07.003
  • James, S. (2004). Why do foster care placements disrupt? An investigation of reasons for placement change in foster care. Social Service Review, 78(4), 601-627.
  • Koh, E. y Testa, M. (2008). Propensity Score Matching of Children in Kinship and Nonkinship Foster Care: Do Permanency Outcomes Differ? Social Work Research, 32(2), 105-116. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/32.2.105
  • Leathers, S. (2003). Parental Visiting, Conflicting Allegiances, and Emotional and Behavioral Problems among Foster Children. Family Relations: Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 52(1), 53-63.
  • León, E. y Palacios, J. (2004). Las visitas de los padres y la reunificación familiar tras el acogimiento. Portularia, 4, 241-248.
  • Lernihan, U. y Kelly, G. (2006). Kinship care as a route to permanent placement. En: D. Iwaniec (ed.), The child`s journey through care: placement stability, case planning and achieving permanency. Londres: Jon Wiley and Sons.
  • López, M., Del Valle, J., Montserrat, C. y Bravo, A. (2011). Factores que afectan a la ruptura del acogimiento familiar en España. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 14(1), 111-122.
  • McAuley, C. y Trew, K. (2000). Children´s adjustment over time in foster care: cross-informant agreement, stability and placement disruption. British Journal Social Work, 30(1), 91-107.
  • Mckey, L. y Mullis, A. (2004). Improving the Lives of Children in Foster Care: The Impact of Supervised Visitation. Family Relations, 53(3), 293-300.
  • Morrison, J., Mishna, H., Cook, C., y Aitken, G. (2011): Access visits: Perceptions of child protection workers, foster parents and children who are Crown wards. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(9), 1476-1482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.03.011
  • Mortagüa, A. y Martins, P. (2012). La calidad de vida de los menores en acogimiento residencial en Portugal: un estudio exploratorio. XI Congreso Internacional de Infancia Maltratada. Construyendo puentes entre investigación y práctica. (pp. 1-5). Oviedo: Comisión Organizadora XI Congreso Internacional del Infancia Maltratada.
  • Neil, E., Beek, M. y Scholfield, G. (2003). Thinking About and managing contact in permanent placements: The differences and similarities between adoptive parents and foster carers. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 8(3), 401-418. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1359104503008003009
  • Nesmith, A. (2013). Parent-child visits in foster care: Reaching shared goals and expectations to better prepare children and parents for visits. Child and Adolescent Social Work, 30(3), 237-255.
  • Newton, R., Litrownik, A. y Landsverk, J. (2000). Children and youth in foster care: disentangling the relationship between problem behaviors and number of placements. Child Abuse and Neglect, 24(10), 1363-1374.
  • O´Neill, M., Rislel-Curtiss, L., Ayon, C. y Rankin, L. (2012). Placement stability in the context of child development. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(7), 1251-1258.
  • Oosterman, M., Schuengel, C., Wim, N., Bullens, R. y Doreleijers, T. (2007). Disruptions in foster care: A review and meta-analysis. Children and Youth Services Review, 7, 53-76.
  • Palmer, S. (1996). Placement stability and inclusive practice in foster care: an empirical study. Children and Youth Services Review, 18(7), 589-601.
  • Poehlmann, J., Dallaire, D., Booker, A. y Shear, L. (2010). Children´s contact with their incarcerated parents: Research findings and recommendations. American Psychologist, 5(65), 575-598.
  • Proctor, L., Van Dusen, K., Litrownik, A., Newton, R., Davis, I., y Villodas, M. (2011). Factors associated with caregiver stability in permanent placements: A classification tree approach. Child Abuse and Neglect, 35(6), 425-436. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.02.002
  • Rosser, A. (2011). Evolución de los acogimientos familiares. Propuesta de actuaciones para la prevención de sus dificultades. Anales de Psicología, 27(3), 729-738.
  • Sabater, Y., Molero, R. y Pla, L. (2010). Análisis descriptivo de las características de los contactos de menores con sus familias biológicas en los acogimientos en familia ajena. International Journal of Developmental and Educational Psychology, 2, 229-236.
  • Salas Martínez, M.D, Fuentes Rebollo, M.J, Bernedo Muñoz, I.M., García Martín, M.A. y Camacho Pérez, S. (2009). Acogimiento en Familia Ajena y Visitas de los Menores con sus Padres Biológicos. Escritos de Psicología, 2(2), 35-42.
  • Simms, H. y Bolden, B. (1991). The family reunification project: facilitating regular contact among Foster children, biological families, and foster families. Child Welfare, 70(6), 679-691.
  • Smith, D., Stormshak, E., Chamberlain, P. y Bridges, R. (2001). Placement Disruption in Treatment Foster Care. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 9(3), 200-205.
  • Strijker, J., Knorth, E. y Knot-Dickscheit, J. (2008). Placement History of foster children: A study of placement history and outcomes in long-term family foster care. Child Welfare, 87(5), 107-123.
  • Taplin, S. (2005). Is all contact between children in care and their birth parents `good´ contact? [Discussion paper]. Recuperado de: http://www.community.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/321726/research_good_contact.pdf
  • Taplin, S. y Mattick, R. (2014). Supervised contact visits: Results from a study of women in drug treatment with children in care. Children and Youth Services Review, 39, 65-72.
  • Testa, M.F. y Slack, K.S. (2002). The gift of kinship foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 24(1-2), 79-108.
  • Tunno, A. (2015). Assessing Foster Parent factors that predict placement disruption. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Kansas. Recuperado de: https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/19557/Tunno_ku_0099D_14198_DATA_1.pdf;sequence=1 (Consultado el 2 de marzo de 2017).
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet