Library: Foster Care

New Zealand: An alternative to Foster Care

Introduction
Family Group Decision-making: An Option for Child Protective Services
How It Works
Outcomes

Introduction

Everyone is talking about child abuse these days and nearly everyone seems to be doing something about it. The noble and tireless efforts of child protective services agencies, public and private child-abuse prevention organizations and celebrity pleadings seems to have brought these troubled children no closer to a safe haven.

A common response to issues of abuse and neglect is the placement of children in state-regulated foster care. This practice is generally accepted by the public, and, judging from the swelling numbers of children in foster care, it is widely used by agencies charged with overseeing the protection of children. The population of children in foster care grew 4.1% during fiscal year 1991; the general population grew 1% during the same period.

At the start of 1992, 429,000 children were in care throughout the United States and all indicators point to further increases.

According to Wendel Primus of the Department of Health and Human Services, more than one out of every ten infants born in the poorest inner-city neighborhoods will be placed in foster care.

These placements outside of the family are disturbing on a number of fronts. In most cases, children experience significant trauma when they are separated from their families. While the child may feel that separation from family threatens his or her survival, the system removing the child to foster care believes that *the conditions from which the child was removed* were the threat to survival. In making the placement, there is an implied assumption that the state, by way of its foster-care system, will be able to offer the safety and stability that the family was unable to provide. This is not always an accurate assumption. There are no guarantees that a foster-care placement will be stable or safe.

An additional tragedy many children face as wards of the state is the lack of continuity of care. Nationally, children entering foster care move an average of three times. Twenty-five percent of all children in foster care will experience three or more placements during their stay in the system. However kind, loving, and capable a foster parent may be, leaving a child with a series of kind, loving and capable strangers is a form of abuse. But what of more active forms of abuse? Can the state guarantee safety from physical of sexual abuse to a child in its care?

Rather than focusing efforts and money towards improving what is, at best, a less than adequate system, this paper argues for a practice with demonstrated potential to radially reduce the need for foster care. The practice is no panacea; it will not guarantee safety for all children; it will not ensure optimal developmental outcomes for all children. What it will do is *increase the likelihood* of child-safety. It has the potential to foster respectful and cooperative relationships between child protective agencies and their clients. And it will return to families the sanctioned role of looking after their own.

Top

Family Group Decision-making: An Option for Child Protective Services

In the Commonwealth of New Zealand, concerns regarding the inadequacies of state-regulated foster care precipitated the passage of radical legislation affecting the country's child welfare practices. *The Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act of 1989* mandated that when the state becomes involved in child abuse or neglect cases, the power of decision making regarding the protection of the child must be given to the family. Plans for child protection are made entirely by the child's family; and, except for extraordinary circumstances, the state supports and helps to implement those decisions.

The initial response by those unfamiliar with this process is usually one of incredulity. "You mean to say that you would let the family who caused (or allowed to be caused) abuse or neglect to be responsible for creating a plan to end it?" The answer is "yes,"--with a very expanded definition of family. Stop for a while and think about your own family. Think beyond what is called the nuclear family to your grandmas, grandpas, aunts, uncles, nephews, brothers, sisters, cousins, cousins twice-removed, etc.

A national expert on child abuse and neglect told me that she often poses this question to child welfare professional: Would you replace yourself, your family and friends with a team of the best pediatricians, policy makers, psychologists, and social workers to plan for the raising of your child? You know their answer: "No."

I submit that my family (or yours) is *no* different from many other families in certain respects. Among the members of my family and just about everyone else's are people willing, capable, and committed to caring for their own. Families are entitled to take responsibility for their children.

Top

How It Works

As is similar in the United States, abuse and neglect allegations are investigated by mandate in New Zealand. However, when allegations turn out to be well-founded and a plan must be made to create conditions of safety for the child, it is up to the child's family to make that plan. When an immediate placement away from parents is required to protect the child, in keeping with the philosophy of the Act, placement is sought within the child's family. State workers then arrange for a family group conference. At this conference, the family develops a plan to address the needs of child-safety.

All members of the child or young person's family who can be located are invited to attend. Funds are available for transportation when the family requests such assistance. Doesn't this cost money? It does; but the money saved avoiding unnecessary foster-care placements greatly exceeds the expenses of running family group conferences.

Social workers convening the meeting provide food and drink in a comfortable setting. They will also have invited nonfamily guests who can present all available information regarding the issues of the safety of the child. These guests may include medical professionals, police, protective services workers, therapists, teachers and others. There are two distinct phases to the conference: the information-sharing phase and the decision-making phase.

During the information-sharing phase, pertinent details regarding concerns for child safety are presented to the assembled group.

Participants may ask questions and provide additional details pertaining to the care and protection of the child. The nonfamily guests might also describe what services they can offer the family should the group seek outside resources. Once all applicable information is shared, the nonfamily members leave the room. It is time for the decision-making phase of the meeting.

When the family reaches consensus (which can take as little as 20 minutes and as long as a day or more), a representative of the family will call in the caseworker. The family presents its plan.

In all but the rarest of circumstances the caseworker sanctions the plan and then negotiates resources (including financial) that will be required to implement the plan.

Some features of the conference merit further discussion at this

point: (1) only family members may attend the decision-making phase of the conference; all others, including legal counsel, are excluded; and (2) nothing said during the conference can be used as evidence in any court of law.

The protection of children via family empowerment and accountability is the desire outcome of these meetings. At these meetings, the family enjoys legal immunity. If a family is to create a plan that provides for optimal safety for the child, family limitations and vulnerabilities as well as strengths need to be openly discussed. If a fear of legal entanglements prevents family members from raising concerns or openly discussing issues, the family has a reduced chance of developing a safe plan.

Top

Outcomes

There was, and continues to be, some resistance from the professionals who find it hard to relinquish power over families; particularly when within those families children have suffered.

And yet the system is working. In the four years since the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act of 1989 was instituted, foster care has been reduced by as much as 90% in many areas of New Zealand. When plans don't work, a new conference is called, and a new plan is created.

What impact might this practice have on future generations of families? Imagine when families are encouraged and expected to be responsible for their members. Families generally have power, rights, and authority reaching far beyond what is appropriate or reasonable for nonfamily "professionals." Why not capitalize on this power?

Foster care subsidies, developing better assessments of potential foster parents, sharpening workers' skills at building a case to terminate parental rights, and high-tech marketing strategies to find adoptive placements all drain resources. Using a fraction of those resources, a child protective services system could be built that would not only help keep children safe, but would attract an abundance of committed volunteers. The volunteers I refer to are, of course, family members.

UPDATE: Since 1993, several states in the United States (such as New York) have used the New Zealand model on which to reform their foster care system.

Compiled from "On Families, Foster Care, and the Prawning Industry" by Cassandra Firman, an article that appeared in the Summer 1993 issue of the Family Resource Coalition's *Report*, entitled "Building Community and Changing Systems"