Социальное благополучие детей, оставшихся без попечения родителей: между биологической и приемной семьей: Социология

Оксана Владимировна  Бессчетнова

doi:10.17072/2078-7898/2023-2-268-283

Авторы

Оксана Владимировна Бессчетнова Российский биотехнологический университет (РОСБИОТЕХ), 125080, Москва, ул. Врубеля, 12

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17072/2078-7898/2023-2-268-283

Ключевые слова:

биологическая семья, приемная семья, биологические родители, приемные родители, приемные дети, дети, оставшиеся без попечения родителей, социальное благополучие, социальное взаимодействие, детство, социология детства

Аннотация

В статье представлен обзор современных зарубежных эмпирических исследований, отражающих влияние контактов биологических родителей с детьми, помещенными в приемную (фостерную) семью, на их социальное благополучие. Проанализированы мнения основных участников, включенных в организацию, сопровождение, контроль и непосредственный процесс общения биологических родителей и детей, переданных на воспитание в приемную семью, выявлен конфликт интересов сторон, обуславливающий амбивалентность и неоднозначность их отношения к взаимодействию. Противоречивые данные, полученные исследователями в разных странах, говорят о сложности рассматриваемой проблемы, субъективном характере принятия решений, отсутствии нормативно-правового регулирования вопроса в ряде стран, четко выработанных критериев оценки ситуации, а также необходимости проведения дальнейших научных исследований данной проблемы. Вместе с тем процесс принятия решения, с одной стороны, не должен нарушать хрупкий баланс взаимоотношений членов приемной семьи, а с другой, призван активизировать участие биологических родителей в жизни собственных детей в ближайшей и среднесрочной перспективе; создать условия и предпосылки для продолжения их конструктивного взаимодействия для потенциального воссоединения после достижения ребенком совершеннолетия. Сделан вывод об отсутствии четко выработанных критериев оценки ситуации, размытости нормативно-правового поля, субъективизме при принятии решений и необходимости дальнейшего изучения проблемы для поиска эффективных технологий ее решения.

Биография автора

Оксана Владимировна Бессчетнова , Российский биотехнологический университет (РОСБИОТЕХ), 125080, Москва, ул. Врубеля, 12

доктор социологических наук, доцент, заведующая кафедрой «Социально-гуманитарные дисциплины»

Библиографические ссылки

Бессчетнова О.В. Благополучие детей как социальная проблема современности // Logos et Praxis. 2019. Т. 18, № 4. С. 42–52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15688/lp.jvolsu.2019.4.5

Бесчасная А.А. Наблюдая грядущее: образы современного детства в прогнозировании будущего // Ценности и смыслы. 2018. № 3(55). С. 65–78.

Майорова-Щеглова С.Н., Колосова Е.А. Дети и детство как объекты социологических исследований // Социологические исследования. 2018. № 3. С. 62–69. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.7868/s0132162518030066

Майорова-Щеглова С.Н., Митрофанова С.Ю. Детство в социогуманитарной перспективе: методологические и технологические основы создания научно-прикладного тезауруса // Вестник РГГУ. Серия: Философия. Социология. Искусствоведение. 2017. № 2(8). С. 57–67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.28995/2073-6401-2017-2-57-67

Austerberry H., Stanley N., Larkins C., Ridley J., Farelly N., Manthorpe J., Hussein Sh. Foster carers and family contact: foster carers’ views of social work support // Adoption & Fostering. Vol. 37, iss. 2. P. 116–129. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0308575913490273

Bailey M. Supervised access: A long-term solution? // Family Court Review. 1999. Vol. 37, iss. 4. P. 478−486. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741617.1999.tb00547.x Barndomsstudier i norsk kontekst: tverrfaglige tilnærminger / I.K. Sørenssen, T. Abebe, M Ursin (red.). Oslo, NO: Gyldendal, 2021. 328 s.

Biehal N., Sinclair I., Wade J. Reunifying abused or neglected children: Decision-making and outcomes // Child Abuse & Neglect. 2015. Vol. 49. P. 107–118. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.chiabu.2015.04.014

Boddy J., Statham J., Danielsen I., Geurts E., Join-Lambert H., Euillet S. Beyond contact: Work with families of children placed away from home in four European countries. London: Nuffield Foundation, 2013. 52 p. URL: https://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/wpcontent/uploads/2019/12/Beyond-Contact_finalreport.pdf (accessed: 24.10.2022). Browne D., Moloney A. «Contact Irregular»: A qualitative analysis of the impact of visiting patterns of natural parents on foster placements // Child & Family Social Work. 2002. Vol. 7, iss. 1. P. 35–45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.13652206.2002.00217.x

Bullen T., Taplin S., Kertesz M., Humphreys C., McArthur M. Literature review on supervised contact

between children in out-of-home care and their parents. Canberra, AU: Institute of Child Protection Studies, ACU, 2015. 43 p. URL: https://acuresearchbank.acu.edu.au/download/ecab16 bcb8e88c8a670d70c6e32ab686e1a144da8f3486d768 fdd1e342b16f5e/698199/Bullen_2015_kContact_Lite ratureReview.pdf (accessed: 24.10.2022).

Cantos A.L., Gries L.T., Slis V. Behavioral correlates of parental visiting during family foster care // Child Welfare. 1997. Vol. 76, no. 2. P. 309–329.

Chateauneuf D., Turcotte D., Drapeau S. The relationship between foster care families and birth families in a child welfare context: The determining factors // Child & Family Social Work. 2018. Vol. 23, iss. 1. P. 71–79. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1111/cfs.12385

Childhood matters: Social theory, Practice and Politics / ed. by J. Qvortrup, M. Bardy et al. Aldershot, UK: Avebury, 1994. 395 p.

Crook W.P., Oehme K. Characteristics of supervised visitation programs serving child maltreatment and other cases // Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention. 2007. Vol. 7, iss. 4. P. 291−304. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/brief-treatment/mhm014

Davis I.P., Landsverk J., Newton R., Ganger W. Parental visiting and foster care reunification // Children and Youth Services Review. 1996. Vol. 18, iss. 4–5. P. 363–382. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/0190-7409(96)00010-2

Delgado P., Sousa A., Bertão A., Moreiras D. et al. O contacto no acolhimento familiar: O que pensam as crianças, as famílias e os profissionais. Porto, PT: Mais Leitura, 2016. 181 p.

Ellenbogen S., Wekerle C. Visitation practices in child welfare organizations // Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies Journal. 2008. Vol. 52, iss. 2. P. 18−24.

Farmer E. Improving reunification practice: pathways home, progress and outcomes for children returning from care to their parents // British Journal of Social Work. 2014. Vol. 44, iss. 2. P. 348–366. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcs093

Fossum S., Vis S.A., Holtan A. Do frequency of visits with birth parents impact children’s mental health and parental stress in stable foster care settings // Cogent Psychology. 2018. Vol. 5, iss. 1. URL: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/2331 1908.2018.1429350?needAccess=true&role=button (accessed: 24.10.2022). DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1080/23311908.2018.1429350

Haight W.L., Black J.E., Workman C.L., Tata L. Parent-child interaction during foster care visits: Implications for practice // Social Work. 2001. Vol. 46, iss. 4. P. 325–338. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1093/sw/46.4.325

Hedin L. Good Relations between Foster Parents and Birth Parents: A Swedish Study of Practices Promoting Successful Cooperation in Everyday Life // Child Care in Practice. 2015. Vol. 21, iss. 2. P. 177–191. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13575279.2015.1005574

Holtan A., Rønning J.A., Handegar B.H., Sourander A. A comparison of mental health problems in kinship and non-kinship foster care // European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 2005. Vol. 14, iss. 4. P. 200–207. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s00787-005-0445-z

Ie J. The concept of family: Perspectives of Spanish young people in foster care // Child & Family Social Work. 2023. Vol. 28, iss. 2. P. 503–514. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12980

Ie J., Ursin M., Vicente-Mariño M. Foster children’s views of family: A systematic review and qualitative synthesis // Children and Youth Services Review. 2022. Vol. 132. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S01 90740921004138?via%3Dihub (accessed: 24.10.2022). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.childyouth.2021.106337

James A., Prout A. A new paradigm for the sociology of childhood? Provenance, promise and problems // Constructing and reconstructing childhood: Contemporary issues in the sociological study of childhood / ed. by A. James, A. Prout. London, N.Y.: Falmer Press, Taylor and Francis Inc., 1997. P. 7–33.

Kiraly M., Humphreys C. Рerspectives from young people about family contact in kinship care: «Don’t Push Us — Listen More» // Australian Social Work. 2013. Vol. 66, iss. 3. P. 314–327. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0312407x.2012.715658

Leathers S.J. Parental visiting, conflicting allegiances, and emotional and behavioral problems among foster children // Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies. 2003. Vol. 52, iss. 1. P. 53–63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2003.00053.x

Macaskill C. Safe contact: Children in permanent placement and contact with their birth relatives. Lyme Regis, UK: Russell House Publishing, 2002. 154 p.

McWey L.M., Acock A., Porter B.E. The Impact of Continued Contact with Biological Parents upon the Mental Health of Children in Foster Care // Children and Youth Services Review. 2010. Vol. 32, iss. 10. P. 1338–1345. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.childyouth.2010.05.003

McWey L.M., Cui M. Parent-child contact for youth in foster care: research to inform practice // Family Relations. 2017. Vol. 66, iss. 4. P. 684–695. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12276

McWey L.M., Mullis A. Improving the lives of children in foster care: The impact of supervised visitation // Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies. 2004. Vol. 53, iss. 3. P. 293–300.

Meakings S., Coffey A., Shelton K.H. The Influence of Adoption on Sibling Relationships: Experiences and Support Needs of Newly Formed Adoptive Families // British Journal of Social Work. 2017. Vol. 47, iss. 6. P. 1781–1799. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1093/bjsw/bcx097 Mennen F.E., O’Keefe M. Informed decisions in child welfare: The use of attachment theory // Children and Youth Services Review. 2005. Vol. 27, iss. 6. P. 577–593. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.childyouth.2004.11.011

Morrison J., Mishna F., Cook Ch., Aitken G. Access visits: Perceptions of child protection workers, foster parents and children who are Crown wards // Children and Youth Services Review. 2011. Vol. 33, iss. 9. P. 1476–1482. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.childyouth.2011.03.011

Moyers S., Farmer E., Lipscombe J. Contact with family members and its impact on adolescents and their foster placements // British Journal of Social Work. 2006. Vol. 36, iss. 4. P. 541–559. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bch270

Mundt B. Historismus: Kunsthandwerk und Industrie im Zeitalter der Weltausstellungen. Berlin: Kunstgewerbemuseum Berlin, 1973. 318 S. Murphy E., Fairlougn A. The Successful Reunification of Abused and Neglected Looked After Children with Their Families: A Case-File Audit // The British Journal of Social Work. 2015. Vol. 45, iss. 8. P. 2261–2280. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1093/bjsw/bcu093

Neil E., Beek M., Schofield G. Thinking about and managing contact in permanent placements: The differences and similarities between adoptive parents and foster carers // Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2003. Vol. 8, iss. 3. P. 401–418. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1359104503008003009

Nesmith A. Factors influencing the regularity of parental visits with children in foster care // Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal. 2015. Vol. 32, iss. 3. P. 219–228. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10560-014-0360-6

Poitras K., Tarabulsy G.M., Pulido N.V. Contact with biological parents following placement in foster care: Associations with preschool child externalizing behavior // Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2022. Vol. 27, iss. 2. P. 466–479. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/13591045211049295

Rich C. The effect of parental visitation on the emotional and behavioral stability of foster children. Fresno, CA: Alliant International University, 2010. Schofield G., Ward E. Understanding and working with parents of children in long-term foster care. London: Jessica Kingsley, 2010. 224 p.

Sità C., Mortari L. Rethinking «the family» in foster care in Italy: The perspective of children in care and of foster parents’ children // Global Studies of Childhood. 2022. URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/ doi/10.1177/20436106221099037 (accessed: 24.10.2022). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/ 20436106221099037

Taplin S., Bullen T., McArthur M., Humphreys C., Kertesz M., Dobbins T. KContact, an enhanced intervention for contact between children in out-of-home care and their parents: protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial // BMC Public Health. 2015. Vol. 15, iss. 1. URL: https://bmcpublichealth. biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-0152461-3 (accessed: 24.10.2022). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-2461-3

Van Holen F., Clé A., West D., Gypen L., Vanderfaeillie J. Family bonds of foster children. A qualitative research regarding the experience of foster children in long-term foster care // Children and Youth Services Review. 2020. Vol. 119. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii /S0190740920320168 (accessed: 24.10.2022). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105593

Wissö T., Johansson H., Höjer I. What is a family? Constructions of family and parenting after a custody transfer from birth parents to foster parents // Child & Family Social Work. 2019. Vol. 24, iss. 1. P. 9–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12475

Zeijlmans K., López M., Grietens H., Knorth E.J. «Nothing goes as planned»: Practitioners reflect on matching children and foster families // Family Social Work. 2018. Vol. 23, iss. 3. P. 458–465. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12437

References

Austerberry, H., Stanley, N., Larkins, C., Ridley, J., Farelly, N., Manthorpe, J. and Hussein Sh. (2013). Foster carers and family contact: foster carers’ views of social work support. Adoption & Fostering. Vol. 37, iss. 2, pp. 116−129. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0308575913490273

Bailey, M. (1999). Supervised access: A longterm solution? Family Court Review. Iss. 37, iss. 4, pp. 478−486. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741617.1999.tb00547.x

Beschasnaya, A.A. (2018). [Observing the future: Images of modern childhood in forecasting the future]. Tsennosti i smysly [Values and Meanings]. Vol. 3(55), pp. 65−78.

Besschetnova, O.V. (2019). [Welfare of children as a modern social problem]. Logos et Praxis. Vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 42−52. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.15688/lp.jvolsu.2019.4.5

Biehal, N., Sinclair. I. and Wade, J. (2015). Reunifying abused or neglected children: Decisionmaking and outcomes. Child Abuse and Neglect. Vol. 49, pp. 107–118. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.04.014

Boddy, J., Statham, J., Danielsen, I., Geurts, E., Join-Lambert, H. and Euillet, S. (2013). Beyond contact: Work with families of children placed away from home in four European countries. London: Nuffield Foundation Publ., 52 p. Available at: https://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/wpcontent/uploads/2019/12/Beyond-Contact_finalreport.pdf (accessed 24.10.2022).

Browne, D. and Moloney, A. (2002). Contact irregular: A qualitative analysis of the impact of visiting patterns of natural parents on foster placements. Child & Family Social Work. Vol. 7, iss. 1, pp. 35– 45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.13652206.2002.00217.x

Bullen, T., Taplin, S., Kertesz, M., Humphreys, C. and McArthur, M. (2015). Literature review on supervised contact between children in out-of-home care and their parents. Canberra, AU: Institute of Child Protection Studies, ACU Publ., 43 p. Available at: https://acuresearchbank.acu.edu.au/download/ ecab16bcb8e88c8a670d70c6e32ab686e1a144da8f34 86d768fdd1e342b16f5e/698199/Bullen_2015_kCont act_LiteratureReview.pdf (accessed 24.10.2022). Cantos, A.L., Gries, L.T. and Slis, V. (1997). Behavioral correlates of parental visiting during family foster care. Child Welfare. Vol. 76, no. 2, pp. 309–329.

Chateauneuf, D., Turcotte, D. and Drapeau, S. (2018). The relationship between foster care families and birth families in a child welfare context: The determining factors. Child & Family Social Work. Vol. 23, iss. 1, pp. 71–79. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1111/cfs.12385

Crook, W.P. and Oehme, K. (2007). Characteristics of supervised visitation programs serving child maltreatment and other cases. Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention. Vol. 7, iss. 4, pp. 291−304. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/brief-treatment/mhm014

Davis, I.P., Landsverk, J., Newton, R. and Ganger, W. (1996). Parental visiting and foster care reunification. Children and Youth Services Review. Vol. 18, iss. 4–5, pp. 363–382. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0190-7409(96)00010-2

Delgado, P., Sousa, A., Bertão, A., Moreiras, D. et al. (2016). O contacto no acolhimento familiar [Contact in foster care, what children, families and professionals think]. Porto, PT: Mais Leitura Publ., 181 p.

Ellenbogen, S. and Wekerle, C. (2008). Visitation practices in child welfare organizations. Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies Journal. Vol. 52, iss. 2, pp. 18−24. Farmer, E. (2014). Improving reunification practice: pathways home, progress and outcomes for children returning from care to their parents. British Journal of Social Work. Vol. 44, iss. 2, pp. 348−366. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcs093

Fossum, S., Vis, S.A., and Holtan, A. (2018). Do frequency of visits with birth parents impact children’s mental health and parental stress in stable foster care settings. Cogent Psychology. Vol. 5, iss. 1. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/ 10.1080/23311908.2018.1429350?needAccess=true& role=button (accessed 24.10.2022). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2018.1429350

Haight, W.L., Black, J.E., Workman, C.L. and Tata, L. (2001). Parent-child interaction during foster care visits: Implications for practice. Social Work. Vol. 46, iss. 4, pp. 325−338. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1093/sw/46.4.325

Hedin, L. (2015). Child care in practice good relations between foster parents and birth parents: a Swedish study of practices promoting successful cooperation in everyday life. Child Care in Practice. Vol. 21, iss. 2, pp. 177–191. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13575279.2015.1005574

Holtan, A., Rønning, J.A., Handegar, B.H. and Sourander, A. (2005). A comparison of mental health problems in kinship and non-kinship foster care. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. Vol. 14, iss. 4, pp. 200−207. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s00787-005-0445-z

Ie, J. (2023). The concept of family: Perspectives of Spanish young people in foster care. Child & Family Social Work. Vol. 28, iss. 2, pp. 503–514. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12980

Ie, J., Ursin, M. and Vicente-Mariño, M. (2022). Foster children’s views of family: A systematic review and qualitative synthesis. Children and Youth Services Review. Vol. 132. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S01

?via%3Dihub (accessed 24.10.2022). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.childyouth.2021.106337

James, A. and Prout, A. (1997). A new paradigm for the sociology of childhood? Provenance, promise and problems. A. James, A. Prout. (eds.) Constructing and reconstructing childhood: Contemporary issues in the sociological study of childhood, London, N.Y.: Falmer Press, Taylor and Francis Inc., pp. 7–33.

Kiraly, M. and Humphreys, C. (2013). Рerspectives from young people about family contact in kinship care: «Don’t push us — listen more». Australian Social Work. Vol. 66, iss. 3, pp. 314–327. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0312407x.2012.715658

Leathers, S.J. (2003). Parental visiting, conflicting allegiances, and emotional and behavioral problems among foster children. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies. Vol. 52, iss. 1, pp. 53−63. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2003.00053.x

Macaskill, C. (2002). Safe contact: Children in permanent placement and contact with their birth relatives. Lyme Regis, UK: Russell House Publ., 154 p.

Mayorova-Scheglova, S.N. and Kolosova, E.A. (2018). [Children and childhood as objects of sociological research]. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Research]. No. 3, pp. 62−69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7868/s0132162518030066

Mayorova-Scheglova, S.N. and Mitrofanova, S.Yu. (2017). [Childhood in a socio-humanitarian perspective: methodological and technological foundations for creating a scientific and applied thesaurus]. Vestnik RGGU Seriya: Filosofiya. Sotsiologiya. Iskusstvovedenie [RSUH/RGGU Bulletin. Series: Philosophy. Social Studies. Art Studies]. Vol. 2(8), pp. 57−67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.28995/2073-64012017-2-57-67

McWey, L.M., Acock, A. and Porter, B. (2010). The impact of continued contact with biological parents upon the mental health of children in foster care. Children and Youth Services Review. Vol. 32, iss. 10, pp. 1338−1345. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.childyouth.2010.05.003 McWey, L. and Cui, M. (2017). Parent-child contact for youth in foster care: research to inform practice. Family Relations. Vol. 66, iss. 4, pp. 684−695. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12276

McWey, L.M. and Mullis, A. (2004). Improving the lives of children in foster care: The impact of supervised visitation. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies. Vol. 53, iss. 3, pp. 293–300.

Meakings, S., Coffey, A. and Shelton, K.H. (2017). The influence of adoption on sibling relationships: Experiences and support needs of newly formed adoptive families. British Journal of Social Work. Vol. 47, iss. 6, pp. 1781–1799. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcx097 Mennen, F.E. and O’Keefe, M. (2005). Informed decisions in child welfare: The use of attachment theory. Children and Youth Services Review. Vol. 27, iss. 6, pp. 577−593. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.childyouth.2004.11.011

Morrison, J., Mishna, F., Cook, Ch. and Aitken, G. (2011). Access visits: Perceptions of child protection workers, foster parents and children who are Crown wards. Children and Youth Services Review. Vol. 33, iss. 9, pp. 1476−1482. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.03.011

Moyers, S., Farmer, E. and Lipscombe, J. (2006). Contact with family members and its impact on adolescents and their foster placements. British Journal of Social Work. Vol. 36, iss. 4, pp. 541–559. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bch270

Mundt, B. (1973). Historismus: Kunsthandwerk und Industrie im Zeitalter der Weltausstellungen [Historicism: Crafts and industry in the age of world exhibitions]. Berlin: Kunstgewerbemuseum Berlin Publ., 318 p.

Murphy, E. and Fairlougn, A. (2015). The successful reunification of abused and neglected looked after children with their families: A case-file audit. The British Journal of Social Work. Vol. 45, iss. 8, pp. 2261–2280. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1093/bjsw/bcu093

Neil, E., Beek, M. and Schofield, G. (2003). Thinking about and managing contact in permanent placements: The differences and similarities between adoptive parents and foster parents. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry. Vol. 8, iss. 3, pp. 401– 418. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1359104503008003009

Nesmith, A. (2015). Factors influencing the regularity of parental visits with children in foster care. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal. Vol. 32, iss. 3, pp. 219–228. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10560-014-0360-6

Poitras, K., Tarabulsy, G.M. and Pulido, N.V. (2022). Contact with biological parents following placement in foster care: Associations with preschool child externalizing behavior. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry. Vol. 27, iss. 2, pp. 466−479. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/13591045211049295

Qvortrup, J., Bardy, M. et al. (eds.) (1994). Childhood matters: Social theory, practice and politics. Aldershot, UK: Avebury Publ., 395 p. Rich, C. (2010). The effect of parental visitation on the emotional and behavioral stability of foster children. Fresno, CA: Alliant International University Publ.

Schofield, G. and Ward, E. (2010). Understanding and working with parents of children in long-term foster care. London: Jessica Kingsley Publ., 224 p.

Sità, C. and Mortari, L. (2022). Rethinking «the family» in foster care in Italy: The perspective of children in care and of foster parents’ children. Global Studies of Childhood. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/204361062 21099037 (accessed 24.10.2022). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/20436106221099037

Sørenssen, I.K., Abebe, T. and Ursin, M. (eds.) (2021). Barndomsstudier i norsk kontekst: tverrfaglige tilnærminger [Childhood studies in the Norwegian context: interdisciplinary approaches]. Oslo, NO: Gyldendal Publ., 328 p.

Taplin, S., Bullen, T., McArthur, M., Humphreys, C., Kertesz, M. and Dobbins, T. (2015). KContact, an enhanced intervention for contact between children in out-of-home care and their parents: protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial. BMC Public Health. Vol. 15, iss. 1. Available at: https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/1 0.1186/s12889-015-2461-3 (accessed 24.10.2022). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-2461-3

Van Holen, F., Clé, A., West, D., Gypen, L. and Vanderfaeillie, J. (2020). Family bonds of foster children. A qualitative research regarding the experience of foster children in long-term foster care. Children and Youth Services Review. Vol. 119. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/abs/pii/S0190740920320168 (accessed: 24.10.2022). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105593

Wissö, T., Johansson, H. and Höjer, I. (2019). What is a family? Constructions of family and parenting after a custody transfer from birth parents to foster parents. Child & Family Social Work. Vol. 24, iss. 1, pp. 9–16 DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1111/cfs.12475

Zeijlmans, K., López, M., Grietens, H. and Knorth, E.J. (2018). «Nothing goes as planned» Practitioners reflect on matching children and foster families. Family Social Work. Vol. 23, iss. 3, pp. 458– 465. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12437