Qualitative Social Work 2014 Khoo 255 69

http://qsw.sagepub.com/Qualitative Social Work

http://qsw.sagepub.com/content/13/2/255The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1473325012474017 2014 13: 255 originally published online 14 February 2013Qualitative Social Work

Evelyn Khoo and Viktoria Skoogsurrounding the unexpected ending of a child's placement in their care

The road to placement breakdown: Foster parents' experiences of the events

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Qualitative Social WorkAdditional services and information for

http://qsw.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://qsw.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://qsw.sagepub.com/content/13/2/255.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Feb 14, 2013OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Mar 7, 2014Version of Record >>

at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on June 29, 2014qsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on June 29, 2014qsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://qsw.sagepub.com/

http://qsw.sagepub.com/content/13/2/255

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://qsw.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://qsw.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://qsw.sagepub.com/content/13/2/255.refs.html

http://qsw.sagepub.com/content/13/2/255.full.pdf

http://qsw.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/02/14/1473325012474017.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



Qualitative Social Work

2014, Vol. 13(2) 255–269

! The Author(s) 2013

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1473325012474017

qsw.sagepub.com

Article

The road to placementbreakdown: Foster parents’experiences of the eventssurrounding the unexpectedending of a child’s placementin their care

Evelyn Khoo and Viktoria SkoogUmea University, Sweden

Abstract

Placement breakdown is a frequently occurring phenomenon in the context of out-of-

home care. Although research has pointed to the many problems associated with

placement instability and breakdown, less is known about foster parents’ experiences.

We carried out deep interviews with foster parents to investigate connections between

their caring experiences and experiences of placement breakdown. Results of our study

demonstrate that breakdown is a complex process rather than a single event – a pro-

cess that starts in the discrepancy between the statutory obligations of the social ser-

vices toward the foster home and the foster parents’ perceptions of the kind if

information and support they actually receive from the social services. High demands

are placed on foster parents’ ability to provide care and offer a loving home to children

who have been raised in difficult environments and who have behaviour problems. The

road to breakdown also included a lack of knowledge about the child’s needs, insuffi-

cient understanding of the placement process, a difficult relationship with the social

worker, and a lack of individualized service with the right supports at the right time.

Although the placement may have ended in breakdown, foster parents described a

continuing relationship between their families and child which was of lasting significance.

Keywords

Children, experiences, foster carers, placement breakdown

Corresponding author:

Evelyn Khoo, Deptartment of Social Work, Umea University, SE-90187, Umea, Sweden.

Email: [email protected]

at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on June 29, 2014qsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from


Introduction

When children cannot grow up with their parents, society has an overall respon-sibility for ensuring that they have access to the support and protection they need.In Sweden, this responsibility ultimately falls to the social service system. Everyyear, thousands of children and young people find themselves placed in out-of-home care. While the overall numbers of children in care have varied over theyears, the use of care placements have been a stable part of the child welfaresystem since its foundation. Placements of children and young people may be ineither foster care or institutional settings although most, regardless of age, areplaced in foster care settings. Foster care is often seen as the optimal care envir-onment because it is meant to give children an ordinary family life until they eitherreturn home or are ready for independent living. How well the system succeeds inthis task has long been open to question with research showing that there areserious and frequent problems and adverse outcomes for children who have beenplaced in public care (Vinnerljung and Sallnas, 2008).

One problem shared by child welfare systems across the western world is place-ment breakdown – the unexpected, unplanned and sudden termination of a child’splacement, whether in foster care or in another care arrangement (Unrau, 2007).A review of the literature has shown that placement breakdown is a frequentlyoccurring phenomenon, occurring in between 20–40 percent of placements(Egelund, 2006; Oosterman et al., 2007). Research has also shown a connectionbetween placement breakdown and poorer outcomes for children in both the shortand long term. They often experience increased behavioural problems and emo-tional difficulties (Newton et al., 2000) and have generally poorer long-term prog-noses (Vinnerljung and Sallnas, 2008).

In Swedish child welfare, the child is at the centre of care planning whereasresponsibility for the child is shared between the social services, carers and parents(in so-called three-party parenting). If a placement does break down, it impacts notonly the child but often also biological parents, social workers, and foster parents.Although studies of placement breakdown are numerous, they have often focusedon its frequency, risk factors or causes and consequences to children. Few studieshave included foster parents; and when they have, the focus has been on fosterparents’ view of children’s problems and not on their own experiences of break-down (Brown and Bednar, 2006).

To address this knowledge gap, we designed this study to investigate howSwedish foster parents described and understood placement breakdown and thecare context in which it occurred. It is part of a larger study including the experi-ences of foster children, biological parents, and social workers. We sought answersto the following research questions:

. How do foster parents describe their reasons for becoming, and their lives as,foster parents?

256 Qualitative Social Work 13(2)



. How do they describe the circumstances surrounding children being placed intheir care?

. How do they describe the circumstances surrounding placement breakdown?

A better knowledge of how this phenomenon is experienced in relation to the careprocess as a whole may help us to better deliver services for the sake of all involvedin child welfare placements.

Children in care in Sweden

In Sweden, the state’s responsibility for children is subsidiary to the parents’, aslong as parents themselves can give their children a good upbringing (Sundell et al.,2007). Child welfare is, thus, a combination of controlling and family supportive innature (Wiklund, 2006) and is legislated through the Social Services Act (SoL). Thelaw is goal oriented (Andersson, 2001) and states that the Social Welfare Boardshould, ‘on the bases of democracy and solidarity. . . work to ensure that chil-dren and youth grow up in a safe environment’ (SoL chapter 5 § 1). Services areto be provided in cooperation with parents and may include the placement of achild in out-of-home care. Parental consent is always required when children areplaced outside their homes under the SoL. If the child is aged over 15, the child’sconsent is also required. Foster care is considered preferable to residential care andchildren should, if possible, be placed with a relative or other close adult(Andersson, 2001).

Children and youth may also come into care on a compulsory basisunder the Compulsory Care of Young Persons Act (1990: 52) (LVU) ifthere is substantial risk that the child’s health or development will sufferdue to conditions in the home environment or because of the young person’sown behaviour and if care cannot be given on a voluntary basis. When a childreceives care under LVU, parents remain legal guardians although their dis-cretionary powers are curtailed. In Sweden, regardless of whether placementsoccur under the legal mandate of SoL or LVU, when children and youngpeople are placed in out-of-home care, it is regarded as a support – andtemporary measure where family preservation remains the guiding principle.Although custody of a child in care for longer than three years can be trans-ferred to the foster parents, this is an option that is rarely exercised(Andersson, 2006).

Placement breakdown

The nature of placement breakdown

The phenomenon of placement breakdown has been studied since the 1960s.Given the poor outcomes associated with placement breakdown, research has

Khoo and Skoog 257



focused on identifying risk factors associated with breakdown (Rostill-Brookeset al., 2011) and studies have, to a large extent been based on the examination ofsocial work case files (Egelund et al., 2010; Unrau, 2007). Risk factors have mostfrequently been connected to the children in part because case files most often haveinformation about children and their parents, leaving other potential risk factorsdifficult to discover. Swedish and international research on placement breakdownhas shown that older children (Smith et al., 2001), the presence of behaviour prob-lems (Newton et al., 2000; Park and Ryan, 2009; Sallnas et al., 2004; Ward, 2009)and previous moves within the care system (Oosterman et al., 2007; Vinnerljunget al., 2001) are associated with a significantly higher risk of breakdown. Researchalso indicates that caregivers, social services and biological parents, influence thebreakdown process but findings from these studies are not consistent. Theseapproaches in quantitative research risk, as Engelund et al. (2010) explain, positingplacement instability as a single event rather than a process and that risk factors forplacement breakdown become reduced to qualities within individuals instead ofbeing seen as something that is shaped in the interaction between people andcontext.

Breakdown and foster parents

Even in qualitative studies of placement breakdown, foster parents often citechildren’s behaviour problems as a reason for breakdown. Foster parentsdescribe the safety of the family due to the child’s physically or verbally aggressivebehaviour as one reason for placement breakdown (Brown and Bednar, 2006;Gilbertson and Barber, 2003). However, interviews with foster parents haveshown that it is not just the child’s behaviour that is an important considerationbut rather it is in combination with ‘system failures’ – including a lack of pertinentinformation about the child prior to placement and a lack of supports to fosterfamilies when they asked for help – that placements, which otherwise could besaved, end up in unnecessary breakdown (Gilbertson and Barber, 2003). Fromfoster parents’ perspectives, placement breakdown occurred if the child hadneeds or behaviours that the foster parents could not meet or manage, if theirown health became problematic or if the circumstances of the family changed(Brown and Bednar, 2006). The stress that can come with being a foster parent,for example coping with hyperactivity in a child, difficulties in their relations withthe biological parents, and problems in contact with social workers can lead to anincreased feeling of stress and thus increase the risk of placement breakdown(Farmer et al., 2005).

Foster parents’ decisions to terminate placements are preceded by a substantialperiod of weighing alternatives (Wilson et al., 2000) and regardless of the reasonsgiven, placement breakdown is described as a difficult experience, marked by guiltand a sense of failure in trying to make a difference in a child’s life (Rostill-Brookeset al., 2011). Placement breakdown significantly increases the chances that a fosterparent will decide to end their role as a foster parent (Wilson et al., 2000).




Methodology

This study is informed by interpretive phenomenology and explores the experi-ences of the participants from their own perspective but moves from a descrip-tive level to interpretation (Cederborg and Gumpert, 2010). Our focus is thuson the meaning that our respondents give to events preceding and surroundingplacement breakdown rather than on risk factors associated with this phenom-enon. In this study, we carried out deep interviews with foster parents tounderstand how they experienced placement breakdown (phenomenology) andhow they make sense of and apply meaning (interpretation) to their experience.The method is based on two aims. The first one tries to understand the par-ticipants’ world and describe it with focus on the participants’ experiences ofplacement breakdown. The second aim is to analyse and interpret these find-ings in relation to the wider social and cultural context (Larkin et al., 2006) –in this case in the context of social services and the provision of out-of-homecare. Our approach is based on our interpretation of placement breakdown asan experience immediately and directly connected to the context of caring inwhich it occurs.

We recruited a purposive sample of traditional foster families (no previousrelationship to the child) to participate in this study. Using the conceptualiza-tion of placement breakdown developed by Sallnas et al. (2004), we have includedthose placements that end because of a social worker’s displeasure with the place-ment, the foster parent refuses to continue to provide care, the child runs away orrefuses to remain in the placement, or because the parent withdraws consent toplacement.

Respondents and procedures

Potential respondents were identified via a network of social workerswho work with foster care in seven municipalities. Respondents werecontacted through an information letter sent to all foster parents in these munici-palities. Those who met the inclusion criteria and who wanted to participate inthe study contacted the primary researcher. In total, eight foster parentsparticipated in this study. All respondents had biological children. Respondents’experiences as foster parents varied from one year to thirty years. The number ofchildren they had looked after varied with two presenting patterns: four fosterfamilies had had fewer than five children and four had over ten. All respondentsreceived children placed via municipal social services. Some foster families were so-called specialized foster homes and were formally employed by for-profit careagencies.

Data was collected through semi-structured interviews with foster parentsin their homes. Respondents were asked about their thoughts about being fosterparents generally and about their experiences of placement breakdown. Those whohad experienced more than one placement breakdown could choose themselves

Khoo and Skoog 259



which experience to talk about. Interviews ranged from 32 minutes to one hour and44 minutes. All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Tworesearchers analysed the interview material and engaged in analytical comparisons.Analysis was assisted using NVivo 8 software. Similarities and differences inrespondents’ stories were documented. And, from this information, categorieswere shaped (Patton, 2002) that were relevant to the studies aims, and weregrouped into relevant themes.

Findings

Foster parents’ descriptions depict placement breakdown as a consequence of along series of events preceding children actually leaving their care. In thetext following, we report on this path to placement breakdown beginningwith a description and analysis of foster parents’ motivations and then an explica-tion of their mission, the child’s arrival and everyday life in the foster home andending with foster parents’ depictions of the breakdown and of conditionsafterwards.

‘Ordinary family’ motives meet ‘extraordinary’ circumstances

Some respondents contacted social services themselves to become foster parentswhile others had previous contact with social services and eventually had fosterchildren placed in their homes. Regardless of these different starting points, ourrespondents described wanting to care for a child, to do a good deed and, mostimportantly, to offer a family. ‘To be able to help a child. I think we had a stablefamily to offer, a good environment so (. . .) our own two girls had grown so theycould take care of themselves and it felt like I wanted to give more’. The caringperspective – of wanting to support, protect and nurture a child – was a recurringtheme in many descriptions of their views of the purpose of foster care and motivesto become foster parents. The terms ‘help’ and ‘save’ were frequently used. ‘Thepurpose has to be to save, to save many’ or ‘We are a shield; if we aren’t their shieldwho else is going to be?’ Respondents also described wanting to shape independent,well-functioning citizens. There was also a clear awareness of the importance of thechild’s biological parents and of not wanting to split up families. ‘The best thingwould be if we would let children have four parents’.

After years of experience, fostering had become a lifestyle for some. ‘We’ve had alot [of children] over the years. I mean we weren’t expecting it but it has beencontinuous the whole time’ or, ‘Now so many children and young people have comeand gone that it isn’t strange for anyone in the family if a new child arrives. So I thinkit’s become a lifestyle’.

Becoming foster parents was complicated upon the arrival of a foster child intotheir families. Arrival was often marked by its acute nature, sudden decisions and alack of information. The initial placement of a child was often acute and hasty.‘It just went a day or so, then suddenly they would come here with her. It was




extremely dramatic when she arrived because she was screaming and hitting peopleand we couldn’t ever get her in here’ or ‘They called at 9 o’clock in the morning andshe was here by twelve (. . .) I told them to drive slowly so that I could get the roomtidied up and it all went so fast’.

In addition to these quick placements, foster parents describe the problem ofnot having enough information about the child’s difficulties. ‘But these were com-pletely unknown little people that we had taken in and we clearly had our share of trialand error (. . .) I remember things that I hadn’t expected like for example one was abed-wetter and that kind of thing’ or ‘Maybe not even social services knew how badthings were with her. There wasn’t a lot that agreed with what they had described,though maybe they didn’t know more either (. . .) we received a girl who we thoughtjust had problems with her parents and didn’t have problems herself’. Those fosterparents who described reasons for a lack of information named connectionsbetween the kind of financial compensation they got as foster parents, rulesaround confidentiality, and social workers’ lack of knowledge about certainkinds of problems.

The ‘ordinary’ family meets the ‘extraordinary’ child

Foster parents ideas of why children are placed and of the problems they exhibit,revealed children coming from difficult home environments who largely also havebehaviour problems themselves or show other signs of ‘doing poorly’. In particular,adolescent risk behaviour put high demands on some foster families:

She was depressed and was supposed to take medication for it and everything but it

wasn’t any better. She tried to take her life several times and things like that (. . .)

When those people at Child and Youth Psychiatry told me after, that she had tried to

take her own life and was in the ER and everything – and that we should keep a close

eye on her – an ordinary little family, like we are going to sit awake every night and

watch over her the whole time – that’s not going to work either but that’s what they

expected us to do.

Even younger children’s behaviour took a toll of foster families:

He was feeling terrible in other ways. He was like a wagon behind me also

bit by bit (. . .) he followed me everywhere and almost never left my side. Here

inside he could spend time in his room but if we went anywhere or, as he said

himself I’m like your wagon. When he didn’t see me he went directly looking for

me and trying to find out where I was (. . .), I was very, I don’t know, isolated I was

going to say.

The child’s biological parents and contact between the child and parents wasdescribed by some as an asset and by others as a strain. ‘That was the problem allthese years that she wouldn’t leave them in peace. They never set roots here (. . .) we

Khoo and Skoog 261



would have to start over in some way after every contact they had with their motherand over time they slowly drifted away from us’. It could also be described as a relief.‘So then she went and stayed with her mother and I could leave her there. It was a bitof a respite for me at that moment’. Even the foster parents’ descriptions of thechildren’s parents spanned the range of seeing their relationship as working well toseeing it as a great source of stress. For example, biological parents could bethreatening or have negative views of the foster home. In one case, the threatwas so significant that the foster parents had security alarms installed and had adirect number to the police. ‘We were supposed to be offered an ‘‘attack’’ alarm andwe were supposed to have contacts with the police. I even had my own phone numberto the police so that I really could get through to them’.

‘A cry for help’

A number of patterns emerged in how foster parents described contact with socialworkers. They described having difficulty establishing and then having very littlecontact with their social workers. They would have to telephone or email withspecific questions as a way of guaranteeing an answer or, develop independencein seeking support from other services for example the child’s school or the localchild and youth psychiatric unit. However, they also expressed an understanding ofthe difficulties faced by social workers who have too much to do and too little time:

For the most part it is I who calls and talks, tells them things and ask questions (. . .)

I mean they are supposed to follow up every six months and so more than half a year

can go by and they realize that we need to meet to do a review. (. . .) but I mean I know

they have a lot of work to do and everyone thinks that their issue is the most import-

ant (. . .) so I guess I understand that they don’t always have time for someone and

some things.

A recurring theme was the desire for more support or guidance in their role asfoster parents. This need for support was connected to a desire that a child bereferred to additional treatment services (e.g. child and youth psychiatry (CYP)).‘She did go to CYP a few times but CYP said that she was doing too poorly and wastoo unstable to continue there and with that my contact with CYP ended too. So, thenI had no contact at all and I didn’t have anyone to talk to either’. In another case, thechild was described as being passed back and forth between social services andCYP which led to neither the child nor the foster parents getting the supports theywanted. ‘Social services directed me to CYP and CYP directed to social services andthey can’t work together’.

Where support and contact with social services was described positively in spiteof placement breakdown, the consistent element in these descriptions was that thesocial worker kept in contact and responded immediately when a foster familyrequested help. ‘The social worker was sitting in some meeting so I left a messagesaying it was somewhat urgent. I don’t even think it took a minute for her to call me




back. I really appreciated that – someone dealing with things when you really need it’.Satisfaction at getting support quickly did not necessarily mean that a problem wassolved quickly or even that the social worker could deal with the situation directly.Rather, their immediate response left a positive feeling in the foster home.

‘Cutting ties – experiencing breakdown’

In our study, placements broke down for a variety of reasons. Foster parents orchildren initiated it themselves, social services ended the placements, or parentswithdrew consent to out-of-home care. In those cases where breakdown wasinitiated by social services, the decision to move/return a child was given suddenly– a quick telephone call and the placement ended. In one case, the foster parentreceived a telephone call regarding a child who had been placed for six years andthat the child, who was on a home visit with their biological mother, would not bereturning to care. ‘Then the social services called and called us into question and thenthey just told us, the child is not coming back to you (. . .) everything became onebig. . ., I still think back and wonder what happened (. . .) we never really had any kindof ending where we like sat together and talked about what happened that day.’

Where foster families initiated the breakdown, they described how they wereoverwhelmed by the child’s needs. ‘It was so difficult and I was so tired and finishedbecause he took so much of my strength and energy all the time (. . .) so one day afterI had taken him to school I just broke down’ or ‘We didn’t get any help from anywhereand (. . .) when he tried to kill himself for the third time in a week it was just toomuch’. In one case, the foster parents described how their biological children werebeing negatively impacted by the placement. ‘It started having an effect on our ownchild. He started getting very demanding and copying – (. . .) and we knew then that itwasn’t worth it’.

Regardless of the reasons for the placement breakdown, foster parents storiesshared a theme of wanting more support. ‘We called and called but we never got anysupport. They didn’t have time. I mean that might be true but we really called forhelp’. When foster parents described having a good relationship to the socialworker they did not describe placement breakdown in as negative terms as theother foster parents. These foster parents described how the social worker activelydealt with the breakdown and were clear: ‘I think Susan who was our social workerat the time did a super clear job in this case’.

The determining factor for how foster parents experienced placement break-down was not connected to who initiated breakdown. The description of theirfeelings surrounding the breakdown were described in similar ways by those whothemselves initiated the breakdown and those where someone else initiated it. All ofthe respondents descriptions of the experiences of breakdown are permeated withmore or less hard feelings where they use such words as: terribly difficult and thatthey felt upset, offended, angry and sad. Breakdown was described as creating alarge sore and discomfort as well as feelings that the foster parent was about to‘break apart or go mad’. Three foster parents described their hurt feelings and

Khoo and Skoog 263



connected them to the failure of their mission. ‘I mean they must think of us as hugetraitors and that’s what has hurt me the most that they feel like we somehow aban-doned them’, or ‘Somehow it feels like we gave up even if that wasn’t our intention. Itfeels that way now looking back’ or ‘maybe it was a failure (. . .) that I didn’t manageto give her a lasting home in that way. . .’

These negative emotions connected to breakdown were not just describedas feelings held by the foster parents but something shared by relatives, bio-logical children and other placed children. ‘The person hurt the most wasSandra. These were her sisters so it was terrible and she felt really bad because shehad already experienced difficult separation and she felt like these really were her ownsisters’.

Three of the families describe how the experience of placement was so difficultthat they were drained of energy. ‘Afterwards, I mean we had been feeling terrible fora long time and we both felt like it was too much’. ‘(. . .) In some way it leaves a trace,a long, long time afterwards’, or ‘You are completely at your end because you, I meanshe has demanded so much of your (. . .) In a way it’s like you’ve been burnt out bythis whole period’. Two foster parents describe a return to energy as somethingpositive that happened after a child was moved. ‘It took for sure a month or morebefore I felt what enormous energy she had sucked out of me because it was then thatI started getting my energy back’.

In all cases, placements ended as suddenly as they had begun. ‘I think they couldhave said this like that, ok now Alfred is going to move home and then decide that hecan come back and visit during a school break or something but there was nothing just*demonstrating a scissors cutting* just gone and so I think it’s pretty bad that thereisn’t any plan. Just quick, out, and that’s it’.

Foster parents described with dissatisfaction the level of support they receivedafter placement breakdown. It was minimal at best with the only measure offeredbeing a termination meeting with social services. Some declined this closing meet-ing because they were dissatisfied about how the whole situation was handled andreally wanted a meeting with the child. ‘We never did have an ending with socialservices. I really missed that and think we should have seen each other afterwards.’They felt their need for support was not acknowledged or provided by social ser-vices. ‘I don’t go around talking about it with anyone but it can be tough and I can’tsay that we’ve had any help with it’.

Most foster parents said that they believed breakdown could have been avoidedin some circumstances: if they had received clearer information about the childprior to the placement, if they had received support and relief during the place-ment, and if all parties to the placement sat down and discussed alternatives priorto a placement ending. Emotional scars were left upon foster parents as well asinfluencing their attitudes toward future foster caring. They did not want to takethe risk of having a child with emotional or behaviour problems because of therisks involved to the placement. And, they did not want to take younger childrenfor fear of becoming attached to – and then possibly losing – them. This could be agrief too profound to live through one more time.




‘Strong connections to children – silence from social services’

Placement breakdown did not lead to a complete cessation in contact between thefoster parents and children. All had maintained some kind of contact although therelationship clearly had changed. Contact ranged from sporadic, for example,sending birthday wishes, to regular and frequent communication. Contact contin-ued regardless of who initiated the breakdown, even in cases where foster parentscould no longer cope with a child’s negative behaviour. ‘But it is kind of nicebecause I have contact with her and she calls from time to time so actually we’vefound our way back to staying in contact’. Several families described how a child isalways welcome to visit them and that one child requested to remain in contactafter a breakdown. ‘In all her mails she says that she wants to come and visit andI always tell her that she is welcome – because she is. If ever anything happened andLinda needed something, we’d be there for her and I think she knows it’. Contactbetween foster parents and their previous foster children took place without theplanning or support of the social services. ‘She still wanted to visit us and could do itsometimes. We were told that we could be her ‘‘contact family (. . .)’’ It wasn’t any-thing written down anywhere but I have actually seen Anna every month (. . .) I triedto contact social services. I don’t know how many times I tried to call them and leftmessages but she never got back to me.’

Placement breakdown was followed by a sudden silence from social services.‘We’ve never had an ending and I haven’t heard a word since we took some of thechild’s things back home’. And it was a bitter ending. ‘I think that it’s bad on thesocial services because they went and did things this way and then they dump thefoster family and don’t care about them anymore. I mean, you’ve taken on the respon-sibility [to be foster parents] and they could at least be in touch’.

Analysis and discussion

Placement breakdown needs to be understood as a complex process rather than asingle event – starting in the contrast between foster parents’ vision of their missionand that of the social services. At least in the perception of these foster parents,there is a discrepancy between the statutory obligations of the social servicestoward the foster home and the foster parents’ perceptions of the kind of informa-tion and support they actually receive.

The caring perspective, described as a desire to offer a caring and protectivehome, to act as ‘substitute’ parents, and to raise children so that they will grow intowell-functioning adults is, in many respects, the same goal that parents have fortheir own biological children. However, the children placed with them are, at agroup level, different from other children, and this may make it more difficult tonormalize the parenting role of foster parents. Children in care in Sweden havelargely experienced both significant problems in their home environments and havehad serious behaviour problems before being placed in out-of-home care (Khooet al., 2012). At the same time – and as described in previous research (Rostill-

Khoo and Skoog 265



Brookes et al., 2011) – the foster home’s ability to prepare itself for children’s needsis often limited by the quick process involved in placing children as well as a lack ofinformation received by the foster parents about the child prior to placement. Thisdeprives foster parents of the possibility to assess their own abilities and makes itmore difficult for them to develop strategies to meet the child’s needs. Foster par-ents also described how the environment in the foster children’s home of origin andtheir own behaviour problems often and significantly affected their own family’severyday life. Their view of fostering as a form of substitute parenting can becomeproblematic as they are parenting children with difficult life experiences and oftencomplex needs. Their substitute parenting is further complicated by contact withthe child’s biological parents who often have their own problems in the form ofsubstance abuse or poor mental health (Khoo et al., 2012).

High demands are placed on foster parents’ ability to provide care and offer aloving home to children who have been raised in difficult environments and whohave behaviour problems. The foster parents in our study, however, describeaggression and emotionally labile behaviours from another perspective. Forthem, it is not the behaviour as such but rather the social services care planning(or lack thereof) and insufficient support and relief that lead to placementinstability for children with behaviour problems. Our results are supported byHyde and Kammerer’s (2009) study where children in care experienced changes inplacement because of behaviour problems connected to difficult life situationsprior to coming into care and foster parents’ uncertainty around how tomanage their behaviour. Given that teenagers with behaviour problems comprisethe largest age group of children in care in Swedish child welfare – and almost40 percent of their placements end in breakdown – a dialogue needs to take placearound how to best meet the needs of children and young people entering intoout-of-home care.

In light of these challenges, support and relief are two prerequisites that fosterparents say are necessary to handle their responsibilities. Our findings suggest thatfoster parents are treated as a normal family without being offered relief and that,to a great extent, they are left on their own to look after and handle the children intheir care. A lack of continuing support means that the road leading to giving achild care and security is travelled in the dark and without signposts.

Our study is supported by previous research (e.g. Christiansen et al., 2010)which indicates that the success of the mission of a foster parent is madepossible through the provision of information and support about the childand the foster parent role, having a good relationship to a social worker,and receiving individualized support at the right times. At the same time,our study is about foster parents’ own perceptions and cannot say anythingabout the kinds of supports that social services actually offered. In spite of theintentions of social services, the foster parents experienced a lack of informa-tion and communication and a failure to receive support and relief. Placementbreakdown is experienced negatively and is strongly perceived as a failureleaving long-lasting and strongly felt emotions. If they enter into this role




believing that they are surrogate parents until children are grown up, fosterparents certainly risk feeling like they have failed in their parenting role.

Placement breakdown was an experience characterized by its suddenness andunplanned nature – beginning and often ending with a lack of planning. A child’sproblematic behaviour could be used as an explanation for the problem of instabil-ity in out-of-home care when it may be a lack of planning on the part of socialservices that has contributed to the problem. In this sense, a failure to attend tostructural problems may lead to children being even more marginalized in the caresystem. One risk is that placing a child in care is, by itself, seen as the solution to anindividual child’s problems. This may leave the child at risk of rejection and mayresult in a child re-living the same kinds of problems experienced in their families oforigin. In these circumstances, fostering may become an unmanageable role withgoals that are impossible to fulfil and posing significant risks to both the fosterfamily and the children themselves. In spite of this study’s limited scope, fosterparents are an important source of knowledge about the foster caring experienceand the need to improve care provision. From their perspective, they point to theneed for:

1. More involvement of foster parents in the matching process; including thatfoster parents need complete information to decide, for themselves, if they arethe right family to meet the needs of specific children.

2. Care planning that includes the needs of carers for specific supports and reliefduring a child’s placement.

3. When a placement ends abruptly, do not terminate contact with foster parentsequally abruptly. Include them in the child’s care review in order for all tounderstand why the placement ended and to determine if and how contactmay continue between the child and the foster home.

Foster parents describe how these children are a part of their families and thatplaced children, in many cases, grow up as siblings to other children in the family.Foster parents, foster siblings and other relatives have become ‘significant others’for these children. Although the foster placement may have ended in breakdown,the relationship between the foster family and child was and may continue to be oflasting significance.

Funding

We wish to thank the Children’s Welfare Foundation Sweden and The Swedish Council forWorking Life and Social Research for financing this study. Many thanks also go to thefoster parents in this study who opened up their hearts and homes and shared their experi-ences with us.

References

Andersson G (2001) The motives of foster parents, their family and work circumstances.British Journal of Social Work 31(2): 235–248.

Khoo and Skoog 267



Andersson G (2006) Child and family welfare in Sweden. In: Gary C and Freymond N (eds)

Towards Positive Systems of Child and Family Welfare: International Comparison of ChildProtection, Family Service, and Community Caring Systems. London: University ofToronto Press.

Brown J and Bednar L (2006) Foster parent perceptions of placement breakdown. Childrenand Youth Service Review 28(12): 1497–1511.

Cederborg A-C and Gumpert C (2010) The challenge of assessing credibility when thealleged victims have intellectual disabilities. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research

12(2): 125–140.Christiansen Ø, Havik T and Anderssen N (2010) Arranging stability for children in long-

term out-of-home care. Child and Youth Services Review 32(7): 913–921.

Egelund T (2006) Sammenbrud i anbringelser: En forskningsmæssig belysning [PlacementBreakdown: A Research Overview]. Copenhagen: Socialforskningsinstituttet.

Egelund T, Bocker-Jakobsen T, Hammen I, Olsson M and Høst A (2010) Sammenbrud i

anbringelseraf unge [Breakdown in Youth Care]. Copenhagen: Socialforskningsinstituttet.Farmer E, Lipscombe J and Moyers S (2005) Foster carer strain and its impact on parenting

and placement outcomes for adolescents. British Journal of Social Work 35(2): 237–253.Gilbertson R and Barber J (2003) Breakdown of foster care placement: Carer perspectives

and system factors. Australian Social Work 56(4): 329–339.Hyde J and Kammerer N (2009) Adolescents’ perspective on placement moves and congre-

gate settings: Complex and cumulative instabilities in out-of-home care. Children and

Youth Services Review 31(2): 265–273.Khoo E, Skoog V and Dalin R (2012) In and out of care: A profile and analysis of children

in the out-of-home care system in Sweden. Child and Youth Services Review 34(5):

900–907.Larkin M, Watts S and Clifton E (2006) Giving voice and making sense in interpretative

phenomenological analysis. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 102–120.

Newton R, Litrownik A and Landsverk JA (2000) Children and youth in foster care:Disentangling the relationship between problem behaviours and number of placements.Child Abuse and Neglect 24(10): 1363–1374.

Oosterman M, Schuengel C, Wim Slot N, Bullens R and Doreleijers T (2007) Disruptions in

foster care: A review and meta-analysis. Children and Youth Services Review 29(1): 53–76.Park JM and Ryan JP (2009) Placement and permanency outcomes for children in out-of-

home care by prior inpatient mental health treatment. Research on Social Work Practice

19(1): 42–51.Parkinson P (2003) Child protection, permanency planning and children’s right to family

life. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 17(2): 147–172.

Patton M (2002) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. London, UK: SAGE.Rostill-Brookes H, Larkin M, Toms A and Churchman C (2011) A shared experience of

fragmentation: Making sense of foster placement breakdown. Clinical Child Psychology

and Psychiatry 16(1): 103–127.Sallnas M, Vinnerljung B and Westermark PK (2004) Breakdown of teenage

placements in Swedish foster and residential care. Child and Family Social Work 9(2):141–152.

Smith DK, Stormshak E, Chamberlain P and Whaley RB (2001) Placement disruption intreatment foster care. Journal of Emotional and Behavioural Disorders 9(3): 200–205.

Sundell K, Egelund T, Andree Lofholm C and Kaunitz C (2007) Barnavardsutredningar. En

kunskapsoversikt [Child Welfare Investigations. A Review]. Stockholm: Gothia.




Unrau Y (2007) Research on placement moves: Seeking the perspective of foster children.

Children and Youth Service Review 29(1): 122–137.Vinnerljung B and Sallnas M (2008) Into adulthood: A follow-up study of 718 young people

who were placed in out-of-home care during their teens. Child and Family Social Work

13(2): 144–155.Vinnerljung B, Sallnas M and Kyhle Westermark P (2001) Sammanbrott vid tonarsplacer-

ingar [Breakdown of Teenage Placements]. Stockholm: Socialstyrelsen.Ward H (2009) Patterns of instability: Moves within the care system, their reasons, context

and consequences. Children and Youth Services Review 31(10): 113–118.Wiklund S (2006) Den kommunala barnavarden – om anmalningar, organisation och utfall

[Municipal Child Welfare – on Reporting, Organisation and Outcomes]. Stockholm:

Stockholms universitet, institutionen for socialt arbete.Wilson K, Sinclair I and Gibbs I (2000) The trouble with foster care: The impact of stressful

events on foster carers. British Journal of Social Work 30(2): 193–209.

Khoo and Skoog 269



Documents

Qualitative Social Work 2014 Khoo 255 69