CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE
EFFECTS OF FOSTER PARENTING ON THE NATURAL
CHILDREN OF FOSTER PARENTS
A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in
Education,
Educational Psychology,
Counseling and Guidance
by
Bernice Harriet Shanin
May, 1982
The Thesis of Bernice Harriet Shanin is approved:
Adele Gotttt~
California State University, Northridge
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
To the thirty six natural children of foster parents who
made this study possible by sharing their recollections,
impressions, and insights with
me~
To Drs. Patricia Ryan and Bruce L. Warren who offered me,
a complete stranger, their time, knowledge, hospitality,
and encouragement;
To Wayne Lusvardi who gave generously of his expertise,
counsel, and assistance;
To Clare Kjolsrud who was never too busy to instruct me in
licensing procedures and statistics, despite the demands
of her position-- and to her assistant, Pamela Dubin;
To Dr. Adele Gottfried who helped me to understand the
boundaries of research;
To Dr. Sarah Moskovitz who guided me patiently through my
protracted venture;
To my husband, Hyman Shanin, who helped me in every
possible
way~
with sound advice, wise suggestions, and his
supportive presence-my profound thanks.
iii
CONTENTS
Page
APPROVAL PAGE • .
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
.
. iii
..............
ABSTRACT
ix
CHAPTER
1.
STATEMENT OF PROBLE1'1 .
Purpose
• • • .
1
•
Problem Identification • .
2.
1
3
Significance of the Problem
3
Research Question
4
.......
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
.
• •
6
6
Sibling Relationships
13
Stress and Loss Theories •
18
Biological Children Of Foster Parents • •
22
............
33
Conclusions
METHOD
38
...
Research Design
.....
Sampling Criteria and Procedures • .
Characteristics of the Sample
4.
1
Context of Problem • •
Family Dynamics
3.
.......
.....
RESULTS .
• • .
• .
iv
.
.
.
.
• .
.
.
.
.
38
39
• •
• .
.
43
48
CHAPTER
Page
Preparation of Natural Children
for Fostering (10~ 15~ 16)
...
48
Impact of Fostering on the Family
51
Ordinal Position
of Natural Children
51
(9~
11~
13).
Description of the Family
Before and After Fostering (14) .
Changes Seen in Family
(15~
17)
....
52
53
Subjective Impact of Fostering
on the Natural Children
54
Parental Attention
Following Fostering (19)
54
Differential Parental Treatment (20)
55
Encounters with
Stress and Loss
56
(12~
18)
Types of Children
Placed in the Home (22) . .
56
Control Over Foster Children's
Leaving (24)
•.••.
57
Reaction to Loss of
Foster Children (25)
58
Coping with Loss of Foster
Siblings versus Other Losses (26) • .
60
The Total Experience • • • • • . • •
60
Subjective Comparison
with Foster Children (21) .
. • •
60
Perception of Ability of Parents
to Foster Difficult Children (23)
61
Consideration of Absence
of Foster Children (27)
61
......
Miscellaneous Responses
Concerning Fostering (29) . • • . • .
v
62
Page
CHAPTER
Consideration of
Becoming Foster Parents (28)
5.
DISCUSSION
63
.......
...
64
Preparation of Natural Children for
Fostering (10: 15: 16). • • . • .
65
Ordinal Position of Natural Children
(9: 11: 13)
• • . . . • .
67
Description of the Family Before and
After Fostering: Family Changes
(14: 15: 17)
• . . • • . • .
67
Subjective Impact of Fostering
on the Natural Children . • .
.
.
.
.
69
Parental Attention Following Fostering
(19)
• • . • • . . . • . • •
69
Differential Parental Treatment (20) • •
70
Encounters with
Stress and Loss (12: 18: 22)
71
Types of Children -Placed in the Home
(23)
. • • . . . • . . • . •
72
Control Over Foster Children's
Leaving (24) • . • • . •
72
Reaction to Loss of Foster Children:
Coping with Other Losses (26)
• . • . 73
The Total Experience
.......
Subjective Comparison
with Foster Children (21)
. • • 75
. 75
Perception of Ability of Foster Parents
to Foster Difficult Children (23) • . • 76
Consideration of Lack
of Foster Children (27)
Miscellaneous Responses
Concerning Fostering (29)
vi
. . • . • . • 77
• . • . . • 78
Page
Consideration of
Becoming Foster Parents (28) . • . . • 78
CHAPTER
Implications and Recommendations
.
. • • 79
82
Suggestions for Further Research
..........
FOOTNOTES
....
................
REFERENCES .
REFERENCE NOTES
APPENDIXES • .
• 84
.
•
• • 86
• 91
•
..
• 92
A.
Initial Letter to Foster Parents •
B.
Follow up Letter to Foster Parents
• 94
c.
Letter to Natural Children Living in Area.
.
D.
Letter to Natural Children Living Outside
Los Angeles Area
E.
Directions for
F.
Questionnaire.
100
G.
Questionnaire with Responses • •
109
H.
Code Book for Research Project •
120
I.
Code Worksheet • .
128
........
Questionnaire . . . . .
• .
vii
• 92
95
. 97
. 99
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table
1.
Subjects Eliminated from Study • . . • . . . . 42
2.
Personal and Occupational Characteristics
3.
Natural Children•s Participation
in the Parental Decision to Foster
• • 45
• • • • 50
4.
Ordinal Position Change by
Foster Children of Natural Children • • . . 51
5.
Comparison of Anticipated and
Actual Changes Related to Fostering . • • . 53
6.
Differential Parental Treatment
of Natural/Foster Children
55
7.
Reaction to Loss of Foster Children
8.
Subjective Comparison with Foster Children • • 61
9.
Consideration of Becoming Foster Parents • • . 63
viii
• • 59
ABSTRACT
EFFECTS OF FOSTER PARENTING ON THE NATURAL
CHILDREN OF FOSTER PARENTS
by
Bernice Harriet Shanin
Master of Arts in Education, Educational Psychology,
Counseling and Guidance
This is a retrospective, exploratory study on the
adult natural children of foster parents, to determine
what effects growing up with foster children had upon
them.
There is considerable research on foster children
and foster parents, but little on foster parents' own
children.
Thirty six subjects were drawn from a population of
2063 foster homes in Los Angeles County which relinquished
their licenses between 1979-1981 and met the criteria
established for this study.
were male
Most had
respondents~
siblings~
Nineteen were female and 17
34 were white and two were black.
were in the 20-24 age
ix
bracket~
were
married, with
had a high school
children~
and
education~
were employed in blue collar jobs.
Personal interviews were conducted with 33 of the
respondents, employing a semi-structured questionnaire in
an effort to determine the effects on them.of the frequent
changes and adjustments in their families,
modification of
birth order, crises of family members entering and leaving
the home, and the repetition of loss and grief experiences.
The findings include the following:
Negative aspects
were loss of parental attention and family privacy,
quent family readadjustments, crises and losses.
effects were appreciation of home and parents,
fre-
Positive
sensitivity
to others, pride in giving, broadening of experience, and
sense of strength with higher self-esteem.
On the basis of these findings, a number of recommendations are advanced:
a) Acknowledgement of and inclu-
sion of natural children in agency foster services from
first to last
contact~
b) university foster training pro-
grams, including focus on own
children~
and c) a longitu-
dinal study on own children from beginning to end of
fostering
experience.
X
CHAPTER 1
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to learn how the adult
biological children of foster parents now view their
childhood experience of growing up with foster children in
their homes.
This study will be exploratory and retrospective in
nature, as there is no known research dealing with the
natural children of foster parents.
Problem Identification
Interest in the topic for this study was generated by
the following incidents in the course of this writer's
work with foster parents as a children's services worker
at the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social
Services (DPSS), and in a field placement in the community:
After a foster mother was hospitalized for an
'insignificant heart spasm', one of her adult
children, married and living on her own, called DPSS
to advise that her mother had really suffered a heart
attack.
The daughter warned that her mother would
die if she kept caring for foster children~ but she
would also die if she were no longer allowed to do
so.
The foster father and the other natural siblings
turned on this daughter angrily, denying her
1
2
allegations.
The mother's cardiologist later
certified to the mother's continuing ability to
foster.
In a drug detoxification center, a 36 year old woman
addicted to pain pills told about her multiple, unsuccessful surgeries and her inability to care for
herself outside of a board and care home where she
had been living. She advised that her mother was a
foster mother who had been caring for emotionally
disturbed girls while she had been growing up. She
stated that her mother had been able to care for 'all
those girls', but 'She couldn't take care of me•.
Mr. B., whose parents didn't start fostering ~ntil
after he was a married man with children of his own,
indicated that he was amazed at the anger and
jealousy which he had felt after his parents started
fostering. He resented sometimes being told by his
mother that she was too busy to comply with some of
his requests. He was furious to hear his foster
sister call his mother 'Mom• and to become part of
his family. I t took him a long time to work through
these feelings.
A foster mother related how an infant had been
•temporarily' placed in the foster home pending
adoption. The adoption did not materialize, however,
until the baby was 18 months old. Then, she said,
when it had been removed to its adoptive home, 'it
was like a death in the family'.
The strong feelings evidenced in the above selected
situations point out the emotional investment that the
children of foster parents have in their parents• foster
parenting, the part natural children play in the foster
home constellation,
and the impact fostering has on the
natural child and the family unit.
This study proposes to
explore the nature of these suggestive experiences of
natural children of foster parents in greater depth.
3
Context of the Problem
Foster homes in Los Angeles are licensed by the Los
Angeles County Department of Public Social Services {DPSS)
as a delegate agency for the state of California.
This study is limited to those foster homes which
were located in Region V of the DPSS Bureau of Social
Services when they stopped fostering.
This area roughly
covers the San Fernando, Santa Clarita, and Antelope Valleys, and the Greater Pasadena area.
While various social services are provided to foster
parents by licensing and children's services workers {social workers),
it has been neither the policy nor the
practice of DPSS to involve the natural children of foster
parents in the ongoing fostering process in any way.
Significance of the Problem
Foster homes become necessary when children are unable to remain in their own homes.
The reasons can in-
clude the illness or death of a parent; the neglect or
abuse by a parent; or the child's own disturbed behavior.
When no relative can be found to care for the child, a
foster home must be sought. 1
Foster parents are persons who provide a home, parental care, and nurturance for children who are unrelated to
them.
While foster homes can consist of single persons or
married couples, many include the foster parents' own
children as well.
The focus of this study is on the
4
latter type of foster home.
In making an adjustment to foster homes,
foster
children must adjust to the children who are already in
the home: foster and natural.
It is expected that if the
foster child cannot get along with the natural children,
the child will have to leave.
If the foster child is not
able to return to his/her own home, it is least traumatic
for that child not to have to be moved in and out of a
succession of different foster homes.
In studying the
effects of fostering on the natural children in the home,
it is hoped that information will emerge which will point
to ways in which both the placements and the foster homes
themselves can be preserved.
This should benefit all of
the children, natural and foster,
as well as the community
at large.
Research Question
This study will attempt to answer the following:
How
do the adult, biological children of foster parents now
feel about their childhood experience of sharing their
homes with foster children?
This study will endeavor to determine how the natural
children of the foster parents were affected by the frequent changes and adjustments in their families: the modification of sibling birth order: the crises of family
members entering and leaving their homes: and the repetition of loss and grief experiences.
Assessment will like-
5
wise be made of the strengths and weaknesses resulting
from the above experiences and their effect on the way in
which the natural children now view themselves.
~
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
There is
~onsiderable
ture on foster parents,
general,
research reported in the litera-
foster children, and fostering in
with minimal regard for the presence of the
foster· parents• own children in the foster home constellation.
Research appears to be geared toward providing the
most therapeutic milieu for the foster child.
When the
biological or natural children are alluded to in the
literature, it is generally in relation to the success of
the placement of the foster child.
Babcock ( 1965) s·tates
that the "effect of foster care on own children is a
subject worthy of further research" (p. 490).
The significance of the natural children of the foster
parents to the family constellation will be explored from
the vantage point of family dynamics,
foster families,
intrafamilial relationships, sibling rivalries and
strengths, and crisis and loss theories.
Family Dynamics
Freeman (1960, Note 1) describes three systems that
comprise the family:
the husband-wife relationship, the
parent-child relationship, and the sibling relationships.
6
7
"The foster family differs from the modern nuclear family
in that the foster family is an open system whereas the
nuclear -family is semiclosed" (Eastman, 1979, p. 564). The
proper balance of openness to allow for the inclusion of
foster children and closure to permit secure,
defin~d
boundaries is necessary to enable the family to identify
.
/
/
itself in relation to the commun1 ty at large and to proteet its boundaries.
11
/
/
When a foster family is to,d open it
risks entropy through the loss of its identi ty 11 (Eastman,
p. 565).
Ackerman defines the concept of homeostasis as
"the ability of the individual or family unit to respond
adaptively to both internal and external changes in a
manner which insures the integrity of the unit and its
further development" (1969, p. 70).
He elaborates on what
he means by homeostasis:
'Homeostasis' of mother and child and man and wife
are linked to the homeostasis of the entire family
group. The balance of relations between mother and
child are affected by the balance between mother and
father, father and child, child and sibling, etc.
Moving a step further, the internal organization of
the family is influenced by the family's position in
the larger community (p. 78).
Laing ( 196 7) views the family as " •.. a system of
interaction and interexperience in which each person's
action is experienced by self and the others". He sees
family systems as varying "enormously in their complexity
and in the extent of the ramifications of their many
interrelated sub-systems."
Each family member is not only
8
a member of a "twosome" but also a "third party" to other
twosomes, with each person being a "synthesizer of the
interactions of the others" (Laing,
p. 108).
In Monane's
(1967) view, the number of persons in the family also
affect the family sub-systems.
For example, "Systems of
two people, such as husband and wife, are marked by high
tension and emotion •.• "
maintain the system.
A "delicate balance" is needed to
With the introduction of more per-
sons, however, the intensity of the relationship is relaxed, thus changing the system.
He sees the five member
family as being the most "personally satisfying" and-regardless of size--the odd-numbered family systems are
seen to foster less internal strife (p. 28).
Dodson and Kurpuis (1977) also view the family as a
system:
A family is constantly thrown off balance as it interacts within itself and with the world....
Every
change affects the equilibrium of the family system
(p.
20).
Wilkes (1974) points out that with the cross-relationships
in the family, "The addition of one more child greatly
increases the numbers of relationships available in the
home ••• one foster child added to a family of three increases the possible groups from four to eleven" (p. 374).
Also,
familiar patterns of family activity may also be
upset by the foster child:
!' •••• Meal time
conversations,
deciding which television show to watch, visiting a rela-
9
tive, taking a trip, playing games-- all of these activities are altered by the presence of another child" (p.
374).
The foster child is entering into a unique unit which
Ackerman describes:
Each family unit has a 1 ife and growth of its own: a
characteristic psychological and social identity, an
inner face and outer face, and corresponding
strivings, values and expectations~ a pattern of unity
and stability, and a configuration of family role
relationships uniquely its own. The character and the
development of the family through time derive its
levels of joined experience of family members (p.
374).
This unique character developed by each family leaves its
mark on each of its members.
Ackerman indicates that a
family can stress inner spiritual
discipline and
closeness.
self-control~
life~
status and
pleasure~
money~
openness or
The effects on the individual vary:
In its positive aspect, family cohesion is expressed
in warm, close, cooperative family relations~ this may
lead to a strengthening of its members and promote
free and creative personal development.
In its
negative aspect, a compensatory and excessive
barricading of the family group.... may enormously
magnify their perception of the outer world as harsh
and dangerous (p. 341).
Likewise, when a family is either an open or closed
system, it can lead family members towards a friendly
reaching out to others or to a withdrawing, hostile
rejection (p. 342).
The foster child who is admitted to
this family constellation constitutes " •••• a
significant
10
stress and always causes disruption in the existing
transactional patterns" (Wilkes,
p. 374).
Littner (1978)
indicates that integration of another child into the
foster family can be either easy or difficult.
a problem,
When it is
"Adding a child to the family involves more
care and may stir up problems in the children already in
the home.
Sometimes the foster child's personality is not
compatible with those of the children already in the
family" (pp. 9-10).
By definition,
the foster family is a more stressful
place than the "ordinary" family home:
"The pressures on
a foster parent are enormous, the expectations by her of
herself are extremely high, and the expectations of her by
others are often extraordinary,
if not impossible"
(Littner, p. 3).
Pressures on the foster parents include caring for
foster children who are extremely needy and usuallv
-·•·n·-·••-•"-••••""'
~~-~•
emotionallydamaged, to dealing with their natural
parents, to forming loving attachments which can be lost
at any time, and being answerable to the placing (of
foster children) agency.
But sometimes the foster parent feels that she is
living in a fish bowl. She may find it extremely
difficult to have a social worker constantly looking,
as it seems, over the foster mother's shouldersomeone who is spying on her and judging her, ••.• And,
of course, hanging over the head of some foster
parents is a Damocles sword - the fear that the agency
may remove the child at any time if the agency does
not approve of the foster parent (Littner, p. 8).
11
Wilkes states that "Fostering has a significant impact on
the foster home."
ing four stresses:
He sees the foster family as encounter"the stress of the disruption of the
family equilibrium; the stress of coping with the child in
transition; the stress of dealing with the alien agency;
and the stress of harboring great expectations" (p.
373).
Knowing just how much of themselves to invest in the
foster child is also stressful to the family:
"If a deep
relationship is broken on short notice this can be traumatic; but if the parents keep themselves emotionally distant,
this can be rejecting" (Wilkes, p. 375).
(1964) asks,
Lawder
"What kinds of families can endure the repe-
tition.of receiving and caring for deeply deprived children, one after another?"
(p. 60).
The experience of
including a succession of foster children into the family
system,
she anticipates, will have an effect:
" .••• when
children with serious problems are placed, they may be the
catalytic agent to arouse dormant problems in foster parents and in foster families" (p. 63).
"The alien agency,"
as it might appear to the foster family,
"doesn't give the
family time to consider the placement request and never
takes the time to see that the family's own children
understand what is going to happen" (Wilkes, p. 376).
Even grown-up children who are essentially on their
own can be upset by their parents' plans to become foster
parents.
Dickerson's (1978) children were not prepared
12
for the family changes even though their parents had
previously advised them of their tentative plans to become
foster parents:
"I had assumed that they were so involved
in their own lives that they would have only passing
interest in what we did."
But this was not the case.
Her
adult, unmarried son "was overtly and instantly critical
of the 'whole damn plan'.
'You must be insane' was the
least extreme statement he made" (pp. 15-16).
According to Monane (1967),
the children in the
family are better able to adjust to the norm requirements
of school and play when they are reared in homes of norm
clarity: where the boundaries of the foster family system
are clearly defined.
With clear norms and expectations,
both the incoming foster children and the foster family's
own children will know where they stand.
The natural
children in the home would thus be able to make easier
adjustments to the succession of foster children entering
and leaving their home.
Due to the indeterminant and
temporary nature of most placements, if the foster family
fully integrates the foster child into its family,
the foster child leaves,
loss.
when
family members must deal with
"Just as a foster child may have a hard time know-
ing to whom he belongs, the foster family may have a hard
time knowing who belongs to it.
Each new foster child has
a different impact on the family" (Eastman, p. 568).
The admission of the first foster child into the
13
family is the most traumatic for the family.
must develop new patterns of relating.
"The family
Considerable
transition and adjustment are necessary" (Eastman, p.
568). The arrival of the foster child also heralds the
inciusion of the child's natural family,
the regulations
and pressures of the social service agency, and the scrutiny and involvement of the social worker.
The foster
family is placed in a fish bowl type of existence in its
exposure both to the agency and to the community.
"It is
reasonable to ask how much stress a foster family can be
expected to cope '"i th" (Eastman,
p. 568).
Sibling Relationships
As one of the aforementioned (Freeman) segments of the
three systems which comprise the family, siblings are
oe_ingc
~or
f3-~-~I;I,:;:~ii1creas~ngly
study.
,·
~
"'
as a previously
--
•
--
-
-
•
ignor~<:LNf3~l:l_bj ect
<
-·-
__ , ______ _..
··---
--
-
Pfouts (1976) maintains that "the systems
approach that is central to family therapy forces examination ••.• of the sibling sub-system" (p. 200).
Irish
(1964) states that "Interaction with siblings functions as
one avenue for the socialization of children" (p.
282).
Coopersmith (1967) points out that "The child's siblings
provide him with the most readily available sources of
comradeship and stimulation as well as his immediate and
threatening competition" (p. 160).
Schvaneveldt and
Ihinger (1979) indicate that "Siblings are key family
members and often central to the quantity and quality of
14
family interaction" (p. 453).
the family,
Siblings foster openness in
form sibling sub-systems, and wield power.
Also - - - "There is less interaction and less intensity
of confrontation between parents and children in larger
families" (p. 465), they found.
Many things influence the sibling relationship:
Sibling relationships can be influenced by gender,
age, number, spacing interval, the ratio of male to
female sibs, age of parents at time of birth .•••
Family guests, strangers in the family, extended kin,
and roomers may all influence the complexity and nature of sibling relationships (p. 457).
Parents can affect sibling fighting,
study done by Levi,
Buskila,
according to the
and Gerzi (1977):
Sibling
fighting can be lessened if the parents do not intervene
in the conflict.
This also prevents siblings from
garnering parental attention or increasing their selfesteem at the expense of a sibling.
Their study tested
the contention of Dreikurs and Soltz (1964) that "When
left to their own devices, chil·dren establish far more
equal and just relationships than we can provide for them"
(p.
213).
Pfouts (1976) asserts that "any theorist or clinician
who has ever lived in a family having more than one child
is aware that siblings affect one another in important
ways" (p. 200).
Sibling interaction is marked by
ambivalence and complexity.
particularly volatile:
The relationship is therefore
"Love and hate are the two sides
15
to the sibling coin" {p. 203).
Coopersmith
{1967)
asserts
that
" .••. high self-esteem
is more likely to develop where there is mutual support
among siblings than where they are distant or antagonistic" (p. 161).
The effects of birth order on personality,
self-
esteem, and future success have been studied by various
authors.
Adler {1954) recognized the importance of birth
order on the siblings' personality and outlook toward
life. The oldest child "is usually the one whom one accredits with enough power and common sense to be the
helper or foreman of his parents" {Adler, p. 126).
oldest child,
in particular,
understands power.
The
"Second-
born children are constantly under steam, striving for
superiority under pressure" {p. 126):
And the second born
might spend his/her entire life trying to reach the goal
of overcoming the first born.
The youngest child might
either put forth tremendous energy into excelling every
other member of the family or retreating from an attempt
at competition, "forever seeking an excuse to evade his
duties" {p. 124).
Arnstein {1979) indicates that "Some of the resentments and misunderstandings known to brothers and sisters
have their source in birth order" (p. 89).
The first
child is encouraged to "achieve and fulfill parental
dreams and goals" {p. 88).
To this first born, the birth
16
of a sibling seems like "paradise lost":
"if the eldest
comes to feel that there is enough love to go around, the
intruder gradually becomes less of a menace and threat,
perhaps a pesky nuisance, yet also a wanted and needed
companion" (pp. 92-93 ).
On the other hand,
"Some first-
borns never forgive their sister or brother for having
appeared on the scene at all" (p. 94).
Fishel (1979)
finds that the firstborn sister, in becoming a surrogate
mother, can "transform the pain of displacement, the agony
of rivalry and the disappointment of no longer being the
baby into a psychological advantage" (p. 63).
The middle position is viewed by Fishel as the most
treacherous slot in a family of same-sex siblings.
But,
the middle sister may be more even-keeled and hang-loose
than her more driven older sister, more gregarious and
sociable, and a good negotiator, hammering out a middle
path,
a compromise between extremes" (p. 72).
Neverthe-
less, Arnstein sees the middle child as having "to struggle even harder" to strengthen a "shaky sense of identity"
(p.
113).
Fishel indicates that the youngest can be "favored and
deprived .•• specially singled out,
too, ••• "
(p. 85).
and somehow neglected,
The youngest seems to have things
easier and to receive privileges at an earlier age, yet
the youngest is vulnerable to being "bossed" by her older
siblings.
When growing up, the youngest never seems able
17
to catch up.
Sears (1970) indicates that younger siblings
have generally poorer self-concepts than the older ones:
They "have the everlasting handicap of being smaller,
younger,
(p.
less effective than their older competitors, .....
284).
While sibling relationships and rivalries may or may
not have been resolved by the time the siblings have
reached adulthood, rivalry can still surface later
(Fishel, p. 155).
This was seen where men had
dev~loped
emotional illness after their wives became pregnant, according to Cavenar and Butts (1977),
"In all of the cases,
the patients had experienced sibling rivalry at a significant time in their lives" (pp. 429-431).
The birth of
their own child activated long-suppressed feelings that
the patients had experienced upon the birth of a sibling.
Samuels and Chase (1979) found in their study of
siblings of schizophrenics that "Guilt was a predominant
emotion in the lives of all of our subjects" (p. 35).
In
older sisters, "Their relationships with their ill sisters
are affected by earlier sibling rivalry.
So pervasive
does this guilt appear to be that even "a psychiatrist who
has adopted a biochemical theory of the etiology of
schizophrenia •.• " still "experiences guilt over her
hostility toward her sister as a child" (p. 33).
Sears (1970) indicates that the size of the family,
namely the number of siblings in it, determines a child 1 s
18
self-concept:
" ••• parents have only so much time and
energy to devote to their children.
Hence, the more
children there are, the greater the competition for
parental attention" (p.
283).
His research supported his
prediction that "The larger the family, the poorer was a
child's self-concept." --regardless of ordinal position
(p.
284).
that,
Coopersmith {1967),
on the other hand,
states
"Family size is unrelated to self-esteem" (p. 163).
Pfouts (1976) found that more successful siblings in
the family's culturally valued areas had higher selfesteem.
The maladjusted child had lower self-esteem and a
higher degree of hostility towards the successful
sibling.
Stress and Loss Theories
Helen Mendes (1979) defines crisis as a time when the
family "is confronted with an event for which their usual
coping mechanisms don!t work!! (Note 2j.
Wallar (1951)
indicates that when the family is unable to maintain its
equilibrium when inundated by change, the usual role patterns will change as the family attempts to cope with
stress.
There are three major categories of family crisis:
accession-- the addition of an unprepared for member, by
unwanted pregnancy or the inclusion of relatives: dismemberment-- loss of family members by death, hospitalization, or other separation: and demoralization-- loss of
19
family morale and solidarity by alcoholism, unemployment,
divorce, etc. (Wallar).
Each family must mobilize its
collective resources to cope with the crisis.
In evaluating a prospective foster family,
Child Wel-
fare League of America (1975) recommends that part of the
licensing agency•s assessment include the foster parents•
"current functioning in relation to everyday living,
well as in relation to stress or crisis."
as
Consideration
should also be given to the foster family•s "history of
reactions to stress" and "information about separation or
loss .•• "
(p.
60).
Wilkes (1974) believes that "Stress is a neutral enti ty in mental health.
It is how stress is dealt with
that makes for growth or decay" (p. 378).
Stress does not
have to be negative, however:
The impact of fostering on the foster family can also
have positive results. The equilibrium of the foster
family may be disrupted, but the re-equilibrium may
produce more openness and awareness in family
members. The foster family•s 0\in children may develop
greater awareness of the strengths in their own home,
and their understanding of the world may be broadened.
The experience with a child in transition may allow
the family to begin to be less threatened by the
transitory quality of life itself, and in this deep
but transitory relationship they may find strength for
dealing with their own separations (p. 378).
According to Hill 1 s (1968) theory,
as a result of a
crisis, a person can achieve better mental health, return
to the same mental health, or descend to poorer mental
health.
In the aforementioned example of Wilkes (1974),
the foster family would have emerged from the crisis with
20
better mental health than it had enjoyed previously, having employed the necessary coping mechanisms needed to
deal with the crisis effectively.
Hill's diagram,
as
modified by Sachs (1968), illustrates what can happen
during a crisis and its resolution (p. 113).
ETTER MENTAL HEALTH
TO SAME MENTAL HEALTH
Person going
along life
The type of recovery made after a crisis depends on
the nature of the crisis, the coping mechanisms, or
processes of problem-solving .. ,
113).
11
the
according to Sachs (p.
Dodson and Kurpuis (1977) refer to the ways in
which a family responds to crisis as either
or
11
adapti ve 11 or
11
COping 11 (p.
25).
11
maladaptive 11
Depending on how the
family copes, it will either fail to grow, or, by. learning
new behaviors, will make positive growth.
A crisis can also lead to
according to Hooker (1976),
11
learned helplessness .. ,
if the person does not see the ,
event as being dependent on his/her own actions and
therefore controllable:
11
Learned helplessness is the
result of the belief that the person has no control over
21
the precipitating event" (p. 194).
"Like learned
helplessness, the definition of the crisis state is also
contingent on the cognitive operations of the affected
individual" (p. 197).
It is the individual then who
defines whether a crisis exists, and how it is resolved
will depend on that person's belief system:
.••• this belief in one's own effectiveness is learned
through experience with situations in which one's
actions control the outcome of traumatic events. In
contrast, learned helplessness develops when one fails
to learn this conjunction between action and outcome
(p. 197).
Lindemann and Klein (1961) view loss as a
situation".
·~azardous
The possible "predicaments" which can lead to
crisis are loss of a significant relationship, the introduction of one or more new people into one's orbit, and
transition in social status and role relationships.
According to Tanner (1980),
and symbolic meaning:
loss can have both real
"Real loss involves loss of person:
object or function ••••• Symbolic loss would include a
of self-esteem,
stature, or family role" (p. 917).
loss
Anxi-
ety can also result from "loss of predictability of usual
reinforcements" since "Humans obtain a feeling of security
when they know which behaviors will result in rewards and
which behaviors will result in punishment" (p. 919).
The
grief following this loss can be expected to cover KublerRoss's (1969) five stages of denial,
depression, and acceptance.
anger,
bargaining,
Tanner concludes that "Grief
22
is an experience in growth and transformation" (p. 928).
Simos (1979) states that "Loss is defined as being deprived of or being without something one has had and
valued and includes the experiences of separation.
The
term is applied both to the act of severance leading to
the loss, as well as to a temporary loss, and to the fear
of 1 o s s " ( S i mo s , p. 1 ) •
When loss occurs , it "sets in
motion a train of feelings called grief.
In grief, normal
means feeling not happy rather than happy" (p. 2).
vlhen
this grief is not dealt with and resolved, it can be the
"forerunner for a wide range of physical, mental, and
emotional disorders" (Simas, p. 2).
The person who has
sustained a loss will be leery of future losses, thus
possibly being prevented from enjoying a current relationship.
Biological Children of Foster Parents
The importance of one of the segments of the foster
family unit is sometimes inferred in the research.
A
request that a foster child be removed from the home might
result from "... a report by the foster father that the
foster child's presence in the home is having a negative
effect on him, his wife or his children" (Aldridge and
Cautley, 1975, p. 451).
Sometimes, this is the only time
the agency has contact with the foster father.
23
••• when a child of the foster parents and the foster
child are not getting along, specific help is
desirable.
Reassurance that such rivalry and
disagreement represent normal behavior and are common
in fosterhornes can aid, particularly if accompanied by
suggestions on how to give each child individual
attention and help each establish his own. •niche• in
the family (p. 451).
Having two children of their own in the home is one of
the variables contributing to a successful foster horne,
unless the rnoti vation of the foster parents is to have a
foster child who will be a companion to their own child
(Kraus,
1971, pp. 63-72).
Another study on the
predictability of successful foster horne placements
revealed that one positive measure of success out of six
such measures was the foster rnother•s
11
differentiation in
regard to her own children 11 (Cautley and Aldridge, 1975,
p. 53).
This was defined as the extent to which she was
able to consider each of her own children as a distinct
individual when she described what pleased or concerned
each one.
Child Welfare League (1975) wants future foster
parents to have the capacity
11
to give proper consideration
to feelings of own children, positive and negative, in
arriving at a plan to care for foster children 11 and
11
to
absorb the presence of a foster child and their own
children•s ability to do so without undue disruption of
the farnily•s life ..... (p. 61).
In discussing
11
All Under One Roof .. , Ryan, Warren, and
24
McFadden (1979) list several specific goals and suggestions for all of the children in the foster home.
include helping
11
These
each child to understand the difference
between 'natural', 'adoptive', and 'foster' and to see his
ov1n relationship to the family as a positive force in his
life regardless of which relationship .. {p.
124).
The following are some of the other specific goals recommended:
To develop rules and techniques for sharing and
privacy, community property and personal
ownership so that each child has a fair share of
the good things, responsibilities, chores, and
parental attention.
To recognize the insecurity and/or guilt that can
develop in a child when other children leave or
are less fortunate.
To develop techniques so that all the children in
a family are involved -in family decisions about
fostering and adoption.
To develop skills in making plans to incorporate
the entire family in welcoming children.
To recognize the mourning of each family member
over their separation from a previous family
member (p. 124).
While the biological children can learn that
separation is a fact of life, they can also learn that it
can occur without losing parents.
They will also need to
deal with their possible feelings of guilt when a child
leaves and they get to stay.
Yet the whole family will
need to find that everyone can grow as the result of
separation (Ryan et al., 1979).
25
Whatever the pluses and minuses in sharing one's
parents and home with foster children,
the biological
children face more pressures and variables in their
adjustment to their family than do children in an
"average" nuclear family.
positions and adjust
leaves the home.
The family members shift
anew every time a child enters or
"For the biological child, it may mean
learning to share Mom and Dad, and learning that he can
share and not lose.
Foster children often appear to get
extra attention" (Ryan et al, p. 124).
Because of the different backgrounds and problems of
the foster children, agency policy regarding discipline
for foster children (which precludes physical punishment
in California),
and the attention these children often
require, the biological children of foster parents will be
bound to receive differential treatment from their
·parents.
"When different treatment is necessary,
it is
better to bring it out in the open and discuss the
reasons" (p. 125).
Sometimes, for the good of the family,
a decision has to be made about a problem foster child
"whether the family will make sacrifices for the good of
the child or the child will have to leave for the good of
the other family members" (p. 126).
In their training classes for foster parents at
Eastern Michigan University,
Ryan, et al. include several
activities which stress that, "Fostering is a total family
26
commitment" (p. 16).
They discuss how the entire family
can be involved in the decision to foster.
suggests that children of various ages,
children old enough to talk" (p.
change,
" ••• including any
73) can decide whether
the family will become a foster family.
make the decision,
Ryan (1979)
To help children
"Explain to them how things will
and listen to their feelings.
The family can
negotiate a time limited contract to see how things will
work out" (p.
73).
They can all help decide "which toys,
games and equipment belong to the family as a whole,
and
which articles are individual possessions" (Ryan et al.,
p. 127).
They also hear adults who were the natural
children of foster parents discuss their recollections of
how i t had felt to share their room and belongings, the
fantasies they had had when foster children left, wondering whether their parents had loved the foster children
better than them,
they had gained,
evaluating what they had lost and what
and how it could have been better (Ryan
el al. ) .
Ryan (1979) attempts to differentiate between the
various age-related concerns of the natural children:
Q
What might a pre-schooler find difficult about
having foster children in the family?
A
Sharing attention, toys, and other goodies.
Separation. As children leave, pre-schoolers may
feel they, too, will be sent away.
Q
What might a school-age child find difficult about
having a foster child in the family?
27
A
Sharing attention.
Fewer goodies, treats, etc.
Embarrassment if the foster children act
differently than the child expects, expecially in
public. Separation trauma. May feel being a
foster child is better than being a natural child.
Q
What might an adolescent find difficult about
having a foster child in the family?
A
Sharing attention. Fewer goodies, less clothes.
Invasion of privacy.
Embarrassment about child 1 s
behavior or status.
Q
Why would any child want to share his home with
other children?
A
It can be fun to have a lot of siblings.
Feeling
of sharing and helping is rewarding. Learn about
differences between people and that it is not
necessarily bad to be different.
Q
How can I make sure my own child • s needs are met
when I have foster children?
A
By setting aside time each day, or at least each
week, for each individual child (Ryan, 1979, pp.
73-75).
Arnstein (1979) also sees sharing as a positive
experience:
11
Sharing of one•s •property• not only
contributes to a sense of self-esteem and pride, but
provides the added reward of being on the giving side,
observing the expression of appreciation and joyous
response of the recipient .. (p. 59).
Other benefits to the natural children are one of the
most frequent reasons that foster parents give for wanting
to foster: They want their children to learn how children
grow and how to take care of them.
Own children are
encouraged to help with their care (Babcock, 1965).
Many of the aforementioned concerns were encountered
28
in the following study dealing with the foster parents of
pre-adoptive children.
In this latter situation,
the
expectation was for the babies and children to be in the
home on a short-term basis, whereas in most "regular"
placements the length of time is usually an unknown
factor.
Sacks (1966) relates that the Louise Wise Services in
New York City found that since all family members were
involved in the care of the foster children, that there
should be casework contacts with "every member of the
household" (p. 568}:
Our homefinders interview all children of prospective
foster parents during the home study. The impact of
temporary foster care on the children is discussed in
relation to their age levels. We are concerned with
the effect on the children of the coming and going of
many babies and with the way this is handled by their
parents (Sacks, p. 570).
"The foster parents need help in handling their own
children's concerns and questions about these babies who
come and go" (Sacks, p. 569).
One foster mother who was
herself the daughter of foster parents "vividly described
the crying spells that her then 2 1/2-year-old brother had
whenever he saw the social worker."
that he would be taken away.
He had been fearful
Another foster mother re-
lated how her 5-year-old child had told the social worker,
11
The baby belongs to
ever,
and ever. 11
you~
I belong to Mommy forever, and
The mothers found that "their own chil-
dren need constant reassurance that they belong perma-
29
nently to their family" (p. 570).
Ellis (1972) relates that forty group home foster
parents were interviewed to explore "the effects on the
own children of group home foster parents of having to
share their parents, home, friends, and lives with
emotionally disturbed foster children" (p. 165).
It was
found that the own children between 7-13 years old were
most affected by living in the group home situation.
For
the most part, this age group in particular fared best
when the foster children were not of the same age.
So did
the other natural children.
The conclusions reached regarding the establishment
of a group home were as follows:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Making the decision t~o form a group foster home a
family decision~
considering the age factor in selecting foster
children for a particular group~
utilizing assistance offered by the agency,
through the social worker assigned to each home,
in dealing with own children's problems as well
as those of the foster children~
dealing with different expectation levels for
each group of children~
concentrating on assisting own children to
adjust~
6)
helping each member of the.family establish his
identity in the group (Ellis, p. 170).
Ellis continues that the own children often had a
more difficult time adjusting to the group home situation
than did the foster children, yet their parents expected
more of them:... "to share his parents and possessions
cheerfully,. be unselfish, understanding, helpful, for-
30
giving, obedient, friendly,. and the epitorny of maturity"
(p. 167).
Sometimes, own children appeared to be .....
more 'disturbed' than the foster children".
They desper-
ately needed "to reestablish their identity and needed to
be reassured of their rightful place in the family" (p.
168).
Both own children and foster children had to know
their place in the family.
The own children needed to
know that they were special and belonged to their parents
(the foster parents.)
made,
"Unless these distinctions were
there was confusion in the minds of all the children
and the parents' offspring virtually became foster children in their own horne" (p. 168).
It is important for the children to be able "to
express their feelings of
confusion,
p. 169).
fear~
rejection, resentment and
either to the parent or with the group" (Ellis,
The child needs to be allowed an appropriate
verbal outlet rather than "to seek attention through undesirable behavior" (p. 169).
Some of the own children
required professional help to get through a difficult
time.
Benefits were seen as a result of the sharing of
one's parents.
"Own children learn to understand, and are
better equipped to meet others' needs (p. 169).
Wilkes (1974) finds that parents whose own children
had been doing well and who wanted to help emotionally
31
needy children by becoming foster parents and bringing
them into their home, might be surprised to find that
their own child is not prepared for the changes in the
family and feels very threatened.
"One commonly sees
minor upsets in the family's own children following the
introduction of foster children to their home, ••• " (p.
374).
Their own children worry about possible abandon-
ment.
"In fact, he always experiences some abandonment;
when his parents give their attention to the foster child,
the family's own child wonders if his parents have given
up on him" (p. 374).
Yet, the own child, even while
experiencing this feeling of abandonment by his own parents,
is still expected to befriend the interloper.
"The
strong pressures to accept the foster sibling lead the
biological child to feel guilt- for his appropriate hostile
feelings" (p. 374)-- not to
~ention
the additional burden
of parental reproach.
The foster parents' own children might suffer from
their parents' need to work out unresolved problems
through their care of foster children, to the detriment of
their own children:
Mintz (1962) tells of a very good
foster mother whose unconscious need to foster caused her
to ignore the needs of her own three children "who rebelled at having foster children in the home and were
constantly battling with them" (p. 173).
It was not until
she had resolved her own unconscious conflict and stopped
32
fostering that she could recognize that her own seven year
old boy had severe emotional symptoms which required psychiatric treatment.
Babcock (1965) points out that the own children "felt
sad and expressed loss when the children left the foster
homes for their permanent placements.
ren actually suffer from the
pr~sence
How much own childof foster children
in the home is a moot question" (p. 490).
Dickerson (1978) found that,
although her grown son
had initially totally objected to his parents' becoming
foster parents,
"With tolerance has come understanding,
and some acceptance and liking" (p. 17).
And,
"in the
process of reaching out to understand and accept four
boys, he learned a great deal about understanding and
accepting himself" (p.
216).
Dickerson believes that
fostering four retarded boys kept her and her husband so
busy " ••• that we were protected from being too intrusive
into the lives of Jori and Frosty" (their adult children).
"I am sure Jori and Frosty were grateful for that" {p.
216).
Williams (1972, Note 3) studied the impact that termination of adoption had on the adoptive (or foster)
parents and their own children.
During this period
cope with problems
whether medical or
significant change
other children are
She found that
when families are attempting to
that the placed child presents,
behavioral, there tends to be one
in family interaction. Where
in the home, much of the attention
33
they would ordinarily receive is diverted from them
to the placed child. The diversion seems to be
greater than expected with the simple addition of a
child.
This is a result of parents increased efforts
to cope with an unusual situation (p. 59).
As a result of the termination,
family interaction
patterns were affected:
Relationships with children improved in seven (85%)
out of eight families.
Most often this was
attributed to the binding force of grief or the
ability to spend more time with the child (p. 65).
Parents found it most difficult to tell their own
children that their adoptive sibling would leave or had
left the home, expecially when they were pre-school and
latency age.
The dilemma is how to 'explain' and at the same time
maintain the own child's sense of security.
Related
to this is the necessity of the parents handling the
anxiety that termination induces in the other
children.
The varied reactions of the children were described
as confused, depressed, clinging, tearful, sad and
loss of appetite. For some there was relief. The
children asked questions about why the doctor could
'not make the child well' or when the child was
coming back. There was evidence of both regression
and increased anxiety about separation (pp. 65-66).
Conclusions
The review of the literature has revealed that the
family is part of a system consisting of the relationship
sub-systems of husband-wife: parent-child: and siblingsibling.
To maintain its equilibrium, the family must
make adjustments when any changes occur within or without
34
the family unit, since a change tO' any part of the system
affects all of the other parts of the system.
Changes to the system, such as members-- or outsiders
entering or leaving, can cause stress, grief, and/or a
crisis in the family system.
As a result, the family has
need for coping mechanisms in order to attempt to deal
with the changes.
A crisis can result in a lower level of
functioning than prior to the crisis; the same level; or
a higher level in coping after the resolution of the
crisis.
The very nature of a foster family is in fact to
have outsiders,
i.e. foster children, included or excluded
from the family periodically.
Added to the foster child-
ren are the latter's parents and siblings, his/her social
worker/s (Children's Services Workers),
involvement with the family.
and the agency's
Unlike the nuclear family's
closed system, the foster family's system is semi-open.
The periodic, or sometimes frequent,
changes in the family
composition through the coming or going of foster children
call for as many adjustments in the foster family members.
Some of the foster parents' own children might not have
been a party to the decision to foster in the first place:
The inability to control important events in one own's
life can lead to "learned helplessness",
as another pos-
sible result of repeated crises.
Loss theories point to the need for a healthy resolution of the grief resulting from the loss of a person,
35
object, or function in order to avoid the devastation of
future physical, mental, or emotional disorders.
Beloved
--or disliked-- foster children, for example, sooner or
later must usually leave.
asked to
~eave
A foster child who has been
the foster horne for various reasons can
leave a trail of guilt in the natural children of the
foster parents who remain in the horne.
The sibling sub-system is seen as a very important
one.
It is affected by birth order, ambivalence, parent
interventions, and family --sibling-- standards of
achievement.
Siblings are seen as competing, socializing,
and nurturing one another, as well as affecting one another• s sel £-esteem and future success.
There are ex-
amples of the fact of the illness of one sibling imposing
a sense of guilt on the healthy one, in the case of
schizophrenia, or unresolved sibling rivalry resulting in
the future mental illness of siblings when they become
adults and have their own children.
Foster families can achieve success both in their
fostering and in maintaining their own farnily•s equilibrium by following various suggestions made by experts in
the field of foster care:
These include having even the
youngest child in the family share in the decision to
foster, after being apprised of all of the ramifications
of welcoming strange children into the horne.
All family
members must understand the difference between natural,
36
foster, and adoptive children.
Family rules should be
formulated for sharing parental attention; community and
personal things; the responsibilities in the home; as well
as entertainment and outings.
There must be awareness of
mourning in each family member when a foster child leaves,
of guilt in the natural child over being more fortunate
than the foster child, and of fear by the younger child
that he/she might have to leave the home just as the
foster child does.
The foster parents must likewise be
aware and deal with their own children's resentment at the
differential types of discipline sometimes employed to
foster and natural children.
Fostering can strengthen the foster family just as it
can weaken it:
The natural children can take pride in
their family's strengths,
such-as ability to care for
difficult children, and in their ability to share their
family,
activities, and belongings with foster children.
As they learn to deal with separations and losses when
they attempt to cope with the coming and going of foster
siblings, they can also learn to deal with the fleeting
quality of life itself without being crushed by it.
The review of the literature points to the absence of
any studies dealing with the natural children of foster
parents.
While it is obvious that the natural children
themselves would have valuable information to contribute
to this area of study, to date there have been no studies
37
in which a follow up was done to obtain the retrospective,
subjective evaluation of the adult natural children on
their childhood experience of growing up with foster children in their home.
I
CHAPTER 3
METHOD
Research Design
This study utilized an exploratory, descriptive, and
ex post facto research design.
As Fellin, Tripodi,
and
Meyer (1969) stated,
Exploratory studies seek to thoroughly describe a
particular phenomenon ••• The purpose of exploratory
studies is to develop ideas and theoretical
generalizations.
Descriptions are in both
quantitative and qualitative form ••• Sampling
procedures are flexible and little concern is usually
given to systematic representativeness (p. 256).
As there are no other known research studies on the
subject of this paper, an exploratory research design will
be used.
This study does not purport to study the actual
experiences of the natural children of foster parents, but
merely their subjective and retrospective impressions.
A semi-structured questionnaire with multiple-choice
answers was employed.
The persons selected for study were
afforded the opportunity to provide additional responses,
and/or to explain or elaborate on their replies.
The
results were coded, tabulated, and analyzed on the basis
of the structured questions included in the questionnaire
(see Appendix for Code Book and Code Worksheet).
38
A con-
.
39
tent analysis was completed on the unstructured responses.
These responses were incorporated in their natural state
into categories which had been formulated for this purpose.
Due to the nature of the questionnaire, descriptive
statistics were used,
such as percentages:
No attempt was
made to generalize to the larger population from which the
sample was taken by the use of inferential statistics.
Sampling Criteria and Procedures
After permission from DPSS was obtained to conduct
this study, the population was drawn from the pool of all
of Los Angeles County, Department of Public Social
Services {DPSS) foster homes which relinquished their
foster home licenses during 1979-1981, which met the criteria of this study.
The population is comprised of
families in Region V of the DPSS Bureau of Social
Services, which roughly encompasses the San Fernando,
Santa Clarita, and Antelope Valleys, along with the
Greater Pasadena area.
The criteria for the subjects are families who are no
longer fostering; who have adult biological children who
are now living on their own; and whose children were part
of the foster family constellation while they were growing
up.
It was assumed that the fact of the biological chil-
dren's no longer living in the family home would have
facilitated the process of separation from their parents,
40
hopefully giving them a more balanced perspective on
childhood events.
Within this specified population, indi-
viduals were selected for their conformity to the criteria
established for this study.
Families whose licenses were
revoked by the DPSS were excluded from the sample, however, on the basis of their being unrepresentative and
probably negatively biased.
Families who are no longer fostering,
"closed cases" by DPSS,
identified as
were sought in an effort to avoid
disrupting current foster homes whose members might have
been threatened by children's services workers, who are
part of the supervising agency
11
system 11 ,
delving under the
normally supervised surface of the family.
It was also
anticipated that closed cases would have provided more
families who had fostered longer and whose own children
would now be grown up and gone.
A possible negative bias is acknowledged by the
selected families,
sinpe they might have left fostering
because of dissatisfaction with the program and possess an
inaccurate memory of their experiences.
However, it is
again noted that families that had been excluded from
fostering by the DPSS were excluded from the sample.
Since foster families who are no longer within the
licensing system would probably feel freer to voice their
opinions without reservation, it was anticipated that their
statements would be more faithful to their honest feelings
41
than those of foster families who were still active in the
program.
It was also assumed that the adult children
would feel less constrained to express their candid
opinions while away from their parents, and with
confidentiality assured, than in their parents' presence.
The subjects, the adult, biological children of
foster parents now living on their own, were contacted by
means of a letter addressed to their parents,
followed by
a personal telephone call in order to obtain their
addresses and telephone numbers.
A population of 2,063
former foster parents in Los Angeles County were initially
selected.
This population comprised the number of foster
parents who had relinquished their foster home licenses
for the years 1979:
1980~ and 1981. 2
families, 294 were in DPSS Region
v.
Of these 2,063
A screening process
identified 49 former foster parent families
w~th
adult
natural children who met the criteria of this study.
Forty nine foster parent families were initially
contacted by mail,
of which 76 potential adult natural
children were identified.
Of this original pool of 76
persons, the following were eliminated from the study for
the reasons given below (see Table 1):
42
Table 1
Subjects Eliminated from Study
Reason
Number of Subjects
Still living at horne
Never lived at horne when
parents fostered
Refused to cooperate
11
4
12
This process yielded 49 adult natural children of foster
parents as prospective subjects for the study.
These 49
adult natural children were contacted by letter and by
telephone.
Four failed or refused to cooperate; two were
still residing in a parent•s horne; two had not lived at
horne when the parents had fostered; one had been an adult
when his parents started to foster; and four did not
reply.
This left 36 final adult natural children for
purposes of this study.
The subjects were assured 1) of confidentiality and
anonymity, as group statistics were to be employed; 2)
that results of the study would be shared with them; and
3) that the findings of the study would be publicly
disseminated,
i.e. to Foster Parent Association,
DPSS,
journals, etc.
Personal interviews were conducted with 33 adult
43
natural children, and three questionnaires were completed
by mail.
Characteristics of the Sample
As seen in Table 2, the 36
r~spondents
were almost
evenly divided between men (N 17, 47.2%) and women (N 19,
52.8%).
Twenty were married
(55.6%b
11
(30.6%) were
single; two were divorced (5.6%); while of the
11
0ther 11
category, two were separated and one was living with
someone (8.2%).
There were 34 white respondents (94.4%) while two
were black {5.6%).
represented.
No other racial groups were
This racial proportion is not representative
of the racial balance of the foster parent population in
either Region V or in Los Angeles County.
Since the
closed cases had been drawn and reviewed solely on the
basis of compliance with this study's criteria, they had
also been randomly selected from the group that was found
to meet the criteria.
Thus, no special attempt was made
to achieve racial balance,
although one had been
anticipated~
Most of the respondents (N 19,
24 year old age bracket.
52.8%) were in the 20-
Six (16.7%) were in the 25-29
year category; nine {25%) were in the 30-35 bracket; with
only two between 18-19 {5.5%).
The majority of the
respondents are in that phase of their lives, particularly
if career goals have been reached,
when they themselves
44
are establishing homes and raising families.
Twenty respondents (55.6%) had 31 children between
them {1.55 average).
(1.6 averageh
Five (13.9%) had eight stepchildren
two (5.6%} had four foster children (2
average); and one respondent ( 2.8.%} was adopting a child
(see Table 2).
The majority of the respondents had completed the
12th grade {N 25, 69.4%); four had completed junior
college (11.1%};
two (5.6%) had bachelor's degrees,
with
one in his second year in law school, and another
completing computer training.
Five (13.9%) had less than
a 12th grade education.
The occupations of the respondents as a whole were
primarily in the blue collar range (N 15,
were in white collar positions (N 11,
occupations (N 10, 27.8%).
41.7%).
Fewer
30.6%) and other
When occupations were divided
along sexual lines, however, the picture changed:
Most of
the male respondents remained in the blue collar category
(N 12. 70.6%), but the females respondents then placed
predominantly in the white collar field {N 9,
47.4%).
The
high concentration of male employment in the trades is
consistent with the employment of foster fathers, as
reported by Babcock (1965).
All but one of the respondents had siblings (N35,
97.2%}.
No:
The siblings were biological (Yes:
N 3; 8.3%); step {Yes:
N 7, 19.4%; No:
N 33,
91.7%;
80.6%; and
45
adoptive {Yes:
N 18, 50.0%; No:
N 18, 50.0%).
families had all three types of siblings.
Several
The adoptive
siblings had usually been introduced into the family as.
foster children.
The range of the number of siblings in
the foster families was from two to seven in the various
families which had more than one child.
Table 2
Personal and Occupational Characteristics
PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS
Percent
N
SEX
Male
47.2%
17
Female
52.8
19
Married
55.6%
20
Single
30.6
11
Divorced
5.6
2
Widowed
0
0
Other
8.2
3
MARITAL STATUS
RACE/ETHNIC
. White
94.4%
34
Black
5.6
2
Hispanic
0
0
46
Other
0
0
5.5%
2
AGE
18-19
20-24
52.8
19
25-29
16.7
6
30-34
25.0
9
EDUCATION
Percent
N
lOth grade
2.8%
1
11th grade
11.1
4
12th grade
69.4
25
Junior college
11.1
4
College graduate
5.6
2
Graduate degree
0
0
SIBLINGS OF ADULT NATURAL CHILDREN
Yes
No
TYPE
YES
Percent
(N)
a. Biolog·ical
91.7%
(33)
b. Step
19.4
(7)
c. Adoptive
50.0
2.8
d. None
97.2
35
2.8
...
NO
Percent
8.3%
1
(N)
TOTAL
Percent (N)
{3)
100%
(36)
80.6
(29)
100%
(36)
(18)
50.0
{18)
100%
{36)
( 1)
97.2
(35)
100%
(36)
47
ADULT NATURAL CHILDREN'S mvN CHILDREN
TOTAL (N)
Percent
N
NO
Percent
N
44.4%
16
100% (36)
5
86.1
31
100% (36)
5.6
2
94.4
34
100% (36)
2.8
1
97.2
35
100% (36)
YES
Percent
N
Biological
55.6%
20
Step
13.9%
Foster
Adoptive
TYPE
OCCUPATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
Total Sample
Percent
Males
N
Percent
Females
N
Percent
N
15.8%
3
TYPE
Blue collar
41.7%
15
70.6%
White collar
30.6
11
11.8
2
47.4
9
Other
27.7
10
17.6
3
36.8
7
12
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
The results of this study demonstrate that the natural children's experience of growing up with foster
children in their home are seen by them to have had both
positive and negative effects.
The negative aspects in-
cluded a loss of parental attention and family privacy,
frequent family readjustments, crises, and losses.
On the
positive side, there was appreciation of home, parents,
sensitivity to others, pride in giving, a broadening of
experience, and a sense of strength with higher selfesteem.
The following report on the findings presents those
responses which deal with the central concerns of this
study.
The data were analyzed by calculating percentages
and comparing the frequencies of responses made to the
questionnaire.
It should be noted that complete frequency
distributions are included in the Appendix.
Preparation of Natural Children for Fostering {10, 15, 16) ,
The respondents' parents started fostering when their
own children were at varying ages, which would probably
have determined how fostering had been explained to them.
48
49
The parents of the largest group started to foster when
their children where 11-15 (N 16: 44.4%),
followed by the
6-10 age (N 8, 22.2%): 16-18 (N 7, 19.4%): and 0-5 (N 5,
13.9%).
It was found that slightly more than half of the
parents had discussed what fostering would be like with
their children (N 19,
52.8%),
but almost half of the
children had been given no prior preparation and did not
know what to expect (N 17, 47.2%).
The expectations of
the informed children were that they would be sharing
their parents (N 16, 44.3%): toys (N 10, 27.8%): birthdays
(N _14, 38.9%): siblings (N 12, 33.3%); relatives (N 14,
38.9%); holidays {N 15, 41.7%); and other things (N 7,
19.4%).
Seventeen ( 4 7 .2%·) report having had no expecta-
tions regarding fostering.
The majority, almost two thirds, of the children {N
22!
61.1%) felt that they had participated in the decision
to foster 1 while others (N 131 36.1%) did not.
Table 3
demonstrates their preference in retrospect and their
perception of having had their feelings considered by
their parents.
50
Table 3
Natural Children's Participation in the Parental Decision
to Foster
Percent
N
A.
Preference
1.
Favor
2.
Don't favor
5.6
2
3.
Other
2.8
1
4.
No response
27.7
10
B.
Parental Consideration
of Children's Feelings
1.
Yes
61.2%
22
2.
No
19.4
3.
Other
4.
No response
63.9%
0
19.4
23
7
0
7
The missing cases (no response} are representative of
those children who were too you.ng to be consulted prior to
fostering.
Among those who said that their feelings about fostering had been considered, several indicated that they
had believed that their parents had already decided to
become foster parents and had a child ready to enter their
home.
51
Impact of Fostering on the Family
Ordinal position of natural children (97 11:
Prior to fostering,
there were more natural children
occupying the ordinal position of youngest in the family
than the other ordinal positions (N 12,
occupied the position of oldest (25%).
33.3%).
Nine
The respective
ordinal positions were viewed as either favorable or unfavorable by an equal number of respondents (N 14,
14,
38.9%), while others (N 8,
38.9%; N
22.2%) were neutral about
their own birth order.
When the family started fostering,
the foster chil-
dren who later entered the home were seen as changing the
sibling ordinal position of the natural children (N 21,
58.3%), with most of the foster children being closest in
age to the youngest sibling in the family (see Table 4).
Table 4
Ordinal Position Change by Foster Children
of Natural Children
YES
Position Change
%
(N)
1.
Oldest sibling
16.7% (6)
2.
Top middle sibling
5.6
(2)
NO
%
TOTAL
(N)
%
(N)
83.3% (30)
100% (36)
94.4
100
(34)
(36)
52
3.
Mid-middle sibling
5.6
(2)
94.4
( 34)
100
( 36)
4.
Bottom middle sibling
13.9
(5)
86.1
(31)
100
(36)
5.
Youngest sibling
86 .1 ( 31)
13.9
(5)
100
(36)
The responses shown represent the multiple ordinal
positions in which the foster children were found.
Description of the Family Before and After Fostering (14)
The children described their families as being primarily close (N 27, 75%): loving (N 30, 83.3%): sharing (N
24, 66.7%): and doing things together (N 26, 72.2%) prior
to fostering.
The nature of the family did not change
appreciably after fostering, although many of the strongly
described characteristics were later intensified.
fostering,
After
the family remained as close as before, but was
seen as more loving (N 34, 94.4%); sharing (N 31, 86.1%);
and doing things together (N 29, 80.6%) than before.
The
characteristic "conflictual" also increased from 33.3% (N
12) before fostering to 44.4% (N 16) after fostering.
Likewise, the family was described as distant by a few (N
4, 11.1%) before fostering and slightly more so (N 5,
13.9%) afterwards.
There were three missing cases in the
"before" category.
These children indicated that they had
been too young to know what the family had been like prior
to fostering.
53
Changes Seen in the Family (15; 17}
The inclusion of foster children into the family
created changes (N 33,
91.7%} which required the sharing
of persons, occasions, space, or objects with foster
children.
vlhile the natural children had anticipated some
changes prior to fostering,
the actual experience pointed
to greater changes (see Table 5}.
One respondent pointed
out that "you cannot let a person into a family and not
share things."
Another respondent stated that the na-
tural children share "their parents and room and everyNothing is theirs not to share".
thing.
Table 5
Comparison of Anticipated and Actual Changes
Related to Fostering
Anticipate
Changes
Actual
Changes
Difference
%
N*
%
N*
%
Share
1.
Parents
44.4%
16
77.8%
28
33.4%
2.
Toys
27.8
10
50.0
18
22.2
3.
Birthdays
38.9
14
63.9
23
25.0
4.
Siblings
33.3
12
63.9
23
30.6
5.
Relatives
38 9
14
58.3
21
19.4
6.
Holidays
41.7
15
77.8
28
36.1
0
54
7.
*A.
69.4
7
so.o
25
MC= Missing Cases (NO RESPONSE GIVEN)
1= 17MC
*B.
19.4
Other
1= 3MC
2= 17MC
2= 3MC
3= 17MC
3= 3MC
4= 18MC
4= 4MC
5= 17MC
5= 3MC
6= 17MC
6= 4MC
There is some question in these findings as to
whether the increases as seen in the actual family changes
could be due in part to the numbers of missing cases found
in the question on anticipated changes (see Appendix G for
complete Tabulation).
Subjective Impact of Fostering on the Natural Children
Parental attention following fostering (19).
The responses of the children concerning the amount
of attention that they received from their parents following fostering were almost evenly divided between receiving
the same (N 17, 47.2%) or a lesser (N 16, 44.4%) amourit of
parental attention.
Many indicated that since they had
been teenagers, at the time, who preferred less parental
attention, they considered the amount of attention received after fostering to have been the same.
One woman had felt deprived of her mother's attention
since the "pats on the head in passing" which she had
received prior to fostering were later bestowed on the
foster children.
She then spent four resentful years
before discussing her feelings with her mother.
After her
mother explained that she had been trying to be encourag-
55
ing to the foster children whom she believed to need the
stroking more, the respondent was reassured.
Differential Parental Treatment (20)
The natural children believed that their parents had
treated them differently from the foster children.
While
most felt that discipline was about the same for both
groups, parental expectations were higher for the own
children (see Table 6).
Table 6
Differential Parental Treatment of Natural/Foster Children
A.
c.
N
8
Treatment
1.
Same
22.2%
,
Different
77.8
.<:.•
B.
Percent
28
Discipline
2.8%
1
1.
Easier
2.
Same
so.o
18
3.
Harder
33.3
12
4.
No response
13.9
5
Expectations of natural
versus foster children
1.
More
66.7%
24
2.
Same
27.8
10
56
3.
Less
0
0
4.
No response
5.5
2
In the case of teenage natural (and foster) daughters, parents often allowed the foster daughters to date
before they would allow their own to do so.
This was
resented by the own daughters.
Encounters with Stress and Loss (12: 18)
The natural children had to adjust to varying numbers
of foster children who passed through their homes.
Most
of the respondents (N 25, 69.4%) had l-30 foster children
in their horne:
three had 31-70 (8.3%):
while eight (22.2%)
had 100-500 children.
When new foster children entered the horne, the natural children•s strongest response was one of anxiety (N
29, 80.6%).
They wondered what type of child would mark
the new arrival: whether the child would interfere with
them personally: whether they would upset their parents:
and to what extent the family would be disrupted.
Most
were also happy to welcome a new child (N 24, 66.7%),
while some were resentful of yet another child being added
to their household (N 10, 27.8%).
Types of children placed in the home (22).
Various types of foster children were placed in the
home: one or all of the types at the same or at various
57
times.
While there were foster children with no special
problems (Yes:
N 25,
69.4%~
No:
N 11, 30.6%), most were
seen as emotionally disturbed (Yes:
N 30, 83.4%; No:
N
6, 16.6%), with some subsequently requiring psychiatric
hospitalization.
Many were difficult to handle (Yes:
N
27, 75%; No: N 9, 25%); and several were delinquent (Yes:
N 21, 58.3%; No:
N 15, 41.7%).
The following incidents illustrated some of the situations which were encountered with disturbed foster childIn the •J• home,
ren:
a fire-setting child burned down
the house while playing with matches, leaving the family
with no place to live.
In the •v• home, the own child was
chased around the yard by a deranged boy wielding hedging
shears who was later placed in- a psychiatric hospital.
Control over Foster Children•s Leaving (24)
The natural children were evenly divided (N 18, 50%;
N 18, SO%) on whether·they had any control over the foster
sibling•s leaving their home.
Relief was ·the most fre-
quently mentioned emotion (N 14,
38.4%).
Some were re-
lieved that they had control over having a troublesome
child removed from their home, while others were relieved
that they did not have to make this decision, knowing as
they did the problems and vulnerability of the foster.
child.
Some felt guilty when they knew that foster child-
ren were being nice to them to prevent their having to
58
leave.
One respondent related how difficult foster children
would upset his mother.
She'd 'take it out' on her
own children by refusing any of their requests while
she was upset. That was when he'd tell his mother,
'No more kids!' But she would always ask for just
one more child who needed her, on a short term basis.
When foster children were removed from the home by
their natural parents or by the agency, the entire foster
family had no control over their leaving.
Many were upset
when a severely abused child whom they had "put back
together" was allowed by the court to return to the abusing parents after just a few months.
Reaction to Loss of Foster Children (25)
While some of the children saw themselves as too
removed from the foster children to have felt loss when
they left, others had been devastated.
Nevertheless, most
expressed their willingness for other children to come
(see Table 7).
59
Table 7
Reaction to Loss of Foster Children
NO
RESPONSE
%
(N)
YES
%
1.
\van ted
others to
come?
2.
Wanted to
25.0
form other
close relationships?
3.
Were able
to keep
in touch?
11.1
(4) 61.1
4.
Wanted to
avoid getting hurt
again?
30.6 (11} 25.0
{N)
16.6% (6) 55.6% (20)
( 9)
50.0% (18)
NO
%
(N)
TOTAL
%
(N)
27.8% (10) 100% (36)
25.0
(9) 100% (36)
(22)
27.8
(10) 100% (36}
( 9)
44.4
( 16) 100% (36}
Some of the respondents qualified their response by
indicating that the foster child 1 s departure had been more
like a relief than a loss.
Many seemed to have difficulty
making a response and seemed ambivalent to admit not wanting to foster.
Still 25% did say they wanted to avoid
getting hurt again.
p
'
60
with Loss of Foster Siblings Versus Other Losses
Most of the adult children did not see their coping
with the loss of foster children as helpful in coping with
other losses (N 15, 41.7%), while almost as many did (N
13, 36.1%).
Eight persons failed to respond, however
(22.2%).
The loss of foster children made some of the children
realize that nothing stays the same: that good can come of
pain.
One respondent, who believed that coping with the
loss of foster children had helped him to cope with other
losses,
stated that he had learned "not to leave yourself
open to feeling that way: to try to avoid being in that
situation and getting hurt".
Another adult child cited
his experiences with the loss of foster children as intensifying his fear of losing his own children by a prior
marriage.
The Total Experience
Subjective comparison with foster children (21).
Almost all of the natural children viewed themselves
as having been better off than their foster siblings.
The
reason most often given was that they had their own family
and parents who loved them (see Table 8).
61
Table 8
Subjective Comparison with Foster Children
N = 36
Percent
1.
Better off
2.
Worse off
3.
Same
88.9%
0
11.1
N
32
0
4
Perception of Ability of Parents to Foster Difficult
Children (23)
The natural children were primarily proud of their
parents• ability to foster difficult children (N 31,
86.1%).
They were proud that their parents had helped the
foster children for whom they felt such compassion.
They
felt good that their parents had been available to those
children who had nobody else to care for them and had
changed their lives for the better.
Pride notwithstanding, some of the same children
expressed anger at their parents• ability (N 4,
11.1%).
surprising finding is that none expressed any jealousy in
response to this question.
Consideration of Absence of Foster Children (27)
Even those respondents who felt tha.t they would have
been happier without having had foster children in their
A
62
home (N 6,
16.7%), acknowledged that they would be weaker
without them (N 22, 61.1%) and would not think as much of
themselves (N 21,
58.3%).
Twice as many as those who
would have been happier (N 12,
would have been sadder.
33.3%) stated that they
Many felt that it might have been
that part of fostering which they had liked the least:
the disturbed children; the need to get along with difficult children from deprived, abusive homes: and the pain
when beloved children were removed, that had in fact
streng.thened them and prepared them to understand and get
along with many diverse adults.
They stated that their
realization _of this strength has given them the confidence
that they are now able to cope with most situations.
Miscellaneous Responses Concerning Fostering (29)
Most of the respondents believed that their experience of sharing their homes with foster children had
broadened their life experience (N 29,
80.6%).
Many indi-
cated that fostering had helped them to appreciate what
they themselves had had:
their own family to guide and
nurture them; and their own parents to love them (N 25,
69.4%).
A majority was concerned that fostering had been
hard on their parents (N 23,
63.9%),
including several who
were alarmed to see how tired their parents had become and '
how they had aged, who expressed relief that their parents
had stopped fostering;
stopped sooner.
and who wished that they had
Twenty one (58.3%) either saw fostering
63
as a positive experience or were glad that they had had
the experience.
More than half admitted that they had
sometimes wished to have just had their own family in the
home (N 19,
52.8%) without foster children.
Consideration of Becoming Foster Parents (28)
The responses concerning whether the adult children
had considered fostering were negative when considered as
a whole.
When the male and female responses were sepa-
rated, however,
the responses was divided (see Table 9),
indicating that the males were opposed to fostering while
the females were for it.
Table 9
Consideration of Becoming Foster Parents
Combined Response
Percent
N
Male
N
4
Yes
41.6%
15
23.5%
2.
No
58.4
21
76.5
=
36
Female
Percent
1.
N
13
Percent
57. 9%
42.1
N
11
8
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
It can be seen from all of the above that subjective
experience is different for different people, and that an
anticipation of the effects of an experience on others can
be surprisingly different from the actual effects felt by
those persons.
Jealousy and sibling rivalry,
for example,
are universal, predominant emotions which are underscored
in child development and mental health literature.
Yet,
where the expectation was that the natural children of
foster parents would have experienced much jealousy and
sense of deprivation by the presence of the emotionally
needy foster children placed in their homes, the most
outstanding findings were that the natural children; in
the final analysis, viewed these experiences as having
made them stronger, with much higher self-esteem, and with
confidence in their ability, as adults, to get along with
anybody who might come along.
Instead of jealousy, they
felt tremendous pride in their parents' ability to foster
difficult children, feeling good about their own part in
giving these children a better chance in life.
They also
had acquired a deep appreciation for having grown up with
strong, secure families, and with parents who loved them.
64
65
Their conviction was that they would not have known what
life was really like had they not grown up with foster
siblings.
One is especially struck and touched by the insight,
compassion, and sensitivity not only of the female
respondents, from whom one might.have anticipated these
qualities, but particularly from a majority of the male
respondents, as young as 20, who, contrary to the American
male stereotype, evidenced tenderness, concern, and pain
related to the needs of their foster siblings.
Preparation of Natural Children for Fostering
(10~
15~
16)
The findings of the amount of preparation that the
natural children said that they had received from their
parents concerning future fostering,
and the conviction
that their feelings had been considered, produced a rather
murky area:
more (61.1%) respondents indicated that their
parents had taken their feelings into consideration than
those (52.8%) who stated that the matter had been
discussed with them.
A review of the semi-structured
responses revealed that "discussed" might have included
being told that the family would begin to foster and
inviting the natural children's response.
know what to expect.
Most did not
Some stated that they had agreed
because they knew that their parents were going to foster,
in any event, while others stated that they later felt,
during the actual fostering experience, that their
66
feelings had been considered.
For example, for those who
had responded affirmatively to all three questions
(relating to discussion: approval: and consideration of
feelings), the following raises the question of just how
much input the natural children had actually been allowed:
In having his feelings considered, after fostering,
one man's father had asked him, 'What do you think
that you are doing without? Are you lacking for
anything?'
Another said that she didn't know if she had any
control. Her feeling was that if she had been
against it, her parents would have gone ahead anyhow.
Still another stated, 'I expected kids to just get
sucked into the family'.
This discrepancy could also account for the significant
increases seen in Table 5 between anticipated and actual
family changes.
The respondents might have responded
only to the "discuss" part of the questioni
"Did your
parents discuss with you what it would be like to have
foster siblings in the home?", ignoring the "what it would
be like" portion of the question.
Ryan et al.
(1979),
above, discuss the importance of the latter part of the
question in preparing own children for fostering.
It is to be noted that the ages that the respondents
had been when their parents had started fostering could
also be expected to affect the way in which they had been
prepared and indeed their recollection of it.
67
Ordinal Position of Natural Children (9; 11; 13)
The changes in the ordinal position of the natural
children were sometimes seen as positive when a middle or
younger child became the oldest, experiencing some of the
perceived benefits of the acquired position, such as
"being looked up to".
Others experienced jealousy when an
older child usurped their position.
One youngest, whose
parents had started fostering prior to her birth, later
adopting four young siblings,
stated that she could never
remember being the youngest at home because "there
were always so many younger kids around".
In other families, despite the change in ordinal
positions by the foster children, there was always a
strong sense of the original ordinal position in the
nuclear family.
This appeared -to coincide with the
natural children•s feeling of being "special" to their
parents..
One respondent said:
"Knowing that they [the
natural kids] came first -- then the rest was subliminal".
Ellis (1972), above,
indicated that this differentiation
was necessary to avoid confusion for all of the children
in the home.
Description of the Family Before and After Fostering;
Family Changes (14; 15; 17)
Supplemental descriptions of the before and after
foster family included the statements that the family had
always been an open family,
with everything shared, and
68
the foster children just became part of the family without
changing its substance.
literature.
(This is consistent with the
See Eastman, 1979.)
The family was seen as
"able to cope with anything that comes along".
One mother
was described as "a good ring leader who kept us all
together and made the foster kids belong".
As noted in the findings,
the family was generally
not seen as changing before and after fostering,
except
that the responses indicated that the characteristics
later increased in intensity.
With more persons, perhaps
more love: closeness: togetherness: joint activities: and
even conflict had to increase to encompass everybody.
While most of the sharing was perhaps taken for
granted, some respondents were bothered by too much of it:
Several indicated that they had disliked having to share
everything.
A man resented not only having to share his
male teenage friends with his teenage foster sisters; but
the unwelcome, increased scrutiny of his parents, as well.
A foster mother, when contacted for this study,
related how when her youngest daughter,
one of the
respondents, was seven to eight years old, without saying
anything to anybody, had moved her lamp, table, and
bedding into a closet to make a room for herself.
This
alerted the parents to give her more attention after that
and to just take in boys.
The respondent, herself, stated
that she had been surrounded by people all the time, and
69
had just wanted to get away by herself to read.
At the
time, she had been sharing a room with her natural sister
who was four years older and they were not getting along
too well.
The respondents' overall description of their family
characteristics was consistent with that of Ackerman
(1958) concerning a family that could be expected to
strengthen its members (see Review of the Literature).
Subjective Impact of Fostering on the Natural Children
Parental attention following fostering (19).
The fact that various respondents,
including siblings
in the same family, viewed the attention which they had
received from their parents following fostering as having
been either the same or less than before fostering,
supports the idea that subjective experience is actually
different for each child within the same family.
The subjective impressions varied from "My father
wouldn't let the foster kids get in the way of his boys
and him":
always feeling that the parents were available
when needed: having special time set aside for them with
the parents: to a feeling of "how can you give the same
amount of attention to 10 kids that you give to three?"
One man sadly remembers that, as a child, he had wanted
his mother to tuck him in at night, to assure him that
all was well: and as a teenager, to have been able to
discuss sex with his father.
It had not been possible,
70
however, because "all those kids were around".
felt deprived of their parents• attention,
Many had
explaining that
the attention had to go to the child with the most urgent
needs, no matter how hard the parents had tried to spread
it around evenly.
It is believed that the feeling of parental
deprivation was probably related to the number of foster
children in the home at a given time (Cautley et al.,
1975); the age spread between all of the children, as well
as the respective ages of the natural children (Ellis,
1972); and the severity of the foster children•s problems
(see Review of the Literature).
Differential Parental Treatment (20)
The differential parental treatment of foster and
natural children, while occasionally leading to resentment
at the time, might have contributed to the high selfesteem of the adult natural children.
.
The higher
expectations of the natural children could have been
interpreted as a sign of love, while expectations o~
greater self-control of teenage daughters in a dating
situation could have conveyed the idea to the girls that
they were special:
One father told his daughter who had
protested, "You•re my little girl and you•re not going!"
The higher expectations were geared towards the
family•s own standards and own children.
These could not
necessarily have been expected of "children in transition"
71
from such varying and deprived backgrounds.
The higher
expectations could also have been viewed as proof of their
parents' greater confidence in their own children's
ability.
As found in school settings, higher teacher
expectations of students are believed to produce higher
achievement (and vice versa) by these students.
Encounters with Stress and Loss (12: 18: 22)
A correlation is suspected between the numbers of
foster children passing through the home in the fostering
process and the degree of stress and residual resentment
which the natural children later feel.
It is reasonable
to expect that greater stress would result from adjustment
to 100-500 children than would arise from fewer than 30,
for example, as reported in this study.
No attempt was
made to establish a correlation between the two here,
however.
When new foster children came into the home,
jealousy
and displacement were often felt by the respondents.
One
youngest daughter who described herself as having been
spoiled and receiving everything she had wanted prior -and following -- fostering, was nevertheless jealous when
her new foster sisters were taken by her mother to buy new
clothing with the allowance that they had received from
DPSS.
Stress was encountered because, as one respondent put
it, "with every new family member who comes into the
72
family, your whole family changes", and
11
alliances were
drawn that changed with foster siblings": sometimes, it
seemed,
to
11
henpeck 11 the younger brother.
It is to be
noted that both of the above statements are consistent
with the family systems theory (see Review of the
Literature).
Types of Children Placed in the Home (23)
The types of children placed in the home contributed
strongly to the amount of stress which had been felt by
the natural children, especially when they "needed eyes in
the back of their head" and "never knew who would walk in
the door".
But while many respondents just "wished they
would all go away",
the fact that they had to "expect any
thing from any body at any time" contributed to their
sense that the experience had given them a broader outlook
on life.
To many,
it gave a training ground to "interact
with other people", subsequently enabling them to get
along with
11
most people".
Many of the respondents felt
that the experience had made them much better, patient
parents with their own children, as well.
Control Over Foster Children's Leaving (24)
The foster parents, along with their natural
children, shared a loss of control when a child was
removed from the home by the courts,
the natural parents,
73
or the children's services worker.
The fact that this is
one of the conditions for fostering, makes it no less
difficult for the foster family.
The natural children were often frustrated by the
inability to effect the removal of difficult children from
their home.
The circumstances caused not only anger and
resentment, but sadness and much guilt as well.
Some felt
too guilty, that a foster child might have to go to a
worse home, to request that a child leave, nevertheless
feeling gratified that they did have this control if they
wished it.
Others were angry because "I wanted the kids
to stop coming, but they kept coming", or because they had
just wanted to "have their own family".
For one, a threat
of kicking a foster child out was used as a lever when
things became difficult;
"and then he'd leave me alone.
But I never tried to get rid of him.
My parents would be
upset."
Reaction to Loss of Foster Children; Coping with Other
Losses (26)
The responses to this question are not believed to
correctly reflect the views of the respondents, since the
non-structured portion of their response often began with
"I didn't really get close or feel a loss" -- although the
wording of the question was; "When you got close to foster
children and they later had to leave
"
Nevertheless,
their responses to question 1-4 were recorded and tabu-
74
lated.
In retrospect,
it would have been better to either
ask first whether they had been close to any foster children, or to have left 1-4 blank.
Ambivalence and a denial of loss was often expressed:
One respondent, who said that he had "never gotten close
enough to feel a loss",
later stated that he did not want
to become a foster parent because of loss of control over
a foster child's leaving.
But, since he "never got close
enough", one wonders why he'd "be on pins and needles"
whenever the children's service worker came, and why he'd
"jump and be fearful she'd take the child away".
A woman
who did not want to foster herself, despite her many
positive feelings about the fostering experience, wanted
to ensure that her "own kids won't have to go through the
hurt and sadness when foster kids leave".
Part of the pain was "wondering what happened to them
after they left" and often never knowing:
One man sorrowfully related how he had become very
attached to Wayne who had come to the family as a
malnourished three month old infant, remaining with
them until he was returned to his parents when he was
three years old. The adult child, now a 32 year old
father, remembers how upset his own mother had been
and how he had later tried to see Wayne at the
latter's parents• house.
But Wayne's parents would
not allow him to see the child, whom he has never
seen again. After that, he had 'backed off', he
said, and wanted no other close relationships.
Nevertheless, he felt that the experience had helped
him to cope with other losses.
Another adult child, who also believed that she was
75
helped to cope with other losses, stated that "even if you
had a person for a short time, you still had the feeling
that you loved that person.
It makes other losses
easier ...
To others, after a while, the coming and going of
foster children became part of their lives and they
learned to cope with this and other losses.
Perhaps the natural children's personal growth,
strengthening, and higher self-esteem can be attributed
partly to Hill's (1968) theory that a successful resolution of a crisis can bring about a higher level of functioning following a_crisis.
Wilkes {1974) and Eastman
(1979) also point to growth as a possible consequence of
the positive resolution of stress (see Review of the
Literature).
The Total Experience
Subjective comparison with foster children
{21)~
In comparing themselves with the foster children
whose prime reason for being placed in a foster home was,
at best, the absence of a stable family of their own, the
adult children looked back on the security of their own
homes where they "knew they'd be taken care of".
Perhaps,
it increased their own "strong feeling of belonging" to
realize that their lives had "direction and security".
Many "knew that they came first without the foster kids
being made to feel that they came second."
One woman,
.I
76
however, felt that while she'd been better off then the
foster siblings, she was sometimes ambivalent:
She "had
the same mom and dad all the time, but different foster
siblings all the
time~
the foster kids had different
parents to adjust to", yet in a way she felt that it had
been the same (see Ellis, 1972 and Eastman, 1979 in Review
of Literature).
In the comparison with foster children, the natural
children all liked having been on the "giving end".
Perception of Ability of Foster Parents to Foster
Difficult Children (23)
With the multiple feelings of deprivation and jealousy that the respondents had expressed in response to
other questions,
it was expected that jealousy would have
been mentioned in relation to the foster parents' ability
to foster difficult children.
Surprisingly,
the respon-
dents did not see it as relevant to this question.
haps,
Per-
their failure to feel jealousy was mitigated by the
evidence in Table 8 that they felt that they had been
better off than the foster children and that it made them
feel particularly good to know that their parents had had
the strength to give so much of themselves to help unrelated children.
Perhaps, the own children had felt
secure in the thought that if their parents had cared so
much about other peoples' children, how much more must
they care for their own children.
It is speculated that
77
the respondents• being the children of such strong, capable parents could have lent their own children the sense
·that they,
too, were strong.
Consideration of Lack of Foster Children (27)
It had been anticipated that most of the respondents
would have said that they would have been happier if their
parents had not fostered: but the opposite was in fact
true:
I used to think I would have been happier, but now I
don•t feel that way.
I feel so good about what they
[her parents] did, that I don•t feel I would have
been happier.
Some felt that they would have been closer to their parents, while others believed that their family had grown
closer.
The following statements are representative:
I would have been closer to my parents, but it
broadened my perspective of human behavior and life.
It made me strong.
I would not have known how to share or how to cope
with situations as they arise. It opened my eyes to
what was in the world. It prepared me to go out into
the world.
Growing up with many kids taught me many things.
If my parents had not fostered, I would not now have
my adoptive brother.
It toughened me up.
I see that as positive.
78
We would not have realized how well off we were.
Gave me compassion for people less fortunate.
Not representative, was the following statement by a
respondent who had likewise felt that she had been strengthened by the fostering experience:
Growing up I always had the feeling that I wasn't
good enough for my parents. If I had satisfied them,
maybe they wouldn't have had to have the foster kids.
Maybe I realized that there'd never be one child to
satisfy my mother.
Miscellaneous Responses Concerning Fostering (29)
Among the many responses,
there was concern for the
toll that fostering had taken on the parents.
The state-
ments included:
It was like a ton of bricks when my parents stopped
fostering. At the end, they were almost shattered.
My parents looked all worn out when they stopped.
year later they looked much better.
A
When foster parents can handle difficult children,
they are overloaded. Then they burn out.
As foster parents get older, they should be given
easier children.
Consideration of Becoming Foster Parents (28)
Many natural children wanted to protect their present
or future children from the experiences that they had had
with fostering, even though they had indicated that they
79
had been strengthened by them.
These are some of the rea-
sons given:
I would rather have had my own brothers and sisters
rather than a million kids coming in and out of the
home that we'll never see again.
I see how important it is for kids to have total
parental devotion.
You open up your house to all the problems and the
government. You should have your own family and do
your best for them.
If you want to give to society,
give to charity.
Implications and Recommendations
This study has demonstrated that fostering is a total
family
experience~
it is not just a relationship between
foster parent and foster child.
The entire family is
involved in the fostering and is affected by it.
While
the effects of fostering do not seem to substantially
alter the essence of the family character, most facets of
family life do change.
tually lessened, is
Parental attention, if not ac-
diffused~
sibling relationships are
infiltrated, with ordinal positions
changed~
respons-
ibilities and expectations of own children are
increased~
while a sharing of substance and person is unavoidable.
The individual natural child, along with the entire
family,
is affected by the stress of ever-new foster
children entering the home, and the loss of those who
leave it.
But since the natural child in the foster family is
80
~
indeed part of the fostering process, that child needs to
be acknowledged as such.
The foster family--as a unit--
is providing a therapeutic environment for wounded children.
Just as the foster child needs to remain connected
to his/her own family (in most instances), so do the
natural children in the home need to know their identity,
personal and familial.
The foster parents
could benefit from agency and
academic assistance in preparing their own children for
fostering in advance.
They could also use suggestions and
support for problems as they arise with their own children
during the fostering experience.
the recognition that they do,
Most of all, they need
in fact, have children of
their own who are of prime concern to them: that they are
not just loving-parent-machines-for-foster-children.
Na-
tural children likewise deserve to be afforded acknowledgement and recognition for their own vital part in the
fostering
service.
These suggestions can be partially accomplished by
i~volving
the natural children in the licensing, orienta-
tion, and training process--according to age--from the
very first contact with the agency, through the last.
If
the natural children were to fully understand all of the
ramifications of fostering,
their trauma.
it should help prevent some of
Freed of a feeling of threat from the
foster children due to a lack of understanding, the na-
.
81
tural children could then afford to be more accepting of
the foster children.
A program for ongoing foster family training needs to
be established in one of the many universities in the
area,
fashioned,
for example, on the model of the Foster
Parent Education Program in the Institute for the Study of
Children and Families at Eastern Michigan University
(Ypsilanti).
A training program would not only help foster parents
prepare their own children for fostering, but could assist
the family with problems arising from having foster children in their home.
above,
The Foster Parent Education Program,
deals with all possible phases of fostering.
Seventeen areas are covered in as many courses (Ryan,
Warren,
and McFadden,
1979). 3
-These include a study of
child development from infancy through adolescence, with a
range of possible problems and behaviors in each phase of
development.
Concrete guidelines for the prevention and/
or solution of these problems is incorporated with suggestions relating to own children.
Foster parents are
also helped to work with the natural families of the
foster children and with the placing agency.
In relation to the foster family itself, attention
should partially be directed towards maintaining the identity of each family member, without unduly upsetting the
ordinal position of the natural children: allowing all of
82
the children in the horne to have certain things for "their
very own", so that they do not feel that they must share
everything: providing individual parental time for own
children: facilitating own children's resolution of the
crises and losses associated with foster children's entering or leaving the horne,
etc.
The local foster parent organizations might also
institute peer discussion groups for the natural children
so that issues of mutual concern can be aired.
Suggestions for Further Research
It is believed that there were implications in this
study not only for the natural children of foster parents,
but for child rearing practices in general.
The findings
here would imply that it is not necessarily the lack of
trauma in childhood which produces a subjective feeling of
strength and high self-esteem in adulthood, but possibly
that stress and adversity, with effective resolution, can
also contribute to these attributes.
A study of the
possibility of such a correlation is recommended.
It would be valuable to iearn how the parents of the
natural children in this study see their own role in the
effects that their parenting and fostering had on their
own children.
Grimes (1982),
in fact,
is currently con-
ducting such a study to determine how the foster parents
themselves view the effects of fostering on their own
natural children.
83
Since the scope of this study involved only 36 adult
natural children of foster parents in a retrospective
evaluation of their childhood, a suggestion is being made
that a comprehensive study be conducted on the overall,
long range implications of fostering on the natural children.
This could best be done by a longitudinal study that
would cover the fostering experience from its inception,
in the parents' home,
to its conclusion,
after the child-
ren's departure from home, to determine the ongoing
and
the final effects on these natural children.
In the study, consideration should be given to the
following variables:
1.
The ages of the natural children when the parents
begin to foster.
2.
The number of foster children placed in the home
at any given time.
3.
The ages and sex of the foster children in
relation to the natural children.
4.
The Felationship between natural and foster
children in the home.
5.
The total number of foster children who were
placed in the home during the fostering
experience.
Finally, it might be mentioned, that anything that
helps the foster family will help the foster child.
After
all, helping the foster child is the reason-for-being of
the foster home.
84
FOOTNOTES
1.
In December, 1979, there were 8,942 children placed in
foster homes in Los Angeles County: 1,561 in Region
v.
In December, 1980, 9,615 children were placed in the
county: 1,635 in Region
v.
In December, 1981, 9,282
were in placement in the county, of which 1,529 were
in Region
2.
v.
For the month of December, in 1979, there were 3,087
foster homes in Los Angeles County, of which 534 were
in Region V•
In 1980, there were 2,987 homes in the
county: and 529 in Region
v.
In 1981, there were
2,779 homes in the county: 637 in Region
v.
For the
county, there were 395 foster homes closing in 1979:
817 in 1980: and 851 in 1981.
3.
1.
Issues in Fostering:
Role Responsibilities and
the Problems of Separation
2.
Emotional Development:
Foster
The Three Families of the
Child
3.
Fostering Infants
4.
Fostering the Pre-School Child
5.
Fostering the School Age Child
6.
Fostering the Teenager
7.
Guiding the Sexual Development of the Foster Child
85
8.
Fostering the Mentally Retarded Child I & II
9.
Fostering the Physically Handicapped Child
10.
Handling Lying, Dishonesty,
and Destructive
Behavior
11.
Fostering the Child with Emotional Disturbance I &
II
12.
Fostering the Battered the Abused Child
13.
Communicating With the Professional
14.
Working With Natural Families
15.
All Under One Roof
16.
Legal Aspects of Fostering
17.
The Foster Parents• Role in Assessing and Planning
for the Foster Child
86
References
America,
Coopersmith,
1975.
s.
San Francisco:
The antecedents of self-esteem.
w.
H. Freeman,
1967.
$
87
u.
Dickerson, M.
Our four boys:
retarded teenagers.
University Press,
s.,
Dodson, L.
&
Syracuse,
systems approach.
New York:
Syracuse
Fa_!!!ily counseling:
J.
A
Accelerated
1977.
Children:
Hawthorn Books,
Eastman, K.
The challenge.
1964.
The foster family in a systems theory
perspective.
Ellis, L.
w.
Muncie, Ind.:
R., & Saltz, V.
Dreikurs,
N.Y.:
1978.
Kurpuis, D.
Development,
Foster parenting
Child Welfare,
1979, 58, 564-570.
Sharing parents with strangers:
The role of
the group home foster family's own children.
Welfare,
1972.
51,
165-170.
Fellin, P., Tripodi, T.,
social research.
Child
&
Meyer, H. J.
Itasca, Ill.:
Exemplars of
F. E. Peacock Inc.,
1969.
Fishel, E.
Sisters:
and beyond.
Hill, R.
H. J.
Love and rivalry inside the family
New York:
William Morrow,
1979.
Generic features of families under stress.
Par ad
readings.
(Ed.),
New York:
Crisis Intervention:
In
Selected
Family Service Association of
America, 1965.
Hooker,
c.
E.
21, 194-198.
Learned helplessness.
Social Work, 1976,
•
88
Irish, D. P.
Sibling interaction:
family life research.
A neglected aspect in
Social Forces, 1964, 42,
279-
288.
Kraus, J.
Predicting success of foster placements for
schoolage children.
Kubler-Ross, E.
Social Work, 1971, 16, 62-73.
On death and dying.
New York:
Macmillan Co., 1969.
Laing,
R. D.
Family and individual structure.
Lomas (Ed.),
Predicament of the family.
In P.
New York:
International Universities Press, 1967.
Lawder, E. A.
Toward a more scientific understanding of
foster family care.
Child Welfare, 1964, 43, 57-63.
Levi, A. M., Burkila, M.,
&
Gerzi,
s.
Reducing fights among siblings.
Psychology, 1977, 33,
Benign neglect:
Journal of Individual
240-245.
Lindemann, E. & Klein, D.
Preventive interventions in
individual and family crisis situations.
Caplan {Ed.),
In G.
Prevention of mental disorders in
children - initial explorations.
New York:
Basic
The art of being a foster parent.
Child
Books, 1961.
Littner,
N.
Welfare, 1978, 57, 3-12.
Mintz,
I. L.
parents.
Monane, J. H.
Multi-determined motivations in foster
Child Welfare, 1962, 41, 172-174.
A sociology of human systems. New York:
Meredith, 1967.
89
Pfouts, J. H.
dimension.
Ryan,
P.
The sibling relationship:
A forgotten
Social Work, 1976, 21, 200-204.
Issues
in
fostering.
Ypsilanti:
Eastern
Michigan University, 1979.
Ryan, P., Warren, B. L.,
&
McFadden, E. J.
Seventeen
course outlines for foster parent training.
Ypsilanti:
Sachs,
v.
K.
Eastern Michigan University, 1979.
Crisis intervention.
Public Welfare,
April, 1968, pp. 112-117.
Sacks, G. G.
The group method in services to foster
parents of preadoptive children.
Child Welfare,
1966, 45, 568-571.
Samuels, L.,
& Chase, L.
phrenics.
The well siblings of schizo-
The American Journal of Family Therapy,
1979, 7, 24-35.
Schvaneveldt, J. D. & Ihinger, M.
in the family.
I.
I.
In
Reiss {Eds.),
family.
New York:
w.
Sibling relationships
R. Burr, R. Hill, F. I. Nye,
&
Contemporary theories about the
Macmillan, 1979.
Sears, R. R. Relationship of early socialization
experiences to self-concepts and gender role in middle
childhood.
Simas, B. G.
Child Development, 1970, 41, 267-286.
A time to grieve.
Association of America, 1979.
New York:
Family Service
90
Tanner,
D. C.
Loss and grief:
Implications for the
speech-language pathologist and audiologist.
ASHA, A
Journal of the American Speech-Language-Hearing
Association, 1980, 22, 916-928.
Wallar,
w.
The family:
by Reuben Hill).
Wilkes, J. R.
ily.
A dynamic interpretation.
New York:
(Rev.
Dryden Press, 1951.
The impact of fostering on the foster fam-
Child Welfare, 1974 53, 373-379.
91
Reference Notes
1.
Freeman, H., et al.
Unpublished
Understanding family dynamicE
manuscript,
Family
and
Children'
Services, Pittsburgh, Penn., 1960.
2.
Grimes, J. M.
Foster parents view effects of fos
tering on their own children.
Thesis in progress
California State University, Northridge, 1982.
3.
Mendes, H.
The Psycho-social dimensions of the divor
cing family.
Paper presented at.University o
Southern California,
College of Continuing Education
Los Angeles, January, 1979.
4.
Williams,
C.
w.
Post-termination services at Lo
Angeles County Department of Adoptions.
manuscript,
Los Angeles:
California, 1972.
Unpublishe
University of
Souther
92
Initial Letter to Foster Parents
Appendix A:
Bernice Shanin
c/o Dr. Sarah Moskovitz
California State University, Northridge
Department of Educational Psychology
School of Education
Northridge, California 91330
As a Children's Services Worker at the Department of
Public Social Services and a graduate student at
California State University, Northridge, I am interested
in how foster
experience.
families look back on their fostering
Since you have been foster parents, you have
valuable insights to share about this experience.
And so
do your children.
I am seeking your cooperation to enable me to interview
your own natural children who are now eighteen years of
age or older and living on their own.
At some future
date, my co-worker, Mrs. Janet Grimes, will be calling
upon you for your own important recollections and views,
because we both realize that nobody knows as much about
foster parenting as the foster parents and the children
involved.
I want to assure you that all of the impressions which you
share with me will be kept confidential.
Since the
93
information received will be compiled with that of other
families,
there will no personal identification of the
participants.
When all of the information has· been collected and
studied, I will be anxious to share what I have learned
from all of the families with you.
I will contact you at
the end of the study to let you know what I have found.
Through your cooperation, you will have the opportunity to
compare your own impressions with those of other families
who have fostered.
Within a week or two I will call you to request your
children's names, addresses, and telephone numbers.
will then contact your children directly.
Thank you so much.
Sincerely,
Bernice Shanin
I
94
Appendix B:
Follow up Letter to Foster Parents
Bernice Shanin
c/o Dr. Sarah Moskovitz
California State University, Northridge
Department of Educational Psychology
School of Education
Northridge, California 91330
February 8, :).982
Several weeks ago I mailed you a letter about the study I
am doing about the natural children of foster parents.
I
said that I would call you within two weeks for your
children's addresses,
etc.
However, when I
called you,
I
found that your telephone number had been disconnected,
with no forwarding number.
Would you please call me at telephone number, Monday
through Friday,
between
8:00
a~m.
and 5:00 p.m?
If I am
not available, please leave me a message with your name
and telephone number to that I .can return your call.
Thank you so much.
Sincerely,
Bernice Shanin
95
Appendix C:
Letter to Natural Children of Foster
Parents Living in Area
Bernice Shanin
c/o Dr. Sarah Moskovitz
California State University, Northridge
Department of Educational Psychology
School of Education
Northridge, California 91330
January 26, 1982
As a Children's Services Worker at the Department of
Public Social Services and a graduate student at
California State University, Northridge, I am interested
in how foster families look back on their fostering
experience.
Since you,
as the natural child of foster
parents, have been part of this foster family, you have
valuable insights to share about this experience.
I am seeking your cooperation to enable me to interview
you regarding the time when you were part of a foster
family,
as I want to learn about your important
recollections and views:
I realize that nobody knows as
much about foster families as the foster parents and the
children involved.
At some future time, my co-worker,
Mrs. Janet Grimes, will interview your parents.
I want to assure you that all of the impressions which you
share with me will be kept confidential.
Since the
information received will be compiled with that of other
96
families,
there will be no personal identification of the
participants.
When all of the information has been collected and
studied, I will be anxious to share what I have learned
from all of the families with you.
I will contact you at
the end of the study to let you know what I have found.
Through your cooperation, you will have the opportunity to
compare your own impressions with those of other families
who have fostered.
Within a week or two I will call to make an appointment
with you.
Thank you so much.
Sincerely,
Bernice Shanin
97
Appendix D:
Letter to Natural Children Living Outside
Los Angeles Area
Bernice Shanin
c/o Dr. Sarah Moskovitz
California State University, Northridge
Department of Educational Psychology
School of Education
Northridge, California 91330
As a Children's Services Worker at the Department of
Public Social Services and a graduate student at
California State University, Northridge, I am interested
in how foster families look back on their fostering experience.
Since you,
as the natural child of foster
parents, have been part of this foster family, you have
valuable insights to share about this experience.
I am seeking your cooperation to enable me to learn about
your recollections and views concerning the time when you
were part of a foster family.
These are very important:
I realize that nobody knows as much about foster families
as the foster parents and the children involved.
I want to assure you that all of the impressions which you
share with me will be kept confidential.
Since the infor-
mation received will be compiled with that of other fami-
98
lies, there will be no personal identification of the
participants.
When all of the information has been collected and studied, I will be anxious to share what I have learned from
all of the families with you.
I will contact you at the
end of the study to let you know what I have found.
Through your cooperation, you will have the opportunity to
compare your own impressions with those of other families
who have fostered.
Since you are now living out of the area and I am unable
to interview you personally, I am enclosing a questionnaire and a stamped,
return envelope for your convenience.
Thank you so much.
Sincerely,
Bernice Shanin
99
APPENDIX E:
DIRECTIONS FOR QUESTIONNAIRE
Enclosed is a questionnaire which you are being asked to
complete and return.
Please check all of the responses which are applicable.
You will note that most questions have room for you to
elaborate on your replies, or to explain.
Please write on
the opposite side of the page if you need more room, but
please be sure to write the number of the question to
which you are responding.
Thank you so much for your cooperation and participation
in this study.
Nobody has done any studies on the natural
children of the foster parents.
response.
I look forward to your
100
Appendix F:
QUESTIONNAIRE
Section A
1) Respondent
2) Marital State
1. Male
1. Married
1. White
2. Female
2. Single
2. Black
3. Divorced
3. Hispanic
4. Widowed
4. Other
5. Other
5. Non reply
3) Race
4a) Exact Ase
b) 1. 18-19
2
0
20-24
3. 25-29
4. 30-34
5. 35-39
5) Own Children
a) 1. Yes
2. No
b) If yes- Number
c) Stepchildren
1. Yes
2. No
d) If yes- Number
e) Foster Children
1. Yes
2. No
f) If yes- Number in home now
g) Adopted Children
h) Number
1. Yes
2. No
101
6) Education
Last grade completed:
1. lOth
2. 11th
3. 12th
4. Junior College
5. College graduate
6. Graduate degree
7) Occupation
Section B
8a) Do you have any sisters or brothers?
1. Yes
---
2. No
---
b) If yes, are they
1. biological ____
2. step
---
3. adoptive _______
c) If yes, are they older or younger than you?
d) Total number of siblings?
---
Explain
9a) What was it like to be the . . . •
1) oldest child in your family?
2) top middle?
3) mid-middle child?
4) bottom middle?
5) youngest child?
102
b) Did you like this position?
Explain
10) How old were you when your parents started fostering?
1. 0-5
3. 11-15
---
---
4. 16-18
2. 6-10
---
---
11) Who were the foster children closest to in age?
1. Oldest
2.
3.
4.
--Top middle
--Mid-middle
--Bottom middle
---
5. Youngest - - ' - - 12) What was the total number of foster children who were
placed in your home?
13) Did the foster children change your family sibling
order?
1. Yes
2. No
---
---
If so, how?
14) How would you describe your family before and after
foster children came?
Check all that apply:
a) Before
b) After
Close
1.
1.
Distant
2.
2.
Loving
3.
3.
Conflictual
4.
4.
103
Sharing
Do things together
5.
--6.
---
5.
--6.
---
Any further comments?
15a) Did your parents discuss with you what i t would be
like to have foster siblings in your home?
1. Yes
---
2. No
---
b) If yes, did you expect that you'd have to--1. Share parents
2. Share toys
3. Share birthdays
4. Share own siblings
5. Share relatives
6. Share holidays
7. Share other
Explain
16a) Did you share in your parents'/family decision to
have foster children in your home?
1. Yes
If yes,
b) Were you for it?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Other
2. No
104
c) Were your feelings considered?
1. Yes
2.
3.
--No
--Other
---
Explain
17a) The coming of foster children created
1. No changes in family
2. Changes in family
b) Changes
1. Share parents
4. Share own siblings
2. Share toys
s.
3. Share birthdays
6. Share holidays
Share relatives
7. Share other
ExElain
18} How were you affected by a foster child's coming into
your home?
1. Surprised
2.
3.
--Anxious
--Sad
---
4. Happy_ __
5. Resentful
6.
--Other
---
Explain
105
19. Did your parents have more or less time for you after
they started to foster?
1. More
2.
3.
--The same
--Less
---
Explain
20a) Did your parents treat you and your foster siblings
1. The same
2. Differently
---
b) If differently, in what way?
Discipline - 1. Easier
--Harder
---
3.
c) Expect of you
1. More
3. Less
---
2. The same
2. Same
---
---
---
Explain
21) In comparison with your foster siblings, do you feel
that you were
·1. Better off
---
2. Worse off
---
3. The same
---
ExpLain
22} Were your foster siblings
1. difficult to handle
---
2. no special problems ____
3. emotionally disturbed
4. dilinquent
---
----
106
5. other
---
Please elaborate
23) How do you feel about your parents'/ family's being
able to cope with difficult children?
1. Angry
---
2. Proud
3.
4.
--Jealous
--Other
---
Explain
Section C
24a) Did you feel that you had any control over foster
children's staying or leaving?
1. Yes
---
2. No
---
b) Did that make you feel:
1. Powerful
2. Helpless
3. Angry
4. Guilty
s.
Relieved
6. Sad
7. Happy
8. Other
107
25) When you got to foster siblings and they later had to
leave, did you
Yes
No
a. Want other foster children to come?
1.
2.
b. Want to form close relationships with
other foster siblings?
1.
2.
c. Keep in touch with former foster
siblings?
1.
2.
d. Want to avoid getting hurt again?
1.
2.
Explain:
26) Did you feel that coping with the loss of foster
siblings helped you to cope with other losses?
1. Yes
---
2. No
---
Explain
Section D
27) If you had not had foster children in your home, do
you think that you would have been:
1. Happier
2. Sadder
3. Stronger
4. Weaker
s.
6. Think less of
Think more of
yourself
7. Other
Explain
yourself
108
28) Have you ever considered becoming a foster parent?
1.
Yes
---
2.
No
---
Explain
29) Do you want to add anything about your experience of
having had foster children in ·your home?
109
APPENDIX G:
QUESTIONNAIRE
9a*.
Were you the--Percent
25%
N
9
1.
Oldest child in your family?
2.
Top middle--
16.7
6
3.
Mid-middle--
13.9
5
4.
Lower middle--
8.3
3
5.
Youngest--
33.3
12
6.
(Only child)
2.8
1
b.
What was it like?
1.
Favorable
38.9
14
2.
Unfavorable
38.9
14
3.
Neutral
22.2
8
Explain
10.
How old were you when your parents started fostering?
1.
0-5
13.9
5
2.
6-10
22.3
8
3.
11-15
44.4
16
4.
16-18
19.4
7
* Note:
Questions 1-8 are reported in Chapter 3, Method.
110
11.
Who were the foster children closest to in age?
No
Percent(N)
Percent(N)
Percent(N)
1.
Oldest
83.3%(30)
16.7%(6)
100%(36)
2.
Top middle
94.4 ( 34)
5.6 (2)
100 (36)
3.
Mid-middle
94.4 (34)
5.6 (2)
100 (36}
4.
Lower middle 86.1 (31)
13.9 (5)
100 (36)
5.
*
Total *
Yes
Youngest
13.9 (5)
86.1
(31)
100 (36)
Total from left to right
12.
What was the total number of foster children placed
in your horne?
Percent
1.
1-30
2.
31-70
3.
100-500
13.
69.4%
N
25
8.3
3
22.3
8
Did the foster children change your family sibling
order?
1.
Yes
58.3%
21
2.
No
38.9
14
3.
Does not apply
2.8
1
If so, how?
111
14.
How would you describe your family before and after
foster children came?
a)
Before
No Response
No
Total *
Yes
Percent{N) Percent{N) Percent(N) Percent(N)
1.
Close
8.3%(3)
2.
Distant
8.3 (3)
3.
Loving
8.3 (3)
4.
Conflictual
5.
16.7%(6}
75.0(27)
100%{36)
80.6 (29} 11.1 (4)
100 (36)
83.4 (30)
100 (36)
8.3 (3)
58.4 {21) 33.3 (12}
100 (36)
Sharing
8.3 (3}
25.0 (9)
66.7 (24)
100 (36)
6.
Do
things
together
8.3 (3)
19.4 (7)
72.3 {26)
100 (36}
7.
Other
11.1 (4}
100 (36)
86.1 (31)
8.3 (3)
2.8 (1)
* Total from left to right
Any further comments?
b)
After
No Response
Percent(N)
No
Yes
Total *
Percent(N) Percent(N) Percent(N)
1.
Close
0%(0)
25.0%(9)
75.0%(27)
100%(36)
2.
Distant
0 (0)
86.1 (31)
13.9 (5)
100 (36)
3.
Loving
0 (0)
5.2 (2)
94.4 {34}
100 (36)
4.
Conflictual
0 (0)
55.6 (20)
44.4 (16)
100 (36)
5.
Sharing
0 (0)
13.9 (5)
86.1 {31)
100 (36)
6.
Do things
together
0 {0)
19.4 (7)
80.6 (29)
100 {36)
7.
Other
38.9 (14)
22.2 (8}
100 (36)
38.9 (14}
112
Any further comments?
15.a)
Did your parents discuss with you what it would be
like to have foster siblings in your home?
Percent
N
1.
Yes
52.8%
19
2.
No
47.2
17
b)
If yes, did you expect that you•d have to share-No Response
Percent(N)
No
Percent(N)
Yes
Total *
Percent(N) Percent(N)
1.
Parents
47.2%(17)
8.3%(3)
44.5%(16)
100%(36)
2.
Toys
47.2 (17)
25.0 (9)
27.8 (10)
100 (36)
3.
Birthdays
47.2 (17)
13.9 ( 5)
38.9 ( 14)
100 ( 36)
4.
Own
50.0 (18)
Siblings
16.7 (6)
33.3 (12)
100 (36)
5.
Relatives
47.2 (17)
13.9 (5)
38.9 ( 14)
100 (36)
6.
Holidays 47.2 (17)
11.1 (4)
41. 7 ( 15)
100 (36)
7.
Other
33.3 (12)
19.5 (7)
100 ( 36)
*
47.2 (17)
Total from left to right
16a.
Did you share in your parents•jfamily decision to
have foster children in your home?
Percent
N
1.
Yes
61.1%
22
2.
No
36.1
13
3.
No response
2.8
1
b)
If yes, were you for it?
113
1.
Yes
63.9%
23
2.
No
5.6
2
3.
Other
2.8
1
4.
No response
27.7
10
c)
Were your feelings considered?
Percent
N
1.
Yes
61.0
22
2.
No
19.5
7
3.
Other
4.
No response
0
0
19.5
7
Explain
17a)
Did the coming of foster children create-8.3
3
Changes in the family
91.7
33
Changes that occurred:
Shared--
1.
No changes in the
family
2.
b)
No Response
Percent(N)
*
Yes
No
Total *
Percent(N) Percent(N). Percent(N)
1.
Parents
8.3%(3)
77.8%(28)
13.9%(5)
100%(36)
2.
Toys
8.3 ( 3)
50.0 (18)
41.7 (21)
100 (36)
3.
Birthdays 8.3 ( 3)
64.0 ( 2 3)
27.7 ( 10)
100 (36)
4.
11.1 (4)
Own
Siblings
63.9 (23)
25.0 ( 9)
100 (36)
5.
Relatives 8.3 ( 3)
58.3 (21)
33.4 (12)
100 (36)
6.
Holidays
8.3 ( 3 )
77.8 (28)
13.9 ( 5 )
100 (36)
7.
Other
11.1 (4)
69.4 (25)
19.5 (7)
100 (36)
Total from left to right
114
Explain
18. How were you affected by a foster child's coming
into your home?
No
Total *
Percent(N)
Percent(N)
Percent(N)
Yes
*
1.
Surprised
30.6%(11)
69.4%(25)
100%(36)
2.
Anxious
80.6 (29)
19.4 ( 7)
100 (36)
3.
Sad
4.
Happy
5.
6.
11.1
( 4)
88.9
(32)
100 (36)
66.7 (24)
33.3 (12)
100 (36)
Resentful
27.8 (10)
72.2 ( 26)
100 (36)
Other
72.2 (26)
27.8 (10)
100 (36)
Total from left to right
Explain
19.
Did your parents have more or less time for you after
they started to foster?
Percent
N
2.7%
1
1.
More
2.
The same
47.3
17
3.
Less
44.4
16
4.
No response
5.6
2
Explain
20a.
Did your parents treat you and your foster siblings
the same or differently?
1.
The same
22.2%
2.
Differently
77.8
b)
If differently, was discipline--
1.
Easier
2.8%
8
28
1
115
2.
The same
50.0
18
3.
Harder
33.3
12
4.
No response
13.9
5
Percent
N
c)
Was more, the same, or less expected of you?
1.
More
66.6%
24
2.
The same
27.8
10
3.
Less
0
0
4 ·-
No response
5.6
2
Explain
21.
In comparison with your foster siblings, do you feel
that you were--
1.
Better off
2.
Worse off
3.
The same
88.9%
0
11.1
32
0
4
Explain
22.
Were your foster siblings-Yes
No
Total *
Percent(N} Percent(N} Percent(N}
*
1.
Difficult to handle
75.0%(27}
25% ( 9}
100%(36)
2.
No special problems
69.5 (25)
30.5(11}
100 (36)
3.
Emotionally disturbed
83.4 (30)
16.6(6)
100 (36)
4.
Delinquent
58.3 (21}
41.7(15)
100 (36)
5.
Other
41.7 ( 15)
61.1(22}
100 (36}
Total from left to right
Please elaborate
'
116
23.
How do you feel about your parents'/family's being
able to cope with difficult children?
Yes
No Response
Total'*
No
Percent(N) Percent(N) Percent(N) Percent(N)
*
1.
Angry
2.8%(1)
11.1%(4)
86.1%(31)
100%(36)
2.
Proud
2.8 (1)
86.1 (31)
11.1 (4)
100 (36)
3.
Jealous
2.8 (1)
97.2 (35)
100 (36)
4.
Other
2.8 (1)
44.4 (16)
100 (36)
(0)
0
52.8 (19)
Total from left to right
Explain
24a.
Did you feel that you had any control over foster
children's staying or leaving?
Percent
N
1.
Yes
50.0%
18
2.
No
50.0
18
b.
Did that make you feel-No Response
Yes
No
Total *
Percent(N) Percent(N) Percent(N) Percent(N)
1.
Powerful 16.6%(6)
5.6%( 2)
77.8%(28)
100%(36)
2.
Helpless 16.6 (6)
16.6 (6)
66.8 (24)
100 (36)
3.
Angry
16.6 (6)
19.4 ( 7)
64.0 ( 23)
100 (36)
4.
Guilty
16.6 (6)
11.1 {4)
72.3 (26)
100 (36)
5.
Relieved 16.6 (6)
39.0(14)
44.4 (16)
100 (36)
6.
Sad
16.6 (6)
22.2 (8}
61.2 (22}
100 {36)
7.
Happy
16.6 { 6)
13.9 (5)
69.5 ( 25)
100 (36)
117
8.
*
Other
16.6 (6)
27.8(10)
55.6 (20)
100 (36)
Total from left to right
Explain
25.
When you got close to foster siblings and they later
had to leave, did you-No Response
Percent(N)
Yes
Total *
No
Percent(N) Percent(N) Percent(N)
a.
Want other 16.6%(6)
foster
children
to come?
55.6%(20)
27.8%(6)
b.
25.0 (9)
Want to
form
close
relationships with
other
foster
siblings?
50 • 0
25 • 0 ( 9)
c.
Keep in
11.1 (4)
touch with
other
foster
siblings?
61.1 (22)
d.
Want to
30.6( 11)
avoid
getting
hurt again?
25. 0( 9)
*
( 18 )
100%(36)
27.8 (10)
44 .4( 16)
100 ( 36)
100 (36)
100
(36)
Total from left to right
Explain
26.
Did you feel that coping with the loss of foster
siblings helped you to cope with other losses?
Percent
1.
Yes
36.1%
N
13
118
2.
No
41.7
15
3.
No response
22.2
8
Explain
27.
If you had not had foster children in your home, do
you think that you would have been-No Response
Yes
Total *
No
Percent(N) Percertt(N) Percent(N) Percent(N)
*
1.
Happier
13.9%(5)
16.7%(6)
69.4(25)
100%(36)
2.
Sadder
13.9 (5)
33.3(12)
52.8(19)
100 (36).
3.
Stronger 13.9 (5)
5.5 (2)
80.6(29)
100 (36)
4.
Weaker
13.9 (5)
61.1(22)
25. 0 ( 9)
100 (36)
5.
Think
13.9 (5)
more of
yourself
2.8 (1)
83.3(30)
100 (36)
6.
13.9 (5)
Think
less
of yourself
58.3(21)
27.8(10)
100 ( 36)
7.
Other
13.9 ( 5)
50.0(18)
36.1( 13)
100 (36)
Total from left to right
Explain
28.
Have you ever considered becoming a foster parent?
Percent
N
1.
Yes
41.6%
15
2.
No
58.3
21 '
Explain
119
29.
Do you want to add anything about your experience of
having had foster children in your home?
No Response
Yes
Percent(N)
*
1.
Good/positive
experience or
glad had experience
58.3%(21)
2.
Children's
services workers
need to spend
more time with
foster
parents
11.2 (4)
3.
Had their own
family and/or
parents who
loved them
4.
Sometimes wished
52.8 (19)
they only had their
own family
5.
Broadened their
experience and
outlook on life
6.
7.
69.4 (25)
Total *
Percent(N) Percent(N)
41.7%(15)
88.8 ( 32)
30.6 (11)
~00%(36)
100 ( 36)
100 (36)
47.2 (17)
100 (36)
19.4 (7)
100 ( 36}
They had much work 27.8 (10)
to do
72. 2 ( 26)
100 ( 36)
It was hard on
their parents
63.9 (23)
36 .1 ( 13)
100 ( 36)
8.
It had its good
and baq points
19.4
(7)
80.6 (29)
100 (36)
9.
Foster children
were lots of
trouble
41.7 (15)
58. 3 ( 21)
100 ( 36)
10.
They didn't get
enough parental
attention
30.6 ( 11)
69.4 (25)
100 (36)
80.6 ( 29}
Total from left to right
120
Appendix H:
Code Book for Research Project
Coding Scheme and Instructions
1.
All boxes must have a code in them.
If the question
was not answered, fill in the box with an "X"·.
2.
The word "copy" shall mean to use the exact number or
response written on the questionnaire.
3.
All numbered items in the Code Book must correspond
with the numbers in the questionnaire and the Code
Worksheet.
4.
Each individual Codesheet must be numbered to match a
corresponding questionnaire.
Code Roster
Question and/or
Box Number
Serial Number
Item
Code
Questionnaire
respondent
number, assign numbers
to each completed
questionnaire and
write the same
number on both
the questionnaire
and code sheet.
"Copy"
1.
Sex
1= Male
2= Female
2.
Marital Status
12345-
3.
Racial/Ethnic
Background
1= White
2= Black
3= Hispanic
Married
Single
Divorced
Widowed
Other
121
Question and/or
Box Number
Code
Item
4= Other
5= Non reply
4.(a)
Age
Copy exact age
4. (b)
Age Category
1=
2=
3=
4=
5=
5. (a)
Own Children
1= Yes
2= No
(b)
Number of Own
Children
Copy exact number
(c)
Stepchildren
1= Yes
2= No
(d)
Number of
Stepchildren
Copy
(e)
Foster Children
1= Yes
2= No
(f)
Number of Foster
Children
Copy
(g)
Adopted. Children
1= Yes
2= No
(h)
Number of
Adopted Children
Copy
Education
1=
2=
3=
4=
5=
6=
6.
18
20
25
30
35
to
to
to
to
to
19
24
29
34
39
To lOth grade
To 11th grade
To 12th grade
Jr. college
College grad.
Grad. degree
122
Question and/or
Box Number
Code
Item
7.
Occupation
1= Blue collar
2= White collar
3= Other
8. (a)
Siblings
1= Yes
2= No
(b)
Sibling Type
1= Biological
2= Step
3= Adoptive
(c)
Sibling Comparative Age
1= Older
2= Younger
3= Older/Younger
(d)
Number of Siblings
Copy
Sibling
Ordinal Position
1=
2=
3=
4=
5=
Subjective Evaluation of Sibling
Position
1= Favorable
2= Uafavorable
3= Neutral
10.
Beginning Age
when Parent Started
Fostering
1=
2=
3=
4=
0 to 5
6 to 10
11 to 15
16 to 18
11.
How Foster
Children Fit
within Ordinal
Position in
Family Unit
1=
2=
3=
4=
5=
Oldest
Top Middle
Mid-Middle
Bottom Middle
Youngest
12.
Total Number
of Foster
Children Placed
in Home
Copy
9. (a)
(b)
Oldest
Top middle
Middle-middle
Bottom middle
Youngest
123
Question and/or
Box Number
Item
Code
13.
Change in Ordinal
Position of Natural
Child
1= Yes
2= No
14.(a)
Family Description
Before Fostering
1=
2=
3=
4=
5=
6=
Close
Distant
Loving
Conflictual
Sharing
Do things together
7= Other
1= Yes
2= No
(b)
Family Description
After Fostering
Close
Distant
Loving
Conflictual
Sharing
Do things together
7= Other
1=
2=
3=
4=
5=
6=
1= Yes
2= No
15.(a)
{b)
Prior Discussion by
Parents of Nature of
Fostering
1= Yes
2= No
Prior Expectations of
Sharing
1=
2=
3=
4=
5=
6=
7=
Parents
Toys
Birthdays
Siblings
Relatives
Holidays
Other
1= Yes
2= No
16. (a)
(b)
Participate in Making
Decision to Foster
1= Yes
2= No
Response Toward Family
Family Decision to
Foster
1= Favorable
2= Unfavorable
3= Other
124
Question and/or
Box Number
(c)
l7.(a)
(b)
Item
Code
Parents Considered
Feelings
l= Yes
2= No
3= Other
Foster Child(ren)
Created Changes
l= No change
2= Change
Type of Changes
l=
2=
3=
4=
5=
6=
7=
Share Parents
Share toys
Share Birthdays
Siblings
Share Relatives
Holidays
Other
l= Yes
2= No
18.
Natural Child's
Subjective Response
To Foster Child
Entering Home
l=
2=
3=
4=
5=
6=
Surprise
Anxious
Sad
Happy
Resentful
Other
l= Yes
2= No
19.
Parental Attention
After Fostering
l= More
2= Same
3= Less
20.{a)
Parental Treatment
of Natural and
Foster Child
l= Same
2= Differently
(b)
Differential Discipline l= Easier
2= Same
3= Harder
(c)
Differential Expectation
l= More
2= Same
3= Less
125
Question and/or
Box Number
Code
Item
21.
Natural Child's
Subjective
Comparison with
Foster Child
1= Better off
2= Worse off
3= Same
22.
Difficulty of
Foster Child(ren)
a.= Difficult to
handle
1= Yes
2= No
b.= No special
problems
1= Yes
2= No
c.= Emotionally
disturbed
1= Yes
2= No
d.= Delinquent
1= Yes
2= No
e.= Other
1= Yes
2= No
23.
Natural Child's
View of Parents'
Ability to Cope
With Difficult
Children
1=
2=
3=
4=
Angry
Proud
Jealous
Other
1= Yes
2= No
24. (a)
Control Over Foster
Children's Staying/
Leaving
1= Yes
2= No
126
Question and/or
Box Number
(b)
Item
Children's Resultant
Feeling
Code
l=
2=
3=
4=
5=
6=
7=
8=
Powerful
Helpless
Angry
Guilty
Relieved
Sad
Happy
Other
l= Yes
2= No
25.
Reaction to Departure
of Foster Child(ren):
(a) Want other foster
child to come.
l= Yes
2= No
(b) Want to form close l= Yes
relation with other 2= No
foster siblings.
(c) Keep in touch with
former foster siblings.
l= Yes
2= No
(d) Want to avoid getting hurt again.
l= Yes
2= No
26.
Help in Coping with
other losses
l= Yes
2= No
27.
Consideration of Absence of Foster Children
l=
2=
3=
4=
5=
Happier
Sadder
Stronger
Weaker
Think more of
self
6= Think less of
self
7= Other
l= Yes
2= No
28.
Consideration of
Becoming
Foster Parent
l= Yes
2= No
127
Question and/or
Box Number
29.
Item
Miscellaneous
Responses to
Experience of
Being Adult Natural
Child of Foster
Parents
Code
1= Yes
2= No Reponse
1= Good/positive
experience or
glad had experience
2= Children's
services workers
need to spend
more time with
foster parents
3= Had their own
family and/or
parents who
loved them
4= Sometimes wished
they only had
their own family
5= Broadened their
experience and
outlook on life
6= Had to do much
work
7= Hard on parents
8= Had its good and
bad points
9= Foster kids were
lots of trouble
10= Didn't get
enough parental attention
128
Appendix I:
CODE i.'ORKE.EEET
::'EF.IAL :n:Ji·IBEE
DJ,TE lKTERVIEW
HISCFLLA~OUE
::u~PLETH
~I
--1
5(c
1
j!_j
~
2 ( c:)
1
~
5(ej_
~I
I~
I
l4(c;-4)1
I~
5 (b)
5 ( g )j
~I
I~
jpfrJ)j
::J
14 1 a-l~
J
-~
9 f e) J
I
i
~
14(a-Z~
1
I
Xw
~
J I~
5 ( r)
~
I
(f.'
'
I
..
1 <:
_I
~
14(e.-5)1
14(e.-6)1 14
4fc;-~)l
(b-d
14 (b-2)1
J
5(b-l)j
15 (b-7)j
11:~~
fa-7~ 14
I
4 ro-3
)I'
'
14 (b-4 ~
5(b-2)j
12
16 'b)
j
(b-z'l
lE'fc)j
14 (b-5
)j
l5(b-4)j
J.7
fa']
4rb-f')
I 14 (b-7)1
15 fb-5)1 l5fb-6)1
l5(a)J
171b-1)1 l?fb-f'' 1 17 (b-;z ,,
[>(
129
CODE \...ORKSHEET
Page 2
17(b-4)] 117(b-5) 17 (b-E\~ 17(b-7)1
8 (4)
I
~
~e (5)
I
l-,2 (1)
I
z (2) I ~3 (3) l
~4-(b-4 )j
rz5 c c)
I
127(5)1
::9 c 4)
I
w
I
22(2)1
\22(3)1
I
24(a ~[
b(4)
24(b-s)i r4(b-d
I
)I
20 (a) [
rz2 c4)
I
r
24(b-1D
1
27 cs)
I
tn(7)
I I~
:.::9 (5)
I
~9 cs)
I
)j
:::2 (5)
I
24 (b-2)\
~o (c)
1
22 c1)
I
24 (b-~)1
22 rb) 1
I
27 (3)
f
27(4)
I
29(2)j
29(3)\
29(8)1
29(9)1
29 c1o)
29 (1)
I
20 (b
18(;>;)1
j
27 c1) 1 . 27(2)
29(7)
11a (2) 1
f5(a)
24 fb-7i ?.4 fb-8)j
25 cd)
26
18 (l
1
SERIAL
;:m!B~'R
I
AUG 0'8 1983
flEGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS
· ··united States of Americi! ·-·
-DO NOTWRrTE ABOVE THIS UNE. F YOU NEED
TrJ1.E OF 11DS WORK 'Y
-E
.;
····:.
-;
SPACE. USE A SEPARATE CON11HUAnON SHEEl:
.
.
.
···---
EFFECTS OF'"FOSTER
PABEniNG' Olf THE'- NATURAL. CHILDREN OF FOSTER PARENTS
.
.
~
PREVIOUS OR All'ER.NATIVE Til1.ES 'Y
EFFECTS OF FOSTERING ON FOSTER PARENTS•- OWN CHILDREN
PUBUCAllON AS A CONTRIBVTION ff :his work- pubtilbed •• a c:antribation to a periodicll, serial, ar collec:tion, give iniDnnatian about the
Cllllectiw work in whid! ~ contribution ·~
TltlnfOIDilctfft WildeY
.
DATES OF BIKIH AND DEAl'B
Year Bam...
Year Died ...
NAME OF AUTHOR 'Y
a Bernice.
•
Harriet Sbanin
WAS THIS AL'THOR'S CONTRIBVTION TO
u
THE 'VORK
j Cil:izl!n o! .,..,.......:;.J~•.::Su·•L.:!!A~,'ta.-------- Anonymous?
0 Yes r!
rl'- ~-r
•wortr. made far hft"'1 . ,...,. at Ciulry
0
. -.
NATURE OF AUTHORSHIP
Entire text
he law.
l'lor'rla
me tar..
Yes
[J:No
)TE
'W). For
·-
Was this contribution ID the wori: a
0 Ya
·w.:n l:l\iiQe for ~'"?
Nelhe
"(or
non far
NATURE OF AUTHORSHIP
Ilia
or h!re•
,..,., at c:ru.-y
Oti:am af IJo:
QRJ1 Dol:=iciied in ...
NoYes
Nlme at
c-.-,
.-OR~=·
......,._....,. ...
-lie--
,.,. .......
II
•'*ar ... - . .
COPYRIGHT Cl.AIMANT(S) Name and ada.
amt
uthe
author~;' in IJp&oee 2.Y
Bernice
-·..,__ --- ........ ~
.- .·_
.:. ----------.
AUTHOR'S NAI10NA1.11Y OR DOMICILE
Y£Aa.IN WHICH CR£AI10N OF THlS
WOIUC WAS CoMPL.ETED
II
~
~
0
0
~
Yes
0
0
If l'le .,._ID _,.
No
No
d ' - ~ il
......
- d8IMed
iWr.ICiions.
DATES OF BIKI'H AND DEATH
Year Bam •
YMr Died .,
Wu this contribution to the warit a
"work made tar hire"'?
0
0
THE WORK
Parudonymous?
C
;·~
r:l bir1tl
t> blink.
0 Yes
WAS THIS AU'llfOR'S CONTJUBVTION TO
Anonymous?
NAME OF AUTHOR 'I'
.. watt
or"rl
.8nd
AUTHOR'S NATIONAI.IT\' OR. DOMICILE
ONo
!W"in
:e lilt>'
PsNdonru-7
--.... -
:.1!';'.
.. ;.=
r-n..
in...,
No
No
::~atweo of11rmatma! aatet~ by this author in w~ mpyrightis c1Umeci. •
...
.no-
:.ed)
Brirfly t.1e1c::2be
II hi ---110 . . .
-
OR 1 Dceidled
NAME Of AUTHOR. 'Y
·
~:b'
I r:l
AUTHOR'S NAI'lONIU.Il"Y OR DOMICILE
\'<U this c:antrlbution to the warit a
riat · Shanili·
WAS THIS AUTHOR'S CONTlUBVTION TO
THE WORK
Anonymous?
Pleadonymoua?
lflhe-110..,
0
0
Yes
Yes
0 No
0 No
~.:::
••~·
lnllrUCiioriL
DATE &NO NATION Of FlKST PUBUCATION OF nns PAKI'JCULAR WORK
~--~~·
•
I
Wanlt! ..
~·---..._.....,...
!!i!.D! ~
p.m f'Yerl if !be claimant i1 tbe
•.
.,
..
Clay .. _ _ .,._ .. _ _ __
·
··_.,,__
. _
~
··:-'ei:l:.it~nia
...,;' -. ,,......
...