Sibling relationships and connection in out-ofhome care.
Dr. Trish McCluskey for FACS NSW Practice
Conference
Why siblings matter…
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
They are our first friends
They are usually the longest relationships of our life
They often provide practical and emotional support
They connect us to our past and our identities
They may be our primary attachment figure
They are often a source of unconditional affiliation
They know us, our story and our history…
• They’ve seen as at our best and worst and they remember us…
The sibling relationships of children who have have been abused
and neglected.
• Particularly strong attachments to one another
• May be primary attachment figures
• Identify siblings as “positive family”
• Provide a sense of family continuity
• Help with establishment of identity and roles
• May protect from the alienation of profound abuse
• Likely to be a support post-care and in later adult life
• Provide solace, understanding, sanctuary
What we know from research: siblings
• Siblings want to be together in care
• Siblings want regular access when they cannot live together
• Siblings grieve the loss of living with each other
• Many have long-term, traumatic reactions to separation
• Siblings separated in care may not see their siblings for years
• Post care young people are more likely to seek out siblings for
support than parents
When research collides with practice
• Sisters reported highest maladjustment scores when separated from their siblings in care
• Children often report ties to their siblings as being more important than to parents
• There are greater placement disruption rates when children are separated from other siblings
• Siblings who are placed together report increased attachments to carers
• The greatest level of placement stability is when siblings are placed together
• Likelihood of return to parents in increased when siblings are placed together
• Sibling relationship likely to be over-looked and underestimated
• Separated siblings report additional trauma and are “likely to be preoccupied with thoughts of
siblings, leading to depression” (Hegar, in Kang, 2002)
Are we learning from the lessons of history? What the Stolen
Generations, Forgotten Australians and Child “Migrants” have told us:
• There is life-long grief and longing for siblings
• Identity is tied to sibling connections
• Siblings as most important attachment figures
• Trauma from sibling separation reported as having longer implications
• Best interests arbitrarily decided by prevailing resources and values
• Children’s rights ignored or denied
• Siblings not seen as “family”
• Some voices…
“History repeats itself, first as tragedy,
second as farce.” Marx
“It’s not just the thinking about him
that’s bad.
It hurts my body…the missing him.”
Billie, aged 18
“ I haven’t been allowed to see them
for years. I wish I could see them
even for an hour. I’d tell them that
even though they are gone from my
life they are never forgotten.”
Destiny, aged 20
“ …we were inseparable in care and
god we ran amok.
So we got separated…I never stopped
missing my brother. I knew for sure
he’d be missing me like crazy...”
Renae, aged 19
How many siblings are we talking about?
• In Australia we don’t exactly know!
• In Australia there are approximately 43,000 children in OOHC (2015)
• Now 7.8 children per thousand aged 0-17 are in care in Australia
• This rate is 57.1 per thousand for Aboriginal children
• Two thirds of children admitted to OOHC are less than nine years old
• In Australia children are coming into care at a younger age and staying
in care longer. (AIHW, 2015)
Who and How Many?
• Australia has low rates of OOHC: half that of Canada, Denmark,
Germany, France etc
• Median age of entry to care is six and a half years old
• 43% of children who enter care are under five years old
• 50% are under nine.
• In Victoria 84% of children in care are separated from some siblings
and 42% from all siblings. 50% of those separated reported they
never saw their siblings.
• In Australia more than a third of children in OOHC are separated from
siblings
How many siblings?
• How many siblings are placed together in OOHC? (<25% USA)
• How many siblings are ever reunited if placed apart?
• How often do separated siblings see each other?
• If we don’t know…are we not counting what doesn’t count?
Critically, what are the rights of siblings in OOHC in
Australia?
• United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
• Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities
• Legislation in Australia: there are no rights to mandate placement
together, ensure eventual placement together, enforce access
provisions and new orders do not compel sibling access.
• Is contact the answer?
‘A poor second…’
“Now that continuing contact between separated
siblings has become the norm, there is a real danger
that such arrangements can be seen as an acceptable
substitute to placements together. Arrangements for
‘contact’ can only come a poor second…”
O’Leary, S. and Schofield, F. (1994) The Right of Siblings to Live Together
The need for legislation. The U.S context:
• California, Ohio, Massachusetts, New York, Minnesota, Alabama etc
have legislated that it is a
• “… presumption that it is in children’s best interests to stay with
their siblings [in OOHC]”
• New York City has mandated joint sibling OOHC placement unless
it would jeopardize a sibling’s welfare.
• NYC clear that resources nor the lack of them do not justify sibling
separation
• New Jersey Child Placement Bill of Rights Act: sibling contact a
responsibility not an option and “ …an obligation to nurture sibling
bonds exists”
USA and UK sibling legislation and policy
• New York: Keep looking…siblings must be placed together
• England and Wales: acknowledge the need to be together
• and that case planning must be for reunification if siblings are
separated
• Contact must be maintained regardless of geography.
“…because we know the importance of sibling
relationships we are encouraging efforts to keep
brothers and sisters together.”
Obama, B. Presidential proclamation, 4/11/14
What might change look like?
Legislation
• Disentangle “Best interests” from resources
• Mandate co-placement of siblings with few exceptions
• Court over-sight of placement outcomes
• Remove ambiguous language i.e. from “may” to “ must” “ should” to
“will”
• Adoption and Permanent care and long-term orders must include
placement or reunification of siblings
• Sibling access stipulated in all orders where children separated
• Reconceptualise children’s rights as different from parents’
Practice
• Practice reflects the rights of siblings
• Awareness of the importance of the sibling relationship
• Understanding rivalry, “parentification” and abuse in the context of
sibling attachment
• Knowing the long-term consequences of separation of siblings
• Giving children their siblings’ contact details
• Refusing to pathologize sibling grief and loss
• Advocate to ensure that the profound grief and loss experienced by
separated siblings is not denied or minimized
Policy
• Debate about the impact of permanency and adoption on separated
siblings
• Issue practice guidelines on siblings which reflect their rights
• Improve data tracking processes of sibling placements: otherwise we
don’t know what we don’t know.
• Awareness that conventions insisting on family rights means siblings
too
• Case planning and case management of siblings as a group, not in
isolation
• Disseminate information on siblings in care: numbers, age,
placements and contact
• Listen to what siblings are telling us
Research and Education
• Rethink attachment theory so that siblings can be understood to be
life-long and often primary attachment figures
• Increase understanding and education regarding the long-term
benefits of sibling co-placement on stability, carer attachment and
reunification
• Disseminate findings from research with siblings in out-of-home care
in Australia
• Advise government on best practice with siblings in out-of-home care.
Challenging ourselves to change: making a difference, upholding
social justice and the meaning and importance of our work.
We want families we work with to change: how they act, live, respond,
parent. We know the outcome if they are not able to do this.
We know and can see the evidence, the research and the voices of
children now and historically who were separated from siblings. Are WE
willing to change our practice, thinking, policy or legislation?
Do resources (or the lack of ) dictate our what social justice is?
Or does our stance on an issue ensure prioritised resources?
Questions siblings may one day want to ask us
• Why do siblings forfeit their rights when parents lose theirs?
• Which is more important: child protection or child’s best interests?
• Who protects sibling best interests?
• Why do we know so little about siblings in care: numbers, experience,
trajectories, voices?
• Why does our policy, practice and legislation use resource driven and
ambivalent language in relation to siblings: “may”, “should”, “if
possible”, “whenever possible”, “efforts” etc
• Why are we not learning from history and international best practice?
Discussion: Is there a tension: what we say and
what we do?
Some 21st century child welfare imperatives:
• Rights focussed
• Best interests
• Evidence based practice
• Solution focused practice
• Strengths based
• Clear cost-benefit
We all want to avoid another apology for loss, and
pain
• Privilege the rights and needs of siblings to be together over
arguments about resources and time. There will never be enough of
either, our system will always be in crisis!
• Insist on behalf of children, for legislative and practice changes which
ensure that siblings are kept together
• Ensure that parent and carer demands as adults do not supersede
siblings’ rights
• Help define and shape rights-based practice
• Consult with siblings regarding what they want
• Be part of true “best interests”
• Be an agent of change
“Every child we work with is
a silent witness to our own
morality”
Pithouse, 2007
Thank you
[email protected]