Essay Grade

‘Contact Irregular’: a qualitative analysis of the impact of
visiting patterns of natural parents on foster placements
Deborah Browne* and Ann Moloney†
*Centre for Applied Psychology (Forensic Section), University of Leicester, UK, and †Department of Applied Psychology,
University College, Cork, Ireland
Correspondence:
Dr Deborah Browne,
Centre for Applied Psychology
(Forensic Section),
6 University Road,
University of Leicester,
Leicester LE1 7RB,
UK
E-mail: dcb11@le.ac.uk
Keywords: attachment, foster child,
natural parents, visiting patterns
Accepted for publication: May 2001
A B S T R AC T
Over the years there has been much debate about the effect of
parental visiting on children in foster care. While some contend that
it is essential to maintain attachment bonds to the birth family, others
argue that contact undermines the new relationship with the foster
family. By studying descriptions of visiting patterns of 113 foster
placements this study attempts to examine how parental access
affects the foster child. A qualitative analysis of the written accounts
offered by social workers yielded four distinct visiting patterns:
Regular and Frequent, Regular but Infrequent, Infrequent, and No
Access. The nature of the analysis also allowed for a redefinition of
placement outcome into three categories: Successful placements,
Ambiguous placements and Crisis placements. Because the categories
that emerged from the qualitative analysis were mutually exclusive it
was possible to examine, using chi square, whether there was a quantitative relationship between the variables ‘Placement status’ and
‘Visiting patterns’. Analysis of the categorical data showed a statistically significant relationship between visiting patterns and placement
outcome. This relationship, however, was not based on how visiting
related to Successful or Crisis placements. Instead it was evident that
those placements categorized as Ambiguous were far more likely to
report Infrequent visiting patterns. Case examples offer an opportunity to examine possible reasons for this relationship. The paper also
describes qualitative accounts of how children reacted to the visits.
The unique approach to defining placement status in this study
may help explain the conflicting findings on this topic over recent
years.
INTRODUCTION
Many researchers have singled out continuing contact
between the foster child and his or her natural parents
as a prerequisite for the successful development of
self-identity and esteem (e.g. Weinstein 1960; Colon
1978). Furthermore, findings suggest that more
regular contact is associated with ‘greater feelings of
closeness and identification’ to the family when the
child grows up (McDonald et al. 1996, p. 139). On
the other hand, the preservation of natural family ties
35
Child and Family Social Work 2002, 7, pp 35–45
can be to the detriment of the attachments the child
could develop with his or her foster families.There are
also cases where contact is maintained through court
order although it is visibly disturbing to the child.The
issue has been hotly debated for some time (Quinton
et al. 1999; Ryburn 1999; Kelly 2000) and remains
unresolved.
While various studies have examined different
aspects of parental visiting over several decades (e.g.
Fanshel & Shinn 1978; Poulin 1992), there is still a
great need to determine the effect that contact pat-
© 2002
Blackwell Science Ltd
Impact of visiting patterns of natural parents on foster placements D Browne and A Moloney
terns have on children and young people in foster
care. The aim of this paper is to look again at how
visiting patterns affect placement outcome. It is
hoped that, by using more qualitative techniques than
previous studies, new associations will emerge. The
response to contact of those involved is also described.
The importance of continuing ties
The theoretical purpose of fostering is to provide a
temporary safe home for a child because his or her
parents are unable to do so, with the eventual aim of
returning the child successfully to the family of origin.
With this in mind it is important the child continues
to identify with his natural family. As Oyserman &
Benbenishty (1992, p. 541) state, ‘if children are to
return home . . . their emotional connection to their
biological parents must be promoted. One important
way to do this is via mutual visitation during the
child’s stay in foster care’.
Research indicates that such contact does indeed
help to promote biological attachments (Weinstein
1960; Aldgate 1977; Triseliotis 1989; O’Higgins
1993). After examining the case records of 92 children in long-term foster care Poulin (1992), for
instance, concluded that there was a highly significant
relationship between kin visiting and biological family
attachment (BFA). The more a child was visited by
the natural family, the greater the attachment they had
to them. Children who were visited at least once a
month had highest average BFA scores, indicating
that regular and frequent visiting patterns gave children the most positive sense of attachment with their
biological family.
Fanshel & Shinn (1978) reported that children
whose parents visited regularly were far more likely to
have been discharged by the end of their five-year
study than children who received infrequent visits or
children whose parents’ visits deteriorated over time.
Children who were frequently visited also showed
greater gains in IQ, better emotional adjustment, and
positive behaviour changes, and visiting was also a significant predictor of overall classroom assessment
(Fanshel & Shinn 1978, p. 487).
also be acknowledged, however, that visiting patterns
may not always be conducive to success. Indeed, many
researchers have found that, after initial enthusiasm,
visiting patterns deteriorate as the placement progresses (e.g. Fanshel & Shinn 1978; Rowe et al. 1984;
Wilkinson 1988). There can be many reasons for this,
such as how the social worker encourages the natural
parent, or the attitudes of the foster parents to the
visits (Triseliotis 1989). Therefore, visiting cannot
always be seen as positive and desirable. Many children may even react badly to an impending visit, or
will behave poorly after a visit (Rosenfeld et al. 1997;
Quinton et al. 1998). Additionally, parents may make
promises of reuniting the family that are unrealistic
and cause older children unnecessary confusion. The
reinforcing of these birth family ties may serve only to
endanger the new and more positive bonds with the
foster family. The issue is appropriately summed up
by Bowlby (1965, p. 141) who commented:
‘[T]he records of all agencies are full of evidence of the difficulties created for children in long-term care by their parents’
inability to permit them to settle in a foster-home and feel part
of it . . . The children are left in a turmoil of conflicting loyalties. In one child guidance clinic by far the most difficult
cases of disturbed foster-children were those whose parents
remained in a conflict of feeling about placement and “carried
on an active but irregular connexion with the child”.’
In these cases it would arguably be in the child’s best
interest to minimize birth family contact. Indeed
Quinton et al. (1997) argued that there was little evidence that contact improved chances of a successful
outcome in any case. This view has fuelled an interesting debate (e.g. Quinton et al. 1999; Ryburn 1999)
to which the current paper may provide some
answers.
The purpose of this paper is firstly to attempt to
redefine visiting patterns based on the accounts
offered by social workers, and then to examine what
effect, if any, these patterns have on the progress of
the placement. Case studies are offered to illustrate
the effects noticed in the analysis. In addition, the
children’s reactions to visiting are outlined.
METHOD
The disadvantages of parental visiting
Because the evidence has suggested that ‘parental visiting of placed children is essential to the resolution
of the function of placement in each family’s problem’
(Hess 1988), many agencies have concluded that they
should attempt to arrange visits at any cost. It should
36
Child and Family Social Work 2002, 7, pp 35–45
Participants
Seventeen social workers completed questionnaires
for 127 foster placements.The children in these placements had been fostered for varying episodes over a
three-year period. They ranged in age from birth to
© 2002
Blackwell Science Ltd
Impact of visiting patterns of natural parents on foster placements D Browne and A Moloney
20 years. Seventy-four foster families participated in
the study.To give due regard to external validity it was
important that the sample was representative of the
population in general (Fernandez 1996). To this end,
social workers from both city community care teams
and a special fostering project were involved. This
ensured a wide spectrum of socio-economic groups
and backgrounds, as each area has a different economic emphasis. Attempts were made to obtain
similar numbers from each community care area.
Materials
Social workers and foster parents completed questionnaires that examined various aspects of each foster
placement. The questionnaires were designed to look
at a wide variety of psychological issues that affect
foster children. Questions, or derivations of them,
used in previous studies (e.g. George 1970; Baxter
1989) were included where possible. This procedure
also served to enhance consensual validity (Fernandez 1996, p. 73).
In relation to the current paper, social workers were
asked to give detailed accounts of contact patterns.
Specifically they were asked: ‘Please describe in detail
interaction between [child] and his or her natural
parents, mentioning such things as how often they
meet, where they meet, how the child looks forward
to these meetings, and how the child feels and behaves
after these meetings’.
The questionnaires also gave information that
determined how the placement would be classified in
terms of outcome. These details was derived from
questions that were asked of both the social worker
and the foster parent in relation to how the placement
was progressing, or the manner in which it had terminated – whichever was applicable. Examples of the
type of information that was used to determine this
are given later.
the impact of the written words of the social workers
by overemphasizing categories or quantities. This is
done by analysing sample statements and case studies.
The accounts given by the social workers and foster
parents were coded for meaningful words, phrases and
sentences. At this point every attempt was made to
follow the coding process described by Miles &
Huberman (1994). These ‘chunks’ of information
were then grouped into conceptually similar categories. After the categories had been generated, each
questionnaire was worked through again to record
whether the category was present or not.
Reliability of the categories generated through
qualitative analysis was tested using an independent
assessor. Unreliable categories (inter-rater score of
less than 85%) were dropped from the study.
Data that are reduced to categories in the manner
described here can be subjected to content analysis.
There is some debate about whether this is actually a
qualitative method at all (e.g. Silverman 1993) as it
emphasizes the quantity more than other qualitative
techniques (especially the more feminist approaches
that are commonly applied to this type of personal
account data). Berg (2001), however, argues that
content analysis is a valuable tool when used with
qualitative data as it ‘is a passport to listening to the
words of the text, and understanding better the perspective(s) of the producer of these words’ (p. 242).
Seale (1999) also advocates the use of numbers in
qualitative research, commenting that ‘there is a
variety of ways in which attention to quantification
can enhance qualitative work’ (p. 123). These views
reflect the beliefs of the present authors, and an
attempt is made to use numbers to help to explain and
interpret the themes and concepts found in the
written accounts.
R E S U LT S
Visiting patterns
Qualitative analysis
There are many ways of analysing qualitative data.
The approach adopted for the purposes of analysing
the written accounts of the social workers and foster
parents has been described as ‘interpretive’ (Miles &
Huberman 1994; Berg 2001). In this case the interpretation is quite reductive, condensing the content of
the written data into units (or categories) that reflect
themes or concepts in an attempt to discover patterns
of meaning or explanation of what is happening in the
foster placement. Care is taken, however, not to lose
37
Child and Family Social Work 2002, 7, pp 35–45
Out of 127 foster placements, data on parental visiting were unavailable for seven placements. The question of visiting did not apply to a further seven, which
were either day fostering or of too short a duration for
parental visiting to be an issue. This left 113 foster
placements for which data were available on visiting
patterns during the index placement.
In most cases patterns of visiting were readily
identifiable and very easily recorded in a quantifiable
manner. For instance, in a large number of accounts
social workers indicated that contact occurred regu-
© 2002
Blackwell Science Ltd
Impact of visiting patterns of natural parents on foster placements D Browne and A Moloney
larly, with at least one parent, and also quite often. In
this case ‘regular’ means that the visit could be
expected to happen after a specified period of time.
For example:
‘. . . meets his family once every six weeks.Visits mother in her
own apartment with his siblings. Met with mother on his own
every 4th week.’
‘[Child] loves his mother and loves seeing her and looks
forward to it. During current placement he sees his mother
once/twice a month for 2 hours approx. – quality is basic as
they have no appropriate accommodation. However, mother
of late has been visiting the foster home.’
‘. . . goes home to his natural family for an afternoon every 2
weeks. He sometimes goes for a visit on Sundays or foster
father takes his younger brother with him for a spin.’
‘. . . for past 2 years 6 weekly supervised access – try to vary
venues. Can be difficult to do so.’
In these cases it is clear that visits occur on a regular
basis, and also quite frequently, so they were categorized as Regular and Frequent. They were distinguishable from other placements where visiting was also
regular (in that the child knew it would happen after
a certain period of time) but not as frequent as in the
examples given above. These cases were termed
Regular but Infrequent. Social workers reported:
‘. . . meetings about 6 times yearly at most.’
‘About twice a year . . . [child] went to stay with her mother
for 3 days at Christmas, and again for 3 days last August.’
‘Child meets her mother and sisters about twice a year (supervised access) at her own request.’
There were other cases where contact patterns could
not be described as regular at all. In these cases the
child did not know when he or she could expect to
meet his or her parents. For example:
‘Access now very irregular – at parents’ request.’
‘Occasional, irregular contact from mother (address
unknown).’
‘. . . meets mother about once a year.’
‘. . . father now lives in the USA. He writes to [child] occasionally and phones him . . . [last year] he spent 6 weeks at
home and [child] spent weekends with his father . . . Mum
sees him infrequently – twice last year and not yet this year.’
Finally there were the cases where the child did not
have contact with his or her natural family, or where
contact had ceased. Social workers noted:
‘. . . has had no contact with her mother since late ’92.’
‘. . . has not seen her mother in a number of years.’
‘No access.’
In summary, then, four distinct placement patterns
were noticed. In the first, the child received Regular
and Frequent visits from at least one parent (regular
38
Child and Family Social Work 2002, 7, pp 35–45
indicating that the child could expect the visit after a
certain time). It is interesting to note – as is evident
from the examples offered above – that social workers
describing these placements were more likely to offer
more information.This possibly reflects a positive attitude to a perceived success in this area. Descriptions
of other visiting patterns tend to be more succinct, to
the point of abruptness in some cases.
The second pattern was also regular (as defined
above) but could be differentiated by the fact that
visits did not occur very often: Regular but Infrequent
visits could generally be expected to happen between
two and six times a year. The third pattern of visiting
was neither regular nor frequent: in the Infrequent
pattern, children were not sure when to expect visits,
and visits tended to happen about once a year or less.
In this pattern the quantity of visits was considered
less important than the fact that visits were never
certain or at fixed intervals (note for instance the
example where the child’s father lived in the USA).
The final pattern, No Access, consisted of those who
did not currently receive access visits. Once inter-rater
reliability scores confirmed that these categories were
valid, a content analysis was performed to discover
how the 113 placements were distributed across the
visiting patterns. Figure 1 illustrates this distribution.
As indicated by Fig. 1, most birth parents (n = 52)
visited on a Regular and Frequent basis. Parents in
only 17 cases visited in an Infrequent pattern and only
13 placements (12%) had parents who visited on a
Regular but Infrequent basis. Some of the children (17,
or 15% of those for whom data are available, and 21%
of those who received access visits) were allowed
weekend visits to their parents’ home. Thirty-one
placements, or 27% of the 113 for whom data are
available, were not in receipt of access visits, or access
had ceased during the index placement.
Reactions of children to contact
As Fig. 1 shows, 73% (n = 81) of the placements
looked at were receiving parental visits. Social workers
described a number of different ways in which children reacted to these visits. As these reactions are
bound to have an impact, even if momentarily, on the
placement, it is useful to look at how social workers
perceived the children’s responses to visiting.
A large number of social workers described reactions
that could only be expressed as Positive. Table 1 notes
that 62% of all those who received parental visits had
some positive reactions. An interesting point that was
noted for this category is that social workers often
© 2002
Blackwell Science Ltd
Impact of visiting patterns of natural parents on foster placements D Browne and A Moloney
Regular and Frequent
46%
Regular but
Infrequent
12%
Infrequent
15%
No Access
27%
Figure 1 Patterns of parental visits (n = 113).
added a comment that the child did not react badly
(e.g.‘Enjoys meetings with mother – does not show any
adverse reaction afterwards’; ‘Looked forward to these
meetings and he was not distressed after them’). This
appears to imply that the social workers are more aware
of negative consequences. Indeed, children in a very
high percentage (53%) of placements reacted negatively to visits. Some of these reactions, as is illustrated
in Table 1, are quite extreme (e.g. ‘Fear, inability to
speak . . .’). A small number of children (n = 9)
appeared apathetic and indifferent towards the visits,
but it is possible that this hid deeper feelings. When
parents reacted negatively it was either because they
treated the child inappropriately or offered unrealistic
promises about a reunited family.
Another category that emerged was Situation
improving. While it was reported that only 13 of the
81 foster placements that were receiving access visits
had situations that were improving, this is still an
important category. Many social workers reported
that inadequate access was a cause of concern for
some children (e.g. ‘Very upset when they [meetings]
were cancelled – became very quiet in himself’;
‘[Access] was often cancelled – in the beginning he
was very upset about this but as time passed he
accepted it more and more’), and when the situation
improved it can only be seen as a positive outcome.
In a small number of cases social workers indicated
that the child was suffering because of the behaviour
or reactions of their natural parent(s) to the visit. This
poor reaction was also not appreciated by the children’s foster parents, who had to deal with upset children after the visits (e.g. ‘Very difficult young mother.
Very upsetting visits to [fostering agency] what left
[child] very upset and I always had to be there for her’
[sic]). Quinton et al. (1998) reported similar reactions
in their study, where foster parents expressed concern
39
Child and Family Social Work 2002, 7, pp 35–45
about mixed or inappropriate messages from birth
parents.
Table 1 describes the categories of reactions that
were recorded and the frequency with which each
category occurred. It should be noted that these
categories are not mutually exclusive, and that social
workers could describe more than one type of reaction for each placement. It is evident from this table
that most of the response to visiting was either positive (62%) or improving (16%). Nonetheless, 53% of
placements with visits included some sort of negative
reaction of the child to the visit, and a further 11% of
children were apathetic towards contact. It is evident
that visiting was not always to the advantage of the
child.
Placement status
Probably because of the nature of the analysis, the
definition of placement outcome differed qualitatively
from other foster care studies. Three levels of placement status emerged in the present study: Successful,
Ambiguous and Crisis. These can be defined as follows
(SW indicates social worker accounts, and FP indicates foster parent accounts):
Successful placements
No serious problems were reported or expected to
occur. Comments on these placements were very
positive:
‘Placement is progressing very satisfactorily.’ [SW]
‘Children returned home . . . all settled down and outlook is
very promising.’ [SW]
‘He is treated like one of the family in every way. We all get
on well most of the time . . . he has also brought a bit of happiness into our everyday routine . . . we will be sorry to see
him go but that is what fostering is all about.’ [FP]
‘[Child] has been integrated very successfully. Is greatly loved
and appreciated by all family members. Has improved in
school and gained in confidence.’ [SW]
‘I think it is fair to say we all consider [child] very much part
of our family now. She is with us now for as long as she wants.’
[FP]
Ambiguous placements
One or two categories of uncertainty or specified
problems were reported by either the foster family or
the social worker. Examples of statements that made
a placement Ambiguous included:
‘Some anxiety on foster parent’s part in dealing with child’s
background (sexual abuse).’ [SW]
© 2002
Blackwell Science Ltd
Impact of visiting patterns of natural parents on foster placements D Browne and A Moloney
Table 1 Reactions of foster children to parental visits
Reaction
Illustration
No. of
cases reported
% of placements
with access visits
Positive
‘Looks forward to these visits.’
‘[Child] loves his mother and loves
seeing her and looks forward to it.’
50
62
Negative
‘Fear, inability to speak, refuses
to go on some occasions. Once
got physically sick.’
‘The foster parent said he was usually
upset and bedwetting for a few days
after the access visits.’
‘After last visit he was visibly upset.’
‘This contact invariably causes distress
for [child].’
43
53
Response to parent’s
behaviour
‘Mother spends more time talking to
social worker than to children.’
‘Expects child to act in infantile manner.’
5
6
Apathy towards
contact
‘Child has no interest in seeing natural
parents.’
‘[Child] would be ambivalent about these
occasions . . . her relationship with
[parents] appears to be fairly superficial.’
9
11
Situation improving
‘[Child] met her mother in July for the first
time in about 7 years …visits mother’s
home more now . . . looks forward to
these visits.’
‘Sporadic [visits] became more regular.
Eventually trial periods at home.’
13
16
No. of placements with access visits = 81.
‘[Child] happy at present with foster family . . . Problem is
with other family members and other foster children, which
may affect [child’s] placement . . . One [other foster placement with the family] has recently broken down.’ [SW]
‘Both the child and the social worker are somewhat unsure of
the foster parents’ continuing commitment . . . these issues are
all going to arise during her adolescence.’ [SW]
‘[Child] has enormous difficulty trusting his foster parents.
The difficulty will be holding on to [child] during adolescence.’ [SW]
Crisis placements
These are cases in which breakdown, imminent breakdown, report of the onset of serious problems, or three
or more examples of uncertainty or problems were
reported by the foster family or the social worker.
Comments by foster parents and social workers on
these placements were quite negative:
‘The whole family was falling apart while [child] was here
. . . she had a devastating effect on us all. I finally gave the
40
Child and Family Social Work 2002, 7, pp 35–45
social worker a deadline when the child had to move on and
to be honest everyone was relieved when she left.’ [FP]
‘This child is unhappy in this placement. He was placed with
his brother originally but . . . it [the brother’s placement]
broke down after 11 months . . . his brother was transferred to
another family . . . [Child] is the same age as foster mother’s
own child and this has led to a number of difficulties . . . Child
also feels isolated . . . Foster parents place huge emphasis on
academic achievement and this has put a lot of pressure on
the child . . . These foster parents have advanced in age [and
I] would recommend that only short-term babies be placed
with them [in future].’ [SW]
‘We had reached no compromise with [child’s] drinking and
it was no longer possible for [him] to stay in our home and be
seen not to care what we thought or felt about his drinking
and his idea of why he was staying with our family . . . We
asked [child] to leave. I was very angry when [he] left.’ [FP]
Foster parents describing Crisis placements were likely
to give long and detailed accounts of the problems
that arose. The experience of completing the questionnaires appeared quite cathartic; it gave foster
© 2002
Blackwell Science Ltd
Impact of visiting patterns of natural parents on foster placements D Browne and A Moloney
Table 2 Visiting patterns and levels of placement status
Parental visiting patterns
Placement status
No Access
Infrequent
Regular but Infrequent
Regular and Frequent
Total
Successful
Ambiguous
Crisis
18
4
9
4
11
2
8
2
3
22
15
15
52
32
29
Total
31
17
13
52
113
c2 = 16.66056, P < 0.02.
parents the opportunity to vent a lot of anger and frustration in relation to a very stressful event (something
that perhaps other foster parents with similar experiences would benefit from). Social workers were more
likely to point out weaknesses on the foster parents’
side. Placements that were categorized as Ambiguous
were very often defined in this way because of statements made by the social worker – foster parents
appeared more reluctant to prophesize problems in a
placement that was progressing satisfactorily on the
surface. The only exceptions were cases where the
foster parent pointed out that one or more family
members were unhappy with the placement.
The majority of placements were successful, and
the accounts of these were very positive indeed. Ultimately, and despite the failures and the uncertain
cases, it is the heartening descriptions such as those
above that offer the most persuasive reason for continuing to develop fostering programmes. Fifty-two
(46%) of the 113 foster placements were classified as
Successful, 32 (28%) as Ambiguous, and 29 (26%) as
Crisis.
Two of these levels are similar to the concepts of
‘success’ and ‘failure’ as used in other studies (e.g.
Trasler 1960; George 1970; Berridge & Cleaver
1987). Crisis placements have traditionally been
referred to as ‘failed placements’, although not all of
them had actually suffered a breakdown at the time
of the study. Several previous studies have grappled
with the problem of defining a failed placement. Many
have used definitions based on the length of the placement (e.g. Trasler 1960; Berridge & Cleaver 1987)
because alternative more abstract definitions (e.g.
social and personal adjustment as used by Fanshel &
Shinn 1978) are difficult to measure. The category
Crisis placements that emerged in this study is defined
41
Child and Family Social Work 2002, 7, pp 35–45
not in terms of length of placement, but rather in
terms of whether it has reached a state of (literally)
crisis. The concept of Ambiguous is new. These placements were not suffering serious problems (i.e. could
not (yet) be described as being in crisis), but could
not strictly be defined as Successful either. Two examples of Ambiguous placements are offered as vignettes
later in this paper. As discussed below, an interesting
relationship seems to have emerged between this level
of placement status and visiting patterns.
Visiting patterns and placement status
This section describes the relationship between visiting patterns and placement status. Because these two
variables are made up of mutually exclusive levels, it
is possible to perform a chi-square analysis on the categorical data.
Table 2 illustrates how the patterns are divided
among the levels of placement status. It was found
that Successful cases were far more likely to follow
either Regular and Frequent (n = 18) or No Access (n =
22) patterns than the infrequent patterns. Crisis placements were also more likely to fall into these two visiting patterns. Chi-square analysis of these categories
showed that there was a significant relationship at the
0.05 level (c2 = 16.66056, P < 0.02) between ‘Parental
visiting patterns’ and ‘Placement status’. A closer
examination of how the contingency table is divided
reveals more details about this relationship (Figs 2
and 3).
Figure 2 illustrates what percentage of each level of
‘Placement status’ falls under each of the ‘Visiting
pattern’ headings. It can be seen that of all the Crisis
cases (total n = 29, as seen in Table 2), 51.7% had
Regular and Frequent visiting patterns. Indeed, for each
© 2002
Blackwell Science Ltd
Percentage
Impact of visiting patterns of natural parents on foster placements D Browne and A Moloney
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
42.3
Percentage
51.7
Regular and Frequent
15.4
Regular but Infrequent
6.3
10.3
6.9
7.7
34.4
34.6
Infrequent
No Access
31
Ambiguous
11.8
29
Crisis
23.1
28.8
15.4
12.9
28.8
64.7
Crisis
Ambiguous
Successful
61.5
58.1
42.3
23.5
No Access
Infrequent
Regular but
Infrequent
Figure 3 Percentage of each level
of placement status within each
visiting pattern.
Regular and
Frequent
of the levels of placement status, Regular and Frequent
patterns were most common. The interesting information to be derived from Fig. 2 is in the Ambiguous
column. Only 12.5% of Ambiguous placements (total
n = 32) were No Access, a frequency that more than
doubled for both other placement outcome variables.
It is also apparent that far more Ambiguous placements
had Infrequent visiting patterns compared with the
other two placement statuses.
As Fig. 3 illustrates, the No Access and both of the
Regular categories showed approximately one quarter
of cases as Crisis. These patterns all also showed the
highest percentage of Successful cases, especially the
Regular but Infrequent (total n = 15) pattern (61.5%).
When parental access was Infrequent (total n = 17),
however, most cases fell into the Ambiguous group
(64.7% of the Infrequent category).
The Ambiguous placements were ones where there
was a certain amount of uncertainty about their ability
to survive, and it is interesting that this status seems
to have a relationship with Infrequent patterns of
parental access (see Fig. 3). These patterns of access
were also uncertain, and often happened unexpectedly or after many unsuccessful attempts to establish
a visiting pattern. It is very possible that the unstable
42
Figure 2 Percentage of each visiting pattern within each level of
placement status.
12.5
Successful
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
46.9
Child and Family Social Work 2002, 7, pp 35–45
and uncer