Keywords

Introduction

Research on adoption has pointed to a number of issues that lead to adverse outcomes and increased stress in adoptive families. The factor most commonly associated with stress leading to disruption is the child’s age at placement, with older children posing the greatest challenge (see Coakley & Berrick, 2008; Evan B. Donaldson Institute, 2008). This may be because age is related to other child-related stressors such as emotional or behavioural difficulties (Barth & Berry, 1988; Selwyn et al., 2006). Adoption of more than one child, including the simultaneous adoption of sibling groups, has also been found to increase parental stress (Bird et al., 2002; Sanchez-Sandoval & Palacios, 2012); this may be associated with other stressors such as being part of a blended family combining adoptive and biological children (Barth & Berry, 1988; Barth & Brooks, 1997) and conflict between adopted siblings and/or between adoptees and other children in the household (Selwyn et al., 2014). Parent-related factors that have been found to increase stress in adoptive families include parenting styles entailing less affection and communication (Palacios & Sanchez-Sandoval, 2006; Quinton et al., 1998); unrealistic expectations (Barth & Brooks, 1997; Barth & Miller, 2000); unresolved issues concerning infertility (Harris, 2013); and a lack of informal support including perceptions of less support for their decision to adopt, particularly felt by single parents and same-sex couples (Bird et al., 2002; Moyer & Goldberg, 2017). System-related factors include inadequate preparation or lack of transparency on the part of the adoption agency (Barth & Miller, 2000; Brodzinsky et al., 1998; Selwyn et al., 2014); inadequate financial support (Berry & Barth, 1990); and inadequate post-adoption psycho-therapeutic support (Selwyn et al., 2014).

We have already seen that child-related factors known to increase the risk of unsuccessful adoption were prevalent in the Barnardos cohort. The children had experienced numerous adversities before they were placed. Although not all of them were equally vulnerable, all had had at least one experience that was significantly related to poor outcomes in adulthood. All but 17 (193: 91%) met our extreme risk criterion of having had at least one experience that was at least twice the threshold at which adverse outcomes are significantly more likely. We know that a substantial proportion of children at high risk of negative life trajectories are sufficiently resilient to develop ‘positive patterns of functioning following exposure to adversity’ (Masten, 2006). Nevertheless, from what we know so far it must be clear that many of the adoptive parents would face considerable challenges in meeting the needs of children whose developmental chances had been severely compromised by early experiences of abuse and neglect and subsequently diminished by delayed decision-making and frequent moves before permanence was achieved. Adoptive parents may also have found it difficult to implement the policy of maintaining regular, ongoing face-to-face contact with birth parents. As Chap. 2 has shown, a number of birth parents had already lost touch before their children entered the Barnardos programme and many of the others were struggling with interlocking problems that would have made contact difficult.

Barnardos was well aware of the issues relating to adoptive strain and unstable placements. Throughout the period of the study, they provided comprehensive assessments of adoptive parents over six to eight sessions and core training over three days. Assessments included issues such as potential adopters’ support from their wider family, their experiences of grief and loss concerning infertility and the possible impact on their biological family. The training encompassed issues such as the children’s previous experiences of abuse and loss and the adoptive family’s own expectations. Barnardos also provided practical and casework support to adoptive parents and children from the time the child entered the Find-a-Familyprogramme until the order was made, often many years later (see Chap. 3). Nevertheless, some of the adoptive parents will have encountered greater strains than others and placements with them will have been at greater risk of instability, particularly if these parents were matched with children who had high levels of vulnerability.

The data collected from case files and court papers included information about the circumstances and motivation of the adoptive parents at the time of placement. Together with the information on birth parents and children, these data provide a context within which the outcomes for the adoptees in terms of both continuing relationships with birth family members, their relationships with adoptive parents and the stability of placements, and their long-term wellbeing can be better understood.

Adoptive Parents

The Find-a-Family programme found 138 adoptive homes for the 210 children in the sample. The vast majority (135: 98%) of primary carers were women; two of the three men who were primary carers were living in a same-sex partnership, the other was living in a heterosexual relationship where the traditional roles were reversed in that his wife worked full time while he acted as primary carer. Seven adoptive parents were single, so there were 131 secondary carers. The vast majority of these were men (128: 98%), but there were three women: two were living in female same-sex partnerships and the other was the partner in the couple where the traditional roles were reversed.

The majority of primary carers were Anglo-Australian or New Zealanders (101: 73%) or European (32: 23%). Two primary carers were Aboriginal; two others were Maori or Pacific Islanders. Secondary carers were very similar: 91 (69%) were Australian or New Zealanders and 35 (27%) were European. However, only one secondary carer was Aboriginal and none were Maori or Pacific Islanders.

Attempts were made to find adoptive parents who matched the children in ethnicity and culture. These were largely successful—179 (85%) of the children were considered to be satisfactorily matched, including all the Australian and Anglo/Australian children, as well as a number from other European countries: for instance, six Italian children were placed with at least one Italian adoptive parent and three Croatian children were adopted by a Croatian/Italian couple. However, children whose birth parents were Aboriginal or Maori were less well matched: it had only been possible to place one of the Aboriginal children and one of the Maori children with an adoptive parent of the same ethnicity and culture. The failure to match Aboriginal children appropriately was due to a lack of knowledge about their heritage at the time of placement and a reluctance to disrupt their established attachments to prospective adoptive parents with whom they had been permanently placed.

Age and Experience

In addition to the support provided by Barnardos, there were a number of factors that may have strengthened the capacity of the adoptive parents to meet the children’s needs. First, the primary carers were significantly older than the birth mothersFootnote 1 and would have had more life experience. At the time the child was born, their median age was 34, ten years older than the median age of the birth mothers. At the time the children were placed in their adoptive homes, their median age was 39 and only five were under 30; six (4%) of the primary carers were aged 50 or more. Just under a third of the adoptive parents (30%) already had children of their own, and therefore had some experience of parenting, although this was not necessarily advantageous (Selwyn et al., 2006).

For many years Barnardos had a policy by which potential adoptive parents were first approved as permanent carers, with a view to adoption: we have seen (Chap. 3) that almost half (42%) of the children entered their adoptive homes with a plan for long-term foster care, and one in three (31%) had lived there for more than five years before the adoption order was made. In recent years, there has been an increase in numbers of adoptions in New South Wales of children in foster care, with these now comprising the majority of adoption orders. There is some evidence that adoptive placements with foster carers are less likely to disrupt (McRoy, 1999; Rosenthal et al., 1988), although some studies have shown conflicting results (Selwyn et al., 2014). However, the Barnardos programme offered both foster carers and the children intensive support until the order was made, and this may have acted as a powerful protective factor (Tregeagle et al., 2011). For example, families were visited by their allocated caseworker at weekly intervals during the initial period following placement, reducing gradually to a minimum of monthly visits; families were able to contact their worker at any time for support; regular respite care was provided when needed and case reviews were held every six months to consider the progress of the placement. Until the order was made, Barnardos also provided financial support for physical or psychological therapy that was required to assist the child’s development.

Relationships

Some studies (e.g. McRoy, 1999) have identified the stability of the adoptive parents’ relationship as a factor related to the success of an adoption, but the research findings on this are mixed (Palacios et al., 2019). Almost all the adoptive parents (131: 95%) had a partner with whom to share the challenges of parenting and nearly two-thirds (86: 62%) were in stable relationships that had lasted for ten years or more; however, not all partners proved to be as supportive as anticipated and some relationships were severely tested despite their longevity (see Chap. 8). The majority of the adoptive parents (127: 93%) were heterosexual couples; there were also four same-sex couples (two female and two male), reflecting a change in legislation and policy introduced in 2010, and seven lone parents (three single, two divorced and two widowed).

Informal Support

Data from the interviews indicate that, when they entered the placement, the adoptees were welcomed by members of the extended family, many of whom provided substantial support. There is no evidence from this study to support Moyer and Goldberg’s (2017) finding that single parents and those living in a same-sex relationship receive less informal support. Although the interviews reflect the experiences of a very small subset of parents, the data suggest that at least some of the lone parents were very well supported:

They gave [adoptive mother] so much support for me. Because she’s a single parent, so sometimes she would – actually, often for a while, she would have to go away for work. And my auntie – her sister lives a few doors down, right now. So I would just go there. I would go stay there and she would provide for me the exact same environment here:stability, routine. So I always had like a – yeah, and my grandparents would always come – if my auntie couldn’t have me, my grandparents would just come here for the week or however long [adoptive mother] was gone for, and just look after me. They’ve always been supportive and so involved. (Young woman, aged 10 at permanent placement, aged 21 when interviewed)

As part of the assessment, adoptive parents were asked about their religious affiliation and observation. Although about half (73: 53%) of them had no close relationship with a religious community, just over one in four (37: 27%) attended a religious service weekly or fortnightly. Being a member of a religious community can be an important protective factor, providing extra support at times of stress, and some adoptive parents were able to draw on this resource.

We belong to a very little church because of its great points like community. And we had this – it’s a really small church. So we were very much a part of it. So he was just welcomed in and was a big deal to everyone. And they would’ve been praying about him before he ever came as well, because we were a very integral part of that fellowship. (Adoptive parent of young man aged 9 at permanent placement)

Material Circumstances

The challenges the birth parents faced were exacerbated by factors such as inadequate housing and insufficient financial support (see Cleaver et al., 2011). Most adoptive parents had a number of material resources that buffered them from stressors such as these; for instance, most of them had the education and skills to enable them to earn a reasonable living. Table 4.1 shows the educational qualifications of the primary carers. Although 39 (28%) primary carers had no further or higher education, including 10 (7%) who had left or dropped out of school before completing Year 10 and obtaining basic qualifications, 59 (43%) had a trade certificate and 29 (21%) were educated to graduate or postgraduate level.

Table 4.1 Primary carers: last year of school and education qualification (N = 138)
Full size table

Although strong educational qualifications may enable primary carers to obtain well-paid employment, some studies have found that high achieving adoptive mothers can have unrealistic expectations, and this becomes a source of tension when adoptees fail to live up to them (Barth & Miller, 2000). There is some evidence of this from interviews with adult adoptees:

When I was at uni, if I got a pass it was like a fail. If I got a credit, it was always like I’d failed. If I got a distinction, that’s all right. If I got a high distinction, okay, that’s good. So if it wasn’t a high distinction it was like – so there were very high expectations from her, but I think all of that came from a space of love. And there was also always this undertone of love… (Young man, aged 1 when permanently placed, aged 25 when interviewed)

The data on the education of secondary carers are less comprehensive. Table 4.2 shows their school careers. Twelve (9%) had left or dropped out of school before Year 10 and had therefore presumably left without obtaining qualifications. Just under half (59: 45%) had left after Year 10 or 11, presumably after sitting their School Certificate;Footnote 2 almost exactly the same number (60: 46%) had stayed on until Year 12 or 13 and presumably sat their Higher School Certificate. After leaving school, almost half of the 131 secondary carers (63: 48%) had gained a trade certificate and about one in four (34: 26%) had achieved a graduate or postgraduate degree. Six of those who had dropped out of school before Year 10 had later gained a trade certificate. There were also 25 secondary carers for whom no further or higher education data are available; the complementary data on the primary carers suggest that it is likely that the majority had no further qualifications, but it is not possible to distinguish them from those for whom these data were not collected.

Table 4.2 Secondary carers: last year at school (N = 131)
Full size table

Employment

The majority of secondary carers (92%) were either self-employed or in full-time salaried employment. Table 4.3 shows the types of employment they were in. Two-thirds (80: 62%) were in managerial positions, such as running businesses or managing banks, or professional occupations, such as teaching, medicine or the law. There were 20 (15%) who were employed in technical work or trades, such as hairdressing or carpentry. Only four were unemployed and two more were retired.

Table 4.3 Secondary carers: employment type*(N = 131)
Full size table

The data from the survey and the interviews indicate that many of the primary carers gave up work or reduced their hours in order to focus on the adoptee’s needs, although they may have regarded this as a temporary measure to help them settle into their new home. Almost half (57: 41%) of the primary carers were recorded as having no employment outside the home at the time the adoptee was placed with them; these include four who were retired. The majority (45: 56%) of the primary carers who were working outside the home were in part-time or casual employment. However, 22 (16%) worked full time and 14 (10%) were self-employed. Table 4.4 shows their occupations: 27 (20%) were in administrative posts; 17 (12%) were in managerial positions and 24 (17%) were in professional occupations. Significantly fewer primary carers were in managerial or professional occupations than were secondary carers,Footnote 3 mirroring national patterns in occupational status by gender at the time the children were placed.

Table 4.4 Primary carers: employment type*(N = 138)
Full size table

Although data on adoptive parents’ income were collected at the time of the application, these cover a 30-year period and therefore cannot be meaningfully compared. We do know, however, that most adoptive parents had a regular income, although there were substantial variations across the sample. However, a small group of adoptive parents were reliant on pensions or benefits and may have been in relatively reduced material circumstances: three households were entirely dependent on retirement pensions (one of them headed by a lone carer), and in three other households, the only declared income was workers’ compensation or disability pension. Nevertheless, the majority (132: 96%), including those who were living on pensions, were living in owner-occupied homes. Although most of them had a mortgage, about a third of them (46: 35%) had paid it off and no longer had regular housing expenses. One other adoptive couple was living in free accommodation. Only five adoptive parents were living in rented accommodation.

Research evidence does not show a significant association between adoptive parents’ material circumstances and adoption outcomes (Selwyn et al., 2006). Nevertheless, at the start of the placement, the majority of adoptive parents had sufficient material resources to cushion them from financial worries. They could also offer a significantly higher standard of living than the children had experienced with their birth parents. They also had considerable social capital, in the form of supportive friends and family and access to community resources.

Children in the Home

The Find-a-Family programme focused on finding permanent homes for children who were hard to place. This term covered both children who had extensive emotional and behavioural problems and those who were part of a large sibling group. Research studies that have focused on the adoption of sibling groups have produced mixed findings (see Palacios et al., 2019). However, it seems clear that siblingrelationships between children who have experienced extensive maltreatment may not follow a normative pattern and may pose particular challenges for adoptive parents (Selwyn, 2019; Tasker & Wood, 2016).

Table 4.5 shows the number of children placed with each adoptive family. Just over half (78: 57%) had one child placed with them; however, over a third (47: 34%) had two, and 12 couples (9%) adopted three children. One couple adopted four children—three siblings and an unrelated child. Altogether there were 60 families who adopted two or more children through Find-a-Family; 11 adopted two or more children who were not related to each other and 49 adopted siblings.

Table 4.5 Number of children placed in each adoptive home (N = 138)
Full size table

Twenty-four (17%) of the adoptive families had biological children who had already left the home before the adoptee was placed there. However, about a third (47: 34%) already had at least one child living in the home when the adoptee arrived. These were mainly the adoptive parents’ biological children, but eight parents had one or more foster children and one had a grandchild living with them. Twenty-two (16%) of the adoptive parents already had two or more children living in their homes at the time of the placement, including one couple who had four and another who had five. It has long been recognised that tensions can arise if adoptees or foster children are of a similar age to biological or other children already living in the household (Parker, 1966); however, age differences were not available in this study.

Jenny and Tom

Jenny and Tom were in their mid-40s when they applied to Barnardos to permanently care for a sibling group of primary-school-aged children. They were both born in England and had migrated to Australia shortly after their marriage 24 years ago. They had three children aged between 16 and 27 at the time of their application. Two of their children were still living in the family home at this time, as was Jenny’s father.

Jenny and Tom lived in a rented five-bedroom house in a quiet suburban area in Sydney, which was in easy access to the local school, shops, parks and transport. Both Jenny and Tom worked full time, although Jenny intended to resign from her position should children be placed with them, so that she could be a full-time carer. Tom had been educated to the equivalent of Year 12 in Australia and had stable employment as a qualified tradesperson; Jenny had been educated to the equivalent of Year 10 and was employed as an accounts clerk/co-ordinator.

Jenny and Tom felt that they had much to offer children who needed a home and, shortly after their application, a sibling group of three children was placed within the family. Jenny and Tom had support from their family, especially Jenny’s father, and felt confident they could help the children feel more secure. However, the children who were placed with them came from a very traumatic background and Jenny and Tom found them challenging, especially around times of birth family contact, which triggered extremely difficult behaviours. However, Barnardos’ workers provided support during contact visits:

That was something that Barnados were very on to. Was the fact that they were never left alone. So if one of the kids had to go to the toilet and I was going with them, then another caseworker used to come in just to make sure that everything was – and if they were off the air then we used to have two caseworkers in there with us anyway.

There were also difficulties with the education system, as at least one child was in a learning difficulty class and another was diagnosed with ADHD; Jenny and Tom had to fight the school systems to allow for opportunities for each of the children.

I had a fight with the school. I used to have a lot of fights with people. I had a fight with the school counsellor who told me she wouldn’t amount to anything and she had to go to an all-girls school, and I said, “Well you don’t know her very well do you?”

Jenny and Tom had regular, monthly separate respite care for each child and were reassured that ongoing financial support from the New South Wales Government would continue after an adoption order was made. Five years after the children were placed with them, they applied to adopt them, in order to make a lasting commitment to them. All three children gave their formal consent to their adoption.

One of these children said of her adoptive parents:

It’s affected me in a big way because it’s taught me – even though I was like different to my brothers, they taught me how to be in a family environment. So I can do the best for my kids too. Like try and have the same goals and morals as what Mum and Dad did back then. They both worked, they looked after us, they looked after the house, you know the structure of everything. I think it’s helped me in my life because, before I went to them, structure was a very – it didn’t exist.

You can talk to them about anything. I think kids need that. They need to know that even though you’re their parents, you can also be their friends . But you’re their enemies as well, in a sense. To have someone to go and talk to about anything, any problems, I think is great because it’s taught me a lot to be able to…. But it’s nice to be able to have that – how they’ve taught us morals and respect.

Sibling Groups

Table 4.6 shows the extent to which Barnardos succeeded in keeping sibling groups together. Eighty-six (41%) adoptees had no siblings (or no siblings referred to Find-a-Family). Sixty-six (53%) children were adopted in intact sibling groups of two: these include ten children who were initially placed alone but were later joined by a sibling after a split group was re-united, or after a new baby was born. Thirty children were adopted in intact sibling groups of three: these include six children in two families who were reunited or joined by a new baby in their adoptive placement. Reunification of a sibling group that had previously been split was not always successful:

Table 4.6 Sibling placements (N = 210)
Full size table

Well, my idea was that they wanted me there, purely because I was me, and I was [birth sister’s] brother, but realised that that wasn’t the case. I never really lived with [birth sister]…. Yeah, she’s my sister on paper, but I hadn’t had enough life with her to really – for that to matter. I think it looks good on paper. It looks very good on paper. You’re with your sister, or half-sister, or it makes sense, but there is no sense if you didn’t have a relationship with them anyway. (Young man, aged 10 when permanently placed, aged 40 when interviewed)

Twenty-eight children were in sibling groups that were split. These included 15 children from five families, who were all adopted. Seven of these children were placed separately apart from their siblings; however, the other eight were placed with at least one other sibling. There is some evidence from the interviews that, with support from adoptive parents, adoptees were able to continue a relationship with siblings who were adopted by other families.

He (adoptee) contacts – he has social media contact with (birth sibling), that’s the one that got removed from birth and adopted…. He has contact with him. They’ve had a sleepover at his house, and they have contact on social media with him. (Adoptive parent of young man, aged 2 when permanently placed)

Thirteen children were in sibling groups that were split when other children were not adopted because they returned to birth parents, remained in foster care or left the adoptive placement following a disruption before the order was made. Mostly, at least one sibling remained in the placement when others left: only three children in this group were adopted alone. Altogether 96 (77%) of the 124 children who were known to have siblings were placed together, 18 (15%) were split from one or more sibling but were adopted with others and only 10 (8%) were adopted alone.

Table 4.7 shows the number of children who were living in the adoptive homes after the adoptees and their siblings had arrived. The majority of adoptive parents looked after one or two children; however, about 10% had four or more, including one household with five children and two with six. The larger families were almost all composite families, including one or two adoptees plus foster children or biological children, and meeting their often disparate needs is likely to have been a complex and sometimes stressful task (Barth & Berry, 1988; Bird et al., 2002).

Table 4.7 All children in household including adoptees (N = 138)
Full size table

Motivation

Parents decide to adopt a child from out-of-home care for a number of complex reasons. Although infertility may be a significant driving factor, about one in four adoptive parents in the USA cite religious motivation as an important reason for their decision (Brooks & James, 2003). At the time of their application to Find-a-Family, adoptive parents were asked about their motivation for taking this step. Table 4.8 shows their responses.

Table 4.8 Adoptive parents: motivation (N = 138)
Full size table

Although the majority of parents applied to adopt because they were infertile (103: 75%), there was also a substantial proportion whose primary motivation was to help a child (27: 20%), a third of whom had no children themselves. Eight (6%) adoptive parents wanted primarily to expand their existing family, although there were six others who also indicated that they wanted to help a child. Those adoptive parents who said their decision was influenced by their desire to help a child were not more likely to indicate a religious commitment than those whose primary motivating factor was infertility.

Conclusion

So far, we have seen that the adoptive parents had a number of strengths. Most of them had considerable personal, material and social capital on which they could draw. Most of them fostered the children before they adopted them, and in the often lengthy time before the order was made, they received considerable support from Barnardos. All but one family lived within an hour’s drive of their local Find-a-Family office.

Nevertheless, they faced a number of challenges. Many of the children were ‘hard to place’ in terms of age and membership of a large sibling group with complex dynamics. A high proportion also showed emotional and behavioural difficulties that were likely to be related to their earlier adverse experiences; many had been harmed by the adults in their lives and may have been wary of making new relationships. The research on resilience (Masten, 2001, 2006) has identified a number of factors within the child, the family and the community that help children to develop the capacity to adapt and recover from such adversities. These include a number of benefits that the adoptive parents were able to offer, such as ‘socio-economic advantages’, belonging to ‘a safe community’ and the availability of other ‘prosocial adults’ within the family circle. However:

A close relationship with a caring and competent adult is widely considered the most important and general protective factor for human development, particularly for younger children who are highly dependent on caregivers. (Masten, 2006, p. 6)

The extent to which the adoptive parents were able to develop such a relationship would be a key component in the outcome of the adoption.

The three chapters in this part of the book have each explored factors within the circumstances and experiences of different members of the adoption triangle—birth parents, adoptive parents and adoptees—that need to be taken into account when assessing the outcomes of open adoption. These include the complex web of adversities with which the birth parents struggled, the many adverse experiences that had impacted on the life trajectories of the children, and the strengths of the adoptive families, but also the challenges they faced.

The following chapters explore the children’s subsequent experiences and outcomes within the context of their needs and early experience at the time the adoption order was made. The data collected through the follow-up survey and the interviews with adult adoptees and their adoptive parents enable us to examine how adoptive parents and children met the challenges we have identified so far. In assessing how the experience of adoption impacted on children’s life trajectories we can attempt to identify those factors that were of particular significance, including the part played by the policy of open adoption.

Key Points

  • The programme found 138 adoptive homes for the 210 children in the sample.

  • Most of the children (179: 85%) appeared to be satisfactorily matched including all the Anglo/Australian children, as well as a number of children from other European countries. However, a small number of Aboriginal and Maori children were less well matched in terms of ethnicity and culture.

  • The adoptive parents had a number of personal, material and social resources that buffered them from some of the stresses of parenting. Many of these were not available to birth parents.

  • Almost all the adoptive parents (131: 95%) had a partner with whom to share the challenges, and nearly two-thirds (86: 62%) had been in the relationship for ten years or more. Adoptive mothers were on average ten years older than the birth mothers.

  • Just under half (41%) of the children had initially been fostered by their adoptive parents. In the long period before the adoption order was made, adoptive parents and children received substantial support from the agency.

  • The majority of adoptive parents (132: 96%) were living in owner-occupied homes. Most (97: 74%) secondary carers had a trade certificate or a degree, and two-thirds (80: 62%) were in managerial positions.

  • Almost all (135: 98%) the primary carers were women. Almost three-quarters (99: 72%) of them also had a further or higher education qualification. However, 57 (41%) were not working outside the home, and most others were in part-time or casual employment. Many had given up work or reduced their hours to look after the adoptee.

  • Twenty-two (16%) of the adoptive parents already had two or more children living with them at the time of the placement. Just over half (78: 57%) of the families had one child placed with them; 47 (34%) had two children placed and 13 (10%) adopted three or more children. Fourteen (10%) of the adoptive families had four or more children living in the home.

  • Siblings were mainly placed together. Of the 124 children with siblings, 96 (77%) were placed in intact groups of two or three and 28 (23%) were separated from at least one brother or sister. Only ten (8%) children with siblings were placed alone.

  • The majority of adoptive parents applied to adopt because of their infertility (103: 75%), but there were 27 (20%) whose primary motivation was to help a child.

  • While adoptive parents had considerable resources, they also faced a number of challenges. These included the children’s emotional and behavioural difficulties and parenting several children with diverse needs.