Decisions About Reunification and Interventions to Support Children and Families

  • Elizabeth Fernandez
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Well-Being and Quality of Life Research book series (BRIEFSWELLBEING)


Caseworkers in Temporary Family Care (TFC) Programs were interviewed to explore the types of considerations they employed in making decisions about returning children home and the factors they perceived as influencing the decision making process, and their observations about the pattern of services families received before, during and after restoration. The qualitative data was thematically analysed to identify emerging themes in the data. When assessing for reunification most of the criteria employed related to the worker’s perception of parent’s capacity to parent and their level of co-operation with child protection interventions and family support. Multiple strategy interventions predominated in case plans. Four in ten of all families received adult drug and alcohol services. Non-restored families had a stronger involvement with non-voluntary statutory agencies than restored families. The practical and emotional support caseworkers provided to birth families was seen as very important to the prospects for success of the reunification process.


Domestic Violence Case Plan Anger Management Practical Assistance Birth Family 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Choi, S., & Ryan, J. P. (2007). Co-occurring problems for substance abusing mothers in child welfare: Matching services to improve family reunification. Children and Youth Services Review, 29(11), 1395–1410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Farmer, E. R. G., Sturgess, W., O’Neill, T., & Wijedasa, D. (2011). Achieving successful returns from care: What makes reunification work?. London: BAAF.Google Scholar
  3. Fernandez, E. A. (2007). Supporting Children and Responding to their families: Capturing the Evidence on Family Support. Children and Youth Services Review, 29, 1368–1394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fernandez, E. A. (2008). Unravelling emotional, behavioural and educational outcomes in a longitudinal study. British Journal of Social Work, 38, 1283–1301.Google Scholar
  5. Flemming, B. (2003). Equal protection for victims of domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(8), 685–92.Google Scholar
  6. Fraser, M. W., Walton, E., Lewis, R. E., Pecora, P. J., & Walton, E. K. (1996). An experiment in family reunification: Correlates of outcomes at one-year follow up. Children and Youth Services Review, 18(4/5), 335–362.Google Scholar
  7. Schofield, G., Beek, M., & Warman, A. (2008). Achieving permanence in foster care: A good practice guide. London: BAAF.Google Scholar
  8. Sinclair, I., Baker, C., Wilson, K., Gibbs, I. (2005). Foster children: where they go and how they get on. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. Tilbury, C., & Osmond, J. (2006). Permanency planning a research review and guidelines for workers. Australian Social Work, 59(3), 265–280.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations