©
2000 Jordan Institute
for Families
|
Vol. 5,
No. 4
October
2000
Visitation and Concurrent
Planning
Concurrent planning is the process of
working toward family reunification while, at the same time, developing
an alternative permanent plan. Developed to prevent foster care drift
in very young, chronically neglected children from multi-need families,
this procedure has been used successfully with all kinds of families.
Today, concurrent planning
is a standard part of how things are done in child welfare in North Carolina.
Our State formally adopted this practice in 1998, in part because the
federal Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 highlighted concurrent
planning as an appropriate practice to help assure timely permanence for
children (Katz, 1999). Concurrent planning also fits naturally with North
Carolina's goal of achieving a permanent home for all children within
one year of their entry into foster care.
The Role of Parent-Child
Visits
Parental visitation plays an
important part in concurrent planning. Visitation patterns give everyone
involved in a family's casesocial workers, children, and the child's
parentsan idea of how the family is progressing. Seen this way,
visitation is a diagnostic tool. The frequency and relative success of
visits between parents and children can provide evidence either for early
reunification or for movement toward the alternative plan, be it adoption,
guardianship, or custody. Regular visits for those children headed towards
reunification can complement the parents' progress. Visits are a good
opportunity for parents to show their motivation for getting their children
back home and exhibiting new skills or behavior changes.
On the other hand, by scheduling
visits social workers can document that visits have not been denied and
provide occasions to document parental disinterest in the child, which
can lead to timely termination of parental rights and subsequent efforts
to achieve permanence.
Thus, in many cases, visitation
is a key determinant in the case outcome. For this reason, social workers
and their supervisors should use their influence to promote frequent parent-child
visits.
Influencing The Frequency
of Visits
Social workers can do
three things to promote frequent parent-child visits. The first is to
try to schedule visits for times and locations that work for all the parties
involvedthe birth parents, foster parents, children, and, if applicable,
the social worker or person monitoring the visit.
When setting up the visitation
schedule for families, try to schedule as many visits as the parents and
other parties can reasonably attend. Because it places emphasis on making
a case decision within one year, concurrent planning generates more urgency
about scheduling frequent visits.
The second thing social workers
can do to promote visitation is to strategically recruit, select, and
train a pool of foster parents who can support the goals and tolerate
the uncertainties of concurrent planning. During training and when children
are placed in their homes, social workers can help support foster/adopt
families by having open, honest discussions with them about the risk they
are taking by agreeing to be "Plan B" (adoptive parents, guardians,
or custodians) when "Plan A" (reunification) has not been ruled
out.
Social workers should emphasize
that the level of "risk" for the relatives or foster parents
is not quantifiable. They should also make certain foster parents understand
how visits fit with concurrent planning and why they are important. Without
foster parent support, visits (and therefore concurrent planning itself)
may be less successful.
The third thing social workers
can do to promote visitation is to have frequent and quality contact with
the birth parents. In Factors in Length of Foster Care: Worker Activities
and Parent-Child Visitation, White, Albers, and Bitonti (1996) found
a link between how often social workers saw birth parents and how often
those parents saw their children. This same study also found a link between
the frequency of visits and the length of time children spent in foster
care: frequent visits seem to be tied to shorter stays in out-of-home
care.
Supervisors can support
social workers in their efforts to promote visitation by helping them
examine their personal experiences and biases toward visit planning. Supervisors
can also help social workers ensure "that visiting plans are individualized
and that the opportunities provided for parent-child contact exceed the
minimum required whenever indicated" (Hess, 1988). With their social
workers, supervisors should carefully explore any plans for using visits
"to reward parent progress or to test parental interest" (Hess,
1988).
In addition to monitoring the
activities of individual workers, supervisors should assess whether their
agency as a whole systematically promotes frequent visitation (White,
Albers, & Bitonti, 1996).
Although social workers' and
supervisors' roles in visitation cannot be underestimated, they are not
the only ones who affect the frequency of visits. Courts also exert considerable
influence in this area. For example, the courts in Santa Clara County,
California order that parents visit their children two to three times
a week in order to maintain bonds. This puts considerable pressure on
the social workers and foster parents to keep up with the visitation pace
(Wattenberg, 1997).
What to Watch for
In order to practice concurrent
planning in a legal, honest, fair, and effective manner, certain mistakes
related to visitation must be avoided:
- Equating concurrent planning with adoption
and therefore minimizing reunification efforts.
This can lead caseworkers to schedule fewer visits.
- Assuming assessment tools will infallibly
predict case outcomes. This may lead to minimizing reunification
efforts and decreasing visitations. Ultimately, the child's parents
will support or prove wrong the assessed placement outcome.
- Investing in a particular outcome.
Allow the case to evolve from the family's decisions and actions.
- Designing case plans that are not family-centered.
Put another way, the agency takes on responsibility for things the parents
should be doing. Parents have both rights and responsibilities. Concurrent
planning supports their active role in visitation, engaging in services,
and planning for their child's future.
- Offering foster parents and relatives
an estimate of "legal risk." Let the adults take the risks,
not the children. Acknowledge that foster/adopt parents are taking on
the role of "Plan B" and still supporting parental visitation.
This is not easy. Encourage foster/adopt parents to become involved
in parent-child visits to promote more supportive relationships with
biological parents.
- Interpreting 12 months as an absolute
limit on reunification, regardless of parental progress. "There
is a fine line between the judicious use of time limits to prevent foster
care drift, and a rote enforcement that ignores the full picture of
parental motivation, effort, incremental progress, and a foreseeable
reunification" (Katz, 1999).
References
Hess, P. (1988).
Case and context: Determinants of planned visit frequency in foster family
care. Child Welfare,
67(4), 311-325.
Hess, P. M. &
Proch, K. O. (1988). Family visiting in out-of-home care: A guide
to practice. Washington DC: Child Welfare League of America.
Katz, L. (1999).
Concurrent planning: Benefits and pitfalls. Child Welfare, 78(1),
71-87.
Wattenberg, E. (Ed.).
(1997). Redrawing the family circle: Concurrent planningPermanency
for young children in high risk situations. Minneapolis: Center
for Urban and Regional Affairs.
White, M., Albers,
E., & Bitonti, C. (1996). Factors in length of foster care: Worker
activities and parent-child visitation. Journal of Sociology and
Social Welfare, 23(2), 75-84.
© 2000 Jordan Institute for Families
|