Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-10T10:02:58.889Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“Do you mean, we're not the only ones?”…: Disruption - powerlessness and empowerment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 February 2016

Cas O'Neill
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A study of the meaning of adoption and permanent placement disruption for parents and social workers confirmed that the experience is extremely stressful over a long period of time.

Powerful themes evident through the process of the study were the influence on the placement of stress in the parents’ backgrounds; the maintenance of the family boundary; triangulation of relationships; the nature and quality of interactions between parents and social workers; relinquishment of a placed child; the immobilisation of possible support; and research as intervention.

Type
Research Article
Information
Children Australia , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , 1993 , pp. 13 - 17
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albrecht, T. & Adelman, M. (eds) [1987] Communicating Social Support, Ch.1-3, California: Sage Google Scholar
Aldgate, J. & Hawley, D. [1986] Recollections of Disruption, London: NFCA.Google Scholar
Arntson, P. & Droge, D. [1987] ‘Social Support in Self-Help Groups’ in Albrecht, T. & Adelman, M. (eds), Communicating Social Support, op. cit.Google Scholar
Barth, R. & Berry, M. [1988] Adoption and Disruption, New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bettelheim, B. [1976] The Uses of Enchantment, London: Thames & Hudson.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braden, J. [1981] ‘Adopting the Abused Child: Love Is Not Enough’ Social Casework, 62 (6) 362–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cann, W. [1980] ‘Maintaining the Placement’ in Triseliotis, J. (ed) New Developments in Foster Care and Adoption, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Elbow, M. [1986] ‘From Caregiving to Parenting: Family Formation with Adopted Older Children’ Social Work, 31 (5) 366–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzgerald, J. [1983] Understanding Disruption, London: BAAF.Google Scholar
Gitterman, A. & Shulman, L. [1986] Mutual Aid Groups and the Life Cycle, Itasca: Peacock.Google Scholar
Hartman, A. & Laird, J. [1983] Family-Centered Social Work Practice, N.Y.: Free Press.Google Scholar
Hartman, A. & Laird, J. [1990] ‘Family Treatment After Adoption: Common Themes’, in Brodzinsky, D. & Schechter, M. (eds) The Psychology of Adoption, New York: O.U.P. Google Scholar
Hill, R. [1958] ‘Generic Features of Families Under Stress’ Social Casework, 39 (2-3) 139–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holman, B. [1987] ‘Research From The Underside’ British Jnl of Social Work, 17, 669–683.Google Scholar
James, K. [1989] ‘When Twos are Really Threes: The Triangular Dance in Couple Conflict’ The Australian & N.Z. Journal of Family Therapy, 10 (3) Sept, 179–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirk, H.D. [1964] Shared Fate N.Y.: Free Press.Google Scholar
Kirk, H.D. [1981] Adoptive Kinship - A Modern Institution in Need of Reform, Toronto: Butterworth.Google Scholar
Lieberman, M. & Borman, L. [1979] Self-Help Groups for Coping with Crisis, Calif: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Nielsen, J. (ed) [1990] Feminist Research Methods, Boulder: Westview.Google Scholar
Pancoast, D., Parker, P. & Froland, C. [1983] Rediscovering Self-He1p…Its Role in Social Care, California: Sage.Google Scholar
Partridge, S., Hornby, H. & McDonald, T. [1986] Legacies of Loss - Visions of Gain: An Inside Look at Adoption Disruption, Portland: Univ. of Southern Maine.Google Scholar
Pinderhughes, E. [1983] ‘Empowerment for Our Clients and for Ourselves’ Social Casework, 64, June, 191–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, W., Kagan, R., Kaminsky, A. & Helmer, K. [1987] ‘Adoptions of Older Institutionalized Youth’ Social Casework, 68, March, 140–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryburn, M. [1991] ‘The Myth of Assessment’ Adoption and Fostering, 15 (1) 20–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sainsbury, E. [1987] ‘Client Studies…Their Contribution and Limitations in Influencing Social Work Practice’ Brit Jnl of Social Work, 17, 635–644.Google Scholar
Schmidt, D., Rosenthal, J. & Bombeck, B. [1988] ‘Parents' Views of Adoption Disruption’ Children & Youth Services Review, 10 (2) 119–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schon, D. [1983] The Reflective Practitioner… How Professionals Think in Action, N.Y.: Basic Books Google Scholar
Scott, D. [1989] ‘Meaning Construction and Social Work Practice’ Social Service Review, 63, March, 39–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, D. [1990] ‘Practice Wisdom: The Neglected Source of Practice Research’ Social Work, 35 (6) 564–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverman, P. [1980] Mutual Help Groups, California: Sage.Google Scholar
Sprey, J. [1979] ‘Conflict Theory and the Study of Marriage and the Family’ in Burr, W. et al (eds) Contemporary Theories About the Family, 2, New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Triseliotis, J. [1989] ‘Some Moral and Practical Issues in Adoption Work’ Adoption and Fostering, 13 (2). 21–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valentine, D., Conway, P. & Randolph, J. [1987] ‘Placement Disruptions: Perspectives of Adoptive Parents’ Journal of Social Work and Human Sexuality, 6 (1) 133–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, M. [1981] ‘Parental Bonding in Older-Child Adoptions’ Child Welfare, 60 (1) 24–34.Google Scholar
Williams, P. & Shoultz, B. [1982] We Can Speak for Ourselves, London: Souvenir.Google Scholar
Winkler, R., Brown, D., Van Keppel, M. & Blanchard, A. [1988] Clinical Practice in Adoption, New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar