Abstracts
Résumé
Au moment de statuer sur le placement d’un enfant, les services de protection de l’enfance doivent également se prononcer sur le milieu d’accueil le plus adéquat pour celui-ci. Pour les enfants de moins de cinq ans, les milieux de type familial, tels que la famille d’accueil régulière, de proximité, et à vocation adoptive, sont généralement privilégiés. À ce jour, le processus de pairage et les mécanismes décisionnels qui accompagnent le choix d’un milieu substitut ont fait l’objet de très peu d’études, de sorte que les motifs et facteurs pris en compte par les intervenants impliqués dans ce type de décision demeurent peu connus. La présente étude a pour objectif d’identifier, à partir du point de vue des intervenants, les différents facteurs qui soutiennent le choix du type de famille d’accueil. Pour répondre à cet objectif, 39 entretiens semi-dirigés ont été menés auprès d’intervenants sociaux du domaine de la protection de l’enfance dans trois régions distinctes de la province de Québec. Les résultats dressent un portrait des principaux facteurs considérés par les intervenants et montrent comment ces facteurs, au-delà de leur unicité et de leur rôle spécifique dans le processus décisionnel, s’inscrivent également dans une dynamique interactionnelle et dans un contexte de pratique qui comporte ses propres enjeux.
Mots-clés :
- protection de l’enfance,
- placement,
- famille d’accueil,
- processus décisionnel,
- pairage
Abstract
When making a decision regarding the placement of a child, child welfare services also need to decide on the most appropriate care setting for the child. For children under the age of five, family-type settings, such as regular foster care placement, kinship care placement and foster care placement with a view to adopt, are generally preferred. To date, the matching process and the decision-making mechanisms that accompany the choice of an alternative setting have been the subject of very few studies, so the reasons and factors taken into account by child protection workers involved in this type of decision remain poorly known. The aim of this study is to identify, from the point of view of the child protection workers, the different factors taken in consideration when choosing the type of foster care placement for a specific child. To meet this objective, 39 semi-structured interviews were conducted with child protection workers in three distinct regions of the province of Quebec. The results paint a picture of the main factors considered by the child protection workers and show how these factors, beyond their uniqueness and their specific role in the decision-making process, are also part of an interactional dynamic, in a practice context that has its own issues.
Keywords:
- child welfare,
- child protection,
- placement,
- foster care,
- decision-making process,
- matching
Appendices
Bibliographie
- Akin, B. A. (2011). Predictors of foster care exits to permanency: A competing risks analysis of reunification, guardianship, and adoption. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(6), 999-1011.
- Barth, R. P., Green, R., Webb, M. B., Wall, A., Gibbons, C., et Craig, C. (2008). Characteristics of Out-of-Home Caregiving Environments Provided Under Child Welfare Services. Child Welfare, 87(3), 5-39.
- Beckett, C., McKeigue, B., et Taylor, H. (2007). Coming to conclusions: social workers’ perceptions of the decision-making process in care proceedings. Child & Family Social Work, 12(1), 54-63
- Beeman, S. K., Kim H., et Bullerdick S. K. (2000). Factors Affecting Placement of Children in Kinship and Nonkinship Foster Care. Children and Youth Services Review, 22(1), 37-54
- Blakey, J. M., Leathers, S. J., Lawler, M., Washington, T., Natschke, C., Strand, T., et Walton, Q. (2012). A review of how states are addressing placement stability. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(2), 369-378.
- Borenstein, J., et P. McNamara (2015). Strengthening kinship families: Scoping the provision of respite car in Australia. Child & Family Social Work, 20(1), 50-61.
- Braun, V., et Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
- Brown, J., Moraes, S., et Mayhew, J. (2005). Service needs of foster families with children who have disabilities. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 14, 417–429.
- Brown, J. D., Rodgers, J., et Anderson, L. (2015). Roles of Foster Parent Resource Workers. Journal of Child and Families Studies, 24, 1551–1558
- Carvalho, J. M. S., Delgado, P., Benbenishty, R., Davidson-Arad, B., et Pinto, V. (2018). Professional judgements and decisions on placement in foster care and reunification in Portugal. European Journal of Social Work, 21(2), 296-310.
- Chateauneuf, D., et Turcotte, D. (2015). L’évaluation de la LPJ : qu’en est-il huit ans plus tard ? La perspective des milieux d’accueil. Dans S., Drapeau, S., Hélie, D. Turcotte, et coll. L’évaluation des impacts de la loi sur la protection de la jeunesse : Qu’en est-il huit ans plus tard? (annexe VI). Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux du Québec.
- Chateauneuf, D., Turcotte, D., et Drapeau, S. (2018). The relationship between foster care families and birth families in a child welfare context: The determining factors. Child & Family Social Work, 23(1), 71-79.
- Christiansen, O., et Anderssen, N. (2010). From concerned to convinced: reaching decision about out-of-home care in Norwegian Child Welfare Services. Child and Family Social Work, 15, 31-40.
- Chor, K., McClelland, G. M., Weiner, D. A., Jordan, N., et Lyons, J. S. (2013). Patterns of out-of-home placement decision-making in child welfare. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37, 871-882.
- Connell, C., Katz, K., Saunders, L., et Tebes, J. (2006). Leaving foster care — The influence of child and case characteristics on foster care exit rates. Children and Youth Services Review, 28, 780−798.
- Cuddeback, G. S. (2004). Kinship family foster care: a methodological and substantive synthesis of research. Children and Youth Services Review, 26, 623–639.
- D’Andrade, A., Frame L., et Berrick, J. D. (2006). Concurrent planning in public child welfare agencies: Oxymoron or work in progress? Children and Youth Services Review, 28(1), 78-95.
- Dettlaff, A. J., Graham, J. C., Holzman, J., Baumann, D. J., et Fluke, J. D. (2015). Development of an instrument to understand the child protective services decision-making process, with a focus on placement decisions. Child Abuse & Neglect, 49, 24-34.
- Directeurs de la protection de la jeunesse/directeurs provinciaux. (2018). La cause des enfants tatouée sur le coeur : Bilan des directeurs de la protection de la jeunesse/directeurs provinciaux 2018. Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec
- Dozier, M., Zeanah, C. H., Wallin, A. R., et Shauffer, C. (2012). Institutional care for young children: Review of literature and policy implications. Social issues and policy review, 6(1), 1-25.
- Ehrle, J., et Geen, R. (2002). Kin and non-kin foster care: Findings from a national survey. Child and Youth Services Review, 24, 15–35.
- Farmer, E. (2009). How do placements in kinship care compare with those in non-kin foster care: placement patterns, progress and outcomes? Child & Family Social Work, 14, 331–342.
- Fereday, J., et Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006) Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80-92.
- Font, S. A., et Maguire-Jack, K. (2015). Decision-making in Child Protective Services: Influences at multiple levels of the social ecology. Child abuse & neglect, 47, 70–82
- Guba, E. G. (1981) Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Resources Infonnation Center Annual Review Paper, 29, 75-91.
- Hélie, S., Turcotte, G., Turcotte, D., et Carignan, A. J. (2015). Le placement auprès de personnes significatives au Québec : Portrait des enfants placés et du contexte d’intervention. Canadian Social Work Review/Revue canadienne de service social, 32(1-2), 49-72.
- Hollows, A., et Nelson, P. (2006). Equity and pragmatism in judgement making about the placement of sibling groups. Child & Family Social Work, 11(4), 307-315.
- Holtan, A., Ronning, J. A., Handegard, B. H., et Sourander, A. (2005). A comparaison of mental health problems in kinship and nonkinship foster care. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 14(4), 200-207.
- Kaylor, A.G. (2001). The Effect of Initial Placement into Kinship Foster Care on Reunification from Foster Care. Journal of Social Service Research, 27(4), 1-31.
- Keddell, E. (2017). Interpreting children’s best interests: Needs, attachment and decision-making. Journal of Social Work, 17(3), 324-342.
- Liao, M., et White, K. R. (2014). Post-permanency service needs, service utilization, and placement discontinuity for kinship versus non-kinship families. Children and Youth Services Review, 44, 370-378.
- Lincoln, Y. S., et Guba, E. A. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage. Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse, L.Q. 2015, c. P-34.1
- Meiksans, J., Iannos, M., et Arney, F. (2015). Factors influencing decision making about the placement of children in care: Development of the Child Placement Questionnaire. Children and Youth Services Review, 55, 71–83.
- Metzger, J. (2008). Resiliency in Children and Youth in Kinship Care and Family Foster Care. Child Welfare, 87(6), 115-140.
- Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux (2010). Manuel de référence sur la protection de la jeunesse. La Direction des communications du ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux du Québec.
- Moore, T. D., McDonald, T. P., et Cronbaugh Auld, K. (2016). Assessing risk of placement instability to aid foster care placement decision making. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 1(2), 117–131.
- Munro, E. (2018). Decision making under uncertainty in child protection: Creating a just and learning culture. Child & Family Social Work. Advance online publication.
- Murray, L., Tarren-Sweeney, M., et France, K. (2011). Foster carer perceptions of support and training in the context of high burden of care. Child and Family Social Work, 16(2), 149–158.
- O’Connor, L., et Leonard, K. (2014). Decision Making in Children and Families Social Work: The Practitioners’s Voice. Bristish Journal of Social Work, 44, 1805-1822.
- Pagé, G & Poirier, M-A. (2015). Le placement en famille d’accueil en vue d’adoption : un quatuor de parents sans voix (pp. 219-231). Dans C. Lacharité, C. Sellenet et C. Chamberland (dir.), La protection de l’enfance : la parole des enfants et des parents. Presses de l’Université du Québec.
- Pagé, G., Poirier, M. A., et Chateauneuf, D. (2019). Being a Foster-to-Adopt Parent: Experiences of (Un) certainty and Their Influence on the Sense of Being the Parent. Adoption Quarterly, 1-21.
- Palacios, J., et Jiménez, J.M. (2009). Kinship foster care Protection or risk? Adoption & Fostering, 33(3), 64-75.
- Pećnik, N., et Brunnberg, E. (2006). Professionals’ characteristics, victim’s gender, and case assessments as predictors of professional judgments in child protection. Review of Psychology, 12(2), 133–146.
- Platt, D., et Turney, D. (2014). Making threshold decisions in child protection: A conceptual analysis. British Journal of Social Work, 44(6), 1472-1490.
- Poirier, M-A., Hélie, S., et Lamothe, J. (2018) Les familles d’accueil de proximité : regard québécois sur ce dispositif d’accueil. La revue internationale de l’éducation familiale, 43(1), 47-64.
- Pösö, T., et Laakso, R. (2015). Holistic, expert and centralised models for organising care placement decisions: findings from Finland. Adoption & Fostering, 39(2), 159-169.
- Pösö, T., et Laakso, R. (2016). Matching children and substitute homes: some theoretical and empirical notions. Child & Family Social Work, 21(3), 307-316.
- Quinton, D. (2012). Rethinking Matching in Adoptions from Care. British Association for Adoption and Fostering.
- Rubin, D. M., Downes, K. J., O’Reilly, A. L. R., Mekonnen, R., Luan, X. Q., et Localio, R. (2008). Impact of kinship care on behavioral well-being for children in out-of-home care. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 162(6), 550–556.
- Sakai, C., Lin H., et Flores, G., (2011). Health Outcomes and Family Services in Kinship Care Analysis of a National Sample of Children in the Child Welfare System. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescents Medecine, 165(2), 159-165.
- Sawyer, M. G., Carbone, J. A., Searle, A. K., et Robinson, P. (2007). The mental health and well-being of children and adolescents in home-based care. Medical Journal of Australia, 186(4), 181−184.
- Sieracki, J. H., Fuller, A. K., Leon, S. C., Bai, G. J., et Bryant, F. (2015). The role of race, socioeconomic status, and System of Care services in placement decision-making. Children and Youth Services Review, 50, 3-11.
- Sinclair, I., Wilson, K. (2003). Matches and mismatches: the contribution of carers and children to the success of foster placements. British Journal of Social Work, 33, 871–884.
- Snowden, J., Leon, S., et Sieracki, J. (2008). Predictors of children in foster care being adopted: A classification tree analysis. Children and Youth Services Review, 30(11), 1318-1327.
- Spratt, T., Devaney, J., et Hayes, D. (2015). In and out of home care decisions: The influence of confirmation bias in developing decision supportive reasoning. Child Abuse & Neglect, 49, 76-85.
- Stacks, A. M., et Partridge, T. (2011). Infants placed in foster care prior to their first birthday: Differences in kin and non-kin placements. Infant Mental Health Journal, 32, 489–508.
- Stukes-Chipungu, S., et Bent-Goodley, T. B. (2004). Meeting the challenges of contemporary foster care. The Future of Children, 14(1), 74–93
- Vanschoonlandt F., Vanderfaeillie J., Van Holen F., De Maeyer S., et Andries C. (2012). Kinship and non-kinship foster care: Differences in contact with parents and foster child’s mental health problems. Children and Youth Review, 34, 1533-1539.
- Waterhouse, S., et Brocklesby, E. (2001). Placement choice in temporary foster care: A research study. Adoption and Fostering, 25(3), 39–46.
- Whenan, R., Oxlad, M., et Lushington, K. (2009). Factors associated with foster carer wellbeing, satisfaction and intention to continue providing out-of-home care. Children and Youth Services Review, 31, 752–760.
- Whittaker, A. (2018). How Do Child-Protection Practitioners Make Decisions in Real-Life Situations? Lessons from the Psychology of Decision Making. The British Journal of Social Work, 48(7), 1967-1984.
- Wigfall, V., Monck, E., et Reynolds, J. (2006). Putting programme into practice: The introduction of concurrent planning into mainstream adoption and fostering services. British Journal of Social Work, 36(1), 41-55.
- Zeijlmans, K., López, M., Grietens, H., et Knorth, E. J. (2017). Matching children with foster carers: A literature review. Children and Youth Services Review, 73, 257-265.
- Zeijlmans, K., López, M., Grietens, H., et Knorth, E. J. (2018). “Nothing goes as planned”: Practitioners reflect on matching children and foster families. Child & Family Social Work, 23(3), 458-465.
10.7202/1034143ar