The permanence of family ties: Implications for youth transitioning from foster care

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Mary Elizabeth Collins, 264 Bay State Road, Boston, MA 02215 Electronic Mail may be sent to: mcollins@bu.edu.

According to the most recent available data from the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) there were approximately 513,000 children in foster care on September 30, 2005. Approximately 95,000 were between the ages of 16 to 18 and another 5,963 were 19 years of age. Nearly 6% of youth had a case plan goal of emancipation; approximately 24,000 emancipated in 2005 (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2005). Although increasingly youth are provided independent living services and other supports to aid them in their transition from care, they are known to experience many challenges as they transition to life on their own (Collins, 2001).

Increasing policy, program, and practice attention are being devoted to developing strategies to enhance the capacities of emancipating youth to achieve better outcomes. A consistent finding from studies of youth leaving care is their frequent connection to their family of origin, including residing with family members after leaving foster care (e.g., Cook, 1994). Although family reunification is a core objective of child welfare systems while children and youth are in care, the process of reunifying with families after leaving care is outside the scope of the child welfare system. These are decisions made by the young person and his or her family after there is no longer legal jurisdiction over the family, at least regarding the focal youth. Because these reconnections with family occur outside of the child welfare system little is known about the processes and outcomes of the reconnection.

Our objective in this article is to understand the implications of this postsystem reunification and to propose strategies for better aiding youth and families with this process. In the rapidly burgeoning literature on youth leaving care, there has been surprisingly little attention to the reconnection of former foster youth with birth families postcare. Moreover, there is rare attention to theories of family development in the discussion of youth transition from care. This article highlights this issue by identifying relevant theory and empirical findings. The empirical findings are scattered and often hidden in studies examining outcomes for former foster youth (typically focused on concrete outcomes) and the evaluation of IL programs (again, typically focused on concrete outcomes). The later and voluntary reunification with family is largely known by researchers and practitioners, but generally unaddressed; postfoster care reunification and its implications have not received devoted attention in the scholarly literature.

Because homelessness is a threat to this population (e.g., Park, Metraux, Brodbar, & Culhane, 2004), successful reunification may be of great assistance to these youths. Yet, efforts to promote reunification must be done thoughtfully to avoid exacerbating youth and family vulnerabilities. By providing attention to this issue, we raise it on the research, policy, and practice agendas and identify possible next steps in these areas. We begin with attention to the theory base of young adult and family development particularly regarding the process of leaving home. We then apply this theory to families with child welfare system involvement. We also briefly review the literature on youth leaving care and their social support connections with family. Based on this literature we conclude with implications in the areas of research, policy, and clinical intervention.

The primary developmental task of the adolescent life stage is that of establishing an identity versus becoming mired in identity confusion (Erikson, 1968). Identity-related tasks include revisioning the self in terms of work, love, and one's roles and values in the world. During this time period, adolescents experience significant changes in mood that are highly context-sensitive (Csikszentmihalyi & Larson, 1984), but recent research has failed to bear out conceptions of the early “storm and stress” models of adolescence. These early models present adolescence as a time of emotional upheaval when the child rebels against his or her parents in an effort toward complete independence. Adolescents on the path to early adulthood actually rely upon their families for myriad forms of support. This support is critically important in the process of identity development, and may be manifest in multiple forms, such as instrumental, emotional, or informational support. Research has indicated that forms of parental support are correlated with adolescent self-worth (Robinson, 1995), adjustment (Scholte, van Lieshout, & van Aken, 2001), and life satisfaction (Young, Miller, Norton, & Hill, 1995).

The relationship strain that characterizes many conceptions of adolescent/parent interaction is partially borne out in research, such as van Wel's (1994) study of Dutch teenagers and their parents which shows a curvilinear pattern to relational closeness in adolescence. The U-shaped pattern that van Wel describes reflects more positive parental perceptions in both early adolescents and early adults, with a concomitant decline in the closeness of the parent/child bond during late adolescence. In general, for young adults the parental bond serves a role in defining self-worth and determining well-being that meets or exceeds even the bonds with partners or best friends (van Wel, ter Bogt, & Raaijmakers, 2002).

Given the importance of family support and approval for most adolescents, the developmental task of the later adolescent years is not the cutting off of family ties, but the challenge of exercising new measures of autonomy while still remaining connected. Often this appears as a circular process of leaving and returning home, either for work, school, or another independent venture. Arnett (2000) proposed emerging adulthood as a new conception of development for the period from the late teenage years through the twenties in industrialized societies that allow young people a prolonged period of independent role exploration. He argues that emerging adulthood is distinct demographically; it is the “only period of life in which nothing is normative demographically” (p. 471).

Emerging adults' lives in the United States are characterized by diversity: about one third of young persons go off to college after high school, another 40% move out of their parental home for independent living and work, and about 10% of men and 30% of women remain at home until marriage. About two thirds of emerging adults experience a period of cohabitation with an intimate partner (Michael, Gagnon, Lauman, & Kolata, 1994). These emerging adults often change residence, including temporarily moving back into their parents' home. It is estimated that about 40% of recent cohorts of young adults have returned to their parent's home after moving away (Goldscheider & Goldscheider, 1994). A significant proportion of midlife parents are actively engaged in helping their children (i.e., advising, guiding, worrying) as they explore choices in love and work and transition to young adulthood. Demographic evidence related to the family and residential transition has found that until recently, in the later decades of the 20th century the age at which a child left home and became financially independent was declining (Goldscheider & DaVanzo, 1985) but that recently this trend has reversed (Goldscheider & Goldscheider, 1993) largely due to accelerating housing costs and declining economic opportunities (Haurin, Hendershott, & Kim, 1993). These observations are accompanied by a significant increase in the frequency of returns to the parental home after youth have lived independently for a minimum of four months (Goldscheider & Goldscheider, 1993); in 1920, 22% of youth were likely to return to the parental home and by 1980, 40% of youth were likely to do so. Of particular note, the course of this research has been instructive in suggesting that home leaving is a process, rather than a nodal event that occurs with finality at one specific time (Aquilino, 1996).

Several factors have been identified as being related to home-leaving and home-returning. For example, family structure is one prominent contributor to home-leaving patterns (Aquilino, 1991; Goldscheider & Goldscheider, 1989). Aquilino (1991) determined that children from “intact” families are less likely to form independent households after homeleaving, and more likely to attend school. The reverse is true for children leaving from other family homes, which include those characterized as stepparent, single-parent, adoptive, or nonparental. In addition, these effects are more pronounced for girls than for boys. Patterns also vary by race, class, and culture (Goldscheider & Goldscheider, 1999). For example, a study of gender and ethnic differences in late adolescence by Gnaulati and Heine (2001) found that African American and Latino/a youth experience a greater reliance on caregivers, which affects their ability to separate from parental figures.

In other research, age of leaving has been linked with likelihood of returning home (DaVanzo & Goldscheider, 1990; Goldscheider, Goldscheider, St. Clair, & Hodges, 1999). Returns typically occur very soon after the first episode of home-leaving, placing the age of the returnee in their early to midtwenties (Aquilino, 1996). Pathways out of the home are also strongly associated with the probability of a child's return to the parental home. Aquilino (1991) identifies pathways out of the home that include leaving to marry or cohabit, leaving for school or the military, or leaving for the sole purpose of independence. Increasingly, youth are leaving their parental home for the latter reason, which contributes significantly to the increasing number of returnees (Goldscheider, et al., 1999).

Developmental family theory incorporates chronological time and “family time”—coevolutionary processes that impact a family's transitions. Both individuals and families are presented with stages throughout the life course. What do adolescents need from family during the developmental processes of leaving home and returning home? If the goals of emerging adulthood are the establishment of an independent identity, autonomous work, and intimate relationship, the goal for the family is to remain flexible to the needs of the adolescent and young adult. This increasingly means being willing to emotionally and financially support the young person through their late teens and twenties. Young adults continue to look to family members, primarily parents but at times older siblings, aunts, uncles, or grandparents, to bolster their developmental trajectories by being available when needed to provide a residence, assistance with finances, good advice, and general emotional support. Positive attachment to parents or parental figures remains important in the young adult years for both psychological and social development. Intergenerational benefits may even arise from the experience of coresidence, as children who have experienced coresidence are more committed to providing support for both their own parents and their children than are those individuals who have not experienced this form of support (Goldscheider & Lawton, 1998).

This review has focused, thus far, on the general population, and we know that the general patterns described can vary depending on race, ethnicity, gender, culture, and other variables. Extensive involvement with the child welfare system, particularly removal of the child from the parental home, would likely have a decided impact on the development and transitional processes of both the individual youth and the family unit. Adolescent identity development may likely be compromised due to lack of secure attachment and the type of system-involvement that may preclude experience with “typical” adolescent opportunities (e.g., employment, social relationships) (Cicchetti & Lynch, 1995). Concern that youth with long term foster care experiences lack needed life experiences for adulthood has led to extensive attention to efforts to teach these young people “life skills.”

Although there has been some increased attention to the impact of child welfare involvement on the development of young people, there has been a scarcity of attention to the impact on family development. “Families comprise persons who have a shared history and a shared future” (McGoldrick & Carter, 2003, p. 376). Relationships among the members go through transitions as they move along the life cycle; boundaries and roles may shift and connections are constantly being redefined. New members may join a family by birth, adoption, or marriage, but one leaves only by death. One main value in a family is the lifelong relationships. Functions of a particular individual may be replaced, like that of the parenting role for a child in foster care, but the actual person is never replaced nor is the bond to the family of origin. Crises and stressors can derail family functioning; the impact of these will be felt by individual family members and their relationships (Walsh, 2003).

The family is a powerful shaper of reality influencing how its members will carry out the tasks of the life cycle. A young adult is meant to separate from the family of origin, but maintain an optimal amount of contact and distance. It is different for each family system and for each young adult, with culture, race, class, gender, and developmental experiences strongly influencing the outcome. This life stage is a chance for the young adult to sort out emotionally what they will take from the family of origin, what they will leave behind, and what they will create for themselves (McGoldrick & Carter, 2003). It is a particularly significant phase for youths who have aged out of foster care as they will need to decide who they will lean on and what they will want or need from their biological families. The family may or may not be able to shift in order to reconnect with the youth in a new way. Consequently, outcomes can vary. Some youths may desire to return to the family and find they are able to build new supportive relationships with a parent, sibling, or extended family member. Others may find that they need to make peace with the fact that no family connections are available that involve support.

Having a child removed from a family home and placed in foster care is often the culmination of years of challenges to the family and of inadequate parenting. Yet, the removal of the child does not indicate the ending of the relationship with the parent(s) or other family members. The family may remain in contact with the child over the years of foster care, even if they are not reunified before the child is emancipated. This foster care experience becomes part of the family story over time. The family system may interpret the separation, and later reunification, in a variety of different ways. Resilient families may manage the disruption and use it to effectively reorganize. Furthermore, beyond the stress of the premature “break-up” of the family unit, removal of the child from the home typically occurs for very good reason. Complex issues of substance abuse (Dore, Doris, & Wright, 1995), domestic violence (McCay, 1994), and health care needs (Simms, Dubowitz, & Szilagyi, 2000), for example, are frequent in families needing access to foster care. These stressors would complicate the development of the young person and the family.

Moreover, extensive involvement with the child welfare system and removal of children to foster care would also likely affect the developmental experience of the family. For example, attention to and planning for appropriately “launching” children into their own adulthood may be affected by the “forced” removal of children at far earlier ages. Although child welfare systems, and foster care, in particular, may be of great help to some families, undoubtedly the stress of a protective service investigation and removal of the child from the home is traumatic to the parents and the family unit, even if in the long run, it turns out to be the best for all involved.

In general, little research has examined parental perspectives on the child welfare system. Studies show that birth families involved with the child welfare system are often confused by the many rules and expectations; typically they feel dissatisfied with the services they receive and overlooked by the foster care system (Diorio, 1992; Haight et al., 2002; Kapp & Propp, 2002). The relationship with the caseworker is the central focus of the dissatisfaction, with many families feeling that they cannot easily communicate with the worker, that the worker is unavailable when needed, and does not respect them. Often birth families feel left out of major decisions regarding their child and given their lack of knowledge about the child welfare system, they feel helpless (Kapp & Vela, 2004). These confused and dissatisfied feelings are augmented by the fact that some families do not receive the services that would deem them competent to merit reunification with their child. Thus, they are left with no better parenting skills or needed supports (Alpert, 2005).

Permanency has become a core principle of child welfare work and appears to be gaining even greater currency to child welfare practice. In light of growing evidence that youth who exit foster care are likely to need continued support and assistance, there has been increased attention to not only help these youth prepare for independent living but also to enhance their sense of permanency. Others (e.g., Charles & Nelson, 2000) have discussed at length the importance of permanency for older adolescents in foster care and the need to help youth make lasting connections to family, friends, and supportive networks. Bussiere (2006), among others, supports an integrated service plan that prepares youth for independent living but also creates permanency for older youth. Moreover, this revised method of concurrent planning involves older youth participating in their own permanency plans, identifying caring and supportive adults, exploring adoption, and including family members in reunification plans.

Findings by Freundlich and colleagues (2006) in their study focusing on the meaning of permanency to different stakeholders in the child welfare system, demonstrated that the concept of permanency was not well understood by birth parents, adoptive parents, or youth. Many birth parents were uncertain about the meaning of permanency, although they did understand that it had something to do with whether their children were being returned to them. Overall, the youth had a pessimistic view of permanency, viewing it as temporary or time-bound as long as they were in foster care or until they were 18 or 21. Most youth that were interviewed emphasized the long-term emotional and relational connections with family members. Given these findings of the transient nature of the child welfare system for many of those involved, as well as the continuity of family connections over many generations, it is understandable that youth leaving the foster care system look to “permanent' birth family relationships for emotional or instrumental support regardless of the history and limitations.

There is a growing literature on the outcomes of youth who left care after turning 18 that provides some limited information on experiences of reunifying or reconnecting with family after care. This information is particularly important because spells of homelessness have been identified as a threat to this population (Courtney, Piliavin, Grogan-Kaylor, & Nesmith, 2001; Park et al., 2004; Reilly, 2003), and successful reconnection with family may reduce this risk. Smaller social support networks have been found to be associated with a higher likelihood of homelessness (Reilly, 2003). Because reunification and reconnection with family has not been a central focus of research, studies vary in how they have approached this as an outcome and, consequently, variation in the percentages found to be living with family members.

Table 1 provides a summary of findings regarding youth living with family after leaving foster care. The data on living with family are variable depending primarily on whether this was measured at discharge or follow-up and how family was defined. Additionally, method differences (interviews, records, mail surveys) and state agency policies may also explain some of the variation in findings.

Recent Study Findings Regarding Living With Family After Care

Studies relying on data from the state agency can identify youth who reunify with families when they emancipate from care. Courtney and Barth (1996) found approximately 17% of youth who had spent at least 18 months in care were placed with family at discharge from care, most of whom were returned to their biological parents. McMillen and Tucker (1999) found a higher percent (26%) were living with relatives at the time of discharge and 10% of this group left via unplanned placement with parents or relatives. Living with family at time of discharge might be related to youth's running behavior; that is, chronic running from placements to live with family until the age of majority. This explanation, however, has not been confirmed by research.

State agencies generally do not collect data after discharge, therefore, findings regarding later follow-up rely on survey data collection. In one of the larger studies, and the only national one, Cook (1994) found over half of the sample returned to live with family members at discharge from care and a significant percentage were living with family several years later (38%). Festinger (1983) also identified youth living with their families several years after leaving care, but found a much smaller percentage (8%).

These data do not examine the length of time that youth spend living with family, and therefore, tell a small piece of the story. Some of these situations may be quite stable and others are likely to be unstable, simply one step in a housing trajectory that includes bouts of couch-surfing and homelessness. These data do suggest, however, that the youth have a sense of connection to the family members with whom they live, regardless of whether it is long or short term.

The reconnection with family might not involve living in the same household but might, instead, be focused on other aspects by which youth receive support from family members. Similar to the data on living situation, researchers have used a variety of measurements to assess social supports. The research evidence appears quite mixed regarding how alone or supported these youth are upon leaving care. For example, the study described by Cook found that 86% of youth in the study reported having at least one person who provided a strong, close relationship, 60% reported a strong concrete network, and 57% reported a strong emotional support network. Propp, Ortega, and NewHeart (2003), however, summarize a few studies on social support, concluding, “What little information there is has revealed that youth report feeling isolated and disconnected from supports that were once a part of their daily life in care; they also feel unprepared for establishing new connections and supports” (2003, p. 261).

Barth (1990), at the time of follow-up, discovered that respondents saw birth family members or relatives more often than they had while they were in foster care; about 50% of respondents saw a relative three times a week or less and 28% saw them more than weekly. Courtney et al. (2001) tracked the experiences of foster care youth predischarge and for 12 to 18 months after care. These researchers found that predischarge 52% of the 141 respondents felt close to birthmothers with a “very close” or “somewhat close” response. Although respondents seemed to have a less close relationship with birthfathers, still, 28% reported having a “very close” or “somewhat close” relationship. Moreover, relationships with grandparents and siblings were stronger than with birth parents. More than half and more than three-quarters of respondents reported, at minimum, a “somewhat close relationship” with grandparents and siblings, respectively. Reilly (2003) examined 100 former foster youth, who had been out of care for at least six months. He found 74% of respondents reported contact with siblings; 45% reported contact with grandparents; 37% reported contact with birthmothers; and 30% reported contact with birth fathers. The majority of youth reported close or very close relationships with siblings (64%) and slightly over half (52%) reported having family to rely on when they had problems.

As with the information on returning to live with family, there is virtually no evidence regarding the quality of contact with family or the support received. Unanswered questions remain as to the role, duration, timing, fluidity, reciprocity, and other attributes of support perceived by the young adults.

Little is known about the problems that may stem from reunification or reconnection after care. A few studies noted indicators of potential difficulty. For example, in Barth's (1990) sample, only 16% of youth reported their view that their life would have been better or much better if they stayed in their birth family compared to 69% who felt their life would have been much worse if they had not entered foster care. Similarly, after reporting the frequency and perceived closeness of contact with various family members, Courtney et al. (2001) go on to say that the “lack of close family ties for many sample members is also seen in their preferences for future family relationships” (p. 696). Forty-one percent of respondents wish they had been adopted, suggesting, in part, “the relationships of these youths to their parents or the circumstances of their parents' lives had remained sufficiently problematic that they had little desire to live again with their families of origin” (p. 696).

In a more recent study, albeit utilizing a small sample, Iglehart and Becerra (2002) specifically identified problems of family conflict. They report that 54% of respondents were experiencing some type of family conflict often because of parental dysfunctional behavior or lack of consistency in the relationship. In some cases this conflict led to youth homelessness. They suggest that family dysfunction may need to be addressed in independent living programs; “while the dysfunction may not ever dissipate, adolescents can begin to learn how to cope with it in a healthy fashion… Independent living programs that actually focus on the emotional aspects of emancipation provide an invaluable service to their participants, particularly if they are sensitive to the cultural backgrounds of children and their families” (p. 104).

Research Implications

The first priority for research is to understand with greater clarity the circumstances in which a youth returns to a family home after foster care. Is it a parental home or the home of a sibling or extended family member? Are the home circumstances (setting, people in the house) the same or have they changed since the youth was removed from the home? Have the family problems and dynamics, particularly related to the reason for the youth entering care, improved? Has there been a reconfiguration of the family that may make reconnection a better situation for the young person? How does the youth perceive the return to living with family—with optimism and hope, as a last resort, or somewhere in between? Similarly, how are other family members perceiving this and is there similarity or dissonance among the different family members? Is the anticipation that the reconnection is short-term and temporary or long-term and relatively permanent? How are these “decisions” made about reunifying or reconnecting? How are the “choices” about reunifying and reconnecting structured from both the youth and family perspective? How did the foster care experience (e.g., length of time in care, reason for entry into care, services provided) influence the experience of reconnection and reunification? To what extent is the phenomenon of reconnection related to a history of youth running from foster care in late adolescence, that is, are those who chronically run from foster and group care, running primarily to family with whom they later reconnect when finally discharged from care at the age of emancipation?

Perhaps most importantly, research needs to identify the circumstances in which a youth's return to family is relatively successful versus unsuccessful and the reasons for this outcome. Answers to these questions are sorely needed in order to determine appropriate strategies for intervention. One helpful approach may be the construction of typologies of youth leaving care. For instance, McMillen and Tucker (1999) cite a typology by Aldgate, Maluccio, and Reeves (1988) which categorized adolescents in out-of-home care as: (1) those placed at an early age with a stable placement history; (2) those placed at an early age with an unstable placement history; and (3) those placed as a teen usually because of behavior problems. Stein (2006) has suggested three groups based on a review of outcome studies: (1) the “moving on” group are likely to have had stability and continuity in their lives and were capable of using the help and support offered; (2) the “survivors” had more instability but interventions by specialist transition workers and mentors helped them to overcome the challenges of transitioning; and (3) the “victims” were the most disadvantaged group, with the most damaging precare family experiences and the inability of system intervention to compensate for these early experiences. Their outcomes were likely to be poor after care and they were also “likely to be lonely, isolated and have mental health problems” (p. 430). At present, there is no prevailing typology of transitioning youth that might guide intervention; one would suspect, however, that prospects for successful reconnection may vary among groups such as those suggested above.

Other research studies might be conducted to tap the practice wisdom of practitioners in the field to determine existing efforts in working with youth and families to successfully and appropriately reconnect. Many practitioners likely intervene and address these issues with their clients. Agency-based researchers might hold focus groups with child welfare workers to gain a better understanding of their experiences with youth and their family members. Workers might be asked, for example, to plan an ideal intervention for those youth that do have available family members. Focus groups might also be held with youth and those family members that have an interest in maintaining a relationship with a youth who has been in the foster care system. The ultimate goal would be to use the data to generate pilot interventions.

Policy Implications

Child welfare systems should mirror normative family life as much as possible and the information regarding family connection should be a guiding tenet. For instance, knowledge regarding normative developmental processes of youth and young adults has provided justification for public child welfare systems to provide enhanced supports to young people leaving care and to increase their flexibility in serving youth who left at 18 but have since returned for assistance. Although at one time it may have been a developmentally appropriate expectation for a young person to be on their own at age 18, demographic evidence has clearly identified that in contemporary U.S. society, young people are at a decided disadvantage if they lack the support of their family, or a family like unit (Aquilino, 1996; Goldscheider & Goldscheider, 1993).

In the absence of solid data about the reunification experience, we offer tentative thoughts regarding policy development in this area and focus primarily on the ideology of system intervention. The primary federal policy designed to assist youth with the transitioning from foster care is the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 (P.L. 106–169), which was intended to provided resources to states to develop programs and services to assist youth to establish independence after leaving care. Despite some limitations, this legislation was an improvement over previous independent living legislation by providing more resources and allowing a greater scope of services and concrete supports (Collins, 2004).

This legislation and the program interventions it supports do not specifically address assisting youth with reconnection although this may be considered a key task of transition. Iglehart (1995) notes that “while independent living programs may offer the skills and knowledge needed for successful emancipation, it is not clear to what extent, if any, these programs can combat isolation and provide social support” (p. 430). More sustained attention of these programs to addressing issues related to reunification, reconnection, and more general social support would be consistent with individual and family development theories.

Successful transition from care is not only dependent on effective independent living policy, however. Rather, success is likely dependent on other aspects of child welfare policy implementation within service systems. Policies and resulting practices regarding child removal and family reunification remain imperfect in determining the risk and safety inherent in these decisions. But given the large percentages of youth with ongoing family contact, revisiting these policies appears warranted. Two additional issues are specific to the arguments of this article: (1) the extent to which the system was supportive of family based intervention while the youth was in foster care; and (2) the extent to which the system was successful at providing the needed services and supports to ameliorate the problems that brought families to the attention of the child welfare authorities in the first place.

Family-based intervention

Child welfare systems may be slowly progressing in their employment of more flexible strategies in working with children and families. Open adoption, mediation, family group conferencing, and more general strategies of partnership with child welfare clients, whether they be youth or family members, aim to operationalize the “best interests” of the child who may rightly desire connection with family of origin regardless of the objective circumstances. Although many child welfare systems have worked diligently to become more family centered, there remains a fundamental tension between child protection and family services. Specific to our population of focus, McMillen and Tucker (1999) raised excellent questions in wondering, given the extent of reconnection after care, whether the system might not have considered these family members as placement settings while the youth was still in care. Freundlich and Avery (2004) stressed the irony in not identifying reunification as a case plan goal when many emancipated or discharged youth return to their biological parents. The extent to which systems can continue (and accelerate) their effort to be more family focused in their interventions would likely serve the transition-age population particularly well.

Services and supports

Some of the key family problems that bring people to the attention of child welfare systems are poverty, substance abuse, mental illness, domestic violence, and parental incarceration. On their own, child welfare systems cannot be expected to address the many social problems facing vulnerable families. Needed services are frequently not available, evidence of effectiveness is limited, and funding to provide services is typically scarce. Nonetheless, removal of the child to foster care requires the state agency to make appropriate efforts to address the situation that brought the family into care.

In some cases, the situation that caused the intervention of the child welfare system may have eased or the mature age of the young person may limit their risk of harm if they return to the family. Obviously, the needs and capacities of young people ages 18 to 22 are different from younger children, and consequently, even without significant change on the part of the family unit, the potential danger to the focal child may be lessened, particularly if he or she is appropriately prepared. For instance, the limitations of parents with problems of substance abuse or mental illness may be of less developmental harm to the young adult since he or she is no longer dependent on the parent for basic care. Moreover, if poverty is an exacerbating factor to the family problems experienced, a young person's employability may ease the plight of the family. Although these living situations may not be optimal they may be normative; problems of substance abuse, mental illness, poverty, and other challenges are not unique to families involved with child welfare systems. Despite the challenges, these families often can provide a feeling of permanency which is the essence of family life, so crucial to sense of identity and ongoing healthy development.

Practice Implications

The interventions we suggest may be particularly relevant to child welfare workers but are not addressed only to them. Public child welfare systems do not have the sole responsibility for assisting with this transition. Social workers in many other settings such as schools, community health centers, and youth programs, work with youth and families involved in foster care. Regardless of the setting, the goal of this work is to anticipate, prepare for, and revisit limitations of the family connections before bad outcomes happen. Depending on the practitioner's role the focus of the work may be with the youth, his or her family, or the combined family unit.

Practitioners can work with youth regarding their preparation in returning home, including having appropriate expectations (avoiding fantasy of how great everything will be); enhancing the ability to set boundaries (so they are not taken advantage of emotionally, sexually, or economically); coping with loss or changes that may have occurred in the family since they have been in foster care; fostering empowerment (so they feel they can make decisions about the best place to live, with whom to spend time, and how to negotiate the degree of closeness and distance they desire). Additionally, assisting youth to identify, develop, and maintain a variety of supports in their social network would provide for opportunities if a “backup” plan is needed. Increasingly, practice with youth emancipating from care has included a focus on identifying at least one caring adult who is committed to providing long-term support, if connections to family members are unavailable. This practice might be important even when family members are available. Very little information exists, however, as to the processes for identifying these individuals and connecting them with youth. Far more work needs to be done in this area.

Clinical approaches to work with the youth and his or her existing or involved family might focus on the current issues that impact the youth's moving forward. Ideally a “solution-focused” approach would be best. This includes utilizing the strengths of the youth and the family members to help plan out the tasks that are necessary to complete. A solution-focused approach does not necessarily deal with past problems. Most of the focus is placed on the positive aspects of the relationships and how family members can build on these to meet the needs of various family members. For example, if an available family member is a grandparent who had ongoing, but intermittent contact with the youth, discussions could focus on the current capabilities of the grandparents, ways the youth and grandparent have successfully connected, and how these things could help the youth (and grandparent) move forward in their lives. Hopefully this would involve some structured regular contact with clear parameters. The grandparent may need help in setting limits and the youth would need to be clear about what to expect and what might not be possible.

Second, parenting programs could address the needs of late adolescents and youth adults. If the youth has a parent that is interested in being involved, they could attend a number of sessions together and separately. A 6- to 10-session program could address the newly formed relationship, changes in late adolescent and young adulthood, typical developmental tasks, and benefits of ongoing family relationships.

Third, some youth might have family members who would be willing to discuss the past in therapeutic sessions. A proscribed number of family sessions could address the youth's feelings about foster care, the parent or relative's feelings about the previous years, and ideally they could form new relationships based on current circumstances. The idea behind this is that many youth and family members will need a place to address past problems before they can commit to developing relationships in the present and future.

Fourth, a program might be developed for relatives of foster youth before they age-out. This would be mostly educational and would be paralleled by a program for the youth. Group sessions would allow relatives to discuss past problems, the foster care system, fear about taking responsibility with these older youth, and strategies for reconnection and maintaining appropriate boundaries. All these potential strategies require culturally appropriate intervention, potentially utilizing elders, churches, and other trusted figure to facilitate resolution.

Finally, we think it important to recognize that social workers and other practitioners working with adult clients in the full array of settings (substance abuse program psychiatric hospitals, prisons, nursing homes) and roles (clinician, case manager, program director, community organizer) may be faced with clients who are mourning the loss of family connection years or decades after the foster care experience. As with other types of loss, good practice in these instances would include providing a safe place to grieve the loss, allowing the expression of complicated emotions, valuing the meaning of the experience, and connecting with the client to make sense of the family history.

The foster care system may act as a surrogate parent in times of family stress and often fulfills this role successfully. But even at its best the foster care system does not replace the life course of the family unit. In this article we have reviewed what is known about the extent to which former foster youth reunite and reconnect with family after they transition out of the system upon reaching adulthood. In particular, we have noted that while this is a common finding, it has been an artifact of the research on youth transition and has not received primary research attention to answer important questions regarding the circumstances of reunification and its impact on the young person and his or her family members.

Moreover, recognizing that reunification and reconnection are occurring, and additionally, with the knowledge that family nearly always is central to identity, social workers can act to aid their clients, whether the client is the young person or another family member, with the processes of reconnection. The principle of permanency has become a core factor in child welfare systems, but this may be of more concern to the systems than to the youth and families. In some way the actions of the youth in reuniting with families after care are telling us that many have a sense of permanency and it is with their families of origin.

Aldgate, J., Maluccio, A., & Reeves, C. (1988). Adolescents in foster families. Chicago: Lyceum.

Alpert, L. T. (2005). Research review: Parents' service experience: A missing element in research on foster care case out comes. Child and Family Social Work, 10, 361–366.

Aquilino, W. S. (1991). Family structure and home-leaving: A further specification of the relationship. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 999–1010.

Aquilino, W. S. (1996). The returning child and parental experience at midlife. In C. D.Ryff & M. M.Seltzer (Eds.), The parental experience in midlife (pp. 423–458). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 5, 469–480.

Barth, R. P. (1990). On their own: The experiences of youth after foster care. Child and Adolescent Social Work, 7, 419–440.

Bussiere, A. (2006). Permanence for older foster youth. Family Court Review, 44, 231–243.

Charles, K., & Nelson, J. (2000). Permanency planning: Creating life long connections. What does it mean for adolescents?Tulsa, OK: National Resource Center for Youth Development.

Cicchetti, D., & Lynch, M. (1995). Failures in the expectable environment and their impact on individual development: The case of maltreatment. In, D.Cicchetti & D. J.Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology, Vol. 2: Risk, disorder, and adaptation (pp. 32–71). Oxford, England: Wiley and Sons.

Collins, M. E. (2001). Transition to adulthood for vulnerable youth: A review of research and implications for policy. Social Service Review, 75, 2, 271–291.

Collins, M. E. (2004). Enhancing services to youths leaving foster care: Analysis of recent legislation and its potential impact. Children and Youth Services Review, 26, 1051–1065.

Cook, R. (1994). Are we helping foster care youth prepare for their future?Children and Youth Services Review, 16, 213–229.

Courtney, M. E., & Barth, R. P. (1996). Pathways of older adolescents out of foster care: Implications for independent living services. Social Work, 41, 75–83.

Courtney, M. E., & Dworsky, A. (2006). Early outcomes for young adults transitioning from out-of-home care in the USA. Child and Family Social Work, 11, 209–219.

Courtney, M. E.Piliavin, I., Grogan-Kaylor, & Nesmith. A. (2001). Foster youth transitions to adulthood: A longitudinal view of youth leaving care. Child Welfare, 80, 685–717.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (1984). Being adolescent: Conflict and growth in the teenage years. New York: Basic Books.

DaVanzo, J., & Goldscheider, F. (1990). Coming home again: Returns to the nest in young adulthood. Population Studies, 44, 241–255.

Diorio, W. D. (1992). Parental perceptions of the authority of public child welfare caseworkers. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 73, 222–235.

Dore, M. M., Doris, J., & Wright, P. (1995). Identifying substance abuse in maltreating families: A child welfare challenge. Child Abuse and Neglect, 19, 531–543.

Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.

Festinger, T. (1983). No one ever asked us: A postscript to foster care. New York: Columbia University Press.

Foster Care Independence Act(P.L. 106–169). Available online: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/programs_fund/state_tribal/jh_Chafee_sum.htm

Freundlich, M., & Avery, R. (2004). Planning for permanency for youth in congregate care. Children and Youth Services Review, 27, 115–134.

Freundlich, M., Avery, R. J., Munson, S., & Gerstenzang, S. (2006). The meaning of permanency in child welfare: Multiple stakeholder perspectives. Children and Youth Services Review, 28, 741–760.

Gnaulati, E., & Heine, B. (2001). Separation-individuation in late adolescents: An investigation of gender and ethnic differences. The Journal of Psychology, 135, 59–70.

Goldscheider, F., & DaVanzo, J. (1985). Living arrangements and the transition to adulthood. Demography, 22, 545–563.

Goldscheider, F., & Goldscheider, C. (1989). Family structure and conflict: Nest-leaving expectations of young adults and their parents. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 87–97.

Goldscheider, F., & Goldscheider, C. (1993). Leaving home before marriage: Ethnicity, familism, and generational relationships. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Goldscheider, F., & Goldscheider, C. (1994). Leaving and returning home in twentieth century America. Population Reference Bureau Bulletin, 48, 1–35.

Goldscheider, F., & Goldscheider, C. (1999). The changing transition to adulthood: Leaving and returning home. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Goldscheider, F., Goldscheider, C., St. Clair, P., & Hodges, J. (1999). Changes in returning home in the United States, 1925–1985. Social Forces, 78, 695–728.

Goldscheider, F. K., & Lawton, L. (1998). Family experiences and the erosion of support for intergenerational coresidence. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 623–632.

Haight, W. L., Black, J. E., Mangelsdorf, S., Giorgio, G., Tata, L., Schoppe, S. J., et al. (2002). Making visits better: The perspectives of parents, foster parents, and child welfare workers. Child Welfare, 81, 173–202.

Haurin, D. R., Hendershott, P. H., & Kim, D. (1993). The impact of real rents and wages on household formation. Review of Economics and Statistics, 75, 284–293.

Iglehart, A. P. (1995). Readiness for independence: Comparison of foster care, kinship care, and non-foster care adolescents. Children and Youth Services Review, 17, 417–432.

Iglehart, A. P., & Becerra. R. (2002). Hispanic and African American youth: Life after foster care emancipation. Social Work with Multicultural Youth, 11, 79–107.

Kapp, S. A., & Propp, J. (2002). Client satisfaction methods: Input from parents with children in foster care. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 19, 227–245.

Kapp, S. A., & Vela, R. H. (2004). The unheard client: Assessing the satisfaction of parents of children in foster care. Child and Family Social Work, 9, 197–206.

Lindsey, E. W., & Ahmed, F. U. (1999). The North Carolina Independent Living Program: A comparison of outcomes for participants and nonparticipants. Children and Youth Services Review, 21, 389–412.

Mallon, G. P. (1998). After care, then where? Outcomes of an independent living program. Child Welfare, 77, 61–78.

McGoldrick, M., & Carter, B. (2003). The family life cycle. In F.Walsh (Eds.), Normal family processes: Growing diversity and complexity, 3rd edition (pp. 375–398). New York: Guilford Press.

McMillen, J. C., & Tucker, J. (1999). The status of older adolescents at exit from out-of-home care. Child Welfare, 78, 339–360.

Michael, R. T., Gagnon, J. H., Laumann, E. O., & Kolata, G. (1994). Sex in America: A definitive survey. New York: Little Brown and Co.

Park, J. M., Metraux, S., Brodbar, B., & Culhane, D. P. (2004). Public shelter admission among young adults with child welfare histories by type of service and type of exit. Social Service Review, 78, 284–303.

Propp, J., Ortega, D. M., & NewHeart, F. (2003). Independence or interdependence: Rethinking the transition from “ward of the court” to adulthood. Families in Society, 84, 259–266.

Reilly, T. (2003). Transition from care: Status and outcomes of youth who age out of foster care. Child Welfare, 82, 727–746.

Robinson, N. S. (1995). Evaluating the nature of perceived support and its relation to perceived self-worth in adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 5, 253–280.

Scholte, R. H. J., van Lieshout, C. F. M., & van Aken, M. A. G. (2001). Perceived relational support in adolescence: Dimensions, configurations, and adolescent adjustment. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 11, 71–94.

Simms, M. D., Dubowitz, H., & Szilagyi, M. A. (2000). Health care needs of children in the foster care system. Pediatrics, 106, 909–918.

Stein, M. (2006). Young people aging out of care: The poverty of theory. Children and Youth Services Review, 28, 422–434.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2005). AFCARS Report: Preliminary FY 2003 Estimates. Retrieved May 12, 2007, from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/program/cb.

van Wel, F. (1994). “I count my parents among my best friends”: Youths' bonds with parents and friends in the Netherlands. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 835–843.

van Wel, F., ter Bogt, T., & Raaijmakers, Q. (2002). Changes in the parental bond and the well-being of adolescents and young adults. Adolescence, 37, 317–333.

Walsh, F. (2003). Family resilience: Strengths forged through adversity. In F.Walsh (Ed.), Normal family processes: Growing diversity and complexity, 3rd edition (pp. 399–423). New York: Guilford Press.

Young, M. H., Miller, B. C., Norton, M. C., & Hill, E. J. (1995). The effect of parental supportive behaviors on life satisfaction of adolescent offspring. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 3, 813–821.

Submitted: January 23, 2007 Revised: August 15, 2007 Accepted: February 3, 2008