Search

The English language term ‘permanence’ is increasingly used in high income countries as a ‘short-hand’ translation for a complex set of aims around providing stability and family membership for children who need child welfare services and out-of-home care. From a scrutiny of legislative provisions, court judgments, government documents and a public opinion survey on child placement options, the paper draws out similarities and differences in understandings of the place of ‘permanence’ within the child welfare discourse in Norway and England. The main differences are that in England the components of permanence are explicitly set out in legislation, statutory guidance and advisory documents whilst in Norway the terms ‘stability’ and ‘continuity’ are used in a more limited number of policy documents in the context of a wide array of services available for children and families. The paper then draws on these sources, and on administrative data on children in care, to tease out possible explanations for the similarities and differences identified. We hypothesise that both long-standing policies and recent changes can be explained by differences in public and political understandings of child welfare and the balance between universal services and those targeted on parents and children identified as vulnerable and in need of specialist services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: Previous research identifies positive and negative effects of being a sibling in a family which includes a disabled child. Short break services (also known as respite) provide families with a break from caring and offer disabled children the chance to participate in various activities. This paper investigates the effects that these short breaks have on siblings. Methods: The research consists of a qualitative analysis of data collected as part of a survey of families using short break services. Data from 239 parent–carers (mostly biological parents) and 84 siblings are included in the analysis. Data are written responses to open questions about use of services and the effects they have. Results: The effects of short breaks on siblings are described as being mostly positive. Short breaks have the potential to ameliorate some of the negative impacts of being a sibling in a family with a disabled child whilst also promoting the positive impacts of having a disabled brother or sister. However, some siblings also report some adverse effects of short breaks. Conclusion: Short breaks have a significant role to play in promoting the wellbeing of siblings; however, their role currently seems to be largely unrecognised and consequently undervalued. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]