MAKING THE MOST OF VISITATION BETWEEN CHILDREN AND THEIR

FAMILIES
An Excerpt from Practice Notes From the North Carolina Division of Social Services and the
Family and Childrens Resorce Pro!ram
"olme # No$ %
Visit Frequency Counts
The frequency of parent-child visits has a lot to do with how children view their parents, how
well they adapt to foster care, and how long they are in care.
erce!tions o" Birt# $rents. Researchers Kufeldt and Armstrong (1!" found that the
foster children whose #irth parents visited at least once a wee$ tended to rate their parents as
normal or healthy. %n contrast, this same study found that children who were deprived of
contact with their #irth parents and wanted additional visits rated their parents as pro#lematic.
&hildren who saw their parents less than once a month felt they suffered as a result of not
maintaining contact with their #irth parents (Kufeldt ' Armstrong, 1!".
A%$!tin& to Foster C$re. The frequency with which they visit their parents also seems to
affect foster children(s #ehavior. Researchers &antos and )ries (1*" studied + foster
children and found that children who were visited frequently (either once a wee$ or once
every two wee$s" e,hi#ited fewer #ehavioral pro#lems than children who were visited
infrequently (once a month or less" or not at all. -verall, children who had frequent contact
with their parents showed less an,iety and depression than children whose parents( visits were
either infrequent or none,istent (&antos ' )ries, 1*".
er'$nency Outco'es. .requency of visits also appears to affect what ultimately happens to
families. /hite and colleagues (10" e,amined +1 closed case records of children under 11
years of age who had #een in custody of the 2evada 3ivision of &hild and .amily 4ervices.
The study e,amined visit frequency, location, and social wor$er activity for each of the cases.
/hite and colleagues found that children in care for less than 51 months received twice as
many visits from their parents than children who were in care over 51 months. This suggests
that more frequent parent-child visitation may #e associated with shorter foster care stays.
$rent(Soci$) Wor*er Cont$ct. /hite and colleagues also found an interesting relationship
#etween the frequency of contacts social wor$ers had with parents and how often parents saw
their children. 6arents of children in care less than 51 months had 5.+ contacts with their
social wor$er per month, compared to 1.!! contacts per month for parents of children in care
greater than 51 months. This seems to suggest that social wor$ers have some influence over
visitation patterns and, indirectly, family outcomes.
F$ci)it$tin& Visits
7any agencies are well-equipped to esta#lish and facilitate visitation programs. 8owever,
some are not. .ollowing are some suggestions for assessing and enhancing visitation in your
agency and practice.
The foundation of a successful visitation program is the people who esta#lish and monitor
visits9these individuals must #e properly informed a#out the #enefits of visitation and trained
a#out visitation procedures (6er$ins ' Ansay, 1:".
The first step in facilitating visitation should #e to set up a regular, written visitation schedule.
/ritten schedules encourage #irth parents to adhere to the visitation plan and often lead to
more visits (6er$ins ' Ansay, 1:". 4ince they are essential to visits, #irth and foster parents
should #e directly involved in setting up visitation schedules. %nvolving them and respecting
their preferences for visit times and locations demonstrates to parents that they are important
mem#ers of the team.
%ncreasing evidence also suggests that when the first visit is held immediately following
placement (within +: hours", #irth parents may #e more li$ely to show up for visits and more
inclined to see their value ()allimore, 5111".
4uccessful visitation also relies on accurate assessment of #irth parents( strengths and needs.
%n &a'in! "isits (or', ;oar (1:" points out that most visitation plans assume that #irth
parents understand what their child goes through if they don(t show up for a visit, and that
parents have leisure and recreation s$ills independent of drugs, alcohol, se,, danger, and
violence. -ther common assumptions are that #irth parents $now how to<
6lay with their children
Tal$ politely with their children
=n>oy their children(s company
4eparate from the visit their frustration, shame, and humiliation over losing custody
Read to children or read and understand court reports, contracts, priorities, ma>or and
minor requirements
?et these assumptions do not always hold true. @y overestimating parents( a#ilities, visitation
planners can unwittingly undermine family reunification (;oar, 1:".
Another important step is communicating a#out the visitation plan to all interested parties.
This includes ensuring foster parents $now the visitation schedule and what is e,pected of
them, e,plaining visitation procedures and activities to #irth parents, and informing foster
children that visits will #e only temporary reunions with family (Kessler ' )reene, 1".
.inally, merely providing families with an empty office in which to meet is seldom enough. At
the very least, visiting rooms should contain comforta#le furniture, games, and toys. ;oar
(1:" suggests tailoring visitation plans to the interests of children and #irth parentsA they
may have common activitiesBinterests that facilitate positive interactions (;oar, 1:".
Docu'entin& Visits
Regardless of how they go, it is important to comprehensively document visits. CAccurate and
descriptive documentation of visitation patterns and progress serves the dual purpose of
providing clear evidence for discharge or termination of parental rightsC (/atten#erg, 1*".
.lic$ (1" suggests visit documentation should include information a#out<
/ho participated and what activities too$ place
The time the parent arrived and the length of the visit
The interactions #etween the participants (level of affection"
The e,tent to which the parent e,ercised his or her role (setting limits, disciplining child,
paying attention to child"
/hether the social wor$er needed to intervene
8ow parent and child separated
/hat happened after the visit (parent(s or child(s reactions"
Con%itions T#$t O!ti'i+e Visitin&
4ocial wor$er is committed to visiting
4ocial wor$er has empathy for parents
.oster parentsB$in are committed to visiting
Agency requires written plans for frequent visits
Agency resources promote visitingA this includes a room with comforta#le furniture and
games or other activities for families
(8ess ' 6roch, 1::"
In")uencin& T#e Frequency o" Visits
Soci$) ,or*ers can do three things to promote frequent parent-child visits. The first is to try
to schedule visits for times and locations that wor$ for all the parties involved9the #irth
parents, foster parents, children, and, if applica#le, the social wor$er or person monitoring the
visit.
/hen setting up the visitation schedule for families, try to schedule as many visits as the
parents and other parties can reasona#ly attend. @ecause it places emphasis on ma$ing a case
decision within one year, concurrent planning generates more urgency a#out scheduling
frequent visits.
The second thing social wor$ers can do to promote visitation is to strategically recruit, select,
and train a pool of "oster !$rents who can support the goals and tolerate the uncertainties of
concurrent planning. 3uring training and when children are placed in their homes, social
wor$ers can help support fosterBadopt families #y having open, honest discussions with them
a#out the ris$ they are ta$ing #y agreeing to #e C6lan @C (adoptive parents, guardians, or
custodians" when C6lan AC (reunification" has not #een ruled out.
4ocial wor$ers should emphasiDe that the level of Cris$C for the relatives or foster parents is
not quantifia#le. They should also ma$e certain foster parents understand how visits fit with
concurrent planning and why they are important. /ithout foster parent support, visits (and
therefore concurrent planning itself" may #e less successful.
The third thing social wor$ers can do to promote visitation is to have frequent and quality
contact with the #irth parents. %n Factors in )en!th of Foster Care* (or'er Activities and
Parent+Child "isitation, /hite, Al#ers, and @itonti (10" found a lin$ #etween how often
social wor$ers saw #irth parents and how often those parents saw their children. This same
study also found a lin$ #etween the frequency of visits and the length of time children spent in
foster care< frequent visits seem to #e tied to shorter stays in out-of-home care.
Su!er-isors can support social wor$ers in their efforts to promote visitation #y helping them
e,amine their personal e,periences and #iases toward visit planning. 4upervisors can also help
social wor$ers ensure Cthat visiting plans are individualiDed and that the opportunities
provided for parent-child contact e,ceed the minimum required whenever indicatedC (8ess,
1::". /ith their social wor$ers, supervisors should carefully e,plore any plans for using
visits Cto reward parent progress or to test parental interestC (8ess, 1::".
%n addition to monitoring the activities of individual wor$ers, supervisors should assess
whether their agency as a whole systematically promotes frequent visitation (/hite, Al#ers, '
@itonti, 10".
Although social wor$ers( and supervisors( roles in visitation cannot #e underestimated, they
are not the only ones who affect the frequency of visits. &ourts also e,ert considera#le
influence in this area. .or e,ample, the courts in 4anta &lara &ounty, &alifornia order that
parents visit their children two to three times a wee$ in order to maintain #onds. This puts
considera#le pressure on the social wor$ers and foster parents to $eep up with the visitation
pace (/atten#erg, 1*".
W#$t to W$tc# "or
%n order to practice concurrent planning in a legal, honest, fair, and effective manner, certain
mista$es related to visitation must #e avoided<
1. Equ$tin& concurrent !)$nnin& ,it# $%o!tion $n% t#ere"ore 'ini'i+in& reuni"ic$tion
e""orts. This can lead casewor$ers to schedule fewer visits.
5. Assu'in& $ssess'ent too)s ,i)) in"$))i.)y !re%ict c$se outco'es. This may lead to
minimiDing reunification efforts and decreasing visitations. Eltimately, the child(s parents
will support or prove wrong the assessed placement outcome.
F. In-estin& in $ !$rticu)$r outco'e. Allow the case to evolve from the family(s decisions
and actions.
+. Desi&nin& c$se !)$ns t#$t $re not "$'i)y(centere%. 6ut another way, the agency ta$es
on responsi#ility for things the parents should #e doing. 6arents have #oth rights and
responsi#ilities. &oncurrent planning supports their active role in visitation, engaging in
services, and planning for their child(s future.
!. O""erin& "oster !$rents $n% re)$ti-es $n esti'$te o" /)e&$) ris*0/ ;et the adults ta$e
the ris$s, not the children. Ac$nowledge that fosterBadopt parents are ta$ing on the role of
C6lan @C and still supporting parental visitation. This is not easy. =ncourage fosterBadopt
parents to #ecome involved in parent-child visits to promote more supportive
relationships with #iological parents.
0. Inter!retin& 12 'ont#s $s $n $.so)ute )i'it on reuni"ic$tion3 re&$r%)ess o" !$rent$)
!ro&ress. CThere is a fine line #etween the >udicious use of time limits to prevent foster
care drift, and a rote enforcement that ignores the full picture of parental motivation,
effort, incremental progress, and a foreseea#le reunificationC (KatD, 1".
Conc)usion
/hen properly planned, facilitated, and documented, frequent visits #etween foster children
and their parents can #e positive e,periences that result in equally positive outcomes.
Re"erences
@ondy, 3. ' 3avis, 3. (11". 7ental health services for children in foster care. Children
,oday- ./(!", 5:-FF.
&antos, A. ;. ' )ries, ;. T. (1*". @ehavioral correlates of parental visiting during family
foster care. Child (elfare- 01(5", F1-FF1.
.lic$, G. (1". Placement in Child (elfare Services Crriclm. &hapel 8ill, 2&< Eniversity
of 2orth &arolina at &hapel 8ill 4chool of 4ocial /or$.
)allimore, 3. &. (5111". Personal commnication. 4eptem#er 0, 5111.
)ardner, 8. (10". The concept of family< 6erceptions of children in family foster care. Child
(elfare- 0#(5", 101-1:F.
8acsi, T. (1!". .rom indenture to family foster care< A #rief history of child placing. Child
(elfare- 0%(1", 105-1:1.
8ess, 6. 7., 7intun, )., 7oelhman, A., ' 6itts, ). (15". The family connection center< An
innovative visiting program. Child (elfare- 0.(1", **-::.
8ess, 6. 7. ' 6roch, K. (15". Hisiting< The heart of reunification. %n @.A. 6ine, R. /arsh,
and A. 2. 7aluccio (=ds.", ,o!ether A!ain* Family Renification in Foster Care. /ashington,
3.&.< &/;A, 11-1F.
8ess, 6. (1::". &ase and conte,t< 3eterminants of planned visit frequency in foster family
care. Child Welfare, 67(+", F11-F5!.
8ess, 6. 7. ' 6roch, K. -. (1::". Family visiting in out-of-home care: A guide to practice0
/ashington 3&< &hild /elfare ;eague of America.
Kessler, 7. ;. ' )reene, @. =. (1". @ehavior analysis in child welfare< &ompetency
training casewor$ers to manage visits #etween parents and their children in foster care.
Research on Social (or' Practice- /(5", 1+:-1*1".
Kufeldt, K. ' Armstrong, G. (1!". 8ow children in care view their own and their foster
families< A research study. Child (elfare- 0%(F", 0!-*10.
;oar, ;. (1:". 7a$ing visits wor$. Child (elfare- 00(1", +1-!.
7aluccio, A. 2. ' .ein, =. (1+". .amily reunification< Research findings, issues, and
directions. Child (elfare- 02(!", +:-!1!.
6almer, 4. =. (11". )roup treatment of foster children to reduce separation conflicts
associated with placement #rea$down. Child (elfare- 1/(F", 55*-5F.
6er$ins, 3. .. ' Ansay, 4. G. (1:". The effectiveness of a visitation program in fostering
visits with non-custodial parents. Family Relations- %0(F", 5!F-5!.
4imms, 7. 3. ' @olden, @.G. (11". The family reunification pro>ect< .acilitating regular
contact among foster children, #iological families, and foster families. Child (elfare- 03(0",
0*-01.
4paid, =. ;. (10". /hy few foster $ids find adoptive homes. Christian Science &onitor-
4/(51", F-0.
/atten#erg, =. (ed.". (1*". Redra5in! the family circle* Concrrent plannin!6Permanency
for yon! children in hi!h ris' sitations. 7inneapolis< &enter for Er#an and Regional
Affairs.
.
/hite, 7., Al#ers, =., ' @itonti, &. (10". .actors in length of foster care< /or$er activities
and parent-child visitation. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, !(5", *!-:+.
I 5111 Gordan %nstitute for .amilies