Developing a Model to Guide Openness Planning in Child Protection Based
Adoptions
By Ross Plunkett

DEVELOPING A MODEL TO GUIDE OPENNESS PLANNING IN CHILD PROTECTION BASED ADOPTIONS

Much of the advocacy and research on the benefits of openness arrangements in adoption comes from openness agreements in voluntary adoption placements. Within Ontario’s public adoption sector, the majority of children placed on adoption are as a result of serious protection issues. As such, there have been a number of questions about the benefits of openness to the child and about the long-term stability of the child’s adoptive placement when applying openness agreements to non-voluntary relinquishments. New laws have been passed in Ontario that allow for a range of openness arrangements in public adoption, which previously were not legally permitted. Although legislation is now underpinned by research on attachment, the field has yet to catch up. This is partially due to a lack of training. Also complicating the matter, assessment models of openness were not provided to Ontario’s child protection agencies when the openness legislation was passed. As a result, there are significant differences in how agencies apply openness in their adoption work.

The intent of this article is to review some of the research on openness in order to develop a better understanding of the potential benefits and challenges to openness arrangements in child protection based adoption work, and to provide a model that can guide openness planning in meeting adopted children’s long-term needs. For the purpose of this review, it should be understood that openness arrangements in Ontario include both court ordered openness orders and openness agreements, the later of which are arranged and agreed upon outside of court. Openness is understood to involve a broad range of options, from an exchange of letters and
photos to face-to-face contact. Each adoption will need to be individually assessed in order to determine what type of openness arrangement best meets the child’s long-term best interests. For example, when birth parents have abused their child, contact may still be beneficial, but will need to be a safe experience for the child. As such, direct contact may not always be appropriate.¹ 

BENEFITS OF ADOPTION

Research shows that when children cannot return to their birth family, adoption is the most stable form of alternative care. When children have the continued support of an adoptive family into adulthood, they gain a lifetime perspective. Research shows good outcomes across a range of measures, with late placed children in adoption having better outcomes than late-placed children in foster care. ²

While foster care is an excellent support to children, and some children in care are able to maintain these supports and life-long commitments, it is inherently limited in providing a stable, predictable, long-term placement compared to adoption. The limitations in meeting the long-term needs of children in long-term foster care are well recognized as a serious deficit. Within the Child and Family Services Act, Section 66, the Ministry is required on an annual basis to review the status of every child in care who has been a Crown ward for two or more years. For many years, provincial data has consistently shown that on average, children in care can expect to experience a placement change, as well as a change in workers, approximately every two years. There are minor differences between agencies and from year to year, but not significantly so. Comparatively, statistics on adoption disruptions show only 5% disruptions for children adopted under one year of age, and only 20% to 30% for children adopted over one year. It is also important to note that there are often reconciliations of disrupted adoptions, with the adopted youth and their adopted family resuming their relationship. The advantages of adoption outweigh its potential risk.

Fostering in Ontario is also limited by current legislation, which only allows youth to remain in care until 18 years of age, regardless of their needs. Typically, youth leave the foster home at this time, as this is when funding for foster care typically ends. The move out of the foster home and the subsequent disruption in the school year may partially explain why educational outcomes for youth in care are significantly lower than the provincial average. Advocacy by the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies and youth from care groups like YouthCAN have repeatedly brought this issue to the Ontario government’s attention, but no change has occurred. Four other provinces have raised the age that child protection clients can remain in foster care and receive support, but even if legislative improvements do eventually occur in Ontario, adoption will continue to offer greater benefits to the child as there is no expiry date on an adoptive family’s commitment supports, and long-term attachments. Adopted children have a much greater chance of receiving ongoing family support into their adult years, with reasonable expectations of participation in family gatherings, support with their own child rearing, as well as emotional and perhaps financial support when needed.

BENEFITS OF OPENNESS IN ADOPTION

Steinhauer’s research on attachment formation and the creation of attachment disorders is well recognized and respected in Ontario’s child protection field. Ever since Ontario established consistent, province-wide training of child protection workers, his research has underpinned mandatory training and is currently referred to in Child Welfare Professional Training Series, Course 6—Permanency and Continuity of Care . Steinhauer’s research found that severing a child’s past relationship with a primary caregiver has a cumulative impact upon their ability to make new relationships. The more changes of primary caregivers, the less invested a child is in forming close attachments. If a child experiences too many losses, they may ultimately not invest any effort in forming close emotional relationships, and may even lose the capacity to do so.

When applying these research results to adoption practice, it should be recognized that a well thought out openness arrangement can promote an adopted child’s capacity to form and maintain attachments with their adoptive family. Research from the Centre for Adoption Support and Education in the USA has identified the unique needs of adoptees during adolescence, even those who were adopted as newborns. Challenges unique to this population revolve around identity formation. Like race and culture, being adopted is an integral part of the adopted teenager’s identity and in developing their sense of identity they need to determine how they are alike and different from both the biological and adoptive families. The research also found that an openness arrangement improved positive outcomes for adoption stability by providing adopted teens with accurate information about their birth parents, which allows them, amongst other things, to understand and assess the reasons why their birth parents were was unable to parent them. The research also found that because adoptive parents were better informed about birth parents, they were better able to assist their adopted child to incorporate their history into a healthy sense of self.³

In addition to supporting the initial attachment formation with an adoptive family, there are additional benefits of openness to the adoptive parents. Contrary to some of the concerns expressed by the field, the research also shows that adoptive parents benefit from openness, with many reporting increased feelings of entitlement, less fear of the birth family, and feeling a greater sense of empathy for the child and the birth family.5

OPENNESS ISSUES UNIQUE TO ONTARIO

In reviewing the research from the USA and Britain on the potential benefits of openness in adoption, it is important to note that all the research pertained to openness agreements. Openness orders are unique to Ontario alone. Given how recent this legislation is, there is currently no research available that demonstrates whether or not there are any benefits to openness orders over openness agreements. While protection to the stability and permanency of the adoptive home was built into openness orders within the Child and Family Services Act, it has not been addressed under the Family Law Act. This omission may create unintended stressors for adoptive parents who could face legal challenges similar to toxic custody battles, ultimately at the expense of the adoptive child’s well-being. In addition, adoptive parents who agree to openness orders could face future court challenges and financial hardship resulting from the associated legal costs. In anticipating how the courts would respond to such cases, there is insufficient case law to refer to as the changes to the legislation are so recent. Until there is sufficient case law available to inform our practice, it may be advisable to direct all potential adoptive parents to seek independent legal advice before agreeing to enter into an openness order.

Beyond legal issues, there are clinical considerations that should be evaluated when determining the merits between an openness order and openness agreement. Well thought out adoption planning will seek to reduce unnecessary stress on the adoptive family, as their stress can have a negative impact on the child’s well-being. The research finds that “the provision of substitute parents in itself represents the most radical, comprehensive and potent therapeutic change in a child’s psychosocial prospects” (and) “the first level of intervention needs to ensure that” (the adoptive parents) “are sufficiently stress free in order to be psychologically available and responsive to the child’s needs” (Howe, 2006, 129-130).

By law, openness orders cannot occur until after a child is legally free for adoption. They must be initiated by a Children’s Aid Society prior to the final adoption order and must have the consent of all parties, including the adoptive family. This design is clinically sound practice, as one of the critical indicators in determining the benefit of an openness arrangement to the child is the birth parent/relatives’ willingness and capacity to accept and support the child’s adoption.¹  During the trial process it is not always possible to determine how a birth relative will respond to the loss of the legal right to their child. Only after a court order is made to free a child for adoption can there be an opportunity to clinically assess the birth parent(s)/relative(s)’ capacity to accept the reality of their loss, as well as their willingness to support the adoption placement. This best practice is reflected in legislation, which requires that openness agreements be designed after the child is legally free for adoption.

Because the research supporting the benefits of openness is based on openness agreements, not openness orders, a very cautious approach to recommending an openness order would appear to be prudent. It is important that an order aims to reduce any potentially destabilizing situation that impedes good outcomes, including that which may undermine the adoptive parent-child relationship. Openness agreements have a demonstrated track record of being beneficial to an adopted child’s longterm outcomes and have the benefit of greater flexibility as they have the ability to be responsive to a child’s needs and changing circumstances in a timely fashion. Openness orders, on the other hand, require a court process to modify them, which does not allow for timely responses to changing circumstances. Openness arrangements last until the child’s 18th birthday, so it is critical to recognize that “children’s needs will change, so plans must be flexible.”¹  “Because decisions about contact are often made in an emotionally charged atmosphere, they should be periodically reviewed post-placement. In this way one can ensure they reflect the needs and interests of the child, adopters, and birth parents.”¹ 

Perhaps one instance when an openness order might be of greater benefit than an openness agreement is when trying to ensure that contact between siblings is maintained. When siblings have well established, healthy, strong attachments, but are not being adopted into the same family, they are not in a position to negotiate or advocate for themselves. In this circumstance, an openness order might better ensure that their attachments are preserved. However, even in this situation, consideration must be given to potential risks that might undermine an adopted child’s success. For example, if there are differences in the birth family’s contact with the child’s siblings, or in legal status and/or court orders, pursuing an openness agreement may be the prudent practice, depending upon the child’s needs.

CONSIDERATIONS IN DESIGNING AN OPENNESS ARRANGEMENT

When developing an openness arrangement, there are three critical areas that must be assessed to ensure that it will succeed and be beneficial to each individual child. “Dogmatic prescriptions regarding permanent placements and subsequent contact with birth families are not supported by research evidence; decisions must be both informed by research and be case sensitive.”5

The three critical areas in openness planning are:

1) The openness plan is based on the child’s assessed needs.

For the child, “post-adoption contact with birth relatives can assist children with managing attachment and identity issues, but this will be dependent on the quality of such contact... For children who have complicated relationships with birth relatives, this complexity can make both managing contact and managing the severance of contact difficult, and children will need help with this complexity.”¹ 

2) The birth relatives have the capacity to be supportive of the adoptive placement.

“Qualities of birth relatives associated with more successful contact include the willingness and capacity to support the child in his or her new family, and to work cooperatively with the child’s new parents. Birth relatives with problems of their own are likely to need support in sustaining useful contact with their child.”¹ 

“Post placement contact with birth relatives can assist children with managing attachment and identity issues, but this will be dependent on the quality of such contact.”¹ 

3) The adoptive parents understanding and believe in the benefits to the child of openness.

“Qualities of adoptive parents...associated with more successful contact include: an open, empathetic and inclusive attitude towards the child’s birth relatives (acknowledgement of difference); a non-possessive conception of parenting; empathy for the child as an adopted...individual.”¹  Therefore agency adoption practices will need to reflect this in their screening, training, assessment and selection of adoptive families.

STEPS IN DESIGNING AN OPENNESS ARRANGEMENT

Based upon the research findings, the following is a suggested model designed to systematically assess the critical factors necessary for openness arrangements that enhance the likelihood that they will last and be beneficial to the child. As the child’s best interests is the foundation for child protection and good adoption practice, the first step is to assess the purpose of openness in meeting the
needs of the child. The second step is an assessment of the type and frequency of openness needed to meet the needs of the child. The third step is an assessment of the birth parent(s)/relative(s)’ capacity to meet the child’s need for openness. The fourth step is in the adoption selection process is an assessment of the ability of the adopted family to understand the benefit to the adopted child from openness arrangements, as one of the many considerations that are included in the adoption selection.

It is critical to recognize that a child’s best interests are not being served if openness is the only or primary consideration in a child’s adoption planning. A full review of the needs of each child must be considered when selecting an adoption placement, and openness is just one of the many considerations to be addressed in sound adoption planning. In child protection adoptions, the majority of children placed on adoption have significant special needs and attempting to meet some of these serious needs will often take greater priority over other considerations, including openness. A professional adoption planning process will be based upon identifying each child’s current and potential future needs, weighing the importance of each of these needs, and the selection of the adoptive family best able to meet these needs. Openness is just one of the many considerations that should go into sound adoption planning.

STEP 1: DETERMINE THE PURPOSE OF OPENNESS IN MEETING THE CHILD’S NEEDS

a) If to maintain an existing significant attachment, go to Step 2A

b) If to provide opportunities for healthy self-identity formation when there is a weak attachment with the birth parents, go to Step 2B

c) If to maintain contact with a sibling, go to Step 2C

STEP 2: DETERMINE THE TYPE AND FREQUENCY
OF CONTACT, BASED UPON AN ASSESSMENT OF
THE CHILD’S NEEDS

Review case history, including observations of the
child’s interactions with the family member, and any
assessments of the child.

STEP 2A - THE CHILD’S NEEDS RE ATTACHMENT

Assess the quality of the child’s attachment by considering the following:

- How long the child lived with this adult
- How well the adult met the child’s physical and emotional needs
- Any trauma the child associates with this adult
- How important the child has indicated this person
is to them

Based upon this assessment, determine what form of openness arrangement and frequency would best meet the child’s needs. “The more complicated the child’s pre-placement history, the more complex contact meetings are likely to be.”5
Once you have developed recommendations based solely upon the assessment of the child’s needs, go to Step 3A.

Note:  Prior to Crown ward trials, agencies often provide frequent access visits as a method of assessing and assisting family change and maintaining attachments.  For adoption purposes, the frequency of face-to-face visits in openness arrangements can be expected to be reduced, as the purpose of the visit is different. There needs to be a balance between preserving significant attachments and ensuring enough time between visits to allow the child to develop their attachment to the adoptive family. Additionally, adoptive families cannot be expected to have the time or resources to provide high levels of access visits.   

STEP 2B - THE CHILD’S NEEDS RE SELF-IDENTITY FORMATION

As self-identity formation occurs throughout childhood, and research shows it has particular importance during the adolescence of an adopted youth, develop a plan for contact that is sensitive to the changing needs as the child matures. Frequency of contact does not need to be high, but face-to-face is most beneficial, where appropriate. If the child has not established a close attachment to the biological relative, occasional contact will have little adverse affect upon their adoptive placement. Even for children with insecure attachments to past “… caregivers…contact is probably better than having to reconcile questions about identity and worth in the face of perceived abandonment.  For very young children, face-to-face contact is relatively straight forward because the relationship with birth parents is not an attachment relationship and less likely to be a threat to” caregivers. 5 

Once you have developed openness recommendations that are based solely upon the assessment of the child’s needs, go to step 3B.

STEP 2C - THE CHILD’S NEEDS RE SIBLING CONTACT

“Children mostly do better if placed with their siblings, except when there is hostility and/or abuse between them.”  Despite this, siblings may not be placed together due to things like significantly different needs, different legal status or placement challenges.  When siblings will be placed in different homes, determine the quality of attachment to the siblings of the child you are planning for by considering how long they have lived together, how they got along, any shared trauma, and to what degree this child has demonstrated they are missing their sibling(s). The quality of the sibling attachment should guide decision-making about the frequency and nature of contact.  If the children have a weak attachment, but knowledge of each other, some form of openness is still of benefit as it provides the child with accurate information about how their sibling(s) is doing.  If there is a strong attachment, the benefit to preserving it through an openness arrangement is supported by attachment research. 

Once you have developed openness recommendations based upon the child’s needs, go to Step 3C.

STEP 3:  DETERMING BIRTH PARENT(S)/RELATIVE(S)’ CAPACITY TO MEET CHILD’S IDENTIFIED OPENNESS NEEDS

After determining the child’s openness needs, it is then necessary to assess the level of the birth parent(s)/relative(s)’ capacity to meet these needs and adjust planning accordingly. If planning is not based upon realistic expectations, it will result in failure.  Research indicates the most common reason openness arrangements fail is because the biological parent(s)/relative(s) do not maintain them.¹  Unrealistic expectations – those that are beyond the birth parent(s)/relative(s)’ willingness and demonstrated ability - will not result in positive outcomes in openness practice.

The extensive work that goes into child protection findings, treatment efforts, assessments, access visits, and court evidence typically provides a wealth of information to guide assessment of capacity. Research also shows that the birth parent(s)/relative(s)’ support systems contribute to successful openness arrangements, so the existence and strength of those support systems should also be considered in openness planning.

When considering the type and frequency of openness, it is critical to take into account potential problems with birth families that may warrant a more arms-length approach.  A potential problem area to consider is one in which a birth parent  “wants to exert control” or displays “difficult, unresolved feelings and an inability to accept the placement” which “can lead to behaviors that undermine the new placement.”¹  Additionally, “difficulties in the relationship between the child and birth relatives are likely to persist after placement.”¹  “ If no contact is possible, the child’s needs must be met in other ways.”¹ 

STEP 3A - ASSESSING BIRTH PARENT(S)/RELATIVE(S)’ CAPACITY TO MEET CHILD’S NEEDS

- Identify how child-focused the birth parent/relative has been in their interactions with the child before and after the child entered care.
- Identify if there are any specific issues of limited capacity due to significant mental illness, addiction or compromised reasoning or intelligence. If so, identify if there are support systems in place that could support some form of openness despite these capacity issues. Determine if these support systems are willing to support openness efforts, and for how long. Informal support systems, like extended family, may have a greater ability to support long-term versus professional community-based support systems.
- Identify if there are any safety issues, such as history of violence, threats, ongoing criminal activity, sexual abuse or violence associated with drug or alcohol consumption. 
- Assess how well the birth parent(s)/relative(s) have resolved and accepted the child’s adoptive status, and whether they are committed to supporting the child’s success in the adoptive home. This typically cannot be assessed fully until after the child is legally freed for adoption, particularly in contested trials. After the trial, birth parents may understandably need time to come to accept the reality of their loss and to decide if they want and feel able to support the child’s adoption.
- Identify how reliable the birth parent(s)/relative(s) were in showing up for scheduled visits and meetings.
- Identify how stable the birth parent(s)/relative(s)’ lives are in such areas as housing and their ability to maintain a telephone for contact. Determine whether they ever disappeared for periods of time with their whereabouts unknown.
- Identify how attuned the individual is while interacting with the child, including the degree of sensitivity to any special needs the child may have.
- Identify how geographically accessible the individual is for the different forms of openness contact, as well as their wishes regarding openness contact.

Once the capacity, support systems and circumstances of the birth parent(s)/relative(s) are understood, determine what modifications may be necessary to achieve a workable openness plan.  Then go to Step 4A. 

STEP 3B - ASSESSING THE BIRTH PARENT(S)/RELATIVE(S)’ ABILITY TO MEET THE CHILD’S NEEDS

- Identify the birth parent(s)/relative(s)’ level of commitment to ongoing contact to support the child’s understanding of their family history.
- Identify any limitations of the birth parent(s)/relative(s) in meeting these commitments, and determine what support systems are in place to help them do so.
- Identify any safety issues.
- Identify level of cooperation experienced to-date with this relative in relation to the child’s substitute care.
- Identify how available the relative is for the different forms of openness contact.
Once the birth parent(s)/relative(s)’ capacity, availability and support systems are understood, the initial openness plan to support the child’s self-identity needs may need to be modified. If no long-term openness arrangement appears possible or appears likely to succeed, it is critical that a well developed life book and social history accompany the child to their adoptive home, ideally with photos of birth parents and relatives, letters and/or audio-video recordings from them, which will later assist the child’s understanding of their family background. Then go to Step 4B. 

STEP 3C - ASSESSING THE SIBLING(S)’ ABILITY TO MEET CHILD’S NEEDS, AND THE SIBLING(S)’ PLACEMENT AND SUPPORT SYSTEM’S CAPACITY TO MEET CHILD’S NEEDS

- When possible, assess the motivation of the
sibling(s) for some form of openness.
- Identify if the sibling will be adopted to another family, return to the birth family’s care or remain in foster care.
- Assess how committed the sibling’s home/placement is to supporting openness in a way that is beneficial to both children.  Determine whether there are any concerns about the ability of the sibling’s home/placement to communicate directly and cooperatively with the adopted parents in order to coordinate the openness arrangements.  Determine whether the sibling’s home/placement agrees with the openness plan, including the level of commitment that is required of them. 
- Identify if the sibling will have a different type and/or frequency of contact with the birth parent(s)/relative(s) and what impact that might have on the child being placed on adoption.
- Determine if the sibling’s home/placement is interested in an openness arrangement, and what that might consist of.   
- Determine any practical considerations of each sibling’s circumstances/placement that might limit the type and frequency of openness possible.
- Determine whether there are any safety issues or concerns that may negatively impact the child being adopted as a result of having face-to-face contact with their sibling or sibling’s caregivers, including a history of violence, criminal activity, addiction issues, and mental health concerns.
- Determine what support systems are available for the sibling and the siblings’ placement that support openness arrangements. 

Once the capacity of siblings and sibling’s placements to support openness has been assessed, review the adopted child’s assessed openness needs and make modifications to the plan as necessary.  Then go to Step 4C.

STEP 4:  FINDING AN ADOPTIVE HOME ABLE TO SUPPORT THE OPENNESS PLAN

In the openness planning process, the child’s openness needs are determined and then modified in consideration of the capacity of the birth parent(s)/relative(s) or sibling and sibling’s placement.  The next step is to find the adoptive home that is best able to accommodate these plans. When doing openness planning and searching for potential adoptive families, it is critical to remember that openness is just one of many factors that are taken into consideration in the selection process. A family could potentially meet all of the openness planning requirements, but be incapable of meeting other, more critical needs that a child may have. There must not be undue emphasis on any single aspect of adoption planning as a standard practice, as the selection criteria should be supported by the assessed needs unique to each child, in order for each child’s best interests to be served. 

This next step can help inform the adoption search and selection process. It also recognizes that there may be a need to make modifications to the final version of the openness plan by now factoring in the adoptive parent’s commitment, capacity and ability to enter into some form of openness arrangement. It is recommended that the adoption worker provide the adoptive family with a full explanation of the clinical thinking that has informed the openness planning in order to assist in greater understanding, and increase the likelihood of follow through by the adoptive parents.  This information will also guide the adoptive parent’s future decision-making when making adjustments to the openness plan as the child matures and his/her needs change.

STEP 4A - ASSESSING THE ADOPTIVE FAMILY’S ABILITY TO MEET THE OPENNESS PLANNING DEVELOPED TO THIS POINT RE BIRTH PARENT(S)/RELATIVE(S)

The final step to developing an openness plan that will help maintain a significant attachment to a birth parent or relative is assessing the commitment and capacity of the adoptive parents in supporting the openness plan, and then modifying it as necessary.
- Determine how well the potential adoptive parents understand the child’s unique needs, including the potential benefits to the child of some form of openness.
- Determine whether the potential adoptive parents demonstrate a realistic and empathetic understanding of the birth family’s challenges in a way that would promote a positive identity for the adopted child.
- Determine the ability of the potential adoptive family to deal directly with the birth family in a respectful and supportive manner.
- Determine what support systems are available to the adoptive family regarding openness issues.
- Determine how closely the adoptive family’s ideas about the structure of an openness plan matches the openness plan developed by the agency and which the agency believes is in the child’s best interests. 
- Determine whether the proposed adoptive family have professional or personal experience/knowledge that would assist them in understanding the birth family in a balanced and empathetic manner, like knowledge about addiction, for example.
- Determine whether a cultural/racial match between birth parents and the proposed adoptive family might enhance understanding and communication between them, and help to preserve the child’s culture and/or help the child to value his/her sense of racial identity. 
-Determine if there are practical considerations, like distance from birth parents, which may limit openness options. 

STEP 4B - ASSESSING THE ADOPTIVE FAMILY’S ABILITY TO MEET THE OPENNESS PLANNING DEVELOPED TO THIS POINT RE IDENTITY FORMATION

The final step to developing an openness plan for healthy identity formation is to assess the commitment and capacity of the adoptive parents in supporting the plan for openness. In cases where the child has a limited attachment to the birth parent(s)/relative(s), the success of the openness planning will be dependent on the adopted parent’s belief and understanding of the future benefits of openness to their adopted child. The goal is to have openness arrangements firmly established by the time the adopted child reaches adolescence, which is the time when openness can most assist a child with forming a sense of identity.

STEP 4C - ASSESSING THE ADOPTIVE FAMILY’S ABILITY TO MEET THE OPENNESS PLANNING DEVELOPED TO THIS POINT RE CONTACT WITH SIBLING(S)

The final step to developing an openness plan for sibling contact is to apply the assessment areas identified in Step 4A to openness with siblings by assessing the belief, commitment and capacity of the adoptive parents in supporting some form of openness.

THE FINAL OPENNESS PLAN

Once the above steps have been completed, an agency should be able to recommend the type and frequency of an openness plan, and identify the potential challenges to be addressed.  It is both unfair and unrealistic to expect adoptive families to have the expertise to develop a well thought out openness arrangement.  They will be reliant on adoption workers and independent legal advice to guide them in their efforts.  Agencies should develop models of agreements and orders which provide direction for methods of problem resolution, as well as developing alternative forms of openness if circumstances change, such as when one of the parties moves a significant distance away. Agreements should also guide decision-making around other needed changes, such as alternative methods of communication, and the need for flexible arrangements that accommodate the changes in a child’s life, such as participation in summer camps, extra-curricular activities, part-time employment and travel.

Clear expectations and reasonable responses that address challenges such as late or frequent cancellations, missed calls or other repeated failures to meet the agreed upon openness arrangements should be specified.  If the child is being negatively impacted by openness arrangements, it may be necessary to reduce openness contact to a more arms-length arrangement.  Having the expectations and responses to regular noncompliance of openness agreements clearly understood can reassure adoptive parents and reassure birth parents that contact will continue if they meet the expectations they have agreed to.  

SUMMARY

Research on the benefits of openness in attachment formation and on forming a positive sense of identity “cannot provide a blue print for practice; decisions must be sensitively dealt with on a case by case basis.”¹   Openness is most likely to be beneficial when:

1) It is based upon the child’s needs and is designed to be flexible as the child’s needs change and when issues of child safety (physical, sexual, emotional) are managed.¹ 

2) The parents/birth relatives have consistent motivation, are geographically accessible and have good support systems.

3) The birth parent(s)/relative(s) show acceptance and the ability/capacity to support the adoptive placement.

4) The adopting family “has an open and empathetic attitude towards child and birth family.”¹ 

Openness is a new area to consider in public adoption in Ontario.  Because of its potential benefits, it requires due attention.  However, it is critical to remember that openness is only one of many factors to consider in adoption planning and selection. An assessment and weighing of a child’s multiple and unique needs, which may include openness, should go into every adoption plan. Undue emphasis on openness over all other needs is not supported in research as being in any child’s best interests.

References

Howe, D. (2006). Developmental Attachment Psychotherapy with Fostered  and Adopted Children. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 11(3), 128-134.

Sources

1) Contact Issues in Permanent Placement, Beth Neil, Lecturer in Social Work, University of East Anglia, held on Feb. 2004 at the Policy Studies Institute London.
2) Strategies for Permanent Placement, Research message workshop, Jan.15, 2008, Sheffield, facilitators Hillary Sunders and Julie Selwyn.
3) Beneath the Mask, Understanding Adopted Teens, Case Studies and Treatment Considerations for Therapists and Parents, Debbie Riley M.S. with John Meeks M.D.
4) Developmental Attachment Psychotherapy with Fostered and Adopted Children, David Howe, publisher Child and Adolescent Mental Health 11 (3), 2006.
5) Choices in Permanent Family Placements, Beth Neil, lecturer in Social Work, University of East Anglia, held on Feb.7, 2002.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Ross Plunkett is an Adoption Supervisor for the York Region Children’s Aid Society.

Next article: Examining the Role of Self Compassion in the Mental Health of A Child Protection Services-involved Youth

Previous article: Message from the Executive Director