‘The love is spread out’: how birth children talk about their experiences of living with foster children

Abstract

This article examines the experiences of birth children with a foster child (or children) in their family. Specifically, it explores how birth children’s attachment history influences how they discuss their emotional needs and the ways in which attachment strategies help shape the nature of the children’s accounts of their experiences. Eight birth children in fostering families were interviewed. These enquired about the children’s childhood using questions from attachment interviews, and employed integrated ‘sculpts’ to explore their experiences of fostering. An attachment-informed Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) approach found four superordinate themes: preparation and knowledge about fostering; disruptions to family life; altered roles within families; and making and breaking connections. Additionally, the use of defensive processes was detected in how the children managed the experience; they could minimise their needs and feelings in the family. Such defensive processes are likely to influence how children express their experience of having a foster child in the home. The study was limited by its restricted demographic range ‒ mostly white females. The findings can be used to support birth children in families who foster through increasing preparation, matching foster children to families, providing support around the disruptions to family life and supporting children to say goodbye.

Keywords

Fostering foster care foster sibling birth children attachment Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis

Background

Children in care

‘Looked after children’ is the term used in the UK for children whose care is managed by a local authority. In 2017, 72,670 children were in care in England, of whom 53,420 were in foster placements (Department for Education, 2017). ‘Placement breakdown’ describes such children moving to a different foster or residential home due to the development of unresolvable difficulties between the child and the foster family. It is often reported that a significant factor in this breakdown is the emergence of difficulties between residing birth and foster children (Kalland and Sinkkonen, 2001; Oosterman, et al., 2007).

Research into birth children’s experiences of foster siblings has reported both positive and negative experiences (e.g. Adams, Hassett and Lumsden, 2018; Mainpin, Minary and Boutanquoi, 2016; Raineri, Calcaterra and Folgheraiter, 2018; Serbinski, 2017; Sutton and Stack, 2013; Targowska, Cavazzi and Lund, 2016; Thompson, McPherson and Marsland, 2016; Twigg and Swan, 2007; Watson and Jones, 2002; Williams, 2017a). Thompson and McPherson (2011) undertook a thematic analysis of 12 studies into the experience of living with a foster sibling and identified five key themes: positive experiences; loss; conflict; transitions; and coping.

The transition to siblinghood

The transition to siblinghood often precipitates dramatic changes in the parent‒child relationship (Volling, 2012), in part due to the sudden division of parental attention among siblings. Research has shown that children’s attachment styles play a role in how they respond to their caregiver’s attention being directed at their new sister or brother. Teti and Ablard’s (1989) findings indicate that securely attached children protested less than those who were insecurely attached when their mother’s attention was on their younger sibling. Poris, Volling and Herrera (1998) replicated the study, reporting that the attachment styles of both siblings are important in such distress and protest behaviours. Specifically, when their mother’s attention was on the youngest child, insecurely attached siblings behaved negatively towards the infant. Teti and colleagues (1996) further explored the role of attachment in the transition to siblinghood, reporting that attachment security to mothers significantly decreased following the siblings’ birth and thus concluding that this period is stressful and disrupts the firstborn’s relationship with her or his mother. Using a developmental ecological systems theory which considers the child in their ecological context and recognises the importance of different intra-familial and extra-familial systems in the child’s development (Volling, 2012), Volling (2017) concluded that the transition to siblinghood was not difficult for most children and that they adapted over time as the family system adjusts.

Attachment theory

Attachment theory proposes that infants develop an attachment style from their experiences of being protected and cared for by their main caregiver (Bowlby, 1969; 1973). A key aspect of this relationship is the caregiver being attuned to the child ‒ that is, anticipating and responding to their child’s needs (Golding, 2008). Consequently, a child learns that their caregivers are reliable and available. This caregiver acts as a ‘secure base’, allowing the child to explore his or her world (Bowlby, 1998). This attachment relationship is internalised and forms what is known as an ‘internal working model’ (Holmes, 2014) which influences children’s beliefs and expectations about their own and others’ behaviour, their self-view and expression of emotions. For a securely attached child, this model includes a representation of themselves and others as lovable, reliable and available. However, children who experience unpredictable and/or unavailable responses to their needs are likely to develop an insecure or disorganised attachment (Bowlby, 1998).

The Child Attachment Interview (CAI) identifies four styles of attachment: secure; insecure-dismissing; insecure-preoccupied; and disorganised (Shmueli-Goetz, et al., 2008). Insecure-dismissing attachment styles are characterised by children who neglect or minimise their own emotions and needs, observable as a reduced tendency to signal distress. This constitutes a behavioural strategy that is employed to minimise rejection and the need for care from unavailable caregivers (Zachrisson, 2009). Conversely, insecure-preoccupied attachment styles are characterised by exaggerating emotions and needs through enhancing distress, a strategy used to maximise caring responses following experiences of inconsistent and, therefore, unpredictable interactions with caregivers (Zachrisson, 2009). Disorganised attachment styles describe a child who is unable to employ effective strategies to feel safe or comforted (Zachrisson, 2009). Such attachment strategies can be seen as ‘defensive processes’ whereby they are unconsciously employed to manage one’s emotions and needs in relation to caregivers’ availability and attunement (see Mikulincer, et al., 2009).

Research problem

A limited number of studies have sought to understand birth children’s experiences of having foster children as part of their family (see Thompson and McPherson, 2011). None have focused on the nature of attachment relationships and the changes to these experienced by the birth children. Nor has the influence of attachment strategies and defensive processes in shaping children’s accounts of their experience of living with foster children been much explored. This research adds to the existing literature by seeking to address that gap.

Attachment theory provides a useful framework for considering the role of relationships in the expression and regulation of a child’s need for care, as well as their ability to cope with changes in their caregiving relationships. This study employs an attachment theory framework when considering how birth children report their understanding of the experience of foster children entering and leaving their families.

Aims

This research aimed to examine birth children’s experience of having fostering child(ren) in their family, specifically:

how birth children experience fostering child(ren) in the family;

how birth children’s attachment experiences influence the way they discuss their emotional needs in this context;

what attachment strategies are apparent in the way that birth children offer their accounts;

how these attachment strategies influence the nature of the accounts of their experiences.

Methodology

Design

A qualitative approach was adopted due to the exploratory nature of the research (Barbour, 2000). The approach was cross-sectional and non-comparative. Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) (Smith, Flowers and Larkin, 2009) was used owing to the alignment of its theoretical underpinnings with the research aims (Smith, 2004). This allows the employment of an interpretive framework that is consistent with the aims of the study. Therefore, how attachment strategies influence the children’s experiences as well as their accounts of these experiences are considered.

Ethical approval was granted by the University Ethics Committee and local council.

Participants and family context

An opportunistic, purposive sampling approach to recruitment was taken through the local council. Participants were required to be birth children aged eight to 18 living with a parent who fosters children. Eight children from four families took part (see Table 1); all the children were white British. Family 4’s interviews served as corroboration. The families had fostered for between two and 12 years. Pseudonyms have been used throughout the report to retain anonymity and confidentiality.

Table 1.

Participants’ information.

Family	Age	Gender	Length of time fostering	Type of fostering	Current family composition
Family 1	8	Female	5 years	Mostly babies prior to adoption	Mother, father, four daughters (one older and moved out). Brother and sister foster children under 10.
Family 1	11	Female	5 years	Younger children short-term
Family 1	16	Female	5 years	Younger children short-term

Family 2	18	Female	12 years	One long-term childBabies prior to adoptionEmergencyShort-term	Mother and daughter. One long-term foster sister.Awaiting imminent arrival of foster baby.

Family 3	9	Male	7 years	One long-term childYounger children and babies short-term	Mother, father, two sons and one daughter. One long-term foster sister, one foster baby brother.
Family 3	12	Male	7 years	One long-term childYounger children and babies short-term

Family 4	16	Female	2 years	EmergencyShort-term teenagers	Mother, daughter and son. No current foster children in placement.
Family 4	17	Male	2 years	EmergencyShort-term teenagers

Interviews

A semi-structured interview comprising two sections was carried out. The first asked selected questions from the Child Attachment Interview (CAI) (Shmueli-Goetz, et al., 2008) and the Transition to Adulthood Attachment Interview (TTAAI) (Crittenden, 2006; Crittenden and Dallos, 2009) which enquired about key aspects of growing up and sought to gain insight into the child’s emotional processes. The second section sought to gain insight into the experience of living with foster children and included integrated ‘sculpts’ using seashells (Lowenstein and Sprunk, 2010). Sculpts are a therapeutic technique typically used in systemic practice whereby objects are used to represent members of the family and placed accordingly to illustrate familial relationships. Specifically, the sculpts in the current study depicted family relationships prior to fostering, during fostering, after a foster child departed and the family in two years’ time. These facilitated the expression of children’s experience, providing visual prompts and representations of their experience, as per other IPA research using this approach (Kirkham, Smith and Havsteen-Franklin, 2015; Shinebourne and Smith, 2011). The interview schedule was constructed with guidance on conducting IPA research (Pietkiewicz and Smith, 2012; Smith, Flowers and Larkin, 2009) and relevant literature (e.g. Thompson and McPherson, 2011). An adult with experience of living with foster children when younger was consulted regarding the schedule. Interviews were audio-recorded, with sculpts being video-recorded and photographed. Interviews lasted between 40 minutes and 1 hour 20 minutes.

Analysis

The six main interviews were transcribed verbatim as were relevant excerpts of the two corroborating interviews. IPA was undertaken on the transcripts regarding the children’s experiences of fostering, with guidance from the literature (Pietkiewicz and Smith, 2012; Smith, Flowers and Larkin, 2009). Supplementary analysis was carried out to complement the IPA findings. Interviews relating to the children’s experiences of growing up were analysed considering attachment strategies and defensive processes in the children’s accounts by drawing upon attachment discourse markers used in the CAI and other narrative attachment assessments (e.g. the Adult Attachment Interview, Crittenden and Landini, 2011). This considered the implicit non-verbal features of the interviews to complement the semantic explicit content of the IPA, and hence looked at how children spoke about their experiences and which types of defences appeared to be used.

Sculpts were not explicitly analysed but rather used as a visual, implicit illustration of relationship changes in the family. They were also considered when exploring the role of defensive processes to triangulate the children’s narrative accounts (Golafshani, 2003).

The IPA process includes the researcher making sense of the participant’s own interpretation of his or her experience, known as a ‘double hermeneutic process’ (Pietkiewicz and Smith, 2012). This process therefore is influenced by the researchers own preconceptions and blindspots. A bracketing interview (Rolls and Relf, 2006) was undertaken with the first author prior to carrying out interviews to enable her to reflect on her position. This highlighted her sense of a conflict between accurately reporting participants’ experiences, including the negative aspects, and a wish to avoid discouraging people with children from fostering. It was important to recognise this for analytic processes, as it may have led to positive experiences being overly emphasised. It is also important to note that the second author has a personal relationship with birth children in families who foster. Validity was enhanced through the use of joint analysis of two transcripts (Creswell and Miller, 2000) and using Family 4’s interview as corroborating evidence. These were listened to following IPA analysis to check for consistency in themes. Quotations that supported the themes were transcribed verbatim and have been cited in the findings. A member check was done whereby a summary of the superordinate and subthemes were sent to participants for their review.

Findings

Themes

Four superordinate themes with subordinate themes emerged from the analysis (see Table 2). The superordinate themes will be considered in turn with verbatim illustrative quotations for each alongside interpretation. Some children required additional prompts, so some quotations are presented as dialogue that includes the interviewer.

Table 2.

Superordinate and subordinate themes.

Superordinate themes	Preparation and knowledge of fostering: ‘Do you want more kids in the house?’	Disruptions to family life: ‘The love is spread out’	Altered role within the family: ‘Knowing that you’re helping’	Making and breaking connections: ‘They’ll always be part of the family’
Corresponding subordinate themes	Preparation for fostering: ‘We’re going to be looking after children for a while’	Family size changing: ‘It just keeps on growing’	Child’s responsibilities: ‘We have to not be horrible to them and be kind’	Making connections: ‘It’s like a sister relationship’
	Knowledge of fostering: ‘I didn’t know much about it’	Rivalry: ‘We matter too’	Feelings around care: ‘It just like felt good to look after children’	Saying goodbye: ‘I didn’t want to let her go’
	Foster children’s past: ‘They don’t know the difference between people caring and not caring’	Altered family relationships: ‘They don’t really work as good as me and my family’	Family’s development: ‘It helped me grow up’	Continuing bonds: ‘They stay in my heart’
			Influence of age: ‘Then I’m not the youngest’

Preparation and knowledge of fostering: ‘Do you want more kids in the house?’

Families varied in the degree to which children were prepared for fostering, with age appearing to be a factor. Older children reported greater understanding of why children come into care and the processes surrounding it. Children recalled being informed of their parents’ intentions to foster but experienced uncertainty or false expectations about what this entailed. The children’s knowledge around fostering was expressed as coming from experience rather than preparation:

Mum said, ‘When you come back there’ll be some children here’ and I was like ‘What does that mean?’ and she said, ‘Well, it basically means that we’re going to be looking after children for a while now.’ I felt happy cos I thought it was gonna be like ‘Oh yeah! New friends that will get to come on holiday with us.’ (Callum)

[I remember] asking them like what you do, how long they’d be here for and… I think they said, ‘Where we take in children, we look after them and then they go on to a mummy and daddy…’ (Jeremia)

Joyce’s understanding of why children are fostered changed as she got older. When younger, she recalled:

Not [knowing] very much at the time, um, just that it was children that their mummies and daddies couldn’t look after them like mine did. It was as I grew up that I started to realise what it really was. (Joyce)

The children’s knowledge of the processes around fostering had an impact on how the foster children were understood, which birth children found out could affect their relationship. This knowledge depended on the age of the child and how long their family had fostered:

I probably thought it would be a lot different, like I would have thought the kids would have wanted your help a bit more… I think that’s cos they’ve got used to like… people not caring, so of course they don’t know the difference between people caring and not caring, because of their experience. (Josie)

In the corroborating interviews, Jess and Mark said, ‘Before we started fostering I didn't know what it was.’

The limited preparation for fostering that children expressed may be due to parents wanting to protect them from the distressing truth behind why children come into care. However, some foster children would openly disclose abuse around the children, which could then be more shocking due to a lack of understanding and preparation. Although often upsetting, this knowledge could then lead to children understanding why the foster children might behave in certain ways and affect their relationship. Often, children did not want to upset their parents and disagree with them if they did not want to foster, and instead minimised their own feelings around the subject. Other children highlighted the more positive aspects around fostering, focusing on the benefit for the children rather than their own needs. It is also likely that parents were not fully able to prepare their children as they were new to fostering.

Disruptions to family life: ‘The love is spread out’

Children described disruptions arising from the fostering process, namely, the family size changing and the consequences this had on the family system in terms of relationships and rivalry. To quote Callum and Arnold: ‘[Fostering is] a lot more sociable’ and ‘There's more people to worry about.’

The children talked of a rivalry between them and the foster children, sharing their parents’ attention, love, time and possessions:

The love is spread out. (Jeremia)

My mum was looking, um, had more attention on [foster children] because they were always so fussy. (Skye)

Skye illustrated the rivalry in terms of sharing her possessions, which differed according to the children:

I don’t get as much as I used to, so when [foster children] are gone, I’m going to have way more toys.

I let them [foster baby] borrow one of my blankets. It was nice and fluffy and it was blue, just, just, um, to take to my nan’s because it was cold.

Josie explained the practical disruptions of a larger family:

[Mum] can’t drop me to like, parties and that, because she’d be like, ‘Oh, I have [foster children]’ and I’m like, ‘Oh right’ like, it’s a bit like, ‘Oh, OK.’

Typical family activities also changed:

When we fostered we had to like care a lot more about like, everythink and it’d be like ‘Awh, can we do this?’ [and Mum said] ‘I think we just need to stay and just look after everybody.’ (Callum)

A consequence of the increased family size and resultant rivalry was that relationships within families changed:

They [foster children] don’t really work as good as me and my family does. (Skye)

Mum and Dad would be sorting out [foster child] and then me helping would be like ‘Come on Emily [sister], we’ll go play outside or upstairs.’ (Callum)

When foster children left the family, the children explained how relationships changed further. This could depend on their experience of caring for the foster child:

You [family] like sort of stay more together because you’re a bit like, ‘Awh, well, we will get through this and they’ll go off, they’ll have a family and it’ll be fine’, but then o’ course when they leave you’re like, ‘I don’t really need you that much anymore’, so you’re sort of like, ‘Ahh, we can sort of like, spread our wings a bit more.’ (Josie)

Jess and Mark’s corroborating interviews aligned with the key participants’ experiences:

They take up a lot of Mum’s time. If you want… help with [a problem] and she’s got a lot of time taken up by the foster child, it can kind of be a problem. (Mark)

I feel like we got closer when [first foster child] came… cos we all went out and stuff and did stuff together. (Jess)

The disruptions discussed highlight the systemic impact of fostering on families. With respect to rivalry, there was a sense of the foster children mattering more than the child, and the parents prioritising the former’s needs. It seemed that the children minimised their own needs and reported that those of the foster children were more important.

In the above excerpts it is interesting to note the language used by the children to describe the foster children and their families, which was suggestive of an ‘ingroup/outgroup’ dynamic. This underlying implication in how they see the foster children can point to further differences in family relationships and rivalry:

It’s not jealousy, but they always used to call my mum and dad ‘Mum and Dad’, and they always used to be like, ‘Awh, but Mum and Dad are doing this for me’ and I’m like, ‘Yeah, but my mum and dad did that for me as well!’ like type thing. Always trying to one up you, like. (Josie)

Altered role within the family: ‘knowing that you’re helping’

The children described how their role within the family altered when they fostered; they developed responsibilities that influenced their feelings of self-worth and noticed changes in the wider family:

We have to not be horrible to them and be kind. (Skye)

[I remember] telling her [social worker] that I was going to help look after the children and play with them so they’d be happy and healthy like me [laughs]. (Joyce)

Skye found caring for babies was the best thing about being in a family that fosters:

It’s nice to feed the babies, and I like the most putting them to sleep and holding them and rocking them. (Skye)

Josie described how she did not always adopt responsibility explicitly:

I, not hated him but I didn’t necessarily want to be like, ‘Oh yeah, I’ll play with you today’ type thing. I was more like, ‘I’ll just go in my room.’

I don’t want them to be swearing just because of my songs.

Children described their feelings associated with their role and responsibilities as largely positive, even when it felt as if such responsibilities were hard:

Probably the best things are [pause] knowing that you’re helping someone… because like you’re not benefiting you, it’s benefiting them, so it feels better. (Jeremia)

However, this sense of responsibility could be hard on the children when their care can only go so far:

[Hearing the children’s stories is difficult] cos sometimes it’s really really heart-breaking and you just want to swaddle them in a blanket and squeeze it all out of them. (Joyce)

We thought, ‘Oh, we didn’t do as well as we should of’ like, we couldn’t handle him and then we’ve looked at how many carers he’s had and the amount of time that we’ve looked after him, it’s just like, ‘Oh Wow!’ (Callum)

The children reflected on how their parents’ parenting had improved, which they linked to their job of looking after people. This included practical skills (e.g. changing nappies), discipline, enhanced understanding and having improved knowledge about parenting. Furthermore, the children reported an improvement in self-confidence linked to meeting lots of people and having a greater understanding than peers of others and the wider world:

I’m pretty sure they’re more happy because they like doing their job. (Jeremia)

I’d like to say fostering’s brought them together. (Josie)

In the corroborating interview, Jess stated that:

I wouldn’t be as understanding if we didn’t foster cos like, I get like why people, like why Natalie behaved like the way she did, like why she was so like clingy to Mum. (Jess)

When children had a role in the family and sense of responsibility, they mostly talked positively and associated this with feeling good and improved self-esteem. Without this role, the children were more likely to experience rivalry, whereas in caring situations they felt included with their parents and appeared not to feel displaced by the foster child. However, this proved to be hard when placements broke down as the children felt a degree of responsibility. In contrast, some were ambivalent regarding their role, especially when the children did not have a close relationship. Here, it could be experienced as an unwanted responsibility with a sense of having to sacrifice their needs for the child, yet knowing that they should be caring towards them, as was expected from their parents.

Making and breaking connections: ‘They’ll always be part of the family’

Developing relationships with the foster child could be affected by gender, hobbies, age and the resultant changes in familial relationships and roles. Positive relationships with the foster children made the process of saying goodbye more emotionally challenging. However, whether literally or metaphorically, stronger bonds were not broken.

Building relationships was most often attributed to liking the same things and playing together:

The first time we ever met… she said, ‘Do you guys wanna go and play football?’ I was like ‘You play football?!’ (Ha!) So we went outside and started off playing football. … As it’s got on she is a lot more girlyish now so it’s like [pause] we don’t spend as much time as we always used t’ like. (Callum)

The development of the relationships and how they viewed the foster child as a part of their family appeared to be linked to their legal status:

He might be my brother… he might be going into special guardianship [with the family] until he’s 18. (Arnold)

The influence of age on the relationship differed among the children: some reported being closer to children their age as they could play with them while others found it to be a threat to their role within the family:

When they’re here I still think they’re very cute and, well, not if they’re like my age. (Arnold)

Fostering a baby appeared to be favoured and affected the birth order differently:

I don’t really like that [children over three]… I like the baby babies… Having older people than babies, they’re quite annoying, and then… I’m not the youngest… [which is] not good, because I don’t get as much as I used to. (Skye)

Josie: Sounds bad but I don’t really, not to pay attention to fostering, but umm, I’m just always busy, with like work and coursework, so I’m normally up in my room quite a bit.

Interviewer: Has that always been the same? Like when you had babies as well?

Josie: [Laughs] No! [Laughs] it sounds so bad, but babies are just absolute gems, yeah. They’re just so adorable… cos like, the difference between like older ones! (Josie)

The children recounted saying goodbye, with some recalling confusion the first time it happened, others remembering not feeling emotional and some describing conflicting emotions:

We was told we would see them again; we never did. (Callum)

It was really sad, we were crying, only me. I was holding the baby and I didn’t want to let her go, but she went, urm, I don’t know who she went to. (Skye)

[I] don’t really find it sad or anything. (Arnold)

It wasn’t a shock, it’s like, you know that you’ve done something good. (Jeremia)

You feel like sad and happy when they send photos because you’re like, ‘Awh, should have… adopted that one’, but then… it is worth it in the end, like, nine months of, not ‘hell’. (Josie)

The organisational processes around foster children leaving the home could make the experience more emotionally challenging, for example, children staying longer than initially planned or arranged goodbyes being disrupted:

Once we had to take them over [to their dad’s] and the little girl was crying and crying the entire way over, um but we had to leave them… it was heartbreaking, and I, both me and my mum cried the entire way home afterwards, um and they kept saying ‘Don’t leave me with my dad, don’t leave me with my dad’ … We then got a phone call mid-afternoon saying, ‘We’re bringing them home, we’re not carrying on with all of this.’ (Joyce)

The length of time a child was in placement and the often deeper relationship that developed affected the emotions around a goodbye:

[We] certainly looked after some for a week and I’ve barely even spoken to them, like, ‘Ah, OK then, bye’, but if it’s like three months and over it is literally just like [intake of breath] ‘starting to getting to know you, I was starting to really like you, and then that happening’ is like [short pause] ‘What?!’ (Ha!). (Callum)

If the relationship had been difficult, the process of leaving was more a relief and saying goodbye was welcomed:

Mum and Dad told him he was leaving and he was crying. I was like ‘Yay!’ (Arnold)

Everyone had just left and [it] just calmed rrreeally down… like we’ve been lifting a really heavy weight and someone’s just took like the massive weight off, and it’s just like ‘Aaahhhh’. (Callum)

The children said they remembered the children they had fostered and that it was worth it in the end, with some remaining in contact:

We’ve always remembered all of the people that we’ve fostered; they’re still a part [of the family]. (Jeremia)

They stay in my heart [taps heart with hand]. (Skye)

In the corroborating interviews, Mark stated how, after a child who had been with them for a year left:

I kinda missed her after a little while because I was used to seeing her all the time.

Jess talked of a foster child with whom she had a close relationship and they remain in contact:

She knew… my old friends; that made us closer definitely…she was the same age as me.

The children’s descriptions of making and breaking connections suggested an emotionally challenging conflict and dilemma. A close bond meant saying goodbye was harder, leading some children to focus more upon the positive aspects of the child leaving (i.e. going to a new family) and dismissing their own sadness. When a relationship did not develop seemed to be where the child’s role in the family was threatened and they were unable to assume a caring role, linked to the age of the children. When foster children were challenging and the placement broke down, there was some ambivalence around wanting them to leave yet feeling that they had let them down.

The link between the foster child’s legal status and the relationship appears key; children used more inclusive language if the placement was long term. This may be because they did not fear the loss. The children spoke positively of other children who had left and said that they had not forgotten them and they remained in their family ‒ perhaps to ease the sadness they felt and continue their bond.

Sculpts

Sculpts facilitated the description of how the family changed, providing visual representations of closeness of its members. These images (adapted here from the coloured shells used in the study ‒ see Figure 1) show how the children illustrate their relationships and the changes over time in response to the movements of foster children.

Attachment strategies as defensive processes

The children’s accounts of their experiences growing up showed a range of attachment strategies, secure and dismissing being the most common with some preoccupied. These are typical ways to cope with emotions and can be seen as defensive processes. Regarding secure markers, at times all of the children were emotionally open and self-reflective. Dismissing strategies were also present in all the interviews, whereby individuals disregarded their own feelings of vulnerability in favour of self-reliance. Preoccupied strategies were less evident but emerged where children used highly emotive language and descriptions to elicit sympathy. It is worth noting that secure attachment can be seen as a combination of dismissing and preoccupied strategies according to the context. These are ‘normal’ ways of coping with emotions and needs in our lives. The key strategies will now be considered in turn.

In terms of dismissing strategies, minimising needs and emotions was present in most interviews. An example is where one child talked of his pet dying and recalled digging a grave and burying it. When asked why he felt this memory stuck in his mind, he stated that he had been only little and did not really know much about it, thus minimising the event and his emotions. In attachment theory, this communication strategy can be seen as a means of reducing demand on others, i.e. an attachment figure, to provide support.

Another strategy to emerge was participants’ dismissal of their emotions and needs, and focusing on those of others. Much like minimising, this tactic involves managing emotions to protect oneself from feelings which are not easily soothed and so reduces dependence on attachment figures ‒ as when children stated that they enjoyed being in a family that fosters, that it was a positive thing to do and how it felt good to help others. Later in the interview, when discussing the future, a few of them said they would not want to work with children or have a big family themselves, citing the fact that it takes up time and increases stress. This incongruence suggests that they were trying to make sense of their ambivalent feelings around fostering. There were further contrasts where children reported valuing and feeling good about their caring role, yet not wanting to occupy it in adulthood. This suggested that children’s feelings towards their role was often more ambivalent than explicitly stated, with negative feelings denied or unacknowledged.

‘Idealisation’ was another discourse marker present in the children’s accounts. This is where a key relationship in the child’s life is described in very positive terms, but the evidence for this evaluation is not presented or suggests the contrary. Idealisation can be viewed as the child taking on responsibility for the difficulties they experience, protecting their attachment figure and derogating themselves. For example, one participant described her mother as an ‘amazing’ woman whom she looked up to. This description of her mother’s supportiveness contrasted with her report of an actual time of intense need for her mum, where she approached a different family member. These attempts to idealise others and hold responsibility appeared to reflect the sense of responsibility which some participants reported holding for their foster children, in terms of their care and placement outcomes.

Although much less common, preoccupied strategies were also in evidence. For instance, a child told of having ‘a breakdown’ from ‘getting quite bullied in school’, stating ‘I don’t care about it anymore’ while describing the event and its impact through tears. This use of language and emotion can be employed to enhance emotions and distress to elicit a caring response.

It is important to consider these defensive processes in relation to the IPA themes. Two aspects are particularly pertinent here: how defensive processes can impact on the child’s experience and how it may influence their account of it. Regarding the experience itself, it may be that the children dismiss and minimise their own emotions and needs in favour of those of their parents or the foster children, also known as compulsive caring. This can be a way of coping with the complex attachment dynamics inherent in the foster family. An understanding of this dynamic could be relevant when preparing families for fostering, managing the disruptions to family life and in the processes around relationships with the foster children. The theme of responsibility could be linked to the children dismissing and minimising their own attachment needs and idealising their parents’ caring role, perhaps as part of a defensive strategy of idealisation of attachment figures who look after others. An awareness of these potential defensive strategies is important when interpreting children’s descriptions of changes to their family, their emotions in relation to placement endings and feelings of rivalry towards new entrants to their family.

Discussion

This study used an attachment-informed IPA approach to explore birth children’s experiences of having foster children in their family. It described children’s reports of how their attachment history related to their experiences of living with a foster child (or children), with an understanding of how these experiences might influence children’s accounts. A number of key themes were identified in children’s accounts. These included preparation and knowledge about fostering, disruptions to family life, altered roles within their families and making and breaking connections. These reports were viewed through an attachment lens whereby disruptions to family life could be linked to changes in the parents’ availability and responsiveness to their birth children’s needs, with implications for the family as a ‘secure base’. Complementing this interpretative analysis, accounts of attachment experiences were considered with respect to defensive processes. This highlighted how children could minimise their needs and feelings in the family. These may be strategies to cope with the disruptions to family life, the responsibility of a caring role and the processes around relationships with the foster children. Furthermore, such defensive processes are likely to influence how children express their experience of sharing their home with a foster child.

Synthesis of findings

The themes regarding the children’s experiences of living with foster children identified by this analysis can be considered comprehensively with the sculpts (see Figure 1) and defensive processes, together with existing literature. The first theme related to the participants’ preparation for and knowledge of fostering. Most of the children reported not being prepared and having unrealistic expectations of the fostering process. This finding is consistent with previous research whereby birth children have reported that they did not feel they were equipped with enough information about the realities of fostering (Martin, 1993; Nordenfors, 2016; Poland and Groze, 1993; Pugh, 1996; Raineri, Calcaterra and Folgheraiter, 2018; Targowska, Cavazzi and Lund, 2016; Younes and Harp, 2007). When it comes to the outcomes of preparation, the literature on transition to siblinghood has identified mixed results, with some studies reporting positive effects on sibling rivalry (Fortier, et al., 1991) and recent research finding no benefit to family functioning (Beyers-Carlson and Volling, 2017) and highlighting how supportive co-parenting is more likely than preparation to help children adjust.

In this study, when discussing feelings of preparedness, some children appeared to downplay the significance of their feelings around fostering in favour of supporting their parents’ desire to foster. One way to interpret this is in terms of a defensive process whereby others’ feelings and needs are prioritised. A number of children appeared to dismiss their concerns and feelings on the topic, instead presenting a view of fostering as ‘a good thing to do’. This understanding of defensive process may help account for research findings around preparedness for fostering, as these are likely to both affect how children signal their preparedness to their caregivers and how they relate to feelings of being unprepared during the fostering process.

Attachment theory emphasises the importance of preparing children for emotionally challenging situations, such as fostering, highlighting the role of parental attunement to their children’s communication of their needs (Bretherton, 1992) in maintaining attachment security (Sutton and Stack, 2013; Thompson, McPherson and Marsland, 2016). Therefore, considering such defensive processes and how they can affect the parent‒child dyad is important in preparing the children, whose needs may not be obvious.

The second theme described the disruptions to family life that children reported during fostering. Participants told of disruptions affecting their parents’ availability to meet their needs. Thompson and McPherson (2011), in a review of research exploring children’s experiences in foster families, found that most studies reported children experiencing a reduction in their parents’ time and attention. More recent research reports similar findings (e.g. Adams, Hassett and Lumsden, 2018; Thompson, McPherson and Marsland, 2016). Höjer (2007) attributed this reduced availability to the parents’ involvement with the foster children, which is to some extent supported by this research. In contrast, some children in the present study also reported that the difficulties of having a foster child in the family made them closer, as they needed to support one another. Thompson and McPherson (2011) also highlight this contradiction in children’s reports of feeling closer to their parents while simultaneously feeling their parents are less available to them. As this research not only considered the explicit meanings of the children’s reports but also the implicit meaning as interpreted through sculpts and defensive processes, we can attempt to further understand such seemingly contrasting findings. With respect to defensive strategies, it may be that children minimised the negative aspects of fostering, whereby the parents were less available, and idealised a closer relationship with them. The sculpts provide us with further implicit descriptive information regarding the shifts in relationships. They illustrate how children felt that from before fostering through to during fostering they tended to all remain close to their parents or become closer during the fostering process ‒ as illustrated by most sculpts. It is unclear whether this was an idealised desire or expectation for the future. Nevertheless, it fits with the children’s semantic, yet perhaps idealised, description of the family becoming closer as a result of fostering, as found in previous research (Höjer, 2007; Pugh, 1996; Spears and Cross, 2003; Thompson and McPherson, 2011; Thompson, McPherson and Marsland, 2016).

Although this research has not categorised its participants in terms of their attachment styles, it is worth considering whether changes in parental availability and responsiveness to birth children’s needs affect the defensive processes that children employ. It can be hypothesised that children who feel secure in their attachment relationships would be more able to adopt strategies to retain closeness and reconcile feelings of separation, resulting in managing the changes (see Sutton and Stack, 2013; Teti and Ablard, 1989). However, it could be that as children begin to experience their parents as less available, they manage feelings of loss by minimising and dismissing their own needs. Again consistent with existing literature, Höjer (2007) reported that birth children tended to cope with difficulties independently, sometimes through not showing their emotions (Adams, Hassett and Lumsden, 2018; Martin, 1993; Swan, 2002; Williams, 2017a). In the present study, Skye’s attachment experiences suggest that her parents are attuned to her. When she expressed her negative feelings regarding the foster children, her parents listened, sought respite and support from the social worker and created one-to-one time. This highlights the importance of attunement to birth children’s negative feelings (see Serbinski, 2017; Sutton and Stack, 2013), especially considering the defensive processes that may develop as a way of coping with living with foster children.

The third theme illustrates the children’s description of altered roles in the family when fostering. This related to positive outcomes for both them and their parents as a result of a caring role. In relation to their parents, children reported feeling more understood and parented themselves. This is most likely linked to the extensive training undertaken by foster carers, for instance, in attachment theory and therapeutic parenting skills. Children also reported positive outcomes from their own caring role. This has been found in the literature on birth children’s experiences of fostering where the value of helping others was highlighted (Adams, Hassett and Lumsden, 2018; Pugh, 1996; Thompson and McPherson, 2011), yet research also has found that birth children can feel pressure from expectations to be responsible and caring (Nordenfors, 2016; Raineri, Calcaterra and Folgheraiter, 2018; Swan, 2002; Williams, 2017b; Younes and Harp, 2007). Although positive about their caring role, ambivalence was present in some children’s accounts, with idealisation of caregiving juxtaposed with not wanting to take it up when older. This suggests that although some benefit, others downplay the negative side and dismiss their feelings, leading to compliance and taking on a caregiving role (Crittenden and Dallos, 2009). This may be a helpful strategy for children to manage the role and their expectations. The sculpts (Figure 1) illustrate that a caring role alone is not associated with proximity to the foster children; rather, an emotional closeness was illustrated, as children had described. A caring role was seen in a closer relationship with their parents in sculpts.

The final theme was the largest with respect to making and breaking connections. Regarding the former, the children reported that it varied with every foster child. A number of factors were related to this: some told of having a close bond with their foster sibling and enjoyed playing with them while for others this was more difficult. The sculpts reveal the close bonds that birth and foster children can make, with some children illustrating closer proximity to foster siblings than their own brothers and sisters. A key factor in making connections was age and its impact on birth order. When foster children were of a similar age, the children felt as though their role in the family changed, as did the relationships within it. If we consider this using an attachment lens, it may be that having a child of similar age enhances a sense of competition for parental attention (as the children describe), making rivalry more likely. In the existing literature, birth children reported that their place in the family shifted and they could find themselves being displaced or sharing a familial role (Mainpin, Minary and Boutanquoi, 2016; Martin, 1993; Thompson, McPherson and Marsland, 2016; Younes and Harp, 2007), which was hardest for the oldest or youngest children (Younes and Harp, 2007). This is consistent with the experiences in the current study.

The children reported that one of the hardest aspects of fostering was saying goodbye. It was interesting how they spoke about this differently and the relationship this had to defensive processes. Some minimised the sadness and focused on the feelings of ‘doing good’ and the child moving on to ‘a better place’, whereas others were more open with their sadness but still acknowledged that leaving was best for the child. Other studies have identified this as one of the hardest aspects for birth children (see Targowska, Cavazzi and Lund, 2016; Williams, 2017a), potentially affecting individuals more long term (Mainpin, Minary and Boutanquoi, 2016; Pugh, 1996; Serbinski, 2017). The literature around loss may provide insight. Cohen and Katz (2015) found that securely attached children reported less grief than those who were avoidant, but Mancini and colleagues (2009) identified attachment avoidance as helpful when coping with loss.

The children felt that the preparation for saying goodbye was an important part of the process, with some finding the placement ending to be a shock and emotionally challenging. Other times it was the processes around fostering that made this difficult, for example when plans changed while the child was in school. Literature on the experiences of birth children with foster siblings also reports this as being one of the most difficult aspects for them to cope with, especially if the children had developed a positive relationship (Kaplan, 1988; Part, 1993; Spears and Cross, 2003; Swan, 2002; Thompson and McPherson, 2011; Watson and Jones, 2002; Younes and Harp, 2007). The defensive processes may be considered here in terms of preparing children for endings. As when preparing for fostering, parental attunement to their children’s needs is likely to be highly influential in terms of their capacity to deal with feelings of loss. The children may be coping with the impending loss by minimising their recognition of their feelings or their emotional closeness to the foster child. This was seen in this study when children stated that they didn’t feel sad when foster children left, yet gave highly emotional accounts of their departure. In particular, the sculpts illustrate children’s perception of the changes to family relationships after a foster child had moved on and provided enhanced insight into how the children felt.

Clinical implications

The findings from this research, regarding both the experiences of the birth children and the function of defensive processes, inform clinical practice when it comes to considering the needs of the birth children when fostering. These are laid out in Table 3.

Table 3.

Clinical implications linked to the themes from the birth children’s experiences.

Area of support	Issues to address	Clinical recommendation
Preparation for fostering	Children’s unrealistic expectations of living with a foster child.	A group or buddy system where siblings can learn about what it may be like to live with a foster child(ren) from other siblings.A story book to prepare younger children (see Targowska, Cavazzi and Lund, 2016).
Preparation for fostering and ongoing support	Children not understanding why children come into care and how this may affect their behaviour when in foster care.Children not necessarily asking questions due to minimising and dismissing their own needs.	Children to be explained in an age-appropriate way why children come into care and how this may affect their behaviour and relationships.A supportive approach could be undertaken in a group setting or with the social worker and their parents.
Children’s knowledge of the foster children’s past	Birth children feeling that it is upsetting to know what has happened to the children, but this helps them to understand their behaviour and relate to them.Vicarious trauma with children re-enacting previous relationship dynamics and abuse.	Consider the birth children when placing traumatised children with foster families.If appropriate and within realms of confidentiality, explain in appropriate language to birth children the foster child’s background and how this will affect their behaviour.
Disruptions to family life	Children experiencing rivalry and changes in relationships as a result of fostering.	Parents, and social workers, checking in with birth children about how they are coping with changes in family and living with the foster children.
Birth child’s role with the foster child(ren)	Children taking on a caring role and responsibilities for the foster children.	Parents and/or social worker to discuss and decide upon the birth children’s responsibilities before fostering: What are they? What is appropriate?
Building relationships	Placements are less likely to break down and both foster and birth children to benefit from their sibling relationship if they can build a relationship.	Consider matching foster and birth children, bearing in mind their ages, gender, hobbies, personality and disruption to birth order. Children’s attachment patterns could be taken into consideration.
Saying goodbye	Not saying goodbye can make the process of foster children leaving hard for the birth children.	Carefully plan a goodbye and involve the birth children. Birth children to be involved in visiting the new carers and home.
Continuing bonds	Not knowing where foster children have moved to can be hard, especially after a bond has been made between the foster and birth children.	Birth and foster children given the option to maintain contact with each other.

Critique

The main limitation of this study (apart from the small sample size) is that the participants were mostly white females. That said, a recent survey reported that 84% of foster families were white (Ofsted, 2019) so the participants’ ethnicity is representative of most such families in the UK. Females typically adopt a more caring role for their siblings (e.g. Stoneman, et al., 1989); this could have influenced the findings as the caregiving role may have been more prevalent in this sample.

An IPA approach suggests using a heterogeneous sample (Smith, Flowers and Larkin, 2009). The age range was eight to 18 and although it was felt that this enhanced the data, the children were siblings from the same families; this could have affected the findings, as the experiences reported by the eight-year-old differed from that of the young person of 18 who had different understandings of fostering. However, other factors besides age were also relevant.

A particular strength of this study is the inclusion of a framework for interpreting implicit meanings in the interview data, in combination with analysis of children’s explicit reporting of their experiences. The sculpts not only provided an implicit visual representation but they also facilitated the children’s expression and encouraged reflection on the changes in their family. Combined with an awareness of defensive processes, we were able to capture and give voice to aspects of birth children’s experiences that have been overlooked in previous research. The insights provided by an attachment theory framework give greater consistency to a body of research findings that have been previously inconsistent. Importantly, this research advances understanding of how fostering can equally be deeply challenging and incredibly life-enhancing for children, and how best to support adaptive responses to this experience.

Conclusion and practical implications

Birth children in foster families reported experiencing a number of changes ‒ in family size, rivalry, relationships, altered family roles and the difficulties around making and breaking connections. This study identified defensive processes as an important aspect of children’s experience of living in a family who fosters; children could be seen to minimise and dismiss their needs and emotions as a means of coping with the change and negative experiences, particularly the making and breaking of connections with foster children. The children instead emphasised the positive aspects of the experience while assuming the responsibility of a caring role. Furthermore, this study suggests that defensive processes are influential in shaping children’s accounts of their experience of having a foster child in the home. This should be taken into consideration when preparing children for fostering and discussing their current experiences. Further recommendations for supporting birth children include creating a siblings’ group or buddy system, the importance of age-appropriate knowledge around foster children, planning and preparing roles in the family, matching foster children to the whole family while considering birth children’s attachment patterns, and planning endings and future contact with birth children.

Footnotes

Kate Stoneman is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Clinical Psychology, Faculty of Health and Human Sciences, University of Plymouth, UK.

Rudi Dallos is a Professor of Psychology in the Department of Clinical Psychology, Faculty of Health and Human Sciences, University of Plymouth, UK.

References

Adams

Hassett

Lumsden

(2018) ‘They needed the attention more than I did’: How do the birth children of foster carers experience the relationship with their parents? Adoption & Fostering 42(2): 135‒150.

Barbour

(2000) The role of qualitative research in broadening the ‘evidence base’ for clinical practice. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 6(2): 155‒163.

Beyers-Carlson

Volling

(2017) Efficacy of sibling preparation classes. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic & Neonatal Nursing 46(4): 521‒531.

Bowlby

(1969). Attachment and Loss: Volume I: Attachment. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby

(1973) Attachment and Loss: Volume II: Separation, anxiety and anger. London: The Hogarth Press.

Bowlby

(1998) A Secure Base: Clinical applications of attachment theory. London: Routledge.

Bretherton

(1992) The origins of attachment theory: John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth. Developmental Psychology 28: 759‒775.

Cohen

Katz

(2015) Grief and growth of bereaved siblings as related to attachment style and flexibility. Death Studies 39(1–5): 158–164.

Creswell JW and Miller DL (2000) Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice 39(3): 123--130.

10.

Crittenden

(2006) Transition to Adulthood Attachment Interview (TAAI). Unpublished manuscript, Miami, FL.

11.

Crittenden

Dallos

(2009) All in the family: integrating attachment and family systems theories. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry 14(3): 389‒409.

12.

Crittenden

Landini

(2011) Assessing Adult Attachment. New York: WW Norton & Co.

13.

Department for Education (2017) Children looked after in England (including adoption), year ending 31 March 2017. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/664995/SFR50_2017-Children_looked_after_in_England.pdf.

14.

Fortier

Carson

Will

Shubkagel

(1991) Adjustment to a newborn: sibling preparation makes a difference. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic & Neonatal Nursing 20(1): 73‒79.

15.

Golafshani

(2003) Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report 8(4): 597‒606.

16.

Golding

(2008) Nurturing Attachments: Supporting children who are fostered or adopted. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

17.

Höjer

(2007) Sons and daughters of foster carers and the impact of fostering on their everyday life. Child & Family Social Work 12(1): 73–83.

18.

Holmes

(2014) John Bowlby and Attachment Theory, 2nd edn. London: Routledge.

19.

Kalland

Sinkkonen

(2001) Finnish children in foster care: evaluating the breakdown of long-term placements. Child Welfare 80(5): 513‒527.

20.

Kaplan

(1988) The biological children of foster parents in the foster family. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal 5(4): 281–299.

21.

Kirkham

Smith

Havsteen-Franklin

(2015) Painting pain: an interpretative phenomenological analysis of representations of living with chronic pain. Health Psychology 34(4): 398‒406.

22.

Lowenstein

Sprunk

(2010) Creative Family Therapy techniques: Play and art-based activities to assess and treat families. Available at: http://lianalowenstein.com/articleFamily Therapy.pdf.

23.

Mainpin

Minary

Boutanquoi

(2016) Anxiety, depression and fraternal experiences on the birth child in a foster home. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal 33(5): 443‒454.

24.

Mancini

Robinaugh

Shear

Bonanno

(2009) Does attachment avoidance help people cope with loss? The moderating effects of relationship quality. Journal of Clinical Psychology 65(10): 1127‒1136.

25.

Martin

(1993) Foster care: the protection and training of carers’ children. Child Abuse Review 2(1): 15–22.

26.

Mikulincer

Shaver

Cassidy

Berant

(2009) Attachment-related defensive processes. In: Obegi

Bernt

(eds) Attachment Theory and Research in Clinical Work with Adults. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 293‒327.

27.

Nordenfors

(2016) Children’s participation in foster care placements. European Journal of Social Work 19(6): 856–870.

28.

Ofsted (2019) Fostering in England 2017 to 2018: Main findings. Available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/fostering-in-england-1-april-2017-to-31-march-2018/fostering-in-england-2017-to-2018-main-findings

29.

Oosterman

Schuengel

Slot

et al . (2007) Disruptions in foster care: a review and meta-analysis. Children and Youth Services Review 29(1): 53‒76.

30.

Part

(1993) Fostering as seen by the carers’ children. Adoption & Fostering 17(1): 26–31.

31.

Pietkiewicz

Smith

(2012) A practical guide to using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis in qualitative research psychology. Psychological Journal 20(1): 7‒14.

32.

Poland

Groze

(1993) Effects of foster care placement on biological children in the home. Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal 10(2): 153–164.

33.

Poris

Volling

Herrera

(1998) Attachment to mothers and fathers: effects on infant‒sibling relationships. Infant Behaviour and Development 21, Supplement, p. 625.

34.

Pugh

(1996) Seen but not heard? Addressing the needs of children who foster. Adoption & Fostering 20(1): 35–41

35.

Raineri

Calcaterra

Folgheraiter

(2018) ‘ We are caregivers, too’: Foster siblings’ difficulties, strengths, and needs for support. Child & Family Social Work 23(4): 625‒632.

36.

Rolls

Relf

(2006) Bracketing interviews: addressing methodological challenges in qualitative interviewing in bereavement and palliative care. Mortality 11(3): 286‒305.

37.

Serbinski

(2017) Growing up with foster siblings: exploring the impacts of fostering on the children of foster parents. Qualitative Social Work 16(1): 131–149.

38.

Shinebourne

Smith

(2011) Images of addiction and recovery: an interpretative phenomenological analysis of the experience of addiction and recovery as expressed in visual images. Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy 18(5): 313‒322.

39.

Shmueli-Goetz

Target

Fonagy

Datta

(2008) The child attachment interview: a psychometric study of reliability and discriminant validity. Developmental Psychology 44(4): 939‒956.

40.

Smith

(2004) Reflecting on the development of interpretative phenomenological analysis and its contribution to qualitative research in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 1(1): 39‒54.

41.

Smith

Flowers

Larkin

(2009) Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: Theory, method and research. London: Sage Publications.

42.

Spears

Cross

(2003) How do ‘children who foster’ perceive fostering? Adoption & Fostering 27(4): 38‒45.

43.

Stoneman

Brody

Davis

Crapps

(1989) Role relations between children who are mentally retarded and their older siblings: observations in three in-home contexts. Research in Developmental Disabilities 10(1): 61‒76.

44.

Sutton

Stack

(2013) Hearing quiet voices: biological children’s experiences of fostering. British Journal of Social Work 43(3): 596–612.

45.

Swan

(2002) The experiences of foster caregivers' children. Canada’s Children 9(1): 13–17.

46.

Targowska

Cavazzi

Lund

(2016) Fostering together: the why and how of involving and supporting biological children of foster carers. Children Australia 41(1): 29‒38.

47.

Teti

Ablard

(1989) Security of attachment and infant‒sibling relationships: a laboratory study. Child Development 60(6): 1519‒1528.

48.

Teti

Sakin

Kucera

et al . (1996) And baby makes four: predictors of attachment security among preschool-age firstborns during the transition to siblinghood. Child Development 67(2): 579–596.

49.

Thompson

McPherson

(2011) The experience of living with a foster sibling, as described by the birth children of foster carers: a thematic analysis of the literature. Adoption & Fostering 35(2): 49‒60.

50.

Thompson

McPherson

Marsland

(2016) ‘Am I damaging my own family?’: relational changes between foster carers and their birth children. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry 21(1): 48–65.

51.

Twigg

Swan

(2007) Inside the foster family: what research tells us about the experience of foster carers' children. Adoption & Fostering 31(4): 49‒61.

52.

Volling

(2012) Family transitions following the birth of a sibling: an empirical review of changes in the firstborn's adjustment. Psychological Bulletin 138(3): 497‒528.

53.

Volling

(2017) Introduction: Understanding the transition to siblinghood from a developmental psychopathology and ecological systems perspective. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 82(3): 7–25.

54.

Watson

Jones

(2002) The impact of fostering on foster carers’ own children. Adoption & Fostering 26(1): 49–55.

55.

Williams

(2017a) Grief, loss, and separation: experiences of birth children of foster carers. Child & Family Social Work 22(4): 1448–1455.

56.

Williams

(2017b) Recognising birth children as social actors in the foster‐care process: retrospective accounts from biological children of foster carers in Ireland. The British Journal of Social Work 47(5): 1394–1410.

57.

Younes

Harp

(2007) Addressing the impact of foster care on biological children and their families. Child Welfare 86(4): 21–40.

58.

Zachrisson

(2009) Attachment in middle and late childhood: measurement validation and relation to mental health problems. Unpublished dissertation. Psykologisk institutt UiO 2009.