In this literature review, we will first discuss the quality of life and well-being of children in general, and then specifically examine the current state of the literature on the quality of life of children in sibling placement compared to children placed separately in child welfare service.
Introduction :
As society goes by, the status of the child has been taken more into consideration. The child is more and more considered as a person with rights and duties. It is simply that the notion of well-being and quality of life (QoL) are making their entry by appearing at the center of surveys and laws (at the European and international level). In France and other countries, the well-being and quality of life of children are widely discussed in the scientific literature. In particular, we can refer in particular to the authors Ben-Arieh and Frones (2007) who define this notion as follows : “Child well-being includes the quality of life in every sense. It refers to a child’s economic status, peer relationships, political rights, and opportunities for growth”.
If we focus specifically on the QoL, we notice that it is a multidimensional notion difficult to apprehend. According to the WHO (1994), the QoL is defined as “individual’s’ perceptions of their position in life in the context of the culture and value systems in which they live and in relation to their goals, expectations, standards and concerns”. It is a broad ranging concept incorporating in a complex way the persons’ physical health, psychological state, level of independence, social relationships, personal beliefs and their relationships to salient features of the environment.
As a result, children’s well-being has been widely studied in recent years. However, this research field in child protection is not as extensive. Indeed, the question of assessing the well-being and perceived QoL of children entrusted to child welfare involves a rather limited number of scientific studies. Nevertheless, the number of children placed in child welfare services is not decreasing. In fact, according to the ONPE report (2017), the number of minors benefiting from at least one measure under child protection is estimated at 299,600 in all of France (excluding Mayotte), including more than 145,000 children aged 0 to 17 placed with Child Welfare.
Theoretical framework :
Authors have shown that foster children are more at risk of developing mental disorders, in fact, according to Bruskas in 2008, foster children often develop fear, apprehension in front of the unknown, or depressive and anxiety disorders. Furthermore, this information leads us to believe that their level of QoL will be lower than that of children living with their families. However, results differ significantly on this subject. Indeed, some authors validate the hypothesis that children in institutions describe themselves as having an altered QOL compared to those living with their families (Toussaint, Florin, & Schneider., 2017).
In contrast, other authors such as Bacro, Rambaud, Humbert and Sellenet (2015) obtained results showing that there was no significant difference between the QoL obtained by children placed in institutions compared to the control group living with their parents. This lack of consensus around the issue of perceived QOL of foster children can be partially explained by the wide variety of variables considered. These include the type of placement, the reasons for placement, the age of children, as well as the characteristics of the comparison group (divorced parents) or else the type of assessment method used.
For example, concerning age, we note that in Toussaint & al.’s study (2017), there is a difference in children’s perceptions by age, going in the direction that foster children (6-10yrs) are less satisfied with their lives than those living with families, while there is a similarity in the responses of younger children (4-6yrs) in care and mainstream.
Additionally, Bacro & al’s study (2015) shows us that children in care due to maltreatment describe themselves as having a lower QOL than children placed due to neglect. These results show that events prior to placement will impact children’s QOL.
In France, a law was adopted on December 30th 1996, concerning the maintenance of bonds between brothers and sisters, and this same idea was taken up again in the law reforming child protection of March 2007 : «The place of reception of the child must be sought in the interest of [the child] and in order to facilitate […] the maintenance of his or her bonds with his or her brothers and sisters in application of article 371-5 of the Civil Code»
However, in recent years, a major question has emerged within child protection : “Should siblings be separated?”. Indeed, one might think that the joint placement of siblings could positively affect the perception of the children’s quality of life. All the more so as the scientific literature shows that separation from siblings can have harmful effects, especially as sibling relationships are a resource for each child. Indeed, many researchers have shown the importance of the sibling bond in the development of children’s social and relational skills. Furthermore, siblings enable the child to discover many experiences in a peer connection (Haxhe et al., 2018). In addition to helping with socialisation, the benefits of joint placement would be the presence of a feeling of security and protection generated by siblings, not forgetting the possibility of support in order to express and share their suffering (Scelles, Dayan, Picon, 2007). However, in certain conditions, joint placement can be harmful, particularly when it hinders the child’s individuation process and personal development, but also when there is sibling rivalry, or when there is reproduction of pathogenic behaviours such as the identification of a scapegoat or the parentification of firstborn child regarding younger ones (Scelles et al., 2007).
In the research, it would therefore be wise to investigate the sibling dynamics and consequently the quality of the relationship that siblings have with each other in order to be able to discuss the joint or separate placement, always keeping in mind the interest of children.
Limitations:
All studies on this topic approach negative and positive aspects of joint placement in order to motivate professional practices and thus help professionals in their decision. There is a flaw in these studies, as they do not approach children’s point of view and in particular their own perception of their quality of life.
By Melissa LEBOISSETIER & Amelys KANIA (M2 PEADID)
Bibliography :
Bacro, F., Rambaud, A., Humbert, C., & Sellenet, C. (2015). Les parcours de placement et la qualité de vie des enfants de 6 à 11 ans accueillis dans des institutions relevant de la protection de l’enfance. L’Encéphale, 41(5), 412–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.encep.2014.10.018
Ben-Arieh, A., & Frønes, I. (2007). Indicators of Children’s Well being: What should be Measured and Why? Social Indicators Research, 84(3), 249–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11205-007-9183-6
Bruskas, D. (2008). Children in Foster Care: A Vulnerable Population at Risk. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 21(2), 70–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1744-6171.2008.00134.x
Haxhe, S., Léonard, S., Casman, M.-T., Coste, J., Degey, V., de Saint-Georges, M.-C., De Vos, B., Salingros, C., & Vrijens, C. (2018). La fratrie comme nouvelle unité stable ?: Vers une évolution des pratiques en contexte de placement. Cahiers de psychologie clinique, 50(1), 61-85. https://doi.org/10.3917/cpc.050.0061
Loi n° 2007-293 du 5 mars 2007 réformant la protection de l’enfance – Article 22, JORF du 6 mars 2007. Consulté sur : https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/eli/loi/2007/3/5/SANX0600056L/jo/ article_22
Scelles, R., Picon, I. & Dayan, C. (2007). Accueil conjoint des enfants d’une même fratrie dans le cas de placement : intérêts et limites. La revue internationale de l’éducation familiale, 22(2), 117-135. https://doi.org/10.3917/rief.022.0117
Toussaint, E., Florin, A., & Schneider, B. (2017). La qualité de vie des enfants accueillis en protection de l’enfance. Enfance, 2017(01), 123–141. https://doi.org/10.4074/ S0013754517001082