Using concurrent planning to establish permanency for looked after young children

Child and Family Social Work

Volumn 9, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 321-331

  Monck, Elizabeth ^a   Reynolds, Jill ^a   Wigfall, Valerie ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

adoption; concurrent planning; looked after children; permanence

Indexed keywords

ADOPTION; ANXIETY; ARTICLE; CHILD; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; COURT; FEMALE; HOUSEHOLD; HUMAN; MALE;

EID: 85055303803     PISSN: 13567500     EISSN: 13652206     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2206.2004.00340.x     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Aldgate, J., Pratt, R. & Duggan, M. (1989) Using care away from home to prevent family breakdown. Adoption and Fostering, 13, 32–37.
2. Beckett, C. (2000) Waiting for court decisions. Adoption and Fostering, 24, 55–62.
3. Brennan, K. & Horn, M. (2003) Lutheran Social Services Concurrent Planning Evaluation: Stuart Foundation Final Report. Evaluation Services, Seattle, WA.
4. Department of Health (1995) Looking After Children: Assessment and Action Records. The Stationery Office, London.
5. Department of Health (1998) Adoption: Achieving the Right Balance. Local Authority Circular (98)20. Department of Health, London.
6. Department of Health (1999) Government Objectives for Children's Social Services. The Stationery Office, London.
7. Department of Health (2002) Children Adopted from Care in England: 2000/2001. Statistical Bulletin 2001/25.Department of Health, London.
8. Goodman, R. (1999) The extended version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire as a guide to child psychiatric caseness and consequent burden. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40, 791–799.pmid/10433412
9. Gunnar, M.R. & Cheatham, C.L. (2003) Brain and behavior interface: stress and the developing brain. Infant Mental Health Journal, 24, 195–211.
10. Ivaldi, G. (1998) Children Adopted from Care: An Examination of Agency Adoptions in England – 1996. British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering, London.
11. Ivaldi, G. (2000) Surveying Adoption: A Comprehensive Analysis of Local Authority Adoptions 1998–99 (England). British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering, London.
12. Katz, L. (1996) Permanency action through concurrent planning. Adoption and Fostering, 20, 8–13.
13. Katz, L., Spoonemore, N. & Robinson, C. (1994) Concurrent Planning: From Permanency Planning to Permanency Action. Lutheran Social Services of Washington and Idaho.
14. Lord Chancellor's Department (2003) Protocol for Judicial Case Management in Public Law Children Act Cases. Lord Chancellor's Department, London.
15. Lowe, N., Murch, M., Bader, K., Borkowski, M., Copner, R., Lisles, C. & Shearman, J. (2002) The Plan for the Child: Adoption or Long-term Fostering. British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering, London.
16. Monck, E., Reynolds, J. & Wigfall, V. (2003) The Role of Concurrent Planning: Making Permanent Placements for Young Children. British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering, London.
17. Performance and Innovation Unit (2000) Prime Minister's Review of Adoption. Cabinet Office, London.
18. Rowe, J. & Lambert, L. (1973) Children Who Wait. British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering, London.
19. Rutter, M. and the ERA Team (1998) Developmental catch-up and deficit following adoption after marked early deprivation. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 39, 465–476.pmid/9599775
20. Wall, N. (1999) Concurrent planning – a judicial perspective. Child and Family Law Quarterly, 11, 97–108.
21. Warman, A. & Roberts, C. (2001) Adoption and Looked After Children: International Comparisons. Family Policy Briefing Note 1. Department of Social Policy and Social Work, Oxford.
22. Weinberg, A. & Katz, L. (1998) Law and social work in partnership for permanency: the Adoption and Safe Families Act and the role of concurrent planning. Children's Legal Rights Journal, 18, 2–23.