“It Is Possible to Call More People Mum”—Contact Between Children in Foster Care and Their Birth Parents

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study is important, and the data collection ambitious. I found the paper well written and interesting, but have some considerations regarding the organisation of the paper. Mainly, it concerns in what ways the method, results and discussion is managed in relation to the study objective. 

•  It is not clear in what ways the ”functional approaches” appear, or in what ways findings from the interview study is connected to findings from the survey data.  

• The data collection: 
• lacks a detailed report concerning the recruiting procedure, such as numbers of eligible cases and dropouts during the recrution process.
• lacks information about the survey,
• The findings: 
• Quotations from the two cases are reported in different ways. A more stringent report with a repeated structure facilitates the reading, and thus the understanding.
• relies on quotations from the foster parents, but miss quotations from the birth parents, as well as from Robert and the professionals. 
• lacks the survey.       
• The discussion: 
• lacks, above all, a critical discussion of the study findings, and how they relate to the initially suggested ”functional approaches".
• results from the survey need to be reported as result, and not discussion.
• I expected a discussion intervowing findings from 1) the interviews, 2) the survey, and 3) previous research.
• It's also unclear how the headlines connect to the content.
•  

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. We have met them as following:

The study is important, and the data collection ambitious. I found the paper well written and interesting, but have some considerations regarding the organisation of the paper. Mainly, it concerns in what ways the method, results and discussion is managed in relation to the study objective.

• It is not clear in what ways the ”functional approaches” appear, or in what ways findings from the interview study is connected to findings from the survey data. We see what you mean and have changed this concept as we do not need it.

• The data collection:
• lacks a detailed report concerning the recruiting procedure, such as numbers of eligible cases and dropouts during the recrution process.
• lacks information about the survey,

We have specified  the method part more clearly.  When relevant we have made references to the overall research report. The survey data are discussed comprehensively in Stang et al., 2023 which we refer to when necessary,

• The findings:
• Quotations from the two cases are reported in different ways. A more stringent report with a repeated structure facilitates the reading, and thus the understanding.
• relies on quotations from the foster parents, but miss quotations from the birth parents, as well as from Robert and the professionals.
• lacks the survey.

 We did not have taped interviews with to of the informants in the Robert case, but relied on notes. We therefore do not have quotes from this case. Anyhow we would like to present it as we do because we think what is expressed in the quotes is illustrating.

• The discussion:
• lacks, above all, a critical discussion of the study findings, and how they relate to the initially suggested ”functional approaches". See comment above
• results from the survey need to be reported as result, and not discussion
• I expected a discussion intervowing findings from 1) the interviews, 2) the survey, and 3) previous research.. Our study is explorative and we integrate our results, litterature and discussion.
• It's also unclear how the headlines connect to the content. we have changes some headlines

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Summary 

This is an interesting, novel and useful paper on the topic of post-care contact arrangements, an issue which has gained importance across the globe in recent years yet the factors exploring ‘successful’ contact remain under researched. It is pleasing to see this paper bring the topic to a general social science audience and it does so by presenting novel and compelling data from two distinct but complementary datasets (in depth interview data and case worker survey data). I thoroughly enjoyed this review. 

The framework of issues that article provides are pertinent and topical – for example, it is particularly important to critique the reunification-oriented object of contact and this paper certainly fills a gap in the literature in this regard.  Further, the reflection that contact is often framed legalistically and normatively due to challenges in empirical and theoretical certainty was insightful. The data presented, and the discussion of findings was rich and detailed and supported the conclusions reached in a coherent and convincing way. I am confident that this this exploration of post-care contact which attends to the topic as a complex and multi-faceted problem will be of use to scholars with an interest in childhood/ youth, child and family social work and social care as well as social policy and family law.

General concept comments

The standard of writing is generally high, but there is some switching between tenses in places - suggest ‘it is’ rather than ‘it will’ etc. where relevant. There are a (very) few odd or jarring uses of English but I have noted these below and they are easily rectified. 

In places (see below) there is a lack of evidence for some assertions which needs to be rectified. 

Material and methods – for clarity it would be helpful to include some tables of participants here in relation to the two strategically selected cases as the detail of this is a little hard to follow in lines 146-166. Additionally, it would be helpful for an international audience to understand the professional status/background of a caseworker (are they social workers, para professionals, social pedagogues – a mixture?). 

Specific comments:

Introduction

The intro needs a little more contextual information and explication of the issue of post-care contact and perhaps even a little on the dimensions of the care system in Norway. (e.g. numbers of children in state care in Norway). The journal is not a specialist social work/child care journal so an additional short paragraph of context of this type would be useful (just introducing some of the issues covered in the paper later on). 

Line 6/ Line 27 – not clear what ‘2020’ies’ means; could some examples of relevant ECHR cases be provided for reference?

Line 24 – I would question whether this is well known or based in evidence. Need to justify and include more citations. Indeed a lot of data indicates contact is essential for children to develop secure identities and positive outcomes across a range of indicators. 

Line 31 – full stop needs removing after Tribunal

Line 47-48 – remove ‘as’ for clarity here 

Line 83-84 – the meaning of this sentence is a little unclear, rephrase 

Line 91 – ‘non-custodial’ parents has a different meaning in other jurisdictions (relating to divorced parents) consider rephrasing 

Line 100 - 117 – some citations needed in this section in regard to contact as a factor in parenting assessments/attachment   

Line 187 – SIKT acronym needs explaining 

Line 188 – ‘consenus’ should be ‘consent’

Line 196 – for clarity suggest ‘Robert has weekend visits…’ rather than ‘there is a decision on weekend visits…’

Line 199 – ‘repatriation’ is an odd choice of phrase here 

Line 204 – ‘suitable’ – suitable for what? Rephrase?

Line 206 – there is some mother confusion here – I think this refers to the foster mother. Clarify.

Line 214 – typo in ‘birth’

Line 220 - because the ambiguous meaning of ‘custody’ in other jurisdictions, could this word be rethought? 

Line 223 – really great quote, needs full stop after it

Line 244 – such a powerful quote from the birth mother – might you consider using this in the title of the paper…?

Line 277 – ‘impressions’ is unclear in meaning. Rephrase 

Line 329 – could you include a couple of sentences summarising what this case shows about contact, as you have done in relation to Robert’s case

Line 340 – 345 – evidence/citations needed for this assertion 

Line 362 -373 – could this section be expanded a little to include foster and birth parent reflections on the purpose of contact? And also a little more detail on the survey responses to evidence assertions about what caseworkers felt. 

Line 400 – 412 – there are lots of questions posed here but it would be better to answer them or state in a different way

Line 442 - 444 – this sentence is unclear. Rephrase 

Line 449-450 - some evidence/citations for this idea of 'parenting at distance'? 

Line 468-472 – the assertion and the data do not seem to support each other, could you clarify please 

Line 498 – relevant legal provision needs referencing 

Line 501 – 503 – this is a really important point and I think you could make more of what this paper does in relation to attempting to clarify this unformulated principle – or at least demonstrating that the issue is complex!

Line 522 – 523 – could you just clarify what is meant here 

Line 535 – ‘parents need to accept the situation’ is a little clumsy. Rephrase? It is an ideal, and parents may need support to do so

Line 544 – the biological principle is unfamiliar to me and perhaps this could be contextualised as suggested in the introduction 

Line 547 – disrespected and stigmatised?

Line 553 – avoid the use of the phrase ‘good’ here – very loaded and subjective! 

 

 Conclusion - to make this stronger, you could refer back to the premise of the ECtHR here (about reunification as the goal of contact) and make clear how your paper has critiqued this assumption and why it is important to do so. 

Author Response

Thank you so much for the review and very good comments whic improve our article- We have met them in the following manner: (all is marked in our revised text).

General concept comments

The standard of writing is generally high, but there is some switching between tenses in places - suggest ‘it is’ rather than ‘it will’ etc. where relevant. There are a (very) few odd or jarring uses of English but I have noted these below and they are easily rectified. In places (see below) there is a lack of evidence for some assertions which needs to be rectified. Thank You!

Material and methods – for clarity it would be helpful to include some tables of participants here in relation to the two strategically selected cases as the detail of this is a little hard to follow in lines 146-166. We have specified some more on the method, but have chosen not to insert tables. When relevant we have made references to the overall research report.

Additionally, it would be helpful for an international audience to understand the professional status/background of a caseworker (are they social workers, para professionals, social pedagogues – a mixture?). We have specified that they are social workers.

Specific comments: Introduction

The intro needs a little more contextual information and explication of the issue of post-care contact and perhaps even a little on the dimensions of the care system in Norway. (e.g. numbers of children in state care in Norway). The journal is not a specialist social work/child care journal so an additional short paragraph of context of this type would be useful (just introducing some of the issues covered in the paper later on). We have included a paragraph on Norwegian context in the introducion section.

Line 6/ Line 27 – not clear what ‘2020’ies’ means; could some examples of relevant ECHR cases be provided for reference? We have deleted the details which is needed, and included references.

Line 24 – I would question whether this is well known or based in evidence. Need to justify and include more citations. Indeed a lot of data indicates contact is essential for children to develop secure identities and positive outcomes across a range of indicators. Citations included here. 

Line 31 – full stop needs removing after Tribunal.  Included

Line 47-48 – remove ‘as’ for clarity here LRemoved

Line 83-84 – the meaning of this sentence is a little unclear, rephrase Removed

Line 91 – ‘non-custodial’ parents has a different meaning in other jurisdictions (relating to divorced parents) consider rephrasing  Rephrased to Birth Parents

Line 100 - 117 – some citations needed in this section in regard to contact as a factor in parenting assessments/attachment Included citations

Line 187 – SIKT acronym needs explaining, SIKT is the akronym for The Norwegian Centre for Research Data 

Line 188 – ‘consenus’ should be ‘consent’ Done:)

Line 196 – for clarity suggest ‘Robert has weekend visits…’ rather than ‘there is a decision on weekend visits…’ Reprased. Thank You!

Line 199 – ‘repatriation’ is an odd choice of phrase . : reunification

Line 204 – ‘suitable’ – suitable for what? Rephrase?  Deleted, half sentence.

Line 206 – there is some mother confusion here – I think this refers to the foster mother. Clarify. Clarifyed, inserted Birth mother and she

Line 214 – typo in ‘birth’. Typed in

Line 220 - because the ambiguous meaning of ‘custody’ in other jurisdictions, could this word be rethought? Rephrased to care

Line 223 – really great quote, needs full stop after it Inserted full stop!

Line 244 – such a powerful quote from the birth mother – might you consider using this in the title of the paper…? Thank you for this nice suggestion! 

Line 277 – ‘impressions’ is unclear in meaning. Rephrase. We agree, deleted impressions

Line 329 – could you include a couple of sentences summarising what this case shows about contact, as you have done in relation to Robert’s case.  Ok We give a short sentence.

Line 340 – 345 – evidence/citations needed for this assertion Citations inserted

Line 362 -373 – could this section be expanded a little to include foster and birth parent reflections on the purpose of contact? And also a little more detail on the survey responses to evidence assertions about what caseworkers felt. We have specified this in the text.

Line 400 – 412 – there are lots of questions posed here but it would be better to answer them or state in a different way We have refrased and not posed as questions.

Line 442 - 444 – this sentence is unclear. Rephrased

Rephrase Line 449-450 - some evidence/citations for this idea of 'parenting at distance'? Citations included

Line 468-472 – the assertion and the data do not seem to support each other, could you clarify please.  We have clarified by references to the overall report from the project.

Line 498 – relevant legal provision needs referencing Reference included.

Line 501 – 503 – this is a really important point and I think you could make more of what this paper does in relation to attempting to clarify this unformulated principle – or at least demonstrating that the issue is complex! We have tried to elaborate a bit more on this.

Line 522 – 523 – could you just clarify what is meant here. We have clarified and deleted a reference.

Line 535 – ‘parents need to accept the situation’ is a little clumsy. Rephrase? It is an ideal, and parents may need support to do so Thank you! Rephrased.

Line 544 – the biological principle is unfamiliar to me and perhaps this could be contextualised as suggested in the introduction We have deleted it, as it would need a further discussion which we have not enough space in this article. 

Line 547 – disrespected and stigmatised? Added stigmatised

Line 553 – avoid the use of the phrase ‘good’ here – very loaded and subjective! rephrased to positive

Conclusion - to make this stronger, you could refer back to the premise of the ECtHR here (about reunification as the goal of contact) and make clear how your paper has critiqued this assumption and why it is important to do so. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulations on an article of great relevance and importance for the CWS field.

However there are still weaknesses in parts of the discussion, in that there is insufficient reference to relevant research to support your arguments. This applies in all parts of the discussion section except for the one dealing with child participation.

Author Response

Congratulations on an article of great relevance and importance for the CWS field. However there are still weaknesses in parts of the discussion, in that there is insufficient reference to relevant research to support your arguments. This applies in all parts of the discussion section except for the one dealing with child participation.

Response: thank you. We have carefully looked into the discussion and discussion and made improvements and added more references.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review your paper, which I found interesting and thought provoking. Overall the paper is well written and provides a contribution to our understanding of contact arrangements, with particular reference to the Norwegian context.

Below I have provided general comment on each section, and then some more detailed feedback with line references. The only thing I would mention in addition is that from a non-Norwegian perspective, one of the key questions raised in your paper is 'Should the reunification objective dominate contact arrangements?', which is reported to be the view of the ECHR in various judgements. It would be of great interest if you were able to offer comment on this position based on the research that you have presented in this paper.

Thank you.

--------------------------------------------------------------

The introduction could be better structured, and clearer in the messages that are being presented from the existing literature. At present it feels slightly confused in sequencing, and clarity of what is being communicated.

The methods section mixes the methods for the larger study, and that which relates to the data presented here. It is important to present foremost information on the data that is being presented within this paper, and not to confuse the reader with information about the larger study. This method/materials section also drifts into findings, which should only appear in later sections. As there are only two cases, it may aid comprehension to lay out clearly who was interviewed, in what manner, within each case.

The paper would benefit from clearly demarking the 'findings' section. Additionally, for each of the two cases, it would be useful to have the first section separated out and labelled as 'background' or 'case history' or something similar, to distinguish this information from the core information of interest - the views on what made this contact arrangement successful. Much of the language in the findings section is unnecessarily casual and vague, and the whole section would be improved by tightening the language used to be precise about what is conveyed, and to disambiguate between the phrasing of the interviewees, vs the researchers.

The discussion section is very interesting and generally well written. however there is additional information introduced which is not presented in the findings from the 'survey'. There is also a lack of information about this data, in terms of N's, ranges, medians, quartiles or similar descriptive information (which should all be in the findings section) to help the reader assess the significance of findings and the conclusions drawn from them.

The conclusion is also interesting, but could perhaps be condensed somewhat, and it would be useful to have clear indicators of recommendations/relevance for practitioners and/or others.

p.1 line 31, erroneous '.' after 'Child Welfare Tribunal'

p2 line 46. The paragraph heading asks the question 'should the reunification objective dominate contact arrangements?'. This is a normative question, but the paragraphs below only state evidence around frequency and nature of contact arrangements, without discussing whether reunification should dominate the use of contact arrangements.

p2 line 83. I do not understand what is meant/intended by the sentence 'An argument for discussing this is to imagine the possibility of establishing family forms more like what we otherwise find today (Thørnblad et al., 2023)'

p3 line 100-116, this paragraph feels introductory (setting out broad possible aims of contact), and could be moved above some of the more detailed information about the importance of reunification and other objectives.

p3 line 144-145. The sentence 'In addition, conflict and disagreements came to the fore in other cases' is not clear. Are you referring to other cases included in the Contact after placement study? If so, it feels inappropriate here, as it appears to be 'justifying' the omission of this data in this paper by reference to data not presented. The justification presented (desire to build on positive practice) is much more persuasive, and does not lead the reader to think they are missing important information. Suggest this sentence is removed.

p4, line 146-152. It is not clear that this paragraph refers to the larger study (as I understand it), and this makes the following paragraph jarring, as we will only see some of the data presented in this paragraph.

p4, line 163-168. the previous para. has indicated there are 10 interviews included in this paper, but information on locations/methods of data collection are only provided for 8.

p4, line 174. you say that 'some of the data from the electronic survey were included' but do not indicate what/how much, or what criteria wwere applied to select this data. Such information is critical to understanding the validity of hte data you are analysing.

p5. line 199. 'Repatriation' refers to being returned to a country of origin. I believe the word you are looking for is 'reunification'.

p5, line 215. This whole paragraph has many uses of the word 'good', which is very vague, and often does not add to the information (e.g. in the sentence ending '...good, safe, and meaningful', the word 'good' does not add any understanding - 'safe and meaningful' appear to be the constituent parts of 'good' in this context). I would advise to use more specific language to articulate your meaning.

p5, line 243. My understanding of the methods mean that the mother did not 'agree' with the social worker, as she presumably did not know what the SWer said. This phrasing is confusing to the reader. Much of these paragraphs use quite casual language, which sound as if they may be quotes, but are not quoted. I suggest either using more quotes if you wish to use the respondent's words, or using less casual phrasing to convey what was articulated in the interviews.

p6, line 291. This occurs elsewhere as well, but there are statements made with no attribution, or evidence to support them. Here it is 'The foster parents and birth parents show each other mutual respect and describe good dialogue and cooperation'. As the researcher did not observe this, it must be based on reports by.. who? one or more of the parties described, someone else? This is another reason to separate out the 'background' of the cases from the data, as I understand that backgrounds will not be 'evidenced' in such a way, but it is important that the 'data' collected is.

p7 - the data provided about the 'Andre' case is very different from that provided regarding 'Robert', in that the former is predominantly large quotes from the interviewees, and in the latter description of what these individuals said by the researcher. It is not clear why this is the case, and presents the two cases very differently, making them seem quite different.

p9, line 388-399. There is no description of this survey data in the findings or methods

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Comments relating to English are given in more detail in my general comments.

Author Response

Thank you for the good comments, we have done our best to clarify.

The introduction could be better structured, and clearer in the messages that are being presented from the existing literature. At present it feels slightly confused in sequencing, and clarity of what is being communicated. We have restructured the introduction, hope you will find this satisfactory!

The methods section mixes the methods for the larger study, and that which relates to the data presented here. It is important to present foremost information on the data that is being presented within this paper, and not to confuse the reader with information about the larger study. We have specified when nececessary when we refer to the overall research project. This method/materials section also drifts into findings, which should only appear in later sections. As there are only two cases, it may aid comprehension to lay out clearly who was interviewed, in what manner, within each case. We have specified who were interviewd in each case.

The paper would benefit from clearly demarking the 'findings' section. Additionally, for each of the two cases, it would be useful to have the first section separated out and labelled as 'background' or 'case history' or something similar, to distinguish this information from the core information of interest - the views on what made this contact arrangement successful. Much of the language in the findings section is unnecessarily casual and vague, and the whole section would be improved by tightening the language used to be precise about what is conveyed, and to disambiguate between the phrasing of the interviewees, vs the researchers. We do not agree on this comment, but think that our revision will solve what you point out.

The discussion section is very interesting and generally well written. however there is additional information introduced which is not presented in the findings from the 'survey'. There is also a lack of information about this data, in terms of N's, ranges, medians, quartiles or similar descriptive information (which should all be in the findings section) to help the reader assess the significance of findings and the conclusions drawn from them. We have specified some more on the method.  When relevant we have made references to the overall research report.

The conclusion is also interesting, but could perhaps be condensed somewhat, and it would be useful to have clear indicators of recommendations/relevance for practitioners and/or others.

p.1 line 31, erroneous '.' after 'Child Welfare Tribunal'Fixed!

p2 line 46. The paragraph heading asks the question 'should the reunification objective dominate contact arrangements?'. This is a normative question, but the paragraphs below only state evidence around frequency and nature of contact arrangements, without discussing whether reunification should dominate the use of contact arrangements. We have reformulated the heading.

p2 line 83. I do not understand what is meant/intended by the sentence 'An argument for discussing this is to imagine the possibility of establishing family forms more like what we otherwise find today (Thørnblad et al., 2023)' We have clearified this, hope it is clear now!

p3 line 100-116, this paragraph feels introductory (setting out broad possible aims of contact), and could be moved above some of the more detailed information about the importance of reunification and other objectives. We choose not to move this, and have inserted some more references.

p3 line 144-145. The sentence 'In addition, conflict and disagreements came to the fore in other cases' is not clear. Are you referring to other cases included in the Contact after placement study? If so, it feels inappropriate here, as it appears to be 'justifying' the omission of this data in this paper by reference to data not presented. The justification presented (desire to build on positive practice) is much more persuasive, and does not lead the reader to think they are missing important information. Suggest this sentence is removed. We have deleted the sentence.

p4, line 146-152. It is not clear that this paragraph refers to the larger study (as I understand it), and this makes the following paragraph jarring, as we will only see some of the data presented in this paragraph. This is clearified by references to the overall project. 

p4, line 163-168. the previous para. has indicated there are 10 interviews included in this paper, but information on locations/methods of data collection are only provided for 8. We interviewed for foster parents, is clear now!

p4, line 174. you say that 'some of the data from the electronic survey were included' but do not indicate what/how much, or what criteria wwere applied to select this data. Such information is critical to understanding the validity of hte data you are analysing. The survey data are discussed comprehensively in Stang et al., 2023 which we refer to when necessary,

p5. line 199. 'Repatriation' refers to being returned to a country of origin. I believe the word you are looking for is 'reunification'. Replaced! Thank You!

p5, line 215. This whole paragraph has many uses of the word 'good', which is very vague, and often does not add to the information (e.g. in the sentence ending '...good, safe, and meaningful', the word 'good' does not add any understanding - 'safe and meaningful' appear to be the constituent parts of 'good' in this context). I would advise to use more specific language to articulate your meaning. We agree and have rewritten.

p5, line 243. My understanding of the methods mean that the mother did not 'agree' with the social worker, as she presumably did not know what the SWer said. This phrasing is confusing to the reader. Much of these paragraphs use quite casual language, which sound as if they may be quotes, but are not quoted. I suggest either using more quotes if you wish to use the respondent's words, or using less casual phrasing to convey what was articulated in the interviews. Thank you, again we agree and have deleted some sentences for clarity.

p6, line 291. This occurs elsewhere as well, but there are statements made with no attribution, or evidence to support them. Here it is 'The foster parents and birth parents show each other mutual respect and describe good dialogue and cooperation'. As the researcher did not observe this, it must be based on reports by.. who? one or more of the parties described, someone else? This is another reason to separate out the 'background' of the cases from the data, as I understand that backgrounds will not be 'evidenced' in such a way, but it is important that the 'data' collected is. Thank you, we have now reprhrased and specified that dis is expressed by the parties. 

p7 - the data provided about the 'Andre' case is very different from that provided regarding 'Robert', in that the former is predominantly large quotes from the interviewees, and in the latter description of what these individuals said by the researcher. It is not clear why this is the case, and presents the two cases very differently, making them seem quite different.  We did not have taped interviews with to of the informants in the Robert case, but relied on notes. We therefore do not have quotes from this case. Anyhow we would like to present it as we do because we think what is expressed in the quotes is illustrating.

 p9, line 388-399. There is no description of this survey data in the findings or methods See comment above

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the revised manuscript. I have read it carefully, and accept the present version. However, please read through the changed parts and remove/add dots and single words in the end of the changed sentences, where needed. 

Author Response

Thank you for the revised manuscript. I have read it carefully, and accept the present version. However, please read through the changed parts and remove/add dots and single words in the end of the changed sentences, where needed. 

thank you, Will do:)