Bulletin for 

professionals

January 2013

Use your smartphone to 

access this bulletin online.

Child Welfare Information Gateway

Children’s Bureau/ACYF

1250 Maryland Avenue, SW

Eighth Floor

Washington, DC 20024

800.394.3366

Email: info@childwelfare.gov

https://www.childwelfare.gov

Sibling Issues 

in Foster Care 

and Adoption

What’s inside:

•	 Defining a sibling relationship

•	 Legal framework for protecting 

sibling connections

•	 The importance of siblings

•	 Sibling relationships in abusive or 

neglectful families

•	 Benefits of placing siblings together

•	 Barriers to placing siblings together

•	 Practices for keeping siblings 

together in placement

•	 When siblings cannot live in the 

same home

•	 Maintaining ties between 

separated siblings

•	 Sibling issues within the 

foster or adoptive family

Child welfare professionals can make a 

critical contribution to the well-being of 

children who enter care by preserving 

their connections with their brothers and 

sisters. Approximately two-thirds of children 

in foster care in the United States have a 

sibling also in care. For a variety of reasons, 

many of these siblings are not placed 

together initially or become separated over 

time (Webster, Shlonsky, Shaw, & Brookhart, 

2005; Wulczyn & Zimmerman, 2005). Foster 

youth describe this experience as “an extra 

punishment, a separate loss, and another 

pain that is not needed” (YLAT, 2002).
Sibling Issues in Foster Care and Adoption https://www.childwelfare.gov

2 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/siblingissues/index.cfm

This bulletin will explore research, intervention 

strategies, and resources to assist professionals 

in preserving connections among siblings.

 Defining a sibling 

The identification of siblings can be 

challenging, especially when children have 

lived in more than one family. Children’s 

definitions of their siblings often differ from 

those of caseworkers or official legislative 

definitions. Children are less formal than 

adults in their view of who is a brother or 

sister. Research indicates that biological 

relatedness was not associated with young 

children’s perceptions of closeness to 

siblings; being a full, half, or step-sibling did 

not influence their perception of closeness 

(Sturgess, Dunn, & Davies, 2001). Children 

in foster care may live with and develop ties 

to children with whom they may or may not 

have a biological relationship. In child welfare, 

the term “fictive kin” has been introduced to 

recognize types of relationships in a child’s life 

where there is no legal or biological tie, but 

a strong, enduring bond exists (Casey Family 

Programs, 2002). 

There are many types of relationships that 

might be defined as sibling relationships:

•	 Full or half-siblings, including any children 

who were relinquished or removed at birth

•	 Step-siblings

•	 Adopted children in the same household, 

not biologically related

•	 Children born into the family and their 

foster/adopted siblings

•	 Other close relatives or nonrelatives living 

in the same kinship home

•	 Foster children in the same family

•	 Orphanage mates or group-home mates 

with a close, enduring relationship

•	 Children of the partner or former partner of 

the child’s parent

•	 Individuals conceived from the same sperm 

or egg donor

While laws and policies may have restrictive 

definitions of siblings that typically require 

a biological parent in common, child- and 

family-centered practice respects cultural 

values and recognizes close, nonbiological 

relationships as a source of support to the 

child. In these cases, the child may be one of 

the best sources of information regarding who 

is considered a sibling.

 legal framework for 

protecting sibling 

Connections

Even when professionals believe that 

maintaining sibling relationships is in children’s 

best interests, laws and policies must be in 

place to support these connections, both in 

foster care and when permanency is achieved. 

It was not until the mid-1990s that State 

legislatures and courts initiated regulations 

regarding sibling placement and visitation, 

and in 2004 the Child and Family Services 

Reviews began to consider efforts to place 

siblings together. By 2005, sibling placement 

policies (28 States) and visitation statutes 

(32 States) had been established in over half 

the States (Patton, 2009). 
Sibling Issues in Foster Care and Adoption https://www.childwelfare.gov

3 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/siblingissues/index.cfm

State sibling statutes vary considerably in 

their definitions of sibling relationships, in 

the scope of activities they regulate, and 

in whether siblings have legal standing to 

file suit for access to each other. In 1993, 

California was one of the first States to 

pass legislation promoting sibling visitation 

for foster children, and several additional 

statutes have expanded legal protections of 

sibling relationships. The California Welfare 

and Institutions Code, Section 16002, is 

recognized by many as offering the strongest 

statutory protections for the needs of siblings 

in foster care and adoption among existing 

State statutes. It liberally defines a sibling as 

a child related to another person by blood, 

adoption, or affinity through a common legal 

or biological parent. California’s law allows 

any person, including a dependent child, to 

petition the court to request sibling visitation, 

including postadoption sibling contact or 

placement with or near a sibling (Patton, 2009; 

McCormick, 2008; Christian, 2002).

The Fostering Connections to Success and 

Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 is the first 

Federal law to address the importance of 

keeping siblings together. This law requires 

States to make reasonable efforts to maintain 

sibling connections in order to receive Federal 

funding. The provisions of section 206 provide 

that reasonable efforts shall be made:

(A) to place siblings removed from their home 

in the same foster care, kinship guardianship 

or adoptive placement, unless the State 

documents that such a joint placement would 

be contrary to the safety or well-being of any 

of the siblings; and

(B) in the case of siblings removed from 

their home who are not so jointly placed, to 

provide for frequent visitation or other ongoing 

interaction between the siblings, unless that 

State documents that frequent visitation or

other ongoing interaction would be contrary to

the safety or well-being of any of the siblings.

While the Federal Government through 

the Fostering Connections Act has taken 

a leadership role in mandating reasonable 

efforts to maintain sibling relationships, it is 

up to the States to vigorously support these 

connections. Between 2009 and 2011, 13 

States passed statutes regarding sibling 

placement and visitation (National Conference 

on State Legislatures, 2012), and many others 

already had such statutes. There is often a gap, 

however, between what is considered best 

practice or what the law requires and what 

happens in day-to-day practice. Ultimately, 

the State courts will help define reasonable 

efforts by their decisions as to whether the 

requirement has been met in specific cases 

(Gustavsson & MacEachron, 2010). 

Legal scholars assert that there is still a need 

to fortify statutory protections of siblings’ 

rights to have contact after adoption (Patton, 

2009; Mandelbaum, 2011). The Fostering 

Connections Act sends a clear message that 

sibling relationships are critically important 

to preserve, but it is unclear as to whether 

the reference to “adoptive placement” in 

the statute refers to the postadoption period 

as well. Mandelbaum (2011) recognizes 

the placement of this phrase after the term 

“kinship guardianship,” which clearly is a 

permanent arrangement and can infer that 

“adoptive placement” also refers to the child’s 

life in a permanent adoptive home. 
Sibling Issues in Foster Care and Adoption https://www.childwelfare.gov

4 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/siblingissues/index.cfm

Currently, only a minority of States provide 

a legal foundation for postadoption contact 

between siblings; seven States – Arkansas, 

Florida, Illinois (relative adoptions only), 

Massachusetts, Nevada, Maryland, and South 

Carolina allow a court to order postadoption 

contact without the consent of adoptive 

parents, and another 16 States allow for such 

a court order with the consent of adoptive 

parents (Mandelbaum, 2011). 

State-by-State information regarding 

postadoption contact agreements can be 

found in Child Welfare Information Gateway’s 

Postadoption Contact Agreements Between 

Birth and Adoptive Families (https://www.

childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/

statutes/cooperative.cfm). These laws pertain 

not just to sibling contact but to contact with 

any birth family member.

Sibling relationships are emotionally powerful 

and critically important not only in childhood 

but over the course of a lifetime. As children, 

siblings form a child’s first peer group, and 

they typically spend more time with each other 

than with anyone else. Children learn social 

skills, particularly in sharing and managing 

conflict, from negotiating with brothers and 

sisters. Sibling relationships can provide a 

significant source of continuity throughout a 

child’s lifetime and are likely to be the longest 

relationships that most people experience. 

The nature and importance of sibling 

relationships vary for individuals, 

depending on their own circumstances and 

developmental stage. Typically, there is rivalry 

in the preschool years, variability in closeness 

during middle childhood (depending on 

the level of warmth in the relationship), and 

less sibling closeness in adolescence when 

teens are focused on peers. An extensive 

body of research addresses issues of birth 

order, gender, age spacing, and other 

influences on sibling relationships. Research 

has demonstrated that warmth in sibling 

relationships is associated with less loneliness, 

fewer behavior problems, and higher selfworth (Stocker, 1994). 

Marjut Kosonen (1996) studied the emotional 

support and help that siblings provide and 

found that when they needed help, children 

would first seek out their mothers but then 

turn to older siblings for support, even before 

they would go to their fathers. She also found 

that for isolated children (as is the case for 

many children in foster care), sibling support is 

especially crucial. For these children, an older 

sibling was often their only perceived source 

of help. 

 sibling relationships 

in abusive or 

neglectful families

In many families involved with child welfare, 

sibling relationships take on more importance 

because they can provide the support and 

nurture that are not consistently provided by 

parents. For children entering care, siblings 

can serve as a buffer against the worst 

effects of harsh circumstances. While sibling 

relationships in particular families experiencing 

adverse situations do not always compensate 

for other deficits, research has validated 

that, for many children, sibling relationships 
Sibling Issues in Foster Care and Adoption https://www.childwelfare.gov

5 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/siblingissues/index.cfm

do promote resilience. For example, a 

young child’s secure attachment to an older 

sibling can diminish the impact of adverse 

circumstances such as parental mental illness, 

substance abuse, or loss (Gass, Jenkins, & 

Dunn, 2007; Kittmer, 2005; Sanders, 2004). 

Adverse circumstances can magnify both 

the positive and negative qualities of sibling 

relationships. Some studies have found that 

the ties between siblings become closer as a 

result of helping each other through adversity, 

such a parental divorce (Kunz, 2001).

A study of children’s perspectives on their 

important relationships among 90 children 

ages 8 to 12 who were or were not in foster 

care concluded that the foster children’s smaller 

networks of relationships with important 

persons made siblings proportionally more 

important (Kosonen, 1999). Nearly onethird of the related siblings named by foster 

children in this study were not known to their 

social workers—most were half- or stepsiblings. Kosonen’s study also underscores the 

importance of obtaining children’s perspectives 

on their family relationships. When siblings 

could not all be placed together, workers often 

decided to keep those closest in age together, 

resulting in placements that did not necessarily 

fit the preferences of the children.

Since children in foster care experience more 

losses of significant relationships, siblings 

are often their only source for continuity of 

important attachments. For children entering 

care, being with their brothers and sisters 

promotes a sense of safety and well-being, 

and being separated from them can trigger 

grief and anxiety (Folman, 1998; Herrick & 

Piccus, 2005, 2009). Therefore, it is especially 

important to protect these ties that offer 

support to children removed from their 

original families. 

 Benefits of placing 

siblings together

For children entering care, being with their 

siblings can enhance their sense of safety 

and well-being and provide natural, mutual 

support. This benefit is in contrast to the 

traumatic consequences of separation, which 

may include additional loss, grief, and anxiety 

over their siblings’ well-being. Siblings have 

a shared history, and maintaining their bond 

provides continuity of identity and belonging. 

The benefits of keeping brothers and sisters 

together are most clearly evidenced from the 

perspectives of youth themselves.

Children’s perspective

It is essential that professionals be able to 

understand children’s experiences from the 

child’s perspective in order to be able to grasp 

the critical importance of maintaining sibling 

connections whenever possible. A North 

Carolina publication for foster and adoptive 

families sponsored an essay contest for foster 

children to write, “Why are your siblings 

important to you?” Below are just a few of 

their entries (North Carolina Division of Social 

Services, 2009):

•	 “My sister is only three years old, but she has 

a big heart with me in it. Jayden is braver 

than me—she is not scared of the dark like 

me. When I was left alone in a big house all 

I had was my sister to keep me company till 

someone returned. I love her...”

–Joseph, age 7

•	 “ [When they] moved us and placed us all 

in different homes I felt as if God was 

punishing me for something. It broke my 

heart.” –Arlene, age 16
Sibling Issues in Foster Care and Adoption https://www.childwelfare.gov

6 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/siblingissues/index.cfm

•	 “ The group home that we went to forever 

changed our relationship. Nothing has 

been the same. I see them and it feels like 

I don’t even know them at all. I raised my 

little sister from infancy and I see her now 

and she’s almost a stranger to me... At 

one point, I couldn’t even talk to any of 

them at all.” –Cierra, age 17 

When youth in foster care unite to work toward 

protecting the rights of children entering outof-home care, keeping brothers and sisters 

together is invariably near the top of their list; 

for example, a New England Youth Coalition 

joined with the New England Association of 

Child Welfare Commissioners and Directors 

in the summer of 2012 to develop a regional 

Siblings’ Bill of Rights (“Regional and Foster 

Youth,” 2012). Youth advocates in States across 

the country have sponsored similar efforts. 

Studies that directly seek the perspective of 

foster children are relatively rare, but those 

that have done so consistently underscore 

the overwhelming importance of protecting 

sibling relationships (Harrison, 1999; Whiting 

& Lee, 2003). Folman (1998), who interviewed 

90 children (ages 8-14) about their memories 

of their initial removal, reported that many 

children did not know they were being 

separated from siblings until they were 

dropped off at different houses, nor did they 

know how to contact each other. In describing 

their distress at separation, she wrote (p. 25), 

“All sense of family, of comfort, of familiarity 

and of belonging was gone and there was no 

one except strangers.” 

Not only is the support of siblings helpful in 

the immediate adjustment to the trauma of 

placement, but this contact continues to offer 

support to the child over the course of their 

time in care and into adulthood. Mary Herrick 

and Wendy Piccus (2005, 2009) are child 

welfare professionals who themselves spent 

considerable time in care. They poignantly 

described the central themes related to the 

value of sibling connections for children in 

foster care, illustrated by their own experiences. 

For some siblings in care, their separation or 

infrequent visiting can cause their relationships 

to wither, sometimes to the point of 

permanent estrangement. Maintaining these 

relationships is important for the future as well 

as the present. Youth who age out of foster 

care report the value of sibling connections; 

for example, a Midwest study of over 600 

foster alumni found that youth were most likely 

to identify a sibling as a family member they 

felt close to – 59 percent felt very close and 23 

percent somewhat close to a sibling (Courtney, 

Dworsky, Lee, & Rapp, 2010). Moreover, a 

Texas study of adult foster alumni found that 

those who had greater access to their siblings 

and reported stronger relationships with them 

during childhood had higher levels of social 

support, self-esteem, and income, as well as 

stronger adult sibling relationships than those 

who did not (McCormick, 2009).

research on outcomes of 

placing sibs together

Research on sibling placement patterns has 

confronted methodological challenges and 

developed more sophisticated research 

designs; however, there are differences in 

findings across studies. For a review of the 

body of research, see McCormick, 2010; 

Smith, 2009; and Washington, 2007. When 

significant differences are found between 

siblings placed in different patterns, they 

typically favor siblings placed totally or 

partially with each other over those placed 

completely separately (Hegar & Rosenthal, 

2009, 2011; Albert & King, 2008).
Sibling Issues in Foster Care and Adoption https://www.childwelfare.gov

7 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/siblingissues/index.cfm

Joint sibling placements can increase the 

likelihood of achieving permanency. Several 

studies have found that placing siblings in 

the same foster home is associated with a 

significantly higher rate of family reunification

(Webster, et al., 2005; Albert & King, 2008). 

Leathers (2005) did not find such an association 

with reunification but did find that children 

placed with the same number of siblings 

consistently throughout foster care had 

greater chances for adoption or subsidized 

guardianship than those placed alone. Some 

studies find that children placed with their 

siblings also experience more stability and 

fewer disruptions in care than those who were 

separated (Albert & King, 2008; Leathers, 2005; 

Drapeau, Simard, Beaudry, & Charbonneau, 

2000; Staff & Fein, 1992).

Conversely, some studies have found that 

separated siblings in foster care or adoption are 

at higher risk for negative adjustment outcomes, 

including running away (Courtney, et al., 

2005) and higher levels of behavior problems, 

evidenced in some studies but not all (Hegar & 

Rosenthal, 2009; Smith, 1998; Boer, Versluis-den 

Bierman, & Verhulst, 1994). Another study found 

that girls separated from all of their siblings are 

at the greatest risk for poor mental health and 

socialization (Tarren-Sweeney & Hazell, 2005). 

Finally, a recent study based on the National 

Study of Child and Adolescent Well-Being did 

not find that separated sibs were reported to 

have more behavior problems but did find that 

teachers reported lower academic performance 

for separated siblings (either partially or totally) 

than for those placed together (Hegar & 

Rosenthal, 2011).

For agencies, placing siblings in the same 

home can streamline some processes such as 

visits by caseworkers. Also, caseworkers are 

relieved of the obligation to arrange and carry 

out visits among siblings if they are already 

living together. Communication between 

birth and foster families is also made more 

manageable when there is only one foster 

family involved. 

 Barriers to placing 

siblings together

Past research indicates that a substantial 

proportion of children in foster care who had 

siblings in care were not placed with all of those 

siblings, but this proportion varied significantly 

across studies. Two California studies published 

in the past decade with large samples of 10,000 

or more children indicated that somewhere 

between 23 and 46 percent of siblings were 

placed with all their siblings in their initial 

placements, and about two-thirds were placed 

with at least one sibling (Shlonsky, Webster, & 

Needell, 2003; Webster, et al., 2005). Also, an 

analysis of placements of more than 168,000 

foster youth with siblings in care in New York 

City over a 15-year period revealed that initial 

placement status was a strong determinant 

of sibling placement over time: 78 percent 

of those siblings entering care together were 

placed all together, but those entering care 

longer than 6 months apart were at the highest 

risk of being separated (Wulczyn & Zimmerman, 

2005). This study is one of the only ones that 

followed siblings to see how many placements 

were still intact 4 years after admission. The 

authors found that of those initially placed 

together, 79 percent were still intact 4 years 

later. Some of those initially separated came 

together; among sibling groups that were 

completely separated in their initial placement, 

51 percent were intact at the end of 4 years 

(Wulczyn & Zimmerman, 2005). 
Sibling Issues in Foster Care and Adoption https://www.childwelfare.gov

8 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/siblingissues/index.cfm

It is possible that the percentage of 

sibling groups placed together initially has 

improved since the passage of the Fostering 

Connections Act. Currently there are no sibling 

studies sampling children placed after 2008.

Besides entering foster care at different 

times, a number of other demographic and 

situational factors are associated with the 

likelihood that siblings are placed in the same 

foster home (Albert & King, 2008; Hegar, 

2005; Wulczyn & Zimmerman, 2005; Shlonsky, 

et al., 2003). These include:

•	 Size of sibling group—larger groups are 

more often split 

•	 Age gap—wide age span leads to splitting

•	 Differences in the needs of siblings

•	 Type of placement—siblings placed with kin 

are more likely to be together and those in 

group care are less likely

•	 Behavior problems—a sibling with a behavior 

problem is more likely to be removed

•	 Organizational policies and procedures

•	 Adequacy of placement resources 

and supports

•	 Agency rules regarding the maximum 

number of children who can be placed in a 

foster home

In many if not most cases of sibling 

separation, brothers and sisters are separated 

because the system cannot accommodate 

the best interests of children rather than for 

any child-centered reason. For example, 

Leathers (2005) interviewed caseworkers of

adolescents in care who were separated from 

their siblings, asking for all the reasons and 

the most important reason. While 19 percent 

did not know the reason, the most common 

of all reasons given was “could not find a

placement for all” (33 percent).

Beliefs associated With 

placing siblings apart 

Beliefs and attitudes of foster parents, 

workers, agency personnel, and therapists 

also contribute to separating siblings. In a 

study of foster parents’ and workers’ views 

on placing siblings, over half of the foster 

mothers (55 percent) did not believe it was 

easier for a foster child to fit into the foster 

family if placed with siblings. As explained 

by one foster parent, “the siblings depend 

on one another too much and shut other 

people out” (Smith, 1996). Approximately 

45 percent of foster parents believed that 

children placed with siblings were easier to 

foster because they felt more secure having 

their siblings with them. 

In this same study, over half the caseworkers 

indicated that it was difficult to find foster 

parents willing to accept sibling groups 

(Smith, 1996). Most caseworkers also 

believed that the presence of siblings made 

it harder for the foster parents to incorporate 

the child into the family. However, the vast 

majority of caseworkers personally believed 

in the county policy of placing children with 

their siblings, unless separation was in the 

best interests of the child.

Recommendations of therapists may be 

the basis of some placements. However, 

best practice indicates that the therapist 

should have experience with siblings in child 

welfare and that the same therapist should 
Sibling Issues in Foster Care and Adoption https://www.childwelfare.gov

9 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/siblingissues/index.cfm

see all of the siblings in order to make a 

recommendation that is beneficial for the 

group. Some clinical judgments that have 

been used to justify separating siblings in 

the past are not necessarily best practice, 

including the following:

•	 There is too much conflict or rivalry 

between particular siblings to keep 

them together.

•	 The special needs of a single child require a 

separate placement.

•	 An older child is too involved in taking care 

of a younger brother or sister.

•	 A sibling born after older siblings have 

been removed from the home can be 

considered separately for purposes of 

permanency goals, because the children do 

not have an established relationship.

In many of these cases, therapy and 

services will help all the siblings, and the 

benefits of being together will outweigh 

those of being separated.

Decisions regarding sibling placement may 

be more straightforward when siblings come 

into care at the same time, and the sibling 

group is small. When the sibling group is 

large, enters care at very different times, or 

individual siblings have extraordinary needs, 

caseworkers face more challenges. 

initial assessment of 

sibling relationships

During intake, workers need to complete a 

thorough assessment of sibling relationships 

and individual children, including the 

experience and feelings of each child. If 

separate placements must be made for very 

large sibling groups, this assessment will 

help the worker make decisions about which 

sibling relationships are most essential to the 

well-being of specific children. They should 

talk with children individually and ask ageappropriate questions, such as:

•	 Which sibling do you enjoy spending 

time with? 

•	 Which sibling enjoys spending time 

with you?

•	 Who will play a game with you?

•	 Which sibling do you turn to when you are 

afraid or hurt?

•	 Which sibling turns to you when he or she is 

afraid or hurt?

Groza, Maschmeier, Jamison, and Piccola 

(2003) offer an assessment tool for making 

decisions regarding the placement of 

siblings. The factors include the degree, 

duration, quality, and intensity of the sibling 

relationships; any safety risks associated with 

placement; possible long-term benefits; 

the family’s ability to meet the needs of all 

siblings; and the children’s preferences.

In completing assessments, it is important to 

recognize that sibling relationships vary greatly 

in both positive and negative qualities. In 

evaluating the quality of sibling relationships, 

the worker will want to look for warmth or 

affection between siblings, rivalry and hostility, 
Sibling Issues in Foster Care and Adoption https://www.childwelfare.gov

10 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/siblingissues/index.cfm

interdependence, and relative power and status 

in the relationship, as well as determining how 

much time the siblings have spent together. 

Agency practices, along with the individual 

circumstances of each sibling group, will affect 

whether or not siblings are placed together. 

The following are practice strategies designed 

to address the needs of sibling groups 

(Silverstein & Smith, 2009):

•	 Designate certain foster home resources for 

large sibling groups and offer incentives to 

hold them open for these placements.

•	 Recruit families specifically to care for 

sibling groups through community outreach, 

the media, special events, faith-based 

organizations, photolistings, and websites. 

•	 Provide training for caseworkers, foster, 

and adoptive parents on the importance 

of preserving sibling connections and the 

impact of sibling loss on children.

•	 Have contracts with private agencies to offer 

a specialized foster care program designed 

specifically for large sibling groups. 

Examples of these include the Hull House 

Neighbor to Neighbor program in Chicago 

(http://www.cebc4cw.org/program/neighborto-neighbor/detailed), Neighbor to Family 

in Florida (http://neighbortofamily.org/), and 

the Jewish Child Care Association Sibling 

Boarding Home program in New York. The 

last program has three apartments staffed by 

foster parents for large sibling groups of up 

to seven or eight children, with an assistant 

cook and child care counselors for relief.

•	 If efforts are being made to recruit an 

adoptive family for a sibling group, list 

them as a group with a picture of the entire 

sibling group.

•	 Have a system in place to track the location 

and status of all siblings.

•	 Seek kinship placements first, because 

they are generally more open to taking

a sibling group and because such 

placements offer the further advantage of 

preserving family connections.

•	 Conduct a thorough social work assessment 

of the sibling group as a whole, as well as of 

each individual child, and include children 

in discussions.

•	 Assign all siblings to the same caseworker, 

no matter when they enter care.

•	 If siblings must be separated in an 

emergency placement, provide for a 

review within the first week to plan 

for reunification.

•	 At regular case reviews, discuss sibling 

issues and include children or youth in 

these discussions.

•	 Provide sufficient resources for foster 

families who take in large sibling groups 

and may need additional household items 

and services.

•	 Ensure that information about siblings is 

included in each child’s Lifebook.

•	 Conduct yearly interviews with adoptive 

parents of separated siblings to assess:

○ If visits between and among the siblings 

are continuing, how often, for how long, 

and of what quality

○ If visits have discontinued, for what 

reason(s) and what would it take to 

reestablish connections
Sibling Issues in Foster Care and Adoption https://www.childwelfare.gov

11 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/siblingissues/index.cfm

 When siblings Cannot 

Despite supportive policies or a caseworker’s 

best efforts, a number of situations may lead 

to siblings being placed separately. This initial 

separation can lead to permanent separation if 

an agency does not make ongoing, concerted 

efforts to place the children together. Both 

policy and practice should promote ongoing 

efforts to reunite separated siblings. Common 

dilemmas regarding separated siblings include 

the following:

•	 An infant may come into care and be 

placed in a foster home before workers 

have determined that the infant has siblings 

already in foster care or in adoptive homes. 

The foster parents of the infant may then 

argue against the removal of the infant from 

their home. To avoid this dilemma, agencies 

should establish whether or not any infant or 

child coming into care has siblings already 

in placement. If so, strong efforts should be 

made to place the infant with siblings.

•	 In some cases of separated siblings, foster 

parents may want to adopt only the sibling 

placed with them. Workers are put in the 

untenable position of choosing the lesser of 

two evils—allowing the child to be adopted 

without his or her siblings or keeping the 

child in foster care until a family can be 

found who will adopt all of the siblings. To 

reduce the likelihood of this situation, foster 

parents should always be told at the time 

of placement that reuniting siblings is a top 

priority of the agency. Whatever decision 

is made, there should be provisions for 

maintaining connections with both the 

foster parents and siblings.

•	 A similar dilemma occurs when a sibling 

group placement disrupts because the 

foster parents cannot handle one of 

the sibling’s behavior but they want to 

continue parenting the others. The worker 

must decide whether to remove just the 

one child or the entire sibling group. An 

alternative would be to have a temporary 

specialized placement for the sibling with 

behavior problems if the foster parents are 

willing to work toward reintegrating this 

child into their family. 

When a sibling is abusive 

Research identifies sibling assault as one of 

the most common forms of victimization in 

families generally, and more than 50 percent 

of children and adolescents have acted toward 

a sibling with severe violence (Kiselica & 

Morrill-Richards, 2007; Finkelhor, Ormrod, & 

Turner, 2009). Whenever there is a concern that 

one sibling poses a safety risk to another, a 

thorough assessment needs to occur. Physical 

aggression within the normal range of sibling 

relationships needs to be differentiated from 

physical abuse or victimization of a weaker 

sibling. Distinctions need to be made between 

sexually reactive behavior (inappropriate sexual 

touching or fondling between children close 

in age) and sexual abuse by a more powerful 

sibling of another. Also, the severity of the 

abusive behavior needs to be assessed and a 

determination made as to whether the safety 

risks are moderate and can be managed 

through closer supervision, therapeutic 

parenting, and clinical treatment to change 

behaviors. If there is significant physical 

or sexual abuse that does not respond to 

treatment or if the risk of recurrence is high, the 

abusing sibling most likely needs to be moved 

to another placement.
Sibling Issues in Foster Care and Adoption https://www.childwelfare.gov

12 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/transitional_plan.cfm

Victimization of one sibling by another should 

not be ignored. Research indicates that the 

impact of sexual abuse by a sibling is just as 

harmful to the victim as sexual abuse by a 

parent or stepparent. In fact, one study found 

that penetration occurred more commonly 

in sibling incest (71 percent), than in incest 

between a father or stepfather and a child (35 

percent) (Cyr, Wright, McDuff, & Perron, 2002). 

Hence, children should be protected from 

abuse by a sibling just as they are protected 

from abuse by caretakers. In some cases, it may 

be possible to work toward reunification after a 

period of treatment for the offending sibling.

Maintaining Ties

Between Separated

Siblings

When siblings cannot be placed together, 

facilitating regular contact is critical to 

maintaining these relationships. Regular 

contact may even affect permanency 

outcomes. Findings from the Child and Family 

Services Reviews conducted in all States found 

a significant association between visiting with 

parents and siblings and both permanency 

and well-being outcomes (USDHHS, 2011).

Ultimately, workers and foster or adoptive 

parents have to understand the importance 

of sibling contact for the children for 

whom they are responsible in order to 

maintain their commitment to making these 

contacts happen. Caregivers play a crucial 

gatekeeping role in regulating contact 

between siblings, particularly after adoption, 

and sometimes they limit contact with the 

intent of protecting themselves or the child 

from what they view as negative influences or 

painful experiences (James, Monn, Palinkas, 

& Leslie, 2008). Sometimes supporting and 

sustaining sibling visits requires clinical 

interventions, including both sibling therapy 

and clinically supervised visits, in order to 

address dysfunctional patterns that have 

developed in their relationships. A project 

called “Sibling Kinnections” (Pavao, St. 

John, Cannole, Fischer, Maluccio, & Peining, 

2007) developed a clinical visiting model to 

address barriers to visiting such as anxiety or 

behavioral problems of individual children, 

miscommunication among their respective 

foster or adoptive parents, and parental 

concerns about the effect of visits on 

specific children.

Facebook and other social media make it 

much easier for siblings to both find and 

communicate with one another, regardless 

of the adults’ feelings or concerns. See 

Untangling the Web: The Internet’s 

Transformative Impact on Adoption (Howard, 

2012), which looks at both the benefits 

and the risks of social media for adopted 

persons and their families (http://www.

adoptioninstitute.org/publications/2012_12_

UntanglingtheWeb.pdf).

Strategies for Preserving Sibling

Ties in Separate Placements

Some promising practices from the field 

suggest ways to maintain ties among 

separated siblings.

• Place siblings with kinship caregivers 

who have an established personal 

relationship. Even when siblings cannot 

be placed in the same home, they are 

more apt to keep in close contact if they 

are each placed with a relative.
Sibling Issues in Foster Care and Adoption https://www.childwelfare.gov

13 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/siblingissues/index.cfm

•	 Place nearby. Placing siblings in the 

same neighborhood or school district 

ensures that they will be able to see each 

other regularly. Also, keeping children in 

their same schools contributes to better 

educational outcomes.

•	 Arrange for regular visits. Frequent 

visits help to preserve sibling bonds. The 

Children’s Bureau Guidance on the Fostering 

Connections Act (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/

programs/cb/resource/pi1011) allows 

agencies to set standards for the frequency 

of visits but designates that these should be 

at least monthly. Some State statutes specify 

contact twice a month, and at least three 

States (Alabama, Missouri, and Utah) require 

weekly visits, although many others do not 

specify frequency. Also, visits with birth 

parents can be arranged to occur at a time 

when all the siblings can be together.

•	 Arrange other forms of contact. If the 

distance between siblings is great, workers 

need to assist foster and adoptive families 

in maintaining frequent contacts through 

letters, email, social media, cards, and 

phone calls. Make sure that children have full 

contact information for all their siblings. For 

instance, providing older siblings with calling 

cards may facilitate sibling communication.

•	 Involve families in planning. The adults in 

the siblings’ families should be involved with 

the worker in developing a plan for ongoing 

contact. This meeting should include 

working through any barriers to visits, and 

the plan needs to be reviewed and revised 

as needed, at least yearly. Sometimes, there 

are value differences between families or 

differences in rules that cause parental 

discomfort with visits. Such differences need 

to be discussed and resolved.

•	 Plan joint outings or camp experiences.

Siblings may be able to spend time together 

in a joint activity or at summer or weekend 

camps, including camps specifically for 

siblings or through short-term outings. Such 

camp experiences help siblings build and 

maintain their relationships.

•	 Arrange for joint respite care. Families 

caring for siblings may be able to provide 

babysitting or respite care for each other, 

thus giving the siblings another opportunity 

to spend time together. 

•	 Help children with emotions. Sometimes 

sibling visits stir up emotional issues in 

children, such as the intense feelings they 

may experience when visiting birth parents. 

Children need to be helped to express 

and work through these feelings; this does 

not mean visits should not occur. Visits 

should provide some opportunities for 

joint Lifebook work with siblings. If siblings 

are in therapy, they should be seeing the 

same therapist, and it may be possible to 

schedule appointments either jointly or 

back to back. Children may also need help 

with feelings of guilt if they have been 

removed from an abusive home while other 

siblings were left behind or born later. 

•	 Encourage sustained contact. Sustaining 

sibling contact often requires a unique 

understanding and commitment from 

parents. Many adoptive parents recognize 

the importance of their adopted children 

having contact with siblings living with their 

birth families or other adoptive families. 

Some families even travel across the 

country or to other countries to give their 

children the opportunity to get to know 

their siblings. Some States offset the costs 

of such visits through their adoption subsidy 
Sibling Issues in Foster Care and Adoption https://www.childwelfare.gov

14 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/siblingissues/index.cfm

plans. The earlier these relationships can 

begin, the more children can use these 

opportunities to work through adoption 

identity issues that may arise, and the 

sooner they can develop truly meaningful 

relationships with siblings.

Many States have adoption registries that 

can help adult siblings separated by foster 

care or adoption reestablish contact later 

in life. The caseworker needs to make 

sure that all pertinent information on each 

sibling is entered in the registry at the time 

of each child’s adoption.

Facilitating healthy attachments and 

interactions among all siblings in foster and 

adoptive families, including all birth, foster, and 

adopted children, is an essential therapeutic 

goal. A single family may contain birth and 

foster children as well as adopted children 

coming from different backgrounds or types of 

adoptions. Negative interaction patterns can 

result when children have different statuses in 

their families or special needs that require an 

inordinate amount of parental attention, create 

stress for other family members, or both. 

Other dynamics lead to tensions as well; 

for example, one adopted child may have 

extensive information about his or her 

background, as well as ongoing contact with 

birth relatives, while another may have neither 

of these. Or an adopted child who maintains 

contact with his or her siblings who are still 

living with the birth family may have difficulty 

integrating into the adopted family.

More than a dozen research studies have 

explored the experiences of birth children in 

foster families, but less attention has been paid 

to siblings in adoptive families. Birth children 

often report positive benefits of sharing their 

home with foster children but also report a range 

of difficulties: competing for parents’ time and 

attention; loss of family closeness; difficulties 

dealing with some foster siblings’ behavior 

problems, including having possessions stolen 

or fear of physical aggression; a high level of 

stress in the family; different expectations or 

discipline between birth and foster children; 

loss and worry when a foster sibling leaves the 

family; and others. Studies also show that birth 

children often do not communicate their feelings 

and concerns fully to their parents and cope 

independently or through isolating themselves 

(Thompson & McPherson, 2011; Younes & Harp, 

2007; Hojer, 2007).

Two social workers in Minnesota developed a 

model for preparing and supporting children 

already in families when older children are 

adopted. The model was developed after the 

agency experienced an adoption disruption 

related to other children in the family (Mullin & 

Johnson, 1999). This model advocates having a 

social worker assigned to the sibling group who 

meets with them at strategic points. It is essential 

to prepare children for both the positive and 

negative changes in the family that are likely 

after a new placement and to assist parents in 

developing strategies to communicate and cope 

with their children’s needs.

Some important strategies for parents and 

workers in addressing the needs of all children 

in the family include:

•	 Encourage children to share their thoughts 

and feelings; empathize with and do not 

minimize their concerns. 
Sibling Issues in Foster Care and Adoption https://www.childwelfare.gov

15 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/siblingissues/index.cfm

•	 Provide opportunities for fun and 

positive interactions between children to 

promote attachment.

•	 Promote reciprocity between children in the 

family; for example, if a child destroys the 

property of another, find a way for the child 

to make up for the loss, such as earning the 

money to replace the item.

•	 Find ways for parents to have meaningful 

one-on-one time with each child. 

•	 Teach children skills to resolve their own 

disputes to the extent possible.

•	 Develop a support group for siblings, either 

informally or through an agency.

•	 Seek professional help for serious 

sibling conflicts.

An excellent resource has been developed 

for adoptive parents to address sibling issues 

across the adoption life cycle: Brothers and 

Sisters in Adoption: Helping Children Navigate 

Relationships When New Kids Join the Family 

(James, 2009).

States and agencies have developed special 

programs or resources to facilitate meeting 

the needs of siblings in out-of-home care. 

Below is a list of some of the resources that 

help professionals to address the needs of 

sibling groups. Additional resources may be 

found in the reference list.

•	 The Sibling Practice Curriculum from the 

National Resource Center for Permanency 

and Family Connections (NRCPFC) offers 

a variety of materials and links to other 

websites: http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/

socwork/nrcfcpp/info_services/siblings.html

•	 The NRCPFC also offers an information 

packet, The Importance of the Sibling 

Relationship for Children in Foster Care 

(2012): http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/

socwork/nrcfcpp/downloads/information_

packets/Sibling_Placement.pdf

•	 Organizational Self Study on Parent-Child 

and Sibling Visits (2011) is an assessment 

tool to assist agencies in fulfilling the core 

principles of sibling and parent visitation, 

listed under “Resources on Sibling 

Visitation” on the website of the NRCPFC: 

http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/socwork/

nrcfcpp/info_services/siblings.html#rsjsp

•	 The National Resource Center for 

Recruitment and Retention of Foster and 

Adoptive Parents at AdoptUSKids offers 

Practice Principles for the Recruitment and 

Retention of Kinship, Foster, and Adoptive 

Families for Siblings at: http://adoptuskids.

org/_assets/files/NRCRRFAP/resources/

practice-principles-and-seven-step-processfor-sibling-recruitment.pdf

•	 The NRCPFC offers teleconference 

audiofiles and handouts from “Siblings: 

Critical Life-Long Connections” held on 

May 10, 2006: http://www.nrcpfc.org/

teleconferences/05-10-06.html

•	 Both professionals and foster parents may be 

helped to appreciate the child’s perspective 

on the importance of sibling connections and 

the painful impact of separation from siblings 

from the following resources:
Sibling Issues in Foster Care and Adoption https://www.childwelfare.gov

16 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/siblingissues/index.cfm

○ Herrick, M. A., & Piccus, W. (2005/2009). 

Sibling connections: The importance 

of nurturing sibling bonds in the foster 

care system. Children and Youth 

Services Review, 27(7), 845-861. http://

www.sciencedirect.com/science/

journal/01907409 (reprinted in Siblings 

in Adoption and Foster Care: Traumatic 

Separations and Honored Connections)

○ Folman, R. D. (1998). “I was tooken”: 

How Children Experience Removal 

From Their Parents Preliminary to 

Placement Into Foster Care. Adoption 

Quarterly, 2(2), 7-35. http://dx.doi.org/

DOI:10.1300/J145v02n02_02

○ Adoptions Unlimited, Inc. (2007). “Family 

Connections” (DVD). Chicago: Adoptions 

Unlimited. May be ordered or viewed 

online at http://www.nrcadoption.org/

videos/family-connections-project/

•	 My Brother, My Sister: Sibling Relations 

in Adoption and Foster Care. This 6-hour 

training curriculum by Regina Kupecky 

emphasizes the importance of sibling 

relationships. It consists of trainer’s notes, 

activities, PowerPoint slides, and video. 

Order from the Attachment and Bonding 

Center of Ohio, 12608 State Road, Suite 

1, North Royalton, OH 44133. Also you 

may email ReginaKu@msn.com and 

put “sibling” in the subject box, or call 

440.230.1960, ext. 5.

•	 The Oklahoma Department of Human 

Services has developed a video on the 

importance of keeping siblings together in 

adoption. The Sibling Connection: Keeping 

Brothers and Sisters Together Through 

Adoption is available by contacting 

Deborah Goodman at 918.794.7544 or 

Deborah.Goodman@okdhs.org

•	 There are some unique programs around 

the country to facilitate foster or adopted 

siblings’ contact with each other. A wellknown program is Camp to Belong, 

which was developed by adult sisters 

who had been in foster care themselves. 

This program now exists in at least eight 

States and in Australia. Some States 

have developed regular weekend camps 

specifically for children who are separated 

in foster care or adoption. http://www.

camptobelong.org/

•	 Sibling Sundays is a Massachusetts 

program that offers regularly scheduled 

opportunities to be together for brothers 

and sisters who do not live together: http://

www.siblingconnections.org/our-programs/

sibling-sundays-and-saturdays/

•	 Keeping Siblings Connected: A White 

Paper on Siblings in Foster Care and 

Adoptive Placements in New York State

(2007) offers recommendations for 

facilitating biweekly visits between siblings. 

http://www.ocfs.state.ny.us/main/reports/

sibling%20white%20paper%20wes.pdf
Sibling Issues in Foster Care and Adoption https://www.childwelfare.gov

17 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/siblingissues/index.cfm

Albert, V. N., & King, W. C. (2008). Survival analyses of the dynamics of sibling experiences in foster 

care. Families in Society, 89(4), 533–541.

Boer, F., Versluis-den Bieman, H. J., & Verhulst, F. C. (1994). International adoption of children with 

siblings: Behavioral outcomes. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 64(2), 252–262.

Casey Family Programs (2002, May). Proceedings of the National Leadership Symposium on 

Siblings in Out-of-Home Care. Seattle, WA: Author.

Christian, S. (2002, May). Summary of legislation. Paper presented at the National Leadership 

Symposium on Siblings in Out-of-Home Care, Daytona Beach, FL.

Courtney, M., Skyles, A., Miranda, G., Zinn, A., Howard, E., & Goerge, R. (2005). Youth who run 

away from substitute care. Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for Children. 

Courtney, M. E., Dworsky, A., Lee, J. S., & Raap, M. (2010). Midwest evaluation of the adult 

functioning of former foster youth: Outcomes at ages 23 and 24. Chicago: Chapin Hall Center 

for Children at University of Chicago. Retrieved from http://www.chapinhall.org/sites/default/

files/Midwest_Study_Age_23_24.pdf

Cyr, M., Wright, J., McDuff, P., & Perron, A. (2002). Intrafamilial sexual abuse: Brother-sister incest 

does not differ from daughter and stepfather-stepdaughter incest. Child Abuse and Neglect, 

26(9), 957-973.

Drapeau, S., Simard, M., Beaudry, M., & Charbonneau, C. (2000). Siblings in family transitions, 

Family Relations 49(1), 77–85.

Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R. K., & Turner, H. A. (2009). The developmental epidemiology of childhood 

victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24(5), 711-731.

Folman, R. D. (1998). “I was tooken”: How children experience removal from their parents 

preliminary to placement into foster care. Adoption Quarterly, 2(2), 7-35.

Gass, K., Jenkins, J., & Dunn, J. (2007). Are sibling relationships protective? A longitudinal study. 

Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48(2), 167-175.

Groza, V., Maschmeier, C., Jamison, C., & Piccola, T. (2003). Siblings and out-of-home placement: 

Best practices. Families in Society, 84(4), 480-490.
Sibling Issues in Foster Care and Adoption https://www.childwelfare.gov

18 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/siblingissues/index.cfm

Gustavsson, N. S., & MacEachron, A. E. (2010). Sibling connections and reasonable efforts in public 

child welfare. Families in Society, 91(1), 39-44.

Harrison, C. (1999). Children being looked after and their sibling relationships: The experiences of 

children in the working in partnerships with lost’ parents research project. In A. Mullender (Ed.), 

We are family: Sibling relationship in placement and beyond (pp. 65–90). London, England: 

British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering.

Hegar, R. L. (2005). Sibling placement in foster care and adoption: An overview of international 

research. Children and Youth Services Review, 27(7), 717-739.

Hegar, R. L., & Rosenthal, J. A. (2009). Kinship care and sibling placement: Child behavior, family 

relationships, and school outcomes. Children & Youth Services Review, 31(6), 670-679.

Hegar, R. L., & Rosenthal, J. A. (2011). Foster children placed with or separated from siblings: 

Outcomes based on a national sample. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(7), 1245-1253.

Herrick, M. A., & Piccus, W. (2009). Sibling connections: The importance of nurturing sibling bonds 

in the foster care system. In D. N. Silverstein and S. L. Smith (Eds.), Siblings in adoption and 

foster care, (pp. 27-42). Westport, CT: Praeger. (Reprinted from Children and Youth Services 

Review, 27(7), 845-861, 2005). 

Hojer, I. (2007). Sons and daughters of foster carers and the impact of fostering on their everyday 

life. Child and Family Social Work, 12(1), 73-83.

Howard, J. A. (2012). Untangling the web: The Internet’s transformative impact on adoption. 

Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute. Retrieved from http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/

publications/2012_12_UntanglingtheWeb.pdf

James, A. M. (2009).Brothers and sisters in adoption: Helping children navigate relationships when 

new kids join the family. Indianapolis: Perspectives Press.

James, S., Monn, A. R., Palinkas, L .A., & Leslie, L. K. (2008). Maintaining sibling relationships for 

children in foster and adoptive placements. Children and Youth Services Review, 30(1), 90-106.

Kiselica, M. S., & Morrill-Richards, M. (2007). Sibling maltreatment: The forgotten abuse. Journal of 

Counseling & Development, 85(2), 148-161.

Kittmer, M. S. (2005). Risk and resilience in alcoholic families: Family functioning, sibling 

attachment, and parent-child relationships. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(8-B), 4339.

Kosonen, M. (1996). Maintaining sibling relationships—neglected dimension in child care practice. 

British Journal of Social Work, 26, 809-822.
Sibling Issues in Foster Care and Adoption https://www.childwelfare.gov

19 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/siblingissues/index.cfm

Kosonen, M. (1999). ‘Core’ and kin siblings: Foster children’s changing families. In A. Mullender, 

(Ed.), We are family: Sibling relationships in placement and beyond (pp. 28-49). London: British 

Agencies for Adoption and Fostering.

Kunz, J. (2001). Parental divorce and children’s interpersonal relationships: A meta-analysis. Journal 

of Divorce and Remarriage, 34(3/4), 19-47.

Leathers, S. (2005). Separation from siblings: Associations with placement adaptation and 

outcomes among adolescents in long-term foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 

27(7), 793-819.

Mandelbaum, R. (2011). Delicate balances: Assessing the needs and rights of siblings in foster care 

to maintain their relationships post-adoption. New Mexico Law Review, 41(1), 1-68. Retrieved 

September 4, 2012 from: http://lawlibrary.unm.edu/nmlr/41/1/Mandelbaum.pdf

McCormick, A. (2008). A policy analysis of California Welfare and Institutions Code Sectioin 16002: 

Siblings in foster care. Illinois Child Welfare, 4(1), 86-93.

McCormick, A. (2009). The role of the sibling relationship in foster care: A comparison of adults 

with a history of childhood out-of-home placement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. 

Arlington, TX: University of Texas. Retrieved September 6, 2012 from: http://dspace.uta.edu/

bitstream/handle/10106/1703/McCormick_uta_2502D_10262.pdf?sequence=1

McCormick, A. (2010). Siblings in foster care: An overview of research, policy, and practice. Journal 

of Public Child Welfare, 4(2), 198-218.

Mullin, E. S., & Johnson, L. (1999). The role of birth/previously adopted children in families 

choosing to adopt children with special needs. Child Welfare, 78(5), 579-591.

National Conference on State Legislatures. (2012). NCSL Child Welfare Policy Update: State 

Response to the Fostering Connections to Success Act of 2008 Sibling Placement Provision. 

Retrieved September 7, 2012 from: http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/human-services/

fostering-connections-act-sibling-placement.aspx#Chart

North Carolina Division of Social Services. (2009). Kids’ pages: Why my siblings are 

important to me. Fostering Perspectives, 14(1). Retrieved August 2012 from: http://www.

fosteringperspectives.org/fpv14n1/kids_pages_v14n1.htm

Patton, W. W. (2009). The rights of siblings in foster care and adoption: A legal perspective. In D.N. 

Silverstein and S.L. Smith (Eds.), Siblings in adoption and foster care, 57-68. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Pavao, J. M., St. John, M., Cannole, R. F., Fischer, T., Maluccio, A., & Peining, S. (2007). Sibling 

kinnections: A clinical visitation program. Child Welfare, 86(2), 13-30.
Sibling Issues in Foster Care and Adoption https://www.childwelfare.gov

20 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/siblingissues/index.cfm

Regional youth and foster care agencies develop siblings bill of rights. Free Press. (2012, July 5). 

Retrieved from http://freepressonline.com/main.asp?SectionID=52&SubSectionID=78&Articl

eID=20440

Sanders, R. (2004). Sibling relationships: Theory and issues for practice. Hampshire, England: 

Palgrave Macmillan.

Shlonsky, A., Webster, D., & Needell, B. (2003). The ties that bind: A cross-sectional analysis of 

siblings in foster care. Journal of Social Service Research, 29(3), 27-52.

Silverstein, D. N., & Smith, S. L. (2009). Practice strategies to preserve sibling relationships. In D. N. 

Silverstein and S. L. Smith (Eds.), Siblings in adoption and foster care, (pp. 123-137). Westport, 

CT: Praeger.

Smith, M. C. (1996). An exploratory survey of foster mother and caseworker attitudes about sibling 

placement. Child Welfare, 75(4), 357-375. 

Smith, M. C. (1998). Sibling placement in foster care: An exploration of associated concurrent 

preschool-aged child functioning. Children and Youth Services Review, 20(5), 389-412.

Smith, S. L. (2009). Siblings in foster care and adoption: What we know from research. In D. N. 

Silverstein and S. L. Smith (Eds.), Siblings in adoption and foster care, (pp. 13-26). Westport, 

CT: Praeger.

Staff, I., & Fein, E. (1992). Together or separate: A study of siblings in foster care. Child Welfare, 71, 

257-270.

Stocker, C. M. (1994). Children’s perceptions of relationships with siblings, friends, and mothers: 

Compensatory processes and links with adjustment. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 

35(8), 1447-1459.

Sturgess, W., Dunn, J., & Davies, L. (2001). Young children’s perceptions of their relationships with 

family members: Links with family setting, friendships, and adjustment. International Journal of 

Behavioral Development, 25(6), 521-29.

Tarren-Sweeney, M., & Hazell, P. (2005). The mental health and socialization of siblings in care. 

Children and Youth Services Review, 27(7), 821-843.

Thompson, H., & McPherson, S. (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.
Sibling Issues in Foster Care and Adoption https://www.childwelfare.gov

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (2011, December 16). Federal Child and Family 

Services Reviews aggregate report round 2, fiscal years 2007–2010. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/

programs/cb/cwmonitoring/results/fcfsr_report.pdf

Washington, K. (2007). Research review: Sibling placement in foster care: A review of the evidence. 

Child and Family Social Work, 12(4), 426-433.

Webster, D., Shlonsky, A., Shaw, T., & Brookhart, M. A. (2005). The ties that bind II: Reunification 

of siblings in out-of-home care using a statistical technique for examining non-independent 

observations. Children and Youth Services Review, 27(7), 765-782.

Whiting, J., & Lee, R. (2003). Voices from the system: A qualitative study of foster children’s stories. 

Family Relations, 52(3), 288–295.

Wulczyn, F., & Zimmerman, E. (2005). Sibling placements in longitudinal perspective. Children and 

Youth Services Review, 27(7), 741-763.

YLAT (2002). Youth Leadership Advisory Team position paper: Siblings in foster care and adoption. 

Retrieved August 2005 from http://www.ylat.org/results/Position%20Paper-%20Siblings.pdf

Younes, M. N., & Harp, M. (2007). Addressing the impact of foster care on biological children and 

their families. Child Welfare, 86(4), 21-40.

Acknowledgment:

This bulletin was developed by Child Welfare Information Gateway, in partnership with Susan 

Livingston Smith, Program and Project Director of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute. 

This document is made possible by the Children’s Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth and 

Families, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

The conclusions discussed here are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not represent 

the official views or policies of the funding agency.

Suggested Citation:

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2013). Sibling issues in foster care and adoption. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Administration for Children and Families

Administration on Children, Youth and Families

Children’s Bureau