Source: https://youthlaw.org/publication/keeping-siblings-together-past-present-and-future/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 05:15:25+00:00

Document:
Many children report experiencing a great deal of pain, anxiety, guilt, grief, and “lost identity” when they enter the foster care system. Uprooted from their homes and families, a sense of detachment from their community, culture, and identity is common among these children. All too often, children in the child welfare system are also separated from their siblings. Many sibling groups are separated upon entry into the foster care system; less frequently, siblings are placed together in out-of-home care initially and later separated. Some siblings are adopted by different families. Sadly, many of these separated brothers and sisters lose contact with one another.
For many years, the sibling relationship was largely ignored in social science research and child welfare laws. In recent decades, however, both research scientists and policymakers have come to acknowledge the importance of the sibling bond, leading to a flurry of research, policymaking, litigation, and development of innovative programs directing attention to these relationships.
While there is little national data on siblings in foster care, estimates indicate that well over half of children in foster care nationwide have one or more siblings also in care.5 Some sources state that as many as 75 percent of these foster children are placed apart from one or more of their siblings.6 Some of the most recent and detailed data comes from California, among the most progressive states in recognizing the importance of the sibling bond. In October 2004, 67 percent of the child welfare population had at least one sibling in out-of-home care, and 34 percent of these children were placed apart from all of their siblings.7 In New York City, of the approximately 70 percent of children with siblings in care, close to half were placed apart from one or more of them.8 Finally, in Illinois, more than half of children in foster care had placements away from all of their siblings in 1998.9 As these data come from the three states leading the country in the development of policies that mandate attention to sibling relationships, it is likely that the figures from other states are even more troubling.
Systematic and comprehensive research on sibling relationships of children both inside and outside of the child welfare system began relatively recently. As a result, there is limited research solely investigating siblings in care.10 Some of the gaps stem from the nature of the research itself—merely defining “siblings” and what constitutes placement “together” creates difficulties for researchers.11 However, the research that is available overwhelmingly indicates that maintenance of the sibling bond is crucial to child development and adjustment, especially for children who are separated from the only homes and parents they have ever known and are placed in unfamiliar settings with strangers.
It is critical to note that consistent joint placement with some siblings appears to be more important than the total number of siblings placed together in terms of achieving positive outcomes.23 Thus, children who are placed with some of their siblings may still obtain the advantages of placement with all of their siblings (sometimes referred to as an “intact” placement).
Despite the dearth of national guidance in the area, all states have made some progress in directing attention to sibling relationships in the child welfare system.48 Statutory mandates and guidelines, sibling registries, and regulations for child welfare agencies established across the country indicate a widespread recognition of the importance of maintaining sibling bonds. Statutes in more than half of the states directly refer to siblings’ needs, most commonly dealing with placement, permanency planning, and visitation.
Litigation has provided another vehicle through which the sibling bond has gained greater recognition.
Overall, courts appear to be a long way from finding a fundamental liberty interest in sibling association. This hesitance may be due partly to fear of the consequences of placing that right on an equal plane with the right to parental autonomy over children.107 Some predict that if the Supreme Court does grant a constitutional right to sibling association, it will only extend to biological siblings who have strong existing bonds.108 Nonetheless, more and more courts are recognizing the importance of the sibling relationship when making custody decisions.
Social science research demonstrates the importance of maintaining sibling ties so that fewer children are forced to experience the trauma of separation. Legislators and the courts have begun responding, but far too many children continue to be further traumatized by the loss of their brothers and sisters.
Emily Kernan was a summer 2005 law clerk at NCYL. She is a second-year law student at Harvard Law School.
1 Linda Glover, Overcoming Barriers to Keeping Siblings Together, Connections, Spring 1997, reprinted at www.nysccc.org/Siblings/overcomingbarriers.htm (quoting American Demographics and Consumer Trends).
2 Mary Anne Herrick & Wendy Piccus, Sibling Connections: The Importance of Nurturing Sibling Bonds in the Foster Care System, 27 Children and Youth Services Review 845, 849 (2005).
4 Rebecca L. Hegar, Sibling Placement in Foster Care and Adoption: An Overview of International Research, 27 Children and Youth Services Review 717, 719 (2005).
6 See, e.g., CASCW, supra n. 2. See also Christopher Phillips, Foster-care System Struggles to Keep Siblings Living Together, 29 APA Monitor (1998), www.apa.org/monitor/jan98/sibs.html.
7 Center for Social Services Research, University of California, Berkeley, Child Welfare Services Reports, Siblings Tables, March 2005, at cssr.berkeley.edu/cwscmsreports/pointintime/fostercare/childwel/siblings.asp.
8 Casey Family Programs National Center for Resource Family Support (NCRFS), Siblings in Out of Home Care: An Overview, www.hunter.cuny.edu/socwork/nrcfcpp/downloads/sibling_overview.pdf.
9 Sonya J. Leathers, Separation from Siblings: Association with Placement Adaptation and Outcomes among Adolescents in Long-Term Foster Care, 27 Children and Youth Services Review 793, 794 (2005).
10 Fred Wulczyn & Emily Zimmerman, Sibling Placement in Longitudinal Perspective, 27 Children and Youth Services Review 741, 742 (2005).
12 Herrick & Piccus, supra n. 9, at 851.
15 See, e.g., Leathers, supra n. 6, at 795.
17 Id. at 795 (citing Ilene Staff & Edith Fein, Together or Separate: A Study of Siblings in Foster Care, 71 Child Welfare 257 (1992)).
20 Hegar, supra n. 11, at 731.
21 Herrick & Piccus, supra n. 9, at 846.
22 Daniel Webster, Aron Shlonsky, Terry Shaw & M. Alan Brookhart, The Ties that Bind II: Reunification for Siblings in Out-of-Home Care Using a Statistical Technique for Examining Non-Independent Observations, 27 Children and Youth Services Review 765, 773-74 (2005) (“Siblings initially placed in the same home had an increased likelihood of reunification. Those placed initially into the same setting with all their siblings had almost twice the odds of reunifying, and those with at least one other sibling had almost one-third greater odds of an increased likelihood of reunifying than children not placed with their siblings. The model suggested an increased likelihood of reunification for children who entered foster care within 1 month of all of their siblings.”) But see Leathers, supra n. 6, at 813 (finding no correlation between placement type and likelihood of reunification).
23 Leathers, supra n. 6, at 814.
25 See, e.g., Id. at 794.
26 National Adoption Information Clearinghouse, The Sibling Bond: Its Importance in Foster Care and Adoptive Placement (1992), naic.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/f_siblin.cfm.
27 Wulczyn & Zimmerman, supra n. 7, at 742. Herrick & Piccus, supra n. 9, at 853.
28 See Leathers, supra n. 6, at 794-95.
29 Herrick & Piccus, supra n. 9, at 853. Diane Riggs, Sibling Ties Are Worth Preserving, Adoptalk, spring 1999, reprinted, at www.nysccc.org/Siblings/sibties.htm.
30 Wulczyn & Zimmerman, supra n. 7, at 742. See Hegar, supra n. 11, at 723.
31 See Hegar, supra n. 11, at 723. Riggs, supra n. 29. Bridgette Lery, Terry V. Shaw & Joseph Magruder, Using Administrative Child Welfare Data to Identify Sibling Groups, 27 Children and Youth Services Review 783, 784 (2005) (pointing to the problem of identifying sibling groups).
32 Herrick & Piccus, supra n. 9, at 850. Riggs, supra n. 29. National Adoption Information Clearinghouse, supra n. 26.
33 National Adoption Information Clearinghouse, supra n. 26.
35 NCRFS, supra n. 5.
37 Id. However, most find abusive relationships among siblings to be a legitimate reason for separation. See, e.g., Leathers, supra n. 6, at 795. See also National Adoption Information Clearinghouse, supra n. 26.
38 NCRFS, supra n. 5.
39 Hegar, supra n. 11, at 731. Wulczyn & Zimmerman, supra n. 7, at 761-62.
40 Webster et al., supra n. 22, at 778.
41 Wulczyn & Zimmerman, supra n. 7, at 762.
45 William Wesley Patton & Amy M. Pellman, The Reality of Concurrent Planning: Juggling Multiple Family Plans Expeditiously without Sufficient Resources, 9 U.C. Davis J. Juv. L. & Pol’y 171, 192 (2005).
46 See William Wesley Patton & Sara Latz, Severing Hansel from Gretel: An Analysis of Siblings’ Association Rights, 48 U. Miami L. Rev. 745, 746 (1994).
47 U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children & Families, General Findings from the Federal Child and Family Services Review, www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwrp/results/statefindings/genfindings04/ch1.htm.
48 See CASCW, supra n. 2.
49 See, e.g., 705 Illinois Compiled Statues (ICLS) 405/1-3(4.05). Aron Shlonsky, Jennifer Bellamy, Jennifer Elkins & Caryn J. Ashare, The Other Kin: Setting the Course for Research, Policy, and Practice with Siblings in Foster Care, 27 Children and Youth Services Review 697, 702-03 (2005).
50 William Wesley Patton, The Status of Siblings’ Rights: A View into the New Millennium, 51 DePaul L. Rev. 1, 23 (2001).
51 Sharon G. Elstein, Making Decisions about Siblings in the Child Welfare System, 18 Practice: Helping Lawyers Help Kids 97, 104 (1999).
52 Ellen Marrus, Fostering Family Ties: The State as Maker and Breaker of Kinship Relationships, 2004 U. Chi. Legal F. 319, 333 (2004).
53 Elstein, supra n. 51, at 104.
54 See, e.g., Minnesota Rule 9560.0081. CACSW, supra n. 2.
55 See, e.g., Minnesota Rule 9545.0040. CACSW, supra n. 2.
56 Patton, supra n. 50, at 20-23.
59 Shlonsky et al., supra n. 49, at 703.
60 Patton, supra n. 50, at 20.
63 Elstein, supra n. 51, at 105. Riggs, supra n. 29.
64 Riggs, supra n. 9.
66 Marrus, supra n. 52, at 333.
67 Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code, S 366.26(c)(1)(E) (West 2002).
68 Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code, S 16002. Shlonsky et al., supra n. 49, at 702.
69 See Lery et al., supra n. 31, at 784.
70 Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code, S 16002(b). Shlonsky et al., supra n. 49, at 702.
71 NCRFS, supra n. 5.
72 Riggs, supra n. 29.
73 See, e.g., In re Celine R., 102 Cal. App. 4th 717 (2002). But see Abraham L. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 112 Cal. App. 4th 9 (2003) (overturning the juvenile court’s order terminating reunification and holding that under the amended California Welfare and Institutions Code, the court must hold a hearing to consider and report on certain factors related to the sibling bond).
74 Center for Families, Children, & the Courts (CFCC), Dependency Case Law: In re Celine R., www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/resources/caselaw/depend/225.htm.
75 Center for Families, Children, & the Courts (CFCC), Dependency Case Law: In re L.Y.L., www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/resources/caselaw/depend/216.htm.
76 Id. (quoting In re L.Y.L., 101 Cal. App. 4th 942 (2002)). See also In re Jacob S., 104 Cal. App. 4th 1011 (2002).
77 CFCC, supra n. 78.
78 Center for Families, Children, & the Courts (CFCC), Dependency Case Law: In re Megan S., www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/resources/caselaw/depend/242.htm. See also In re Erik P., 104 Cal. App. 4th 395 (2002).
79 Riggs, supra n. 29.
80 NCRFS, supra n. 5.
81 David C. v. Leavitt, Settlement Agreement.
82 R.C. v. Hornsby, Consent Decree.
83 R.C. v. Hornsby, Final Report.
84 Shlonsky et al., supra n. 49, at 702.
86 See, e.g., Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 US 205 (1972); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 US 510 (1925); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390 (1923).
87 See, e.g., Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 618 (1984)).
88 Shlonsky et al., supra n. 49, at 701.
90 Shlonsky et al., supra n. 49, at 701 n.3 (quoting Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. at 618).
91 Id. (quoting Roberts, 468 U.S. at 619 (1984)). Although this Roberts concerned whether or not the Jaycees were required to admit women in its local chapters in Minnesota, the case is significant for its analysis of the right to association.
92 Roberts, 468 U.S. at 619.
93 Aristotle P. v. Johnson, 721 F. Supp. 1002 (ND Ill. 1989).
94 Id. at 1006-07, 1009-10.
95 Shlonsky et al., supra n. 49, at 705.
96 L. v. G., 497 A.2d 215, 217 (1985).
100 National Legal Research Group, Inc., Sibling Visitation Rights (1997), divorcesource.com/research/dl/visitation/97may85.shtml (quoting Rivera v. Marcus, 696 F2d 1016, 1026 (2d Cir. 1982).
101 Patton, supra n. 50 at 11.
104 Hegar, supra n. 2, at 731; Adoption of Hugo, 700 N.E.2d 516, 524 (1998).
105 Adoption of Hugo, 700 N.E.2d at 524.
108 See, e.g., Shlonsky et al., supra n. 49, at 705.
109 Cheryl Lawrence & Vanessa Lankford, Sibling Loss: The Hidden Tragedy of the Child Welfare System, Adoptive Families, December 1997, www.nysccc.org/Siblings/hiddentragedy.htm (quoting Gordon Johnson).
110 Phillips, supra n. 3.
111 Lawrence & Lankford, supra n. 102.
116 Elstein, supra n. 51, at 105.
117 Leslie Brody, Siblings Split Up by Foster Care Commune at Camp, The Record, August 23, 2001, reprinted at www.nysccc.org/Siblings/siblingcamp.htm.
119 Riggs, supra n. 29.
120 See, e.g., Webster et al., supra n. 22, at 777.
121 See, e.g., Herrick & Piccus, supra n. 9, at 847. See also Wulcyzn & Zimmerman, supra n. 7, at 762.
122 See, e.g., Herrick & Piccus, supra n. 9, at 854.
123 See, e.g., Wulczyn & Zimmerman, supra n. 7, at 762.
124 Leathers, supra n. 6, at 816. Wulczyn & Zimmerman, supra n. 7, at 762-63.
125 Leathers, supra n. 6, at 816.
127 See, e.g., Riggs, supra n. 29.
128 See, e.g., Riggs, supra n. 29.
129 See, e.g., Riggs, supra n. 29.
130 Leathers, supra n. 6, at 816.
131 Phillips, supra n. 3 (quoting Gordon Johnson).

References: V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.