INDEX
 |
From a psychodynamic perspective, family foster care can be defined as the encounter between a psychosocially damaged child and a family welcoming into its home a child with disturbed relational experiences and distorted images of interpersonal relationships (Ongari & Pompei, 1996; Scabini, 1993). Based on the hypothesis of the intergenerational transmission of relational models (Belsky, 1984; Bowlby, 1973, 1980), besides suffering from an inadequate and atypical development of their psychic functions, these children display maladjusted behaviours. A large body of literature on family foster care has highlighted its reparative value in so far as the children are able to experience a nurturing family atmosphere and secure interpersonal relations (Saviane Kaneklin, 1988), these being the basis for the construction of a “good interior imaginary family”. At the symbolic level, fostering is considered to be a sort of “second psychological birth”, in that the foster family makes itself and its resources available to heal the child’s primary affective damage, thereby giving rise to a “bond to heal the bond” (Greco & Iafrate, 2001), to the “renewal” of devastated experience and an improved self-esteem (Nunziante Cesaro & Ferraro, 1992; Saviane Kaneklin, 1995). However, other studies conducted to define indicators with which to measure the well-being of foster children (Albua & Dozier, 1999; Altshuler & Gleeson, 1999) have stressed the risks of fostering, in that it configures a complex social and relational reality in which the foster child is required to cope with twofold family membership. Coping with heterogeneous, if not conflicting, patterns of functioning and behaviour, with respect to the family of origin, adds to the primary emotional experience of separation from it. This results inevitably in a conflict of loyalties between the foster family and the birth family (Zurlo, 1997). This may have an alienating impact, which engenders a general distrust of interpersonal relations (Arrigoni & Dell’Olio, 1998), emotional disorders (Monheit, Mauffret-Stephan, Pandolfo & Levi, 1997), or marked self-devaluation (Price and Landsverk, 1998). Regarding the assessment of the efficacy of fostering, some retrospective studies (Sbattella, 1999) have stressed the individual’s characteristics and those of the social context as possible factors of success. In addition to the characteristics of the child (age, precocious behavioural problems, etc.) and those of his/her family, also considered are the functioning of the foster family and the role performed by the social services, the justice system and the mental health system. Accordingly, all studies have focused on the characteristics of the match between foster families and children (Chistolini, 1998; Guida & Saviane Kaneklin, 1993; Ongari, 1999; Ongari & Pompei, 1996; Sbattella, 1999). |
|
|
|
|
|
Albua, K. E., & Dozier, M. (1999). Indiscriminate friendless and terror of strangers in infancy: Contributions from the study of infants in foster care. Infant Mental Health Journal, 20, 30-41.
Altshuler, S. J., & Gleeson, J.P. (1999). Completing the evaluation triangle for the next century: Measuring child well-being in family foster care. Child Welfare, 78, 125-147.
Arrigoni, G., & Dell’Olio (1998). Appartenenze. Comprendere la complessità dell’affido familare. Milano: F. Angeli.
Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child Development, 55, 83-96.
Bowley, J. (1973). Attachment and Loss. Vol. 2. Separation. New York: Basic Books.
Bowley, J. (1980). Attachment and Loss. Vol. 3. Loss: Sadness and depression. New York: Basic Books.
Chistolini, M. (1998). La valutazione delle famiglie affidatarie. In CAM (Ed.), L’affido famihare: on modello di intervento. Milano: F. Angeli.
Greco, 0., & Iafrate, R.(2001). Figli al confine. Milano: F. Angeli.
Guida, M. G., & Saviane Kanerlin, L. (1993). Conoscenza della famiglia affidataria ed ipotesi di affidamento, In AAVV, L’affido familiare, Quaderno n.26 di psicoterapia infantile. Roma: Boris.
Monheit, L., Mauffret-Stephan, F., Pandolfo, M., & Levi, C. (1997). Vulnerahilità psicologica e depressione nei bambini in affidamento familiare ed istituzionale. Psichiatria dell’infanzia e dell’adolescenza, 64, 195-204.
Nunziante Cesaro, A., & Ferraro, F. (Eds.) (1992). La doppia famiglia. Discontinuità affetive e rotture traumatiche. Milano: F. Angeli.
Ongari, B. (1999). La prospeniva dellanaccamento nello studio delle relazioni Genitoriali sostitutive. Frospettivepsicoanalitiche nel lavoro istituziouale, 17, 32-46.
Ongari, B., & Pompei, M. G. (1996). Affidamento familiare: Quale modello di genitorialiG? Prospettive Psicoanalitiche nel Lavoro Istituzionale, 14, 176-192.
Price, J.M. & Landsverk, J. (1998). Social information-processing patterns as predictors of social adaptation and behavior problems among maltreated children in foster care. Child Abuse and Neglect, 22, 845-858.
Saviane Kaneklin, L. (1988). Un bambino e più famiglie. Un approccio clinico. Vivere oggi, 2,45-48.
Saviane Kaneklin, L. (1995). Adozione ed affido a confronto: Una lettura elmira. Milano: F. Angeli.
Sbattella, F. (1999). Quale famiglia per quale minore. Milano: F. Angeli. Scabini, E. (1993). La famiglia tra rischio e risorse. Interazioni, 2, 49-59.
Zurlo, M. C. (1997). La patologia dei processi separativi nell’affido familiare: Un’ ipotesi operativa. Minori Giustizia, 4, 96-108.