This article offers a critique of the work of Quinton, Rushton, Dance and Mayes (1997) concerning the merits, for the various parties, of the maintenance of contact between children living temporarily or permanently apart from their parents. It contests their view that there is no research based evidence to support the practice of maintaining contact in these placements, and suggests that for a number of reasons their analysis of available evidence is fundamentally flawed. In particular this article questions their view of what the foundations for evidence-based practice should be, highlights central omissions in their review of the research and challenges the accuracy of some of their reporting. It also suggests that a grounded historical perspective on post placement practice would regard the severance of birth relative links, rather than their preservation, as representing what Quinton and his colleagues describe in their article as a ‘social experiment’.
Prompted by a user request, there is now a way to post anonymously. Login: anonymous Password: anonymous
Anonymous content will be vetted by the site moderator. Inappropriate use of this feature will not be tolerated and abusive posts will be deleted.
