Family Closeness, Contact, and Belonging after Adoption from Foster Care: Comparing Responses from Adopted Young Adults and Their Parents

Background and Purpose: Close to 20% or more of children adopted out of U.S. foster care face long-term challenges, such as strained family relationships and post-adoption instability. Also, previous research has associated family closeness and belonging with positive post-adoption outcomes. However, little research has examined the perspectives of both young adult adoptees (YA) and their adoptive parents (AP) on family closeness, contact, or belonging. Thus, the purpose of this study was to use survey data from YA-AP dyads to compare respondents’ perceptions of family closeness, contact, and belonging, over time (during YA childhood and young adulthood), and examine how these perceptions related to post-adoption placement instability.

Methods: The National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being Adoption Study obtained information from 115 dyads in which both YA (average age 24) and AP from the same family responded to surveys about demographics, family relationships, and placement stability. These surveys were linked to prior survey data about YA’s childhood. Both YAs and APs were asked about their closeness during YA’s childhood, current closeness, current frequency of contact with each other, and the extent to which YA belonged to the family.

Bivariate analyses, including paired t-tests and McNemar’s test, examined how YA versus AP surveys differed on questions related to family closeness, contact, and belonging, as well as relationships between these questions and post-adoption instability (foster care reentry or informal instability). Based on bivariate findings, a multivariate logistic regression model estimated the impact of closeness, contact, and belonging on post-adoption instability, holding child demographic variables constant.

Results: In bivariate analyses, YA, as compared to AP, reported significantly lower levels of YA-AP closeness in childhood, YA-AP current closeness, and YA belonging to the family. For example, 68% of YA reported being “Very/Extremely” close to AP during childhood, as compared to 87% of AP (p < .000), and 69% of YA reported they “Very/Completely” belonged to their adoptive family, as compared to 93% of AP (p < .000). However, YA and AP indicated a similar level of current contact with each other, about one contact per week.

Bivariate analyses showed that closeness in childhood, current closeness, current contact levels, and family belonging were all negatively associated with post-adoption instability. For instance, among YA who reported currently being “Very/Extremely” close to their AP, only 61% had ever experienced post-adoption instability, as compared to 82% of YA who reported being “Not at all/Slightly/Moderately Close” to their AP (p = .015). In the logistic regression analysis, only closeness in childhood was negatively associated with post-adoption instability (OR = .31; p < .000).

Conclusion and Implications: This study highlights the importance of considering both YA and AP perspectives related to post-adoption family closeness, belonging, and contact. After controlling for covariates, YA who reported low levels of adoptive family closeness in childhood were more likely to experience post-adoption instability. Findings suggest that risk assessment of family closeness and belonging may identify those families most at-risk for post-adoption instability and other challenges.