Sasha’s Digital Story
Sasha shares her experiences in foster care, which reveal the importance of sibling relationships and visitation.

Siblings may not be placed together for many reasons:  

• All siblings may enter foster care at the same or at different times and a thorough assessment may conclude that they should not be placed together. 
• One or some siblings enter foster care, and other siblings remain at home. 
• As children leave foster care, siblings may not be placed together with an adoptive family. Similarly, siblings may not be placed together in a permanent guardianship arrangement.  

When children are not placed together, visits and other ongoing contacts can help maintain attachment to family and lessen the trauma of being placed apart. When visits are regular and frequent and allow the opportunity to connect in a meaningful way, they have many of the same benefits of sibling placement:  less trauma and loss, greater feelings of belonging, and shared history. 

Fostering Perspectives: Honoring and Maintaining Sibling Connections sponsored by the NC Division of Social Services and the Family and Children’s Resource Program,  is a good resource as it discusses the importance of sibling connections for children and youth in care; how to strengthen these connections; and some ways agencies can support sibling placements. The Kid’s Page includes letters from children and youth about what their siblings mean to them. (November 2009)

The Fostering Connections to Success Act does not define “frequent visitation or other ongoing interactions” for siblings who are not placed together.  The Children’s Bureau’s guidance provides states with the latitude to develop protocols on the setting for visits, supervision of visits and frequency of visits so long as the frequency is at least monthly.  The Children’s Bureau expects decisions on the frequency of sibling visitation and contact to be on a case by case basis;  however,” frequently” means at least monthly.

The sibling provisions of the Fostering Connections Act apply only to children removed from their homes.  It does not require efforts to maintain connections between children removed from their homes and any siblings who are not removed, although states are free to implement policies and practices to sustain these connections. 

The Cuyahoga County Department of Children and Family Services’ policy requires that all visiting plans should provide locations and schedules that are easily adaptable for the siblings to visit and that siblings should be involved, if appropriate, in the development of the  visiting plan.

Illinois regulations require that a sibling visiting plan be developed by the siblings’ caseworkers, foster parents and the children (7 years of age or older) within 30 days from the award of temporary custody of the siblings.  The plan must state the duration of sibling visits and may include the location and supervision to be provided for visits.  A brief statement of the reasons for selecting the frequency and duration of visits should be provided. The sibling visiting plan is to be included in the children’s case plans.  No changes are to be made in the sibling visiting plan without prior consultation with the siblings (7 years old and older) and with the siblings’ foster parents unless there is a substantial risk of harm to the child if the visits continue.  The plan and its implementation are to be reviewed at each child’s administrative case review.

Virginia requires that when siblings are placed in separate foster homes, a plan must be developed within 15 calendar days after placement to encourage frequent and regular visits or communication between the siblings.

Arizona requires that if the placement of siblings together is not possible for all or any of the siblings, the department must make efforts to maintain frequent visitation or other ongoing contact between all siblings unless there is documented evidence that visitation or ongoing contact would be contrary to the child’s or a sibling’s safety or well-being.

The Cuyahoga County Department of Children and Family Services’ policy requires the worker of record to develop a written visiting plan, barring any safety concerns, to continue efforts to rejoin siblings and implement a plan that promotes connectedness, including visits that will be reviewed during supervisory case conferences and more formalized reviews. Visits between siblings in out-of-home care should be frequent and based upon the child’s age, developmental level and relationship with each other. 

Idaho policy states that at minimum, face-to-face visits between siblings who are in out-of-home care and were in the same household when the child was removed should occur monthly. Addition contact between siblings placed in different homes or facilities may include telephone calls, e-mail and letters. Reasons for exceptions to monthly visitation or contact between siblings must be document.

Illinois Department of Child and Family rules require that sibling visits be scheduled and provided at least two times a month for all siblings placed apart.  Visits should begin no later than two weeks after temporary custody unless: 1) the court order requires less frequent or no visitation; 2) a child requests less frequent visits; or 3) the visits present risk of physical, emotional or mental harm. Visits may also be less frequent for siblings placed in residential care under certain circumstances. However, visitation may not be reduced based on the unavailability of a visit supervisor or as a form of discipline.

Kansas requires that when siblings are not placed together during foster care, a visiting plan must be in place that allows for frequent and regular contact between the siblings not placed together, unless the Case Management Provider documents that visits are contrary to the safety or well-being of any of the siblings.  Sibling visits must occur at least twice monthly.  At least one of these visits must occur during a parent/child interaction to allow the parent(s) and all children to be together at least once per month.  At least one of these visits must be with only the siblings.

Minnesota policy is that visits between siblings in foster care should be frequent and correlate with children’s ages, stages of development and nature of their sibling relationship. 

Tennessee’s Policies and Procedures states that siblings who are not placed in the same resource home or agency shall have visits “as frequently as are necessary and appropriate to facilitate siblings relationships but no less frequently than once each month for no less than one hour in duration (unless the visit is shortened to protect the safety or well-being of the child).  Visits should be as long as possible to support the ongoing relationship of the children and may include overnight and weekend visits.”

Texas policy requires that a minimum, siblings placed with separate caregivers, whether these are parents, relatives, or substitute caregivers, should have at least monthly contact with each other unless there are documented reasons not to do so. The contact should be face-to-face, unless there are documented reasons this cannot occur. Less than monthly face-to-face sibling contact must have documented supervisory approval. During times when face-to-face contact cannot occur, contact by telephone or letter should occur.

West Virginia policy states that when siblings are placed separately in foster care, the Multidisciplinary Treatment Team must develop a visiting plan immediately to maintain the sibling relationship. The visits must occur at least once every month and provide siblings an opportunity and time to maintain connections. The child’s caseworker is responsible for ensuring that the visiting plan is followed. The child’s provider is expected to provide routine transportation for visitation and assist with visits, whenever possible.

Colorado law provides that when a child in foster care and his/her sibling mutually request visits on a regular basis, the Department with legal custody is to arrange the visits and ensure that they take place with sufficient frequency and duration to promote continuity in the siblings’ relationship unless the Department determines that visits would not be in the best interests of one or more of the siblings. In making this determination, the Department is required “to ascertain whether there is pending in any jurisdiction a criminal action in which either of the siblings is a either a victim or witness.” In any such case, the Department is to consult with the District Attorney about whether requested visits “may have a detrimental effect upon the prosecution of the pending criminal action”.

Illinois regulations provide that neither the Department nor its contractual agencies shall reduce nor seek to have a court reduce the frequency of visits based on the unavailability of a supervisor or as a form of discipline. 

Missouri policy states that at no time should a sibling visit be cancelled or rescheduled because of unexpected situations with the caseworker’s schedule; a back-up plan should be in place. Sibling visits are to occur unless such visits are deemed contrary to the welfare of the child by the agency or when prohibited by the court.

Tennessee policy states that “denial of visitation may not be used to manage behavior; however, modification in the visitation plan may be therapeutically necessary.”

Washington State’s Practices and Procedures Guide states that visits must only be limited or terminated when the child's, safety, health and welfare is compromised. The social worker may not recommend limiting visits as a sanction for the parent's lack of compliance with court orders.  If the social worker recommends limiting or terminating visits, the recommendation must be supported by one of the following:  (1) the therapist recommends decreasing or suspending visits due to the harm to the child; (2) the child is at risk of physical or emotional abuse;  (3) the supervisor of the visits is threatened; (4) if the parent appears intoxicated, the visit will be stopped that day, but may resume; or (5) the court adopts a permanency plan other than return home.  The social worker must staff any change in visits with his or her supervisor.

Indiana law allows a court to order adoptive parents to provide specific post-adoption contact for an adopted child who is at least two years of age with a pre-adoptive sibling if the court determines that the post-adoption contact would serve the best interests of the adopted child and each adoptive parent consents to the court’s order for post-adoption contact privileges.

Texas policy recognizes that when siblings or half-siblings come into care at a later time, they may have a different permanency goal than the sibling(s) already in care (such as adoption versus family reunification). If so, case planning efforts must address what type of sibling contact is possible given the goals chosen. Decisions need to be made as quickly as possible, while considering the extent of the prior relationship between siblings.

Washington State law provides that a court, in reviewing and approving an agreement for the adoption of a child from foster care, shall encourage the adoptive parents, birth parents, foster parents, kinship caregivers, and the department or other supervising agency to seriously consider the long-term benefits to the child adoptee and siblings of the child adoptee of providing for and facilitating continuing post-adoption contact between siblings. To the extent feasible, and when in the best interests of the chil adoptee and siblings of the child adoptee, contact between the siblings should be frequent and of a similar nature as that which existed prior to the adoption. If the child adoptee or known siblings of the child adoptee are represented by an attorney or guardian ad litem in a child custody proceeding, the court shall inquire of each attorney and guardian ad litem regarding the potential benefits of continuing contact between the siblings and the potential detriments of severing contact.

Additional Resource:

The Association for Children of New Jersey developed an issue brief, Post-Adoption Sibling Contact: Some Issues to Consider, which reviews New Jersey law on post-adoption contact among siblings and the needs and interests of separated siblings.

Project Visitation was developed in 2001 to strengthen the bonds of siblings separated in foster care by coordinating visits that give siblings a chance to connect to one another. Project Visitation, created by the State of Hawaii First Circuit Family Court and the Department of Human Services, is supported by volunteers who bring siblings together for monthly visits and regular family events.

Camp To Belong is an international non-profit organization dedicated to reuniting siblings placed in separate foster homes and other out-of-home care for events of fun, emotional empowerment, and sibling connections. Founded in Las Vegas in the summer of 1995 by Lynn Price, Camp To Belong Summer Camp was created to offer siblings in foster care and other out of home care the opportunity to create lifetime memories.

Camp Connect San Diego is a partnership program between the County of San Diego Health and Human Services Agency and Promises2Kids, a non-profit organization offering a wide variety of resources and programs focused on fighting child abuse and neglect. Camp Connect brings together siblings separated in foster care, giving them the opportunity to reconnect and strengthen family ties.