Copyright is owned by the Author of the thesis.  Permission is given for 
a copy to be downloaded by an individual for the purpose of research and 
private study only.  The thesis may not be reproduced elsewhere without 
the permission of the Author. 
 



i 
 

Context, Identity and Connection: An Examination of Resilience in New Zealand Foster 

Children 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of  

Master of Arts  

In 

 Psychology 

 

 

 

at Massey University, Albany, 

New Zealand 

 

 

 

 

Gabrielle Marlaina Cornelius 

 

2014 

  



ii 
 

Acknowledgments 

First of all, I would like to thank my supervisor Dr Bev Haarhoff for her support 

and guidance in this research project, and for supporting my decision to do research in 

an area I am passionate about. I am very grateful to the various organisations that 

requested to be kept confidential but supported my research proposal and 

accommodated me in finding participants.  

I would also like to thank Dr Clifford Van Ommen for guidance in the focus 

group planning process and Kaumatua Nephi Skipwith for supporting me in thinking 

through cultural issues and considering how the aims of my research fit with Māori 

values. 

Most of all, I am extremely grateful to my participants, who took time out of 

their busy lives to participate in this project. Thank you for warmly welcoming me into 

your homes and support groups and sharing your families and your stories with me. I 

hope that I have done justice to the stories you have shared and that this research serves 

our common goal of promoting the great strength and resilience of foster children. 

 

Ethics approval was granted by the Massey University Human Ethics 

Committee under protocol MUHECN14/024, and later reapproved after variation was 

made to the research design. 

 

 

  



iii 
 

Table of Contents  

Title page i 

Acknowledgements ii 

Table of contents iii 

List of illustrations and tables vi 

Abstract 1 

Introduction 2 

Literature review 4 

Resilience as a construct 5 

Characteristics of resilience 6 

The measurement of resilience 10 

Operational definition of resilience 11 

Resilience in children 12 

Family context 13 

Family modelling 15 

Factors that impact child resilience 16 

Attachment theory 19 

Attachment theory framework 20 

Importance of attachment 21 

Dysfunctional attachment 22 

Criticisms 23 

Relational resilience 24 

Resilience in children in care 30 

Resilience in residential care 31 

Resilience in foster care 37 

Resilience in children leaving care 45 

Children in care in the New Zealand context 48 

Methodology 52 

Aims 52 

Research design 52 

Participants 53 

Data collection methods 57 

Data analysis methods 61 



iv 
 

Results 69 

Theme 1: Foster Carer Understandings of Resilience 69 

Subtheme 1.1: Resilience as Resistance 72 

Subtheme 1.2: Resilience as a Shell 73 

Theme 2: Identity 75 

Subtheme 2.1: Self-Image 76 

2.1.1: Who Am I? 76 

2.1.2: Distancing Self from Old Identity 78 

Subtheme 2.2: Self-Talk 79 

2.2.1: Internal Working Model 81 

Subtheme 2.3: Culture 83 

2.3.1: Rejection of Cultural Identity 84 

Theme 3: Connection 87 

Subtheme 3.1: Importance of Trust 87 

Subtheme 3.2: Offer and Let Child Respond 90 

Subtheme 3.3: Seeking Connection 92 

Subtheme 3.4: Place in the Family 94 

3.4.1: Sense of Inclusion & Belonging 98 

3.4.2: “Home” 101 

3.4.3: Use of “Love” 102 

Subtheme 3.5: Child-Carer Relationship 103 

3.5.1: Title of Carer 103 

3.5.2: Role of Carer 105 

3.5.3: Commitment 110 

Subtheme 3.6: Continuity of Relationship 113 

3.6.1: Giving the Child a Positive Life Story 114 

3.6.2: Maintaining Not Breaking Connection 115 

3.6.3: Foster Child Attempts to Maintain Contact 117 

3.6.4: Foster Carer Desire to Maintain Connection 118 

3.6.5: Gradual Transition Rather Than Breaking Relationship 119 

Subtheme 3.7: Connection with Birth Family 121 

3.7.1: Enduring Tie to Whanau 121 

3.7.2: Idealised View of Whanau 124 



v 
 

3.7.3: Rejection of Whanau 125 

Subtheme 3.8: End of Relationship 127 

3.8.1: Carer’s Grief 127 

3.8.2: Concern for Child’s Future 130 

3.8.3: Child’s Response 131 

Theme 4. Outcomes 133 

Subtheme 4.1: Signs of Progress 133 

4.1.1: Slow and Gradual 133 

4.1.2: Different Perceptions of Success 134 

Subtheme 4.2: Long-term Benefits of Relationship 138 

4.2.1: Learning to Trust Adults 138 

4.2.2: Short-Term Failure may be Long-Term Success 139 

Discussion 142 

Foster carer’s definitions of resilience 142 

Unique contributions to the field 145 

Identity and connection  146 

Context model 150 

Comparison with existing theory and literature 153 

Discussion of participants 159 

Researcher’s personal reflections 161 

Conclusions  163 

Limitations  164 

Implications for practice  166 

Implications for further research 167 

References 168 

Appendices vii 

Appendix 1: Invitation to participate vii 

Appendix 2: Information sheet viii 

Appendix 3: Consent form  xi 

Appendix 4: Demographic data collection form xii 

Appendix 5: Focus group & interview outline xiii 

  



vi 
 

List of Illustrations and Tables 

Figure 1: Threshold for resilience 11 

Figure 2: Family functioning triangle 14 

Figure 3: The relationship between family cohesion and functioning 15 

Figure 4: Child protection systems 19 

Figure 5: The reinforcing cycle of relationship and resilience 28 

Table 1: Key terms in this research  31 

Table 2: Overview of experience of sample 56 

Table 3: Major themes derived from qualitative data 69 

Table 4: Subthemes within theme 1 75 

Table 5: Subthemes within theme 2 86 

Table 6: Subthemes within theme 3 132 

Table 7: Subthemes within theme 4 140 

Figure 6: The interrelation of connection and identity  147 

Figure 7: Tree model of resilience 148 

Figure 8: The context model  151 

 



1 
 

Abstract 

The purpose of this research is to examine resilience in New Zealand foster 

children, with a focus on the relationships foster children form with the foster parents 

who care for them and the ways that resilience is built and displayed within foster care. 

While there is a range of international research examining resilience in children in state 

care, research into relational aspects of resilience is rare, particularly in a New Zealand 

context. This investigation involves one-on-one interviews and small focus groups with 

foster carers, asking open-ended questions about resilience, attachment and 

relationships to elicit their opinions and experiences with the children they have 

fostered. Using the process of thematic analysis, four major themes were developed, 

entitled (1) Participant understandings of resilience, (2) Identity, (3) Connection, and (4) 

Outcomes. These themes are compared to existing research, and new theories are 

proposed relating to the contextuality of resilience and the connection between a sense 

of identity and the building of supportive relationships with others. Two models are 

proposed to reconceptualise resilience in foster children, suggesting that behaviours 

typically seen as problematic may be resilient behaviours that have failed to adapt to a 

new environment, and that a strong sense of self and the ability to form meaningful 

connections with others are mutually reinforcing. The limitations of this research are 

discussed, in addition to implications for further research and suggestions for 

application in the foster care system.  

Keywords: Resilience, fostering, children in care, foster children, foster carers, 

caregivers, relationship, connection, Aotearoa, New Zealand  



2 
 

Introduction 

Foster children as a population are stereotypically perceived in two lights; either 

as weak and unfortunate victims deserving of pity, or as deeply troubled children with 

defiant behaviour disorders and delinquent behaviour patterns. The New Zealand foster 

care system is split into two divisions and includes approximately 3,500 foster parents 

and almost 4,000 children and young people (MSD, 2014). Children taken into state 

care have often endured all forms of maltreatment, including sexual abuse, physical 

abuse, emotional abuse, and neglect (Healey, 2011). While some foster children may fit 

the stereotyped moulds, many come through the foster care system to reach academic 

success, develop healthy relationships, and live productive lives. This research seeks to 

shed light on the positive sides of children in care, recognising that even among those 

who struggle with behavioural disorders and psychopathology, many foster children 

possess an innate strength that allows them to fight back in the face of abuse and 

neglect, find ways to cope as a powerless child within an imperfect government system, 

and bravely make emotional connections with new caregivers after experiencing broken 

attachments and abuse from the hands of trusted adults from a young age.   

Resilience as a research topic has been explored with a number of diverse at-risk 

populations. While resilience research seeks to increase knowledge and understanding 

on an academic level, it can also be seen as an intervention, as participation in resilience 

research aims to empower participants through the process and increase understanding 

of their own resilience. The University of California-Davis (2009) explains that the 

strengths focus inherent in resilience research creates a sense of personal 

accomplishment for participants, while Walsh (1998) claims that focusing on resilience 

rather than pathology can help at-risk individuals and groups make meaning of 

adversity, affirm strengths, and maintain hope. 



3 
 

There is some suggestion in prior research that foster children who are more 

resilient are able to build stronger relationships (See Bakermans-Kranenburg et al., 

2011), and that building strong relationships has an enhancing effect on resilience (See 

Emond, 2014). This research endeavour is built on this hypothesis of the relationship 

between interpersonal connection and resilience in foster children. The purpose of this 

research is to initiate a conversation with prominent figures in the lives of foster 

children about their strengths, rather than their weaknesses, and ask in what ways they 

have seen resilience in foster children and what they believe contributes to this 

resilience. Psychology as a profession has been criticized for its excessive focus on 

deficits and pathology; therefore, the goal of this inquiry is to bring stakeholders 

together to examine the ways that foster children cope despite facing often extreme 

adversity, and their capabilities to overcome trauma and participate in healthy 

relationships with their foster families. Based on the links made between attachment and 

resilience in the literature, a key focus in this research will be the relationships that 

foster carers have formed with the children in their care, examining the variety of roles 

foster carers play and the variety of experiences they have had in relationships with 

foster children. The findings of this research will be used to suggest ways that carers 

and professionals can recognise and strengthen the pre-existing resilience drive that 

many foster children appear to possess.  

 



4 
 

Literature Review 

The structure of this literature review is as follows: The construct of resilience 

will be examined based on the varying definitions provided in the literature and 

summarising the many facets of resilience that are relevant in developing a complete 

understanding of the construct. Both the characteristics of resilience and the 

measurement of resilience will be discussed, after which a working definition of 

resilience will be provided to give direction to this research and make clear the 

theoretical foundation and assumptions on which this research is built. Next, the 

construct of resilience will be examined in relation to children, who differ from the 

adult population in their life circumstances and responses to stress. The importance of 

the family context will be presented, in addition to the influence of adult modelling and 

other factors that impact upon the resilience of children.  

Following this, the construct of relational resilience will be considered, forming 

a connection between the two main topics of consideration in this research: resilience 

and attachment. Relational resilience will be discussed in the context of the variety of 

different definitions of the construct used by different researchers. Clarification will be 

given over how the term relational resilience will be used in theorising this research. 

Then, attachment theory will be introduced, beginning with a summary of the original 

framework, followed by an overview of research indicating the importance of 

attachment, and a discussion of theory based around poor or abnormal attachment. 

Finally, criticisms of attachment theory and other considerations will be discussed.  

Once these foundational constructs have been examined, the resilience of 

children in care will be discussed, including consideration of research in three different 

areas of care: residential care (in an institutional context), foster care (in a family 

context), and the transitioning process when children leave care. Subsequently, to place 



5 
 

this into the New Zealand context and make it relevant for this research investigation, 

the New Zealand foster care system will be introduced, with processes within the 

system and key terms presented. Finally, this literature review will conclude with a 

summary of the topics of discussion and their relevance to this study. It is hoped that 

this literature review will provide sufficient background understanding and justify the 

importance of this research project, which seeks to examine the resilience of children in 

care in New Zealand in relation to their attachment with carers and relationships with 

those around them. 

RESILIENCE AS A CONSTRUCT 

Research into the concept of resilience has been rapidly expanding, as 

researchers have been turning away from traditional approaches of deficits and 

psychopathology, and focusing on positive aspects of coping and strengths in vulnerable 

populations. Increased examination of resilience can improve understanding, reduce 

stigma and promote better outcomes. While researchers have struggled to establish a 

single unitary definition of the construct, there are several themes that reappear in the 

resilience literature.  

Resilience is often described in terms of bending but not breaking in the face of 

adverse life events or traumatic experiences; this definition emphasises the core 

characteristic of resilience as flexibility (see Tusaie & Dyer, 2004). Another common 

characteristic of resilience is its accumulative nature; many researchers believe that 

resilience often increases over time and with life experience (Rutter, 1985, as cited in 

Harvey & Delfabbro, 2004; Kalil, 2003). The characteristics of resilience identified by 

various researchers will be discussed in the section below, followed by an examination 

of the ways in which resilience can be measured. This section will conclude with an 

operational definition of resilience for the purposes of this research.  



6 
 

Characteristics of Resilience 

Outcome or Process 

An important consideration when defining resilience is whether it is considered 

as an outcome or a process. Many researchers see resilience as when an individual 

achieves good outcomes despite enduring adverse experiences. In this way, focus is 

centred on the end product, and the amount of resilience can be measured by how many 

indicators of success an individual displays. Alternatively, other researchers posit that 

resilience is the process through which individuals overcome difficulties on the path to 

achieving positive outcomes (Kalil, 2003). Kalil (2003) explains that it is possible to 

identify patterns of behavioural adaption profiles and use this knowledge to design 

interventions to increase certain resilient behaviours. For practical purposes, it may be 

possible to use a combined definition, in which resilience is both the process and the 

outcome; however, for theoretical purposes, the distinction between these two 

definitions will be considered below.  

Internal or External 

Another point of contention regarding the definition of resilience is whether it is 

defined as an internal attribute that a person can possess, or whether it is externally 

determined by the environment and other contextual factors (Kalil, 2003; Lynch, 2011; 

Emond, 2014). Kalil (2003) explains that if resilience is a personality trait, it is likely to 

be unchangeable; individuals either possess the trait or they do not. To address this 

issue, Ryff and Singer (2003) explain that resilience can be seen as interplay of both 

internal and contextual factors, and that certain combinations of the two can lead to 

resilience.  



7 
 

One way of understanding this is through a diathesis-stress model, where certain 

genetic and personality predispositions are triggered by life events that occur within the 

environment (Kalil, 2003). This is often explained as an equation of risk and protective 

factors, whereby, when the protective factors exceed the risk factors (in number or 

magnitude), resilient outcomes occur (Harvey & Delfabbro, 2004). This theory has led 

to research attempts to identify risk factors and protective factors in certain populations 

and contexts, and efforts to predict resilience based on the balance of these factors.  

Although identifying risk factors and increasing protective factors can have 

practical value in applying the construct of resilience to real-life situations, research has 

shown that resilience is highly contextual (Kalil, 2003). Therefore, it is important to 

realise that a person may be resilient in some contexts and to some stressors, but not to 

others. As Kalil (2003) explains, the complexity of resilience makes it extremely 

difficult to predict. This suggests that research efforts may be better invested in 

examining how resilience develops retrospectively, rather than attempts to predict 

outcomes that are likely to be inaccurate. 

Contextual and Unstable 

The complexity of the construct is also reflected in the fact that resilience is not 

a stable attribute; rather, it varies over time, contexts, and cultures. Kalil (2003) explains 

that resilience changes over the lifespan, and there is no single pattern of development 

that leads to a resilient individual. McCubbin (2001) elaborates that while a person may 

be resilient as a child, this does not guarantee they will maintain resilience into 

adulthood. Indeed, it may be futile to label a person as resilient at all, because a person 

is likely to be resilient in some situations but not others (McCubbin, 2001). For 

example, a man may lose his job but cope surprisingly well with the life changes that 



8 
 

follow; however, if his mother were to die, the same man may struggle to cope with his 

grief and experience major psychological difficulties. This reflects the fact that 

resilience is both contextual and relative to time, place, and situation, and therefore 

observations of resilience should be tied to specific situations, rather than making broad 

generalisations. 

Cultural Variability 

In addition to varying across situational contexts, the way resilience is displayed 

can also vary across cultural contexts. Differences in social norms and coping styles can 

be an example of how a person may be resilient in their own cultural context, but appear 

to be struggling to cope when compared to other cultural norms. For example, in 

individualistic cultures where independence is highly valued, a person turning to friends 

and family for emotional and physical support during difficult times may be seen as a 

sign of being unable to cope. In contrast, collectivistic cultures are likely to see 

dependence on family as a socially acceptable way to cope, and recognise an individual 

who uses this form of support as resilient. This suggests that when assessing the 

resilience of individuals from different cultures, the traditions and accepted coping 

styles of the culture concerned should be considered. In the New Zealand context, this 

should involve examining the resilience of Māori individuals within the context of a 

holistic Māori worldview, such as the Te Whare Tapa Wha model (See Durie, 1982). 

Domain Specificity 

In line with the variation discussed above is the understanding that resilience is 

domain-specific. This infers that resilience is not a pervasive attribute and a person is 

unlikely to be resilient in all domains of his or her life. Lynch’s (2011) research refers to 

the different domains of resilience, listing emotional, relational, educational, and 



9 
 

behavioural as examples, although resilience may be divided into many more 

categories. While an individual may be physically resilient to illness and may be able to 

maintain high grades in school despite enduring a traumatic event, the same person may 

be less resilient emotionally and be unable to cope with social situations (See 

McCubbin, 2001). Lynch (2011) questions whether it is necessary for an individual to 

be resilient in all domains in order to earn the label ‘resilient.’ However, acknowledging 

that no one is impervious to the effects of trauma reflects the complexity of resilience 

and the multitude of factors that influence how people respond to hardship.  

Response to Adversity 

The field of resilience research concedes that the prerequisite for resilience is the 

experience of trauma or adversity. In this way, resilience is seen as a positive 

psychological or behavioural response to a negative situation. Ryff and Singer (2003) 

refer to resilience as a persons’ ability to “flourish under fire” (p. 15). This reflects that 

resilience is only displayed when a person encounters difficulty and is tested. As 

McCubbin (2001) explains, a person who has not or is not currently encountering 

obstacles cannot be said to be resilient, because resilience requires adversity. This is 

reflected in the population samples within which resilience has been examined, such as 

disaster victims, victims of crime, and marginalised populations. 

Promotes Empowerment 

Finally, there is a general consensus among most researchers that resilience by 

definition promotes empowerment, through its recognition of strengths rather than 

focusing exclusively on weaknesses (Ungar, 2001; See Shih, 2004 for a discussion of 

the links between stigma, resilience and empowerment). Resilience as a construct falls 

in line with the ideals of positive psychology and attempts to balance out the historically 



10 
 

biased focus on psychopathology and the deficit-approach that has dominated much of 

psychology as a field. The very definition of resilience empowers individuals to see 

themselves as strong and capable, and encourages professionals to take a more balanced 

view of the people they work with. Given the populations that are typically examined in 

resilience research, resilience research can be particularly valuable in empowering 

disempowered individuals and groups in society. 

The Measurement of Resilience 

The measurement of resilience is also a research concern. When considering 

how resilience should be measured, Walsh (1998) explains that resilience is not the 

absence of problems, but rather the presence of skills to overcome problems 

successfully.  

Dichotomy or Continuum 

While resilience is sometimes understood as a dichotomous attribute that a 

person either does or does not possess, some researchers portray it as a continuum, 

whereby most people are seen to be resilient, but to differing extents (Manyena, 2006). 

Although the concept of a dichotomy is more simplified and easier to measure, the 

complexity inherent in the characteristics of resilience as a construct, as explained 

above, is more consistent with the concept of a continuum, which recognises that 

resilience is relative and not absolute in nature.  

Threshold 

Another important consideration when attempting to measure resilience is where 

the threshold is set (Cornelius, 2013). Some researchers define resilience as merely 

coping in the face of adversity and maintaining homeostasis, while others set a higher 



11 
 

standard of thriving (Tusaie & Dyer, 2004), also referred to as post-traumatic growth 

(McCubbin, 2001). The more inclusive definition of resilience as a range of responses 

to diversity, anywhere from coping and maintaining equilibrium to excelling and 

improving after a difficult experience (See Figure 1 below), allows for a wider range of 

experiences and fits well with the continuum model discussed above.   

 

Figure 1. Threshold for resilience. Different definitions of resilience based on post-

stressor level of functioning are depicted. 

Operational Definition of Resilience 

Due to the wide variety of definitions of resilience and the lack of consensus on 

how it is used, it is important to provide succinct definitions in research utilising the 

construct, in order that comparisons can be made across studies and so that new 

research can build on existing research towards a common goal (Kalil, 2003). The 

boundaries around the concept of resilience, as used in this particular piece of research, 

will be defined as follows:  

Resilience is coping in the face of adversity, as seen in the achievement of 

positive outcomes and the strategies that are used to achieve such outcomes. Resilience 

is highly contextual; an interaction between internal attributes and external 



12 
 

circumstances produces resilience at different levels. Resilience is also relative to time, 

stage of development, domain, particular stressor, and culture. For the purposes of this 

research, resilience will be defined as maintaining or improving functioning (See Figure 

X below), as it is recognised that adjusting to life in foster care is no easy feat, and 

therefore maintaining a stable level of functioning across transitions from family to 

caregivers and between multiple caregivers requires enormous resilience for a young 

child.  

RESILIENCE IN CHILDREN 

 Just as children manifest psychopathology in different ways to adults, special 

consideration for how children display resilience is necessary. Due to the stage of 

development a child is in and the high dependency of children on adults, resilient 

behaviour may appear differently in children, just as it can vary across cultures. Turner 

(2001) explains that “the premise is that everyone who has survived a trauma, or a 

neglectful or abusive childhood, has some strength that got her through the experience” 

(p. 441).  

A predominant researcher in the area of child resilience is Kalil (2003), who 

conducted a vast literature review of child resilience in the context of the family system, 

highlighting the importance of examining resilience as a collective as well as an 

individual construct. Kalil (2003) explains that the concept of family resilience has been 

defined as both resilience at a collective family level and as an examination of how the 

family setting provides a safe environment that promotes resilience in children. Kalil 

(2003) summarises resilience in children as resulting from an interplay between the 

child’s dispositions, family characteristics, and the wider environment. These 

definitions acknowledge that resilience is not just displayed by individuals, but that 

whole family units can be resilient to challenges they face as a whole. It also recognises 



13 
 

the importance of context and how children are greatly influenced by the relationships 

in their lives, particularly within the family environment.  

Family Context 

While research shows that family support plays a role in resilience in adults 

(Sossou, Craig, Ogren & Schnak, 2008), for children still dependent on their families 

and living within the context of a family system, family support and relationships with 

parents and siblings may be even more imperative (Kalil, 2003). Sossou et al. (2008) 

and Kalil (2003) conclude that family cohesion is an important protective factor for 

children and promotes wellbeing for all members of the family unit. Cohesion enhances 

emotional connection and support for all family members, and promotes attachment, 

sense of safety, and security (Kalil, 2003).  

According to Kalil (2003), overall family functioning is comprised of three 

aspects: family cohesion, adaptability, and communication (See Figure 2). Families that 

score highly in these three aspects can be said to have high levels of family functioning 

and are more likely to show resilience as a unit.  

An important consideration in examining the family functioning triangle is that 

it requires balance. While cohesion is important, it does not ensure healthy family 

functioning on its own; families that have adaptability in their family structure are more 

likely to be flexible to the needs of their children and less rigid in patterns of interaction 

(Kalil, 2003). This is especially important as children enter the adolescent years and 

being to negotiate their independence (Kalil, 2003). Similarly, flexibility in parenting 

style is important, as children need a balance of support and autonomy, especially when 

entering adolescence (Kalil, 2003) 



14 
 

 

Figure 2. Family functioning triangle. Based on the work of Kalil (2003) 

Kalil (2003) explains that the relationship between level of cohesion and overall 

family functioning can best be represented using a curvilinear model, as shown below in 

Figure 3. While this hypothesis needs further testing, it is based on the premise that 

when family cohesion is either too low or too high, poor family functioning is likely to 

result. This can be seen when parents are completely uninvolved in their children’s 

lives, or at the opposite extreme, when a family is enmeshed, parents are overly 

involved, and children lack any autonomy (Kalil, 2003). It is proposed that family 

functioning is highest when a family has a moderate level of cohesion, and this is 

demonstrated in the figure below as an ‘optimal’ zone.  



15 
 

 

Figure 3. The relationship between family cohesion and functioning. The optimal zone 

is highlighted, based on the explanation provided by Kalil (2003). 

Family Modelling 

Like most behaviour, resilient responses to adversity may be a learned behaviour 

that is passed from parents to children across generations. Coping strategies used by the 

parents are often adopted by the children through observation and direct instruction 

(Kalil, 2003). This is commonly observed in terms of children adopting negative 

parental behaviours, such as the use of substances or violence as a response to stress. 

However, it is believed that positive coping strategies can also be learned from parents 

and other adult role models (Healey & Fisher, 2011). For example, parents who observe 

religious traditions and pray in times of difficulty are likely to teach their children to do 

the same, and this may lead to the acquisition of coping strategies that children can 

continue to use as they grow up.  

Kalil’s (2003) research has identified that holding meaningful belief systems and 

the presence of religion and spirituality in children’s lives can be valuable in increasing 

resilience. While spirituality is often seen as non-psychological and non-scientific, some 



16 
 

research shows that it is often correlated with better adjustment and higher levels of 

happiness (Argyle, 2013; Francis & Lester, 1997). People who hold religious belief 

systems often approach difficulties as setbacks rather than disasters, and take more 

active problem solving approaches to dealing with such difficulties (Kalil, 2003). In 

addition, Kalil (2003) explains that religious beliefs often promote responsible 

parenting, family values, and positive morals such as loving, caring, and altruism. 

Religious beliefs and worldviews are one example of behaviour and an associated set of 

attitudes that are commonly modelled from parents to children, and this suggests that 

parents can have a positive impact on other aspects of their children’s lives and 

behaviour as well. 

Factors that Impact Child Resilience 

As explained above, children are highly dependent on their parents, caregivers, 

or other adults in their lives to meet their physical and psychological needs, and this 

gives external figures great influence on their life outcomes. Although research shows 

that low income and poverty are correlated with many family dysfunctions and negative 

outcomes for children, young people, and families, Kalil (2003) explains that parents 

who have limited financial capital can still invest social capital in their children by 

promoting social relationships and providing support systems for their children through 

maintaining close relationships with relatives and friends. Research suggests that 

investing time, social capital, and resources, however limited, into children can increase 

resilience and compensate for some of the negative effects of poverty (Kalil, 2003). 

Parents can also shield their children in different ways from external stressors. For 

example, parents often hide information from their children to protect them, such as if 

parents decide to wait until after school exams are finished to tell their children they are 



17 
 

getting divorced. In this way, parents or other adult figures may have control over the 

amount of stress that a child is exposed to.  

Kalil (2003) presents a family resilience hypothesis, explaining that when 

children grow up in a stress-resistant family, in which the parents try as much as 

possible to buffer their children from stress and protect them from risks in a high-risk 

environment (such as poverty or foster care), family resilience is in play (See Figure 4). 

However, if the family is not resilient as a unit, Kalil (2003) suggests it will be unable to 

resist pressure and protect the children from the negative effects of an unfavourable 

environment.  

While the family resilience theory has received support, questions remain; if the 

family protects a child too much, will the child be dependent on the family system and 

have low individual resilience? If the child is removed from the family (as with foster 

care situations), will they remain resilient? In addition, if children do not have a stable 

parental figure or permanent family, and are not buffered from stressors, are they able to 

develop resilience on their own? And can a temporary foster family fulfil the same role 

as the parents in Kalil’s (2003) model in teaching resilience and buffering children from 

stress? 

In some cases, children raised in a context of family resilience may learn 

resilient processes and coping skills from their family, and this may make them more 

resilient when they enter foster care. However, it must be considered that if a family 

displayed high family resilience, would their children be in a situation in which they 

must be placed into state care? Or does family resilience operate at fairly low levels in 

the target population of this research project, offering partial explanation for why foster 

care is necessary and making an examination of family resilience irrelevant? Kalil 



18 
 

(2003) explains that poverty, single parenthood, and teenage non-marital parenthood are 

common barriers to family resilience and child development, factors that are highly 

correlated with situations from which children enter state care. While family resilience 

appears to have high theoretical value in the field of child psychology, it may be that 

other factors are at play in the development of resilience in foster children.  

Another possible precursor to resilience in children, despite coming from 

dysfunctional or broken families, is the presence of two parent figures in the child’s life. 

Kalil (2003) explains that when a child is in maternal custody, maintaining an active 

relationship with the non-resident father can act as a protective factor. In cases where 

one parent is absent (often the father), the presence of social fathers, or positive male 

role models, can often compensate for the loss of the father figure and increase 

resilience in the child and the mother (Kalil, 2003). Kalil (2003) suggests that this effect 

occurs both directly and indirectly, as the social father can have a positive impact on the 

child themselves, and gives the solo mother social support and increases her mental 

health and overall wellbeing, thereby improving the way she interacts with her children. 

This idea of substitution parents may be relevant to the field of foster care, as foster 

parents, like social fathers, may be able to partially compensate for the loss of the 

parents. 



19 
 

 

Figure 4. Child protection systems. The buffering layers that protect children in a 

hypothetically ‘normal’ family upbringing. 

ATTACHMENT THEORY 

 An important consideration when examining resilience in children, particularly 

children with disrupted home lives and unstable families, is how attachment develops in 

infancy and affects development and behaviour throughout the lifespan. The prominent 

early theorist in the field of attachment is Bowlby (1997), who generated a theory of 

attachment by examining how attachment behaviour develops in normal children and 

the consequences when attachment processes malfunction. Bowlby (1997) explains that 

“What is believed to be essential for mental health is that the infant and young child 

should experience a warm, intimate and continuous relationship with his mother (or 

permanent mother substitute) in which both find satisfaction and enjoyment” (p. xii). 

Contexts in which attachment has commonly been researched include orphanages, 

foster care systems, children in hospitals, infants born to mothers in prison, and children 

raised by a nanny or substitute mother.  

 

 



20 
 

Attachment Theory Framework 

Bakermans-Kranenburg et al. (2011) summarise the basic premise of attachment 

theory, explaining that healthy attachment develops naturally in response to adequate 

caregiving. Bowlby (1997) elaborates that the development of attachment is an 

interactive process, through which the infant shapes and reinforces the mother’s 

behaviour through actions such as crying and smiling, and the mother shapes the child’s 

behaviour by picking him or her up and giving the child attention. In this way, the 

mother and child develop a strong and distinct pattern of interaction very quickly, and 

learn to predict each other’s behaviour (Bowlby, 1997). 

Within 12 months of birth, an infant should develop a strong tie to the mother 

figure or the primary person who meets the child’s physiological needs (Bowlby, 1997). 

Bowlby (1997) explains that attachment behaviour refers to attempts at “seeking and 

maintaining proximity to another individual” (p. 195). Attachment is encouraged when 

adults show sensitivity in response to an infant’s signals, and by the amount and nature 

of interaction between the adult and child (Bowlby, 1997). Attachment is often 

understood as being measured by the amount of separation anxiety displayed by a child, 

but Bowlby (1997) explains that attachment also involves behaviour that initiates 

interaction, maintains interaction, avoids separation, the reaction on reunion, 

exploration of the environment, and fear behaviour, such as withdrawing to the mother 

to seek comfort when frightened. Similar attachment behaviour is seen in many animals, 

such as when ducklings follow the mother duck very closely, and as displayed in many 

studies with monkeys and primates (See Bowlby, 1997 for a summary of animal 

research).  



21 
 

According to attachment theory, all patterns of attachment can be classified in 

four distinct categories. Children are said to be securely attached when they display 

behaviours seen as typical in development. Bowlby (1997) found that the majority of 

children actively play, seek their mother when distressed, find comfort from their 

mother, and then return to play. In contrast, children with an anxious-avoidant 

attachment are likely to avoid the mother after her absence, and may be unusually 

friendly towards strangers (Bowlby, 1997). Anxious-resistant children will seek 

proximity to the mother but resist contact. They are often described as either angry or 

passive (Bowlby, 1997).  

Finally, the term disorganised attachment is used to categorise children who 

display conflicted or fearful behaviour in response to the mother leaving and returning. 

Examples of this behaviour include huddling on the floor, approaching the parent but 

remaining hesitant, or entering a “trance-like” state (Lyons-Ruth & Jacobvitz, 1999). In 

the many years since these categories were developed, much research has been 

conducted and no additional categories have been supported, with consensus suggesting 

that these four categories are inclusive of all known types of attachment behaviour.  

Importance of Attachment 

As Bowlby (1997) recognised, attachment plays a vital role in adolescent and 

adult mental health. Since attachment theory was developed, much research has 

examined the impact of childhood attachment with the caregiver on outcomes later in 

life. While much of this research is correlational, a strong trend emerges, suggesting that 

poor attachment leads to poor outcomes in a number of areas, including academic 

success in childhood (Pianta, Nimetz, & Bennett, 1997; Newland, Coyl & Chen, 2010), 

personality style and romantic relationships in adulthood (Shaver & Brennan, 1992), 



22 
 

empathy and affect regulation (Davidov & Grusec, 2006), and cognitive and social 

development (Burchinal, 1999). Although it is difficult to directly link problems later in 

life to poor childhood attachment, evidence suggests that the effects of attachment last 

well into adolescence and adulthood, and therefore that attachment plays a vital role in 

human development and may influence the ability to connect with others and levels of 

resilience in later life. 

Dysfunctional Attachment 

Much research has been dedicated to understanding how healthy attachment can 

be thwarted and the resulting effects of breaking an already formed attachment, as 

commonly occurs when children are abandoned or removed from parental custody. 

Bowlby (1997) analysed many observational studies, deducing a common pattern of 

response to loss of the attachment figure. He observed that typical 15-30 month old 

children, on first separation from the mother, display a predictable sequence of 

behaviour: protest, despair, and then detachment. “When removed from the mother by 

strangers, young children respond usually with great intensity; and after reunion with 

her, they show commonly either a heightened degree of separation anxiety or else an 

unusual detachment” (p. 3). He explains these two opposite responses, citing “…great 

changes in the child’s relation to his mother that are often seen when he returns home 

after a period away; on the one hand, ‘an intense clinging to the mother which can 

continue for weeks, months or years’; on the other, ‘a rejection of the mother as a love 

object, which may be temporary or permanent’” (p. xiii); this is referred to as 

detachment.  

According to Bowlby (1997), when at first, the separated child expects his or her 

mother to return, the child may reject other adults and display pining for his or her 



23 
 

mother. However, with time, children often display increasing hopelessness, becoming 

withdrawn and quiet. Finally, the child reaches a point of detachment. During this stage, 

the child appears to settle and caregivers may assume all is well, but if the child visits 

his or her mother, shows a lack of attachment and appears to have completely lost 

interest in the once yearned for attachment figure. Once the child has detached from the 

mother, he or she may become attached to a succession of caregivers, but as care 

placements are often unstable, with each loss of an attachment figure, the child reacts 

less and less, becoming successively more detached (Bowlby, 1997).  

Eventually, some children will appear unable to attach to anyone at all. While 

this behaviour is maladaptive for the child’s emotional and social functioning, it can be 

understood within the context as a useful adaption to the situation, and in this way it is 

possible to understand the protective function of such dysfunctional behaviour. 

However, Bowlby (1997) further examined the phenomenon of detachment, finding that 

when children have a single mother substitute (stable placement), are fostered with a 

sibling, or remain in a familiar environment, they often display less distress. In contrast, 

when children experience a longer separation from their attachment figure, they are 

likely to have a more extreme reaction.  

Criticisms 

Bowlby’s (1997) theory has received criticism, including suggestions that rather 

than the importance of separation from the mother, being placed in a different 

environment and having a different parental figure intensifies the negative effects of 

separation, or alternatively that the noted effects can be attributed to a bad relationship 

with the mother. However, Bowlby explains that the opposite is true; it appears that 

having a good relationship with the mother can make separation effects worse. Indeed, 



24 
 

Healey and Fisher (2011) suggest that due to loyalty, children who are already attached 

to their birth parents may be less likely to attach to their foster parents. Bowlby’s (1997) 

research concludes that the loss of the mother is the key variable effecting change in 

children’s behaviour after separation (See p. 30-31 for a refutation of these criticisms). 

Lynch (2011) points out that when an attachment fails to form, this does not 

necessarily mean the child is unable to attach, as mutual acceptance and willingness is 

necessary to form a secure attachment. Rather than assuming insecure attachment is due 

to problems in the child’s ability to connect and trust, it must be understood that 

attachment is a two-way street. Bakermans-Kranenburg et al. (2011) explain that when 

caregivers are emotionally unavailable and/or neglect the physical needs of children, the 

child may suppress his or her needs as an adaptive response to the situation. While this 

often explains the detachment of children towards their birth parents, this may also 

occur in fostering situations, when children do not feel safe, secure, and wanted in their 

placement. Although this may be a maladaptive response in terms of the child’s 

emotional health, it can also be seen as a method of survival and a form of resilience.  

RELATIONAL RESILIENCE 

The field of resilience research is broad and varied, and it has been suggested by 

some researchers that resilience is not a unified construct, as different types or domains 

of resilience operate. A particular area of interest, given the influence of adult figures 

and the importance of relationships in children’s lives, is the concept of relational 

resilience, which suggests that relationships can be both causative in boosting resilience 

and a measure of how resilient a child is. Like the construct of resilience in general, 

differing definitions of relational resilience have been used across different research 

studies.  



25 
 

Hartling (2008) refers to relational resilience as “our capacity to build healthy 

relationships with others” (p. 53), elaborating on the “ability to connect, reconnect, and 

resist disconnection in response to hardships, adversities, trauma, and alienating 

social/cultural practices” (p. 56). Walker and Lee (1998) explain the importance of 

relationships, as “supportive parent-child relationships have been identified as the single 

most important protective process operating to produce resilient outcomes across 

several, diverse populations at risk” (p. 528). This leads to an important premise for this 

research, that healthy attachment and relationships play a key role in child resilience. 

Within the specific population of foster children, who by definition have been removed 

from the care of their parents, the effect of the lack of access to this “important 

protective process” (Walker & Lee, 1998, p. 528) and the potential for foster carers to 

compensate for this need, must be considered. 

Waldegrave et al. (2011) explain that family/relational resilience is an 

interactional process, whereby the child contributes to the relationship and the resulting 

resilience, as does the adult. This reflects the influence of the caregiver’s relational style 

on the dynamics of a foster relationship; a child who is relationally resilient may be 

placed with a caregiver who is not warm and welcoming, and an attachment may not 

form. This does not mean that the child lacks relational resilience or has an attachment 

problem; rather, attachment is a two-way process, and therefore resilience comes from 

within the child and the context they are placed in. The conclusion is that in order for a 

child to gain the resilience-building benefits of a healthy attachment, the child must be 

in an environment that allows for attachment, and be willing to seek and participate in 

such a relationship. 

Hartling (2008) explains that “social support is most often described in the 

research as a one-way, unidirectional form of relating, or something that one gets from 



26 
 

others” (p. 63). For this reason, when studying relational resilience, it is preferable to 

examine relationships, attachment, and connection instead of social support, because 

these terms imply two-way relationships and offer a more complete view of the benefits 

of positive social interaction. 

Calkins et al. (2007) draw connections between early childhood attachment to 

the parent figure and later resilience, citing research suggesting attachment patterns can 

be predictive of behaviour problems. Calkins et al. (2007) also implicate the quality of 

mother-child interactions in developing resilience, across the dimensions of affection, 

warmth, and positive involvement. They conclude that “less conflict, more synchrony, 

and greater shared positive affect may be important elements of the child’s relationship 

with the caregiver that may buffer the child from the negative effects of contextual risk 

factors” (Calkins et al., 2007, p. 680). This suggests that for the proportion of foster 

children who do develop healthy attachments in infancy, but are removed from the 

attachment figure or moved to another placement, resilience may be inhibited or less 

likely to develop, while those children who have never developed a secure attachment 

are also likely to be more vulnerable to stressors. 

While parental relationships are clearly important in building resilience, there is 

suggestion that other family relationships can also be strengthening for children. Walker 

and Lee’s (1998) research examined relational resilience in children of alcoholics 

(COAs), with results suggesting the important role sibling relationships can play in the 

resilience of at-risk children. Walker and Lee explain that “brothers and sisters can be a 

potential built-in resource to cope with alcohol-related and other sources of stress” (p. 

527), and suggest that facing the difficulty of parental alcohol abuse can lead to stronger 

sibling bonds than families in which the children have not faced significant difficulty. 

Additionally, the authors cite empirical evidence that increased emotional connection 



27 
 

and the support of a loving family can reduce the likelihood that COAs will develop 

psychiatric problems such as conduct disorder and depression (Walker & Lee, 1998). 

Consistent with the discussion of resilience above, this research suggests that 

encountering negative experiences can lead to increased coping in terms of relational 

resilience, and that increased strength of relational bonds can act as a buffer for negative 

outcomes. 

 In the cases of children who do not have supportive relationships with family 

members, as commonly occurs in dysfunctional or abusive families, research suggests 

that other adults can act as a substitute. Turner (2001) explains that: 

Resilient children do not identify with their parents’ maladaptive patterns; they 

find positive role models elsewhere, such as teachers, parents of friends, coaches, 

and religious or other community leaders. They learn to disengage emotionally 

from their families, but still maintain some connection, and they do not feel they 

are to blame for their family problems. (p. 443) 

In addition to increasing resilience, Turner (2001) states that the ability to 

maintain a healthy relationship with an adult role model is an indicator of good 

resilience in a child or adult, as “the ability to form positive, intimate relationships is an 

essential component of resilience” (Turner, 2001, p. 443). Hartling (2008) supports this 

supposition, citing “evidence indicating that children who have at least one supportive 

relationship (connection) with an adult can achieve good outcomes despite severe 

hardships” (p. 63). This research suggests that participating in healthy relationships and 

having resilience forms a reinforcing cycle, as illustrated in Figure 5 below. 



28 
 

 

Figure 5. The reinforcing cycle of relationship and resilience. Relationships enhance 

resilience, and resilience enhances relationships. 

 Walker and Lee (1998) suggest reconsideration of some taken-for-granted 

assumptions when considering attachment and relational resilience. The authors urge 

readers to: 

 Recognize that protective factors are not necessarily positive experiences (Rutter, 

1985) and may even deceptively appear to be symptoms of pathology. Behaviors 

traditionally regarded as dysfunctional (e.g., enmeshment and parentification) 

may actually be positive ways in which family systems handle the risks associated 

with familial alcoholism. (Walker & Lee, 1998, p. 529)  

They further elaborate that “Some parentification may be a healthy adaptation in 

the face of alcoholism and a sign of relational resiliency. That is, giving capable 

children appropriate amounts of parental responsibility may benefit the entire family 

system” (Walker & Lee, 1998, p. 531). Walker and Lee (1998) also explain that the 

attachment that develops between a child and an adult figure may be seen as unhealthily 

close, but “it may also be because the pejorative term "enmeshment" has been used to 

describe a parent-child relationship that is apparently more interdependent than 



29 
 

warranted by a child's developmental stage” (p. 530). However, in the particular 

context, the relationship may be protective for the child. For example, if the child has 

never had a stable, dependable adult in their life, they may begin to progress through the 

normal attachment process that develops in infancy (Walker & Lee, 1998).  

These considerations warn against the traditional assumptions of pathology, 

recognise the importance of individual variation and acknowledging context, and 

support the underlying idea of resilience being about survival and adaption. By 

changing our perspective, pathology can be turned upside down and seen as attempts to 

survive and adapt to unhealthy life circumstances; once such problems are 

reconceptualised, creative solutions to readapt in healthier environments can be 

developed. 

The term ‘relational resilience’ is often used interchangeably with the term 

‘family resilience,’ however in this research a distinction will be made. Foster children 

are unique to most research populations because often they live their lives in constantly 

changing contexts; because they do not have consistent families (and have contact with 

their birth families to varying extents), family resilience may have little impact on their 

lives and cannot be studied accurately. Instead, this research will examine foster 

children’s relational resilience, a term that will be used to represent their enduring desire 

to build relationships and attempts to make connections with those around them and 

access the positive aspects that relationships with supportive adults can offer, despite 

experiencing repeated broken relationships and living in an often powerless and 

constantly changing context. 

The conclusions drawn from research into relational resilience suggest that 

relationships play a key role in understanding resilience, and suggest that interventions 



30 
 

to increase access to supportive relationships with family members or other adults, and 

to improve the skills children have to build and maintain relationships, may lead to 

better outcomes. As Hartling (2008) concludes, researchers are “understanding 

resilience as a human capacity that can be developed and strengthened in all people 

through relationships, specifically through growth-fostering relationships” (p. 52).  

RESILIENCE IN CHILDREN IN CARE 

While the structure of foster care systems varies across countries, for the 

purposes of this research, it is helpful to distinguish between two types of state care: 

children in foster care and children in residential care. However, in reality, most 

children in residential care have previously been in foster care, and may return to foster 

care after leaving residence (See Table 1 below for definitions of terms). Leve (2012) 

state that there is a hierarchy in the quality of different care settings, with children being 

raised in their own families as preferential, and foster care within a family model setting 

as preferable over residential care and placement in group homes. There is clearly much 

overlap between the different types of care, and many children move back and forth 

between the different care settings within the system. Therefore, many of the 

observations made based on research in one care setting may be applicable to children 

in other settings; however, for the purpose of clarity and structure, the literature will be 

divided into three categories.  

First, an overview of research examining resilience in the context of residential 

care will be presented. Secondly, a summary of the key points found in studies 

examining resilience in foster family situations will be presented. Finally, research 

conducted with children transitioning out of the foster care system will be summarised. 

Together, these sections hope to provide an overview of international research into 

resilience in children who have been removed from their families and placed in the 



31 
 

foster care system, forming a foundation from which this independent research project 

can build upon.  

Table 1 

Key terms in this research 

Term Definition 

Children in care General term used to refer to all children 

and young people who are in the care of 

Child, Youth and Family, whether long 

term or temporary, and inclusive of foster 

care and residential care. 

Foster care Children who are placed in the care of 

foster parents or a foster family, 

constituting the majority of children in 

care. 

Whanau care Children who have been removed from 

the custody of their parents and placed 

with suitable family or whanau, either 

long term or temporarily. 

Residential care Children who are in the care of a group 

home or state institution, and have 

usually been in foster care previously, 

with a history of failed placements 

leading to residential care. Children in 

residential care are often at the higher 

needs end of the care spectrum. 

Note. This table provides definitions of the key terms that will be used in this research 

and indicates how they will be used. 

Resilience in Residential Care 

 For some foster children in New Zealand, a short-term stay in a CYFS residence 

is necessary to deal with high and complex needs or while appropriate care 



32 
 

arrangements are made. Residential care options are often used as a last resort, after 

foster care arrangements have been unsuccessful, and are often used with older children 

and adolescents (Emond, 2014). While Bakermans-Kranenburg et al. (2011) explain 

that for more than 50 years, there has been evidence that institutional care is detrimental 

to children’s wellbeing, many countries still use long-term residential care facilities, and 

much international research has examined the differences between outcomes for 

children in residential care and those in foster care. Emond (2014) explains that children 

who live in residences often have very different experiences to those in foster care: they 

lack the ‘normality’ of the family context that their peers grow up in, they must 

negotiate their lives within two institutions (residence and school), and they often have 

more educational and psychological difficulties than children in foster placements.  

As Lynch (2011) explains, temporary placement in a residential facility often 

means children must live with uncertainty and a lack of stability, not knowing when 

they will leave and where they will be sent next. Residences commonly consist of high 

ratios of children to staff, high staff turnover rates, and a lack of opportunities to 

develop secure attachments to one parental figure (Bakermans-Kranenburg et al., 2011). 

Despite research suggesting that residential care is in many ways inferior to family-

model caregiving (Smyke, Zeanah, Fox, Nelson, & Guthrie, 2010), there is also 

evidence that children in residential care can develop resilience in other ways and 

flexibly adapt to their environments.  

Peer Relationships 

Research by Emond (2014) suggests that peer relationships are very important 

for children in residential care, both in terms of relationships with other children at 

school and with other children in the residence. Due to the lack of a stable parental 



33 
 

figure that often characterises residential care, it may be that strong peer relationships 

can in some way compensate and give such children a sense of family, unity, normality, 

and belonging (Emond, 2014). In a world of adults who make decisions for the child’s 

life, such as caregivers, youth workers, social workers, judges, and teachers, the 

importance of having the freedom to choose peer groups and build friendships appears 

to be important in children in care (Emond, 2014). The shared experience of children in 

residential homes also appears to be a unifying factor that helps buffer the shame many 

foster children experience, and can increase resilience through shared understanding 

(Emond, 2014). The conclusions drawn from Emond’s (2014) research strengthen the 

premise of this research endeavour, that relationships play a key role in resilience. 

Placement Length 

Another important factor that is believed to influence resilience is the length of 

placement, as Lynch (2011) explains that it takes time to develop attachment, and that 

without sufficient time together, the child is unlikely to attach to the caregivers (See 

also Bakermans-Kranenburg et al., 2011). Lynch’s (2011) research centres on the 

concept of relational resilience, the ability to form relationships (predominantly with 

adults such as caregivers and teachers), of which attachment is believed to play a key 

role. Therefore, Lynch (2011) suggests that if a foster child does not remain in a 

placement for long enough to develop attachment to his or her carers, the child is likely 

to have lower relational resilience.  

Residential Staff 

Other aspects of the residential care situation that research suggests may inhibit 

the development of attachment to caregivers include high ratios of children to staff in 

institutions and high staff turnover rates. Because attachment theory suggests that for 



34 
 

healthy attachment to develop, children need to have their needs consistently met by one 

(or two, in the case of two involved parents) stable attachment figure(s), and an average 

expectable environment (See Bowlby, 1998, as cited in Bakermans-Kranenburg et al., 

2011), residences with low ratios of staff to children often mean a lack of opportunities 

for one-on-one interaction, and therefore reduce opportunities for normal emotional 

development.  

Bakermans-Kranenburg et al. (2011) explain that an ideal ratio of 1:1 and 

sufficient devotion of time and attention to the child, as well as stability of the caregiver 

role, promotes healthy attachment and resilience. However, the absence of 

individualised attention makes it unlikely that children will develop healthy attachment 

patterns, especially in children who have been institutionalised since infancy. In line 

with this reasoning, high staff turnover rates also mean inconsistent caregiver roles and 

lack of sufficient opportunity to develop attachment. Bakermans-Kranenburg et al. 

(2011) explain that institutionalised children can have up to 50 different caregivers by 

the age of three; while Lynch (2011) cites research showing that 41% of foster children 

in the US experienced three or more placement changes within a year. 

Attachment 

While attachment studies indicate that abnormal attachment patterns are 

common in children taken into state care (see Minnis, Everett, Pelosi, Dunn, & Knapp, 

2006; Smyke et al., 2010), research suggests that the increased likelihood of multiple 

carers and unstable placements typical in institutionalised care prevents children from 

developing healthy attachments. To further strengthen the link between residential care 

facilities and unhealthy attachment patterns, Bakermans-Kranenburg et al. (2011) cite a 

study conducted in Greece with infants in residential care since birth, who therefore had 



35 
 

no adverse experiences such as family abuse or neglect before entering care. This study 

found that 66% of these children displayed disorganised attachment styles to their most 

familiar caregivers, compared to 25% of infants in a two-parent family comparison 

group (See Vorria et al., 2003). A similar study conducted in Russia by The St. 

Petersburg-USA Orphanage Research Team (2008) found that 85% of the sample of 

institutionalised children displayed disorganised attachment, suggesting that, when the 

effects of pre-care trauma and abuse are eliminated, some aspects of residential care 

itself appear to cause damage to institutionalised children (Bakermans-Kranenburg et 

al., 2011).  

Acceptance 

Research into the experiences of foster children, particularly those in residential 

institutions and group homes, has shown that the extent to which a child is aware of his 

or her own history, and the identity a child forms based around their acceptance of their 

care status, may influence self-esteem (Emond, 2014), which is believed to play a role 

in resilience. Often young children may be unaware of the situation that caused them to 

be removed from the care of their family, but as they grow up and enter adolescence, 

and begin to develop a distinct identity, develop a need to understand their own journey 

and the reasons for their position in the foster care system (Emond, 2014). However, 

Emond (2014) explains that due to a sense of stigma and shame at being 

institutionalised, some foster children deny their situation to their peers and construct 

false narratives to explain why they are in care. This may include having idealised 

views of their birth parents and denial of the wrongs they have committed. Some 

researchers suggest that with increasing time in the system, hope often diminishes and 

resilience can decrease as the child or adolescent develops the cognitive maturity to 

realise that they are unlikely to be reunited with their family or placed in a permanent 



36 
 

foster family (Lynch, 2011). However, if the child is able to form a new sense of 

identity and belonging in the foster context, these negative effects may be avoided. 

Indiscriminate Friendliness  

An interesting feature observed in many children raised in institutional care, 

examined in depth in Bakermans-Kranenburg et al.’s (2011) research with children in 

institutionalised care in the Netherlands, is that of indiscriminate friendliness, whereby 

children display overly friendly behaviour to almost all adults they encounter, and 

appear unable to distinguish between appropriate behaviour towards people they know 

and strangers. Children who display indiscriminate friendliness often show no 

preference for the caregiver; when they are upset, they will not run to the caregiver for 

comfort as expected, but may accept care from wherever it is offered (Bakermans-

Kranenburg et al., 2011). This phenomenon has been explained in a number of ways. 

Rutter et al. (2007) suggest that it may be due to a lack of self-control, while Chisholm 

(1998) proposes that it is an adaptive response to an environment in early life in which 

the child’s physical needs have often been unmet. In response, the child learns that 

when they are friendly, they get more adult attention, and are more likely to get their 

needs met (Bakermans-Kranenburg et al., 2011).  

While indiscriminate friendliness is often seen as a result of not developing an 

attachment to a caregiver, and can therefore be seen as an attachment disorder, 

Bakermans-Kranenburg et al. (2011) also suggest the behaviour may be caused by 

problems with attention and behaviour-regulation, and that children who display this 

behaviour may be unable to inhibit their responses. Bakermans-Kranenburg et al. (2011) 

also discuss the adaptive value of children who act negatively to get attention, and 

explain that this can serve the same function. Babies who cry a lot and have a difficult 



37 
 

temperament are also more likely to get attention and have their needs met, which can 

reinforce such attention seeking behaviour later in childhood.  

Long-Term Effects of Institutionalisation 

Some studies have examined the effects of adoption or permanent placement on 

children who have previously been institutionalised, and concluded that in many cases, 

attachment may not be correctable (See Bakermans-Kranenburg et al., 2011). 

Bakermans-Kranenburg et al. (2011) suggest that there may be a critical period in which 

an infant develops the capacity to attach, and if this period is missed, such deficits may 

not be repairable. However, the authors also suggest that with time and devoted care by 

the new parents, previously institutionalised children can eventually develop a secure 

attachment, although the specific factors that influence this have not been identified. 

Bakermans-Kranenburg et al. (2011) do, however, suggest that if a child developed an 

attachment to a caregiver in the institution, this existing attachment may inhibit the 

transition into the new family and make it more difficult for the child to re-attach, again 

reinforcing the importance of stability in care.    

Resilience in Foster Care 

 Research into children placed with foster caregivers in a family setting has 

revealed several themes relating to factors that impact the resilience of foster children 

and affect outcomes. Some of these key factors, consistent across much of the literature, 

are placement stability, prior mistreatment, age at first placement, strength of 

attachment, conditions in care, and whether the child maintains a relationship with his 

or her birth family. An interesting theme deduced from the literature reviewed is the 

concept of a redeeming relationship and the possibility that such a positive relationship 



38 
 

with an adult can increase resilience in children in foster care. These suggested 

influencing factors will be examined in the existing foster care literature.  

Placement Stability 

A key point highlighted by many researchers is the potential role that placement 

stability plays in the resilience of children in care. As explained above, foster children 

are often put through many adjustments and large proportions of foster children move 

from caregiver to caregiver due to placement breakdown. Stein (2005) explains that 

when children have a more stable and consistent placement, in terms of home, school, 

and significant relationships, as measured by fewer placement changes, they are likely 

to be more resilient and achieve better outcomes. As a strong link has been made 

between attachment and resilience, Healey and Fisher (2011) explain that when foster 

children experience placement instability, especially in their early years of life, they 

experience a lack of continuity that inhibits their ability to development healthy 

attachment; Jones and Morris (2012) concur that children who experience fewer and 

longer placements generally develop stronger attachments. Leve (2012) draws a 

connection between higher number of placements and increasing symptoms of 

indiscriminate friendliness, while Jones and Morris (2012) explain that foster children 

who are uprooted often experience higher rates of academic difficulties and are more 

likely to be diagnosed with attachment disorders. 

Age 

Another commonly cited factor in foster child resilience is the age at which a 

child first enters care. Researchers suggest that children who are younger at the time of 

placement are likely to have better outcomes and be more resilient (Rees, 2013). This is 

likely due to children having more opportunities to develop attachment at a younger age 



39 
 

(Stein, 2005), which may be explained by the presence of a sensitive period in which 

attachment patterns develop (See Bowlby, 1997). Jones and Morris (2012) state that 

children who enter care younger often stay with their foster families longer and 

experience more stable placements. They further cite the “detrimental effects of late 

placement” (p. 131) and present correlational evidence that children placed in group 

homes, who are usually placed at an older age, rate higher on scales for behavioural 

problems. While this research shows correlation, not causation, it suggests that children 

who are removed from the parental home at an older age have had more time to 

assimilate the negative effects of their environment and learn maladaptive behaviour; 

therefore, removing children at a younger age may be an early intervention to prevent 

learned problematic behaviour. 

Pre-care History 

Many researchers concur that any study of foster children must be based on a 

foundational understanding that such children are not a clean slate when they enter the 

system; rather, foster children come into care with pre-existing problems and usually a 

maltreatment history, which may or may not be fully disclosed (Healey & Fisher, 2011; 

Kelly & Salmon, 2014). The impact of prior maltreatment on resilience in foster 

children has been examined by Leve (2012), Healey and Fisher (2011), Osterling and 

Hines (2006), and Jones and Morris (2012), with Healey and Fisher examining the 

effects of early maltreatment on the brain and concluding that normal development is 

often disrupted, leading to emotional regulation difficulties and problems with school 

adjustment. While Healey and Fisher (2011) explain that early abuse can have 

significant effects throughout childhood and into adulthood, he suggests that due to 

brain plasticity, it is not too late to remedy the effects of maltreatment experienced early 

in life. Children removed from their families and placed into state care need time to 



40 
 

stabilize and recover (Healey & Fisher, 2011); it may be that given a safe and stable 

substitute family environment, even children who have suffered extreme trauma early in 

life can recover and have high psychological health.  

Similarly, Leve (2012) examined the effects of prenatal substance exposure in 

foster children, concluding that such children are more likely to have mental health 

problems and to have more placement disruptions. Leve (2012) posits that early abuse 

can disrupt neurological development and impede attachment, requiring much more 

remedial work and special support than children who have not been abused in infancy 

and childhood. Osterling and Hines (2006) explain that past maltreatment can lead to 

difficulties with trust and cause abused children to avoid relationships with foster carers 

or to have unstable relationships, possibly reflected in high rates of placement 

breakdown. Finally, Jones and Morris (2012) examined the rates at which foster 

children reunited with their birth families return into the foster care system. The 

researchers found that risk factors for returning to care were health problems and the 

experience of early neglect and abuse (in addition to African American ethnicity, single 

parent families, non-relative care, and children with siblings also in state care), and that 

such children re-entered care at a higher rate than average.  This suggests that child 

abuse is rarely a once-off event, but rather an ingrained family pattern that has long-

lasting effects on children. 

Orientation towards Care Status 

Another factor cited in research as influencing the resilience of foster children is 

knowledge of their own history and understanding of the need for care. Emond (2014) 

explains that when children are aware of and accept their care status, they have a 

stronger sense of identity and cope better with being in foster care. Stein (2005) agrees 



41 
 

that when foster children and adolescents are able to work through their abandonment 

and make sense of their past, it enables them to look to the future and achieve better 

outcomes. Similarly, Stein (2005) suggests that children who are able to achieve a 

positive sense of identity, whether it be based around culture or family, are likely to be 

more resilient.  

Kinship Care 

When possible, children removed from parental care are often placed with 

family members, in line with the philosophy that children should not be removed from 

their whanau to maintain their identity. Lynch (2011) suggests that children who are 

placed in kinship care are likely to attach easier to their new caregivers, who usually 

have a pre-existing relationship with the child. Because the child remains within the 

whanau, the child is also likely to experience more stability and continuity. In contrast, 

Jones and Morris (2012) claim that family care does not necessarily mean the child is 

more likely to develop an attachment, and Leve (2012) states that kinship carers often 

receive less support and resources than foster carers, making kinship care a less 

desirable option.  

In cases where more than one child is removed simultaneously, some research 

has addressed the question of whether it is beneficial to maintain sibling unity and place 

siblings together (Jones & Morris, 2012). The authors concluded that due to a multitude 

of factors, such as the problems that required removal and the relationship dynamics 

between the siblings, the pros and cons of sibling unity must be determined on a case-

by-case basis. Similarly, Rees (2013) suggests that maintaining regular contact with the 

birth parents can be either beneficial or detrimental to a child’s well-being, depending 

on the relationship with the parents and the reasons behind the child’s removal. When 



42 
 

children have entered care to escape abusive home situations, it may be harmful to place 

them in an extended family environment that continues contact with an abusive parent.  

Care Environment 

Some researchers have examined conditions in care as a variable that impacts 

resilience in foster children, suggesting that the care environment into which children 

are placed affects their resilience levels. Jones and Morris (2012) observe that foster 

care environments that offer children normal life activities, such as school, family time, 

church, sports, and opportunities to play, lead to higher wellbeing in children. Leve 

(2012) examined the number of foster children in a home, observing that many foster 

homes have multiple foster children, often in addition to biological children, and that 

this can sometimes mean children lack the one-on-one attention necessary for healthy 

development. However, Jones and Morris (2012) have identified potential resilience 

building factors, suggesting that school participation, a consistent group of friends, 

positive relationships with adults, awareness of their own strengths, and participating in 

extracurricular activities such as sports and cultural groups, can increase positive 

outcomes for foster children.  

Interaction Between Child and Caregiver 

A factor commonly mentioned in the discussion of children in foster care is the 

difficult child-troubled parenting cycle, as referenced by Leve (2012), Healey and 

Fisher (2011), Emond (2014), and Bakermans-Kranenburg et al. (2011). Bakermans-

Kranenburg et al. (2011) explain that some children are born with a difficult 

temperament and may be fussy and cry a lot, which can lead to problematic parenting 

responses, and in the extremes, can result in child abuse, such as shaking a baby who 

will not stop crying. This can turn into a cycle, where the parent gets increasingly 



43 
 

frustrated, causing the baby to become more upset and difficult to console (Leve, 2012). 

As a result, Healey and Fisher (2011) explain that foster children are often very difficult 

children when they enter the system, as would be expected by the types of backgrounds 

that lead to removal from the parental home. However, research by Kelly and Salmon 

(2014) suggests a framework foster carers can use to understand the child’s internal 

working model and improve the child’s cognitive and emotional development, despite 

early abuse.  

Emond (2014) comment on the cycle in which children with problematic 

behaviour often end up with few friends due to a lack of social skills. This problematic 

behaviour may be reinforced by peer rejection, creating a vicious cycle of acting out and 

rejection. Because foster children often have problematic behaviours, they require 

caregivers with special parenting skills (Healey & Fisher, 2011). However, even 

caregivers who have undergone extensive training may struggle with difficult children, 

which often leads to unstable placements and, as suggested above, can create more 

damage as children are moved from caregiver to caregiver.  

Positive Role Models 

There is significant research to suggest that the presence of mentors and role 

models contributes to resilience in children in care. For example, Osterling and Hines’ 

(2006) research examined the use of mentoring programmes in the US, particularly with 

older adolescents who were aging out of care. Their research showed that the skills 

learnt during the programme were correlated with better outcomes, and that foster 

children in the programme appreciated the consistent and dependable encouragement 

and emotional support they received. The findings of this research are consistent with 



44 
 

the theory that building a supportive relationship with one adult figure can enhance 

resilience in children. 

Single Redeeming Relationship 

The theme of the potential of a single redeeming relationship to increase 

resilience in foster children is alluded to in a range of literature, including Lynch (2011), 

Stein (2005), Jones and Morris (2012), Kalil (2003), and Osterling and Hines (2006). 

Stein (2005) refer to the concept of a redeeming close relationship with one stable 

person, explaining that such a person can be a compensatory secure attachment figure 

for children who have been neglected or removed their parents. Stein (2005) suggests 

that this figure may be a mentor outside the foster family, and can fulfil the part of a 

role model for foster children.  

Lynch (2011) also refers to such a role as a redeeming close relationship, 

explaining that children only need one attachment figure and that having such a person 

is a protective factor for foster children. Lynch (2011) suggests that relational damage 

caused by mistreatment by parents or the loss of the parents can be repaired by an 

attentive and loving foster parent. In Osterling and Hines’ (2006) research into a 

mentoring programme with foster children, they identify the importance of a supportive 

and caring adult in the lives of children in care, explaining that mentors can fill the role 

of a consistent relationship outside the family context. Kalil (2003) also refers to the 

importance of having at least one stable relationship, while Jones and Morris (2012) 

also identify a positive relationship with an adult as a resilience factor in the foster 

children they studied. This theory supports the importance of relationships and 

connection in foster children’s lives, whether it be to a foster carer, a biological child of 

a foster carer, another foster child, a peer at school, or another figure such as a teacher 



45 
 

or coach. While the scope of this research project covers primarily the relationship 

between foster child and carer, it is important to recognise that a range of significant 

relationships can have value in bolstering the resilience of a foster child.  

Resilience in Children Leaving Care 

An additional area of resilience research in foster children is the area of 

transitioning out of state care. Researchers such as Osterling and Hines (2006) and 

Jones (2012) have examined the processes young people go through when leaving foster 

care, and theories have been proposed about factors that lead to better outcomes after 

leaving care. For example, Jones (2012) proposes that children who are older at the time 

of leaving care generally have better outcomes, suggesting that older age is a protective 

factor. Jones (2012) explains that children in care often leave the ‘parental’ home much 

earlier than non-foster children, who often live with their parents and receive significant 

support through their university years and beyond. Most foster children in the US are 

emancipated at age 18, while the average non-foster child leaves home at approximately 

23 years of age (Jones, 2012).  

Acquired Skills 

Correlated with increasing age is the acquisition of independent living skills, 

which researchers have suggested is related to higher levels of resilience (Jones, 2012). 

Possessing skills such as cooking, cleaning, driving, and knowledge of how to make a 

CV and open a bank account make the transition out of foster care into independence 

much easier. Children who age out of foster care often lose both state support and 

parental support, in addition to lacking job and educational opportunities and having 

poor financial stability (Jones, 2012). In addition, Jones (2012) explains that foster 

children have been shown to have higher rates of general health and mental health 



46 
 

problems, although it is unclear whether these conditions are a result of being in foster 

care or part of the causative factors that lead children to initially enter foster care. Due 

to the connection made between higher age and level of preparedness to enter 

independence, research suggests that children who leave care later or are gradually 

prepared to transition are likely to have better outcomes. 

Social Networks 

Greater resilience is also associated with developing social networks as a buffer 

to stress (Jones, 2012). Some foster children may develop friendships at school or in 

extracurricular activities, and these friendships, if maintained after transitioning out of 

care, can offer social support and enhance resilience. Lynch (2011) examines the 

protective qualities of culture, explaining that foster children who maintain relationships 

with their ethnic communities are likely to have a stronger identity and sense of self, 

enhancing their resilience and social support resources. Research also suggests that 

foster children who maintain continuity by remaining in contact with their foster family 

can receive social support from former foster parents, foster brothers and sisters, social 

workers, and youth workers (Jones, 2012). Recognising the importance of attachment 

and continuity, and making comparison with the normal processes non-foster children 

pass through when leaving the parental home, it is clear that maintaining as many 

supportive relationships as possible is helpful when all adolescents make the transition 

to adulthood.  

Mentoring 

Research by Osterling and Hines (2006) examined the utility of a mentoring 

programme for foster children leaving care in the United States. This study found that 

the presence of a mentor during adolescence can provide multiple benefits for foster 



47 
 

children, including the presence of a role model, the availability of emotional support, 

and the acquisition of important life skills (Osterling & Hines, 2006). Results showed 

that foster youth who participated in the mentoring programme had better outcomes in 

general, as seen in their improved self-concept, peer relations and educational 

achievement, and lower levels of drug and alcohol use and violent behaviour (Osterling 

& Hines, 2006). The youth who participated also rated the programme as helpful, 

particularly for the mentors’ willingness to teach valuable practical life skills and spend 

quality one-on-one time with the youth. Once again, the value of relationships and the 

associated emotional and practical support that is provided in the context of a supportive 

relationship is highlighted in this area of research. 

Reuniting with Family 

Although increased levels of social support have proven to be beneficial to 

adolescents transitioning out of care, research suggests that returning to the birth family 

after aging out of state care often leads to worse outcomes (Jones, 2012). The author 

suggests this is because the same factors and family dynamics that led to the child being 

placed into care in the first place often still remain. Research and theory into the effects 

of environments on individual behaviour support this assertion, suggesting that birth 

families may be bad influences on newly independent foster children and can cause 

them to lose progress they have made in care. Despite research strongly suggesting that 

returning to live with family members after leaving state care often leads to negative 

outcomes, high numbers of foster youth choose to do so, presumably out of loyalty and 

a sense of belonging.  

 

 



48 
 

Children in Care in the NZ Context 

The foster care system in New Zealand, under the umbrella of the government 

agency known as Child, Youth and Family services (CYFs), involves almost 3,500 

foster parents and almost 4,000 children and young people (MSD, 2014). Statistics 

reflect that the majority of children under state care are of Māori ethnicity, followed by 

New Zealand Pākehā and Pacific Island ethnicity (MSD, 2014).  

Entering Care 

There are two main pathways through which children can come into CYFs care: 

Care and Protection, and Youth Justice (MSD, 1989). In many cases, the process that 

brings children and young people into state care begins with concerns reported by the 

public, often a neighbour or teacher who has suspicions that the child is unsafe in their 

home. These concerns can be reported through an anonymous contact centre, and if it is 

determined that the concerns are valid, the case will be referred to a social worker, who 

will examine the evidence and complete a safety assessment of the child and his or her 

family (MSD, n.d. a). If the assessment concludes that the risks to the child’s safety are 

not severe, the family will likely be referred to community services for support. 

However, if the child appears to be in serious danger or if there is evidence of abuse, the 

police may become involved in an investigation and a warrant may be obtained to 

remove the child or young person temporarily from their parent’s care (MSD, 2014), 

and a custody order may be granted for longer term removal (MSD, n.d. a).  

In New Zealand, removing a child from his or her family is only done as a last 

resort to protect the safety and welfare of the child. In many cases, CYFs will attempt to 

work with the family to create a whanau agreement which is later re-evaluated to 

determine whether more intervention is needed. The family model that is utilized in 



49 
 

New Zealand often involves the use of Family Group Conferences (FGC), which is a 

meeting between important figures in the child’s and families’ lives, through which 

CYFs offers support for the whole family and attempts to facilitate the whanau to make 

good, collaborative decisions about the children’s welfare. In this way, before children 

are removed from their families’ care, CYFs tries to empower families to resolve their 

own problems and make adjustments to ensure the safety and wellbeing of their 

children. However, if the family does not co-operate or it is otherwise determined that 

the child is unsafe in the parent’s custody, family court approval will be sought to 

remove the child and place him or her into CYFs care while decisions are made for the 

child’s future (MSD, 2014). 

Due to the principle of the importance of whanau, when assessing options for 

the care of removed children, CYFs will attempt to make arrangements for the child to 

be cared for by extended family members or someone with whom the child has an 

existing relationship, as a first priority. Statistics from 2013 showed that almost half of 

New Zealand children in out-of-home placements were in family/whanau care (MSD, 

2014). In situations where there are no family members able or willing to take 

responsibility for the care of the child, a trained and approved foster carer will be found 

and matched to the child.  

While the child is in state care, CYFs continues to work with the family to make 

the home environment safe for the child to return as soon as possible. In most cases, the 

aim of the agency is to reunite children with their whanau, recognising that it is best for 

children to be safe and cared for in the context of their own families. However, if CYFs 

determine that the child is unlikely to be able to return to their home, a legal process 

called ‘home for life’ allows the child to be placed into a permanent caregiving 

situation, whereby the child is no longer in CYFs custody but becomes the legal 



50 
 

responsibility of a permanent caregiver (MSD, n.d. a). This initiative recognises the 

detrimental effects of instability in children’s lives and the negative consequences of 

moving from caregiver to caregiver, and instead offers safety and security in an 

adoption-like context (MSD, 2012).  

Types of Care 

Under the CYFs foster care system, six types of caregiving exist and are used in 

different situations and for different purposes. Short-term fostering occurs when a social 

worker anticipates that the child will return to his or her family within three months, and 

is likely to be used for less severe family problems or medical situations in which the 

parents are unable to provide adequate care for the child (MSD, n.d.). Emergency 

fostering is for a period of up to three days, and may occur during medical emergencies 

or when a child is first removed from their family, before long-term plans can be 

arranged. Respite fostering is often used when families with special needs children need 

a break, and may be a regularly scheduled occurrence, allowing the child to build a 

relationship with a stable respite foster carer (MSD, n.d.).  

Pre-permanent placement or pre-adoption fostering is likely to be short term in 

duration and usually occurs when arrangements have been made for a young child to be 

adopted or permanently placed with a new family, but the child is placed in care until 

this process is finalised. This can be seen as a bridging phase between the original 

family and the new family, and the pre-permanent placement caregiver may help 

prepare the child and the new family for their upcoming life changes. Mother and baby 

fostering may be necessary for school-aged mothers who need support and guidance to 

look after themselves and their babies. Finally, the focus of this research will be 

predominantly on long-term fostering, whereby a child is unlikely to return to their 



51 
 

family but it is determined that the best interests of the child are to maintain a 

relationship with his or her parents. In these cases, children are placed into permanent 

care, providing them with a safe environment and allowing them to maintain contact 

with their family.  

Based on an examination of past research into resilience in foster children, this 

study seeks to examine general resilience as observed by adults who work closely with 

foster children in New Zealand, in addition to conducting an in-depth examination of 

the narrower topic of relational resilience in the target population. This topic will be 

studied by exploring the types of relationships the participants have developed with the 

children and youth they have worked with. Therefore, the results of this research will be 

a discussion of the observed resilience of foster children and child-carer relationship 

dynamics as experienced by the participants and reported during focus group and 

interview discussions. The data will be analysed for repetitive and unique themes and 

compared with existing international research into resilience in foster children.    



52 
 

Methodology 

Aims 

The purpose of this research is to: 

• Invite members of the foster care community to participate in a collaborative 

discussion about the positive psychological and relational aspects of the children 

they have worked with and increase awareness of foster children’s strengths 

• Develop a theoretical and applied understanding of how internal and external 

factors contribute to relational resilience and attachment in foster children and 

the varying dynamics of the relationships foster children develop with the adults 

in their lives 

• Build on the existing international literature of resilience in foster children and 

examine the topic in a New Zealand context from the perspective of influential 

figures in foster children’s lives 

• Use the knowledge gathered from the participants to suggest practical ways to 

increase the recognition of relational resilience and enhance relationships in the 

New