The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. Mind-mindedness in Looked After Children AbstractThe studies reported here aimed to test the proposal that mind-mindedness is a quality of personal relationships by assessing mind-mindedness in parent-child dyads where the relationship has not spanned the child's life or where the relationship has been judged dysfunctional. Studies 1 and 2 investigated differences in mind-mindedness between adoptive parents (ns 89, 36) and biological parents from the general population (ns 54, 114). Both studies found lower mind-mindedness in adoptive compared with biological parents. Study 2's results showed that this group difference was independent of parental mental health and could not fully be explained in terms of children's behavioral difficulties. Study 3 investigated differences in mind-mindedness in foster carers (n=122), biological parents whose children were subject to a child protection plan (n=172), and a community sample of biological parents (n=128). The level of mind-mindedness in foster carers and parents who were involved with child protection services was identical and lower than that in the community sample; children's behavioral difficulties could not account for the difference between the two groups of biological parents. In all three studies, non-biological carers' tendency to describe their children with reference to pre-adoption or placement experiences was negatively related to mind-mindedness. These findings are in line with mind-mindedness being a relational construct.Key words: mind-mindedness; adoption; fostering; behavioral difficulties; child protection 2 Mind-mindedness in Looked After Children Mind-Mindedness in Parents of Looked After ChildrenMind-mindedness (Meins, 1997) indexes caregivers' attunement to their children's mental and emotional states. In infancy, mind-mindedness is assessed from caregivers' tendency to comment in an appropriate manner on their infants' thoughts or feelings (Meins, Fernyhough, Fradley, & Tuckey, 2001;Meins et al., 2012) or from caregivers' meaningful interpretations of their infants' early non-word vocalizations (Meins, 1998). In children beyond infancy, mind-mindedness is assessed in terms of parents' tendency spontaneously to focus on mental characteristics when given an open-ended invitation to describe their child (Meins, Fernyhough, Russell, & Clark-Carter, 1998).A growing body of research has shown that both the infant observational and preschool describe-your-child measures of mind-mindedness relate to various aspects of child...

In the UK, post‐adoption contact between adoptive and birth families traditionally includes letterbox and/or face‐to‐face methods of communication. Because of the emphasis in the UK of adoption from the public care system, post‐adoption contact is often supported and mediated by social work professionals. The growth in the use of e‐communication, through for example social media, has created concerns regarding the use of such technologies for the purposes of ‘virtual contact’ following adoption. This paper reports the findings of a study of this emerging practice. Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with 11 adoptive parents and six adopted young people. Findings suggest that virtual contact presents both challenges and opportunities for adoptive families. We conclude that virtual contact is complex, but with appropriate boundaries and consideration of different interests, can work well in some cases.

Openness in adoption practice now often includes post-adoption contact with the adopted child's birth family. Traditionally, indirect and direct contact has been supported and mediated by professionals following the adoption of children from the public care system in the UK. However, more recently, the widespread growth in the use of digital technologies has made it possible for both adopted children and birth relatives to search and contact one another through the use of sites such as Facebook without professional support. This practice has been called 'virtual contact'. Using data from interviews with 11 adoptive parents and 6 adopted young people, who had experienced virtual contact, it is suggested that virtual contact works well when it is successfully integrated with the maintenance of more traditional methods of contact but can present risks when introduced without prior contact.Implications for practice are discussed in terms of how virtual contact can become a positive addition to adoption practices by utilising integrated methods of openness through which adoptive relationships can be maintained.  Integrated openness may not work well for all individuals and it is necessary to assess the appropriateness and value of all relationships irrespective of the methods of contact.

The following article reports upon recent research, which explored the perceptions of professionals of the issues that affect the sexual and criminal exploitation of children in care, along with a discussion of the effectiveness of current responses to these issues and the challenges that professionals face. The study utilised focus groups and semi-structured interviews to gain the perspectives of thirty-six participants from across a range of agencies involved in children’s social work and youth justice from an area in the north-west of England. The findings echoed previous research by suggesting that for a number of reasons connected to their ‘looked-after’ status and deficiencies within the care system, children are particularly vulnerable to exploitation. Although attempts are being made to develop co-ordinated responses to safeguarding, there is still a long way to go in terms of focusing on vulnerability instead of a prosecution-led approach when offending occurs as a result of exploitation. It is argued how in order to ensure that good, innovative practice becomes ‘standard’ practice; further legislation is required in tandem with a greater degree of education surrounding exploitation and the dynamics inherent in these offences.

No abstract