The Role of Social Services in Reunified Custodial Grandfamilies

Abstract

Social services, including the child welfare system, are often heavily involved in situations where children are returned to the care of their parents, after being raised in kinship care by their grandparents. While previous research has highlighted custodial grandparents’ service needs and the challenges they experience when accessing services and working with social service professionals, few studies have examined social services in the context of reunifying grandfamilies. Informed by bioecological theory, the aim of this qualitative study was to examine custodial grandmothers’ perceptions of the role of social services in the process of their grandchildren being reunified with a biological parent. Semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted with a purposeful sample of 16 custodial grandmothers whose grandchildren had experienced reunification. Findings from a grounded theory analysis revealed grandmothers’ perceptions that having a strong connection with a responsive caseworker facilitated successful reunification, as did ongoing efforts to address the parental issues that had resulted in the grandmother assuming a custodial role. Unfortunately, grandmothers also perceived barriers to successful reunification. These included having their perspectives dismissed by caseworkers and judges as well as the child welfare system prioritizing reunification, often to the perceived detriment of their grandchildren. Implications for policy and practice with reunifying grandfamilies are addressed.

1. Introduction

In the United States, approximately 2.65 million children are being raised by their grandparents in homes with no biological parents present, in what are known as custodial or skipped-generation grandfamilies (Annie E. Casey Kids Count Data Center, 2020). Millions of other U.S. children are being raised by grandparents in multigenerational households that include a biological parent or other relatives, and both custodial and multigenerational grandfamilies may be headed by grandparents who are singled or partnered (Hayslip et al., 2017). While some custodial grandparents raise their grandchildren formally as part of kinship care arrangements within the child welfare system, most of these caregiving arrangements are informal (Generations United, 2018). Custodial grandfamilies arise when grandchildren’s parents are unable to care for their children due to circumstances such as abuse and neglect, substance misuse, incarceration, and physical and mental illnesses, among others (Hayslip et al., 2017). These circumstances and other stressors often result in grandfamilies experiencing challenges which can be addressed through social services, or programs provided by the government or other organizations designed to improve the well-being of individuals, families, and communities (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2020). Beyond assisting with the typical challenges experienced by grandfamilies, social services can also support grandfamilies who are navigating the process of grandchildren being reunified with their biological parents. Despite reunification being an important goal, especially for grandfamilies involved in the child welfare system, empirical examinations of reunification within custodial grandfamilies remain limited.

Although raising grandchildren is often a long-term commitment (Generations United, 2018), custodial grandparents often express hope that their grandchildren can be safely and permanently reunified with their parents (Dolbin-MacNab et al., 2020; Gladstone et al., 2009). Furthermore, while reunifying the grandchild with their parents or family of origin is a primary permanency goal for families involved in the child welfare system (Font et al., 2018; Kimberlin et al., 2009), many reunifications are not successful. In fact, only 50% of all children in foster care ever experience reunification and approximately 20% reenter foster care after attempting reunification (Font et al., 2018). Moreover, when compared to children in nonrelative foster care, children in kinship care experience not only lower reunification rates and slower reunifications, but also lower rates of foster care reentry (Berrick et al., 1994; Kimberlin et al., 2009; Shaw, 2006). Failed reunifications occur when parents have not addressed the issues that resulted in the child being removed from their care, children are returned to risky environments, or parents express ambivalence or indicate a lack of readiness to manage the demands of parenting (Bellamy, 2008; Brook & McDonald, 2009; Carlson et al., 2008; Fernandez et al., 2019; Font et al., 2018; Jedwab et al., 2018; Kimberlin et al., 2009).

The challenges associated with successful reunification, when combined with state and federal policies encouraging the placement of children with relatives whenever possible (Beltran, 2018), highlight the need to understand reunification within custodial grandfamilies. However, there has been scant research on reunification within grandfamilies and the role of social services in reunification more generally (D’Andrade & Nguyen, 2014). Previous research has also largely neglected the experiences of those most directly involved in the reunification and impacted by social services, including parents and custodial grandparents (Alpert, 2005; Blakey, 2012; Carlson et al, 2008; Stephens et al., 2017). To address these gaps in the literature, this qualitative study examined the research question, “How do custodial grandmothers perceive the role of social services in the process of their grandchildren being reunified with a biological parent?”

2. A Bioecological Perspective on Reunification

Bioecological theory (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998) is a useful framework for conceptualizing the role of social services in reunifying grandfamilies. The theory captures how reciprocal relationships among members of the grandfamily (e.g., grandparents, parents, grandchildren) interact with the proximal and distal environments in which the grandfamily is embedded to collectively shape the reunification process. These environments or contexts are particularly relevant to understanding the role of social services in reunifying grandfamilies, as they capture grandfamilies’ interactions with social service professionals and the influence of agencies, policies, and other institutions, not to mention broader macrosystem influences such as cultural factors (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998; Landers & Danes, 2016). In addition, custodial grandparents shape their environments, and thus the reunification process, based on the grandparents’ resources, sociodemographic characteristics, and other personal traits (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998). Finally, as reunification is a process that unfolds over time (Dolbin-MacNab et al., 2020), bioecological theory emphasizes the need to consider micro-time (e.g., specific interactions, such as an exchange between a grandparent and a judge), meso-time (e.g., consistency of interactions, such as an on-going relationship with a caseworker), and macro-time (e.g., historical policies related to child welfare) in the context of reunification. Ultimately, bioecological theory aligns well with broader calls in the literature to conceptualize reunification in terms of the complex interactions between family members and the multiple environments in which families are embedded (e.g., Cole & Caron, 2010; Jedwab et al., 2018).

3. Grandfamily Experiences with Social Services

To understand the role of social services among reunifying grandfamilies, it is necessary to first consider how custodial grandparents experience social services more generally. Despite having significant service needs, service utilization by custodial grandparents tends to be low (Coleman & Wu, 2016; Yancura, 2013) and grandfamilies often fall through the cracks due to difficulties associated with navigating multiple, uncoordinated service sectors (Fruhauf et al., 2015; Gibson, 2003; Yancura, 2013). Indeed, involvement in the child welfare system may be protective in that it has been associated with greater mental health service utilization among kinship caregivers (Villagrana & Palinkas, 2012). However, grandfamilies engaged in the child welfare system still receive fewer services than non-kinship foster families (Berrick et al., 1994; Patrenko et al., 2011; Villagrana, 2010), but more services than grandparents who are raising their grandchildren informally (Goodman et al., 2007). Qualitatively, grandparents report mixed satisfaction with services received through the child welfare system – while some were satisfied with the amount and quality of services, others expressed frustration related to a lack of adequate information and services, limited financial assistance, legal costs and complexities, poor relationships with caseworkers, and inadequate prevention efforts (Gladstone et al., 2009).

Variation in grandparents’ service utilization and perceptions of service quality reflect grandparent-specific, contextual, and organizational barriers to accessing services (Dolbin-MacNab et al., 2013). Grandparents may lack awareness of available services, feel shame about needing help, believe in handling problems themselves, and perceive services as being culturally inappropriate (Fruhauf et al., 2015; Gibson, 2003; Gladstone et al., 2009; Yancura 2013). Grandparents’ own psychological distress can also interfere with their ability to access services (Coleman & Wu, 2016). Additionally, distrust of the child welfare system is common, as grandparents may not welcome the added scrutiny, and may fear that their grandchildren could be placed in non-relative foster care (Gladstone et al., 2009). Contextually, barriers to service utilization could include a lack of available services, transportation, or child care, as well as financial constraints, although poverty has also been associated with greater service utilization (Dolbin-MacNab et al., 2013; Gibson, 2003; Yancura, 2013). Whether the grandparent has a legal relationship to the grandchild is also relevant, since grandparents in informal care arrangements are often unable to access services. Similarly, when grandparents are not licensed foster parents, it can be difficult for them to receive needed financial resources and other support services (Beltran, 2018). Finally, at an organizational level, services may have restrictive eligibility criteria (e.g., age or asset requirements), confusing policies and documentation requirements, and unclear benefits that, when combined with the other barriers, make accessing services extremely difficult (Fruhauf et al., 2015; Gibson, 2003; Yancura, 2013).

The quality of the relationship between custodial grandparents and social service professionals is also critical to grandparents’ service utilization. Custodial grandparents report experiencing professionals as lacking knowledge about their family structure and treating them in stereotypical or judgmental ways, namely doubting their abilities to effectively parent their grandchildren (Gibson, 2003; Gladstone et al., 2009). Other frustrations include professionals who are inexperienced, inflexible, and untrustworthy, and who give incorrect or incomplete information (Gladstone et al., 2009). In contrast, grandparents have positive perceptions of friendly, competent professionals who offer them emotional and instrumental support, advice, validation, and information about resources (Gladstone & Brown, 2007).

For their part, there is some evidence that child welfare professionals experience ambivalence when working with kinship foster caregivers, including custodial grandparents (Peters, 2005). This ambivalence is described as stemming from a belief in maintaining children’s connections with their families, combined with concerns about being triangulated into difficult family dynamics, the time-consuming nature of working with kinship foster caregivers, questions about caregiver competence, and confusing policies related to kinship foster care (Peters, 2005). Previous research suggests that professionals find it easier to work with custodial grandparents when the grandparents demonstrate concern for and are effective in parenting their grandchildren, are honest about their circumstances, focus on problem-solving, and interact with professionals in a respectful, compliant manner (Gladstone & Brown, 2007).

4. Reunification, Social Services, and Grandfamilies

Reunification decision-making requires balancing the safety and well-being of the children with providing parents and families with needed supports (Jedwab et al., 2018; Lietz et al., 2011). Given the enormity of this decision, successful reunification requires careful planning and assessment of parent and child readiness, as well as interventions to address factors that contributed to the child’s removal, and provision of follow-up support services over time (Carlson et al., 2008; Jedwab et al., 2018). Failure to adequately plan for reunification, or rushing a reunification to meet permanency timelines, can result in a failed reunification (Carlson et al., 2008; Jedwab et al., 2018; Kimberlin et al., 2009). At the same time, navigating reunification within the context of the child welfare system is often stressful for parents due to its involuntary and stigmatizing nature, ambiguous expectations for the reunification, and larger mistrust of the system stemming from historical racial and economic marginalization of particular families (Carlson et al., 2008; Kemp et al., 2014). Parental feelings of mistrust and ambivalence largely parallels custodial grandparents’ experiences of the child welfare system (Gladstone et al., 2009).

Numerous service-related factors have been associated with the likelihood of reunification, although this research has not extensively considered reunification in the context of grandfamilies. Importantly, the quality of the parent’s relationship with the caseworker is critical to successful reunification, as a positive working relationship can promote parent motivation to change and engagement with services necessary for reunification (Jedwab et al., 2018; Kemp et al. 2014). Caseworker engagement and investment has been found to facilitate reunification, as does a collaborative, strengths-based working relationship grounded in trust, honesty, and respect (Blakey, 2012; Cheng, 2010; Cheng & Lo, 2016; Cole & Caron, 2010; Kemp et al., 2014). Emotional and instrumental support offered to parents by caseworkers also promotes reunification (Cheng, 2010; Lietz et al., 2011). Problems arise when families have multiple caseworkers, when caseworkers are perceived as uncaring or unresponsive, or when they treat families in ways that are punitive, confrontational, or pathologizing, although caseworkers also report that an authoritative stance is sometimes necessary to ensure the safety of the child (Blakey, 2012; Cheng & Lo, 2015; Estefan et al., 2012; Kemp et al., 2014; Oliver & Charles, 2015). The consequences of this stance are reflected in parents who describe feeling powerless over their service plans and left out of decision-making (Estefan et al., 2012).

In reunifying grandfamilies, caseworkers must form productive working relationships with both grandparents and parents, who may have differing (or competing) goals and needs related to the grandchild’s safety and the reunification itself. For instance, Dolbin-MacNab et al., 2020 found that the majority of grandmothers were opposed to or concerned about reunification, as they believed that their grandchildren’s safety and well-being were at risk due to parental instability, ineffective parenting, or a deficient living environment. When grandparent and parent perspectives on the reunification differ, or problematic family dynamics come into the social service sphere, caseworkers may find themselves having to navigate disruptive grandparent-parent conflict and other challenges (Farmer & Moyers, 2008).

For child welfare-involved grandfamilies, reunification hinges on the extent to which parents have addressed the issues that resulted in their children being removed from their care (Jedwab et al., 2018; Kimberlin et al., 2009). Reunification is more likely when parents receive comprehensive services tailored to their particular issues or needs (Blakey, 2012; Cheng, 2010; D’Andrade & Nguyen, 2014; Jedwab et al., 2018). Simple provision of services is not sufficient, as parental engagement with and active participation in services, including administrative activities (e.g., case reviews) and visitations with children, are also associated with reunification success (Chambers et al., 2016; Cole & Caron, 2010; Jedwab et al., 2018; Kemp et al., 2014; Leathers, 2002). D’Andrade and Nguyen (2014), for example, found that parental utilization of parenting classes and counseling and problem-focused services facilitated reunification. Inadequate services, in terms of availability, type, or intensity, are therefore significant barriers to reunification (Blakey, 2012; Carlson et al., 2008; Estefan et al., 2012). An additional barrier is that case plans often fail to address the needs of the entire family system (Estefan et al., 2012). This is important within the context of reunifying grandfamilies, as grandparents and grandchildren often have their own service needs. More information, however, is needed about these needs and how they intersect with permanency planning and reunification outcomes.

With regard to participation in services, parental completion of treatment and compliance with case plans has been associated with reunification (Blakey, 2012; Choi et al., 2012; Kemp et al., 2014). Some, however, have suggested that not enough emphasis is placed on progress (Cheng & Lo, 2015; D’Andrade & Nguyen, 2014). Blakey (2012) illustrated this dynamic, finding that some mothers pursuing reunification did not make meaningful changes, as their sole goal was to meet their case plan requirements in order to end the oversight by the child welfare system. Kemp et al. (2014) also notes the potential concerns, in terms of the appropriateness of reunification, when parents’ compliance with case plan requirements is superficial or disguised. In contrast, reunification was more likely for those mothers who used their involvement with the child welfare system to address their problems (Blakey, 2012). In grandfamilies, due to the on-going relationship between the grandparent and parent, grandparents may be uniquely positioned to observe the nature of the parents’ progress, both before and after the reunification, which is significant given evidence that kinship care families receive less child welfare supervision (Farmer & Moyers, 2008). Dolbin-MacNab et al., 2020 confirmed that custodial grandmothers remain highly involved following reunification, providing significant amounts of both emotional and instrumental support to the newly reunified family. Grandmothers also monitored the reunification to ensure that their grandchildren were safe and that parents were maintaining their progress with their issues and functioning appropriately as parents. While grandparent involvement and monitoring can support successful reunification, the existing dynamics within the grandparent-parent relationship can also result in inappropriate or unsupervised parent-child contact, often prior to the actual reunification (Berrick et al., 1994; Farmer & Moyers, 2008). And, the potential for grandparent-parent conflict, described previously, can further complicate assessments of readiness for reunification and the success of the reunification itself.

Given the emphasis on placing children, who cannot live with their parents, in the care of relatives such as grandparents (Beltran, 2018), it is important to understand reunification for these families and how social services can best facilitate that process. Existing literature has focused on custodial grandparents’ experiences of social services generally and on the role of social services in reunification. What is lacking are studies intersecting these literatures, for the purposes of advancing the understanding of the role of social services in reunification among custodial grandfamilies. Additionally, as reunification has primarily been studied in terms of child outcomes or from the viewpoint of social service providers (Blakey, 2012; Stephens et al., 2017), understanding of the experiences of family members who are directly involved remains limited. Conducting research that privileges the voices of those experiencing reunification is essential, as their perspectives can guide the design and delivery of effective social services and assist in overcoming barriers to reunification, all of which can help to ensure positive child outcomes (Alpert, 2005; Stephens et al., 2017). Elevating these voices also aligns well with family-centered approaches to permanency planning and reunification (Estefan et al., 2012). This qualitative study addresses these collective gaps in the literature by exploring the following research question: “How do custodial grandmothers perceive the role of social services in the process of their grandchildren being reunified with a biological parent?”

5. Method

5.1. Sample

Study participants consisted of 16 grandmothers of 20 custodial grandchildren who had experienced reunification with a biological parent (see Table 1 for family demographic information). Five (31%) grandmothers were part of families that included multiple generations of grandparents raising grandchildren. Grandmothers had been raising one (n = 12; 75%) or two (n = 4; 25%) grandchildren for an average of 5 years (M = 4.63; SD = 4.79; range: 1 to 18 years) prior to the reunification. Reasons for the custodial arrangement included child maltreatment, substance misuse, incarceration, mental illness, unemployment, and adolescent pregnancy. The majority of grandmothers had been raising their daughters’ children (n = 10; 63%), with the remaining grandmothers raising their son’s children (n = 3; 19%) or their granddaughters’ children (n = 3; 19%). Grandchildren were reunified with their biological mothers (n = 18 of 20; 90%) or fathers (n = 2 of 20; 10%). On average, the reunifications had lasted 3 years (SD = 3.46) but ranged in length from 4 months to 12 years. While most grandchildren (n = 11 of 20; 55%) had experienced only one reunification, 45% (n = 9 of 20) of grandchildren had experienced multiple reunification attempts. At the time of the study, most grandchildren (n = 16 of 20; 80%) were living with their biological parent(s) full-time. The remaining four grandchildren were living independently (n = 1), were completely out of contact with the grandmother (n = 1), or were essentially in the full-time care of the grandmother (n = 2).

Table 1.

Grandfamily Demographic Characteristics (N = 16)

Demographic Variable	Grandmothers (N = 16)		Reunified Grandchildren (N = 20)		Reunified Parents (N = 16)
	M (SD, range)	n (%)	M (SD, range)	n(%)	M (SD, range)	n(%)
Age:	63.57 (8.62, 53–78)		11.65 (5.84, 2–22)		35.46 (8.25, 24–54)
Gender, Female:		16(100)		13 (65.0)		13 (81.3)
Race:
African American		8 (50.0)		10 (62.5)		8 (50.0)
White/Caucasian		4 (25.0)		2 (12.5)		2 (12.5)
Latino		3 (18.8)		2 (12.5)		1 (6.3)
Other		1 (6.3)		6 (37.5)		4 (25.0)
Relationship Status:
Married/Partnered		5 (31.3)				3 (18.8)
Single		2 (12.5)				8 (50.0)
Divorced		3 (18.8)				2 (12.5)
Widowed		6 (37.5)				--
Employment:
Not Employed		10 (62.5)				5 (31.3)
Full-Time		5 (31.3)				4 (25.0)
Part-Time		1 (6.3)				1 (6.3)
Annual Income:
Less than $25K		7 (43.8)
$25K to 50K		6 (37.5)
Above $50K		3 (18.8)

Note: Some demographic data were missing for the reunified parents, as grandmothers often lacked this information.

Grandmothers in the current study were former participants of two federally-funded studies of grandparents raising grandchildren in skipped-generation households (i.e., no biological parents living in the grandmother’s home). A purposeful approach to sampling was utilized to obtain information rich cases or participants who would be particularly knowledgeable about the focus of the study (Patton, 2002). Participants were recruited nationally; potential participants received a recruitment letter via the mail that outlined the inclusion criteria and the details about study participation. Requirements for participation included (a) the grandmother had been responsible for the full-time care of at least one grandchild for at least one year and (b) one of her custodial grandchildren had experienced reunification by being returned to the full-time care of a biological parent. The final sample for the present study included grandmothers from seven states: Arizona, California, Illinois, Ohio, Maryland, Michigan, and Texas.

5.2. Procedures

Recruitment for the study began after receiving IRB approval. Interested participants contacted the first author by telephone. After a brief screening interview, eligible participants scheduled a telephone interview with the first author (n = 11) or a trained doctoral research assistant (n = 6). Both interviewers had significant experience with qualitative interviewing, and followed a data collection protocol to ensure consistency across the interviewers. At the time of the interview, participants first provided their consent to participate and then provided demographic information about themselves, their grandchild(ren), and the reunified parent. Next, the participants completed an audio-recorded interview; the interviews averaged 70 minutes in length, but ranged in length from 40 to 110 minutes. As compensation for their participation, grandmothers received a $20 gift card in the mail. All interviews were transcribed verbatim, by a university-based transcription service, and checked for accuracy by trained graduate students.

5.3. Interview Protocol

To begin the semi-structured interview, grandmothers provided a variety of demographic information about themselves, the reunified grandchild(ren), and the biological parent. Specifically, as applicable for each key family member, grandmothers provided information about age, gender, race/ethnicity, relationship status, employment status, and annual household income. Grandmothers also provided information about raising their grandchildren, including the number of custodial grandchildren, the length of the custodial arrangement, and the grandmothers’ relationship (i.e., paternal vs. maternal) to the reunified grandchild(ren). Information gathered about the reunification included the relationship of the parent to the reunified grandchild as well as the number and length of the reunification attempts.

While a portion of the interview focused on the belief systems, organizational patterns, and communication and problem-solving approaches associated with the reunification (for additional detail, see Dolbin-MacNab et al., 2020), for the present study, we addressed the interview questions related to grandmothers’ interactions with social services prior to, during, and after the reunification. Social services were defined for participants as programs and services provided by the government or other organizations designed to improve the well-being of individuals, families, and communities (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2020). Example interview questions included “What social services, if any, were involved in your reunification process?” and “How did you feel about their involvement?” Additional interview questions included “To what degree did social services help or get in the way of the reunification process?” and “What could these services have done differently to facilitate the reunification process?” Finally, grandmothers were asked to describe any current service needs and any factors that facilitated or served as barriers to accessing those services.

5.4. Data Analysis

Data analysis was guided by grounded theory methodology (LaRossa, 2005; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). During the initial phase of the analysis, open coding, the first author and a trained doctoral-student research assistant (second coder) repeatedly read each interview transcript and noted emerging concepts in the transcript margins. Next, the first author used axial coding to refine the emerging concepts by combining and collapsing them into higher order categories. During this stage of the analysis, the properties of and relationships among the categories were initially explored and refined. In the final stage of the analysis, selective coding, relationships among the categories were further refined and overarching themes were developed. As no new categories or themes emerged during the latter stages of the data analysis process, it was clear that data saturation had been achieved (Creswell, 2013).

Several strategies were used to ensure the trustworthiness of the data analysis. To enhance the credibility and confirmability of the analysis (Creswell, 2013; Lincoln & Guba, 1985), a second coder assisted in the development of the emerging concepts. The first author and the second coder discussed the emerging concepts and resolved major coding discrepancies via discussion and consensus-building. In later stages of the analysis, scholars with expertise in grandfamily relational dynamics served as peer debriefers; this enhanced the credibility of the analysis, as they helped the first author consider alternative interpretations of the data and critically evaluate how the emerging themes converged with or diverged from previous research findings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Finally, an audit trail and reflexive memoing improved the confirmability of the analysis. The audit trail was maintained by the first author and consisted of detailed study records, with information about methodological decisions related to data collection, interview field notes, and data analytic records, including documentation of the theme development process. Regarding the reflexive memoing, research team members engaged in critical self-reflection for the purpose of attending to their biases and assumptions related to custodial grandfamilies (for more information, see Dolbin-MacNab, 2015). Additionally, interviewers included reflexive reflections as part of their field notes, and reflexive memos were utilized by the first author throughout the process of data analysis.

6. Results

The analysis of how custodial grandmothers perceived the role of social services in the reunification process revealed the following themes: prioritizing the reunification, building relationships with grandfamilies, responding to parent and grandfamily needs, and dismissing grandmothers. These themes are summarized in Table 2 and illustrated below using direct quotes from participants. Prior to discussing the themes, in the following section, we provide information about the nature of the grandfamilies’ involvement with social services. In accordance with a bioecological perspective (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006), this information is included here to contextualize the themes by noting the social service environments within which the grandfamilies were embedded and interacting with on a regular basis.

Table 2.

Summary of Themes

Theme	Explanation	n (%)
Prioritizing the Reunification	• Child welfare system prioritizes reunification, sometimes inappropriately • Reunifications felt rushed/pushed through, due to an overwhelmed child welfare system • GC were reunified with P who are unfamiliar to them and unprepared to care for them	14 (88)
Building Relationships with Grandfamilies	• GM appreciated caseworkers and professionals who were responsive and willing to go “above and beyond” • Having a personal connection to caseworker/professional was beneficial to GM • High caseworker turnover and lack of post-reunification monitoring is problematic	12 (75)
Responding to Parent and Grandfamily Needs	• Reunification dependent on P successfully addressing issues • Balance P completing mandated treatment with assessing for readiness for reunification • P and GC need on-going services after the reunification • GM need services to meet the demands of raising GC, prior to the reunification	13 (81)
Dismissing Grandmothers	• GM input on P and reunification ignored or dismissed by professionals • Strategies to provide input included speaking out, keeping documentation, and reporting P to child welfare authorities • GM dismissed due to prioritization of reunification, overwhelmed system, and bias against custodial grandparents	12 (75)

Note. GM = Grandmother, P = Parent, GC = Grandchild

6.1. Involvement with Social Services

Grandmothers described involvement with a variety of social services. Twelve (75%) grandmothers reported that their grandchildren were actively engaged in the child welfare system at the time of the reunification; in these cases, the grandchildren had been formally placed in the care of their grandmothers. The remaining grandfamilies (n = 4; 25%), at the time of the reunification, were in informal care arrangements negotiated between the grandmothers and parent(s). These four grandmothers reported diverse experiences with social services – two reported utilizing mental health services, for themselves and the parent, to address issues related to the reunification. The other two informal custodial grandmothers were engaged with a variety of social services throughout the reunification process – as detailed below, these services included financial assistance and mental health treatment for the grandmother, parent, and/or grandchild. It is worth noting that one of these two grandmothers was referred to social services via an unsubstantiated child welfare investigation involving the reunified grandchild.

Those grandmothers actively involved with the child welfare system reported that their grandchildren’s parents received multiple services prior to and following the reunification; these services were part of the case plan, tailored to the parents’ particular needs, and included psychoeducational courses (e.g., parenting, domestic violence, anger management), treatment for substance misuse, and mental health services (e.g., therapy and psychiatric care). Grandmothers, including those with informal caregiving arrangements, also indicated that parents received financial assistance in the form of social security/disability, housing vouchers, SNAP assistance, unemployment benefits, or TANF payments. Both before and after the reunification, commonly reported services for grandchildren included mental health treatment and free or low-cost health insurance via Medicaid or CHIP. As for the grandmothers, their utilization of social services typically occurred prior to the reunification, with the services being focused on supporting the grandmothers in providing a safe and stable environment for their grandchildren. Specifically, grandmothers reported receiving foster parent maintenance payments, emergency financial assistance, vouchers for basic needs (e.g., clothing, school supplies), social security/disability payments, and legal assistance. Other grandmothers described accessing mental health services for themselves and services for grandparents raising grandchildren - support groups, kinship navigators, and psychoeducational classes. Following the reunification, grandmothers often discontinued their use of services, unless a particular need arose.

6.2. Prioritizing Reunification

The majority (n = 14; 88%) of grandmothers, namely those connected to the child welfare system, but also one in an informal care arrangement, believed that social services prioritized reunifying children with their parents. This viewpoint was summarized by the grandmother who shared, “They’re [child welfare authorities] the ones that wanted the reunification and the workers were all pushing for it towards the end when she [mother] was doing so well.” While grandmothers were not necessarily opposed to reunification, they questioned whether achieving reunification was being prioritized over their grandchildren’s safety and well-being. This was attributed to an overwhelmed child welfare system, with grandmothers explaining that heavy caseloads resulted in reunifications being rushed, with inadequate assessment and preparation. One grandmother, whose grandson had been reunified with this father, explained, “I learned a lot about CPS [Child Protective Services]. Their main goal is to get the child back in the homes, they don’t care. They keep their caseloads down. That’s what they do.” Another grandmother shared, “it’s just that children’s service can’t handle the overload they have … it’s just pitiful.” Given the difficulties her grandson experienced in reunifying with his mother, the grandmother went on to explain, “You’ve gotta watch … For even children’s services. They’re giving these kids back too quick.” Ultimately, grandmothers worried that their grandchildren were being treated like “check boxes” on a list of cases to clear as quickly as possible. They often questioned the appropriateness of the reunification, in terms of what was best for their grandchildren.

Relatedly, grandmothers also worried that, when social services (over)prioritized reunification, grandchildren were being reunified with parents they did not know well, with parents who were not prepared to raise children, or with parents who had ulterior motives (e.g., pursuing reunification to punish the grandmother or other parent). This was quite upsetting to grandmothers, as their primary concern was ensuring that their grandchildren would be in a safe, comfortable, and nurturing environment following the reunification. One grandmother illustrated this frustration when she shared how one of her granddaughters’ fathers had been considered for reunification, even though he had little involvement in the granddaughter’s life:

I understand the county, they were trying to do their job and give him a fair shake … but do ya’ll understand he’s not seen her in over a year? And you gonna just throw her into that environment like that? I mean you need to go and check his place out, because I’m not willing to give her up that easy like that, and then put her in that type of environment.

While this granddaughter was eventually reunified with her mother, the example encapsulates grandmothers’ concerns about the impact of the reunification on their grandchildren.

6.3. Building Relationships with Grandfamilies

A significant factor in grandmothers’ perceptions of the role of social services in the reunification process, particularly for those involved with the child welfare system, was the quality of their relationships with social service professionals, namely any caseworkers (n = 12; 75%). Grandmothers indicated that, when caseworkers were able to build a strong relationship with them, the reunification process felt less stressful. Caseworker responsiveness and efforts to connect with the grandfamily also attenuated grandmothers’ worries about being part of the child welfare system and challenged any perceptions that their grandchildren were “check boxes” being rushed through the system. In this way, caseworkers played a critical role in grandmothers’ overall experience with and perceptions of the child welfare system. A positive experience with an individual caseworker could counteract an otherwise negative perception of social services.

Grandmothers described excellent caseworkers and other social service professionals as being kind and respectful, as well as committed, helpful, and responsive. They were willing to go “above and beyond,” which meant connecting the grandfamily to needed services and resources, helping the family obtain needed financial assistance, and facilitating parent-grandchild visitation, contact that grandmothers deemed as essential to a successful reunification. For example, one grandmother whose two grandchildren were reunified with their mother following her release from prison, explained how the caseworker’s responsiveness supported the reunification by maintaining the parent-grandchild relationship: “This caseworker helped me make sure they [grandchildren] got in contact or that they stayed in contact with their mom … he might even have transported us one time to go down and see her [mother].” Similarly, another grandmother described how her social worker went the “extra mile” to help her granddaughter stay connected to their mother: “When [mother] said I can’t go to the high desert and see [granddaughter], the social worker drove to the high desert. It was for Thanksgiving weekend. The social worker drove up there and picked [granddaughter] up and brought her down … she really did go the extra mile.” Whatever the specific actions, one grandmother, whose granddaughters were reunified with their mother, nicely summarized the importance of having a responsive, engaged caseworker when she said, “I think it helps when you have your people that work with you, and I mean definitely that really saved a lot of heartache for all of us.”

Less tangible, but no less important, was grandmothers feeling a personal connection to their caseworkers and other social service professionals. Grandmothers appreciated it when professionals demonstrated care about them and made efforts to get to know them as individuals. The positive impact of a personal connection with professionals was best illustrated by the grandmother whose caseworker was also raising her grandchildren. The grandmother stated,

She’s [caseworker] raising five of her grandchildren that were removed from her daughter. She can relate. Really relate with this situation … And she has problems. She said, they [grandchildren] don’t clean their room, they talk back. She has the same problems as everyone else does … she’s very open like that.

For this grandmother, her caseworker’s ability to relate to the family’s circumstances and challenges made it easier for the family to accept her suggestions related to the reunification, one of which included the grandchild and the mother receiving psychotherapy. Ultimately, having a personal connection to the caseworker reduced grandmothers’ stress and improved their engagement with services, which ultimately helped move the family toward reunification.

Not surprisingly, grandmothers also described experiences with caseworkers and other professionals that interfered with the reunification process. In particular, grandmothers were distressed by high caseworker turnover, because they believed that there was not enough time to get to know the caseworker and because new caseworkers lacked a nuanced understanding of the grandfamily. To the grandmothers, this resulted in ill-advised reunification decisions that were based on incomplete or inaccurate information. For example, one grandmother explained how high caseworker turnover had harmed her grandson because no one had accurately ascertained that her daughter was not ready for the demands of reunification:

And in those two years we probably had 15 social workers … By the time we’d get one that was kind of getting into the groove of what was going on the case would get moved again. I think the social worker turnover was a big hamper in all of this … I understand that they have to realign assignments … but I think if they were to be able to keep a child with a social worker the entire case, or maybe six months, I don’t know, I just felt that was a big disservice to my grandson.

In addition to high caseworker turnover, grandmothers reported frustration with what they perceived as inadequate or inappropriate post-reunification monitoring by their caseworkers. Grandmothers were of the opinion that, if reunification was truly a priority of the child welfare system, then caseworkers should regularly and actively ensure that parents’ issues had been addressed and that their grandchildren were living in safe and appropriate environments. This was certainly not the experience of one grandmother, whose granddaughter ended up in an abusive situation following her reunification with her father and stepmother. The grandmother lamented over how poorly her caseworker had approached post-reunification monitoring: “She [the caseworker] said, ‘Well, you know, we’re keeping in touch.” You call her [stepmother] every three months? That was just totally unacceptable … that’s how we end up with a lot of hurt children.” Along these same lines, grandmothers were also concerned when caseworkers alerted parents to upcoming home visits, as they felt that the caseworkers were not getting a realistic picture of the grandchild’s home environment. For example, a grandmother whose grandson has experienced multiple failed reunification attempt explained, “They [child welfare authorities] would call her [mother] and tell her they were coming … which is crazy. I mean, why you gonna call somebody and tell them you’re coming? You know everything’s gonna be perfect … I said get out there when she doesn’t know you’re coming.” Finally, grandmothers suggested the need for consistent monitoring related to the difficulties that brought the grandchild into the grandmothers’ care, to ensure that the parent was not sliding back into problematic or dangerous behavior. This concern was captured by the grandmother whose daughter had quickly relapsed into substance misuse, following the reunification:

There’s not much I can do about it, unless they drug test her [mother]. And that’s why I’m saying I’m very disheartened with the system … I know they are overwhelmed, but if they were to follow through with some of the things they told her they would be doing, at least maybe they’d put some fear in her, you know, that they may drug test her.

Collectively, grandmothers believed that a lack of monitoring and follow-through by their caseworkers and other professionals ultimately contributed to failed or ill-advised reunifications that put their grandchildren’s health and safety at risk.

6.4. Responding to Parent and Grandfamily Needs

A fundamental role of social services in the context of reunifying grandfamilies is responding to the needs of the family, but particularly the parents’ needs (n = 13; 81%). In the interviews, grandmothers in both formal and informal care arrangements emphasized that reunifications would be unsuccessful unless parents addressed the factors that contributed to them being unable to care for their children. Contributing factors included parental mental health diagnoses, substance use disorder, criminal activity, abusive or neglectful parenting, and intimate partner violence. Grandmothers saw social services, including those services offered or mandated through the child welfare system, as a central means by which parents could address their needs and reunify with their children. Parents had received a number of services in preparation for the reunification including treatment for substance misuse, parent skills training, anger management, psychotherapy, and psychotropic medication management.

In describing their reunification experiences, grandmothers explained that social services typically responded to parents’ needs by mandating that parents take psychoeducational classes and meet additional requirements laid out by the child welfare system. Once these requirements were completed, the reunification proceeded. As one grandmother explained, “She [mother] did her parenting classes, she did everything she was supposed to do, she had certificates and she brought them to court and the judge said she [granddaughter] could go back with her mom.” This process was echoed by the grandmother whose two adolescent grandchildren reunified with their mother: “They [Children’s Service] checked everything out and they finally agreed that she [mother] was ready to have the kids back and it was within a month or two of her coming home [from being incarcerated].” Importantly, not all grandmothers felt this approach was adequate; some believed that the parents needed more time to live independently and demonstrate their ability to care for themselves and their children, prior to the reunification. This perspective was illustrated by the grandmother who explained the reason for her grandson’s multiple reunification attempts: “If you’re gonna’ reunite these kids with these parents, you got to make sure that they’re off drugs … you can’t give a child back in, they’re even saying like six months. That’s not a whole lot of time.” Similarly, another grandmother who was opposed to her grandson’s reunification shared, “I’m very angry, I’m very bitter. I didn’t feel that she [daughter] should have been stuck with the baby to begin with … she should’ve been given time outside the [drug] program to see how well she would function in real life.” Grandmothers’ opinion that parents were not ready for reunification frequently dovetailed with their opinion that reunifications were rushed and that their grandchildren were being treated like “check boxes.”

Relatedly, the actual reunification of grandchild and parent did not mean that the parent had fully addressed the factors that contributed to the previous caregiving arrangement; if anything, grandmothers suggested that parents needed on-going services to ensure that the reunification remained successful and to maintain their progress, sobriety, or stability. For example, one grandmother in an informal care arrangement explained the critical role that psychotherapy played in her daughter’s ability to manage the demands of post-reunification parenting: “She still has anxieties and things but it’s more controlled because she is consistently now seeing a psychologist … that’s kind of helping her with some of her stress.” Another grandmother, whose granddaughter had been successfully reunified with her mother, suggested that parents and grandchildren could benefit from reunification “training” or transition support, particularly related to parenting:

If they [social services] could help them and show them how to do different little things … and show them how to deal with the children, if they’re doing this or that and the other, or show them how to transition back. You know, you have to be involved.

When parents both inside and outside of the child welfare system received on-going services and support, particularly when adjusting to the reunification, grandmothers felt more confident about their grandchild’s well-being and anticipated that the reunification would be successful.

Although grandmothers were primarily focused on how responding to the parents’ needs facilitated the reunification process, they also noted that they had needs that could be addressed by social services. Addressing these needs was not always conceptualized as contributing to the reunification, but it helped grandmothers manage the demands of raising their grandchildren, which allowed the parents to focus on addressing their issues. In particular, grandmothers referenced needing financial support, legal assistance, social support, and mental health services for their grandchildren. While some grandmothers referenced getting the support they needed, several indicated that they felt neglected by social services or left to fend for themselves. This experience was captured by the grandmother, whose granddaughters had been reunified with their mother following an abuse investigation: “I’m like, well, why didn’t they [caseworkers] tell me this? You know, they didn’t tell me anything! I had to find out everything on my own … outside resources helped me more than they did … I thought it was so sad how they just did not try to help as much as they should have.” Being able to obtain services and supports was of critical concern of grandmothers, prior to the reunification, given the ways in which they saw themselves as supporting the parents and the entire family system.

6.5. Dismissing Grandmothers

Throughout the reunification process, but particularly during the period immediately before the reunification, grandmothers in both formal and informal care arrangements reported feeling dismissed or ignored by professionals such as caseworkers, attorneys, and judges (n = 12; 75%). Given their on-going relationships with their grandchildren and the parents, grandmothers believed they had valuable insights about readiness of the parent to care for the grandchild, the extent to which the parent had addressed their issues (e.g., substance misuse, mental health conditions), what the grandchild experienced during parental visits, and the potential quality of the post-reunification home environment. Grandmothers were distressed when their input was not sought out, heard, or incorporated into the reunification decision-making. One grandmother, who believed that her young grandson had been mistakenly reunified with his mother, described her frustration with having no voice in the reunification decision-making: “When we would go to court … I was not even allowed to speak, so I had no options. I had no say. You know, it was based on the recommendations of the workers and the judge.” Similarly, another grandmother, who was strongly opposed to her granddaughter’s reunification, expressed anger and then resignation with not being able to share her perspective on the parents’ readiness to raise a child: “They [caseworker and judge] told me no I could not come in the room and testify, because they was making decisions. And neither of them [parents] was fit to raise a dog, so how they gonna’ raise her [granddaughter]?” When grandmothers perceived that their input was not solicited or considered, they typically concluded that the reunification was a mistake, as they believed it was based on incomplete or inaccurate information that they could have provided.

While those grandmothers involved with the child welfare system understood that reunification decisions were not up to them, they still wanted their perspectives to be considered. This expectation arose from grandmothers’ desire to ensure that their grandchildren would be living in a safe and nurturing environment, once reunified. When grandmothers believed that their input was not being considered, they described using several strategies to make their voices heard, though these efforts did not always change the outcome. First, grandmothers would assert their opinions and observations to any professionals involved with their grandchildren. This was best illustrated by the grandmother who said of her grandson’s failed initial reunification with his mother, “When they [child welfare system] give him back, I spoke up and I says … this is too soon.” Still, this grandmother, whose grandson eventually experienced multiple reunification attempts went on to say, “I was trying to get them to understand and listen, and they just didn’t.” Similarly, another grandmother described how she unsuccessfully expressed her belief that her grandson’s mother, who had a history of substance misuse, was not yet ready to care for him:

I’ve voiced repeatedly to social services that, yes, she’s doing well, yes, she’s completing all of her required courses, but when you’re in a secured environment [treatment facility] and you can’t do anything else, well of course you’re going to excel. The real test would’ve been getting her out of that program, putting her in the real-life situation where she has to be on her own for a period of time, and reintroducing him at that time.

Grandmothers also documented incidents that occurred between parents and grandchildren such as missed visits, substance misuse, contact with individuals with a criminal or violent history, unsafe home environments, and inappropriate parenting. Grandmothers kept these records to “prove” to a caseworker, attorney, or judge that the reunification would be dangerous or not in their grandchild’s best interests. For example, a grandmother who was opposed to her grandson’s reunification with his mother due to her on-going substance abuse, suggested this strategy: “Keep records and take pictures. And that’s your proof … I’ve got about several years of calendars, every incident that happened. Every visitation. Every time she brought him back … I got everything written down … I’ve got every slip of paper.”

Finally, some grandmothers used more extreme measures to express their concerns about the reunification. Specifically, grandmothers described reporting their grandchildren’s parents to the police or child welfare authorities. This strategy was framed as a last resort, in the sense that the grandmothers had first tried to work with their grandchild’s parents or had unsuccessfully tried to express their concerns to their caseworker or other professionals. One grandmother, whose grandson was in a tenuous reunification, shared how she used reporting to the child welfare system to force action: “I had called CPS [Child Protective Services] because I didn’t know what else to do, I needed to get him [grandson] to the doctor and she [mother] wasn’t cooperating.” Another grandmother, whose granddaughter had been successfully reunified with her mother, shared this advice: “When you [grandparents] need help, go get it. You know if you need help from the social service, help from cop man, whoever just do what you can for ‘em. And at least try to do it.” For many of the grandmothers in this study, the safety and well-being of the grandchild was their top priority, and it guided their actions related to the reunification.

Overall, grandmothers attributed being dismissed by caseworkers, attorneys, and judges to several factors. Some grandmothers believed their input was dismissed because of the priority placed on reunifying parents and children. Others suggested that it was due to the child welfare system being overwhelmed and unable to fully assess the appropriateness of reunification. Beyond these reasons, grandmothers speculated that social service professionals dismissed their perspectives because they blamed the grandmother for her family situation, or believed that she had not done enough to support her adult child or protect her grandchild(ren). This was the experience of a grandmother whose two granddaughters had been reunified with their mother following an incident of severe abuse: “To me, it felt like they made you feel like the victim, or like you were the one who brought all this on.” Another grandmother, whose grandson had experienced multiple, failed reunification attempts described how she felt blamed by child welfare authorities and judges for “undermining” the reunification: “They tried to make me look like I was the worst person in the world and I had to stand up and tell ‘em, ‘Wait a minute, this child was dropped off at my doorstep and I’m telling you that … he doesn’t have a home.’” This grandmother went on to say that, when working with the child welfare system toward reunification, she wished that grandparents would “not get beaten up and attacked like … we’re coming in to try to take over. We’re just trying to look out for the kid.”

7. Discussion

The purpose of the current study was to examine how custodial grandmothers perceive the role of social services in the process of their grandchildren being reunified with a biological parent. Findings suggest that grandmothers, particularly those involved with the child welfare system, but also those in informal care arrangements, experienced aspects of social services that facilitated reunification including positive relationships with responsive caseworkers and addressing parent and family needs. However, grandmothers also noted aspects of social services that created barriers to reunification or resulted in them feeling ambivalent about or opposed to the reunification. These barriers included an overemphasis on reunification as a desired outcome, a lack of grandmother input in reunification decision-making, and inadequate intervention with and monitoring of parents. The findings from this study elevate grandmothers’ voices and advance the understanding of the role of social services in reunifying grandfamilies by revealing that, due to the unique relational dynamics involved, reunification is fundamentally an extended family process and decision, and that grandparents are just as much “the clients” of social services as the parents and grandchildren. In this way, the findings align with bioecological theory’s emphasis on the role of relational processes in shaping individuals’ interactions with other contexts and overall outcomes, namely grandfamilies’ reunification process and experience (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998).

When it came to reunification, grandmothers’ priority was ensuring the safety and well-being of their grandchildren. While studies of caseworkers suggest that reunifications are more successful when parents actively engage with services to address their issues and receive on-going support (Cole & Caron, 2010; Jedwab et al., 2018; Kimberlin et al., 2009), grandmothers in formal and informal care arrangements were highly attuned to parents’ progress in addressing their issues. Grandmothers’ saw themselves as having unique insight into parents’ progress and emphasized progress over compliance with or completion of any services (Cheng & Lo, 2015; D’Andrade & Nguyen, 2014). This insight created a tension for grandmothers that does not exist for nonrelative foster parents. Grandmothers wanted to protect their grandchildren by delaying the reunification or reporting what they were observing about the parents’ readiness for reunification. However, they maintained concern for their adult children (i.e., parents) and wanted them to get needed services and supports. These findings illuminate the unique relational processes within reunifying grandfamilies, namely the involvement of the grandparent in the reunification and the fact that grandparent-parent relationship predates engagement with social services and will continue beyond the conclusion of services. Social service professionals must navigate these relationship dynamics throughout the reunification, in terms of balancing the needs of the parents and children with the needs of the grandparent, who is helping to support the family system, and engaging the entire grandfamily system in ways that focus on the well-being of the grandchildren. Given existing evidence that social service professionals report concerns about navigating these challenging family dynamics and the higher rates of parent-caregiver conflict in kinship (vs. nonrelative) placements (Farmer & Moyer, 2008; Peters, 2005), professionals may benefit from specialized training on responding to these dynamics.

Relatedly, although grandmothers had important information, with relevance to reunification decision-making, they reported feeling dismissed by judges, attorneys, and social service professionals and perceived that their voices were not valued or heard. Some grandmothers also felt attacked or judged, while others believed that their own service needs were given less priority than the parents’ needs. Negative interactions with social service professionals have been consistently reported within the grandfamilies literature (Gibson, 2003; Gladstone et al., 2009), and nonrelative foster parents have also reported interactions with professionals where they did not feel valued or trusted (Rosenwald & Bronstein, 2008). Some grandmothers in this study fought to ensure that their needs were met, and voices heard, while others felt powerless and silenced. Grandmothers’ actions in these situations highlight the profound impact of broader environments on reunifications and the ways grandmothers may be active agents in shaping the reunification process and outcomes (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998). The findings also raise important questions about how to involve custodial grandparents in reunification planning and decision-making, given their investment in the grandchild’s well-being and likelihood of remaining involved with the parent and grandchild following the reunification (Dolbin-MacNab et al., 2020). Family-centered strategies that involve partnering with custodial grandparents should be considered and special attention should be given to how negative perceptions of custodial grandparents may be reproduced structurally in program policies and procedures, and in court proceedings.

Grandmothers in both formal and informal care arrangements perceived reunifications as being rushed by the child welfare system to “check a box.” Many of the child welfare-involved grandmothers did not believe that the parent was ready for the reunification. This finding supports existing research suggesting that custodial grandmothers often distrust the system and may experience dissatisfaction with their social service experience (Gladstone et al., 2009), experiences that are similar to those reported by child welfare-involved parents (Carlson et al., 2008; Kemp et al., 2004) and nonrelative foster parents (Mullins et al., 2013; Rosenwald & Bronstein, 2008); however, the current findings extend previous research by connecting grandmothers’ concerns about reunification timelines and decisions to their “insider status” regarding parents’ readiness for reunification and concerns about their grandchildren’s post-reunification safety. In this way, the findings ultimately reveal the impact of distal environments, such as permanency timelines, on reunification planning and decisions, and the inherent tension caseworkers experience in meeting timeline requirements, while ensuring parental readiness and child safety (Carlson et al., 2008; Jedwab et al., 2018; Kimberlin et al., 2009).

Finally, the study reconfirmed the importance of a positive working relationship between grandparents and caseworkers at all stages of the reunification process (Gibson, 2003; Gladstone & Brown, 2007; Gladstone et al., 2009). This was most significant for child welfare-involved grandmothers. The benefits of a positive working relationship with caseworkers, in terms of reunification outcomes, has also been found in studies of reunifying parents (Cheng & Lo, 2016; Estefan et al., 2012; Kemp et al. 2014; Lietz et al., 2011) and caseworkers (Cole & Caron, 2010; Jedwab et al., 2018). Grandmothers in this study suggested that strong working relationships developed over time, demonstrating the necessity of conceptualizing reunification as an evolving process, consisting of on-going interactions between grandfamilies and social service professionals. Having a trusting connection, and being respected for their role, by an invested, engaged professional was critical to grandmothers’ experience of the reunification and served as a bridge between the grandfamily and the larger institutions (e.g., child welfare system) with which they were interacting. While these findings parallel experiences reported by nonrelative foster parents (Rosenwald & Bronstein, 2008), they advance the understanding of reunification by revealing that grandmothers distinguished caseworkers from the larger social service system, and that extra caseworker efforts to facilitate the reunification (e.g., parent-grandchild visitation) counteracted grandmothers’ otherwise negative social service experiences. Additionally, grandmothers seemed to benefit from caseworkers with whom they could relate in terms of both parenting and life experience. Unfortunately, despite these positives, caseworkers often report being burdened by heavy caseloads, high turnover, burnout, and cumbersome documentation requirements (Jebwab et al., 2018). For the grandmothers in this study, and in studies of nonrelative foster parents (Mullins et al., 2013), awareness of these structural factors undermined their trust in the system and, in turn, the reunification itself.

In sum, the findings demonstrate the value of using a bioecological perspective (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998) to conceptualize the role of social services in the context of reunifying grandfamilies. Findings suggest that, whether the care arrangement is formal or informal, on-going interactions among reunifying custodial grandmothers, parents, grandchildren, and social service professionals shape and are shaped by the environments in which they are embedded. In particular, the on-going relationship between grandmothers and parents intersects with relationships with and tasks of caseworkers, as well as agency policies, when it comes to planning for and monitoring reunification. Reunification in custodial grandfamilies must be understood as a family process, in which the family is the focus and the needs of all family members, including grandparents, must be addressed. Additionally, interpreting the findings through a bioecological lens reveals how grandmothers play an active role in how reunifications unfold, and how reunification is a process that evolves over time, and exists within a particular historical context, in terms of social service and child welfare policy.

7.1. Limitations

Despite the contributions of this study to the understanding of reunifying grandfamilies, it is not without limitations. One limitation is potential sampling bias related to the recruitment strategy, in that it is possible that that the participant grandmothers were systematically different from other grandmothers of reunified grandchildren in key ways related to using social services such as their attitudes toward services or their level of service needs. Another limitation is that the study relied on grandmothers’ perceptions of utilizing social services within the context of grandchild reunification with a parent. It is likely that the grandmothers were biased toward their own service needs and opinions about whether the reunification was in their grandchildren’s best interests. Grandmothers may also have been unaware of elements of the family’s service experiences, particularly if services were confidential. Certainly, other individuals within the system (e.g., service providers, parents) would have differing perspectives on how social services shaped the reunification. For these reasons, a more comprehensive understanding of social services within the context of reunification within custodial grandfamilies would be beneficial.

7.2. Future Directions & Implications

Findings from this study suggest several directions for future research that would extend the understanding of the role of social services in reunifying grandfamilies. First, given that the child welfare system tends to be heavily involved in reunification decision-making and monitoring, future research would benefit from examining the effectiveness of specific child welfare services or approaches to facilitating successful reunification. Relatedly, studies should explore the appropriateness of services for custodial grandparents versus non-relative foster parents, and whether any adaptations for grandfamilies are necessary. Second, as this study only obtained the perspectives of grandmothers, future research should examine the perspectives of parents, grandchildren, and social service professionals, including child welfare professionals, to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of the needs and challenges associated with facilitating reunification among custodial grandfamilies. Particular attention should also be given to grandfamilies in informal care arrangements, to gain deeper insights into the roles of social services and grandparents in these types of reunifications. Additionally, as the findings suggest that grandmothers are involved with parents and grandchildren, both before and after the reunification, additional research should explore individual, family, and contextual factors that facilitate or interfere with reunification. Finally, grandfamilies should be followed over time to examine how their service needs and utilization might predict reunification outcomes.

In addition to guiding future research, the findings from this study have important implications for practice. For those grandfamilies who are part of the child welfare system, the findings suggest that successful reunification is not a straightforward process – careful, on-going assessment and services are needed before and after the reunification to ensure parents’ readiness for reunification, in terms of their well-being, ability to handle the demands of parenting, and the quality of the environment that they provide for their children. Of note, reunifying grandfamilies outside of the child welfare system may be at a disadvantage in terms of obtaining the services and supports necessary for successful reunification. Outreach efforts should be made to identify those informal grandfamilies and connect them with resources and services. Kinship navigators may play an important role in this regard, and should therefore include resources and information specific to navigating reunification.

When working with custodial grandparents, social service professionals must carefully attend to the quality of the professional relationship by personally connecting with grandparents, acknowledging the grandparent’s efforts, communicating that the safety of the grandchild is the top priority, taking a non-blaming stance, and following through on any action steps. Any professional in contact with reunifying grandfamilies, including those involved in the court system, should demonstrate competence in working with these families, which can be obtained through education about the family structure and critical self-reflection about possible biases, stereotypes, or microaggressions that could interfere with the professional relationship (Dolbin-MacNab, 2015; Yancura et al., 2016). Social service and court professionals should also, as appropriate, engage grandparents in investigations, assessments, permanency planning, and court hearings. While the grandparent’s voice is obviously not the only perspective to consider in the context of reunification, their observations should still be requested and taken under consideration. Attending to and including grandparent perspectives also highlights the benefit of using family-centered approaches to permanency planning and intervention with reunifying grandfamilies. An approach that is child-focused, family-centered, and incorporates all members of the grandfamily, would be particularly relevant given grandparents’ on-going relationships and involvement with parents and their grandchildren post reunification. These family-centered models meaningfully engage family members as experts on their needs and actively engage them in service planning and shared decision-making (Estefan et al., 2012). Existing family-centered models could be further tailored for use with custodial grandfamilies.

Individually, grandparents may benefit from emotional support related to navigating reunification. Many grandparents need information about what to expect and how reunification decisions will be made. Whether in the form of psychotherapy or support groups, grandparents could also discuss their feelings about the reunification, including feelings of grief and loss, and process their experiences working with social services. Grandparents could also be helped to identify coping strategies and given assistance in terms of how best to interface with social service professionals, the courts, and the child welfare systems. Connecting grandparents to other custodial grandparents who have experienced reunification may be a uniquely beneficial strategy, as the peer mentors can provide grandparents with valuable guidance and support.

Regarding policy implications, the findings highlight grandmothers’ service needs and the necessity of directing services and resources toward both formal and informal custodial grandfamilies throughout the reunification process. This could include increasing support for kinship navigators, easing eligibility requirements for support programs such as TANF, and helping grandfamilies access housing, food, and childcare assistance. Grandfamilies also need access to affordable physical and mental health care, as these services may help families address the issues that brought about the care arrangement or may support the long-term success of the reunification. Within the context of the child welfare system, policies should be implemented to support kinship caregivers and reduce barriers to grandparents becoming licensed relative foster parents. Policies should ensure that custodial grandparents are able to access foster parent maintenance payments and ease non-safety foster home licensing standards for relative foster parents (Beltran, 2018). Reducing these barriers may facilitate reunification by allowing grandchildren to remain in the care of family members and by providing grandfamilies with the resources and supports they need to create a safe, nurturing environment for the grandchildren.

8. Conclusion

Social services, particularly the child welfare system, play a critical role in the process of reunifying children with their parents, after being raised by grandparents. A variety of services and supports can facilitate the process of successful reunification via addressing parents’ needs and building strong working relationships with custodial grandmothers, who often remain highly involved in newly reunified family systems (Dolbin-MacNab et al., 2020). At the same time, an overemphasis on permanency goals and a lack of grandmother involvement in permanency planning can interfere with successful reunification, placing grandchildren at risk for reentry into foster or kinship care and other negative outcomes. By emphasizing the perspectives of custodial grandmothers who have navigated the reunification process, this study provides valuable insight into ways that social services may benefit from acknowledging and actively incorporating the voices of custodial grandparents or other involved family member into the reunification process.

• Grandmothers felt that strong relationships with caseworkers aided reunification.

• Addressing parents’ issues was necessary for reunifications to be successful.

• Services are needed after reunification, to make sure it lasts over time.

• Reunification is often a goal, but it can happen before the grandfamily is ready.

• Grandmothers believed professionals often dismissed their views on the reunification.