Most of the pioneering work in relation to permanency planning has been carried out in Oregon by the Regional Research Institute for Human Services and the State Children's Services Department. As the Oregon project has been documented in great detail in five excellent volumes:

1. 1. Barriers to Planning for Children in Foster Care (1976) Regional Research Institute for Human Services Portland State University;

2. 2. Overcoming Barriers for Children in Care, (Emlen et al. 1977);

3. 3. Permanent Planning for Children in Foster Care: A Handbook for Social Workers (Pike et al.) 1977);

4. 4. Permanent Planning in Foster Care: A Guide for Programme Planners (Dreyer, 1978);

5. 5. Permanent Planning in Foster Care: Resources for Training (Downs & Taylor, 1978);

and as the utilisation of the Oregon model has been encouraged by the allocation of federal funds to those States wishing to develop it for their own use, it seems appropriate to examine the model and its operation in some detail. Following this, efforts to develop permanency planning elsewhere will be examined and analysed.

“Day Care” is a subject which tends to polarise opinion; to the single parent or the economically struggling two parent family, the adult who genuinely wants to work or the student who is also a parent, the concept is most acceptable and very welcome. Day care fulfils a very real need for these people in our society which has managed to separate families into nuclear units and deprived them of the support of the extended family. Day care for these people enables them to pursue a livelihood or studies to lead to a livelihood and clearly in this context day care serves the parent or parents involved. There are other situations however, in which day care is perceived as being of consumate value to the child involved. There is a growing body of psychologists, neurologists and educators who believe that the first three years of life constitute the most crucial stage of development, in that all later learning depends upon the cognitive and social gains made by the infant. It therefore follows that exponents of this philosophy would have us believe that the infant/toddler must be in the most advantageous environment at his disposal, and that for some infants and toddlers an impoverished, unstimulating home is not the most ideal environment.

In this International Year of the Disabled Person, the needs of all persons with a disability are being look at more critically, but perhaps the general public is more aware of adults with a disability, than of young children. Young children with disabilities are not a vocal group as such, although their parents are becoming increasingly vocal and banding together into effective Action Groups. Young children with disabilities may be thought to be “cute”, and the general public is relieved that they have parents who are responsible for them. But those same children experience acute frustrations, and their parents experience chronic grief because their child is unable to lead a normal life. Many find it necessary to expend a tremendous amount of time and emotional effort on the physical care and intellectual stimulation of their child, and in many cases, the increased financial demands can be critical for the family budget.

This article attempts to highlight the difficulties of families with sick children in the hope that personnel involved with them could be more aware and assist where possible.

“To reveal one's own emotional state to someone outside of the family, such as a social worker, or psychiatrist, is foreign to the usual repertoire of responses of Asians when in need of psychological support.” This assertion, made by two Asian-American mental health workers, is supported by the authors, based upon their social work experience with Indo-Chinese refugees in Queensland.