{"id":38618,"date":"2026-08-18T06:19:00","date_gmt":"2026-08-18T06:19:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/caseyfamilyv2.wpengine.com\/?p=38618"},"modified":"2026-08-18T16:00:24","modified_gmt":"2026-08-18T16:00:24","slug":"permanencia","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.casey.org\/es\/lex-define-permanency\/","title":{"rendered":"\u00bfC\u00f3mo definen la permanencia las personas con experiencia vivida en el sistema de bienestar infantil?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n\n \n \n \n \n

This brief was developed in partnership with members of the Casey Family Programs Knowledge Management Lived Experience Advisory Board, which includes youth, parents, kinship caregivers, and foster and adoptive parents with lived experience in the child welfare system. Transforming the child welfare system will require centering the expertise of those most impacted and engaging them in co-designing projects and strategies for systems change. For additional insight, please see the brief: How do lived experts define and assess child safety?<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

\n
\n\n \n \n \n \n

Defining permanency is important<\/h2>\n

In the child welfare system, the word \u201cpermanency\u201d is used to describe a legally permanent, stable living situation \u2014 ideally one in which family, culture, and community connections are preserved. Safe reunification with parents always is the primary goal, but other acceptable alternatives include adoption and legal guardianship. Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement (APPLA) is another option but should be considered a last resort as it rarely translates into stable living situations or meaningful relationships for youth.<\/p>\n

In 2024, Kansas<\/a> became the first state to introduce the SOUL<\/a> (Support, Opportunity, Unity, and Legal Relationship) Family framework as an additional permanency option. SOUL allows older youth to establish legal family bonds without severing ties to their biological family. For all these options, success is measured by assigning legal status and closing cases.<\/p>\n

For those with lived experience of the child welfare system \u2014 youth, parents, kinship caregivers, guardians, and foster and adoptive parents \u2014 legal status is only one aspect of permanency. Legal permanency alone does not guarantee the lifelong connections needed to thrive. To achieve a broader sense of safety and security, children and older youth need stable homes, community, and people they can count on today and for years to come.<\/p>\n

Research demonstrates that relational permanency, the enduring bonds that provide a true sense of belonging, may result in more positive long-term outcomes than legal status. Yet most child welfare systems are structured around legal outcomes rather than important relational milestones. Both relational and legal permanency need to be part of planning and decision-making to ensure that children and older youth benefit from the sense of belonging and stability that comes with having a lifelong family.<\/p>\n

In this brief, lived experts share their perspectives on the meaning of permanency and how systems can support family stability and a sense of belonging beyond case closure.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

Permanency is a child\u2019s lifelong experience of safety, belonging, stability, identity, and connection \u2014 supported through enduring relationships, family continuity, culture, economic stability, and systems that help families thrive long after case closure.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

— Denise Smith, Relative Caregiver in Texas<\/cite><\/figcaption>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n<\/figure>\n\n\n
\n
\n\n \n \n \n \n

Insights from lived experts<\/h2>\n

Five themes emerged during conversations with lived experts in relation to permanency, based on how they experienced it during their involvement with the child welfare system:1<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Permanency means different things to different people<\/li>\n
  2. Legal and relational permanency are different \u2014 and both are necessary<\/li>\n
  3. Children often are excluded from decisions about their future<\/li>\n
  4. The \u201crush to permanency\u201d prioritizes case closure over the conditions needed to succeed<\/li>\n
  5. Stability \u2014 in school, community, culture, and relationships \u2014 is critical for permanency\u00a0<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Permanency means different things to different people<\/h3>\n

    For those directly impacted by child welfare, there is no single definition of permanency. For some, the very idea of permanency is a misnomer. \u201cI don\u2019t see permanency as being this actual permanent thing,\u201d says Mars Presswood, a young adult in Indiana with lived experience in child welfare. \u201cI think it is temporary stability. It\u2019s very fair to say that everything is shifting all of the time.\u201d<\/p>\n

    James Ray, a parent and advocate in Oklahoma, says families may find the term permanency confusing or even threatening, signaling that separation from loved ones is imminent: \u201cJust the terminology of it is like, \u2018We\u2019re going to decide where your child stays permanently forever.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

    Others associate permanency with reunification and belonging. \u201cPermanency means my home, my life, my child, forever,\u201d says Melissa Zimmerman, a parent in Arizona.<\/p>\n

    How families understand permanency affects how they engage with the process \u2014 and whether they trust it. Caseworkers and other child welfare professionals should not assume a shared definition of permanency but rather understand the term will evoke varied responses. Communicating with clarity and transparency<\/a> about goals and processes can help build partnership and trust.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

    \n
    \n
    \n

    Even though I have a forever family and they love me, it just never feels permanent. I never feel secure in my relationships. Still today, I have a lot of friends, a lot of family, and they love me. I know they love me, but part of me still wonders if one day they will walk away.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    — Tiffany Jones, Young Adult with Lived Experience in Louisiana<\/cite><\/figcaption>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n<\/figure>\n\n\n
    \n
    \n\n \n \n \n \n

    Legal and relational permanency are different \u2014 and both are necessary<\/h3>\n

    The lived experience advisory board members largely agree that relational permanency is just as important as legal permanency, and that both should come together to create long-term stability and belonging. Both are needed, they say, because legal permanency alone does not guarantee lifelong connections beyond foster care.<\/p>\n

    Tiffany Jones, a young adult with lived experience in Louisiana, wished for legal permanency as a child: \u201cI thought the only way I could be permanent in someone\u2019s life was if they adopted me and did all the paperwork.\u201d After being adopted at the age of 20 \u2014 by a friend with whom she no longer is in contact \u2014 she realized legal permanency did not mean lasting connection. \u201cIt\u2019s about the actions and who\u2019s going to continuously show up for you,\u201d she says.<\/p>\n

    For some lived experts, legal permanency means identity and validation. Kathy Coleman, who runs a nonprofit in Louisiana that supports grandparents who are parenting their grandchildren, says she spent years and tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees to gain custody of her first granddaughter: \u201cThat piece of paper meant so much to her. And she didn\u2019t use the word \u2018permanent,\u2019 she just said, \u2018This is who I am, and this is where I belong.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

    Legal and relational permanency serve different, but equally real needs. The two do not always come in the same package, and either one can exist without the other. The goal, however, always should be for a child to have both relational and legal permanency, and child protection agencies should be assessing the strength and quality of relationships as part of permanency planning. Otherwise, Presswood says, a placement can look good on paper but still leave a child without safety or connection: \u201cYou\u2019re getting one more case completed and it looks great for your numbers, but ultimately it may not be great for the youth.\u201d<\/p>\n

    Children often are excluded from decisions about their future<\/h3>\n

    Lived experts emphasize how rarely children and older youth are included in decisions about their futures. This observation is consistent with research. A systematic review of child welfare studies found that children\u2019s participation in decision making is generally limited or nonexistent, with age serving as a key determining factor in whether they are given the opportunity to participate at all.2<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

    Presswood describes that throughout his years in the child welfare system, he had little input about where he was placed, who he lived with, or even the activities that mattered to him: \u201cThe only say that I truly had was whether or not I wanted to stay with my sibling. Everything else felt entirely out of my hands.\u201d<\/p>\n

    The age of youth shapes not only whether they are included in decisions, but whether they feel able to speak up at all. Coleman notes that young children may be afraid to say what they really feel, especially when it means choosing between adults they love or risking upsetting someone. Their silence, she observes, often gets interpreted as consent when that may not be the case. For youth of any age, having a trusted adult who can help them identify what they want and advocate on their behalf is essential to ensuring their voices are actually heard.<\/p>\n

    The \u201crush to permanency\u201d prioritizes case closure over the conditions needed to succeed<\/h3>\n

    Advisory board members note that timelines for case closure \u2014 even more than family circumstances \u2014 drive decision making. This rush to permanency is backed by federal policy, which rewards states with incentives for moving children into permanent adoptive or guardianship families. No similar incentive exists for stabilizing families so that children can return home, which might require more time.<\/p>\n

    Ray has seen firsthand how parents are assigned classes or recovery programs they are unable to complete in short time frames, especially while maintaining housing and jobs: \u201cWhen parents aren\u2019t able to meet all those requirements within the first three to six months, the system says, \u2018Oh well, we\u2019re already going to start looking at other permanency options.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

    Timelines for case closure also impact youth aging out of foster care. Lived experts describe an \u201caftershock\u201d when the focus on achieving permanency stops, support ends, and they are forced to navigate adult responsibilities on their own. Gabriel Foley, a young adult with lived experience in Illinois, explains: \u201cI did not feel well-prepared for that. I don\u2019t think that anyone ever sat me down and said, \u2018Hey, Gabe, you\u2019re going to be a grown-up one day.\u2019\u201d For youth on the cusp of adulthood, not having legal permanency means needing ongoing support to achieve independence \u2014 but transition supports vary by jurisdiction, leaving some youth without the stability they need.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

    \n
    \n
    \n

    I don’t feel permanent in a placement until I’m not worried about the word \u2018placement\u2019 anymore.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    — Gabriel Foley, Young Adult with Lived Experience in Illinois<\/cite><\/figcaption>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n<\/figure>\n\n\n
    \n
    \n\n \n \n \n \n

    Stability \u2014 in school, community, culture, and relationships \u2014 is critical for permanency<\/h3>\n

    Lived experts identify community, culture, school, and caring adults as important anchors of support. Foster parent Kimberly Fowler says permanency \u201cis stability for the child \u2014 not only just where are they going to lay their head at night, but what does their education look like? Who are their group of friends going to be for the next 10 years?\u201d<\/p>\n

    Parent Kristen Castleberry also makes the connection between permanency and stability. “The more stable we are, the more I’m able to offer my children permanency.” She adds that stability allows you to feel “grounded… into your home, and into your family, your values and morals, however that may look.”<\/p>\n

    The story of Tiffany Jones, a young adult with lived experience in Louisiana, illustrates what a more responsive practice can look like. Early in her time in foster care, she begged a judge to let her stay in her current high school even though she was changing placements, and the judge agreed. Although she was moved several times over her time in the system, her school and community stayed stable. \u201cI was still able to keep my same friends and I had that constant in my life when everything else was changing,\u201d she says. Her caseworkers also made a point of placing her with families where she felt culturally at home, and when one placement did not feel right to her, the system listened and moved her.<\/p>\n

    Not all youth have that positive experience, however. Presswood was moved to a small, rural town against his will and cut off from the art communities where he had built connections. \u201cI was very much taken away from every sense of stability that I had,\u201d says Presswood, adding that the losses caused him real and lasting harm. Research confirms that placement instability affects safety, permanency, and well-being<\/a> \u2013 with each move increasing safety risks, delaying permanency, and negatively impacting educational and mental health outcomes.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

    \n
    \n
    \n

    I just saw a change in my kids once they knew they were staying. They were able to just kind of release that fight, flight, or freeze. And then they could start the healing process. And that\u2019s lifelong.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    — Susan Langenfeld, Adoptive Parent in New York<\/cite><\/figcaption>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n<\/figure>\n\n\n
    \n
    \n\n \n \n \n \n

    Practices that strengthen permanency<\/h1>\n

    Lived experts identify eight practices that can strengthen permanency:<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Define permanency goals early and share with families in plain language<\/li>\n
    2. Engage in early and thorough family finding<\/li>\n
    3. Hold private, age-appropriate conversations with youth<\/li>\n
    4. Maintain a focus on permanency while preparing youth for independence<\/li>\n
    5. Continue support after reunification, guardianship, or adoption<\/li>\n
    6. Connect families and youth with peer support networks<\/li>\n
    7. Consider siblings, school continuity, cultural connection, and community as placement criteria<\/li>\n
    8. Include youth in permanency planning<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Define permanency goals early and share with families in plain language<\/h3>\n

      Some members of the advisory board reported they never received a clear explanation of what permanency meant for their specific case. Others learned that permanency goals had shifted only after the fact, with no communication or collaboration. Rather than assuming a shared understanding of what permanency means, caseworkers should engage each family by naming goals clearly and transparently from the start, and by asking families how the system can best support them.<\/p>\n

      Engage in early and thorough family finding<\/h3>\n

      Identifying kin, including tribal connections, from the very start of a case can prevent children from lingering in foster care and build relational ties that contribute to long-term stability. Based on their experiences, the lived experts express doubt that kin searches are conducted thoroughly, and they note families have little recourse when they are not. Accountability structures must also be clear to ensure that kin are prioritized<\/a> for placement and that kinship caregivers are adequately supported since they often take on significant responsibilities without sufficient preparation or financial resources. Placement data should be analyzed to identify trends in kinship placement, so that both barriers and best practices can be identified. Effective family search and engagement strategies<\/a> help agencies strengthen practice.<\/p>\n

      Hold private, age-appropriate conversations with youth<\/h3>\n

      Some lived experts shared that as youth, they could not speak honestly with caseworkers knowing that their words could be reported back to their caregivers. When youth cannot speak freely, caseworkers receive an incomplete or inaccurate picture of how a placement is going, making it harder to identify problems before they escalate and determine the best permanency plan. Play-based and trauma-informed approaches allow younger children to communicate their needs and experiences even when they don\u2019t have the vocabulary to express them directly. Child protection agencies should create space for children to share their feelings and opinions confidentially, regardless of age, without being filtered or monitored by adults. Specific policy and training are required to make this practice consistent rather one that relies on individual caseworker discretion.<\/p>\n

      Maintain a focus on permanency while preparing youth for independence<\/h3>\n

      Most jurisdictions have transitional living programs and extended care options for youth aging out of foster care, but the lived experts say these supports tend to fall short and that young people often do not learn about available services until it is too late, or they felt that they had to choose between permanency and services. In some states, for example, youth adopted at age 16 or older are eligible for continued foster care subsidies and support under the federal Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoption Act<\/a>, but awareness of this option is inconsistent. Tools like a permanency pact<\/a> can help youth and the adults in their lives detail what support will entail going forward, and prompt conversations about options.<\/p>\n

      Continue support after reunification, guardianship, or adoption<\/h3>\n

      For families impacted by child welfare, the need for support does not always end at case closure. Children and families may benefit from additional services that keep them healthy and stable. This does not mean families want or should have the system in their lives forever. Programs like Success Coach \u2014 a voluntary, relationship-based program that provides individualized coaching to reunified, adoptive, and guardianship families after the children exit foster care \u2013 offers a promising example. The Family First Prevention Services Act<\/a> provides federal funds for evidence-based mental health services, substance use disorder treatment, and parenting support for up to 15 months after family reunification.<\/p>\n

      Connect families and youth with peer support networks<\/h3>\n

      Advisory board members cite the importance of programs where peers with common experiences in the child welfare system offer support. Parent partner programs<\/a> connect parents currently involved with the system with mentors who already have navigated it. Research shows these programs contribute to higher rates of family reunification and lower rates of re-entry into foster care. Kinship navigator programs<\/a> offer similar peer-to-peer support specifically for kinship caregivers. While evidence on the benefits of youth peer mentoring programs<\/a> is scant, some research has shown that they can promote educational success for youth in foster care and those transitioning out. \u00a0Child protection agencies play a role in ensuring that youth, parents, and kinship and adoptive families know about \u2014 and have access to \u2014 these peer support networks, even after case closure.<\/p>\n

      Consider siblings, school continuity, cultural connection, and community as placement criteria<\/h3>\n

      Placement decisions always should take into account whether children can remain with their siblings and in their schools, and maintain ties to their communities and culture. Leveraging available data can help agencies track some of these factors, such as the proximity between a child\u2019s home and their placement. Consideration also should be given to maintaining the connection between children and their pets, which often are important in their lives. For many children, these connections are the anchors that create stability when everything else around them is changing. When continuity and connections are treated as priorities rather than afterthoughts, placement decisions become investments in a child\u2019s long-term stability. The lived experts describe starkly different outcomes depending on whether established connections were honored or ignored.<\/p>\n

      Include youth in permanency planning<\/h3>\n

      Youth should be active participants in their permanency planning. Lived experts describe being excluded from decision making, or participating in discussions only to have their preferences ignored. Agency staff and courts must ensure that what youth share is documented and considered as decisions are made about their lives. This requires open communication and transparency to help youth understand when decisions do not go the way they had hoped. Youth peer support is one strategy to ensure youth are advocated for in permanency planning while also helping child welfare professionals communicate with youth.<\/p>\n

      Questions for child protection agencies to consider<\/h2>\n
        \n
      1. What does your agency know about each child as an individual \u2014 including their school activities and interests, relationships, and cultural identity \u2014 beyond what is in the case file? How does this information impact placement decisions and permanency planning?<\/li>\n
      2. What structures exist in your agency to ensure children are participants in decision making, including private, developmentally appropriate conversations about their placements? What needs to change to make these practices routine and meaningful?<\/li>\n
      3. What would caseworkers in your agency need in terms of training, caseload size, documentation requirements, or other working conditions to consistently support children\u2019s relationships to people, culture, and community, and to ensure that relational permanency is at the heart of permanency planning?<\/li>\n
      4. When foster care placements change, how does your agency actively support the relationships to people, places, and culture that give that child a sense of belonging? What does your agency do to ensure youth and families receive support beyond case closure?<\/li>\n
      5. How does your agency use data to hold family placement practice accountable, and ensure kinship placements are prioritized?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n
        \n
        \n
        \n

        Casey Family Programs consults with individuals and teams across the country to compile research, experiences, and insights about approaches that can safely reduce the need for foster care and ensure the well-being of children and families. We share this information broadly to help child welfare leaders and their partners tackle similar issues in their own communities. For questions about this resource, or if you have other child welfare information needs, please email kmresources@casey.org<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

        \n
        <\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
        \n
        \n

        1 Content of this brief was informed through ongoing consultation with members of the Knowledge Management Lived Experience Advisory Board. This team includes youth, parents, kinship caregivers, and foster parents with lived experience in the child welfare system who serve as strategic partners with Family Voices United, a collaboration between FosterClub, Generations United, the Children\u2019s Trust Fund Alliance, and Casey Family Programs. Members who contributed to this brief include: Kristen Castleberry, Kathy Coleman, Gabriel Foley, Kimberly Fowler, Tiffany Jones, Susan Langenfeld, Mars Presswood, James Ray, Denise Smith, and Melissa Zimmerman.<\/p>\n

        2 Toros, Karmen (2021). Children\u2019s participation in decision making from child welfare workers\u2019 perspectives: A systematic review<\/a>. Research on Social Work Practice<\/em>, Volume 31, Issue 4.<\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n

        \n
        \n\n \n \n \n \n