• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Placement instability among young people removed from their original family and the likely mental health implications

    2017-11-29 03:16:06SimonRICESueCOTTONKristenMOELLERSAXONECathrineMIHALOPOULOSAnneMAGNUSCarolHARVEYCathyHUMPHREYSStephenHALPERINAngelaSCHEPPOKATPatrickMCGORRYHelenHERRMAN
    上海精神醫(yī)學(xué) 2017年2期
    關(guān)鍵詞:收容不穩(wěn)定性照料

    Simon RICE, Sue COTTON, Kristen MOELLER-SAXONE, Cathrine MIHALOPOULOS,Anne MAGNUS, Carol HARVEY, Cathy HUMPHREYS, Stephen HALPERIN, Angela SCHEPPOKAT ,Patrick MCGORRY, Helen HERRMAN,*

    ?Original research article?

    Placement instability among young people removed from their original family and the likely mental health implications

    Simon RICE1,2,3, Sue COTTON1,2, Kristen MOELLER-SAXONE1,2, Cathrine MIHALOPOULOS4,Anne MAGNUS4, Carol HARVEY5,6, Cathy HUMPHREYS7, Stephen HALPERIN1,2,3, Angela SCHEPPOKAT1,2,Patrick MCGORRY1,2,3, Helen HERRMAN1,2,*

    out-of-home care, residential care, foster care, adolescent mental health

    1. Introduction

    Young people in out-of-home care in Australia and other countries are vulnerable to poor health outcomes compared to their peers who grow up in biological families.[1,2]Their health and wellbeing problems can be complex and difficult to manage including developmental delay, substance misuse, sexual and mental health problems.[3,4]The numbers of young people entering out-of-home care are increasing,[5]and while many young people in out-of-home care settings demonstrate resilience across multiple domains of functioning[6]and may subsequently thrive, the majority appear to experience significant difficulties in the transition to adulthood.[7]An evidence-base is needed to promote effective intervention with these young people. Adolescence is an important stage when mental health needs can be high, yet little is known about the characteristics of young people aged 12-17 years in out-of-home care, nor the prevalence of factors that have an adverse effect on their mental health.

    Young people are legally required to leave the state protection of out-of-home care at the age of 18 in Australia. They then encounter limited opportunities for work or further education[8]and are at significant risk of homelessness.[9]A longitudinal study of young people leaving care in Australia reported that nearly 50% had attempted suicide within four years.[10]One in three young women had become pregnant or given birth within 12 months of leaving care.[11]International research has found that up to 35% of young people in state care had become homeless within 12 months of leaving care.[12]

    International research also showed the main predictors of poor mental health for young people in out-of-home care were placement instability,intellectual disability, and either older age at entry into care, or very early placement into residential care.[13,14]Little is known about potential gender differences in care type characteristics. The main protective factor is younger age at entry into home-based care (i.e., kinship or foster care).[15,16]According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), the number of children and young people in out-of-home care is growing by 5% per annum, and while the overall number of children and young people in residential care (i.e., outof-home care provided in a small residence with paid staff) is relatively low (7%), almost all (84.6%) within this residential care group are aged 10 or older.[17]Of great concern are the numbers of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people in out-of-home care, with a likelihood of being in care vastly exceeding that of non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children.[17]

    Young people in the out-of-home care sector who experience placement disruption and instability(i.e. multiple short-term placements, failed family reunification) are at significant risk of poorer health outcomes. Research suggests that placement instability in the out-of-home care sector is relatively common,[18,19]though a trend in Australian data suggests that kinship care is more stable than other forms of care.[20]Instability within out-of-home care environments has significant implications for the development of secure attachment,[16]although some forms of care (i.e., kinship care) appear to be more protective than others against the development of attachment problems.[20]When a young person experiences a number of sequential short-term out-ofhome care placements, there are likely to be difficulties in undertaking a proper assessment of her or his needs.[21,22]Australian data showed that young people settled in one placement for most (i.e. 75%) of their time in out-of-home care experienced a wide range of better outcomes (i.e., employment, stability of housing,education, substance use, mental health, criminal behaviour) than those with multiple placements.[11]

    At present, little research exists on the background demographic and care type characteristics of young people in Australia’s out-of-home care sector. In particular, there is no reliable estimate of the number of young people identifying as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, nor of culturally and linguistically diverse young people. These groups are likely to have particular needs influenced by their backgrounds, experiences and cultures. Such data are urgently needed as a step towards improved interagency collaboration and intensified use and evaluation of new and proven effective interventions, and application of culturally appropriate supports for young people in care.[23]In this paper, we report data from a Census of young people aged 12-17 years living in out-of-home care within north-western and south-eastern Melbourne in 2014.The Census was designed to gather information on characteristics that may predispose young people in care to mental health difficulties and that may guide or be amenable to intervention. Specifically, we focus on demographic characteristics of these young people as well as differences in placement history and care type(home-based versus residential care).

    2. Methods

    2.1 Participants

    The Census involved collection of demographics,placement information, cultural and linguistic backgrounds, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders status, and registered disability status of youth on child protection orders. The Census was conducted between 18th August 2014 and 29th August 2014 across four non-government child and youth community service organisations (CSOs) in Melbourne. These organisations are broadly representative of the main providers of out-of-home care for children and young people in the Northwest and Southeast Region of Melbourne (see Figure 1).

    Six care types were noted:(1) adolescent care program (volunteer foster carers providing supportive home environment and care to young people aged 12 -17 years); (2) foster care (care is provided in the private home of a substitute family receiving payment intended to cover the child’s living expenses); (3) therapeutic foster care (home-based treatments provided by foster carers who have received specialised training); (4)kinship care (caregiver is a family member or a person with a pre-existing relationship with the child);(5) lead tenant (volunteer carer who lives in a house with one or two young people who are learning independent living skills) and (6) residential care (out-of-home care provided in a residence where there are paid staff,including rostered staff within Victorian CSOs where there are typically no more than four young people in one house).

    2.2 Materials

    The Census data collection tool comprised 10 questions. These questions assessed age, gender,placement type, country of birth, languages other than English, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status,registered disability status, age of first removal from family of origin, and number of previous placements over the (a) past year, (b) past 3 years, and (c) lifetime(see Appendix 1).

    2.3 Procedure

    Approval was granted by The University of Melbourne Human Research Ethics Committee (1340674). The Victorian Department of Human Services Research Coordinating Committee and CSO research committees also provided approval. Research assistants attended each of the CSOs and worked directly with centre staff to identify and record details of participants for the Census.

    2.4 Statistical Methods

    All analyses were completed in SPSS 22.0. Summary statistics were calculated and Pearson correlation was used to examine the association of age of first removal from family of origin and placement duration.Group differences (i.e., gender, care type and cultural background) were evaluated using chi-square, t-test and factorial analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with age at census treated as a covariate. Bonferroni adjusted post-hoc analyses determined significant differences between groups. Comparisons were made between home-based care (aggregation of foster, therapeutic foster, adolescent care program, kinship, and lead tenant) and residential care types, regarding age,number of placements in past year (i.e., categorised as 1, 2, 3-4, 5-10), and lifetime placements (i.e.,categorised as 1, 2, 3-4, 5-10, 10+).

    3. Results

    3.1 Background characteristics

    The Census of 322 young people was almost evenly split by gender, with 47.2% (n=152) males and 52.8% (n=170)females. The mean (SD) age of young people was 14.9(1.6) with those enumerated ranging from 12 to 17 years,median=15 (see Table 1). Overall 38.8% (n=125) of the cohort were aged between 12-14 years of age.

    Figure 1. Flowchart of study

    The minority had registered disability status (10.4%,n=33), or were born overseas (8.0%, n=25). For those born overseas, region of birth included Africa (i.e.,Congo, Ethiopia, Sierra Leone n=14), Asia (i.e., Burma,Japan, Vietnam; n=3), Middle East (i.e., Iraq, Syria;n=2) and New Zealand / Canada (n=6). The mean age of arrival in Australia was 8.2 (4.1) years (n=17, min=3,max=16). Relatively few young people spoke an additional language (10.5%, n=34). The most frequent other languages were Arabic (n=7) and Vietnamese(n=5), and sign language (i.e., AUSLAN, n=5). A total of 19.3% (n=62) of the young people in the Census identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders.Relative to the general population, young people from Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander backgrounds were overrepresented (3% of the total Australian population is identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background24). There were no significant gender differences in the Census across any of the background demographic variables (see Table 1).

    Table 1. Demographics & Care Characteristics

    3.2 Care characteristics

    Of the single groupings, residential care was the most common care type (35.7%, n=115), followed by homebased foster care (27.0%, n=87), and home-based kinship care (19.9%, n=64) (see Table 1). Age of first removal from original family ranged from 0–17 years,with a mean (SD) of 9.10 (4.54) years. Half the sample were first removed from their families earlier than 10 years of age (0-5 years, 20.4%, n=59; 6-10 years, 30.4%,n=88), with the remaining 11-15 years (45%, n=130)and 16-17 years (3.7%, n=12). There was no gender difference for age of first removal. Children from an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background were significantly younger at age of first removal with a mean (SD) of 7.02 (4.6) years than non-Indigenous children with a mean (SD) of 9.58 (4.4), t(308)=3.96,p<0.001. Those in residential care settings were marginally older at 15.15 (1.41) years than that in home-based care at 14.71 (1.72) years, t(320)=-2.253,p<0.018. Given this, age was treated as a covariate in relevant between-group analyses below.

    3.3 Number of placements

    In the previous year, 69.6% (n=224) of children had only one previous placement, 17.7% (n=57) had two placements, 7.8% (n=25) had 3-4 placements, and 4.3%(n=14) had 5-10 placements. Over their lifetime, 23.1%(n=74) of children had only one previous placement,13.8% (n=44) had two placements, 24.4% (n=78) had 3-4 placements, 26.3% (n=84) had 5-10 placements,and 12.4% (n=40) had more than 10 placements.Accordingly, 63.1% of the sample were considered to have experienced placement instability (i.e., ≥3 lifetime placements before age 18). There were no significant associations between gender or Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background for placement instability,either previous year, or lifetime (all p>0.05).

    3.4 Duration of current placement

    Duration at current placement ranged from 0 to 180 months with a mean(SD) 29.42 (36.41). Earlier age of removal was associated with longer time (months) spent at current placement (r= -0.48, p<0.001). The effects of gender and placement type on length at current placement were evaluated by factorial ANCOVA. There was a significant effect of placement type on the mean duration of the current placement F(5,305)=12.595,p<0.001, η2=0.171, though neither the gender main effect, the gender × placement type interaction, or covariate (age) were significant. Bonferonni adjusted post hoc tests indicated a pattern of significantly shorter duration of current placement for those in residential or lead tenant care relative to foster care or kinship care (see Table 3 for post hoc tests and means).

    3.5 Number of lifetime placements

    Number of lifetime placements ranged from 1 to 22 with a mean (SD) of 4.74 (4.19). When examined categorically, there was a significant association between placement instability and care type (χ2[18,N=320]=63.018, p<0.001). Table 2 shows that relativeto other care types, kindship care was associated with greater placement stability (i.e., either 1 or 2 lifetime placements). Factorial ANCOVA indicated a significant effect of placement type on the total number of lifetime placements F(5,307)=8.247,p<0.001, η2=0.118, though neither the main effect for gender, the gender × placement type interaction, or the covariate (age) were significant.Post hoc tests indicated several significant group differences, with young people in residential care experiencing significantly more lifetime placements at 6.29 (4.92) compared to those in foster care 4.35 (4.05),Bonferonni adjusted p=0.010 (M=4.35, SD=4.05,p=0.010) and (kinship care mean [SD] 2.48 [1.93],Bonferonni adjusted p<0.001), while those in kinship care experienced fewer placements than those in lead tenant placements (mean [SD] 5.72 [3.74], Bonferonni adjusted p=0.036). Hence, young people in kinship care were more likely than other care types to have a single placement, and experienced significantly fewer lifetime placements than young people in residential care or lead tenant care.

    Table 2. Previous lifetime placements by current placement type

    Table 3. Duration (months) of Current Placement by Placement Type and Gender

    3.6 Home-based and residential care comparisons

    Analyses were undertaken comparing those young people currently in home-based care types (aggregation of foster, therapeutic foster, adolescent care program,kinship, and lead tenant) with those currently in residential care by gender. Factorial ANCOVA indicated that youth in residential care had almost double the number of previous lifetime placements than youth in home-based care, respective means 6.29 (4.92) and 3.88 (3.41), F(1,315)=26.082, p<0.001, η2=0.076. A significant difference was also observed for number of placements in the previous year where those in residential care 1.83 (1.57) had on average more lifetime placements than those in home-based care 1.34(1.42), F(1,317)=8.458, p=0.004, η2=0.026. There was no significant gender difference, gender × care type interaction, or covariate (age) in these analyses.Nonetheless, youth in home-based care were almost two years younger at age of first removal 8.50 (4.59),compared to those in residential care 10.20 (4.27) ,t(308)=-3.18, p=0.002. Hence, residential care was associated with greater placement instability, and older age of first removal from family of origin.

    Chi-square analyses were conducted to assess for care type (home-based / residential) difference in number of previous year, and lifetime placements. The effect on number of placements in previous year was not significant, but the lifetime (categorical) placements by care type was significant, χ2(18, N=320)=41.93,p<0.001. Youth in residential care settings were more than three times as likely to have experienced >10 placements than were those in home-based care. Relative to care type, for those in residential care 73% (n=84)had experienced ≥3 placements, while for those in home-based care, 57.5% (n=118) had experienced ≥3 placements (see Figure 2). Youth from an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background were more frequently placed in home-based care settings (79.0%, n=40) than residential care (21.0%, n=13), χ2(1, N=322)=7.27,p=0.007.

    4. Discussion

    4.1 Main findings

    This research presented the first systematic census of characteristics of young Australians (12-17 years) in the out-of-home care sector. It includes young people linked with the major community service organisations(CSOs) engaged in this work in two of the four regions of metropolitan Melbourne. Only by doing such descriptive studies are background population status and trends identified. The young people were, on average, removed from their family of origin by the State in mid-childhood. The census reveals that three out of four of these young people have a lifetime historyof more than one placement in home-based or residential care programs, with more than a third having experienced five or more lifetime (to date) placements. Based on the definition established by Webster and colleagues[18](i.e.,≥3 lifetime placements), almost two thirds (63.1%) of those enumerated experienced placement instability. The census also included a comparatively large proportion of young people who were from an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Island background. In addition, close to 10% of those enumerated were born overseas, suggesting there may be specific cultural needs for this population. When taken together, and from the perspective that secure or reparative attachments are known to be associated with positive mental health and functioning,[16,20]the present figures warrant further examination, exploration of contributing factors and concern.

    Figure 2. Number of lifetime placements by home-based/residential care type

    4.2 Limitations

    The reported rate of the young people enumerated in the census with a registered disability (10%) was lower than our expectations, and our CSO partners since previously published reports have identified between 22% and 42% young people living in out-of-home care have a registered disability.[28]This discrepancy could possibly reflect a lack of access to relevant CSO assessment and diagnosis records, although we could detect no indication of this. A further limitation is that our Census enumerated only those young people in the outof-home care sector who are registered with CSOs. Given that a growing proportion of young people are placed directly in kinship care by the state child protection services without invoking the case management services of CSOs (as state child protection protocols change), this data is necessarily incomplete. Further, as census data was collated at CSO sites in a de-identified manner, it is not possible to link this to individual health or mental health outcomes in further studies.

    A second census of the same CSOs will be conducted in 2016 and any change in the rates examined here will be reported, providing valuable trend data over a three year period. A number of current initiatives are designed to respond to emotional difficulties and disturbed behaviour among young people in home-based and residential out-of-home care(e.g., therapeutic foster care, Roadmap for Reform[29]). In particular, The Ripple Project[30]is evaluating a universal mental health promotion intervention that provides capacity development and support to community case managers and carers. It is hoped that such companion work will strengthen the therapeutic capacities of outof-home carers of young people and have an impact on rates of placement stability. Greater placement stability is likely to be an important mediating variable between improved health and function of carers and that of the young people in out-of-home care.

    4.3 Implications

    To our knowledge, these data are unique. While previous work has examined placement instability for those removed in early childhood (i.e., between 0 and 6 years[18]), we are aware of only one other Australian study to have reported placement history (i.e.,instability) of young people in the out-of-home care sector across the 12-17 age range.[25]Our study includes a high proportion of young people living in residential care (35.7% of the sample), compared with 5% when all age groups and all care classifications (including those young people who are sent directly to kinship care without CSO case management) are considered.[17]The Pathways of Care longitudinal study of children in out-of-home care in Australia included children and young people in all care classifications. It showed that 42% remained in their current placement for 18 months or more: compared with the current study, a longer period than that observed for young people in residential care, but substantially shorter than that for home-based care.[25]Of note, in the current study,young people in kinship care were more likely than other care types to experience stable placements(i.e., <3 lifetime placements), and reported overall significantly fewer lifetime placements than those in residential or lead tenant care. Comparable work from the US has examined differential patterns of placement instability, reporting a sizeable minority (19.8%) as having an unstable pattern characterised by multiple brief placements (less than 9 months), associated with significantly higher internalising and externalising behaviour problems.[19]

    Given the paucity of existing data regarding placement instability, significant informational needs exist (for, carers, policy makers, protective services and researchers) concerning young people living within the out-of-home care sector throughout Australia.[23]The lack of routinely collected and publicly available information about the number, characteristics and circumstances of young people living in out-of-home care in Melbourne is a situation similar in other Australian states and in other countries.[13]

    Existing literature[11,21]indicated that placement stability was one of the essential ingredients required for young people in care to overcome their difficulties.Hence, stable care conditions have a greater chance of ameliorating the difficulties often associated with interpersonal trauma and helping the youth in these circumstances to gain an education, employment and a life as a citizen with good mental health. The present study indicates for the first time the degree of current and lifetime instability by care type in this population.The current configuration of the out-of-home care system appears to offer stable care to a minority of its residential youth, 50% of its home based youth, and the associations of placement stability/instability with mental health outcomes need further study.

    Home-based foster or kinship care is designed as a humane replacement for the large institutions and orphanages of bygone days in our community.Orphanages and institutions create conditions recognised as deleterious for mental health and future function as adults.[26]These include strict routines,lack of personal relationships and isolation from wider society. Many countries promote foster-care programs and their equivalents as a better care solution.However, these programs can be just as harmful as institutionalization to a child’s future mental health and function if the care is unstable.[27]Further, in many cases carers have little access to support for themselves and their role as de facto parents in demanding circumstances.

    5. Conclusions

    Significant lifetime placement instability has been identified in the population of young people living in out-of-home care in Melbourne. Since instability is a risk factor for mental health problems and consequent life-time opportunities regarding employment,education and criminality, further examination of the causal pathways and implementation research are needed so that the risks can be redressed with effective interventions where possible.

    Funding

    The Ripple Study is funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Targeted Call for Research 1046692. Prof. Sue Cotton is supported by NHMRC Career Development Fellowship (APP1061998).Prof. Helen Herrman is supported by an NHMRC Fellowship. Prof. Cathrine Mihalopoulos is supported by an NHMRC Early Career Fellowship (APP1035887). Dr Simon Rice is supported by an Early Career Fellowship from the Society of Mental Health Research.

    Conflict of interest statement

    The authors report no conflicts of interest.

    Ethical approval

    Approval was granted by The University of Melbourne Human Research Ethics Committee (1340674). The Victorian Department of Human Services Research Coordinating Committee, Deakin University Human Research Ethics Committee (2014-046) and CSO research committees also provided approval.

    Authors’ contribution

    The study was originally conceived by HH, SC, CM, AM,CH, SH and PM. Management of data collection, data cleaning and project oversight undertaken by KMS and AS. The data analysis plan was developed by HH, KMS,SC and SR. Data analysis and reporting was undertaken by SC and SR. All authors collaborated significantly to manuscript development and editing. All authors approved the final submitted version.

    1. Nathanson D, Tzioumi D. Health needs of Australian children living in out-of-home care. J Paediatr Child Health.2007;43(10): 695-699. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1754.2007.01193.x

    2. Vinnerljung B, Salln?s M. Into adulthood: A follow- up study of 718 young people who were placed in out- o fhome care during their teens. Child & Family Social Work.2008;13(2): 144-155. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2206.2007.00527.x

    3. Sawyer MG, Carbone JA, Searle AK, Robinson P. The mental health and wellbeing of children and adolescents in homebased foster care. Med J Aust. 2007;186(4): 181

    4. Webster SM, Temple-Smith M. Children and young people in out-of-home care: are GPs ready and willing to provide comprehensive health assessments for this vulnerable group? Aust J Prim Health. 2010;16(4): 296-303. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/PY10019

    5. Zwi KJ, Henry RL. 13. Children in Australian society. Med J Aust. 2005;183(3): 154

    6. Daining C. Resilience of youth in transition from outof-home care to adulthood. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2007;29(9): 1158-1178. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.04.006

    7. Mendes P. Graduating from the child welfare system a case study of the leaving care debate in Victoria, Australia.J Soc Work. 2005;5(2): 155-171. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1468017305054970

    8. Mendes P, Moslehuddin B. From dependence to interdependence: Towards better outcomes for young people leaving state care. Child Abuse Rev. 2006;15(2): 110-126. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/car.932

    9. Cummins P, Scott D, Scales B. Report of the Protecting Victoria’s Vulnerable Children Inquiry. Melbourne: Department of Premier and Cabinet; 2012

    10. Cashmore J P M. Longitudinal Study of Wards Leaving Care.Sydney: Social Policy Research Centre; 2007

    11. Cashmore J, Paxman M. Predicting after‐care outcomes:the importance of ‘felt’ security. Child & Family Social Work 2006;11(3): 232-241. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2206.2006.00430.x

    12. Barton S, Gonzalez R, Tomlinson P. Therapeutic Residential Care for Children and Young People. London: Jessica Kingsley;2012

    13. Stein M, Dumaret AC. The mental health of young people aging out of care and entering adulthood: Exploring the evidence from England and France. Child Youth Serv Rev.2011;33(12): 2504-2511. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.08.029

    14. Thoburn J, Courtney ME. A guide through the knowledge base on children in out-of-home care.J Child Serv. 2011;6(4): 210-227. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17466661111190910

    15. Fisher PA. Review: Adoption, fostering, and the needs of looked-after and adopted children. Child Adolesc Ment Health. 2015;20(1): 5-12. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/camh.12084

    16. Tarren-Sweeney M. The mental health of children in out-ofhome care. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2008;21(4): 345-349. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/YCO.0b013e32830321fa

    17. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Child protection Australia 2014–15. Child welfare series no. 63. Cat. no.CWS 57.Canberra: Australian Government; 2016

    18. Webster D, Barth RP, Needell B. Placement stability for children in out-of-home care: A longitudinal analysis. Child Welfare. 2000;79(5): 614

    19. James S, Landsverk J, Slymen DJ. Placement movement in out-of-home care: Patterns and predictors. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2004;26(2): 185-206. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2004.01.008

    20. Tarren-Sweeney M, Hazell P. Mental health of children in foster and kinship care in New South Wales, Australia. J Paediatr Child Health. 2006;42(3): 89-97. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1754.2006.00804.x

    21. Fallesen P. Identifying divergent foster care careers for Danish children. Child Abuse Negl. 2014;38(11): 1860-1871.doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2014.08.004

    22. Berrick J. When children cannot remain home: Foster family care and kinship care. Future Child. 1998;8: 72-87

    23. Mendes P, Snow PC, S Baidawi. Young people transitioning from out-of-home care in Victoria: Strengthening support services for dual clients of child protection and youth justice. Australian Social Work. 2014;67(1): 6-23. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2013.853197

    24. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Estimates of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, June 2011. Australian Bureau of Statistics; 2013

    25. Paxman M, Tully L, Burke S, Watson J. Pathways of Care:Longitudinal study on children and young people in out-ofhome care in New South Wales. Family Matters. 2014;94: 15

    26. Chugani HT, Behen ME, Muzik O, Juhász C, Nagy F,Chugani DC. Local brain functional activity following early deprivation: a study of postinstitutionalized Romanian orphans. Neuroimage 2001;14(6): 1290-1301. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2001.0917

    27. Humphreys KL, Gleason MM, Drury SS, Miron D, Nelson CA,Fox NA, et al. Effects of institutional rearing and foster care on psychopathology at age 12 years in Romania: follow-up of an open, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Psychiatry.2015;2(7): 625-634. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(15)00095-4

    28. Mitchell G. Children with Disabilities Using Child and Family Welfare Services. Melbourne: OzChild; 2013

    29. Victorian State Government. Roadmap for Reform: Strong Families, Safe Children; 2016

    30. Herrman H, Humphreys C, Halperin S, Monson K, Harvey C, Mihalopoulos C, et al. A controlled trial of implementing a complex mental health intervention for the carers of vulnerable young people living in out-of-home care: The ripple project. BMC Psychiatry. 2016;16(1): 436. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12888-016-1145-6

    年輕人離開(kāi)原生家庭后安置不穩(wěn)定性及可能的心理健康影響

    Rice S, Cotton S, Moeller-Saxone K, Mihalopoulos C, Magnus A, Harvey C, Humphreys C, Halperin S, Scheppokat A, Mcgorry P, Herrman H

    收容照料、社區(qū)照料、寄養(yǎng)照料、青少年心理健康

    Background:Young people in out-of-home care are more likely to experience poorer mental and physical health outcomes related to their peers. Stable care environments are essential for ameliorating impacts of disruptive early childhood experiences, including exposure to psychological trauma, abuse and neglect. At present there are very few high quality data regarding the placement stability history of young people in out-of-home care in Australia or other countries.

    Objectives:To undertake the first systematic census of background, care type and placement stability characteristics of young people living in the out-of-home care sector in Australia.

    Methods:Data was collected from four non-government child and adolescent community service organisations located across metropolitan Melbourne in 2014. The sample comprised 322 young people(females 52.8%), aged between 12 – 17 years (mean age=14.86 [SD=1.63] years).

    Results: Most young people (64.3%) were in home-based care settings (i.e., foster care, therapeutic foster care, adolescent care program, kinship care, and lead tenant care), relative to residential care (35.7%).However, the proportion in residential care is very high in this age group when compared with all children in out-of-home care (5%). Mean age of first removal was 9 years (SD=4.54). No gender differences were observed for care type characteristics. Three quarters of the sample (76.9%) had a lifetime history of more than one placement in the out-of-home care system, with more than a third (36.5%) having experienced ≥5 lifetime placements. Relative to home-based care, young people in residential care experienced significantly greater placement instability (χ2=63.018, p<0.001).

    Conclusions:Placement instability is common in the out-of-home care sector. Given stable care environments are required to ameliorate psychological trauma and health impacts associated with childhood maltreatment, well-designed intervention-based research is required to enable greater placement stability, including strengthening the therapeutic capacities of out-of-home carers of young people.

    [Shanghai Arch Psychiatry. 2017;29(2): 85-94.

    http://dx.doi.org/10.11919/j.issn.1002-0829.216090]

    1Orygen, The National Centre of Excellence in Youth Mental Health, Melbourne, Australia

    2Centre for Youth Mental Health, The University of Melbourne, Australia

    3Orygen Youth Health, NorthWestern Mental Health, Melbourne Health, Melbourne, Australia

    4Deakin Health Economics, Centre for Population Health Research, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia

    5Psychosocial Research Centre, Department of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne, Australia

    6NorthWestern Mental Health, Melbourne, Australia

    7Department of Social Work, The University of Melbourne, Australia

    *correspondence: Professor Helen Herrman. Mailing address: The National Centre of Excellence in Youth Mental Health; Centre for Youth Mental Health,The University of Melbourne, 35 Poplar Road, Parkville, Victoria, 3052, Australia. E-Mail: helen.herrman@orygen.org.au

    背景:收容機(jī)構(gòu)中的兒童青少年和同齡人相比可能存在較差的心身健康水平。穩(wěn)定的機(jī)構(gòu)照料環(huán)境對(duì)改善早期童年經(jīng)歷所致破壞性影響是非常重要的,童年經(jīng)歷包括心理創(chuàng)傷、虐待和忽視。目前,澳大利亞或其他國(guó)家很少有關(guān)收容機(jī)構(gòu)中兒童青少年的安置穩(wěn)定性高質(zhì)量研究的數(shù)據(jù)。

    目標(biāo):首次針對(duì)澳大利亞在收容機(jī)構(gòu)生活中的兒童青少年進(jìn)行系統(tǒng)的背景、照料類型、和安置穩(wěn)定性特征的調(diào)查。

    方法:2014年收集了墨爾本市區(qū)的四家民間兒童青少年社區(qū)服務(wù)機(jī)構(gòu)的數(shù)據(jù)。樣本包括322名年輕人(女性占52.8%),年齡在12 - 17歲之間[平均年齡=14.86,(SD = 1.63)年 ]。

    結(jié)果:在收容機(jī)構(gòu)中,相對(duì)于社區(qū)收容照料類型(35.7%),大多數(shù)年輕人(64.3%)是基于家庭養(yǎng)育照料模式(即寄養(yǎng)、治療型寄養(yǎng)照料、青少年照料模式、親屬照料、以及認(rèn)領(lǐng)照料)。然而,與所有收容照料的孩子相比,這個(gè)年齡組被社區(qū)收容比例是較高的(5%)。第一次被社區(qū)收容的平均年齡為9歲(SD= 4.54)。不同的照料類型均無(wú)性別差異。其中有248人(76.9%)曾在收容照料系統(tǒng)中有一個(gè)以上的安置場(chǎng)所,有117人(36.5%)經(jīng)歷了超過(guò)5個(gè)安置場(chǎng)所。相對(duì)于家庭養(yǎng)育照料者,社區(qū)收容的兒童青少年經(jīng)歷了更顯著的安置不穩(wěn)定性(χ2=63.018, p<0.001)。

    結(jié)論:安置不穩(wěn)定性在收容照料機(jī)構(gòu)是常見(jiàn)的現(xiàn)象。需要一個(gè)穩(wěn)定的照料環(huán)境來(lái)改善被虐待兒童所導(dǎo)致的心理創(chuàng)傷和健康影響。精心設(shè)計(jì)并以干預(yù)為基礎(chǔ)的研究能夠增加安置穩(wěn)定性,包括強(qiáng)化對(duì)兒童青少年收容照料者的治療能力。

    Dr. Simon Rice obtained a combined Master of Psychology (Clinical) / PhD degree (5 years total) the School of Psychology, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia in 2012. And he also completed a Grad.Cert. in Clinical Epidemiology (University of Newcastle, AUS) in 2014. He is currently working as a research fellow & clinical psychologist in the Centre for Youth Mental Health, the University of Melbourne. He is a board-approved supervisor and is also a clinician in the Youth Mood Clinic at Orygen Youth Health. He is a member of Australian Psychology Society and Early Career Advisory Group committee. He has both a clinical and research interest in mood disorders in young people, vulnerable populations and e-mental health interventions. His PhD focused on the assessment of depression in men, the key outcome of which was the Male Depression Risk Scale, a validated multidimensional screening tool for assessing externalizing symptoms associated with distress in men. He has been highly productive since graduating from his PhD, receiving a number of national and international competitive awards, >$2.5M AUD in research funding, and has published 46 peer reviewed papers.

    猜你喜歡
    收容不穩(wěn)定性照料
    照料父母對(duì)子女健康福利的影響研究
    ——基于CFPS 2016年數(shù)據(jù)的實(shí)證分析
    學(xué)中文
    正式照料抑或非正式照料:照料模式對(duì)高齡老人臨終照料成本的影響①
    南方人口(2021年1期)2021-02-28 08:26:30
    收容教育制度退出歷史舞臺(tái)
    可壓縮Navier-Stokes方程平面Couette-Poiseuille流的線性不穩(wěn)定性
    收容教育所舉辦文藝匯演
    土地廟
    增強(qiáng)型體外反搏聯(lián)合中醫(yī)辯證治療不穩(wěn)定性心絞痛療效觀察
    無(wú)微不至照料留守兒童
    前列地爾治療不穩(wěn)定性心絞痛療效觀察
    亚洲av成人精品一区久久| 特级一级黄色大片| 国产麻豆成人av免费视频| 中文字幕熟女人妻在线| 午夜免费成人在线视频| 国产1区2区3区精品| 久久午夜亚洲精品久久| 97超视频在线观看视频| 日韩欧美 国产精品| 国产熟女xx| 日本黄色片子视频| 天天躁日日操中文字幕| 亚洲片人在线观看| 白带黄色成豆腐渣| 欧美中文综合在线视频| 亚洲av熟女| 深夜精品福利| 国产精品久久久久久久电影 | 久久久精品欧美日韩精品| 亚洲精品一区av在线观看| 啦啦啦韩国在线观看视频| 美女 人体艺术 gogo| 舔av片在线| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| av在线天堂中文字幕| 亚洲精品在线观看二区| 白带黄色成豆腐渣| 最近最新中文字幕大全电影3| 99久久无色码亚洲精品果冻| 丁香欧美五月| 国产黄片美女视频| xxx96com| 桃色一区二区三区在线观看| 亚洲aⅴ乱码一区二区在线播放| 美女黄网站色视频| 色哟哟哟哟哟哟| 日韩欧美在线二视频| 亚洲九九香蕉| 免费av毛片视频| 国产高清视频在线播放一区| 欧美乱码精品一区二区三区| 首页视频小说图片口味搜索| 一个人观看的视频www高清免费观看 | 国产v大片淫在线免费观看| 午夜a级毛片| 国产亚洲av高清不卡| 久久国产精品人妻蜜桃| 精品一区二区三区四区五区乱码| 国产成人精品无人区| 99在线人妻在线中文字幕| 日本与韩国留学比较| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸| 一级毛片精品| 成人鲁丝片一二三区免费| 嫩草影院入口| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看| 欧美精品啪啪一区二区三区| 午夜成年电影在线免费观看| 久久午夜亚洲精品久久| 亚洲七黄色美女视频| 宅男免费午夜| 午夜福利18| 精品不卡国产一区二区三区| 99久久99久久久精品蜜桃| svipshipincom国产片| 亚洲人成电影免费在线| 精品久久久久久久末码| 99在线人妻在线中文字幕| 精品国产三级普通话版| 日韩中文字幕欧美一区二区| 人人妻人人看人人澡| 国产单亲对白刺激| 毛片女人毛片| 性色av乱码一区二区三区2| 国产精品一及| 好男人电影高清在线观看| 精品不卡国产一区二区三区| 亚洲一区二区三区不卡视频| 夜夜躁狠狠躁天天躁| 亚洲国产精品久久男人天堂| 午夜激情欧美在线| 国模一区二区三区四区视频 | 久久精品91无色码中文字幕| 19禁男女啪啪无遮挡网站| 日韩 欧美 亚洲 中文字幕| 一区二区三区高清视频在线| 亚洲av五月六月丁香网| 亚洲专区字幕在线| 校园春色视频在线观看| 欧美激情在线99| 90打野战视频偷拍视频| 在线永久观看黄色视频| 波多野结衣高清无吗| 超碰成人久久| 啦啦啦韩国在线观看视频| 亚洲天堂国产精品一区在线| 中文字幕精品亚洲无线码一区| 性色av乱码一区二区三区2| 一a级毛片在线观看| 熟妇人妻久久中文字幕3abv| 色视频www国产| 欧美日韩一级在线毛片| 日韩高清综合在线| 成人午夜高清在线视频| 国产亚洲欧美在线一区二区| 久久精品国产亚洲av香蕉五月| 午夜免费成人在线视频| 老汉色av国产亚洲站长工具| 国产伦一二天堂av在线观看| 欧美最黄视频在线播放免费| 欧美大码av| 亚洲第一电影网av| 婷婷丁香在线五月| 欧美中文综合在线视频| 校园春色视频在线观看| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 一级作爱视频免费观看| 中亚洲国语对白在线视频| 久久久国产成人免费| 两性夫妻黄色片| 国产精品 国内视频| 母亲3免费完整高清在线观看| 国产真实乱freesex| 一夜夜www| 嫩草影院入口| 岛国视频午夜一区免费看| 亚洲av电影在线进入| 夜夜爽天天搞| 99在线视频只有这里精品首页| 最近在线观看免费完整版| 午夜福利成人在线免费观看| 黑人操中国人逼视频| 国产午夜精品论理片| 黄色成人免费大全| av中文乱码字幕在线| av天堂在线播放| 不卡一级毛片| 韩国av一区二区三区四区| 亚洲自偷自拍图片 自拍| 久久这里只有精品19| 偷拍熟女少妇极品色| 亚洲精品色激情综合| 无遮挡黄片免费观看| 国产三级中文精品| 日韩精品青青久久久久久| 我的老师免费观看完整版| 久久久久国产精品人妻aⅴ院| 人人妻人人看人人澡| 精品一区二区三区av网在线观看| 欧美黄色淫秽网站| 很黄的视频免费| 久久久久性生活片| cao死你这个sao货| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人| 黄频高清免费视频| 久久久久久久精品吃奶| 男女之事视频高清在线观看| 俄罗斯特黄特色一大片| 国产av不卡久久| 男女床上黄色一级片免费看| 美女高潮喷水抽搐中文字幕| www日本黄色视频网| 91在线观看av| 成人欧美大片| 观看免费一级毛片| 精品一区二区三区av网在线观看| 最新美女视频免费是黄的| 黑人欧美特级aaaaaa片| 亚洲第一电影网av| 法律面前人人平等表现在哪些方面| xxxwww97欧美| aaaaa片日本免费| 成年免费大片在线观看| 亚洲成人久久爱视频| 精品欧美国产一区二区三| 欧美在线一区亚洲| 天天添夜夜摸| 国产精品九九99| 一二三四社区在线视频社区8| 丁香欧美五月| 在线视频色国产色| av天堂在线播放| 2021天堂中文幕一二区在线观| 成人特级黄色片久久久久久久| 色老头精品视频在线观看| 成人高潮视频无遮挡免费网站| 国产又黄又爽又无遮挡在线| 国产精品 欧美亚洲| 99热这里只有精品一区 | 亚洲18禁久久av| 宅男免费午夜| 国产精品av久久久久免费| 免费av毛片视频| 免费高清视频大片| 午夜福利在线在线| 日韩欧美 国产精品| 亚洲人成网站在线播放欧美日韩| 搡老熟女国产l中国老女人| 国产亚洲精品一区二区www| 午夜日韩欧美国产| 免费在线观看日本一区| www.熟女人妻精品国产| 老司机午夜福利在线观看视频| 麻豆成人av在线观看| 成人性生交大片免费视频hd| 哪里可以看免费的av片| 久久99热这里只有精品18| 五月伊人婷婷丁香| 色哟哟哟哟哟哟| 在线a可以看的网站| 日韩大尺度精品在线看网址| 国内精品久久久久精免费| 美女被艹到高潮喷水动态| 脱女人内裤的视频| 亚洲精华国产精华精| 免费大片18禁| 欧美日韩中文字幕国产精品一区二区三区| 精品久久久久久久毛片微露脸| 欧美日韩乱码在线| 亚洲国产欧美一区二区综合| 18禁裸乳无遮挡免费网站照片| 麻豆国产av国片精品| 欧美中文综合在线视频| 欧美乱色亚洲激情| 午夜福利高清视频| 亚洲熟妇中文字幕五十中出| 成人无遮挡网站| 91麻豆av在线| 搡老熟女国产l中国老女人| 日韩免费av在线播放| 男女床上黄色一级片免费看| 夜夜爽天天搞| 久久精品国产99精品国产亚洲性色| 男女那种视频在线观看| 亚洲va日本ⅴa欧美va伊人久久| 精品一区二区三区视频在线观看免费| 99久久精品热视频| 51午夜福利影视在线观看| 十八禁人妻一区二区| 成年女人毛片免费观看观看9| 欧美最黄视频在线播放免费| 全区人妻精品视频| 国产一区在线观看成人免费| 久久久国产精品麻豆| 一本久久中文字幕| 国产高清videossex| 国产亚洲精品一区二区www| 好男人电影高清在线观看| 亚洲,欧美精品.| 成人午夜高清在线视频| 免费看日本二区| 日韩大尺度精品在线看网址| av福利片在线观看| 麻豆久久精品国产亚洲av| 免费av毛片视频| 狠狠狠狠99中文字幕| 黄色片一级片一级黄色片| 成人亚洲精品av一区二区| 久久午夜综合久久蜜桃| 小蜜桃在线观看免费完整版高清| 在线观看舔阴道视频| 网址你懂的国产日韩在线| 国产精品99久久99久久久不卡| 精品国产亚洲在线| 嫩草影视91久久| 久久精品夜夜夜夜夜久久蜜豆| 亚洲激情在线av| 黄色日韩在线| 亚洲电影在线观看av| 久久亚洲精品不卡| 琪琪午夜伦伦电影理论片6080| 精品久久久久久久毛片微露脸| 叶爱在线成人免费视频播放| 这个男人来自地球电影免费观看| 欧美日韩福利视频一区二区| 特大巨黑吊av在线直播| 国产av麻豆久久久久久久| 国产黄片美女视频| 久久精品人妻少妇| 久久精品夜夜夜夜夜久久蜜豆| 午夜福利欧美成人| 国产野战对白在线观看| 男女做爰动态图高潮gif福利片| 长腿黑丝高跟| 91av网站免费观看| 这个男人来自地球电影免费观看| 久9热在线精品视频| 99久久综合精品五月天人人| 伦理电影免费视频| 高潮久久久久久久久久久不卡| 亚洲成av人片在线播放无| 国内精品一区二区在线观看| 九九在线视频观看精品| 久久香蕉精品热| 国内精品久久久久精免费| 搡老熟女国产l中国老女人| 全区人妻精品视频| 国产乱人视频| 搡老岳熟女国产| 亚洲精品美女久久久久99蜜臀| 国产精品久久久人人做人人爽| 叶爱在线成人免费视频播放| 精品国产乱码久久久久久男人| 久久精品91无色码中文字幕| 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| 一进一出抽搐动态| 两个人看的免费小视频| 国产精品99久久久久久久久| 亚洲精品在线观看二区| 中文字幕人妻丝袜一区二区| 亚洲欧美日韩卡通动漫| 国产一区二区激情短视频| 国产精品精品国产色婷婷| 嫁个100分男人电影在线观看| 欧美中文日本在线观看视频| 国内精品久久久久精免费| 国产精品乱码一区二三区的特点| 成人av一区二区三区在线看| 999久久久精品免费观看国产| 日韩成人在线观看一区二区三区| 丰满人妻一区二区三区视频av | 欧美激情在线99| 嫩草影院入口| 青草久久国产| 久久久久国内视频| 好男人在线观看高清免费视频| 老司机午夜十八禁免费视频| 无人区码免费观看不卡| 亚洲第一欧美日韩一区二区三区| 国产成人av激情在线播放| 成人永久免费在线观看视频| 国产成人精品久久二区二区免费| 免费在线观看视频国产中文字幕亚洲| 国产精品久久久久久久电影 | 法律面前人人平等表现在哪些方面| 成人18禁在线播放| 亚洲专区字幕在线| 午夜两性在线视频| 99国产极品粉嫩在线观看| 亚洲片人在线观看| 舔av片在线| 一本久久中文字幕| 老司机午夜十八禁免费视频| 国产综合懂色| 夜夜躁狠狠躁天天躁| 国产精品1区2区在线观看.| 97碰自拍视频| 草草在线视频免费看| 一个人免费在线观看的高清视频| 欧美性猛交黑人性爽| 国产成人影院久久av| 女人被狂操c到高潮| 人妻丰满熟妇av一区二区三区| www日本在线高清视频| 亚洲 欧美 日韩 在线 免费| 欧美av亚洲av综合av国产av| 免费电影在线观看免费观看| 黄片小视频在线播放| 搡老妇女老女人老熟妇| 精品无人区乱码1区二区| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 怎么达到女性高潮| 亚洲欧美日韩东京热| ponron亚洲| 久久亚洲精品不卡| 久久99热这里只有精品18| 老汉色av国产亚洲站长工具| 久久久久久久精品吃奶| 国产成人av教育| 亚洲第一电影网av| 成人高潮视频无遮挡免费网站| 巨乳人妻的诱惑在线观看| 琪琪午夜伦伦电影理论片6080| 性色avwww在线观看| 国产成人欧美在线观看| 国内精品久久久久精免费| 国产成+人综合+亚洲专区| 亚洲美女黄片视频| 久久精品综合一区二区三区| 午夜福利视频1000在线观看| 精品午夜福利视频在线观看一区| 亚洲无线观看免费| 91字幕亚洲| 十八禁网站免费在线| 久久精品91无色码中文字幕| 亚洲欧美激情综合另类| 免费在线观看日本一区| 国产精品一区二区精品视频观看| 2021天堂中文幕一二区在线观| 亚洲精品国产精品久久久不卡| 亚洲av电影在线进入| 一级作爱视频免费观看| 中文字幕久久专区| 黄色成人免费大全| www日本黄色视频网| 51午夜福利影视在线观看| 18禁裸乳无遮挡免费网站照片| 久久热在线av| 一二三四在线观看免费中文在| 91av网一区二区| 国产精品日韩av在线免费观看| av女优亚洲男人天堂 | 亚洲一区高清亚洲精品| 成人高潮视频无遮挡免费网站| 日韩欧美国产一区二区入口| 日韩三级视频一区二区三区| 男插女下体视频免费在线播放| 一本精品99久久精品77| 欧美日韩瑟瑟在线播放| 久久这里只有精品中国| 国产精品一区二区三区四区久久| 国产高清视频在线观看网站| 免费观看的影片在线观看| 成人一区二区视频在线观看| 成年女人看的毛片在线观看| 九九久久精品国产亚洲av麻豆 | 久久精品影院6| 操出白浆在线播放| 中文字幕久久专区| 999久久久精品免费观看国产| 午夜a级毛片| 女生性感内裤真人,穿戴方法视频| 免费在线观看亚洲国产| 天天一区二区日本电影三级| 丁香欧美五月| 欧美xxxx黑人xx丫x性爽| 亚洲精品乱码久久久v下载方式 | 法律面前人人平等表现在哪些方面| 亚洲自偷自拍图片 自拍| 色在线成人网| 国内毛片毛片毛片毛片毛片| 免费看日本二区| 欧美日韩国产亚洲二区| 久久精品夜夜夜夜夜久久蜜豆| 制服丝袜大香蕉在线| 老司机午夜十八禁免费视频| 91老司机精品| 999久久久国产精品视频| 国产伦精品一区二区三区视频9 | 日韩精品中文字幕看吧| 88av欧美| 女人被狂操c到高潮| 熟女电影av网| 综合色av麻豆| 亚洲欧美日韩高清专用| 亚洲一区二区三区不卡视频| 99国产极品粉嫩在线观看| 欧美一区二区国产精品久久精品| 熟女人妻精品中文字幕| 国产av麻豆久久久久久久| 日韩中文字幕欧美一区二区| 欧美一区二区国产精品久久精品| 97超级碰碰碰精品色视频在线观看| 国内精品美女久久久久久| 黑人巨大精品欧美一区二区mp4| 免费在线观看日本一区| 免费看a级黄色片| 精品国产乱码久久久久久男人| 最新在线观看一区二区三区| 国产伦一二天堂av在线观看| 精品久久久久久,| 成在线人永久免费视频| 中出人妻视频一区二区| 波多野结衣巨乳人妻| 成人高潮视频无遮挡免费网站| 亚洲真实伦在线观看| 90打野战视频偷拍视频| 国产精品一区二区三区四区久久| 男人和女人高潮做爰伦理| 脱女人内裤的视频| 欧美一区二区精品小视频在线| 男女之事视频高清在线观看| 欧美极品一区二区三区四区| 变态另类成人亚洲欧美熟女| 久久天堂一区二区三区四区| 成年人黄色毛片网站| 国产伦精品一区二区三区四那| 嫩草影视91久久| 免费大片18禁| 亚洲男人的天堂狠狠| 精品一区二区三区视频在线观看免费| 综合色av麻豆| 女人被狂操c到高潮| 精品不卡国产一区二区三区| 美女高潮喷水抽搐中文字幕| 午夜激情欧美在线| 免费无遮挡裸体视频| 成在线人永久免费视频| 国内久久婷婷六月综合欲色啪| 日韩人妻高清精品专区| 美女cb高潮喷水在线观看 | 好男人电影高清在线观看| 精品国产乱码久久久久久男人| 国产久久久一区二区三区| 男人舔女人的私密视频| 国产精品精品国产色婷婷| www.精华液| 99久久久亚洲精品蜜臀av| 岛国在线免费视频观看| 免费看日本二区| 亚洲av五月六月丁香网| 国产精品爽爽va在线观看网站| 成年免费大片在线观看| 亚洲中文字幕一区二区三区有码在线看 | 成人一区二区视频在线观看| 国产三级在线视频| 91久久精品国产一区二区成人 | 国产精品av视频在线免费观看| 国产成人aa在线观看| 激情在线观看视频在线高清| 久久婷婷人人爽人人干人人爱| 真人一进一出gif抽搐免费| 国产亚洲精品av在线| 1024香蕉在线观看| 久久久国产成人精品二区| 亚洲中文字幕日韩| 嫩草影院入口| 精品久久久久久久人妻蜜臀av| 大型黄色视频在线免费观看| 国产成人影院久久av| 亚洲av片天天在线观看| 丁香欧美五月| 真人一进一出gif抽搐免费| 一本综合久久免费| 1024香蕉在线观看| 午夜精品久久久久久毛片777| 国产亚洲精品av在线| 国产不卡一卡二| 亚洲五月婷婷丁香| 亚洲专区字幕在线| 中文字幕人妻丝袜一区二区| av片东京热男人的天堂| 99视频精品全部免费 在线 | 国产高清视频在线播放一区| 天堂√8在线中文| 国内精品久久久久久久电影| 91老司机精品| 麻豆久久精品国产亚洲av| 日韩欧美免费精品| 亚洲天堂国产精品一区在线| 成人国产一区最新在线观看| 亚洲精品中文字幕一二三四区| 久久伊人香网站| 99久久久亚洲精品蜜臀av| 观看美女的网站| 黑人欧美特级aaaaaa片| 亚洲精品在线观看二区| 香蕉国产在线看| 国产伦在线观看视频一区| 18禁国产床啪视频网站| 国产成人av教育| 精品国产超薄肉色丝袜足j| 俄罗斯特黄特色一大片| 亚洲欧洲精品一区二区精品久久久| 国产乱人视频| 老鸭窝网址在线观看| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频| 美女午夜性视频免费| 1024手机看黄色片| 亚洲va日本ⅴa欧美va伊人久久| 欧美黄色片欧美黄色片| 亚洲精品456在线播放app | 丰满人妻熟妇乱又伦精品不卡| 国产高清视频在线播放一区| 最近最新中文字幕大全免费视频| 亚洲人成网站高清观看| 国产又色又爽无遮挡免费看| 非洲黑人性xxxx精品又粗又长| 变态另类成人亚洲欧美熟女| 啦啦啦免费观看视频1| 亚洲欧美日韩高清专用| 国产精品国产高清国产av| 亚洲精品美女久久久久99蜜臀| 亚洲色图 男人天堂 中文字幕| 韩国av一区二区三区四区| 色吧在线观看| 少妇的丰满在线观看| 成人av一区二区三区在线看| 免费人成视频x8x8入口观看| 一个人看视频在线观看www免费 | 好看av亚洲va欧美ⅴa在| 亚洲av电影在线进入| 国产aⅴ精品一区二区三区波| 2021天堂中文幕一二区在线观| 亚洲成av人片免费观看| 国产免费男女视频| 日韩三级视频一区二区三区| 一本精品99久久精品77| 国产91精品成人一区二区三区| 99热这里只有是精品50| 一二三四社区在线视频社区8| 波多野结衣巨乳人妻| 国产精品av久久久久免费| 欧美精品啪啪一区二区三区| 99久久无色码亚洲精品果冻| 麻豆成人av在线观看| 男人的好看免费观看在线视频| 精品国产亚洲在线| 高清毛片免费观看视频网站| h日本视频在线播放| 这个男人来自地球电影免费观看| 全区人妻精品视频| 99在线视频只有这里精品首页| 亚洲中文字幕一区二区三区有码在线看 | 国产精华一区二区三区| 国产午夜福利久久久久久| 麻豆国产av国片精品| 999久久久国产精品视频| 97超级碰碰碰精品色视频在线观看| 欧美av亚洲av综合av国产av| 91麻豆av在线| 99久久精品热视频| 久久久精品大字幕| 久久久久久国产a免费观看| 亚洲国产日韩欧美精品在线观看 |