Child Welfare, social justice, Anti-Opression

The termination of parental rights of parents with mental disabilities is a growing and crucial issue.  In 2010, an estimated 45.9 million adults in the U.S. had experienced a mental illness in the past year. This represents 20% of the adult population.  More than five million children in the U.S. have a parent with a serious mental illness such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or major depression.  Courts and child welfare systems too often assume that a parent is not amenable to treatment and is a danger to his or her child when strong symptoms of mental turmoil surface.  Some studies report that as many as 70 to 80% of mentally ill parents have lost custody.  Public systems are overwhelmed by this matter in an era of shrinking resources for such systems.  However, often parents with mental health needs are willing to accept treatment, are able to participate in programming, and are worthy of regaining custody. 
• There are gaps in federal and state law on this issue.  The federal Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) requires that state child welfare agencies and courts make “reasonable efforts” towards family reunification before the termination of parental rights (TPR) can take place.  However, federal statutes and case law provide little guidance to states about what “reasonable efforts” means, and states have been left to interpret that concept individually.  Many state statutes even enable a “bypass” of the “reasonable efforts” standard when “clear and convincing” evidence allegedly shows that a parent's mental condition cannot be changed.  Many states likewise place unjust, statutory and common law time limits on family reunification efforts in TPR cases. 
• Gaps in legal scholarship are also evident here.  Legal scholars have begun to discuss the inadequacy of reunification services for mentally challenged parents, the tenuous link between mental health services and child welfare agency action, the need for enhanced attorney and child welfare worker preparation in this arena, and a need for cultural competence in reunification services.  Others have even suggested that there be a rebuttable presumption in favor of family reunification.  However, those discussions lack a sound theoretical basis and a practical application of solutions. 
• As is featured in previous work of this author, a new theoretical framework of Family Systems Theory-- which is utilized in clinical behavioral health and human rights arenas-- must first be applied.  Under this theoretical framework, the vague and outdated “best interests of the child” standard, which is a legal standard used exclusively in family law cases, must be replaced with a more sound standard of “holistic family wellbeing.”  Vulnerability Theory can add credence to this theoretical framework.
• The discussion of reunification services for families featuring parents with mental disabilities should then be conducted utilizing Family Systems Theory and a legal standard of “holistic family wellbeing.”  Under these circumstances, the “family integrity” defended by our highest courts through the “reasonable efforts” provision should be upheld through the delivery of highly effective family reunification services.  The application of Family Systems Theory ultimately requires reform in the law, service delivery, and professional practice.  State and federal legislators must revisit the “reasonable efforts” standard, to include specific statutory language about the types of reunification services required and the need for flexible timelines.  Courts, child welfare agencies, and service providers need to deliver proven reunification services and coordinated mental health treatment.  In specific court cases, attorneys for the parent(s), the child(ren), and the state should focus on “holistic family wellbeing” utilizing collaborative family law and alternative dispute resolution, while advancing the agency of their clients.  Child welfare workers and practitioners likewise require training in advanced methods of conflict resolution and clinical practice.  These recommendations can ensure more effective family law practice and more successful family - serving systems.

Delving behind Canada’s veneer of multiculturalism and tolerance, Policing Black Lives traces the violent realities of anti-blackness from the slave ships to prisons, classrooms and beyond. Robyn Maynard provides readers with the first comprehensive account of nearly four hundred years of state-sanctioned surveillance, criminalization and punishment of Black lives in Canada.

While highlighting the ubiquity of Black resistance, Policing Black Lives traces the still-living legacy of slavery across multiple institutions, shedding light on the state’s role in perpetuating contemporary Black poverty and unemployment, racial profiling, law enforcement violence, incarceration, immigration detention, deportation, exploitative migrant labour practices, disproportionate child removal and low graduation rates.

Emerging from a critical race feminist framework that insists that all Black lives matter, Maynard’s intersectional approach to anti-Black racism addresses the unique and understudied impacts of state violence as it is experienced by Black women, Black people with disabilities, as well as queer, trans, and undocumented Black communities.

A call-to-action, Policing Black Lives urges readers to work toward dismantling structures of racial domination and re-imagining a more just society.

The precursors to and process of termination of parental rights (TPR) proceedings in parents with mental disabilities require examination because previous scholars have not approached this matter with the correct framework. The effects of mental illness on parenting must be explored because mental illness does not lead to de facto child abuse. An application of Family Systems Theory — which is highly utilized in clinical arenas and social work — requires the use of a legal standard of “holistic family wellbeing” in TPR proceedings, rather than the vague, outdated standard of “the child’s best interests.” An in-depth discussion of the origins, nature, and current human rights applications of Family Systems Theory reveals a natural fit with family law cases in general and with TPR in particular. Applying the “holistic family wellbeing” standard would make a more clinically and ethically sound determination about maintaining or severing family bonds, especially with the mentally challenged population. These concepts move the field towards cutting-edge family law practice.

The termination of parental rights in parents with mental challenges is a growing and crucial issue. In 2010, an estimated 45.9 million adults in the U.S. had experienced a mental illness in the past year. This represents 20% of the adult population. More than five million children in the U.S. have a parent with a serious mental illness such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or major depression. Courts and child welfare systems too often assume that a parent is not amenable to treatment and is a danger to his or her child when strong symptoms of mental turmoil surface. Some studies report that as many as 70 to 80% of mentally ill parents have lost custody. Public systems are overwhelmed by this matter in an era of shrinking resources for such systems. However, often parents with mental health needs are willing to accept treatment, are able to participate in programming, and are worthy of regaining custody.

Parenting capacity assessments are a common tool used by child intervention programs. Their goal is to determine whether a parent is good enough to raise their own children, if intervention is needed to support parents to achieve that, or if it is probable that a parent cannot raise their child. The methodology used is based upon the Euro-centric definitions of family and uses elements that have not been normed on First Nations populations. Such an approach acts to extend the colonial position of child protection by imposing methodology that fails to consider cultural definitions of family. They also cannot measure capacity to parent when the socio-political realities of most parents, such as poverty and poor access to services, and the impacts of inter-generational trauma are not included in the approach. Assessments done in this context do not meet the Mohan (R. v. Mohan) 3 test for admissibility of expert evidence in Canadian courts. Alternative approaches are suggested.

This study documents the child welfare experiences of youth who are LGBTQ and their perspectives on how these experiences influenced their housing instability and homelessness. Youth detailed incidents of gender segregation, stigmatization, isolation, and institutionalization in child welfare systems that they linked to their gender expression and sexuality, which often intersected with being a youth of color. The youth described these incidents as contributing to multiple placements and shaping why they experienced homelessness.

Despite claims that child protective services are not designated as housing agencies, many child welfare-involved families face housing challenges that may be considered a risk to the health and safety of children. This article is based on interviews with judges, lawyers and social workers (N = 18) in a city in the Northeastern U.S. Participants were selected from a variety of child welfare constituencies, including parents, children, and the state. They provided grounded understanding of when and how housing concerns arise in their cases. Findings suggest the need for a definition of housing problems that encompass a broader range of housing difficulties and include cases where housing problems may be obscured by other problems. A typology is developed categorizing housing problems as precipitating or complicating, derived from when and how they present. Both types may also remain a final hurdle to reunification of families who have been separated. Changes are recommended at the “street level” and at the policy level, including the expansion existing definitions of housing problems as a gateway to resources; providing child welfare professionals with better knowledge of housing problems and flexibility in addressing them and assessing their impact on families; and the collection, analysis and dissemination of more comprehensive housing data.

Keywords: Child welfare practices, Poverty, Child safety, Housing, Child welfare policy

On behalf of the Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury (CGI), KH Consulting Group (KH) set up a Steering Committee composed of representative from the:
- County of Los Angeles, Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS)
- County of Los Angeles, Department of Mental Health (DMH)
- County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Health (DPH)
- District Attorney's Office
- Harbor-UCLA Medical Center
- Inter-Agency Council on Child Abuse and Neglect (ICAN)
- County of Los Angeles, Department of Coroner
- Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office
- County of Los Angeles, Sheriff’s Department – Special Victims Bureau
- Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), Juvenile Division – Abused Child Section

KH facilitated a collaborative process with these participants to develop recommendations that would mitigate the number of children who die each year in the custody of the Department of Children & Family Services.  Besides a robust set of recommendations, new, cooperative working relationships were developed between these agencies that should bode well for future positive changes.

Parenting Capacity Assessments (PCA) are used by child protection workers to assist in determining the
ability of a parent to care for their children. They may be used at various stages of the case
management process but these assessments serve as powerful tools for decision making by these
workers. They can also be introduced in court as part of expert testimony. Most PCAs utilize
psychometric assessment measures to elicit data in respect to personality, parenting knowledge, as well
as mental health and addiction issues. The authors argue that the norming of these measures has
insufficient inclusion of Aboriginal peoples to be used for assessments with this population. They further
argue that different approaches need to be developed as current approaches, including assessment
measures, are based upon the constructs of the dominant culture, which is individualistic as opposed to
the Aboriginal collectivistic approaches to parenting.

Building upon this author’s previous work applying the new theoretical framework of Family Systems Theory to termination of parental rights (TPR) cases in parents with mental challenges, New Jersey statutes and case law bear close examination as a focus jurisdiction. Too often, other states’ statutory presumptions of parental unfitness and statutory emphases on parental unfitness due to mental health can wrongfully lead to TPR. New Jersey’s legislature and courts are moving in the right direction by rejecting presumptions of unfitness due to parental mental health. In order for mentally challenged parents’ due process rights to be upheld, statutory schemes across the U.S. must be revisited to level the playing field.

The termination of parental rights in parents with mental challenges is a growing and crucial issue. In 2010, an estimated 45.9 million adults in the U.S. had experienced a mental illness in the past year. This represents 20% of the adult population. More than five million children in the U.S. have a parent with a serious mental illness such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or major depression. Courts and child welfare systems too often assume that a parent is not amenable to treatment and is a danger to his or her child when strong symptoms of mental turmoil surface. Some studies report that as many as 70 to 80% of mentally ill parents have lost custody. Public systems are overwhelmed by this matter in an era of shrinking resources for such systems. However, often parents with mental health needs are willing to accept treatment, are able to participate in programming, and are worthy of regaining custody.

Abstract: This is the first IARA summary paper on family financial hardship and child welfare.  It contains short descriptions of six studies in five U.S. States conducted by the authors.  These were multi-year, multi-method evaluations of programs directed toward families reported for child maltreatment.  The programs each involved intensive services to families, including increased financially related (material) services.  They also involved greater flexibility in worker-family decision making regarding family needs and potential services to address them.  Together the studies involved upwards of 20,000 families.  Five of the studies were field experiments.  In those, experimental families were provided with intensive and flexible services while control families were treated in the traditional manner by Child Protection Services (CPS) workers.  The first two studies summarized were experiments in which workers were permitted to expend Title IV-E funds to address a broad array of family needs rather than simply payment for foster care.  Those programs were focused on high-risk child protection cases.  Two other experiments concerned lower-risk cases.  In those, foundations provided extra funds that could be expended on experimental children and their families.  In the fifth experiment, experimental families were directed into a state program designed to assist families experiencing financial hardships.  The sixth study provided intensive services on a voluntary basis to families whose child maltreatment reports had not been accepted by CPS for further action and other families referred from other state agencies.  Families were impoverished and, in most cases, suffering financially.  In each study material services increased for experimental families, and outcome measures demonstrated improvements in the long-term safety and welfare of the children.  The present summary concludes by advocating reuniting income maintenance and child protection in the mold of family and child welfare work before state CPS agencies were established in the early 1970’s.  This report is focused on particular subset of families suffering financial hardship.  Summary Paper 2 (available on our website: www.iarstl.org) approaches the problem more broadly, focusing on poor and working-class families generally.  Subsequent summaries turn to solutions.

Child abuse and neglect are complex issues because many variations may or may not constitute the acts. There are numerous types of abuse and neglect, along with several indicators for each type. In addition, there are newly investigated types, like Parental Alienation Syndrome, which need attention on the socio-political agenda. The child welfare field has recently encountered some unprecedented reporting issues because of the COVID-19 pandemic. While some cases warrant legal intervention, others are mediated by professionals authorized to offer families reconciliation strategies. These professionals have worked cooperatively with government agencies and family courts to establish a multifaceted system to combat these issues.

/RESUME The child welfare system in Manitoba has moved in recent years from the large scale export of Aboriginal children to parallel Indian and non-Indian systems. Métis children, some 27% of the total, have been included in the non-Indian category and continue to suffer from a lack of heritage participation and control. The problem is considered to be systemic. Le système de la sécurité sociale des enfants au Manitoba est passé ces dernières années de l'exportation générale des enfants autochtones aux systèmes analogues indiens et non-indiens. Les enfants métis, environ 27% du total, sont comptés dans la catégorie non-indienne et continuent à souffrir du manque de participation et de contrôle de l'héritage. On considère le problème comme étant systémique.

I enter the discussion on madness and psychiatrization through breathing the air and walking the halls of ‘benevolent’ institutions, such as child protection and psychiatry, institutions that produce "mental illness" through the psychiatrization of the people they are meant to support. This narrative provides an example of the ways in which child welfare organizations are both
sanist and racist in their organizing principles and in their interpretations of the needs and desires of Indigenous peoples. This narrative provides an example of my own shifting complicity within the relations of power in a particular ‘benevolent’ child protection agency, a narrative that uses autoethnographic knowledge and queers my lived experience in order to unwrap and make visible the normalizing connections between psychiatrization, colonialism, racialization, and adultism.

U okviru ovog rada istražena je posredovana online komunikacija članica Javnog radio-televizijskog sistema u Bosni i Hercegovini (JSBiH) da bi se ustanovilo kako se mediji koji pripadaju tom sustavu koriste internetskim portalima za uspostavu, održavanje i izgradnju odnosa sa svojim javnostima i interesno-utjecajnim skupinama. U studiji su analizirana četiri web portala, kojima se koriste tri članice JSBiH – Radio-televizija Bosne i Hercegovine (BHRT), Radio-televizija Federacije Bosne i Hercegovine (RTVFBiH) i Radio-televizija Republike Srpske (RTRS) te su identificirane zajedničke karakteristike koje se odnose na interaktivnu online komunikaciju, sadržaj i mogućnosti sudjelovanja korisnika. U radu je istraženo korištenje dijaloških komunikacijskih formi na internetskim portalima i njihov utjecaj na razvoj e-dijaloga i e-demokraciju u BiH. Rezultati istraživanja pokazali su da internetski portali javnih RTV servisa u BiH ispunjavaju elementarne tehničke zahtjeve za uspostavu internetom posredovane online komunikacije, ali da nije uspostavljena dijaloška online komunikacija s javnostima. To se posebno odnosi na neiskorištenost kapaciteta usmjerenih k pospješivanju interaktivnosti, multimedijske konvergencije i korisničke participacije.