Justice for Families
International Perspectives on Improving Parent Understanding in Child Welfare Court Cases
Abstract
Abstract. When a substantiated allegation of child maltreatment occurs, a family may be referred to the child welfare court. This court may temporarily remove children from their homes, making them dependents of the state. Over the course of a case, the judge assesses the child's needs and safety, and orders services for the family to help them reunify. Internationally, the child welfare court process is complex and lengthy, with a number of hearings that parents are required to attend, and a host of legal decisions rendered. One major decision that may arise from these proceedings is a permanent legal separation of children from their parents, referred to as a termination of parental rights. A decision to terminate parental rights can be life-altering for the entire family. Yet, very little is known about parents' experiences during child welfare court cases, particularly about their legal understanding. A lack of parent understanding may contribute to difficulties with navigating cases and complying with court mandates. Recent mixed-methods research conducted with parents in child welfare proceedings in the United States systematically examined parents' understanding. Findings revealed that parents had a limited understanding of common court terms, professionals' roles, and key processes. Furthermore, 12% of parents could not describe the judge's most recent decision in their case. Qualitative research in the United Kingdom and Canada demonstrates that parents in these countries may also experience challenges with understanding child welfare proceedings. Policy recommendations are offered to underscore the importance of assessing and promoting parents' legal understanding, globally.
Impact and Implications
The findings in the current policy brief are particularly relevant to meeting the United Nations' 16th Sustainable Development Goal to “Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels.” By utilizing the recommendations of the brief to widely assess and promote parent understanding in child welfare court cases, we move closer to more accountable and inclusive institutions for families, and ultimately a more just society.
References
(1998). Still screaming: Birth parents compulsorily separated from their children. After Adoption.
(2011). The challenges of child welfare involvement for Afro-Caribbean families in Toronto. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(2), 274–283. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.09.010
(2018). Parents' understanding of the juvenile dependency system. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24(4), 459–473. 10.1037/law0000177
(2020a). What's fair in child welfare? Parent knowledge, attitudes, and experiences. Child Maltreatment. Advanced online publication.
(2020b). Juvenile dependency court: The role of race in decisions, outcomes, and participant experiences. In M. StevensonB. BottomsK. BurkeEds., The legacy of racism for children: Psychology, law, and public policy. Oxford University Press.
(2007). Child protection and child outcomes: Measuring the effects of foster care. American Economic Review, 97(5), 1583–1610. 10.1257/aer.97.5.1583
(2002). The well-being of children involved with the child welfare system: A national overview. Urban Institute.
(1997). Birth parents' experiences of contested adoption. Adoption & Fostering, 21(1), 21–28. 10.1177/030857599702100105
(1999). The MacArthur competence assessment tool-criminal adjudication: Professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.
(2009). Maltreated children's understanding of and emotional reactions to dependency court involvement. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 27(1), 97–117. 10.1002/bsl.836
(2011). Child abuse and neglect in the UK today. NSPCC. https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/media/1042/child-abuse-neglect-uk-today-research-report.pdf
(2020). Children in out-of-home care in Canada in 2019CWRP Information Sheet #211E. Canadian Child Welfare Research Portal.
(1990). Children's knowledge of legal terminology. Law and Human Behavior, 14(6), 523–535. 10.1007/bf01044879
(2011). Birth parents' perceptions of professional practice in child care and adoption proceedings: Implications for practice. Child & Family Social Work, 16(4), 444–453. 10.1111/j.1365-2206.2011.00759.x
(2012). An evaluation of the effectiveness of a parent-to-parent program in changing attitudes and increasing parental engagement in the juvenile dependency system. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(10), 2036–2041. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.06.016
(2017). High quality legal representation for all parties in child welfare proceedings. Information Memorandum ACYF-CB-IM-17-02. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cb/im1702.pdf
(2018). Child maltreatment 2018. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cb/cm2018.pdf
(2005). Legal decisions of preadolescent and adolescent defendants: Predictors of confessions, pleas, communication with attorneys, and appeals. Law and Human Behavior, 29(3), 253–277. 10.1007/s10979-005-3613-2
(2020). The cumulative prevalence of termination of parental rights for U.S. Children, 2000–2016. Child Maltreatment, 25(1), 32–42. 10.1177/1077559519848499
(2011). Evaluation of the parents for parents program: King County, WA. National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges PPCD Research Report.
(2004). Family reunification. Future of Children, 14(1), 95–113. 10.2307/1602756
(2012). Multistate foster care data archive. University of Chicago, Chapin Hall.
