# data[].attributes.headline
How can professionals support families to avoid recurrent care?

# data[].attributes.subject
How can professionals support families to avoid recurrent care?

# data[].attributes.body
Hannah, B., & Condon, L. (2020). Families who recurrently lose children into care: How can professionals support mothers? Journal of Health Visiting, 8(1), 18-22. https://doi.org/10.12968/johv.2020.8.1.18

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Individual login | Register or Institutional login

# data[].attributes.headline
What needs to change to enable pēpi Māori aged 0-3 months to remain in the care of their whānau? 

# data[].attributes.subject
What needs to change to enable pēpi Māori aged 0-3 months to remain in the care of their whānau? 

# data[].attributes.body
This report from the Office of the Children's Commissioner sets out the barriers to prevention and grounds them within the Aotearoa New Zealand context

# data[].attributes.headline
Situating debates around baby removals in historical, political and economic context 

# data[].attributes.subject
Situating debates around baby removals in historical, political and economic context 

# data[].attributes.body
Hyslop, I. K. (2021, 2021/08/21). Child Protection Reform in Aotearoa-New Zealand: Devolution or Revolution? International Journal on Child Maltreatment: Research, Policy and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42448-021-00086-6

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42448-021-00086-6

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
International Journal on Child Maltreatment: Research, Policy and Practice

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Child Protection Reform in Aotearoa-New Zealand: Devolution or Revolution? - International Journal on Child Maltreatment: Research, Policy and Practice

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Drawing on historical analysis and recent research into child welfare inequalities in the Aotearoa-New Zealand context, this article considers the possible future trajectory of policy and practice. It will be argued that child protection is firmly located within the relative poverty and inequality which is endemic to the political economy of liberal capitalism.

# data[].attributes.headline
Policy assurance relating to the Ombudman's recommendation

# data[].attributes.subject
Policy assurance relating to the Ombudman's recommendation

# data[].attributes.body
Creating accountability mechanisms within Oranga Tamariki to track the Ombudsman's recommendations, has helped focus on improved practice with whanau around the time of birth.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Reports on the recommendations of the Chief Ombudsman investigation: He Take Kōhukihuki | A Matter of Urgency

The Chief Ombudsman investigated the following areas of practice when a new-born pēpi is removed from their parents, whānau or other caregivers:

Decision-making around applying to the Family Court for a without notice interim custody order, including the evidence used by Oranga Tamariki to seek this order.

Practices around the removal of a pēpi when an order is granted. This will include looking at how Oranga Tamariki works with other parties involved, such as district health boards, iwi and Police.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Reports on the recommendations of the Chief Ombudsman investigation

# data[].attributes.headline
Whānau case studies: how did we avoid removal?

# data[].attributes.subject
Whānau case studies: how did we avoid removal?

# data[].attributes.body
These narratives highlight the experiences of women in Aotearoa who have had babies reported to Oranga Tamariki but avoided them being removed. The role of the community workers who provide services directly is an important one. These case studies show how they work together with whānau to support parenting as well as managed the interface between whānau and Oranga Tamariki (the child protection agency)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
These stories convey the experiences of three women, their whānau and community workers as they went through the process of involvement with Oranga Tamariki. They are based on interviews with women and the key community-based worker who worked with them during this time. The complex nature of the life struggles and situations of each woman in their particular context is told from her perspective, while including the perspective of the key worker provides helpful knowledge about successful systems and practices. Each story provides insightful reflections on relationships, rights, systems and agency.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The prevention project: supporting whānau and reducing baby removals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
These stories convey the experiences of three women, their whānau and community workers as they went through the process of involvement with Oranga Tamariki. They are based on interviews with women and the key community-based worker who worked with them during this time.

# data[].attributes.body
The report provides the key findings from the University of Otago project on prevention.

# data[].attributes.headline
Born into care: newborns in care proceedings in England

# data[].attributes.subject
Born into care: newborns in care proceedings in England

# data[].attributes.headline
Haunted futures: what is it  like to have a baby removed into care?

# data[].attributes.subject
Haunted futures: what is it  like to have a baby removed into care?

# data[].attributes.body
An article focussed on describing the experience of women facing removal and recurrent removals.
Morriss L. Haunted futures: The stigma of being a mother living apart from her child(ren) as a result of state-ordered court removal. The Sociological Review. 2018;66(4):816-831. doi:10.1177/0038026118777448

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The notion of 'haunted futures' can provoke new understandings of the experiences of birth mothers living apart from their children as a result of state-ordered court removal. As 'abject figures', the mothers are silenced through the stigma and shame of being judged to be a deeply flawed mother, the justifiable fear of future children being removed, and court-ordered reporting restrictions. In this article, the author depicts how these mothers exist in a state of haunted motherhood: they are paralysed in anticipation of an imagined future of reunification with their children. The mothers are painfully aware that any future pregnancy will also be subject to child protection procedures; thus even their future motherhood continues to be stigmatised by the past. However, while the ghosts of removed children signify a traumatic loss, they also simultaneously represent hope and future possibilities of transformation through re-narrativisation. The creation of spaces for the mothers to speak about their experiences can foster a 'maternal commons'. This ending of enforced silencing can be a political act, countering the stigma caused by pathologising individual mothers and making visible how structural inequalities and governmental policies impact on the lives of the most vulnerable families in the UK.

References

A Safeguarding Survivor . (2017a). The birth parent's perspective. In Elvin, A., Barrow, M. (Eds.), Welcome to fostering: A guide to becoming and being a foster carer (pp. 127-131). London, UK: Jessica Kingsley.
Google Scholar

A Safeguarding Survivor . (2017b, October 9). Primum non nocere - First, do no harm. http://survivingsafeguarding.co.uk/2017/10/09/do-no-harm/ (last accessed 3 May 2018).
Google Scholar

Allen, K., Taylor, Y. (2012). Placing parenting, locating unrest: Failed femininities, troubled mothers and riotous subjects. Studies in the Maternal, 4(2), Retrieved from www.mamsie.bbk.ac.uk (last accessed 3 May 2018).
Google Scholar

Broadhurst, K., Bedston, S. (2017). Women in recurrent care proceedings in England (2007-2016): Continuity and change in care demand over time. Family Law, April, 412-415.
Google Scholar

Coleman, R. (2017). A sensory sociology of the future: Affect, hope and inventive methodologies. The Sociological Review. Advance online publication. doi:
Google Scholar

Coleman, R., Tutton, R. (2017). Introduction [Special issue: Futures in question: Theories, methods, practices]. The Sociological Review. Advance online publication. doi:
Google Scholar

Featherstone, B., Gupta, A., Morris, K., Warner, J. (2016). Let's stop feeding the risk monster: Towards a social model of 'child protection'. Families, Relationships and Societies. Advance online publication. doi:
Google Scholar

Ferreday, D., Kuntsman, A. (2011). Introduction: Haunted futurities. Borderlands, 10. Retrieved from http://www.borderlands.net.au/vol10no2_2011/ferrkun_intro.pdf (last accessed 7 May 2018).
Google Scholar

Gordon, A. F. (2011). Some thoughts on haunting and futurity. Borderlands, 10. Retrieved from http://www.borderlands.net.au/vol10no2_2011/gordon_thoughts.pdf (last accessed 7 May 2018).
Google Scholar

Harwin, J., Alrouh, B. (2017, April). New entrants and repeat children: Continuity and change in care demand over time. Family Law, pp. 407-411.
Google Scholar

Hillier, J. (2017). Learning and evaluation. Retrieved from http://www.pause.org.uk/pause-in-action/learning-and-evaluation (last accessed 3 May 2018).
Google Scholar

Munby, J. (2014). Transparency in the family courts: Publications of Judgments. Practice guidance. Retrieved from https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/transparency-in-the-family-courts-jan-2014-1.pdf (last accessed 3 May 2018).
Google Scholar

Munby, J. (2016). 15th view from the President's Chambers: Care Cases - the looming crisis. Retrieved from https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/pfd-view-15-care-cases-looming-crisis.pdf (last accessed 3 May 2018).
Google Scholar

Tutton, R. (2017). Wicked futures: Meaning, matter and the sociology of the future. The Sociological Review. Advance online publication. doi:
Google Scholar

White, S. J., Wastell, D. G. (2016). Epigenetics prematurely born(e): Social work and the malleable gene. The British Journal of Social Work. Advance online publication. doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcw157
Google Scholar

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Haunted futures: The stigma of being a mother living apart from her child(ren) as a result of state-ordered court removal - Lisa Morriss, 2018

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The notion of 'haunted futures' can provoke new understandings of the experiences of birth mothers living apart from their children as a result of state-ordered court removal. As 'abject figures', the mothers are silenced through the stigma and shame of being judged to be a deeply flawed mother, the justifiable fear of future children being removed, and court-ordered reporting restrictions.

# data[].attributes.headline
Infant removals in the Australian context

# data[].attributes.subject
Infant removals in the Australian context

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

Objectives

The removal of a child from their parents is traumatising, particularly in Aboriginal communities where a history of child removals has led to intergenerational trauma. This study will determine where disparities in child protection involvement exist among Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children and characteristics associated with infant removals. Challenges faced by child protection and other agencies, and opportunities for overcoming these, are discussed.

Methods

Data from both the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and linked Western Australian government data was used to examine disparities between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children in the child protection and out-of-home care system.

Results

Nationally, Aboriginal children are ten times more likely to be placed in out-of-home care than non-Aboriginal children and this disparity starts in infancy. Infants were removed from parents with high levels of risk. Aboriginal infants were at increased risk of being removed from women with substance-use problems and had greater proportions removed from remote, disadvantaged communities than were non-Aboriginal infants.

Conclusions

Aboriginal infants have a high rate of removal. Although there are many complexities to be understood and challenges to overcome, there are also potential strategies. The disparity between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal infant removals needs to be seen as a priority requiring urgent action to prevent further intergenerational trauma.

View full text

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Infant removals: The need to address the over-representation of Aboriginal infants and community concerns of another 'stolen generation'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The removal of a child from their parents is traumatising, particularly in Aboriginal communities where a history of child removals has led to intergenerational trauma. This study will determine where disparities in child protection involvement exist among Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children and characteristics associated with infant removals.

# data[].attributes.headline
Thinking critically about changing systems to avoid repeat removals 

# data[].attributes.subject
Thinking critically about changing systems to avoid repeat removals 

# data[].attributes.body
Wise, S. (2020). A systems model of repeat court-ordered removals: Responding to child protection challenges using a systems approach. The British Journal of Social Work. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcaa031

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Systems Model of Repeat Court-Ordered Removals: Responding to Child Protection Challenges Using a Systems Approach

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Abstract. Repeat removals, where parents lose successive infants and children to out-of-home care, is a systems problem requiring a systems approach to broaden

# data[].attributes.headline
Do parents with disabilities have the same access to supports they need? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Do parents with disabilities have the same access to supports they need? 

# data[].attributes.body
https://doi.org/10.1177/10775595211001109
Pacheco, L., Aunos, M., Feldman, M., & McConnell, D. Reasonable Efforts? Child Maltreatment Investigations and Service Referrals of Parents With Ascribed Cognitive Impairments in Canada. Child Maltreatment, 0(0), 10775595211001109.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Subscription and open access journals from SAGE Publishing, the world’s leading independent academic publisher.

# data[].attributes.headline
Whānau ora commissioning agency report: Ko te wā whakawhiti. Chapter three: whānau experiences with Oranga Tamariki

# data[].attributes.subject
Whānau ora commissioning agency report: Ko te wā whakawhiti. Chapter three: whānau experiences with Oranga Tamariki

# data[].attributes.body
https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2020-02/apo-nid274231_1.pdf

# data[].attributes.body
This Act states the legal principles that apply to decisions about babies. Sections 5 and 13 contain principles, while s18A and s18B contain provisions relating to 'subsequent children', that can sometimes apply to babies. s7AA ensures that "policies, practices, and services of the department have regard to mana tamaiti (tamariki) and the whakapapa of Māori children", and provide for partnerships to be formed between Oranga Tamariki and iwi.

https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1989/0024/latest/LMS216331.html

# data[].attributes.headline
Strengthening our response to unborn and newborn pēpi

# data[].attributes.subject
Strengthening our response to unborn and newborn pēpi

# data[].attributes.body
The Oranga Tamariki guidance on responding to babies and their whānau

https://practice.orangatamariki.govt.nz/our-work/assessment-and-planning/assessments/intake-and-early-assessment/strengthening-our-response-to-unborn-and-newborn-pepi/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When we receive a report of concern for a newborn or unborn pēpi, we work with their family, whānau, hapū, iwi and family group using the same processes we use for all assessments or interventions with additional considerations to strengthen our response.

Upcoming changes for this guidance

This content will be strengthened so it more completely reflects our commitment to practice framed by te Tiriti o Waitangi, based on a mana-enhancing paradigm for practice, and drawing from ​Te Ao Māori principles of oranga to support mana tamaiti, whakapapa and whanaungatanga. We each need to consider how we can apply these principles to our practice when reading this guidance. The following resources provide support:
Practice for working effectively with Māori
Our practice shift

He ngākau kōrero - our hearts speak of the sacred potential of children

The Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 principles state:

the primary responsibility for caring for and nurturing the wellbeing and development of pēpi lies with their family, whānau, hapū, iwi and family group

the rights of tamariki and children to be cared for and nurtured through whakapapa and whanaungatanga is fundamental to working relationally with whānau or family. The rights of tamariki and children are enshrined in UNCRoC and apply to all tamariki.

Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRoC)
Assessment is used to inform whānau or family in their understanding and to support family, whānau, hapū, iwi and family groups and professionals in their decision-making. Assessment requires us to understand the unique complexities of all situations, and there are some additional considerations in our response to unborn and newborn pēpi.

Te Ao Māori

Tamariki Māori are born into whānau, hapū and iwi. Traditional Māori parenting has been described as a kinship parenting system with whānau investing in the long-term development of mokopuna to meet their full potential through cultural practices to ensure their safety and wellbeing. Moko can be translated as tattoo or blueprint and puna refers to a wellspring - therefore the mokopuna is regarded as a reflection of their tūpuna.

The underlying belief is that mokopuna are gifts from Ngā Atua (gods) and tūpuna through their genealogy, which means that they are tapu, special and protected under specific rules and any negativity expressed to them is violating their tapu. A mokopuna is the centre of whānau life. Mokopuna are born tapu and as infants depend on their whānau to protect and care for their development and safety. This requires tapu restrictions that guide behaviours as a protective mechanism.

Tihei mauri ora is an expression used to describe the breath of life at birth - a physical transformation connected to Ngā Atua.

Tiaki mokopuna is a cultural protective principle that asserts the collective roles, responsibilities, and obligations to care for, make safe, support, and protect pēpi. The principle is founded in customary beliefs and, when applied within the whānau context, has the transformative potential to guide and strengthen strategies for mokopuna care and safety. The principle of tiaki mokopuna reintroduces the notion that mokopuna are tāonga.

Tiaki mokopuna integrates 4 functions described as key to the care and upbringing of mokopuna Māori:

the significance of mokopuna

tamariki belong to whānau, hapū and iwi

the rights and responsibilities for raising children are shared

children have rights and responsibilities to their whānau.

Tiaki mokopuna also promotes the care, safety and protection of Māori children within extended whānau networks, moving out to trusted community members, service providers where support is required and, lastly, on some occasions, to a statutory child protection worker.

Wāhine Māori play a specific role within cultural practices used for protecting whakapapa and advancing long-term sustainability of whānau, hapū and iwi. Tane Māori influence the health and wellbeing of their offspring and posterity. Both mareikura (female) and whatukura (male) contribute to tiaki mokopuna. Kaitiaki roles for wāhine and tane Māori are essential in modelling healthy relationships and behaviours for mokopuna to create safe environments conducive to their strong, confident development.

When wāhine are hapū, they can be in a highly vulnerable state. The wellbeing of the mother, both antenatal and post-natal, is the primary protective factor for shaping the hinengaro (brain) systems of mokopuna so they can form close and healthy emotional relationships with significant others in the future.

Tiaki mokopuna strategies founded on cultural beliefs, principles and customary practice include the strengthening of whānau participation, building relationships and increasing cultural knowledge to advance whānau capacity to care for mokopuna. These establish a cultural safety net to protect and advance the tapu and mana of pēpi.

Whakawhanaungatanga interactions within whānau, hapū and iwi ensure hapū and breastfeeding women are cared for by the collective. All her needs are taken care of and her needs are tapu to protect and support her ability to breastfeed.

Reference sources

Dr Moana Eruera and Dr Leland A Ruwhiu:

Ngā Karangaranga Maha o Te Ngākau o Ngā Tūpuna Tiaki Mokopuna: Ancestral Heartfelt Echoes of Care For Children

"Eny, Meeny, Miny, Moe" catch hegemony by the toe. Validating cultural protective constructs for indigenous children in Aotearoa

Pacific communities

The child is a gift from God to a Pacific family, a source of joy and pride, the realisation and embodiment of the next generation. The child is immediately associated with the identities and legacies of their parents, ancestors, people, lands and cultures. The child traditionally belongs to a collective. By birth right, a child is entitled to their kin and vice versa.

A child conceived in marriage or accepted partnership is usually a protected one, whereas the position of a child who is not wanted or conceived outside of an accepted relationship can be precarious.

An unplanned pregnancy may lead a pregnant young woman to conceal the newborn to avoid alienation and punishment. The perceived downfall in status and pride for the young woman and her family is worse if the pregnancy is the result of abuse by a family member or someone highly respected by the family. Despite this background, the arrival of the new life often has the effect of melting away damaged pride and shame. It is common for members of extended families to rally around to support and protect the new parent (often the mother) and child.

After the birth, the mother rests for up to a month while the extended family begin their role in the child's life by helping care for them and the recovering mother.

Often the umbilical cord and/or placenta are ceremoniously buried according to the wishes and aspirations of the family for the child. Traditionally these hopes are often in relation to the wellbeing of the family, community and church.

Important knowledge and awareness that each specific Pacific nation will acknowledge address within their cultural values, beliefs and principles a culturally appropriate way of supporting and celebrating the upcoming birth. Ensure that you seek cultural support and advice on the best way to approach and work with a Pacific mother and her unborn child.

Reference source
The newborn: identity, belonging - page 26 of 'Va'aifetū, part I: Data, literature, practice environment'

Disability considerations

Disability includes physical, sensory, neurological, intellectual, mental health and addiction impairments.

Unborn or newborn pēpi of disabled parents and unborn or newborn pēpi with disabilities have the same rights as everyone else to an ordinary family life and to create and maintain families. Our goal is to support both disabled parents to successfully care for their pēpi and those caring for a disabled pēpi, within the context of their whānau or family and support networks.

Parents and their pēpi should not be separated just because of a disability of the parent or pēpi. Our assessment and plans need to consider the parents' strengths and how these can be developed in their parenting role, and how their disability needs are being met or could be met.

When the parents are engaged with disability, mental health, and addiction services, we work closely with the parents and services to share appropriate information and develop joint plans that address the safety needs of both pēpi and the parents. Joint plans include roles and responsibilities and are living plans that are reviewed with our partner agencies as agreed or as required.

When the parents are not engaged with specialist services, and we believe that a referral is required, then we talk to the lead maternity carer and agree next steps with the consent of the parents.

If we are unsure of the parents' capacity to understand and participate in processes and decision-making, we contact the Regional Disability Advisor for advice and support.

Practice considerations

Upholding rights

When we respond to a report of concern for an unborn or newborn pēpi, our work needs to uphold whakapapa and whanaungatanga. The connection between pēpi and their family, whānau, hapū, iwi and family group needs to be maintained and strengthened. The primary role in caring for and protecting pēpi lies with their family, whānau, hapū, iwi and family group.

The family, whānau, hapū, iwi and family group of pēpi should be supported, assisted and protected as much as possible and as early as possible, and any intervention should be the minimum necessary to ensure the safety and protection of pēpi.

The rights of the pēpi - right to safety, whakapapa connections, care, protection, their whanau or family, relationships, culture - need to be balanced with the rights of the parents, family, whānau, hapū, iwi and family group to have the key role and responsibilities and opportunity to provide safe care for their pēpi.

Seek to understand the cultural practices of the family, whānau, hapū, iwi and family group and their roles and responsibilities of tiaki mokopuna in the preparation and application of traditional practices. Seek advice from cultural experts if needed.

Throughout assessment and intervention, we need to understand, recognise and incorporate whānau tikanga and cultural practices around pregnancy, birthing, collection and burial of the afterbirth and Pito (connection to the umbilical cord), naming and the care of a newborn pēpi.

Early engagement with the right people

Early engagement and planning with family, whānau, hapū, iwi and family group is necessary to promote safe and family-led decision-making, to support, strengthen and assist parents and whānau or family to care for their pēpi.

Ensure this engagement includes the father of the pēpi and his family, whānau, hapū, iwi and family group and support their engagement in planning and decision-making.

We need to recognise that in some circumstances the mother may deny the pregnancy and/or present only at the time of birth of a pēpi. In these circumstances we need to consider that engagement and planning will be compromised and consider ways to ensure that it is effective.

When a report of concern is received late in any pregnancy, all attempts must be made to follow these guidelines as closely as possible within the limited timeframes.

The inability of pēpi to communicate through language means our usual processes and engagement approaches for understanding their voice do not work. We need to think about how we ensure that we have ensured their 'voice' is heard throughout each stage of our involvement.

We consult with kairaranga a-whānau and Pacific cultural advisors to assist with our engagement, drawing on their cultural expertise and community networks.

We work in collaboration with our hospital practice leader, who will be able to guide us on the interface with the district health board protocols and processes, to ensure appropriate information sharing occurs, clear roles and responsibilities are established, and effective early joint planning happens for pēpi.

Working with our Health partners

Pregnancy and newborn care are an area of speciality in the health, social service and community provider areas. Early and close collaboration with other professionals (including the lead maternity carer) and community supports involved with the whānau and family group is critical to building an understanding of the needs, issues and opportunities for safety and protection within the family, whānau, hapū, iwi and family group.

The lead maternity carer has the key role in supporting the mother's choices and care of pēpi. Maintain ongoing engagement and work with the lead maternity carer to ensure the mother has access to information and support to enable her choices.

Keeping a focus on pēpi and whānau or family in our assessment

We need to focus on the vulnerability of the pēpi in the context of their whānau or family and how the whānau or family can protect the pēpi. This necessitates extra vigilance when assessing their protective and care needs.

There are some areas of risk that are specific to or increase the risk to unborn or newborn pēpi. Our assessment needs to understand and respond to these areas. We use the practice triggers for vulnerable infants to guide our assessment of needs.
Practice triggers - vulnerable infants

Our understanding of needs is to be based on a Tuituia assessment that considers the pēpi, their family, whānau, hapū, iwi and family group, and their social context. We need to ensure that we actively seek out current information pertaining to the parent's circumstances.

Use the child and family consult tool to identify and consider indicators of safety and strengths and to support thinking and analysis at any point in the social work assessment, planning, intervention and review processes. Relevant professionals should be invited to case consults.

Throughout the pregnancy, the mother of the pēpi is also likely to be extremely vulnerable and we need to identify and provide any supports she may need. Consider antenatal health supports, such as regular antenatal care, assistance with alcohol and drug abstinence, and smoking where necessary.

When parents have experienced childhood abuse or neglect, have themselves been in care or had tamariki previously removed by Oranga Tamariki, we should use a trauma-informed approach in our assessment.
Trauma-informed practice
Promoting resilience (PDF 3 MB)

Subsequent child provisions and care and protection resource panel

Where a previous tamaiti has been removed from the care of the parents of the unborn or newborn pēpi, a thorough understanding of current circumstances is necessary. Subsequent child provisions may apply when working with parents who have had a tamaiti permanently removed from their care and it has already been determined that section 18B of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 applies.
Subsequent child provisions

Consult with the care and protection resource panel in all cases and as soon as practicable after an investigation has started and at subsequent stages when required.
Care and protection resource panel

Making decisions with family, whānau, hapū and iwi

Decision-making processes should include hui ā-whānau or family meetings, and family group conferences. These should occur at the earliest opportunity before pēpi is born. This helps to identify the plan and what supports are required, and to enhance the rights, participation and decision-making of te tamaiti and their family, whānau, hapū, iwi and family group.

Safety planning

The safety and risk screens should be completed after engagement with whānau or family and others who know them and their pēpi when a social worker believes there are care and protection concerns. This will help identify if immediate action is needed to secure the safety of pēpi by working with family, whānau, hapū, iwi and the family group.

All attempts must be made to build safety with a view of keeping pēpi with their parents or, if this is not possible, with family, whanau, hapū, iwi or the family group.

A safety plan may be required to create safety for pēpi before holding a family group conference.

A clear and robust safety plan must be evidenced, developed and shared with all relevant people. The plan should include what the worries are, what safety and oranga look like, who will be providing care to the pēpi and what supports are in place.

A birth plan may be in place which will include the details of the safety plan. This should be developed together with the parents, family, whānau, hapū, iwi, family group and other relevant people. This may include details of any birthing arrangements, legal orders, transition plans if required and discharge meetings in place.

In some circumstances there will be safety concerns that need to be carefully considered to support breastfeeding. Consider how a safety plan can be used to address concerns sufficiently to support breastfeeding or to ensure other ways to connect and nourish pēpi if pēpi is not breastfed.
Breastfeeding - caring for and nurturing a pēpi

Oversight by practice leader and supervisor

Practice leaders are required to maintain oversight of all cases on their site of unborn pēpi (defined as a tamaiti at any stage of development who is carried in the womb) and newborn pēpi (defined as from the time of birth to 12 weeks).

This oversight includes:

a focus on ensuring the casework is consistent with practice standards throughout our work with pēpi and their family, whānau, hapū, iwi and family group - this includes the appropriate use of Te Toka Tūmoana and Va'aifetū
Practice standards
Working with Māori: Te Toka Tūmoana
Working with Pacific peoples: Va'aifetū

practice leaders completing the monthly Quality Systems template confirming their oversight of all unborn and newborn pēpi at their site (this template documents key information gained through their oversight, including any themes, follow-up or action taken as result).

Day-to-day casework supervision remains the role of the supervisor.

Practice leaders closely supervise all cases involving unborn or newborn pēpi to ensure the right decisions and actions are taken at the right time throughout the assessment, planning and implementation processes.

Legal intervention

Removing a pēpi from their parents or caregivers is a significant and traumatic event, undertaken only when pēpi cannot remain safe in the care of their parents or caregivers.

Interim custody is only to be used to secure the safety and wellbeing of pēpi when all other intervention options have been exhausted.

Without notice section 78 interim custody applications are reserved for exceptional urgent cases where all other options to ensure the safety of pēpi have been considered but are unavailable and the delay caused by making an on-notice application would create risk to the safety of pēpi.
Pathways to care: Emergency actions Policy: Without notice application for interim custody of a tamaiti or rangatahi
If this action is being considered, site manager approval is required based on practice leader and regional litigation manager endorsement of the rationale for the application.

If the removal of pēpi from the care of their parents or caregivers to secure safety is necessary, we need to ensure that this occurs in a way that reflects the concept of ngākau maharatanga me te ngākau aroha.

Ngākau maharatanga me te ngākau aroha - a period of quality time that encompasses consideration, empathy, sympathy and love.

Engagement, planning and collaboration about how this could happen to minimise trauma and reflect the above concept is required. This should include discussion about how parents and whānau or family can spend time with their pēpi in a way that is right for them with support people present, and how and where orders will be served in collaboration with the lead maternity carer and the district health board, if the pēpi has been born in a hospital setting. As this forms part of the story for pēpi it is very important that this period of quality time with parents and whānau or family is recorded, ensuring you record the circumstances with accuracy and respect.
Policy: Recording
We need to ensure that parents and whānau or family are provided with support and clear information on the next steps. We need to ensure all parents, whānau and family groups who have had pēpi removed from their care have access to appropriate advocacy and therapeutic support that focuses on their needs to help them with the separation from their pēpi.

Support should also be provided to social work staff through de-briefs and supervision.

Supporting and maintaining breastfeeding

We need to fulfil Article 24 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRoC) - tamariki have the right to enjoy the highest attainable standard of health. We can share knowledge and provide support for parents around the benefits of breast milk and breastfeeding.

It is important to support caregivers in maintaining breastfeeding for pēpi.
Breastfeeding - caring for and nurturing a pēpi Safe sleeping

Care

Where a pēpi is unable to be cared for by their parents, develop a detailed transition plan outlining how a care transition will occur, including details of the proposed caregivers, who will be involved in the transition and how, and where this will occur in collaboration with the parents or caregivers, the lead maternity carer and the district health board if pēpi is in a hospital setting.

Consider a care option where a mother and pēpi can be safely placed together if this is possible. This will allow breastfeeding to be most effectively supported. This may require a safety plan to be in place.

It is important to support caregivers in maintaining breastfeeding for pēpi.

If the pēpi is unable to be cared for by their parents or family, whānau, hapū, iwi or family group, seek a culturally appropriate placement.

All pēpi in care need to have an All About Me plan in place, detailing how their identified needs will be met and supported.
All About Me plan to meet the needs of tamariki and rangatahi
All caregivers caring for pēpi require a caregiver support plan, detailing what support they will receive and who will provide the support.
Caregiver support plan

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Strengthening our response to unborn and newborn pēpi

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When we receive a report of concern for a newborn or unborn pēpi, we work with their family, whānau, hapū, iwi and family group using the same processes we use for all assessments or interventions with additional considerations to strengthen our response.

# data[].attributes.headline
How do policy and practice frameworks shape practice logics?

# data[].attributes.subject
How do policy and practice frameworks shape practice logics?

# data[].attributes.body
Keddell, E. (2019). Harm, care and babies: An inequalities and policy discourse perspective on recent child protection trends in Aotearoa New Zealand [Child protection; Oranga Tamariki; child abuse prevention; inequalities; babies]. 2019, 31(4), 17. https://doi.org/10.11157/anzswj-vol31iss4id668

https://anzswjournal.nz/anzsw/article/view/668

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Bécares, L., Cormack, D., & Harris, R. (2013). Ethnic density and area deprivation: Neighbourhood effects on Māori health and racial discrimination in Aotearoa/ New Zealand. Social Science & Medicine, 88, 76-82. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.04.007

Beddoe, L., & Joy, E. (2017). Questioning the uncritical acceptance of neuroscience in child and family policy and practice: A review of challenges to the current doxa. Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work 29(1), 65 - 76. doi:10.11157/anzswj-vol29iss1id213

Broadhurst, K., Alrouh, B., Mason, C., Ward, H., Holmes, L., Ryan, M., & Bowyer, S. (2018). Born into care: Newborn babies subject to care proceedings in England. London, UK: The Nuffield Family Justice Observatory.

Bywaters, P. (2015). Inequalities in child welfare: Towards a new policy, research and action agenda. British Journal of Social Work, 45(1), 6-23. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bct079

Bywaters, P., Brady, G., Bunting, L., Daniel, B., Featherstone, B., Jones, C., . . . Webb, C. (2018). Inequalities in english child protection practice under austerity: A universal challenge? Child & Family Social Work, 23(1), 1365-2206. doi:10.1111/cfs.12383

Bywaters, P., Brady, G., Sparks, T., Bos, E., Bunting, L., Daniel, B., . . . Scourfield, J. (2015). Exploring inequities in child welfare and child protection services: Explaining the "inverse intervention law". Children and Youth Services Review, 57, 98-105. doi:http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.07.017

Bywaters, P., Scourfield, J., Jones, C., Sparks, T., Elliott, M., Hooper, J., . . . Daniel, B. (2018). Child welfare inequalities in the four nations of the UK. Journal of Social Work. doi:10.1177/1468017318793479

Choate, P. (2015). Termination of parental rights: A commentary on Ben-David. Journal of Family Social Work, 18(4), 243-252. doi:10.1080/10522158.2015. 1083393

Cram, F., Gulliver, P., Ota, R., & Wilson, M. (2015). Understanding overrepresentation of indigenous children in child welfare data: An application of the Drake risk and bias models. Child Maltreatment, 20(3), 170-182. doi:10.1177/1077559515580392

Daro, D. (2009). The history of science and child abuse prevention: A reciprocal relationship. In K. Dodge & D. Coleman (Eds.), Preventing child maltreatment: Community approaches (pp. 9-25). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Doyle, J. J. (2011). Causal effects of foster care: An instrumental-variables approach. Children and Youth Services Review, 35(7), 1143-1151.

Duncanson, M., Oben, G., Wicken, A., Richardson, G., Adams, J., & Pierson, M. (2018). Child poverty monitor 2018: Technical report (national report). Dunedin, NZ: New Zealand Child and Youth Epidemiology Service.

Edwards, R., Gillies, V., & Horsley, N. (2015). Brain science and early years policy: Hopeful ethos or "cruel optimism"? Critical Social Policy, 35(2), 167-187.

Featherstone, B., Gupta, A., Morris, K. M., & Warner, J. (2016). Let's stop feeding the risk monster: Towards a social model of "child protection". Families, Relationships and Societies. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1332/20467431 6X14552878034622

Gilbert, N., Parton, N., & Skivenes, M. (2011). Child protection systems: International trends and orientations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gillies, V., Edwards, R., & Horsley, N. (2017). Challenging the politics of early intervention. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.

Hood, R., Goldacre, A., Gorin, S., & Bywaters, P. (2019). Screen, ration and churn: Demand management and the crisis in children's social care. The British Journal of Social Work. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcz035

Humphreys, C., Healey, L., & Mandel, D. (2018). Case reading as a practice and training intervention in domestic violence and child protection, Australian Social Work, 71(3), 277-291.

Hyslop, I. (2017). Child protection in New Zealand: A history of the future. The British Journal of Social Work, 47(6), 1800-1817. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcx088

Jenkins, M. (2019). Social service system: The funding gap and how to bridge it. Wellington, NZ: Social Service Provider Association.

Keddell, E. (2017a). The Child Youth and Family review: A commentary on prevention. Auckland, NZ: The Policy Observatory, AUT. Retrieved from https://thepolicyobservatory.aut.ac.nz/

Keddell, E. (2017b). Comparing risk-averse and risk-friendly practitioners in child welfare decision-making: A mixed methods study. Journal of Social Work Practice,

(4), 411-429.

Keddell, E. (2017c). Lives at the intersections: multiple ethnicities and child protection. In M. Webber & Z. Rocha (Eds.), Tangata manarua: Mixed heritages, ethnic identity and biculturalism in Aotearoa/New Zealand (pp. 252-278). Oxon, UK: Routledge.

Keddell, E. (2018). The vulnerable child in neoliberal contexts: the construction of children in the Aotearoa New Zealand child protection reforms. Childhood, 25(1), 93-108.

Keddell, E., & Davie, G. (2018). Inequalities and child protection system contact in Aotearoa New Zealand: Developing a conceptual framework and research agenda. Social Sciences, 7, 89-100.

Keddell, E., Davie, G., & Barson, D. (2019). Child protection inequalities in Aotearoa New Zealand: Social gradient and the "inverse intervention law".

Children and Youth Services Review. Online first at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.06.018

Keddell, E., & Hyslop, I. (2019). Ethnic inequalities in child welfare: The role of practitioner risk perceptions. Child & Family Social Work, 1-12. Online first at: doi:10.1111/cfs.12620

Kukutai, T. (2011). Building ethnic boundaries in New Zealand: Representations of Māori identity in the census. In Axelsson, P., & Skold, P., (Eds.), Indigenous Peoples and Demography: The Complex Relation between Identity and Statistics, (pp.33- 54) New York, NY: Berghahn Books.

McLaughlin, M., & Jonson-Reid, M. (2017). The relationship between child welfare financing, screening, and substantiation. Children and Youth Services

Review, 82, 407-412. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j. childyouth.2017.10.013

Ministry of Social Development. (2012). The white paper for vulnerable children (Vol. 1). Wellington, NZ: NZ Government. Retrieved from: https://www.orangatamariki.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/ white-paper-for-vulnerable-children-volume-1.pdf

Ministry of Social Development. (2015). Expert panel final report: Investing in New Zealand's children and their families. Wellington: Ministry of Social Development.

Ministry of Social Development. (2018). Key statistics and information for media. Retrieved from https://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/ publications-resources/statistics/cyf/index.html

Mornington, A.-D., & Guyard-Nedelec, A. (2019). Is poverty eroding parental rights in Britain? The case of child protection in the early twenty-first century. In N. Brando & G. Schweiger (Eds.), Philosophy and child poverty: Reflections on the ethics and politics of poor children and their families (pp. 341-361). Cham, Springer International Publishing.

New Zealand Government. (2019). Mental health inquiry. Retrieved from https://mentalhealth.inquiry.govt.nz/

Office of the Chief Social Worker. (2014). Workload and casework review: Qualitative review of social worker caseload, casework and workload management. Wellington, New Zealand: Child, Youth and Family.

Office of the Children's Commissioner. (2016). Children's commissioner says UN report must be taken seriously Retrieved from http://www.occ.org.nz/assets/Uploads/ FINALmediastatementUN.pdf

Oranga Tamariki. (2019). Babies and children entering Oranga Tamariki care. Retrieved from https://orangatamariki.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/OIA- responses/children-in-care/20190628-Babies-and- children-entering-Oranga-Tamariki-care.pdf

Oranga Tamariki (2015a) Official Information Act request, Duff, September 21. Wellington, NZ: Oranga Tamariki.

Oranga Tamariki (2015b) Official Information Act request, Keddell, November 26. Wellington, NZ: Oranga Tamariki.

Oranga Tamariki (2018) Official Information Act request, Keddell, September 14. Wellington, NZ: Oranga Tamariki.

Parton, N. (2016). An "authoritarian neoliberal" approach to child welfare and protection? Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, 28(2), 7-8.

Raissian, K. M., & Bullinger, L. R. (2017). Money matters: Does the minimum wage affect child maltreatment rates? Children and Youth Services Review, 72, 60-70. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.09.033

Simpson, J., Duncanson, M., Oben, G., Wicken, A., & Gallagher, S. (2016). Child poverty monitor: Technical report 2016 (national report). Dunedin, New Zealand: Child and Youth Epidemiology Service.

Statistics New Zealand. (2019). National Pacific projections. Wellington, New Zealand: Author. Retrieved from http://archive.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/population/ estimates_and_projections/projections-overview/nat- pacific-proj.aspx

St. John, S., & Cartwright, J. (2019, May 1). Get our children out of poverty. Tui Motu Magazine, 10-11.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
child protection; oranga tamariki; child abuse prevention; inequalities; babies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bécares, L., Cormack, D., & Harris, R. (2013). Ethnic density and area deprivation: Neighbourhood effects on Māori health and racial discrimination in Aotearoa/ New Zealand. Social Science & Medicine, 88, 76-82. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.04.007 Beddoe, L., & Joy, E. (2017). Questioning the uncritical acceptance of neuroscience in child and family policy and practice: A review of challenges to the current doxa.

# data[].attributes.headline
Balancing women-centred and child -centred ethical imperatives in collaborative pre-birth assessment practice

# data[].attributes.subject
Balancing women-centred and child -centred ethical imperatives in collaborative pre-birth assessment practice

# data[].attributes.body
Hodson, A. V., & Deery, R. (2014). Protecting unborn babies: professional and interprofessional ethical considerations for social work and midwifery. In D. Jindal - Snape & E. Hannah (Eds.), Exporing the dynamics of personal, professional and interpofessional ethics (pp. 151-166). Policy Press.

https://books.google.co.nz/books?hl=en&lr=&id=TxErAwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA151&dq=social+work+practice+babies&ots=19R5zPvVDJ&sig=7M-AdRqitIOGGAUDDAzXNJg_K2g&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=social%20work%20practice%20babies&f=false

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Exploring the Dynamics of Personal, Professional and Interprofessional Ethics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Although codes of conduct and ethics can offer guidance, professionals who provide services to other people must regularly exercise their own judgment in increasingly complex and demanding work situations. Because of their complexity, these situations can lead to conflict between personal, professional, and interprofessional ethics in social work and other people-centered fields.

# data[].attributes.headline
Gateway to further adversity: how do repeat removals affect women?

# data[].attributes.subject
Gateway to further adversity: how do repeat removals affect women?

# data[].attributes.body
Broadhurst K, Mason C. (2020). Child removal as the gateway to further adversity: Birth mother accounts of the immediate and enduring collateral consequences of child removal. Qualitative Social Work. 19(1):15-37. doi:10.1177/1473325019893412
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1473325019893412

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

This article is focused on the immediate and enduring consequences of child removal, from the perspective of birth mothers. The article builds on the authors' previous theoretical work on the collateral consequences of child removal and women's vulnerability to repeat family court appearances. Interview data drawn from in-depth qualitative interviews with 72 birth mothers conducted in seven local authority areas are revisited to enable a focused analysis of the immediate and longer-term effects of child removal. Analysis was informed by phenomenology's interest in collective accounts of experience and the pursuit of moderate generalisations. All the women participating in the study had experienced the repeat removal of their children through the family courts, or were involved in child protection proceedings concerning an unborn child, having previously lost a child from their care. Birth mothers recounted an immediate psychosocial crisis following child removal, but also the cumulative and enduring nature of problems. From women's accounts, we have been able to deepen our understanding of the enormity of the recovery challenge for women with long-standing histories of disadvantage who hold fragile and restricted social statuses. Role loss and further exclusionary consequences of child removal were particularly pronounced, given women's limited access to protective resources. A clear set of recommendations for services are set out in a final discussion. The scale of the difficulties women face needs to be recognised in services that aim to promote recovery, if women are to be helped to avoid recurrent family court proceedings.

Introduction

There is growing international recognition that the removal of a child from his or her birth parents by the family courts should not mark the end of professional support for parents' own rehabilitation ( Broadhurst and Mason, 2013; Broadhurst et al., 2015; Broadhurst and Mason, 2017; Cox, 2012; Grant et al., 2011). Our research, which uncovered the scale of women's repeat appearances in the family courts in England (Broadhurst et al., 2015), has catalysed a fundamental re-appraisal of State responses to parents beyond child removal, given women's vulnerability to repeat losses of infants and children to public care or adoption. We have argued that policy and professional intervention must be attuned to the additive burden that this population of parents face, on account of family court involvement and child removal.

The majority of parents involved with child protection services and the family courts have experienced multiple forms of disadvantage in their own childhoods. They typically become parents at a younger age than the general population, but with fewer resources to bring to parenthood ( Broadhurst et al., 2017). Family court involvement, which is typically adversarial can compound parents' difficulties, exacerbate mental health difficulties and prompt a return to coping strategies such as misuse of drugs and alcohol which undermine recovery ( Harwin et al., 2013; Morriss, 2018). Although there is a clear consensus that children must be protected from harm, there is a strong moral and economic argument for continued work with parents beyond the conclusion of court proceedings to prevent repeat family court appearances. In a number of international contexts, services are beginning to demonstrate ( Cox et al., 2017; McCracken et al., 2017; Roberts et al., 2018; Wise, 2018) that relationship based longer-term professional help beyond the conclusion of family court proceedings can limit the harm that parents experience as a consequence of loss of their children and promote recovery.

In our earlier work, and based on a review of the relevant interdisciplinary literature, we proposed a preliminary conceptual framework designed to capture the combination of collateral consequences that can follow child removal ( Broadhurst and Mason, 2017). We argued that the grief associated with loss of children combines with social penalties (stigma and restrictions on kin relationships) and civil disqualifications (housing, employment and welfare benefit restrictions) which together impact on longer-term life chances. In addition, we argued that parents who already have a family court record face an up-hill battle in convincing child protection services and the courts that their parenting capacity has improved in the context of a new baby. In this article, we turn to findings based on qualitative analysis of interviews with 72 birth mothers conducted in seven local authority areas in England. Although we have reported broad themes from these interviews in an earlier project report ( Broadhurst et al., 2017), in this article, we re-visit the data with a specific focus on the impact of child removal on women's immediate and longer-term life chances. By grounding our earlier propositions in rigorous analysis of an extensive corpus of interview data, we have been able to revise and extend our preliminary framework. The study was funded by the Nuffield Foundation (2014-2017).

All the women participating in the study had experienced more than one set of care proceedings. Analysis of self-report data from birth mothers' lived experience of child removal firmly evidences an immediate psychosocial crisis following child removal, but also the cumulative and enduring nature of problems. As Bradshaw and Finch (2003) have described, disadvantage tends to cluster - for this group of women, child removal was firmly the gateway to further adversities. From women's accounts, we have been able to deepen our understanding of the enormity of the recovery challenge for women with long-standing histories of disadvantage who hold fragile and restricted social statuses. Role loss and further exclusionary consequences of child removal were particularly pronounced, given women's limited access to protective resources.

Secondary analysis of our qualitative interview data has been informed by phenomenology's interest in lived experience and a search for shared meaning across multiple interview accounts ( Eberle, 2014; Giorgi, 2012). In contrast to narrative or case study research, the phenomenologist aims to identify commonalities in experience in pursuit of conceptual generalisation (Merleau-Ponty, 1968; Sokolowski, 2000). Thus, we aimed to establish where interview accounts cohered in relation to accounts of child removal. This is the first study that has probed women's lived experience beyond child removal on the basis of a large purposive sample of women, drawn from multiple local authority areas in England. Given that women typically disappear from the gaze of public services when they no longer have children in their care, the study makes an important contribution to the literature, because women's retrospective accounts enable the experience of child removal in the immediate and longer-term to be shared - this also helps to explain recurrence. Revisiting our interview data has enabled a clear set of recommendations for services to be set out in our final discussion.

Policy and legislative context

As increasing numbers of parents appear before the family courts in care proceedings in England and Wales, searching questions are being asked about what might be done to prevent parents involvement in family court proceedings ( Munby, 2017). Recently, the Nuffield Foundation funded the Care Crisis Review ( Family Rights Group, 2018) to better understand the factors associated with increasing numbers of children entering care. A key issue that has attracted considerable academic and policy interest is demand on the courts due to the scale of parents' repeat appearances before the family courts and the serial removal of children. The serial removal of infants and children from the same mother is reported in the USA ( Grant et al., 2014; Larrieu et al., 2008; Ryan et al., 2008), in Australia ( Hinton, 2018; Taplin and Mattick, 2014), in Canada ( Novac et al., 2006) and in the UK ( Alrouh et al., 2019; Broadhurst et al., 2017, 2018; Cox, 2012; Roberts et al., 2018).

Growing awareness of parents' vulnerability to repeat appearances has prompted a proliferation of new preventative developments in the UK but also in the US and Australia ( Grant et al., 2014; Hinton, 2018; Wise, 2018). Innovation has been catalysed by the recognition of the scale of recurrence in public law proceedings - a sizeable proportion of women who have children removed through court order, return to court to lose more children in this way (Broadhurst et al., 2015). New preventative solutions recognise that terminating public services involvement with mothers and indeed fathers, at this juncture, cuts short their options for rehabilitation and does little to prevent a negative cycle of 'repeat removals' ( Cox et al., 2017; Roberts et al., 2018). As innovation gathers pace, it is critical that a robust evidence base continues to evolve in tandem.

However, studies of parents' experience that provide a longer view on experience are very few in number (e.g. Neil et al., 2010). As Joan Hunt (2010) described from a comprehensive review of the literature, there are glaring gaps in research on parental perspectives on the family justice system, and very little data on the experiences of parents in public law cases after proceedings have ended. Retrospective interview accounts can provide fine-grained insights about women's lived experience and the obstacles that stand in the way of recovery. These insights are invaluable for those designing new services.

The study

Data source and theoretical approach

As stated above, for the purposes of this paper, we have re-visited data drawn from interviews with birth mothers, which formed part of a mixed methods study conducted between 2014 and 2017. For the purposes of this article, we have revisited the data with a specific focus on the immediate but also cumulative impact of child removal over time. Analysis was informed by phenomenology's emphasis on close qualitative engagement with experience ( Sokolowski, 2000). Although each interview account was unique, we sought to identify common themes across interviews, in line with phenomenology's interest in collective accounts of experience. All phenomena are time and context specific, but this does not preclude the search for commonalities in accounts and pursuit of moderate generalisation ( Eberle, 2014; Gallagher and Zahavi, 2008; Giorgi, 1997). From this perspective, the qualia or idiosyncratic features of the individual interview are valued but are not the central focus of analysis. In-depth interviews provide intimate first-person accounts and analysis centres on the experiential content of these data ( Gallagher and Zahavi, 2008). Moreover, the researcher is less interested in the truth or facticity of accounts, rather in the meaning individuals attach to phenomena ( Moran, 2000; Moustakas, 1994; Polkinghorne, 1989). Conceptual generalisation requires persistent engagement with qualitative data to arrive at an extrapolation of collective experience.

However, in contrast to early proponents of phenomenology, we have rejected an ideal notion of bracketing which requires the researcher to set aside theoretical presuppositions. Although analysis was influenced by Husserl's original indictment to return to experience (or the things themselves), we do not agree that the researcher can simply withhold prior knowledge or formulations when analysing data ( Cohen and Omery, 1994; Gearing, 2004; Starks and Trinidad, 2007). More than four decades ago, Merleau-Ponty (1962) argued that the interpretive process could not simply be freed from prior suppositions - nor in fact, was this desirable. Thus, our approach to bracketing is best described as analytic ( Gearing, 2004; Sokolowski, 2000; Stewart and Mickunas, 1974). Prior conceptual ideas are made transparent rather than set in abeyance. Analytic bracketing is more readily associated with ethnographic or grounded approaches to social research; therefore, in revisiting our data, we might be described as bricoleurs ( Denzin and Lincoln, 2000). As Starks and Trinidad (2007) have argued, the boundaries between qualitative methodologies are porous, with overlap between phenomenology and grounded theory ( Charmaz, 2014). Moreover, in combining complementary principles, we recognise that the confines of any particular school of qualitative research may not fit neatly with the process of data collection and analysis required by specific studies. Through back and forth engagement with the interview data, our analysis aimed for conceptual generalisations based on the integration of existing knowledge and new, qualitatively derived conceptual insights, grounded in women's lived experience.

Rigour and quality standards

Data collection and analysis adhered to recognised standards for robust qualitative research ( Daly et al., 2007; Davies and Dodd, 2002; Hannes, 2011). These include consideration of ethics, transparency in methods of sampling and description of the sample, the use of appropriate and rigorous methods of data collection and analysis and attention to all elements of study reporting ( Cohen and Crabtree, 2008). In addition, analysis has been based on attention to negative cases, persistent observation and independent analysis of data by more than one researcher, as well as the presentation of verbatim quotes ( Spencer et al., 2003). We started from the premise that no single methodological approach to the analysis of experience is neutral - all analyses seek to make data comprehensible through processes of sorting, reducing and simplifying, which in turn rests on prior assumptions and filters.

Research approval and ethical considerations

The project was subject to ethical scrutiny by Lancaster University Ethics Committee. In addition, the project was subject to full scrutiny by the governance groups within the participating local authorities. A protocol was developed with each participating agency, which ensured that procedures were in place to enable an effective response to maternal distress/disclosure given the sensitive nature of the project. The protocol specified a named person within each local authority who would respond to either request for help from women themselves or serious concerns about women's wellbeing on the part of the researchers. Principles of voluntary participation underpinned the project and are specified in more detail below.

Recruiting women to the study, the sample and ethical considerations

An interest in commonalities in the lived experience and conceptual generalisation underscores the importance of both maximum variation and sufficiency in sampling ( Ritchie and Spencer, 1994). Seven local authority areas in the North and South of England were selected for the study on the basis of their varied demographic profiles. Research protocols were developed with each of the seven participating local authorities, and the relevant workers were briefed about the study, its purpose and the inclusion criteria. Women were also recruited via third sector organisations operating within the same local authority areas. Professionals, typically social workers, were asked to initially identify women with whom they had previously worked who met the criteria for inclusion in the study. Capacity to consent to interview was critical, and hence we did not include women in this study who had previously required the services of the Official Solicitor within care proceedings. The Official Solicitor is appointed when an assessment is made that parents in care proceedings cannot independently instruct a solicitor, on account of serious mental health or learning difficulties. Our resources meant that we could not offer similar advocacy or ensure sufficient follow-up for mothers falling into this category.

A purposive approach to sampling was taken based on the following inclusion criteria: the mother had experienced two or more sets of care proceedings, or was currently pregnant, had previously appeared as a respondent in care proceedings and child protection proceedings were in process regarding the unborn child. Recruitment to the study was informed by principles of voluntarism as outlined by the British Sociological Association ( BSA, 2017). We paid careful attention to our explanation of interview protocols as well as how we would preserve anonymity. We also explained how, and at what point, women could withdraw from the study. Twenty-six women initially joined a pilot study conducted in a single local authority site, followed by a further 46 women recruited across six local authorities, resulting in a total sample of 72 birth mothers. Our initial target for recruitment was 50 women. However, we had also taken a decision that any mother volunteering to be interviewed and meeting our inclusion criteria would not be refused an interview. Feedback from mothers participating in our pilot interviews, suggested that women found participation in the study of considerable therapeutic value. The final sample size (N = 72) makes this one of largest qualitative studies of birth mothers in care proceedings ( Hunt, 2010). A questionnaire was completed with the mothers at the conclusion of the interview to supplement demographic information provided in interview ( Broadhurst et al., 2017).

Initial information about the project was shared with women who met the project criteria via a known and trusted professional from the participating agencies. An initial information leaflet was shared with the woman and initial consent for inclusion in the study sought. Prior to each interview, the mother was offered a further opportunity to clarify any outstanding issues with a member of the research team, and a second stage consent form was completed and signed by each mother prior to the interview commencing. This included consent to allow the researchers to audio-record the interviews using an encrypted audio device.

Approach to interviewing

In keeping with our phenomenological lens, interviewing is understood as a shared experience ( Hycner, 1985). The interviewer inevitably brings prior knowledge to her conversations, which creates structure, the researcher as empathic listener is attentive to the importance of conveying listening and understanding ( Harding, 1987). Thus, both the researcher and birth mother contributed to the knowledge generation process through reciprocal interaction. This kind of interaction influences both the discursive and the tacit knowledge generation process. The interviews varied in length (12 minutes to 3 hours 13 minutes), but were typically of 90 minutes duration, resulting in a corpus of approximately 110 hours of interview data.

All interviews were conducted in a private room in either a local authority or partner organisation's premises. The venue was negotiated with the mother in advance to ensure that her wishes were closely considered. A family support worker provided transport to and from the interview where this was requested. In addition, every woman was offered a £20 high street voucher as recognition of the time given to the study. Upon completion of the interviews, all audios were fully transcribed verbatim. All identifying details were removed from the transcripts, and each was uploaded to NVivo software package for storage, and to enable analysis.

Data analysis

Analysis proceeded on a case-by-case basis to maintain close engagement with the individual account, before looking for common themes across the interviews. The pilot interviews were initially coded and compared for consistency between the authors, before the final full set of interviews were coded. Initial coding was informed by detailed background reading of the literature, but also openness to how women's accounts of loss were organised and described.

First stage coding resulted in a large number of open codes and early comparisons between these codes enabled commonalities between interviews to emerge and provisional themes developed ( Starks and Trinidad, 2007). Analytic memos were used as a means to capture the analytic process and to aid final data reduction around core themes. The lead research associate kept a research diary to help her identify preconceptions, and also to record thoughts and feelings following interviews, which were discussed by the authors ( Shaw, 2012; Van Manen, 1990). Discussions then took place between the two authors to compare interpretations and confirm final themes. A small group of women who participated in the study served as a reference group. A formal meeting with this group enabled the findings to be checked for their resonance with women's own interpretations of their experience ( Shaw, 2012).

Integration of questionnaire and interview data was also conducted to produce a descriptive demographic profile of the mothers participating in the study, presented in Table 1.

Birth mothers: demographics, child and adult adversities and entry to motherhood.

Findings

Descriptive profile of mothers

All of the women participating in the study reported considerable hardship in childhood, which included for many, forms of child neglect and abuse. From Table 1, it can be seen that 59.7% of women had experienced physical abuse as children and 47.2% sexual abuse; 45.8% of women had also been looked after by the State as children. The majority of women reported very early entry to motherhood with 79.2% aged less than 19 years old at the birth of their first child. Women's exposure to domestic abuse in their adult intimate partner relationships was very high at 87.5%, as was the prevalence of mental health difficulties at 83.3% and substance misuse at 59.7%. Notwithstanding the possibility of under-reporting of childhood difficulties, it is clear that legacies of difficult childhoods and early adult relationships characterised by further harms were typical for this group. All the women participating in the study had experienced the removal of at least one child from their care and more than half the sample (37/72) had experienced the removal of a baby at birth. At the time of interview, a child had been returned to the care of 11 of the mothers.

Qualitative findings

The presentation of findings is divided into women's accounts of (a) an immediate psychosocial crisis following child removal and (b) the enduring and cumulative negative consequences. Close engagement with women's accounts has prompted some revision of our earlier framework ( Broadhurst and Mason, 2017), and in particular, to differentiate an acute phase of psychosocial crisis from enduring difficulties. Women's framing of the longer-term consequences of child removal resonates with our preliminary categorical framework, but makes far more evident women's fragile and restricted social statuses, which shape their experience of loss, in the context of acutely limited protective resources. Role loss is multiple for women, because child removal not only profoundly re-shapes mothering but also stigmatised identities re-cast women's position and ability to participate in intimate partner relationships, wider family and informal networks. The interaction of informal and formal penalties is very evident in women's accounts, which helps to explain the enormity of the recovery challenge for these mothers.

The immediate psychosocial crisis of child removal

The powerful and very moving first-person accounts shared by the women in interview vividly conveyed the profound and emotional pain that resulted from child removal. Without exception, the mothers in our study described the immediate devastation they felt when their children were removed from their care. Suicidal thoughts or actions were frequently described. For women already wrestling with problems of mental health and/or substance misuse (see Table 1), the immediate emotional pain of child loss led to an exacerbation of the difficulties that were causal in child removal. Child removal heightened the vulnerability of mothers whose lives were already characterised by multiple and long-standing disadvantage. In Extract 1, Kelly describes the immediate emotional crisis that followed the removal of her children.

it really broke me. It ruined my life, for a little while, I'm not going to lie I was drinking, I was taking drugs, I was having sex with everyone. Like, you know, I was just ... I weren't living life ... because I felt so alone. I just felt like they just took away my life, you know. (Kelly)

The extract depicts a life that is out of control. Kelly is 'drinking' and 'taking drugs' to dull the pain of child removal. Kelly's increased vulnerability following the removal of her children is very evident, she says: 'I was having sex with everyone ... because I felt so alone'. She refers to a life that has been taken away. Disclosure of self-harming behaviours was frequent across the interviews, heightening women's vulnerability to further interpersonal harms.

In Extract 2, Kylie also recounts the acute pain she felt as she left the courtroom knowing her children were to be removed permanently from her care.

I was going to kill myself, you know, like. And I actually said to my counsellor - because I had to have counselling as well when it happened - and I says, do you know what, I've got nothing left. I says, they've took them, and I've got nothing left, so I might as well go and jump off a bridge, you know, like. And I left there [the court] that day and I thought, what was the point of all this. What was the point of coming off it (drug), going through what I went through, to take them away, you know, like. (Kylie)

Kylie shares suicidal thoughts. She had completed a programme of drug rehabilitation but was unable to convince the courts of her ability to safely parent, despite her commitment to recovery. Kylie tells her interviewer that the loss of her children prompted relapse and a return to drug misuse. Like Kelly, her life too is of emptiness and despair and she contemplates killing herself.

Similar themes are evident in Linda's account below.

When they take children away, they leave you feeling, like, empty, you've got no reason to wake up in the morning, you've got no reason to, say, live, in a sense. So going out drinking, doing drugs, having a laugh makes you forget what you're going through, but you wake up every morning still the same, your life hasn't changed. Because you've gone out and had a drink, but you don't see it like that, because there's no counsellor there, there's no support team there to say, right, I know we took the kids away, but we took them for their own safety, because you're not in the right place, but we're going to help you get back to the place you need to be in. (Linda)

Linda also turns to drink and drugs as a way of escaping her pain. For all three women, it is clear that mothering had previously provided some buffer against the isolation of their lives. However, once children were removed, they lives were characterised by a profound sense of isolation and loss.

In Extract 4, we see that an immediate psychosocial crisis has practical consequences, which again heighten vulnerability. Kim loses the tenancy on her home to her ex-partner. Her return to drinking and drugs meant that she could no longer afford her accommodation.

... I drank, took drugs ... was going out. Just making things worse for myself, basically ... trying to forget about everything. I couldn't afford to stay at the flat. I gave it to him - said to him, he can have it. We got it swapped over into his name (ex-partner) and that. (Kim)

Hannah's story below is one of emotional trauma, manifest in panic attacks. She is overwhelmed by the loss of her children and is 'drinking from half past seven in the morning until half past three in the morning'. For her, an absence of any help in the immediate aftermath of child removal leads to homelessness and destitution.

Basically, once they took my kids, they left me to rot. I couldn't even go back into my house after that, I'd have panic attacks. So I made myself homeless. I turned to alcohol. I ended up drinking from half past seven in the morning until half past three in the morning. I didn't care where I were ... It killed me. I couldn't even go into my own house. I couldn't. Physically, every time I'd go in, I'd just drop, so I had to go outside ... I'm like, just do what you want to me ... (Hannah)

Descriptions of an immediate and acute psychosocial crisis with compounding effects were consistent across all the interviews. As Sampson and Laub (2017) have argued, for individuals with histories of chronic disadvantage - adversity and disadvantage can pile up faster. For Kelly, Kylie, Linda, Kim and Hannah, in the absence of formal or informal help, lives spin out of control, grief prompts self-harming behaviours and undermines women's rehabilitation. Child removal can also destroy personal and intimate relationships and render women homeless. Thus, child removal can be conceptualised as a gateway to further and multiple adversities. Adding to the broader literature on cumulative disadvantage ( Arditti et al., 2010; Merton, 1968; Sampson and Laub, 1997; Seabrook and Avison, 2012), child removal is a further major hazard in the life course of women whose lives are already characterised by multiple contextual risks. Moreover, as Arditti et al. write: 'earlier difficulties and setbacks amplify the implications (and deleterious effects) of current ones' (2010: 143).

The cumulative and enduring collateral consequences of child removal

Beyond an immediate psychosocial crisis, difficulties accumulated and endured for this group of women, whose experience typically set them apart from others. We have identified five particular dimensions of difficulty, consistently described by the mothers.

Six months beyond the removal of her children, Olivia feels an enduring sense of loss in daily living. Loss of her children has stripped her everyday world of routines that once provided structure and purpose.

Olivia describes an emptiness that pervades everyday living. Disadvantaged childhoods can limit adult life chances and options; hence, it is unsurprising that women's accounts were frequently devoid of hope ( Hobcraft and Kiernan, 2001). Olivia has few personal resources or opportunities in the conventional domains of education and employment. Thus, removal of her children leaves Olivia with 'nothing'.

In Extract 7, Laura states that motherhood was the first thing in her 'whole life' that she 'felt proud of'.

Although for many women in the general population motherhood might consume lives, for Laura, the value and meaning she attaches to motherhood is bound up with a life which has afforded few prior positive experiences. A substantial body of literature has described how social class structures both parenting choices and the meaning of parenthood ( Allen and Osgood, 2009; Hobcraft and Kiernan, 2001; Walkerdine et al., 2001). Laura was unemployed at the time of the interview; she was estranged from her own family and had also experienced sexual assault and domestic violence. The removal of her children - who served to buffer a life replete with previous loss - literally left her with nothing and nowhere to turn. Consistent across the interviews were accounts of the difficulty of navigating loss and changed identities, given women's restricted social statuses. From Table 1, the majority of women interviewed had made an early transition to motherhood, and whether this was planned or unplanned , motherhood was viewed as a positive new stage in typically troubled lives. Motherhood as Laura recounts, was an identity to be proud of and gave meaning to daily living. Whether children were adopted or living with kin, women struggled to adapt to compromised roles as mothers apart. Thus, it was unsurprising that for many a further pregnancy followed.

Discussion

The over-arching message from women's accounts is the enormity of the recovery challenge - beyond child removal. This is the first study to engage with a large sample of mothers, purposively drawn from across a number of local authorities who had experienced repeat family court involvement. Interviews provide firm empirical evidence of the scale of women's loss and help explain women's vulnerability to repeat family court involvement.

Child removal results in an immediate psychosocial crisis, but women's interview accounts evidence cumulative and enduring collateral consequences. The range of negative consequences that we previously articulated ( Broadhurst and Mason, 2017) play out in women's accounts, but close qualitative engagement with women highlights the context of their loss. From the women participating in the study, we gain a far clearer understanding of the way in which fragile and restricted social statuses amplify loss and vulnerability. The meaning of motherhood is structured through women's experience of limited choices and life chances. Thus, loss of the mothering role can literally leave 'nothing' in women's lives. Life beyond child removal is empty, hopeless and filled with despair.

Moreover, women's (stigmatised) social positions afford limited opportunity for any collective sharing of their loss. Women's fine-grained qualitative accounts underscore the pervasive impact of stigmatised identities that play out in multiple arenas. Life beyond child removal is profoundly isolated, with women vulnerable to estrangement from informal networks and highly mistrustful of professional help.

Accounts of the lived experience of child removal provide a window into the intersection of the informal and formal social penalties that leave women with few avenues of support in the short, or longer-term. Women's histories suggest limited resilience in the face of adversity ( Rutter, 1987). Beyond child removal, disadvantage 'piles up' - which helps to explain women's vulnerability to repeat family court involvement. Welfare entitlements compound emotional pain and can render women homeless and destitute. There is simply little to stem the flow of collateral consequences for this group of mothers.

We have previously argued that the family justice system operates according to an implicit expectation of 'natural recovery' ( Toneatto, 2013), given absence of any statutory mandate to support parents' rehabilitation beyond child removal. This article provides further robust empirical evidence grounded in women's qualitative accounts, that this is a false presumption, and women are urgently in need of help. Further research, to quantify the impact of life chances beyond child removal, would add weight to the case for mainstreaming support for this group of parents; however, immediate practical implications are as follows:

1. It is imperative that we provide a safety net for women in the immediate aftermath of child removal because crisis can lead to further difficulties with profound longer-term consequences.

2. Grief is enduring and intersects with issues of socio-economic disadvantage and stigma. The scale of the difficulties women face needs to be recognized in services that aim to promote recovery.

3. Given women's profound sense of isolation and social stigma, preventative projects should create opportunities for the collective sharing of experience and help women to gain a clearer sense of the multiple factors implicated in the loss of their children, including vulnerability which results from socio-economic disadvantage.

4. A number of professional services can potentially aid or undermine women's recovery, at present the plight of birth mothers within the welfare system and housing is insufficiently understood and requires urgent attention.

5. Children's services, the courts and allied agencies must be attuned to women's deep mistrust of professional help and the impact of this on women's subsequent engagement with services.

Despite multiple positive initiatives in England and Australia, as yet, the provision of support to parents beyond child removal is neither mainstream nor mandated in policy. New and very positive initiatives are at risk where they rely on skeletal or short-term funding. Thus, national policy leads must take seriously the human and indeed economic costs of cutting short support for women at the close of care proceedings.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research was funded by the Nuffield Foundation.

References

Bradshaw J and Finch N (2003) Overlaps in Dimensions of Poverty. Journal of Social Policy 32(4): 513-525.
Google Scholar

British Sociological Association (BSA) (2017) Statement of ethical practice. Available at: www.britsoc.co.uk/media/24310/bsa_statement_of_ethical_practice.pdf (accessed 16 March 2019).
Google Scholar

Broadhurst, K, Alrouh, B, Yeend, Eet al. (2015) Connecting events in time to identify a hidden population: Birth mothers and their children in recurrent care proceedings in England. British Journal of Social Work 45(8): 2241-2260. |
Google Scholar Crossref | ISI

Cohen, M, Omery, A (1994) Schools of phenomenology: Implications for research. In: Morse, JM (ed.) Critical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp.136-156.
Google Scholar

Daly, J, Willis, K, Small, Ret al. (2007) A hierarchy of evidence for assessing qualitative health research. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 60(1): 43-49. |
Google Scholar Crossref | Medline | ISI

Hannes, K (2011) Critical appraisal of qualitative research. In: Noyes, J, Booth, A, Hannes, Ket al. (eds) Supplementary Guidance for Inclusion of Qualitative Research in Cochrane Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 1 (updated August 2011). Cochrane Collaboration Qualitative Methods Group, 2011. Available at: http://cqrmg.cochrane.org/supplemental-handbook-guidance (accessed 11 April2019).
Google Scholar

Hunt, J (2010) Parental perspectives on family justice system in England and Wales: A review of research. Available at: www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/ JCO/Documents/FJC/Publications/Parental_Perspectives_final.pdf (accessed 23 May 2019).
Google Scholar

Larrieu, JA, Heller, SS, Smyke, ATet al. (2008) Predictors of permanent loss of custody for mothers of infants and toddlers in foster care. Infant Mental Health Journal 29(1): 48-60. |
Google Scholar Crossref | Medline

Moustakas, C (1994) Phenomenological Research Methods. London: Sage. |
Google Scholar Crossref

Munby, J (2017) Care cases - The looming crisis, view from the president's chambers. Available at: www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/pfd-view-15-care-cases-looming-crisis.pdf (accessed 25 May 2019).
Google Scholar

Novac, S, Paradis, E, Brown, Jet al. (2006) Visceral Grief: Young Homeless Mothers and Loss of Child Custody. University of Toronto. Available at: www. urbancentre.utoronto.ca/pdfs/elibrary/Novacet-al-206-VisceralGriefHLMothers.pdf ( accessed 25 May 2019).
Google Scholar

Polkinghorne, DE (1989) Phenomenological research methods. In: Valle RS and Halling S (eds) Existential-Phenomenological Perspectives in Psychology: Exploring the Breadth of human Experience. New York: Plenum Press, pp.41-60.
Google Scholar

Ryan, JP, Choi, S, Hong, JSet al. (2008) Recovery coaches and substance exposed births: An experiment in child welfare. Child Abuse and Neglect 32(11): 1072-1079. |
Google Scholar Crossref | Medline

Toneatto, T (2013) Natural recovery. In: Miller, MP (ed.) Principles of Addiction. Vol. 1. London: Academic Press, pp.133-139. |
Google Scholar Crossref

Wise, S (2018) Early Child Removal, Unresolved Maternal Loss and Subsequent Childbearing: An Australian Study, Conference paper, EUSARF, 2018 (available from author, University of Melbourne).
Google Scholar

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Child removal as the gateway to further adversity: Birth mother accounts of the immediate and enduring collateral consequences of child removal - Karen Broadhurst, Claire Mason, 2020

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Abstract This article is focused on the immediate and enduring consequences of child removal, from the perspective of birth mothers. The article builds on the authors' previous theoretical work on the collateral consequences of child removal and women's vulnerability to repeat family court appearances.

# data[].attributes.headline
Understanding the experiences of fathers whose babies are involved in child protection 

# data[].attributes.subject
Understanding the experiences of fathers whose babies are involved in child protection 

# data[].attributes.body
Critchley A. Giving up the ghost: Findings on fathers and social work from a study of pre-birth child protection. Qualitative Social Work. June 2021. doi:10.1177/14733250211019463
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/14733250211019463?icid=int.sj-full-text.citing-articles.2

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

This article reports findings from an ethnographic study of pre-birth child protection, conducted in an urban Scottish setting. The study was designed to explore the interactions between practitioners and families in the context of child protection involvement during a pregnancy. This research aimed to understand the activities that constituted pre-birth child protection assessment, and the meaning attached to those activities by social workers and expectant parents. Very different perspectives on fathers and fatherhood emerged through the study. Fathers shared their feelings of familial tenderness in the context of research interviews. Yet social workers often focused on the risks that the fathers posed. This focus on risk led professionals to ignore or exclude fathers in significant ways. Fathers were denied opportunities to take an active role in their families and care planning for their infants, whilst mothers were over-responsibilised. Children meanwhile were potentially denied the relationship, care and identity benefits of involved fatherhood. This article shows how pre-birth child protection processes and practice can function so as to limit the contribution of expectant fathers. The way that fathers and fathering are understood continues to be a wider problem for social work, requiring development through research and practice. This study was not immune to the challenge of involving men in social work research in meaningful ways. Nevertheless, the findings highlight how participation in social work research can create a forum for fathers to share their concerns, and the importance of their perspective for practice.

Introduction

Marked increases in the incidence of infant removal have been reported within the broadly similar child protection systems of the U.K. nations of England ( Broadhurst et al., 2018), Wales ( Alrouh et al., 2019), and Scotland ( Raab et al., 2020). Related patterns of increased levels of separation of infants from their birth families have been identified in Australia ( O'Donnell et al., 2019), and in Aotearoa New Zealand, where concern about the impact on Maori families and communities has been reported ( Keddell et al., 2021; Office of the Children's Commissioner, 2020). This paper is based upon research into child protection work in the period leading up to the birth of a baby. A time when the decision is made as to whether professionals will seek legal measures to remove a baby soon after birth, or will support the family to care for their newborn baby at home.

Prenatal protocols vary in different national and regional contexts ( Mc Elhinney et al., 2019). In the Scottish context for this research, the work undertaken with parents during a pregnancy to decide what child protection measures are necessary for the unborn baby is known as 'pre-birth child protection assessment'. National Guidance describes when and how this work should be undertaken ( Scottish Government, 2014). The pre-birth assessment is led by social workers, but is completed in close co-operation with colleagues in midwifery, community and child health, and adult services. The aim is to determine the risk of harm to the unborn baby and whether protective measures are necessary. Protective measures may lie along a continuum from voluntary supportive engagement with the family, to non-consensual removal of the newborn infant from the care of birth family; in order to ensure the baby's safety and wellbeing.

Reasons for child protection referral during a pregnancy may include a prior history of child protection intervention, including measures designed to remove older children in the family. Difficulties experienced by the parents, including physical or mental health difficulties and current substance misuse may also introduce concerns about their capacity to care for an expected baby. The risks of domestic abuse are known to increase in pregnancy ( Cottrell 2009) and present a risk to the health of the mother and baby ( Potter and Feder, 2018). So that families with a history of intra-familial violence and abuse may be viewed by professionals as presenting risks during the pregnancy and for the baby once born. As Ward et al. (2006, 2012)'s research has shown, infants considered at risk of significant harm in the English context are born into families experiencing multiple deprivations and difficulties, often over a long period. Nevertheless, the decision of whether to remove a baby soon after birth is a highly charged and difficult one for practitioners ( Critchley, 2020a). Broadhurst et al. (2017a, 2017b) have explored in detail the significant short and long term impacts on birth mothers of infant removal, and particularly of repeat care proceedings leading to the removal of consecutive newborn babies from the same birth mother. An experience characterised by immense loss and stigma, as highlighted by Morriss (2018), and of lasting consequence in women's lives ( Broadhurst and Mason, 2020). However, until recently there has been less attention paid to impact on the fathers whose children become subject to child protection assessment and measures before birth, or who have experienced the recurrent removal of their infants ( Bedston et al. 2019).

This article focuses on the experiences of expectant fathers whose unborn babies were subject to pre-birth child protection assessment. The study reported upon here did not aim to explore expectant fatherhood per se. Rather, the research sought to understand the activities of pre-birth child protection and the meaning that was attributed to these activities by expectant mothers and fathers, and by social workers. Yet when the data was analysed, strong themes in relation to the experiences of fathers emerged. The first notable phenomenon within the data was that the men in the study who were present at the outset of the child protection involvement became less visible as time went on, with some disappearing altogether. Second, in analysing the data further, differences became apparent between the way that fathers presented and were talked about by practitioners in social work meetings, and the way the men interacted in the spaces created by the research. Whereas the fathers in the study were often conceptualised as a risk, within research encounters their potential as a resource for their children was far more apparent. Raising a question of whether social work practice can learn anything from social work research in respect of work with fathers. In this article I explore the tensions in relation to fathers, fatherhood and social work which arose through analysis of the data from this study. I then outline what these tensions might mean for social work research and practice with men as fathers, both within and far beyond the pre-birth period.

Ghost fathers and social work

It has long been established that there is an issue with under-representation of men in child care and protection processes, even when those same men remain involved with their children in some capacity ( Brandon et al., 2009, 2019; Philip et al., 2019). Writing in 2009, Brown et al. described the problem of the 'ghost fathers' of child welfare.

Within child welfare, fathers are not just discounted, they are often not seen at all even when they are present ... Fathers exist in the lives of women and children in child welfare. Yet, fathers are rarely seen by child welfare, even when present. We chose the word 'ghost' to describe these fathers in child welfare because in order to see a ghost, one has to first believe in their existence and relevance ( Brown et al. 2009: 25-26).

Beyond this vivid description of the issue, other conceptualisations of the social work approach to men in child welfare have been proposed ( Scourfield, 2001, 2006), many of which invoke some element of men as on the fringes ( Brandon et al., 2019) or in the shadows ( Ewart-Boyle et al., 2015) of the child welfare spotlight. Evocatively in Brandon et al.'s review of Serious Case Reviews, one father is described as 'an onlooker standing in a darker part of the room' (2009: 52). In this article, Brown et al.'s (2009) concept of 'ghost fathers' is relied upon in order to explore the way that men appeared in the context of pre-birth child protection engagement with families. The fathers of the unborn babies existed, and often were known to the professionals. Yet the sense that Brown et al.'s description conveys of the men's insubstantial and peripheral relationship to the child protection process resounded clearly in analysing the data that arose from this research. The study, and the participation of expectant fathers within it, is described in some detail in the following sections. The findings in relation to the men are then presented, with reference to the concept of 'ghost fathers'.

The study

Statement of ethics

The ethnographic study reported on here was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and given permission to proceed by the ethics committee of the School of Social and Political Science at the University of Edinburgh. Fieldwork access was granted by an urban Scottish local authority, in accordance with their research ethics and access procedures. Firstly, access was granted for focus groups with social work practitioners and managers, which were conducted as a scoping exercise between 2012 and 2013. Later, access was granted for ethnographic fieldwork, which was completed over one year between 2014 and 2015.

Research methods

Over the course of a year, the author observed social work meetings occurring between the allocation of a social worker, up until the births of the babies in the study. Observed meetings included child protection case conferences (CPCCs), core group meetings, informal office meetings, and home visits. The study utilised mobile methods in order to follow participants across a range of settings and meetings ( Critchley, 2019). Following Ferguson's (2011, 2016) research methods in exploring the mobilities ( Buscher et al., 2011) of child protection across multiple sites. The research reported upon here took place in social work offices and other public buildings, but also in family homes, in the author's car en route to various meetings and appointments that research participants were required to attend, and in social workers' cars. Observations were designed to capture the interactions between social work practitioners and families in the context of child protection involvement during a pregnancy. The interviews supported this work by exploring the meaning participants attached to these activities.

Families were invited to take part in the study through the social worker for the unborn baby. The consent of the social worker and of the expectant mother was necessary in each case. Whenever the expectant father was named and was involved in the social work process for the baby, his consent was also sought. None of the expectant parents approached to participate in the study refused consent. However, a number of social workers approached to participate refused consent, or would not approach the expectant parents. Thus, for those families approached by the researcher, the social worker already thought it possible that participation in the study would be of interest to the family. In total, thirteen mothers agreed to participate in the research. One mother later withdrew her consent, leaving 12 in the final sample. Eight expectant fathers provided consent to participation. For the remaining four unborn babies, either the paternity of the baby had not been shared with professionals or direct contact with the father was impossible within the parameters of the study.

Whenever practicable, both of the baby's parents were invited to participate in a research interview. Not all the mothers chose to do so, and even fewer of the fathers. Six mothers gave research interviews, and only two of the fathers, compared to all 12 of the frontline social workers and five of the social workers who chaired the pre-birth Case Conferences. Some participants gave more than one research interview over the course of the study. In total, 20 observations and 31 research interviews were completed.

A haunted sample: Fathers' participation in the study

The table below describes the extent to which the fathers of the unborn babies were present within the research observations and contributed to interviews in this study ( Table 1). Although this is the first study that has directly sought to engage fathers in research during the pre-birth child protection processes, and to consider their perspective in a meaningful way, the role of the fathers was not the sole focus. Ultimately, the object of study was the interaction between expectant parents and social work practitioners in the pre-birth period. Attempts to include fathers were made by the author, but in line with the approach to the mothers, the optional nature of participation in the research was emphasised. Ethically, it was important that parents experienced control over the extent of their participation in this research, given the difficulties in their lives that had brought them into contact with child welfare services originally. Older participants seemed somewhat more likely to participate in research interviews, but there were exceptions to this. Women were more likely to participate than men, but this can be partly explained by the higher level of participation in child protection processes by mothers than by fathers in the sample. Mothers had no choice but to attend child protection meetings; the professional gaze was firmly in their direction. Fathers' roles were more complex as outlined in the table that follows.

Involvement of fathers in the research study.

It is important to consider that some families in the sample were managing very complex paternal roles. Furthermore, some of the mothers had chosen not to name the father of their baby or were no longer in contact with him. To illustrate, Chloe, was expecting her second child. Her older son Bobby was cared for by his paternal grandmother in a kinship arrangement supported by the social work team. Bobby was at this stage six-years-old and Chloe visited him regularly.When I met her, Chloe was living alone in temporary council accommodation in a council estate on the edge of the city. The pregnancy had not been planned and Chloe had considered a termination at an early stage. She was no longer in a relationship with the father of the baby and had returned to a former boyfriend. Chloe explained in a research interview that this created difficulties in her current relationship, since her current partner was 'really wanting a kid. Because he cries quite a lot because it's not his. But at the end of the day, he met somebody else and I did, so. He always throws it in my face sometimes' (extract from research interview with Chloe, expectant mother).

This delicate family situation made research access to the father of Chloe's baby impossible. Another mother, Nancy, who took part in the study, was expecting her fifth child. Two of the fathers of her four older children had an active role in their lives and one of them was regularly involved in caring for the children. Nancy was expecting her current baby with Jack, who had not previously fathered a child and whose role in the family was yet to be established. All three of the men attended the pre-birth child protection case conference. However, none of the fathers were present in subsequent research encounters with Nancy, her children, and the social worker for the family.

There were 'ghost fathers' (Brown et al., 2009) haunting this research study. Although it was ethically and practically complex gaining access to the expectant mothers for the purposes of this research, gaining access to the fathers was even more difficult. There was a very intensive professional gaze on expectant mothers in the pre-birth child protection process. The women in the families were visible at the very centre of all child protection activities and professional expectations, while the men at times remained in the shadows. The mothers talked about the fathers of their babies, as did the social workers, yet the men's corporeal presence and contribution in social work settings often dropped away. There were two fathers, Bill and Luke, who participated in a series of research observations and interviews and their views are considered in some depth in this paper. A further young father, Liam, was present at all observed meetings, but declined to be interviewed. For the remaining fathers, I met the men, and observed some of them participating in child protection meetings for their babies but was unable to sustain contact with them. They were never present again in observed meetings or research encounters with the mothers.

Data analysis

A large amount of multi-perspectival ethnographic data was created by the research. This data included audio recordings, detailed contemporaneous fieldnotes of observations and interviews, and the author's field journal, containing elements of verbatim recording and reflection ( Gioia, 2014). Transcription and analysis of the data was undertaken by the author, over a period of several years during and following the completion of fieldwork. Transcription was completed in original dialects, and where Scots dialect is strong, an English equivalent is provided in the quotations from the data shared below. Analysis was thematic in nature and proceeded through a process of codes and memos. Recognising dominant 'symbols and cultural meanings' ( Vidich and Lyman, 1998: 44) present in the data was an important aspect of the analytic process.

Analysing data from fathers was poignant. Fathers who chose to participate in the research wanted to convey some of the feelings that they had for their children and for their partners. This was not always apparent in the context of social work meetings. This juxtaposition of the 'risky' fathers of child protection meetings, with the tenderness displayed by the men and described by the mothers in more domestic contexts provoked further analysis of the data. Although as stated above, the study did not set out to focus specifically on the men, the more detailed analysis established the research findings presented here. These are grouped under four headings and describe different phenomena in relation to the fathers in the study.

The first section deals with the way that the men's tender feelings for their partners, expected babies and other family members emerged in the research data, in ways that were only rarely apparent in the social work meetings and assessments. The second section considers how the riskiness of men was established. The third section is concerned with the limited professional focus on the father's contribution to the family, even when men were actively present in the child protection process. The fourth and final section considers the way that fathers were excluded or 'disappeared' from view in pre-birth child protection assessments, becoming 'ghost fathers'. The implications of these findings are considered in the discussion section.

Findings

Paternal tenderness: A love that dare not speak its name?

In analysing the research data, it became clear that there was a gulf between the way that some fathers used the spaces opened up by the research, and the way the men appeared and were described in social work meetings and reports. In research encounters, the fathers' feelings of tenderness and commitment towards their unborn babies, older children and partners were highly apparent. A particularly stark contrast emerged between one father Bill's soft-spoken, thoughtful presentation in research interviews, and his more abrasive and argumentative style in social work meetings. Outside of the child protection meetings, Bill reflected on his experiences of being a father, and discussed how he felt about the expected baby and his relationship with his partner Tracy. Bill was aged 44 at time of participation in the research and had two adult children to a previous partner. I interviewed Bill once with Tracy, and once alone. In the second interview, I asked Bill if there were differences in becoming a father in the context of a pre-birth child protection assessment.

Bill: Aye, it just, it's, I mean it's made Tracy think that she wished she got rid o' it [terminated the pregnancy] at the start you know what I mean? it's not a very nice thing having people basically telling you what to do with your ane [own] kid. You, you're not even getting your ane kid, they're gonna take it aff [off] you.

B: I suppose if the kid came, and then something happened to the kid then aye, right, youse [plural of 'you', here meaning child protection professionals] have got every right. But tae dae [to do] what youse have been shouting about, the kid's going to get so much love it's gonna be unbelievable! Know what I mean?

B: It's gonna be well looked efter [after], it's no' gonna need for nothing, know what I mean?'

Extract from research interview with Bill, father to Tracy's unborn baby girl.

In this extract, Bill is expressing anger about the child protection involvement, which he stated was not a feature of family life with his previous children. However, Bill is also beginning to talk about his love for the baby, about caring for and providing for her. In observed social work meetings, opportunities for Bill to express this commitment to his baby had not been apparent. Later in the interview I asked Bill how he was feeling about becoming a father again, to which he replied, 'I'm looking forward to it! In a way, and in a way no. If the social work werenae [weren't] here I'd be absolutely delighted'. Again, this expression of joy about the baby had no obvious outlet in the context of the child protection meetings, or in the social work assessment of Bill. Rather, the social work focus was almost exclusively on the risks that Bill posed in the family.

Interestingly, when men did display paternal tenderness in formal meetings, this was acknowledged by professionals, but did not necessarily reduce their assessment of the risk in the family. Ellie and William attended a case conference for their expected baby and for their two-year-old daughter Emily, who was living with foster carers. No definite decision about longer-term care arrangements was made at the observed Case Conference, however it was suggested that the baby was likely to be accommodated soon after the birth, and that it was unlikely that William and Ellie would be able to reclaim the care of either child. The main reason for this was previous neglect of Emily's basic needs. As such this was a distressing meeting for the parents, and William made several emotional statements in relation to Emily and his expected son, who was due in approximately 3 months' time.

It's the highlight of our week seeing Emily. I love seeing Emily but it's hard knowing she doesn't live with you because of what happened; what we did. It makes you feel bad

I don't know how it feels not to take my son home from hospital

Extracts from contemporaneous fieldnotes of an observed case conference for Ellie and William's expected baby and their older daughter Emily, aged two.

In a short interview immediately following this observation, the social worker Mary acknowledged that it was 'heart-breaking' to hear William talk in the meeting about his love for his children and desire to have them in his care. Mary also acknowledged that William 'has a bit of passion about him'. This 'passion' was juxtaposed with Ellie's feelings, since Mary's view was that 'she doesn't want Emily home, I don't think she wants her home. She just has to be seen to want her home and be saying the right things'. Therefore, although Mary allowed that 'it's not pleasant, no' and that 'it's quite sad' her view was that:

They love this child. They love Emily. But they just can't do it [parent the children safely]' and that 'you have to think of these children we're advocating for and it would be worse if they did go home and something were to ... [left unsaid]

Extracts from contemporaneous fieldnotes of a research interview with Mary, social worker to Ellie and William's unborn baby and daughter Emily.

The social worker was much more positive about William, than about Ellie who she characterised as 'quite lazy'. However, there was a sense in which William as a father could not be seen in relief, as a whole person, in the way that the mothers could. His contribution was conceptualised in relation to his partner Ellie's, the social worker suggesting that William was 'wrapped around her little finger', as if his emotional agency within the family were muted. Contemporaneous fieldnotes of the observation reported that: 'Ellie cried and was comforted by William (again no tissues) but William really conveyed a feeling of wanting to be a Dad, to feel OK about himself and his life'.

I noted that I wanted to ask both parents about this. Unfortunately, it was not possible to interview William or Ellie. The social worker Mary was not supportive of the parents participating in a research interview, making this impossible to pursue. Relationships between expectant parents and social workers became observably strained when the plan was for the baby to be accommodated following the birth, and this may have been a contributing factor in Mary's gatekeeping.

Paternal riskiness: 'I felt unsafe'

The relationship between Bill, Tracy and the unborn baby's social worker Courtney was described by the expectant parentsas difficult and antagonistic. The meetings between them that I observed were highly charged. At the point at which I interviewed Courtney, she had begun to describe Bill as a 'risk': a risk to the baby, to Tracy and possibly to professionals. The following quote encapsulates some of the perceived 'riskiness' around Bill. Courtney is talking about a visit she made to Tracy's house with other professionals for a Core Group Meeting one weekday morning. Bill was present and was drinking alcohol with his adult nephew. Courtney is talking about what she took to be the implications of that situation for her assessment.

But I felt unsafe the fact that it was his [Bill's] it was just his cold presentation around it as well. He was quite aggressive, tut no! Passive, he wasn't aggressive but he was a bit like, "I am [drinking] so what? What are you going to do about it?" Rather than "I'm really sorry". If he'd come over and said,"Look I've made a mistake and I shouldn't have done that, I should have been there for Tracy". But he actually thought it was OK. It was a one-off so he was really minimising it, really dismissing it, and so was she [Tracy].

So what for me, if we've got in the future we've got professionals, that would be something that would make the baby, that would be a risk factor for the baby if his [sic.] parents are not able to prioritise his needs, his, her needs, over theirs. Because he [Bill] didn't, wasn't able to do that, that day

Extract from research interview with Courtney, social worker to Bill and Tracy's expected baby girl.

The riskiness in this situation was originally about the baby and centred on Bill's misuse of alcohol and suspected domestic abuse. However, as Courtney talks, it is clear that the riskiness has started to spread out and Bill begins to be seen as a risk to Tracy, and then to the access professionals might be able to gain to the baby at home. Bill even begins to be seen as a direct risk to the safety of workers, Courtney stating that she 'felt unsafe'. By this point, Courtney was no longer seeing Bill without another worker being present. In Brandon et al. 's terms, Bill began as a man 'in the frame' as a potential risk within the family, moved through 'the fringes' of the child protection plan towards 'marked man' status (2019: 453). Or in Brown et al.'s terms, Bill was gradually taking on a spectral role. This positioning of Bill in the social work process appeared in stark contrast to the role Bill ascribed himself.

In research encounters, Bill shared information about his life that he was finding it difficult to communicate effectively to the people who really needed that information: the child protection professionals. For example, Bill talked in interview about a previous alcohol detox programme, the support he had valued from health professionals, and the techniques they had used that he found helpful. Although he was described by the social worker as 'ambivalent' about the baby, in research interviews Bill spoke about his joy at becoming a father again. He also described his fears for Tracy's welfare if the baby was not in her care following the birth ( Critchley, 2019). As uncomfortable as it was to see these fragmented perspectives emerge from the different participants in the research, it opened up important questions about how we talk to men as fathers in social work and gain a fuller picture of their lives and motivations in relation to their children. As Brandon et al. (2019) describe, most men in families who encounter child protection involvement are both a risk and a resource for their children. In this family, the resource part of this equation was apparent in the expectant parents' descriptions, yet appeared absent from the social work assessment, which were pervaded by a gradually oozing risk that was attached to Bill.

The absent presence of fathers: 'You were the one carrying the bairn'

The other father who it was possible to interview as part of this study was Luke. Luke was also in his 40s at the time of his participation and also had adult children, who had been raised by their mother. This was during a period when Luke had been heroin dependent and by his own admission not as involved as he could have been in his children's care. Nevertheless, Luke retained a relationship with that family and particularly with his adult daughter. I interviewed Luke and his partner Rachel for the final time in the presence of their newborn daughter Tessa, who had arrived early and was at home with the couple. At the time of having Tessa, the couple were stable on methadone prescriptions and had good working relationships with the professionals involved, particularly their social worker Callum.

Gřundělová and Stanková (2019: 1915) have described how fatherhood is a multifaceted and contested construct. Yet even within this research interview Luke performed aspects of fatherhood dominant in the culture of the study, both the hegemonically masculine role of the father as 'provider' and the more 'caring masculinities' ( Elliott, 2016) of fatherhood. Rachel made frequent reference to Luke being tired as he had been up the night before feeding baby Tessa. In the course of the interview, Luke talked about his determination to find work in order to support Tessa and Rachel, and also made coffee for Rachel, and made up Tessa's next bottle. Luke's displays of fatherhood appeared natural and consistent with Rachel and Callum's descriptions of the family. In the context of this last research interview Luke began to talk about being in hospital with Rachel and Tessa, soon after her birth. He demonstrated a clear understanding of what might have happened in terms of Tessa's care, and what the professionals had needed from both him and Rachel in order that they were given the opportunity to care for Tessa at home.

Luke: We did it, we knew what was going to happen.

[Here meaning that if they had not followed the child protection plan, Tessa would also have been removed, but she came home with them].

Rachel: There was a girl in the bed next to me, she got her baby taken off her.

L: We knew if we never did it, that would happen to us but ...

R: It was heart breaking seeing it, thinking that could have been us do you know?

R: But that's gave us, we keep that, I'm going to keep that in my head for, like the days that I'm stressed. Not that I've ever been tempted to ever go and score again. It's never, the thought's never entered my head. Well it did at the beginning, but do you know since I've had Tessa, because they were worried that I could start drinking again, or start using again but it's not, do you know what I mean, it's no' even entered my head. What was I going to say before that? There was something before that?

Author: You were talking about the girl in the bed next to you in the ...

R: She, aye, she got her baby taken off her because it's like she never had any intention of, I don't know ...

L: Like you say, every case is different, everybody's different ...

R: I was going to say something else but I can't remember ...

L: Some people can get off [street drugs] for the kids, and other people get their kids taken off them basically ...

Extract from research interview with Luke and Rachel, parents of baby Tessa.

The positives that the men brought to their families were acknowledged by some professionals. In the following extract Callum reflected upon a joint home visit that he and another social worker, Shane had made to Rachel and Luke right at the beginning of Callum's involvement with the family.

Rachel was trying to talk about some quite difficult stuff with her Dad and Luke was holding her hand and kind of stroking it and I noticed it and I wasn't sure that Shane did but it was the first thing Shane spoke to me about when we came out, he said, "They really, really support each other" and he said that, those kind of bits of emotional support were there in terms of you know, he's very nurturing towards her and, and what I saw as being quite a sort of positive was that Shane said you know, maybe that could work for them. You know, maybe they have got something there that together as an item they would be able you know to give the baby everything it needed

Extract from research interview with Callum, social worker to Rachel and Luke's baby Tessa, prior to her birth.

Yet even in the context of a very positive relationship with the case-holding social worker, Luke had felt his contribution to child protection meetings and assessment was often minimised. The focus was firmly on Rachel as the mother. In this extract the couple described a pre-birth child protection case conference which took place not long before the birth, and which I had observed.

Luke: And they asked us right at the end, the Chair Person asked us what did I think?

Rachel: I was sitting there thinking when are they even going to ask Luke's opinion or do you know even speak to Luke ... . I just felt like they didnae [didn't] ask you anything really until the end eh?

L: Until the end, aye.

R: And I did feel like it was all focused on me.

L: You were the one carrying the bairn [baby].

R: I know but the, like other issues like that come out of your drug use, and that, do you know what I mean? They left all that just a wee bit to the end ...

L: To the end aye.

R: Whereas yours should have been just as in depth really.'

Extract from research interview with Luke and Rachel, parents of baby Tessa.

Even though Luke was present in the meeting described here, the couple shared a view that his contribution to the meeting was minimised. In analysing the research data, a theme emerged that social workers thought they were involving fathers. Yet the fathers, and the mothers, did not see things in the same way. Although in Brown et al.'s (2009: 26) terms, Luke's existence could not be denied, his 'relevance' was held in doubt in by professionals. Luke's comment that Rachel was 'the one carrying the bairn' is interesting in terms of the pre-birth nature of the work observed. In order for the babies to be in child protection meetings, the women needed to physically attend. This appeared to create an even sharper focus on including mothers in meetings, as explored in the following section.

Disappearances and deflection: The creation of 'ghost fathers'

Men can very easily become absent from view, even when they pose the most significant risks in families. Within the research sample, Eddie was the father of Stephanie's expected baby. This was Stephanie's second baby and her older child was cared for primarily by her own mother, in a kinship arrangement. Eddie also had a previous child to a former partner. He had assaulted both women to the stomach during the pregnancies with his children within a pattern of extremely violent domestic abuse. There were therefore high levels of concern for Stephanie and her unborn baby. In this extract from a research interview Benjamin, the social worker to the unborn baby, explains the risks.

Yes. I have fear because of Eddie. I mean I'm looking over historically here, if we look back at his first child, at the previous relationship. He caused a lot of disturbances in the child's early childhood. Yes, the child had witnessed a lot of domestic violence. I think a lot of alcohol abuse as well. So, that's my worry. I wouldn't want the child's early childhood to be exposed to that kind of behaviour. Yes. That's my worry ... Eddie can come to me and present as if he's a changed man but it's very difficult to take it. Yes, we have services we want him to engage with, like domestic abuse services and anger management, mental health assessment that we would want him to, I mean, to see if he is going to stabilise. If he engages well ... this is why I want to meet with him. I don't want to rule him off completely. I still want to give him the chance, right? Put in place certain services that we think are relevant. And to support positive change. If he does engage, then we will see from there what we can do. Probably supervised contact [with the baby], something like that, at a contact centre'

Extract from research interview with Benjamin, social worker to Stephanie and Eddie's expected baby.

Benjamin recognised the ideal of working constructively with Eddie so he can have a role in the life of his baby. This was something that Stephanie also stated she thought was important, despite his past violence. When I briefly interviewed Stephanie just prior to observing a case conference for the baby, she described Eddie as follows: 'A horrible person, horrible to women, doesn't know how to respect anybody. He's a horrible partner' (Stephanie, expectant mother, extract from contemporaneous fieldnotes of the case conference for Stephanie and Eddie's unborn baby). Yet, Stephanie also described her hope that although Eddie was a terrible partner, that he might somehow play a role in their child's life as, 'it hurts a child for Dad not to be around at all'. It is not difficult to ascribe a false consciousness to Stephanie's perspective, arising from the abusive relationship with Eddie. However, Stephanie is making an assertion that Eddie would have a presence in her unborn baby's future life, whether he was physically present or not, and whether it was safe for their child to spend time alone with Eddie or not.

What actually happened in terms of the observed pre-birth Child Protection Case Conference for Stephanie and Eddie's unborn baby was that Eddie came to the social work office for the meeting. However, the meeting proceeded without Eddie. There was confusion over how he could be included given the threats he had made to Stephanie, he was deterred for some time and he eventually got up and left the building. The case conference was a very difficult meeting: the baby's 'name' was placed on the child protection register, and Stephanie was advised that her baby may be accommodated shortly after birth. She was visibly shocked by this possibility. In a research interview sometime later, Benjamin told me that Eddie was no longer engaging with the child protection professionals. Yet they strongly suspected that Eddie was still in touch with Stephanie.

Benjamin: Because I'm not quite convinced Eddie is completely away off the scene. He has not been responding to my calls, I have not met him since the case conference ... I've tried so many times, I've written to him, I've phoned, I've sent him text messages. I've not had any positive response or him wanting to arrange a meeting with me. I was thinking also to make an unannounced visit his home as well, just to see what is happening.

Author: And so do you get the impression that he knows what happened at the case conference?

B: He knows! He knows, he knows, he knows, yeah. He knows. That's one other thing that I tend to question their relationship because maybe Stephanie has communicated. Or Stephanie has communicated within her group or friends who have passed on the information to Eddie. I don't know. But he knows. He knows.

Extract from research interview with Benjamin, social worker to Eddie and Stephanie's unborn baby.

There is an obvious problem with Eddie 'going off the scene'; Stephanie, who is understood to be at immediate physical risk from Eddie, has become the medium through which Eddie is gaining information about the child protection involvement with their baby. This conduit role potentially increased the risk to Stephanie and the baby. The chair of the case conference later acknowledged in interview that it would have been better if Eddie had in fact come into the meeting. Having met Eddie briefly prior to the case conference, I was unable to interview him and did not see him again.

Discussion

The treatment of fathers and fatherhood in the child welfare context appears to be an intractable problem across time and place ( Coady et al., 2013; Maxwell et al., 2012; Mykkänen et al., 2017; Turesson, 2020; Zanoni et al., 2013). This issue has not been greatly improved by sustained calls for changes to practice ( Clapton, 2013; Featherstone et al., 2007) or by 'greenshoots' initiatives ( Scourfield, 2015). Brandon et al. assert that 'in spite of the difficulties in engaging fathers, practitioners are able to create working relationships with men' (2019: 449). Yet child welfare remains predominantly women's 'work' ( Brown, 2006). To the extent that as Ewart-Boyle et al. (2015: 472) have suggested, 'an overreliance on working with mothers and exclusion of fathers is so deeply rooted in society and the culture of social work that it is often unquestioned'.

The exclusion of fathers from child protection processes increases the responsibilisation of mothers for the risks and difficulties in the family ( Critchley, 2020b; Stewart, 2020). In only a small minority of cases did the working relationship that the social worker made with the father have anything like the strength and purpose of the working relationship that the expectant mother was expected to form with professionals. This ensured that the child protection spotlight was trained firmly on the women. The need for robust assessment of what exactly fathers may have to offer their children on a spectrum from life story information to parenting their unborn baby is highlighted by Ward et al.'s (2006, 2012) research into the care pathways of infants and very young children. This is clearly a very complex task in situations of domestic violence, where the primary task is to manage the risks to the child and mother (Devaney, 2014; Lloyd et al., 2017). What O'Hagan (1997) described as 'avoidance' of men by social workers has significant impact on all members of the family. As Pennell et al. (2014: 38) highlight, it 'means that workers cannot directly address the abuse that men perpetuate against their children and the mothers of their children'.

The widespread social work exclusion of fathers from this work continues to have serious implications for fathers, for their children and for mothers in child-welfare involved families ( Philip et al., 2019). Fathers are denied opportunities to enjoy their parental rights and responsibilities, whilst mothers are over responsibilised and often held to account for the harmful behaviour of men in the family setting. Children are potentially denied the benefits of a relationship with their fathers in terms of identity and day-to-day care.

Progressive initiatives, such as gender neutral language, substitute terms like caretakers or parents for mothers or fathers ... have done little to shift the focus from women to women and men. As evident in our file review, workers persistently read 'parent' as 'mother' in policy and legislation ( Brown et al. 2009: 27).

In the context of pre-birth child protection involvement, the baby cannot be observed out in the world as an individual, who may interact with both parents and be in a visible relationship to the father. The data across this study provides limited evidence of sustained and meaningful engagement with men, and a range of examples where fathers were overlooked, excluded, and rendered invisible in pre-birth child protection involvement with families. Thereby contributing yet more weight to the well-documented manufacturing of ghost fathers in child welfare (Brown et al., 2009).

This study found that social workers seeing fathers as 'ends in themselves' rather than obstacles in the way of the working relationship with the mother or of the monitoring of the baby's safety was crucial. Such an approach underwrote all meaningful involvement of men in child protection meetings and assessment. As Zanoni et al. (2013) have argued, greater inclusion of fathers in practice and in research remains a pressing priority for social work, despite extensive literature calling for more effective engagement with men as fathers over recent decades ( Daniel and Taylor, 1999; O'Hagan, 1997). Unfortunately, the findings of this study add weight to an over-flowing pool of evidence of social work's failure to work respectfully with fathers for the welfare of their children. The inclusion of fathers in the research could have been more complete and a number of factors made this difficult, including gatekeeping both by social workers and mothers. Nevertheless, the contribution of the fathers to the research that was possible was important. Data involving fathers provided evidence that social work's limited engagement with men extends to pre-birth work. Further, the research encounters with fathers that were possible, indicated that less agenda-driven, open conversations with fathers can lead to more reflective and informative outcomes.

Conclusion

Using data from and about fathers, I have argued that pre-birth child protection processes and practice can function so as to overlook or actively exclude the contribution of men. The findings of this study highlight the need for practitioners to see, talk with and understand fathers differently. Despite the problem of 'ghost fathers' in child welfare having been repeatedly identified through research, strategies to address this issue are yet to demonstrate significant changes in practice. Finding ways to effectively include men in the assessment of risk in their families and in care planning remains an ongoing challenge for child welfare.

Further research specifically focusing on the men in the families of children subject to child welfare intervention remains necessary. Methods for engaging fathers in this research also require further development. The research reported on in this paper indicates the potential of ethnographic methods in creating a meaningful forum for fathers to share their concerns and perspectives. Furthermore, the ways that men made use of research spaces created by this study suggested that less agenda- driven encounters with fathers allow men to provide information that is of potential significance for child protection assessment. In order to give up the ghost fathers of child protection, practitioners need to treat the men involved in children's lives as real, multi-dimensional, and capable of both harmful and caring behaviour within their families.

Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article:This research was funded by an Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) 1 + 3 PhD studentship award number 1091282. The author's doctoral research was undertaken at the University of Edinburgh, within the Graduate School of Social and Political Science.

ORCID iD
Ariane Critchley https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8581-5345

References

Brandon, M, Bailey, S, Belderson, P, et al. (2009). Understanding Serious Case Reviews and Their Impact: A Biennial Analysis of Serious Case Reviews 2005-2007. Research report DCSF-RR129, London, UK: DCFS.
Google Scholar

Brown, L, Callahan, M, Strega, S, et al. (2009) Manufacturing ghost fathers: The paradox of father presence and absence in child welfare. Child & Family Social Work 14(1): 25-34. |
Google Scholar Crossref | ISI

Cottrell, S (2009) Domestic violence in pregnancy, chapter 7. In: Squire, C (ed) The Social Context of Birth. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Radcliffe Publishing, pp.115-128.
Google Scholar

Critchley, A (2019) Jumping through hoops: Families' experiences of pre-birth child protection. In: Murray, L , et al. (eds) Families in Motion: Ebbing and Flowing through Space and Time. Bingely, UK: Emerald Group Publishing: 135-154. |
Google Scholar Crossref

Ferguson, H (2011) The mobilities of welfare: The case of social work. In: Buscher, M , et al. (eds) Mobile Methods. London, UK: Routledge.
Google Scholar

Lloyd, M, Ramon, S, Vakalopoulou, A, et al. (2017) Women's experiences of domestic violence and mental health: Findings from a European empowerment project. Psychology of Violence 7(3): 478-487. |
Google Scholar Crossref

Mc Elhinney, H, Brian, J, Taylor, BJ, Sinclair, M (2019) Decision making by health and social care professionals to protect an unborn baby: Systematic narrative review. Child Care in Practice. DOI: 10.1080/13575279.2019.1612733.
Google Scholar

Maxwell, N, Scourfield, J, Featherstone, B, et al. (2012) Engaging fathers in child welfare services: A narrative review of recent research evidence. Child & Family Social Work 17(2): 160-169. |
Google Scholar Crossref

Mykkänen, J, Eerola, P, Forsberg, H, et al. (2017) Fathers' narratives on support and agency: A case study of fathers in a Finnish child welfare NGO. Nordic Social Work Research 7(3): 236-213. |
Google Scholar Crossref

O'Donnell, M, Taplin, S, Marriott, R, et al. (2019) Infant removals: The need to address the over-representation of aboriginal infants and community concerns of another 'stolen generation'. Child Abuse & Neglect 90: 88-98. |
Google Scholar Crossref | Medline

Office of the Children's Commissioner of New Zealand (2020) Te Kuku O Te Manawa - Ka puta te riri, ka momori te ngākau, ka heke ngā roimata mo tōku pēpi. ISBN 978-0-473-51774-8. Available at www.occ.org.nz/ (accessed 28 May 2021).
Google Scholar

Potter, L , and and Feder, G (2018) Healthcare responses to domestic violence. Why and how?. In. Holt S, Øverlien C and Devaney J (2018) Responding to Domestic Violence: Emerging Challenges for Policy, Practice and Research in Europe. London, UK: Jessica Kingsley.
Google Scholar

Scottish Government (2014) National Guidance for Child Protection in Scotland. Available at www.gov.scot/Resource/0045/00450733.pdf (accessed 28 May 2021).
Google Scholar

Scourfield, J (2015) Fathers and fathering: Social work perspectives. In: Smelser, N.J and Baltes, P.B. (Eds.) International Encyclopaedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences. 2nd ed. Orlando, FL: Elsevier, pp.844-884.
Google Scholar

Stewart, S (2020) A mother's love knows no bounds: Exploring 'good mother' expectations for mothers involved with children's services due to their partner violence. Qualitative Social Work. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325020902249
Google Scholar

Zanoni, L, Warburton, W, Bussey, K, et al. (2013) Fathers as 'core business' in child welfare practice and research: An interdisciplinary review. Children and Youth Services Review 35(7): 1055-1070. |
Google Scholar Crossref

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Giving up the ghost: Findings on fathers and social work from a study of pre-birth child protection - Ariane Critchley, 2021

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Abstract This article reports findings from an ethnographic study of pre-birth child protection, conducted in an urban Scottish setting. The study was designed to explore the interactions between practitioners and families in the context of child protection involvement during a pregnancy.

# data[].attributes.headline
Addressing systems factors and family factors: those that directly impact parenting, and those that relate to service collaboration and provision. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Addressing systems factors and family factors: those that directly impact parenting, and those that relate to service collaboration and provision. 

# data[].attributes.body
Keddell, E., Cleaver, K., & Fitzmaurice, L. (2021, 2021/06/12/). The perspectives of community-based practitioners on baby removal prevention: addressing legitimate and illegitimate factors. Children and Youth Services Review, 106126. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2021.106126
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190740921002024

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Highlights

*

Preventing removal requires attention to the factors impacting parenting capacity as well as factors relating to the decision-making ecology environment .

*

Prevention requires a family orientation to practice that focusses on the whole family group, and capability building while also paying attention to the social context of family life.

*

Services need to be flexible, intensive, holistic and accessible, well integrated , and offered early in the pregnancy by parenting-experienced practitioners.

*

Family issues of poverty, drug use and intimate partner violence were exacerbated in families who were socially isolated, requiring community development and poverty-aware practice.

*

Unrealistic expectations, domineering practice, and changing expectations further estranged families from services and reduced the chances of avoiding removal. These perverse system factors could reinforce racialised and class-based inequities.

*

Implications are critically analysed with reference to the concept of legitimacy.

Abstract

The removal of babies at or near birth is a significant health, ethical, personal and social justice issue affecting many families globally. While sometimes required, it can carry a risk of harm for babies, their families and communities, as well as refracting social inequities relating to class, gender, ethnicity, location and disability. This article reports the qualitative perceptions of community-based social workers in Aotearoa New Zealand about how to prevent baby removals. Preventing removal requires attention to the factors impacting on parenting capacity as well as factors relating to the decision-making ecology environment of child protection systems. Practitioner attributes of a whānau centred practice orientation, a focus on capability and advocacy, values of respect, and recognition of commitment to children, contributed to reducing the escalation of child protection intervention. An ability to mediate between the world of the child protection agency and the family, and recognising emotional responses were practitioner skills that also contributed to prevention. Organisational factors that helped prevent removal were the provision of flexible, intensive, holistic and accessible services; strategic service coordination between statutory and community-based services; and support offered early in the pregnancy by parenting-experienced practitioners. Family issues of poverty, drug use and intimate partner violence were exacerbated in families who were socially isolated, requiring community and social network development. In addition to these preventive factors, there were also also decision ecology factors that increased the risk of removal. These included organisational factors such as poor relationships between the statutory agency and community agencies, lack of the right types of service provision, and the tendency for reliance on recorded family histories in assessment leading to superficial and risk -averse judgements. Unrealistic expectations and changing expectations further estranged families from services and reduced the chances of avoiding removal. These perverse system factors were especially pernicious for those populations with heightened chances of system contact, particularly Māori and people living in poverty, exacerbating institutionalised racism. Implications are critically analysed with reference to the concept of legitimacy.

View full text

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The perspectives of community-based practitioners on preventing baby removals : Addressing legitimate and illegitimate factors

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Preventing removal requires attention to the factors impacting parenting capacity as well as factors relating to the decision-making ecology environment . * Prevention requires a family orientation to practice that focusses on the whole family group, and capability building while also paying attention to the social context of family life.

# data[].attributes.headline
Eight important considerations to prevent recurring baby removal

# data[].attributes.subject
Eight important considerations to prevent recurring baby removal

# data[].attributes.body
1. Scale and pattern - population- wide patterns and inequalities

2. Childhood antecedents of women’s complex difficulties - historical trauma and distress informed the current situation

3. Childhood care experience and adult family justice involvement - intersecting systems

4. Contraception, pregnancy planning and intimate partner relationships - need to better understand women's attitudes, motivations and access

5. Differentiating the population of women in recurrent proceedings - not all women are in the same circumstances

6. Impact of child removal and access to rehabilitative services - responding to acute grief

7. Positive turning points - building on opportunities for change

8. Outcomes for children - need more understanding of the outcomes for babies

Broadhurst, K., Mason, C., Bedston, S., Alrouh, B., Morriss, L., McQuarrie, T., Palmer, M., Shaw, M., Harwin, J., & Kershaw, S. (2017). Vulnerable Birth Mothers and Recurrent Care Proceedings: Final Summary Report. L. University. https://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/files/rc-final-summary-report-v1_6.pdf

# data[].attributes.headline
Mother’s experiences of having their baby removed at birth: a digital story

# data[].attributes.subject
Mother’s experiences of having their baby removed at birth: a digital story

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/about/our-faculties/faculty-health-social-sciences/public-involvement-education-research/our-resources/children-families

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bournemouth University, Fern Barrow, Poole, Dorset, BH12 5BB, United Kingdom

# data[].attributes.headline
Working with substance use in pregnancy 

# data[].attributes.subject
Working with substance use in pregnancy 

# data[].attributes.body
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58085-8_4

Mills, K. (2021). Balancing Risk and Need: Substance Misuse and Perinatal Women. In L. Abbott (Ed.), Complex Social Issues and the Perinatal Woman (pp. 47-59). Springer International Publishing.

# data[].attributes.headline
This report sparked deep debate about baby removals and procedural fairness. The ombudsman's report: He take Kōhukihuki, a matter of urgency

# data[].attributes.subject
This report sparked deep debate about baby removals and procedural fairness. The ombudsman's report: He take Kōhukihuki, a matter of urgency

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/resources/he-take-kohukihuki-matter-urgency

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Executive summary

My investigation

The role of Oranga Tamariki-the Ministry for Children (the Ministry) is to promote the wellbeing of tamariki, rangatahi and their whānau. Under the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 (the Act) the Ministry has the power to take custody of, and remove, tamariki and rangatahi from their whānau when they are at risk of harm. This includes newborn pēpi.[1]

Under section 78 of the Act, the Ministry is able to apply for, and be granted, interim custody of tamariki in cases where other options to ensure their safety are not available. Further, in urgent cases it is able to do so without providing the parents and whānau of newborn pēpi the opportunity to be heard or respond before interim custody orders are granted. This should be in the context where other legal avenues, such as place of safety warrants and truncated notice periods, are not available. Given that without notice applications are a departure from the fundamental natural justice requirements enshrined in law, it is critical that there is independent oversight of the Ministry's policies, procedures and practices connected to the removal of newborn pēpi in such circumstances.

My role as an Officer of Parliament is to provide such independent oversight. By conducting investigations into the administrative conduct of public sector agencies, such as the Ministry, I promote government accountability and transparency. This in turn enables Parliament and the public of Aotearoa to have high levels of trust and confidence in government.

I have examined whether there are any systemic issues connected to the Ministry's policies, procedures, and practices relating to the removal of newborn pēpi under without notice interim custody orders.

In doing so, I acknowledge that the Ministry operates within a wider system. The work undertaken by other agencies will, at times, impact the Ministry's ability to meet its core purpose of ensuring 'all tamariki are living with loving whānau and in communities where oranga tamariki can be realised'.

The timeframe for my investigation is from 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2019. This covers the Ministry's actions and decisions during the first two years of its five-year programme of transforming Aotearoa's care and protection operating model.

As part of my investigation, I arranged for visits to nine out of 50 of the Ministry's care and protection sites and undertook interviews with the relevant staff there. I also arranged for interviews with key third parties who play a role in the removal of newborn pēpi at a site level. This included staff from the associated District Health Boards (DHBs), the New Zealand Police, and, where possible, relevant social service providers.

Interviews were also undertaken with staff from the Ministry's National Office, and with other stakeholders and interested parties. This included Family Court judges, iwi social service providers and organisations, representatives from the disability community, National Māori Women's Welfare League, Nga Maia Māori Midwives Aotearoa, the New Zealand College of Midwives, the Public Service Association and the Social Workers Registration Board.

I analysed the Ministry's case files for 74 newborn (and unborn) pēpi in respect of whom the Ministry applied for interim custody under section 78 during the period between 1 July 2017 and 30 June 2019. These were all the section 78 files in the relevant period from the nine care and protection sites visited for my investigation. In all 74 files, the Ministry applied for without notice interim custody. I am not aware of any cases from these nine sites where, over the relevant period, a section 78 interim custody order for pēpi was applied for with notice. These 74 cases represent between 20 and 25 percent of all section 78 cases involving newborn pēpi during the relevant timeframe. In the 74 cases I examined, 56 pēpi (75 percent) were physically removed.

Between 1 July 2017 and 31 June 2019, the Ministry received reports of concern relating to over 4000 pēpi. In this period, across all sites, the Ministry removed approximately 300 newborn pēpi from their parents under section 78.[2] The Ministry was unable to identify the exact number of newborn pēpi removed without the parents and whānau being notified of the decision to seek interim custody. However, its own review in 2019 of half of these cases identified that the majority of the parents and whānau were not given notice before the Ministry removed their newborn pēpi. Further, data supplied by the Ministry of Justice has shown that over 94 percent of all section 78 orders for 2017/18 and 2018/19 were granted on the basis of without notice applications by the Ministry.

My findings

The Ministry's policies and procedures

I examined the Ministry's operating policies and procedures as they relate to the decision to apply without notice for interim custody of, and remove, newborn pēpi.

Legal framework

In order to understand the Ministry's policies and procedures, I first considered the relevant legal framework-in particular, the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989. The wording of the legislation generally reflects the obligations arising from te Tiriti o Waitangi and international law. The Act has been in a state of transition, with many amendments coming into force after I commenced my investigation. However, the obligations and expectations on the Ministry have been in place for a considerable period. In particular, I identified the following principles enshrined in law that should inform the Ministry's policies, procedures, and practices relating to the removal of newborn pēpi under section 78.

Pēpi have the right, as far as is possible, to know and to be cared for by their parents, whānau, hapū, and iwi.

Any intervention in family life should be the minimum necessary to ensure pēpi's safety and protection.

Where pēpi are at risk, the parents and whānau should be provided assistance to support them in discharging their responsibilities to their pēpi, and they have a right to fully participate in the decision making processes.

The use of without notice section 78 applications for interim custody should be reserved for urgent cases where all other options to ensure the safety of pēpi have been considered, and the delay caused by making an on notice application would create a risk to the safety of pēpi.

The Ministry's policies and procedures

In general, the content of the Ministry's overarching Practice Standards adequately reflect the objects and principles of the Act. However, the rights of disabled parents are a significant omission from the Practice Standards.

The Ministry has a wealth of other operating policies and guidance available on its publicly accessible online Practice Centre, most of which is consistent with the objects and principles of the Act and the obligations under international law. I appreciate that the Ministry is in the process of updating and reviewing the content of the Practice Centre (as it is required to do to meet its transformation programme). However, as it currently stands, I found its Practice Centre is difficult to navigate and the links back to the overarching Practice Standards are not readily apparent.

For the period I considered, I identified a number of gaps in the Ministry's operating policies and guidance.

Critically, I found the Ministry did not have any specific operating guidance on the use of without notice section 78 applications. It had some general guidance on the use of emergency powers (of which interim custody under section 78 is one) but this did not address the use of without notice applications. The available guidance did not sufficiently articulate clear criteria for how staff are meant to identify and assess the viability of other options to secure the safety of tamariki. Further, I found the Ministry's staff training material for 2017 was very brief and included inaccurate advice about the use of without notice applications. While the training material for 2018 remedied this, it did not emphasise the need for the Ministry to consider all other options before applying for interim custody under section 78.

The lack of appropriate guidance on this issue is a serious failing in the context of the Ministry's routine reliance on such applications as a way to establish safety for pēpi.

The Ministry had one policy document, 'Strengthening our response to unborn babies', that provided specific guidance for unborn or newborn pēpi. I found this to be generally adequate, with the following exceptions.

There was no reference to trauma-informed social work practice vis-à-vis assessing the parents' own childhood histories of abuse or neglect.

It did not explicitly require specialist assessments for parents with alcohol or drug misuse, mental health needs or intellectual disabilities.

It did not reflect the legal obligation on the Ministry to ensure that, where pēpi are at risk, the parents and whānau are provided assistance to support them in discharging their responsibilities to their pēpi.

I found there was very limited guidance in respect of disabled parents. It was not apparent from the available material that the Ministry appreciated alcohol or drug misuse and other mental health needs require a disability rights-based response. In terms of the specific guidance for parents with intellectual disability, I am concerned that the Ministry may have been operating in an outdated medical (deficits-based) model of disability. In addition, the guidance did not sufficiently emphasise that IQ should not be used as a sole measure of parenting capacity. Nor did it explicitly refer to the obligation under international law that no tamariki should be separated from their parents based on a disability of one or both of the parents.

With the exception of breastfeeding, I found the Ministry did not have any guidance and policy specifically developed for the process of removing pēpi once section 78 interim custody orders are granted. None of the memoranda of understanding between the Ministry and the District Health Boards referred to this process. Nor was it apparent from the material made available to me that the Ministry had agreements in place, during the period of my investigation, about the required or expected practice with other third parties who may be involved in, or impacted by, the removal process. This situation is highly unsatisfactory, given the potential long-term impacts of a removal.

Finally, the available guidance on breastfeeding could be improved by including an explicit acknowledgment of the rights to breastfeeding as provided for under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC), and the recommendations of the World Health Organization and the Ministry of the Health about exclusive breastfeeding.

The Ministry's practices

I considered the Ministry's decision making practices in two distinct but related phases: the time before an application is made to the Family Court for a without notice section 78 interim custody order; and the removal of pēpi, if that occurred, once the section 78 order was granted.

First phase-applications for without notice interim custody

In general, I found the Ministry has sufficient tools and processes to enable the objects and principles of the Act to be achieved. For example, the Ministry was able to utilise hui ā‑whānau, family group conference (FGC), Māori specialist roles, Child and Family Consults, professionals meetings, Tuituia reporting (the Ministry's assessment tool), and Care and Protection Resource Panels (CPRP).[3] However, my investigation found that the Ministry did not consistently apply the available tools and processes in practice, and was instead resorting to removing these pēpi without notice.

In terms of engagement with parents and whānau, during the period covered by my investigation, the Ministry piloted new ways to engage, which were shown to be much more effective for Māori. Māori have a long history of problem solving in a way that allows things to be tika and pono-concepts understood and seen as beneficial by the Ministry's staff in how they engage successfully with Maori. Hui ā-whānau and FGCs are extensions of this and, if they were utilised in the way intended, could have made a major impact on the outcomes for pēpi and whānau. Therefore, I consider it concerning that in over half of the 74 cases I reviewed, hui ā‑whānau or FGCs did not occur prior to the birth of pēpi. I was also disappointed to find that, for the timeframe of my investigation, there appeared to be a lack of an agreed national strategy within the Ministry to promote and encourage Māori to take more of a lead in decisions affecting them.

I did find that the involvement of kairāranga was transformative. However, there were only 33 kairāranga engaged by the Ministry (as at April/May 2019) and the support given to them was not consistent across regions visited during my investigation. One of the barriers identified to using kairāranga was the lack of 'site readiness'. However, it is unclear how a site could be 'ready' until the Māori specialist positions were effectively embedded to provide leadership in this space. I found that the slow progress to change was self‑perpetuating and appeared to reflect, and potentially inflame, a fundamental distrust of a different way of operating.

It also appeared to me that trauma-informed practice was not entrenched within the Ministry. I was unable to find any evidence that the Ministry's staff saw the parents' childhood histories, as well as experiences of being in care themselves and the Ministry's prior removal of their children, as traumatic events for parents that required a different response.

I found disabled parents were a group that was poorly served by the Ministry. All the cases I reviewed involved a parent with a disability, ranging from intellectual disability to alcohol or drug misuse and other mental health needs. However, the Ministry did not demonstrate any understanding of their rights in this regard. Over 20 percent of the cases involved a parent with an intellectual disability, but less than 17 percent of those cases had up‑to‑date specialist assessments relating to this. This reflects a general failure by the Ministry to operate within a human rights framework and to recognise the social model of disability for parents who may have disability-related needs.

When the Ministry has concerns about the wellbeing of an unborn pēpi, it is crucial that the Ministry takes advantage of the time before the pēpi is born to assess the situation and plan. This should start as early as possible and involve whānau, as well as other professionals and organisations supporting the parents and whānau. However, my investigation found that the Ministry did not take advantage of the unique opportunity to act early and with whānau and external parties before pēpi were born.

I found that in 77 percent of the cases I reviewed, the Ministry was aware of the pregnancy, and the reported concerns, 60 working days or more before the birth of pēpi. Yet, it took over 50 working days in nearly half of the cases to complete a Child and Family Assessment. This was well outside the maximum expected timeframe of 36 working days.

High caseloads and limited numbers of kairāranga appeared to be contributing factors to the delays in these cases. These delays were exacerbated by mixed caseloads, where the focus was understandably on the immediate safety of other tamariki identified to be at risk, rather than the long-term wellbeing of an unborn pēpi and their whānau. When combined with workload pressures, this appeared to result in cases involving unborn pēpi not being prioritised until the birth was imminent. Many of those interviewed described kairāranga as transformative, and said they made a difference in terms of finding and engaging with whānau early. Unfortunately, except in a few sites, they were either not available or struggling with acceptance or workload.

I found the outcome in many of these cases was that decisions for pēpi were being made late and without expert advice or whānau involvement. I also found that urgency and the need for without notice applications were created through the Ministry's inaction and lack of capacity to follow its own processes in a timely and effective way. As a consequence, the parents were disadvantaged-first, by not having an opportunity to respond to the allegations or challenge the information relied upon by the Ministry before their pēpi were removed, and second, by having to challenge orders after they were made, and when the parents were vulnerable because they were either heavily pregnant or had just given birth.

My investigation, and the Ministry's own reviews, identified much variability in the application and quality of key checks and balances. In particular, 20 percent of the cases I reviewed had no record of the matter being referred to a Care and Protection Resource Panel, despite this being a statutory obligation. In a third of the cases I reviewed, there was no evidence on the files of the Ministry undertaking a Child and Family Consult, which was required in all cases where a removal was being considered. In 77 percent of the cases I reviewed, there was no evidence of consultation with the Ministry's solicitors. Professionals meetings did not occur in 64 percent of cases I reviewed, and in half of the cases, the Tuituia report was not completed within the expected timeframe of 36 working days. Significantly, in 7 percent of cases, there was no Tuituia report completed at all. Further, in 46 percent of cases, there was no evidence of professional supervision. Where there were records of professional supervision, 90 percent of these were focused on tasks, actions and next steps, rather than the required critical and reflective practice.

Overall, the failure to undertake the Ministry's own key checks and balances that have been built into the system severely compromised the quality, robustness, and transparency of the Ministry's decision making. This is particularly concerning because of the wide-reaching and coercive nature of the Ministry's powers, and the overwhelming impact the use of these powers can have on individuals and their whānau.

The Ministry must act in a way that is lawful, fair and reasonable, transparent, and open. Crucially, the Ministry must be guided by the legislative presumption that tamariki are entitled to know and be cared for by their parents. Additionally, the parents' rights to know the allegations against them, and to have an opportunity to respond, are at the heart of Aotearoa's legal system, and are of central importance in the context of the coercive powers of the Ministry.

In practice, I found that without notice applications seemed to be the default position in cases involving unborn or newborn pēpi. Although I accept that the applications were made because the Ministry had serious concerns for pēpi, it is essential that all Ministry staff understand the law, plan carefully, and apply it consistently. I note the Ministry has accepted that without notice applications needed more oversight, following the Hastings Practice Review.

The Ministry must ensure that the fundamental safeguards in the Act are understood and complied with. This is especially critical in the context of the subsequent child provisions, where custody of a previous child has been removed. These provisions have been interpreted as reversing the onus of proof, so parents have to prove that they are not a risk to their tamariki. I consider this to be highly problematic for parents who struggle to advocate for themselves. In my view, the issue was made worse because of the Ministry's failure to understand and follow the statutory requirements in applicable cases, resulting in the Court not having the oversight expected in these cases, and parents not having access to independent advice and representation.

Second phase-removal of newborn pēpi

I found minimal evidence that parents and whānau had been involved by the Ministry in planning the removal process. Late and limited pre-birth planning, communication and information sharing with DHBs and midwives, and variable information provided in safety/birth plans are also key issues that I identified.

I observed that where there have been good planning and improvements in practice, these flowed from the efforts of individual staff. The Ministry had no set guidance or established agreements with its health partners to identify the expected or required practice for social workers specifically in the area of newborn removals.

I am concerned about the consequences of poor planning on parents, whānau, and on hospitals. For parents and whānau, it was likely to cause uncertainty, fear, and anxiety. In the hospital setting, interviewees were concerned that the Ministry's late planning resulted in uncertain, rushed decision making, which compromised practice and increased escalation.

I also found insufficient support was offered to breastfeeding mothers. In around half of the cases where the mother planned to breastfeed, initial contact with pēpi was just once or twice a week. I found the Ministry's guidance in this regard was not followed, and I was not assured that the Ministry was therefore prioritising and taking sufficient steps to support exclusive breastfeeding where that was appropriate and desired by the mother. I also found the Ministry's practices were inconsistent with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the recommendations of the World Health Organization and Ministry of Health around exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of pēpi's life.

When a removal decision was executed, I found parents and whānau were not provided with the opportunity for ngākau maharatanga me te ngākau aroha; a period of 'quality time' that reflects consideration, empathy, sympathy and love. In addition, the Ministry did not ensure that the parents and whānau had their support people present. Nor did it provide them with clear information on next steps. There was no record of support being offered to parents and whānau to deal with the trauma and grief of child removal, or to help their healing. There was little evidence that trauma-informed practice had occurred consistently.

My opinion

In my opinion, the content of the Ministry's overall operating policies and guidance, effective during the period covered by my investigation, were generally adequate and reflective of the objects and principles of the Act. However, I identified some gaps in the Ministry's policies and guidance.

In particular, my opinion is it was unreasonable that:

there was no comprehensive guidance on the use of without notice section 78 applications, and the available guidance on emergency powers did not articulate clear criteria for how staff were meant to identify and assess the viability of other options to secure the safety of pēpi;

the subsequent children provisions, and the Ministry's corresponding guidance, have placed the responsibility on parents for gathering evidence to demonstrate that the risk of harm has been satisfactorily removed;

there was limited specific guidance for unborn and newborn pēpi, and the available guidance did not:

include reference to trauma-informed social work practice vis-à-vis assessing the parents' own childhood histories of abuse and/or neglect, as well as experiences of being in care themselves, and the Ministry's prior removal of their children as traumatic events for parents that required a different response; or

reflect the legal obligation on the Ministry to ensure that, where pēpi are at risk, parents and whānau are provided assistance to support them in discharging their responsibilities to pēpi;

the rights of disabled parents were not reflected in the Ministry's overarching Practice Standards;

there was an overall lack of guidance in respect of disabled parents, and the available guidance:

did not identify that alcohol or drug misuse and other mental health needs of parents require a disability rights-based response;

in relation to parents with intellectual disability:

appeared to be based on an outdated medical (deficits-based) model of disability;

did not emphasise that IQ should not be used as a sole measure of parenting capacity;

did not specify the obligation under international law that no pēpi is separated from their parents based on a disability of one or both of the parents;

with the exception of breastfeeding, the Ministry did not have any guidance and policy specifically developed for the process of removing pēpi once section 78 interim custody orders are granted;

the available guidance on breastfeeding did not include explicit acknowledgements of:

the rights to breastfeeding as provided for under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child; and

the recommendations of the World Health Organization and the Ministry of Health on exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of pēpi's life.

It is also my opinion that, during the period covered by my investigation, the Ministry's decision making practices connected with the removal of newborn pēpi under section 78 of the Act were unreasonable. The evidence I have considered did not demonstrate that the Ministry consistently met the objects and principles of the Act and the obligations under international law. In particular, I do not consider that the Ministry had adequately ensured:

without notice applications for interim custody were reserved for urgent cases where all other options to ensure the safety of pēpi had been considered;

a pēpi's right, as far as is possible, to know and to be cared for by their parents and whānau;

no pēpi was separated from their parents based on a disability of one or both of the parents;

the primary role in caring for and protecting pēpi was with their whānau, hapū, iwi, and family group;

the parents and whānau were provided assistance to support them in discharging their responsibilities to their pēpi;

(where possible) whānau, hapū, and iwi were able to participate in decision making and regard was given to their views;

(where possible) the relationship between pēpi and their whānau, hapū, and iwi was maintained and strengthened;

endeavours were made to obtain the support of pēpi's parents;

(where possible) decisions affecting pēpi were made and implemented within a timeframe appropriate to their age and development;

the primary role in caring for and protecting pēpi was with their whānau, hapū, iwi, and family group;

whānau, hapū, and iwi were supported, assisted, and protected as much as possible, and any intervention in family life was minimised;

pēpi and their mothers were supported in their rights to breastfeeding; and

parents and whānau were given assistance when their relationship with pēpi was disrupted.

Recommendations

Pursuant to section 22(3) of the Ombudsmen Act 1975 I recommend the following:

1. The Ministry:

1. ensures its current policies, training material and practices make explicit that without notice interim custody applications are reserved for exceptional urgent cases where all other options to ensure the safety of pēpi are unavailable;

2. develops comprehensive guidance with clear criteria to enable its staff to assess the viability of other options to ensure the safety of pēpi in urgent cases;

3. exercises best endeavours, in all but the most exceptional of cases, to use a place of safety warrant or truncated notice period when the Ministry learns of a pregnancy at a late stage and determines pēpi to be at imminent risk;

4. takes immediate measures in terms of reports of pēpi at risk to ensure that all statutory requirements are met, and in particular:

1. commences an investigation as soon as practicable (section 17(1)(a) of the Act);

2. consults a Care and Protection Resource Panel in all cases and as soon as practicable after an investigation has commenced (section 17(1)(b), and at subsequent stages where required (sections 21(1)(a) and 31(1)(e) of the Act);

3. convenes a family group conference (section 18(1) of the Act);

5. establishes timeframes, reporting frameworks, quality assurance and monitoring to demonstrate appropriate ongoing compliance with all statutory requirements as these relate to without notice removals of newborn pēpi; and

6. reports publicly against the framework for monitoring detailed in recommendation 1(e) every six months.

2. Additionally, the Ministry:

1. reviews its processes to ensure that all cases involving unborn or newborn pēpi are given the necessary priority;

2. reviews its policies and practices to ensure whānau engagement is prioritised in all cases involving unborn or newborn pēpi, including family group conferences and hui ā‑whānau where appropriate;

3. develops, in partnership with iwi and other Māori groups a national strategy for:

1. effective engagement with whānau, hapū, and iwi, including provision for localised relationship-based implementation with centralised support; and

2. enhanced cultural competency of staff;

4. develops memoranda of understanding with the Ministry of Health, the DHBs midwifery representatives, and other relevant parties to ensure appropriate information sharing, clear and defined roles, and effective early planning for at-risk pēpi;

5. works with the relevant providers to ensure that all social workers are trained in, and engage, trauma-informed practice that is underpinned by te ao Māori, and consults with the Social Workers Registration Board to assist with the achievement of this;

6. develops specific guidance for cases involving unborn and newborn pēpi that:

1. requires trauma-informed social work practice when parents have experienced childhood abuse and/or neglect, been themselves in care or had tamariki previously removed by the Ministry;

2. reflects the obligations on the Ministry to ensure that where pēpi are at risk, parents and whānau should be provided assistance to support them in discharging their responsibilities to pēpi;

7. develops clear guidance, with supporting tools, for social workers to ensure all legislative and procedural safeguards are engaged with respect to subsequent tamariki, pending the outcome of the Ministry's review of the subsequent children provisions;

8. amends its policies and practices relating to the subsequent children provisions to make clear that social workers are responsible for actively seeking out up to date information and conducting a full assessment of the parents' current circumstances;

9. works with relevant agencies to assist parents who have had previous tamariki removed with access to independent advocacy during the Ministry's assessment and intervention phases;

10. amends its overarching Practice Standards, as well as its policies, procedures, and practices to recognise the rights of disabled parents and ensure full compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities;

11. ensures all its policies, procedures, and practices are consistent with the social model of disability and a rights based framework by:

1. providing reasonable accommodation;[4]

2. explicitly recognising that drug and/or alcohol misuse and mental health needs require a disability rights-based response;

3. ensuring disabled parents have access to specialist advocacy during the assessment and intervention phases;

12. in implementing recommendations 2(j) and (k) above, closely consults with and actively involves disabled people, their whānau and organisations that represent disabled people, as well as other relevant agencies within the system;

13. ensures all parents have information about their legal rights, including information about accessing legal aid, in an accessible format;

14. develops specific policies and procedures for the process of removing newborn pēpi, once section 78 interim custody orders are granted, that:

1. ensure, to the fullest extent possible, planning, communication and information sharing with parents, whānau, DHBs and midwives;

2. ensure, to the fullest extent possible, the removal of pēpi takes place in a manner that reflects ngākau maharatanga me te ngākau aroha, a period of quality time that encompasses consideration, empathy, sympathy and love; minimises trauma; and provides parents and whānau with support and clear information on next steps;

3. explicitly recognises the right of pēpi to be breastfed consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, as well as guidance from the World Health Organization and the Ministry of Health;

4. reflect best practice to support breastfeeding;

5. ensure appropriate therapeutic and other support is available to all parents who have had pēpi removed from their care; and

15. regularly audits case files to ensure compliance with policy and practice guidance.

3. The Ministry reports back to me on its achievement of recommendations 1 and 2 on a quarterly basis for the next year, with the first report by 4 November 2020.

My office is available to assist the Ministry with the implementation of these recommendations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
He Take Kōhukihuki | A Matter of Urgency

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The role of Oranga Tamariki-the Ministry for Children (the Ministry) is to promote the wellbeing of tamariki, rangatahi and their whānau. Under the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 (the Act) the Ministry has the power to take custody of, and remove, tamariki and rangatahi from their whānau when they are at risk of harm.

# data[].attributes.headline
Experiences of baby removal prevention: A collective case study of mothers and community-based workers https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/14733250211058178

# data[].attributes.subject
Experiences of baby removal prevention: A collective case study of mothers and community-based workers https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/14733250211058178

# data[].attributes.body
How do mothers and community social workers work together to help prevent removal?

# data[].attributes.headline
The report from WAI2915, the urgent inquiry into Oranga Tamariki (2020).  Waitangi Tribunal report: he pā harakeke.

# data[].attributes.subject
The report from WAI2915, the urgent inquiry into Oranga Tamariki (2020).  Waitangi Tribunal report: he pā harakeke.

# data[].attributes.body
https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/WT/wt_DOC_171027305/He%20Paharakeke%20W.pdf

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
404 Page not found | New Zealand Ministry of Justice

# data[].attributes.headline
Parenting assessments and coloniality - what are the underlying assumptions about 'good parenting' and 'parenting capacity'?

# data[].attributes.subject
Parenting assessments and coloniality - what are the underlying assumptions about 'good parenting' and 'parenting capacity'?

# data[].attributes.body
Assessing parents and their whānau network is inherently difficult. How we conceptualise parenting capacity is culturally laden and reflecting on these assumptions are important.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
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.

Figures - uploaded by Peter Choate

Author content

All figure content in this area was uploaded by Peter Choate

Content may be subject to copyright.

Discover the world's research

20+ million members

135+ million publications

700k+ research projects

Join for free

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction

prohibited without permission.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
(PDF) Parenting Capacity Assessment as a Colonial Strategy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
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.

# data[].attributes.headline
A fight for legitimacy: reflections on child protection reform, the reduction of baby removals, and child protection decision-making https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1177083X.2021.2012490

# data[].attributes.subject
A fight for legitimacy: reflections on child protection reform, the reduction of baby removals, and child protection decision-making https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1177083X.2021.2012490

# data[].attributes.body
This article engages with the issues relating to the large decrease in baby removals in Aotearoa NZ. This change was driven by a need to try and regain legitimacy, but how do we know if it's really better for babies and their whānau, better for Māori, or a sign of better decision-making by social workers?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A fight for legitimacy: reflections on child protection reform, the reduction of baby removals, and child protection decision-making in Aotearoa New Zealand

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The rate of orders used to remove babies into the care of Oranga Tamariki reduced by more than half in Aotearoa New Zealand in 2019-2020 as a result of rapid reform, prompted by a high profile medi...

# data[].attributes.body
1. How do mothers, fathers and other whānau members experience the involvement of the child protection system around the time of birth?
2. How can babies' experiences of removal - an under researched area - be better understood?
3. How can social workers respond to the pressing needs of families in ways that recognise both their statutory obligations to protect children, as well as support mothers, fathers and whānau?
4. How does the context of colonisation affect Māori whānau differently from non-Māori whānau?
5. What do you notice about the cases where removal was avoided compared to those where it was not?

# data[].attributes.headline
Why Canada is reforming Indigenous fostercare

# data[].attributes.subject
Why Canada is reforming Indigenous fostercare

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57646170

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The revelations that there are hundreds of indigenous children buried in unmarked graves at the sites of former residential schools have shaken Canadians. They have also increased calls for changes to the country's foster care system, where indigenous children are vastly overrepresented.

Christine Miskonoodinkwe-Smith, from Peguis First Nation in Manitoba, was taken by child services when she was about a year old, along with her sister, and adopted by a non-indigenous family in the province of Ontario.

The loss of family and cultural connections can be devastating to children in care.

"Not knowing your culture just drives an anger inside you," says Miskonoodinkwe-Smith, who is of Saulteaux descent. "It separates you from your very own identity in a way, because you have to live in two worlds. You're living in a non-indigenous world, but then you know there's another worldview, which is your culture."

Her adoptive parents eventually became emotionally and physically abusive and gave her up when she was 10, but kept her biological sister. She spent the rest of her youth with other non-indigenous foster families and in group homes.

She didn't get a chance to learn about her culture until her 20s.

"Once I started going to pow-wows and cultural events, it really made me change inside," said Miskonoodinkwe-Smith, now a writer living in Toronto.

"It made me more aware of the issues around what indigenous people have been through."

The grim discovery of approximately 215 children found buried in unmarked graves at the site of a former residential school near Kamloops, British Columbia in May, and similar discoveries at other sites like at the Cowessess First Nation in Saskatchewan, has brought renewed attention to the treatment of indigenous children in Canada.

Residential schools operated for over a century, part of an historical programme to forcibly assimilate indigenous youth into white society.

Many campaigners are now highlighting the links between that system and the estimated 40,000 indigenous children and youth in foster care, according to figures from the Assembly of First Nations (AFN), a national advocacy organisation.

Census data shows that more than half of the children in Canadian foster homes are indigenous, despite them making up less than 8% of the country's child population.

The child welfare system is run primarily by individual provinces, and the figures vary. In Manitoba, approximately 90% of children in care are indigenous.

Concerns about Canada's foster care system, and the unjust treatment of indigenous children, are not new.

For over two decades, Cindy Blackstock, an activist and member of the Gitxsan First Nation, has fought for the rights of indigenous children in care.

"The reasons why indigenous kids go into care are driven by poverty, poor housing, substance misuse and mental health and domestic violence, due to the multi-generational trauma of residential schools," says Blackstock, the executive director of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society.

Blackstock has led successful legal battles for reforms to the system - and is still fighting Ottawa over the compensation for those affected by on-reserve child welfare practices.

What are residential schools?

The removal of children from indigenous homes has been a part of Canadian life since its early days as a European colony. By the late 19th Century, it had become government policy.

Beginning in the 1880s, some 150,000 First Nations, Métis, or Inuit children were taken away from their families to be placed in residential schools. The last of these institutions closed in 1996.

A landmark Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), which delivered its final report in 2015, found that sexual and physical abuse at residential schools was widespread. It estimated that at least 4,000 indigenous children died in those schools, mainly from disease or malnourishment.

The disproportionate removal of indigenous children by welfare agencies was part of the legacy of residential schools, which deprived their pupils of positive parenting, self-worth and a sense of identity, said the TRC.

"Children who were abused in the schools sometimes went on to abuse others," the commission wrote.

"Many students who spoke to the Commission said they developed addictions as a means of coping. Students who were treated and punished like prisoners in the schools often graduated to real prisons."

As the residential school system was wound down in the middle of the 20th Century, new child welfare policies were enacted that allowed government officials to take thousands of indigenous children into care, with little or no warning to their families.

This period, which lasted into the 1980s, has become known as the "Sixties Scoop".

Although it was curtailed with new regulations, and a greater emphasis on indigneous-led child welfare agencies, the disproportionate flow of indigenous children into the foster care system has continued.

Canada's minister of indigenous services, Marc Miller, says there are now more indigenous children in care across the country than were ever in residential schools at any one given time.

Racism in the modern child welfare system has been well-documented and systematic, he says.

That could include officials applying rules inconsistently in a way that negatively affects indigenous people, or a refusal to let indigenous children engage with their culture.

What's being done?

The goal for child welfare officials should be to give indigenous families the help they need to keep their children in spite of any challenges they may face, says Jeffrey Schiffer, the executive director of Native Child and Family Services of Toronto, an indigenous-led agency providing culture-based programmes.

"After decades and decades of families being torn apart by systems of residential schooling and later foster care, it is so important that we provide circumstances in which families can stay together, and learn about indigenous culture and language, '' he says.

Only 3% of the calls the organisation receives result in a child being removed from their parent or guardian, says Schiffer.

When a child is removed, the focus is on trying to place them with extended family or community members.

The federal government must also fix widespread social problems that lead to situations in which children are removed from their parents, Blackstock says.

Indigenous leaders point to high child poverty rates, higher than average suicide rates, and chronic infrastructure problems with water and housing on reserves as key issues.

The Liberal government has worked to increase funding for indigenous youth since Prime Minister Justin Trudeau took power in 2015, says Miller.

"It isn't the end of the story, but it works towards moving that system away from the heavy hand of the law, to one that is really lifting up prevention alternatives."

There are some other slow changes taking place.

Cowessess First Nation made the recent discovery of approximately 750 unmarked graves at the site of the former Marieval Indian Residential School.

On Tuesday, it signed a multimillion dollar agreement with the federal and provincial governments that would give the First Nation management over child and family services, which Chief Cadmus Delorme said will reflect "our culture, values, and priorities".

That partnership was possible due to new legislation - passed in 2019 - affirming indigenous peoples' right to enact jurisdiction over child and family services in their own communities. Cowessess is the first to ink such a deal under the law.

At the formal signing ceremony, Delorme said: "The end goal is one day, there will be no children in care."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Canada is reforming indigenous foster care

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The residential school legacy has been linked to the overrepresentation of indigenous children in care.

# data[].attributes.headline
Protecting Unborn and Newborn Babies through improving pre-birth proceedings

# data[].attributes.subject
Protecting Unborn and Newborn Babies through improving pre-birth proceedings

# data[].attributes.body
Masson, J., & Dickens, J. (2015). Protecting Unborn and Newborn Babies. Child Abuse Review, 24(2), 107-119. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/car.2344

# data[].attributes.body
1. What do you notice about the similarities and differences between countries?
2. How do global trends relating to colonisation affect histories of baby removal, and what is the effect of this on subsequent generations?
3. How does your own position (gender, class, ethnicity, religion, culture or nationality) affect your attitudes towards pregnant women and babies?

# data[].attributes.body
1. What are the key policy discourses that have framed the debates around baby removals in particular ways? eg 'child-centred' and 'whānau-centred'?
2. How have recent legislative and policy changes affected practice in this area?
3. How can policy support procedural fairness for whānau who have contact with the child protection system around the time of birth? Do our current policy frameworks do this?
4. The Waitangi Tribunal report describes the causes of dis proportionality for Māori and how to address it. How should we implement these recommendations, and what relevance do they have for other communities with inequities in system contact?
5. How do Māori and Pākeha worldviews affect differences in discourses about parenting and assessing capacity? What else affects them?
6. Parents with disabilities are disproportionally affected by removal. How do assumptions and realities about people with disabilities affect this process?

# data[].attributes.body
1. Improving partnership models between states and Indigenous people require a legal lever and a willingness to share power. Do we have both in Aotearoa and how does this compare with other nations?
2. Families often exist at the intersections of multiple inequities: of socioeconomic status, ethnicity, disability, location and gender. How can social inequities such s poverty be addressed to improve prevention of removal?
2. Improving how services link together in the pre-birth period requires improved collaboration between health, statutory child protection, and community-based services. What are the barriers and enablers of this process?
3. Many family experience the involvement of services as fragmented, frightening and poorly matched to their needs. How can the dynamics between services be improved so this is experienced as coherent and helpful?

# data[].attributes.headline
'We want to be parents like everyone else'.       What practice approaches help parents with disabilities?  

# data[].attributes.subject
'We want to be parents like everyone else'.       What practice approaches help parents with disabilities?  

# data[].attributes.body
https://doi.org/10.1080/20473869.2018.1448233
Theodore, K., Foulds, D., Wilshaw, P., Colborne, A., Lee, J. N. Y., Mallaghan, L., Cooper, M., & Skelton, J. (2018, 2018/05/27). ‘We want to be parents like everybody else’: stories of parents with learning disabilities. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 64(3), 184-194.

# data[].attributes.headline
Theories about neuroscience are often evoked in pre and post-birth assessments. How can we approach this critically?

# data[].attributes.subject
Theories about neuroscience are often evoked in pre and post-birth assessments. How can we approach this critically?

# data[].attributes.body
https://doi.org/10.3366/scot.2020.0341
Critchley, A. (2020). Baby brain: Neuroscience, policy-making and child protection. Scottish Affairs, 29(4), 512-528. https://doi.org/10.3366/scot.2020.0341

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Find out more.

# data[].attributes.headline
Mothering babies in domestic violence: beyond attachment theory

# data[].attributes.subject
Mothering babies in domestic violence: beyond attachment theory

# data[].attributes.body
This book offers a feminist perspective that moves beyond traditional attachment theory to understand how women can enlarge the space for women to 'peacefully relate' to their babies, even in the context of sustained hostility from their partners.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
DOI link for Mothering Babies in Domestic Violence

Mothering Babies in Domestic Violence book

DOI link for Mothering Babies in Domestic Violence

Mothering Babies in Domestic Violence book

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mothering Babies in Domestic Violence | Beyond Attachment Theory | Fio

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
DOI link for Mothering Babies in Domestic Violence Mothering Babies in Domestic Violence book DOI link for Mothering Babies in Domestic Violence Mothering Babies in Domestic Violence book

# data[].attributes.headline
Practicing Māori principles: A frontline scope of kaitiakitanga in care and protection of children

# data[].attributes.subject
Practicing Māori principles: A frontline scope of kaitiakitanga in care and protection of children

# data[].attributes.body
These findings demonstrate "the important aspects of kaitiakitanga, and applied into practice, through a process of whakamana ngā tangata (empowering people). This perspective has direct links to care, protection, and nurture, for all tamariki (children) that may be in a state requiring support. This can enable iwi to support our mokopuna Māori, (children/grandchildren of Māori descent) from going into care of the Ministry for Children – Oranga Tamariki, or who are in their care. Kaitiakitanga continues to highlight the importance of iwi involvement in the process"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Practicing Māori principles within mainstream New Zealand: A frontline scope of kaitiakitanga in care and protection of children.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Social workers are often involved in both assessing parents at the same time as engaging them in change-focussed supports. What are the tensions involved in this? How can they be reconciled?
2.How do concepts of kaitiakitanga and whakamana tangata be used to support practice with whānau?
3. What do parents and whānau say are the practice approaches they find most helpful?
4. How can we understand the relational connections of newborns, and be explicit about the theoretical basis we are using to understand these relationships?
5. How can parents with disabilities and their children have their rights supported by enabling support networks?
6. Addressing substance use and intimate partner violence are key for many whānau to reducing harm to babies and preventing removal. How do these two readings provide fresh ways to conceptualise these two issues in the context of pregnancy and newborns?