Responding to Intimate Partner Violence in the Child Welfare System

1
Theyre not my favourite people What mothers
who have experienced intimate partner violence
say about involvement in the child welfare system
Judy Hughes Faculty of Social Work Shirley Chau School of Social Work
University of Manitoba UBC Okanogan
Acknowledgement Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) Canada Acknowledgement Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) Canada
2
Child Welfare Childrens Best Interests

• Controversy about the role of CPS in families
  where IPV is occurring
• Some are critical of interventions that remove
  children from non-abusing parents
• Others are critical when investigation focuses
  only on safety of children and not harm to
  parents
• Should intimate partner violence be a concern
  that is addressed by child welfare systems?

Jones, 2010 Rivett Kelly, 2006
3
Investigation of IPV Child Abuse

• Substantiation of IPV 34 of substantiated cases
  involved exposure to IPV (Black et al., 2008) and
  43 of cases (Jones, 2010) and 14 of families
  investigated (Kohl, et al., 2005)
• Referral for services and out of home placement
  often involve many other co-occurring problems
  (i.e. substance abuse, mental and physical health
  problems, criminal activity)
• IPV substantiated, documented, and perceived as
  elevating risk, but service plans do not address
  DV directly, which may lead to future crises and
  referral

Antle, Barbee, Sullivan, Yankeelov, Johnson,
Cunningham, 2007 Black, Trocme, Fallon,
MacLaurin, 2008 Hazen, Connelly, Kelleher,
Landsverk, Barth, 2004 Jones, 2010 Kohl,
Edleson, English, Barth, 2005 Kohl Macy, 2008
4
Investigation of Established Practices

• Case files and interviews with child welfare
  workers
• Two approaches 1) minimization (i.e. not a
  child welfare concern) or 2) intrusive
  confrontation (i.e. removal in a minority of
  severe situations) (Humphreys, 1999)
• Focus on the impact of IPV on child functioning
• Primary response is to ask non-abusing parent to
  protect the child ask to leave partner
  (Bourassa et al., 2008 Humphreys, 1999 Jones,
  2010)
• Helpful responses safety planning, seeking of
  protection orders and aid in obtaining resources
  (i.e. childcare and housing)

Bourassa, Lavergne, Damant, Lessard, Turcotte,
2008 Humphreys, 1999 Jones, 2010 Rivet
Kelly, 2006 Shepherds Raschick, 1999 Shim
Haight, 2006.
5
Qualitative Interviews

• Felt unfairly blamed for the partners violence,
  focus on them as neglectful mothers, referral to
  multiple services and some that are
  inappropriate, and once in care concerns about
  their childrens well-being were dismissed
• Helpful listening, validation, and support,
  providing information about children, offering
  concrete services (i.e. housing), advocacy with
  other services (i.e. police), holding the abuser
  accountable, and placing children with trusted
  family and friends
• Focus group with 19 Mexican immigrant mothers in
  New York additional risk of cultural differences
  and access to services may be limited by womens
  immigration status (Earner, 2010)

Alaggia, Jenney, Mazzuca, Redmond, 2007
Earner, 2010 Johnson Sullivan, 2008 Shim
Haight, 2006
6
Study Purpose

• Purpose
• Examine the interactions that occur between women
  who have experienced IPV and the Canadian child
  welfare system
• Asked women to tell their stories of involvement
  in the Child Protection System
• Follow-up questions to capture the temporal order
  of events, the reason for first and subsequent CP
  involvement, the interventions offered, and if
  women experienced their involvement as effective
  and helpful

7
Study Sample

• Collection of in-depth interviews
• Spring 2008 12 women in Northern British
  Columbia
• Spring Summer 2009 50 women in Manitoba
• Fall-Winter 2009 12 in Southern, BC
• Women Participants
• Thirty-nine identified as Aboriginal/Metis, 22 as
  White, and 6 identified as Black.
• Forty were between the ages of 30-50 years of
  age, with 14 under age of 30.
• Most women had low annual income levels, 28
  receive income assistance of under 10,000, 9 had
  incomes between 10,000-20,000, 6 between
  20,000-30,000, and 2 reported incomes over 50,000.

8
Qualitative Method

• Thematic Coding using NVivo 8
• Coding framework developed by coding an initial
  10 interviews (chosen randomly)
• Subsequent coding completed by two social work
  graduate students
• Trustworthiness of coding
• In-depth analysis all interviews were coded and
  read
• Use of quotations that demonstrates overlap among
  participant experiences
• Focus on documenting
• Mothers expectations of CPS and the services
  received
• Their recommendations for improvements

9
Involvement with Child Protection

• Reason for involvement varied
• IPV primary reason for some either referral by
  others or woman herself seeking help with
  partners behaviours
• Others wanted to protect their children from
  witnessing further violence or time for
  themselves to seek help for substance abuse or
  mental health issues
• Some stated that their involvement was from
  childhood and then just continued into adulthood
• A final group reported that their involvement was
  short as they were simply told that there were no
  services for them

10
Involvement with Child Protection

• Involvement with CPS as mysterious, women
  uncertain
• About reason for investigation,
• How the multiple referrals to parenting programs,
  etc. will help them specifically, or
• Reason children were removed
• I guess the reason why they took my kids because
  I was abused. They never told me what happened. I
  guess the next door neighbours phoned, and they
  didnt tell me how come theyre taking my kids
  for the longest time. I kept asking. I asked for
  visits and they wouldnt give them to me (woman
  17MB).

11
Involvement with Child Protection

• Others stated they believed that their
  involvement had to do with some aspect of their
  identities
• I am viewed as nothing but a drunken Indian
  (woman 03NBC)
• Oh well, youve got mental health issues (woman
  04MB)
• I think it was like really more because I was
  young (woman 61MB).
• Theres a little box and you guys arent letting
  me out. Thats what it felt like, Im not my mom,
  and Im not my dad. It was like they never gave
  me a chance but not they just put me in a little
  box and closed the lid and made me live by their
  rules and it wasnt fair at all (woman 07NBC).

12
Recognizing Intimate Partner Violence

• IPV was a part of all womens stories, which also
  included substance abuse and mental health issues
• Some women reported that nobody wanted to
  listen
• And I went to her and I had a big black eye and
  they asked me where I got it. I had to lie to
  them because he was standing right there, I never
  said nothing or else. When I went by myself once,
  the worker goes, I know that black eye you had
  wasnt from somebody else, I know it was from
  the partner. Are you scared to be there? I
  said, no, when the kids are around like hes not
  so bad (woman 42MB).

13
Recognizing Intimate Partner Violence

• Contact began because of abuse from partners, but
  then focus was on their abilities as mothers
• Instead they got involved because of the
  domestic violence and he went to jail and then
  its like they found things to stay involved in
  my life. Now they are right in there and it is
  just driving me crazy (woman 28MB)
• Quick to remove children or limit contact between
  children and father/partner
• Hes not allowed to go around our children
  whatsoever, its a no contact order and its
  permanent (woman 13MB)
• They told me the only way is to leave him. I
  went into a treatment program over 2 years ago
  and I kept him out of the picture. Well, he still
  trys to get involved, but CPS wont allow him,
  only if it goes thorough a supervisor (woman
  29MB).

14
Lack of Understanding Help

• Interaction with CP workers is mainly assessment,
  rather than any concrete help or safety planning
• I wanted some emergency something. I thought
  they would put me in a safe house. I told them I
  gave her up for her safety. I felt that I let her
  down, by giving her up too soon (woman 19MB).
• They think, shes not ready to get those kids
  back yet, no she is not safe enough, she is
  putting the kids in danger and things like that.
  No, give me my kids back and move me. If Im not
  safe enough to be here than dont keep me here,
  take me away, but I want my kids with me (woman
  16MB).

15
Accountability to Them as Mothers

• They took her because it was definitely because
  of the abuse. CFS wouldnt let me have my
  daughter back unless he wasnt in my home. So he
  had to leave my home. And they told me, that if I
  ever, like if Im seen with him or my neighbours
  see him with me or if anybody you know, if anyone
  sees, theyll take my kids away from me again.
  THEY JUST SAID THIS TO ME, NOT HIM. I just had to
  make sure he left and he wasnt around, it was
  put on me, like THE ONUS WAS PUT ON ME. I had to
  be responsible for my children. I THOUGHT IT WAS
  BULLSHIT TO SAY OKAY IF HE COMES AROUND, I
  DIDNT, ITS NOT LIKE I INVITED HIM HERE. If Im
  ever in a relationship and this guy happens to be
  alcoholic theyll come and take my kid away I was
  told. If theyre violent to me or even anything
  cause Im flagged (woman 86MB)

16
Sense of Powerlessness

• Powerless No information about their children
  and concerns about the foster care arrangements
• Loss of the right to continue to care for and
  about children was described as very difficult
  Ive been robbed of a relationship with my
  daughter because I feel CFS has taken her into
  care, but my worker tells me nothing" (woman
  04MB).
• Other women were content, if they knew where
  their children were placed and had some continued
  contact with them eventually she went into care
  and the good thing about it is all these children
  of mine all ended up with my one aunt on the
  reserve. So, its not like they took them away
  from me and I didnt know where they were (woman
  34MB).

17
Recommendations

• Variation if IPV is recognized and interventions
  offered
• Training to ensure uniform interventions
• Recognize the interconnections between IPV and
  mental health and substance abuse issues (these
  were clearly connected in the stories)
• Involvement with CPS as mysterious
• Communication about investigation and
  intervention (women asked that workers be
  genuine, honest, and provide information)

18
Recommendations

• Lack of concrete help
• Safety planning some women wanted workers to
  speak to abusive fathers and others wanted to be
  moved with their children (Jones, 2010)
• Resources housing, income assistance, and legal
  protections (Bourassa, et al., 2008)
• Continue to work with mothers even after children
  are temporarily or permanently removed
• Information about children is vital knowledge
  of where children are placed and continued
  contact (i.e. pictures or visits)

19
Conclusion

• Findings demonstrate the impact of child welfare
  practices in women's lives and reveal where
  changes to practices and interventions are
  necessary
• Should intimate partner violence be a concern
  that is addressed by child welfare systems?
• If IPV is substantiated and addressed