Child removal as the gateway to further adversity: Birth mother accounts of the immediate and enduring collateral consequences of child removal

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.

Recognition and Justice? Conceptualizing Support for Women Whose Children Are in Care or Adopted

“…They give the example of one woman in the study who was forced to move from a two-bedroom home into a hostel, where she was living among drug users and subsequently became addicted herself. This research also shows how stigma 'plays out in multiple settings for this group of women-who feel discredited in both interpersonal and professional encounters' [10] (p. 15), noting that a sense of being pre-judged could contribute to women's isolation and make it more difficult for them to access support. Schofield and colleagues' research with parents of children in foster care similarly documented their fear (and experiences) of 'being seen as, or even having become, a 'different' as well as unworthy person' [12] (p. 83).…”

“…Approximately 40% had been in care themselves as children (and late care entry and multiple placement moves were reported by half), and at least two-thirds had experienced abuse and/or neglect in childhood. This research also revealed how the collateral consequences of child removal increase risks for recurrence [9][10][11], highlighting the need for policy and services to respond to the support needs of mothers as well as the risks for their children.…”

“…Nearly 40 per cent (18 women) lived in insecure or unsuitable housing at Time 1, and of the 30 women who were in secure housing, seven had achieved this recently with support from Pause. Some women were still in homes where they had lived with their children, and while technically 'secure' in their housing, this could lead to problems with debt and rent arrears as a consequence of the 'bedroom tax' (see [10,38]).…”

“…Broadhurst and Mason [10] document the ways in which the trauma of child removal in the absence of support exacerbates risk in other aspects of women's lives, both in terms of the immediate psychosocial crisis that follows the loss of a child, and in the enduring and cumulative effects, including impacts on welfare entitlements-for example, when housing benefits are reduced through the so-called 'bedroom tax' when a child's room becomes a 'spare room' 1 . They give the example of one woman in the study who was forced to move from a two-bedroom home into a hostel, where she was living among drug users and subsequently became addicted herself.…”

Baby brain: Neuroscience, policy-making and child protection

“…Increases in infant removals have been noted in countries with risk-focused child protection systems (Alrouh et al 2019;Bilson and Bywaters, 2020;Broadhurst et al 2018;Marsh et al 2017;O'Donnell et al 2016). The work of Broadhurst, Mason and colleagues in England and Wales has further demonstrated the lasting difficulties that this causes for birth mothers, and the risk of 'recurrent' care proceedings (Broadhurst et al 2017;Broadhurst and Mason, 2020;Griffiths et al, 2020). Inequalities in rates of removal from different geographical areas of England have been noted (Bilson and Bywaters, 2020;Broadhurst et al 2018).…”