Individual and systemic/structural bias in child welfare decision making: Implications for children and families of color

Miller, Keva M.; Cahn, Katharine; Anderson-Nathe, Ben; Cause, Angela; Bender, Ryan

doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.07.002

Cited by 63 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition to studies such as this, an entire body of qualitative research has documented Black families experiences of racism in the child welfare system, including differential treatment, lack of cultural sensitivity, cultural misunderstandings, negative perceptions of differing parenting styles, lack of culturally appropriate services, and judgments against a White parenting standard (e.g., Harris & Hackett, 2008;Miller, Cahn, Anderson-Nathe, Cause, & Bender, 2013;Miller, Cahn, & Orellana, 2012). In studies that have included the voices of child welfare and legal professionals, these professionals have consistently affirmed the experiences of Black families, acknowledging the role of racial bias not only in their own decision-making but also in the assessment measures, licensing standards, and interventions used to assist families (e.g., Dettlaff & Rycraft, 2010;Miller et al, 2012).…”

Section: How the Child Welfare System Has Failed Black Children And Fmentioning

confidence: 99%

It is not a broken system, it is a system that needs to be broken: the upEND movement to abolish the child welfare system

Dettlaff

Weber

Pendleton

et al. 2020

Journal of Public Child Welfare

153

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The child welfare system disproportionately harms Black children and families through systemic over-surveillance, overinvolvement, and the resulting adverse outcomes associated with foster care. Ending this harm will only be achieved when the forcible surveillance and separation of children from their parents is no longer viewed as an acceptable form of intervention. This paper describes the upEND movement, a collaborative movement aimed at abolishing the child welfare system as we know it and reimagining how we as a society support child, family, and community safety and well-being.

show abstract

Section: How the Child Welfare System Has Failed Black Children And Fmentioning

confidence: 99%

It is not a broken system, it is a system that needs to be broken: the upEND movement to abolish the child welfare system

Dettlaff

Weber

Pendleton

et al. 2020

Journal of Public Child Welfare

153

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Where reproduction is concerned, for those gay (or bisexual) men who have had children with female partners, a loss of custody could be considered a specifically reproductive injustice – at least where the loss of custody explicitly or implicitly results from a perception that homosexuality constitutes a form of deviance that renders a parent unfit. An analogue for women of colour is found in the disproportionate rates at which children are removed from the homes of poor and minority women, where the explicit cause of the removal results from structural injustices beyond the woman's control, while the implicit cause is a widespread social perception that poor women of colour are incorrigibly bad and dangerous mothers (Miller et al, 2013). Barriers to adoption based on the same perceptions of unfitness (whether implicit or explicit) would also be considered reproductive injustice.…”

Section: Do Gay Men Face Reproductive Injustice?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Rights-holders or refugees? Do gay men need reproductive justice?

Russell¹

2018

Reproductive Biomedicine & Society Online

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A thriving North American industry has emerged designed to help gay men become biological parents through surrogacy and egg donation. Taking as given that gay men have the same ethical right to pursue such reproductive technologies as heterosexual couples or individuals, this article asks whether access to egg donation and surrogacy for gay men specifically could be considered a matter not just of (consumer) rights, but of justice. The idea of shifting discourse about reproduction from the language of ‘rights’ to that of ‘justice’ is most notably articulated by women of colour. Their call for reproductive justice seeks to expand discussion beyond the narrow right to an abortion (as a negative privacy right) to encompass broader, positive rights, such as the rights to bear healthy children and to raise them in safe environments. What, if anything, might we learn from reproductive justice movements about how to frame gay men's desire/demand for access to surrogacy? While I find several productive connections between the two groups, two factors lead me to argue against understanding gay access to surrogacy as a matter of justice: first, the necessary reliance on women's reproductive labour; and second, the largely non-structural causes of gay couples' inability to reproduce. Nevertheless, by considering two driving forces behind gay male assisted reproduction – social norms favouring biological family formation and the need for family security – I ultimately conclude that a basis for solidarity exists between gay men and reproductive justice movements. That basis is a concept like ‘procreative liberty’.

show abstract

“…Black families and other families of color have long histories of oppressive and discriminatory oversight across multiple social welfare and human service systems (Pager and Shepherd 2008; Rothstein 2017; Seabrook and Wyatt-Nichol 2016; Wise 2010). In the child welfare system, racial disparities occur at every decision point (Miller et al 2013; Roberts 2014): abuse and neglect reporting (Ards et al 2003), investigation and maltreatment substantiation (Rolock and Testa 2005), and foster care placement decisions and case closures (Miller et al 2013). Research has documented racial disproportionality in the child welfare system, defined as the overrepresentation of children or families from a particular racial group relative to their representation in the general population (Boyd 2014; Cooper 2013; Dettlaff and Rycraft 2008; Dettlaff et al 2011; Drake and Jonson-Reid 2011; Font, Berger, and Slack 2012; George and Lee 2005; R.…”

Section: The Impact Of Cpsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Do Families Experience and Interact with CPS?

Merritt¹

2020

The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Scie

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The lived experiences of child protective services (CPS)–involved parents is rarely considered from a social justice perspective. Parents and children endure the oversight of the child welfare system in myriad ways, and these experiences usually vary based on race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. This article explores how CPS interactions affect family dynamics and well-being and how family members view their experiences with CPS, including their sense of autonomy and empowerment. I focus on the inherent power dynamics between CPS workers and parents, race and ethnicity, and family. I highlight the perspectives of parents and their intended (rather than unintentional) parental behaviors (e.g., providing healthy food choices) to understand ways in which their socioecological contexts impact the well-being of their children. I report results of a pilot study designed to enhance the voices of parents in the literature and provide recommendations for policy and practice that inform innovative solutions to better support CPS-involved families.

show abstract

Individual and systemic/structural bias in child welfare decision making: Implications for children and families of color

Cited by 63 publications

References 14 publications

It is not a broken system, it is a system that needs to be broken: the upEND movement to abolish the child welfare system

It is not a broken system, it is a system that needs to be broken: the upEND movement to abolish the child welfare system

Rights-holders or refugees? Do gay men need reproductive justice?

How Do Families Experience and Interact with CPS?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About