Parental Non-Engagement within Child Protection Services—How Can Understandings of Complex Trauma and Epistemic Trust Help?

Abstract

Building on the findings from the national study of mothers in recurrent care proceedings in England, this paper proposes that the concepts of complex trauma and epistemic trust may help explain parents’ difficulties in engaging with child protection services. With the aim of advancing theoretical knowledge, qualitative data drawn from interviews with 72 women who have experienced repeat care proceedings are revisited, with a focus on women’s developmental histories and accounts of engagement with professionals, to probe the issue of service engagement. The article starts with a succinct review of the literature on parental non-engagement in child protection, highlighting strengths and potential limitations of current knowledge. This is followed by an introduction to the theoretical concepts of complex trauma and epistemic trust, outlining how these concepts provide an alternative framing of the reasons why parents may resist, or are reluctant to engage with, professionals. Drawing on women’s first-person accounts, we argue that high levels of maltreatment and adversity in women’s own childhoods shape adult relationships, particularly in relation to vulnerability to harm in adult lives but also mistrust of professional help. Extracts from women’s first-person accounts, chosen for their typicality against the core themes derived from the data, indicate that acts of resistance or rejection of professional help can be seen as adaptive—given women’s childhoods and relationship histories. The authors conclude that parents’ social histories need to be afforded far closer attention in child protection practice, if preventative services are to reach those with histories of developmental trauma.

Using the power threat meaning framework to explore birth parents' experiences of compulsory child removal

“…For some birth parents, this may lead to feelings of guilt or shame, if they blame themselves for their failure to look after their children or protect them from others (Clifton, 2012; Schofield & Ward, 2011). In order to manage these difficult emotions, birth parents with experiences of trauma are likely to fall back on the coping strategies they have used throughout their lives, which may have precipitated child protection concerns in the first place (Broadhurst et al, 2017; C. Mason, Taggart, & Broadhurst, 2020; Neil et al, 2010; Schofield & Ward, 2011). For some parents, this might mean using drugs and alcohol in order to numb the pain, as otherwise emotional experiences feel too difficult to tolerate (Memarnia et al, 2015).…”

“…Without experiencing a secure attachment relationship growing up, these parents are likely to be hyper‐sensitive to criticism and may experience the court process as attacking and humiliating, which could be re‐traumatising (Charlton et al, 1998; K. Mason & Selman, 1997; Schofield & Ward, 2011). This is likely to be exacerbated by the adversarial nature of care proceedings where social workers who may previously have been working to support parents are suddenly giving evidence against them, and at times using disclosures made about parents' own challenges in childhood as part of the narrative in court (Charlton et al, 1998; C. Mason et al, 2020; Smeeton & Boxall, 2011). The fact that children's services are organised around the child's well‐being means that after months of intensive work with professionals, contact with birth parents can cease quite rapidly after a decision is made to remove their child.…”

“…For individuals with experience of abandonment and high levels of mistrust in others, this may further compound the trauma of child removal and reaffirm their belief that they are unimportant (Deblasio, 2018). From a PTMF perspective, this may also be seen as an adaptive response in the context of developmental trauma; when caregivers have not been consistent and trustworthy, it is advantageous for a child to remain vigilant and assume the hostile intentions of others, as this has kept them safe in an unsafe environment (Johnstone & Boyle, 2018; C. Mason et al, 2020). In the context of children's services, this is likely to cause significant difficulties for parents in their engagement with professionals during care proceedings and engaging with any psychological support offered following child removal (C. Mason et al, 2020).…”

“…Multiple professionals are often involved with families on the edge of care, including social workers, mental health staff, police and drug and alcohol support workers (Cottam, 2018). This can serve to make parents with trauma histories feel persecuted by the systems designed to help them, leading to families withdrawing from professionals and increasing mistrust in services (Freeman & Hunt, 1998; C. Mason et al, 2020; Schofield & Ward, 2011). This attempt to ‘split off’ different parts of a parent's experience fails to recognise the role of underlying trauma in psychosocial functioning (Broadhurst et al, 2018); not only does this fail to provide families with the support they need, but it also causes frustration for professionals trying to engage families, wasting valuable time and resources without enabling change (Cottam, 2018).…”

Manifestations and Preconditions of Child Rights Protection—Specialists’ Aggression towards Caregivers and Child in the Situation of Child Removal from the Family

“…It allows us to understand what traumatizes and injures children during the removal process. In public discourse, parents are often treated as "bad guys" [48][49][50][51][52] from whom children are taken because they are incapable of providing proper care for their children. From the perspective of parents, in taking the children, they see themselves not only as abusers but also as human beings.…”