The experiences and outcomes of children in foster care who were removed because of a parental disability

Lightfoot, Elizabeth; DeZelar, Sharyn

doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.11.029

Cited by 36 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These investigations may be perceived as neutral by child protection workers, but we contend that they are not. Research indicates removal from family is often traumatic and may result in further losses and confusion for the child (Folman, 1998; Lightfoot and DeZelar, 2015). However, the long-term consequences of children’s removal from mothers with ID in Iceland is unknown.…”

Section: Intellectual Disability and The Child Welfare Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Balancing the scales: Custody deprivation and fostering in Iceland

Sigurjónsdóttir

Harwick

Rice

2019

International Social Work

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Intellectual Disability and The Child Welfare Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Balancing the scales: Custody deprivation and fostering in Iceland

Sigurjónsdóttir

Harwick

Rice

2019

International Social Work

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When parents are unemployed or have lower levels of education, and do not reunify, they are more likely to have cases end in TPR (Borgman, 1981; Meyer et al, 2010; Noonan & Burke, 2005). Further, when parents struggle with their own disability, mental illness, substance abuse, or are incarcerated, they are more likely to experience a TPR than parents without these barriers (Lightfoot & DeZelar, 2016; McDonald et al, 2007; Meyer et al, 2010). As the number of parental and systemic stressors increases, there is an increase in the number of barriers for parents to participate in services needed to reunify with their children.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Families Who Return to the Child Welfare System after a Previous Termination of Parental Rights: Few in Number, High in Court Utilization

Davidson

Irgens

Beck

2020

Family Court Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anecdotally, judges, court staff and behavioral health providers working in the child welfare system indicate that families commonly return to the system after a termination of parental rights. The current study is the first to empirically investigate these families who return to the system with new children. Results show that although only a small proportion of families returned after a previous termination of parental rights, these families often returned multiple times with new children. Future research should attempt to replicate these results in other jurisdictions and focus on risk and protective factors to better understand the needs of these parents and children, and determine how to better support them within the child welfare system. Key Points for the Family and Juvenile Court Community: Less than 10% of the families who returned to the child welfare system within one calendar year in 2007 returned following a termination of parental rights. Families returned to the system, on average, less than a year after the previous case was closed. Children in the new cases following their parents' previous termination of parental rights tended to be younger than children in the original cases. Parental substance abuse and failure-to-protect were the most commonly reported reasons for removal when families returned after a termination of parental rights. Many families experienced more than one case ending in a termination of parental rights. Families who returned to the child welfare system after a termination of parental rights had an average of five separate cases/dependency petitions including both prior to and following the case in this study ending in a termination of parental rights. Additional research is needed to aid in identification of risk factors for families returning so that new skills and additional support may be provided for families at risk.

show abstract

“…Despite increased attention by US policymakers on the rights of parents with intellectual impairments and their children (e.g. National Council on Disability ), particularly in relation to their disproportionate involvement with the child welfare system (LaLiberte & Lightfoot ; Lightfoot & Slayter ; Lightfoot & DeZalar ), there is still very limited knowledge of the health and economic well‐being of these parents. The extant research suggests families headed by parents with intellectual impairments experience disparities related to poor health, lack of social supports and low socio‐economic status (International Association for the Scientific Study of Intellectual Disabilities, Special Interest Research Group [IASSID SIRG] on Parents and Parenting with Intellectual Disabilities ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%