A Connectedness Framework: Breaking the Cycle of Child Removal for Black and Indigenous Children

Abstract

Recent anti-racist, equity, and social justice discourse in child welfare has centered on a restructured, reimagined, or abolished system. We add our scholarship and recommendations to this discourse by focusing on Alaska Native and African American children because these two populations have had an ongoing disproportionate number of children in out-of-home care. We provide an overview of the history that implicates western-based colonial policies and practices. We have also identified how a system invested in child removal is problematic and discuss what attempts have been made to change child welfare. We propose a framework to guide systems change within child welfare that is rooted in connectedness. The hope is that the application of this framework can improve outcomes for children and families of color.

“How About Being Trustworthy Rather Than Asking Families to Trust?”: A Prerequisite for Child Protection Authorities Partnering with Indigenous Communities

“…The obduracy of child protection authorities cannot be divorced from their history. Swain and Hillel (2010) have provided broad ranging accounts of the deep-rooted colonial practice of removing children from families judged to be unsuitable or dangerous or culturally unacceptable: a cultural narrative that prevails to this day as a well-trodden, morally justifiable path (Broadhurst & Mason, 2013;Chase & Ullrich, 2022;Krugman and Korbin, 2023). Institutional path dependency has kept alive the link of child removal to protection of the child, despite evidence to the contrary.…”

American Indian and Alaska Native overexposure to foster care and family surveillance in the US: A quantitative overview of contemporary system contact

“…Native parents accused of neglect are often treated more punitively by agencies than are non-Native families with similar case backgrounds, resulting in greater rates of child removal, termination of parental rights, and fewer service referrals (Haight et al, 2018). Critics of child welfare practice note that neglect is ultimately driven by poverty and therefore interventions should target 'distal' or structural factors instead of individualizing blame onto families (Chase & Ullrich, 2022). These distal factors include the historical legacies of erosion of tribal sovereignty, forced spatial dispersion onto poor quality reservations, expropriation of tribal lands, and family separation (Farrell et al, 2021;Rocha Beardall & Edwards, 2021).…”

The Role that Cultural Plays in Fostering Educational Sovereignty for American Indian Youths: A Transformative Mixed Methods Study

“…Scholarly literature has noted that multiple generations of AI decedents may have transferred the trauma they inherited at boarding schools to their children, grandchildren, and distant relations (Deloria et al, 2018;Evans-Campbell, 2008). The phenomenon is studied as historical trauma (Chase & Ullrich, 2022;Deloria et al, 2018;Mohatt et al, 2014;Sotero, 2006;Wexler & Gone, 2012) or the Soul Wound (Duran & Duran, 1995). Historical trauma is defined as the shared experiences by groups of individuals (Brave Heart et al, 2011;Mohatt et al, 2014) who faced deliberate "genocidal or ethnocidal intent" (Waters et al, 2011, pg.…”