Patterns of intergenerational child protective services involvement

Font, Sarah A.; Cancian, Maria; Berger, Lawrence M.; DiGiovanni, A. E.

doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.104247

Cited by 18 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 48 publications

(56 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Another large sample study in Wisconsin compared the child protection involvement of three groups of young parents (n = 36,475) experiencing adversity as teenagers. The first group received food stamps between 14 and 17 years old, the second group had been reported to child protection but not placed in care, and the third group were placed in care (Font et al, 2020). Only 10% of both males and females in the food stamps group experienced child protection intervention with their own children compared with 25% of fathers and 33% of mothers who had been placed in care (Font et al, 2020).…”

Section: Protective Interventions or Surveillance Bias?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Where Is the Village? Care Leaver Early Parenting, Social Isolation and Surveillance Bias

Purtell

Mendes

Saunders

2021

Int. Journal on Child Malt.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Young people transitioning from out-of-home care (termed care leavers) are known to be a relatively vulnerable group. One example is their over-representation in early pregnancy and parenting. This paper presents findings from a study of care leaver early parenting in the Australian state of Victoria. Sixteen service provider staff working with care leavers who had become young parents were asked, via focus groups and interviews, for their perspectives on the factors that influence the high prevalence of early parenting amongst care leavers, and the key support services that are available and necessary to assist both care leavers and their children. Service providers raised multiple issues common to the existing leaving care literature concerning the lack of support provided to young people being exited from state care as potentially leading to both early parenting and parenting challenges. Service providers also expressed concern about what many studies of care leaver early parenting have termed 'surveillance bias'. There was a clear consensus that young people transitioning from care face unique challenges and social isolation due to their difficult experiences pre-care, in-care and post-care. Those experiences place them at risk of disadvantages that impede their ability to demonstrate the practical, physical and financial means to safely raise children. At the same time, they are under greater scrutiny than other parents by being known to child protection already. Service providers argued in favour of greater support for young care leaver parents to prevent their children's engagement with child protection systems. Keywords Out-of-home care • Young people • Early pregnancy and parenting

show abstract

Section: Protective Interventions or Surveillance Bias?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Where Is the Village? Care Leaver Early Parenting, Social Isolation and Surveillance Bias

Purtell

Mendes

Saunders

2021

Int. Journal on Child Malt.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Effects may also differ by the developmental stage(s) at which maltreatment occurs (Jaffee and Maikovich-Fong 2011). In addition, evidence points to high levels of intergenerational transmission of abuse and neglect such that children whose parents experienced childhood maltreatment are at substantial risk of experiencing maltreatment themselves at the hands of both their parents and others (Font et al 2020). It is important to note, however, that there is an ongoing debate over the extent to which these associations are likely causal in nature versus reflecting other aspects of social and economic disadvantage that are associated both with experiencing childhood maltreatment and with poor outcomes throughout the life course.…”

Section: Why Do We Need a Child Welfare System?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Contemporary U.S. Child Welfare System(s): Overview and Key Challenges

Berger¹,

Slack²

2020

The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Scie

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This volume of The ANNALS aims to increase awareness among scholars, policy-makers, and practitioners of the size, scope, and functions of child welfare services in the United States. We aim to promote a wider understanding of the broad impacts of child welfare policies and point to ways in which child welfare services can be better incorporated into cross-cutting social policy debates. The articles in this volume offer concrete recommendations for policies and practices that can reduce child maltreatment, and for systemic approaches—both within the purview of child welfare services and across the broader community and social policy landscape—that can better identify and respond to the needs of children and families in which maltreatment has already occurred or where there is a risk of abuse and neglect. This introduction sets a foundation for understanding the contents of the volume: we provide an overview of child welfare services in the United States and highlight current challenges that the U.S. child welfare systems face.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To date, only four studies 11,[16][17][18] have used populationbased cohort designs to rigorously study the extent of intergenerational transmission of child maltreatment. However, perpetration of maltreatment by the parent was not confirmed in two of these studies 11,16 and one study 17 used parental self-reporting of their own and their child's history of maltreatment, which is subject to recall and reporting bias. Only one study 18 used administrative records of substantiated maltreatment from a population sample, finding a two-times risk of child maltreatment for individuals whose mothers had been the subject of unsubstantiated maltreatment reports in childhood, and a three-times risk for individuals whose mothers had experienced substantiated child maltreatment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%