The perspectives of community-based practitioners on preventing baby removals : Addressing legitimate and illegitimate factors

Experiences of baby removal prevention: A collective case study of mothers and community-based workers

“…For example, Steele (2016) found that parents with trauma backgrounds were likely to experience parenting difficulties regardless of income level; however, poorer parents were more likely to be perceived as inadequate parents due to class bias (Zilberstein, 2016). In Aotearoa New Zealand, babies living in the most deprived region have more than double the chance of removal than those in the least deprived region (Keddell et al, 2021b). Racialised inequities are also present, with people from Indigenous and ethnic minorities more likely to experience removal (Kaiwai et al, 2020; O’Donnell et al, 2019).…”

“…Many mothers are care experienced themselves, and in colonised contexts this intersects with historical over-intervention in Indigenous communities. In Aotearoa New Zealand, 33% of babies removed in 2019 were from mothers who had been in care themselves and 69% of them were Māori (Keddell et al, 2021b, drawing on Office of the Children’s Commissioner, 2020). Intimate partner violence and substance use are often presenting issues leading to baby removal.…”

“…Reducing the likelihood of removal means addressing issues that directly impact parenting capacity, as well as indirect contributors to removal, explained further below (Keddell et al, 2021a). Addressing direct factors requires understanding what time periods, attitudes, social contexts, type of service and practitioner skills are effective.…”

“…Women subject to removal often face complex interrelated social issues such as poverty, a history of trauma, poor mental health, discrimination, colonisation and marginalisation. Intersecting inequities have a cumulative effect on chances of removal; however, system-related factors embedded in the range of child protection services, health services, family supports, court responses and community factors also shape removal practices (Broadhurst et al, 2018; Keddell et al, 2021a). The damaging effects of removal, especially in colonised contexts, are well-documented (Kaiwai et al, 2020; O’Donnell, et al, 2019).…”

Risks and representations: Creating consensus narratives about risk with pregnant women involved with child protection systems in Aotearoa New Zealand and Scotland

“…By constructing consensus on risk and change, the plan can follow from a shared perspective. Where parental views diverge significantly from the professional assessment this creates tension and may increase the likelihood of infant removal (Keddell et al, 2021a). Yet the power differential between worker and parent, and the instrumental nature of judgements (relying on reports of parents and other professionals), means that the idea of 'change' is constructed performatively by both parents and their professional allies, leading to a focus on the social construction of 'change': how it is evoked, justified, and translated into decisions.…”