| Abstract: |
|
This article critiques the U.S. child welfare system—referred to by the authors as the "family policing system"—highlighting its detrimental effects on marginalised families, particularly Black and Indigenous communities. The authors argue that the system's foundational narratives, which justify intrusive state interventions as "necessary for child protection," are misleading and mask the systemic racism embedded within.
The article focuses on several key false narratives perpetuated by the child welfare system:
- The System Saves Children: The authors emphasise that most children enter foster care due to neglect, often linked to poverty, rather than abuse. Despite the harm caused by family separations, the system justifies interventions as a means to "save" children, overlooking the lasting trauma and systemic racism inflicted on families.
- Mandatory Reporting as Protective: The policy of mandatory reporting, intended to protect children, often leads to over-reporting and racial bias, resulting in unnecessary investigations and punitive measures that fail to provide actual support for families.
- Foster Care as a Safe Environment: The narrative of foster care as a "safe haven" is challenged by evidence of higher rates of abuse, neglect, and poor long-term outcomes for children within the foster system.
- Adoption as the Ideal Outcome: Adoption, especially when used to prevent "foster care drift," is often portrayed as beneficial. However, the authors argue that severing family bonds can lead to lifelong trauma, particularly for Black and Indigenous children.
- Legal Frameworks that Promote Justice: The authors argue that despite constitutional protections, the legal frameworks fail to genuinely protect family integrity and often exacerbate the traumas experienced by children and parents.
The authors call for a shift in the child welfare system to incorporate the voices and lived experiences of affected families, advocating for a model of legal advocacy that challenges the punitive and racially biased assumptions of the current system. They highlight the importance of centering "lived expertise" in legal reform to foster meaningful change, ultimately proposing a vision for a more humane, family-centred approach that values family preservation over punitive interventions.
This article does not directly address domestic, family or sexual violence but provides a critical examination of state interventions that often disproportionately impact marginalised communities, framing family preservation as essential for equitable reform in child welfare policy.
