“They’re not my favourite people”: What
mothers who have experienced intimate
partner violence say about involvement in the
child welfare system
Judy Hughes
Shirley Chau
Faculty of Social Work
School of Social Work
University of Manitoba
UBC Okanogan
Acknowledgement: Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council (SSHRC) Canada
Child Welfare: Children’s Best Interests
• Controversy about the role of CPS in families where IPV is
occurring
• Some are critical of interventions that remove children from non-
abusing parents
• Others are critical when investigation focuses only on safety of
children and not harm to parents
• Should intimate partner violence be a concern that is
addressed by child welfare systems?
Jones, 2010; Rivett & Kelly, 2006
Investigation of IPV & Child Abuse
•
•
•
Substantiation of IPV– 34% of substantiated cases
involved exposure to IPV (Black et al., 2008) and 43% of
cases (Jones, 2010) and 14% of families investigated (Kohl,
et al., 2005)
Referral for services and out of home placement often
involve many other co-occurring problems (i.e. substance
abuse, mental and physical health problems, criminal
activity)
IPV substantiated, documented, and perceived as
elevating risk, but service plans do not address DV
directly, which may lead to future crises and referral
Antle, Barbee, Sullivan, Yankeelov, Johnson, & Cunningham, 2007; Black, Trocme, Fallon,
& MacLaurin, 2008; Hazen, Connelly, Kelleher, Landsverk, & Barth, 2004; Jones, 2010;
Kohl, Edleson, English, Barth, 2005; Kohl & Macy, 2008
Investigation of Established Practices
• Case files and interviews with child welfare workers:
• Two approaches – 1) minimization (i.e. not a child welfare
concern) or 2) intrusive confrontation (i.e. removal in a minority
of severe situations) (Humphreys, 1999)
• Focus on the impact of IPV on child functioning
• Primary response is to ask non-abusing parent to protect the
child – ask to leave partner (Bourassa et al., 2008; Humphreys,
1999; Jones, 2010)
• Helpful responses – safety planning, seeking of protection
orders and aid in obtaining resources (i.e. childcare and
housing)
Bourassa, Lavergne, Damant, Lessard, & Turcotte, 2008; Humphreys, 1999; Jones, 2010;
Rivet & Kelly, 2006; Shepherds & Raschick, 1999; Shim & Haight, 2006.
Qualitative Interviews
• Felt unfairly blamed for the partners’ violence, focus on
them as neglectful mothers, referral to multiple services
and some that are inappropriate, and once in care concerns
about their children’s well-being were dismissed
• Helpful: listening, validation, and support, providing
information about children, offering concrete services (i.e.
housing), advocacy with other services (i.e. police), holding
the abuser accountable, and placing children with trusted
family and friends
• Focus group with 19 Mexican immigrant mothers in New
York: additional risk of cultural differences and access to
services may be limited by women’s immigration status
(Earner, 2010)
Alaggia, Jenney, Mazzuca, & Redmond, 2007; Earner, 2010; Johnson & Sullivan, 2008; Shim
& Haight, 2006
Study Purpose
• Purpose:
• Examine the interactions that occur between
women who have experienced IPV and the
Canadian child welfare system
• Asked women to tell their stories of involvement in
the Child Protection System
• Follow-up questions to capture the temporal
order of events, the reason for first and
subsequent CP involvement, the interventions
offered, and if women experienced their
involvement as effective and helpful
Study Sample
• Collection of in-depth interviews:
• Spring 2008: 12 women in Northern British Columbia
• Spring – Summer 2009: 50 women in Manitoba
• Fall-Winter 2009: 12 in Southern, BC
• Women Participants:
• Thirty-nine identified as Aboriginal/Metis, 22 as White, and 6
identified as Black.
• Forty were between the ages of 30-50 years of age, with 14 under
age of 30.
• Most women had low annual income levels, 28 receive income
assistance of under 10,000, 9 had incomes between 10,00020,000, 6 between 20,000-30,000, and 2 reported incomes over
50,000.
Qualitative Method
• Thematic Coding using NVivo 8
• Coding framework developed by coding an initial 10 interviews
(chosen randomly)
• Subsequent coding completed by two social work graduate students
• Trustworthiness of coding:
• In-depth analysis – all interviews were coded and read
• Use of quotations that demonstrates overlap among participant
experiences
• Focus on documenting:
• Mother’s expectations of CPS and the services received
• Their recommendations for improvements
Involvement with Child Protection
• Reason for involvement varied:
• IPV primary reason for some – either referral by others or woman
herself seeking help with partners’ behaviours
• Others wanted to protect their children from witnessing further
violence or time for themselves to seek help for substance abuse or
mental health issues
• Some stated that their involvement was from childhood and then just
continued into adulthood
• A final group reported that their involvement was short as they were
simply told that there were no services for them
Involvement with Child Protection
• Involvement with CPS as mysterious, women uncertain:
• About reason for investigation,
• How the multiple referrals to parenting programs, etc. will help them
specifically, or
• Reason children were removed
• “I guess the reason why they took my kids because I was abused.
They never told me what happened. I guess the next door neighbours
phoned, and they didn’t tell me how come they’re taking my kids for
the longest time. I kept asking. I asked for visits and they wouldn’t
give them to me” (woman 17MB).
Involvement with Child Protection
• Others stated they believed that their involvement had to do
with some aspect of their identities:
• “I am viewed as nothing but a drunken Indian” (woman 03NBC)
• “Oh well, you’ve got mental health issues” (woman 04MB)
• “I think it was like really more because I was young” (woman
61MB).
• “There’s a little box and you guys aren’t letting me out.
That’s what it felt like, I’m not my mom, and I’m not my
dad. It was like they never gave me a chance but not they just
put me in a little box and closed the lid and made me live by
their rules and it wasn’t fair at all” (woman 07NBC).
Recognizing Intimate Partner Violence
• IPV was a part of all women’s stories, which also included
substance abuse and mental health issues
• Some women reported that “nobody wanted to listen:”
• “And I went to her and I had a big black eye and they asked me where
I got it. I had to lie to them because he was standing right there, I
never said nothing or else. When I went by myself once, the worker
goes, I know that black eye you had wasn’t from somebody else, I
know it was from [the partner]. Are you scared to be there? I said, no,
when the kids are around like he’s not so bad” (woman 42MB).
Recognizing Intimate Partner Violence
• Contact began because of abuse from partners, but then focus
was on their abilities as mothers:
• “Instead they got involved because of the domestic violence and he
went to jail and then it’s like they found things to stay involved in my
life. Now they are right in there and it is just driving me crazy”
(woman 28MB)
• Quick to remove children or limit contact between children and
father/partner:
• “He’s not allowed to go around our children whatsoever, it’s a no
contact order and its permanent” (woman 13MB)
• “They told me the only way is to leave him. I went into a treatment
program over 2 years ago and I kept him out of the picture. Well, he
still try’s to get involved, but CPS won’t allow him, only if it goes
thorough a supervisor” (woman 29MB).
Lack of Understanding & Help
• Interaction with CP workers is mainly assessment, rather
than any concrete help or safety planning:
• “I wanted some emergency something. I thought they
would put me in a safe house. I told them I gave her up for
her safety. I felt that I let her down, by giving her up too
soon” (woman 19MB).
• “They think, she’s not ready to get those kids back yet,
no she is not safe enough, she is putting the kids in
danger and things like that. No, give me my kids back and
move me. If I’m not safe enough to be here than don’t
keep me here, take me away, but I want my kids with me”
(woman 16MB).
Accountability to Them as Mothers
• “They took her because; it was definitely because of the abuse.
CFS wouldn’t let me have my daughter back unless he wasn’t in
my home. So he had to leave my home. And they told me, that if I
ever, like if I’m seen with him or my neighbours see him with me
or if anybody you know, if anyone sees, they’ll take my kids away
from me again. THEY JUST SAID THIS TO ME, NOT HIM. I
just had to make sure he left and he wasn’t around, it was put on
me, like THE ONUS WAS PUT ON ME. I had to be responsible
for my children. I THOUGHT IT WAS BULLSHIT TO SAY
OKAY IF HE COMES AROUND, I DIDN’T, IT’S NOT LIKE I
INVITED HIM HERE. If I’m ever in a relationship and this guy
happens to be alcoholic they’ll come and take my kid away I was
told. If they’re violent to me or even anything cause I’m flagged”
(woman 86MB)
Sense of Powerlessness
• Powerless: No information about their children and concerns
about the foster care arrangements
• Loss of the right to continue to care for and about children was
described as very difficult: “I’ve been robbed of a relationship
with my daughter because I feel CFS has taken her into care, but
my worker tells me nothing" (woman 04MB).
• Other women were content, if they knew where their children
were placed and had some continued contact with them:
“eventually she went into care and the good thing about it is all
these children of mine all ended up with my one aunt on the
reserve. So, it’s not like they took them away from me and I
didn’t know where they were” (woman 34MB).
Recommendations
Variation if IPV is recognized and interventions
offered:
 Training to ensure uniform interventions
• Recognize the interconnections between IPV
and mental health and substance abuse issues
(these were clearly connected in the stories)
 Involvement with CPS as mysterious:
 Communication about investigation and
intervention (women asked that workers be
genuine, honest, and provide information)

Recommendations

Lack of concrete help:
Safety planning: some women wanted workers to
speak to abusive fathers and others wanted to be
moved with their children (Jones, 2010)
 Resources– housing, income assistance, and legal
protections (Bourassa, et al., 2008)
 Continue to work with mothers even after children
are temporarily or permanently removed
 Information about children is vital – knowledge of
where children are placed and continued contact
(i.e. pictures or visits)

Conclusion
• Findings demonstrate the impact of child welfare
practices in women's lives and reveal where
changes to practices and interventions are
necessary
• Should intimate partner violence be a concern that
is addressed by child welfare systems?
• If IPV is substantiated and addressed