Does child protection intervention prevent intimate partner violence

1
Does child protection intervention prevent
intimate partner violence?

• Mary Russell, Professor, School of Social Work,
  UBC
• Paul Houle, MCFD

2
Overview of Presentation

• Issues in domestic violence and child protection
• The new child protection response
• What do parents say? Match with FDR?
• FDR case study
• Parent/FDR agreement/disagreement
• What more needs to be done

3
Issues in domestic violence and child protection

• Research linking cps and dv
• CPS emphasis on maternal responsibility for
  keeping children safe
• Complex issue of child removal
• Questioning of mens treatment effectiveness

4
Need for parent voices

• Parent involvement is virtually absent in
  development of child welfare policies and
  practices
• Parent experiences are arguably the most valid in
  terms of describing needs

5
The CPS response based on Child, Family and
Community Service Act

• (a) children are entitled to be protected from
  abuse, neglect and harm or threat of harm
• (b) a family is the preferred environment for the
  care and upbringing of children and the
  responsibility for the protection of children
  rests primarily with the parents
• (c) if, with available support services, a family
  can provide a safe and nurturing environment for
  a child, support services should be provided

6
Guiding principles Child, Family and Community
Service Act (CFCSA)

• (d) the child's views should be taken into
  account when decisions relating to a child are
  made
• (e) kinship ties and a child's attachment to the
  extended family should be preserved if possible
• (f) the cultural identity of aboriginal children
  should be preserved
• (g) decisions relating to children should be made
  and implemented in a timely manner.

7
Section 13 CFCSAA child needs protection in the
following circumstances

• (a) if the child has been, or is likely to be,
  physically harmed by the child's parent
• (b) if the child has been, or is likely to be,
  sexually abused or exploited by the child's
  parent
• (c) if the child has been, or is likely to be,
  physically harmed, sexually abused or sexually
  exploited by another person and if the child's
  parent is unwilling or unable to protect the
  child
• (d) if the child has been, or is likely to be,
  physically harmed because of neglect by the
  child's parent

8
Section 13 CFCSAA child needs protection in the
following circumstances

• (e) if the child is emotionally harmed by the
  parent's conduct
• (f) if the child is deprived of necessary health
  care
• (g) if the child's development is likely to be
  seriously impaired by a treatable condition and
  the child's parent refuses to provide or consent
  to treatment
• (h) if the child's parent is unable or unwilling
  to care for the child and has not made adequate
  provision for the child's care

9
Section 14 CFSCA Duty to report need for
protection

• A person who has reason to believe that a child
  needs protection under section 13 must promptly
  report the matter to a director or a person
  designated by a director.

10
What does the social worker do when a report is
received?

• Gather as much info as possible from the reporter
• Check electronic and physical files to determine
  if the family is or has received services from
  MCFD in the past

11
Investigative Steps

• See and interview the child
• See and interview all other children in the
  household
• See and interview the parents/caregivers
• Interview the alleged offender if it will not
  interfere with a police investigation
• Interview any other witnesses

12
Investigative Steps

• Directly observe the childs living situation
• Talk to community and family members who may have
  relevant information
• Review past records and files
• Where required arrange a medical exam

13
Possible outcomes after assessing the report

• No Further Action
• Offer Support Services
• Refer to a community agency
• When there are protection concerns there are two
  options Investigate or FDR

14
FDR Vancouver

• 8 Social Workers, 2 Team Leaders
• Located in Neighbourhood Houses throughout city
• Community locations promote relationships with
  domestic violence
• Accept cases that are
• - lower risk
• - age of child (over the age
  of 2)
• - parent cooperative and has
  capacity to engage

15
Description of the Work

• Up to 90 days involvement with family
• intensive, strength-based approach
• Interview all family members to get their
  perspective and begin the work from that place
• Work collaboratively with family to address needs
  and concerns

16
FDR Stats April-September, 2007

• Of 50 accepted cases, 21 had dv as primary issue
  (42)
• Of dv cases, 52 involved ESL families, with 38
  requiring interpreter (Vietnamese,Cantonese14
  Japanese,Punjabi5)
• DV cases also involved poverty/immigration (38)
  child abuse (28) mental health (24)
  addictions (10)

17
What do parents say?

• 18 parents (out of 35 in larger study) reported
  experiencing domestic violence
• Parents interviewed at 3 month intervals over 18
  months (maximum 6 interviews).
• Intensive qualitative interviews regarding
  factors promoting and inhibiting positive
  parenting
• Interviews transcribed, analyzed using Atlas.ti

18
Research Question

• Does child protection intervention prevent
  intimate partner violence?

19
Participants

• 17 mothers, 1 father
• Education, high school or less (N16)
• Income assistance (N14) Disability (N2)
• Substance abuse (N14)

20
Parent Outcomes

• 2 parents, out of 18, reported further violence
  by partner
• both these mothers also gave up guardianship of
  their children to other family members
• 16 parents remained apart from abusive partner at
  end of study

21
Themes

• A Mixed Blessing
• Childs Needs Unmet
• Conflicting Demands

22
A Mixed Blessing

• It was a blessing in disguise. The situation
  was getting out of hand. Involvement of the
  Ministry was helpful for the kids.
• MCFD said pack your bags, well get you a cab
  and take you to a transition house. I didnt
  know if I could make it on my own and they helped
  me realize I could

23
Childs Needs Unmet

• I cant agree with my child being in foster home
  when my husband is in jail and I have a perfectly
  good homeWhat my son saw was horrible, but him
  being away from me hurts him ten times more.
• We werent living together because of a
  restraining orderbut I couldnt deny the kids
  contact with their father.

24
Conflicting Demands

• MCFD wants me to keep away from the abuser,
  but I dont want to be alone.
• My social worker thinks if someone hits someone,
  they will never changebut my partner has
  changed.
• My social worker wants us to do couple
  counselling, but there is this restraining order.

25
FDR case example WalkerHistory and report

• The mother, Cathy Walker, has three children
  Mary, age 5, Jake, age 8 and Tim, age 2.
• Cathy herself had many family problems as a child
  and ended up in foster care in her home province
  of Manitoba.
• Mary and Jake currently live with their
  grandfather in Winnipeg.
• MCFD received two calls in the fall of 2003
  indicating that the father (Don West) of the
  youngest child was emotionally, physically and
  sexually abusive to Cathy. The first call was
  when Cathy was living in Chilliwack, the second
  was received when she had moved to Vancouver.

26
Work we did

• Initial contact was with a counsellor and MCFD
  social worker in Chilliwack
• When family moved to Vancouver it took us several
  months to locate mother and child (monitored
  Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance
  system)
• Established contact with Cathy. She had just been
  assaulted again and wanted help
• Immediate arrangement to go to transition house
  with youngest child (oldest 2 children in
  Manitoba)

27
Work we did (continued)

• Female domestic violence worker provided support
  to Cathy in getting sole custody of Tim, age 2
• MCFD provided transportation expenses (bus
  passes), childcare subsidy and homemaker support
  and extra money for groceries
• Spoke to abusive partner Don West once and
  attempt support and referral but no follow
  through

28
Outcome

• After three months in the same womens shelter,
  Cathy decided she would separate from Don
  permanently and return with her youngest child
  Tim to Winnipeg where she would be reunited with
  her two older children
• Social worker and domestic violence worker worked
  with mom over three month period until she came
  to that decision

29
Outcome (continued)

• We utilized her strengths and natural supports to
  assist her in her planning. Advocated with MEIA
  for airfare to return to Winnipeg.
• Outcome
• Children are safe
• Family supported
• The mother, Cathy, was empowered and her planning
  validated (thank you note received from Cathy six
  months after move).

30
Issues arising/remaining

• Surveillance efficiency Overkill?
• Risks to safety vs risk of separation trauma
• Mother focus diminished?
• DV and fathering capacity Mutually exclusive?
• Choices safety or poverty?

31
Conclusions

• Child protection intervention generally valued by
  abuse victims (sometimes it takes a while).
• Interventions require further refinement--e.g.
  greater appreciation of child-parent attachment
• Different levels of intervention beneficial (more
  to be done?)