How Do Judges Decide to Terminate Parental Rights?: A Qualitative Analysis of Court Documents

Background and Purpose. The termination of parental rights (TPR) is a legal process by which the state severs the legal relationship between a child and his or her parents. In Fiscal Year 2005, approximately 66,000 U.S. children had their parents' rights terminated (USDHHS, 2006). Despite the very serious nature and important consequences of such decisions for families, little is known about how the legal standards are applied or which factors are most determinative in TPR cases. This study aimed to discover and understand factors that influence the legal decision making process in Connecticut cases where the state was seeking TPR due to allegations of parental abuse, neglect, or abandonment.

Methods. The study involved qualitative analysis of published superior court judicial opinions, child protection documents, and materials written by advocates for the parties. A theoretical sampling strategy was employed (Miles and Huberman, 1994). Researchers identified 93 TPR cases decided between January 1, 2004 and May 18, 2005 using Westlaw, a case reporting service, employing the controlling statute as a search term. Based on information intensity, a sample of 64 cases and more than 200 associated documents were selected for inclusion in the study. A researcher and research assistant jointly created a set of codes that were applied to all documents in Atlas.ti. Twenty-five percent of the cases were coded by both researchers to track and maintain inter-rater reliability. The “families” feature of Atlas.ti was used as a contextualizing tool.

Results. The most influential sources of information in judicial decisions were Department of Children and Families (DCF) social studies and expert witness testimony. Within these information sources, negative information about the parents seemed especially influential in the disposition of cases. Legal advocates for the parties primarily contributed procedural, rather than substantive, information. In addition, the study found that judges, as well as lawyers, child protection workers, and expert witnesses were susceptible to an information processing bias known as “confirmation bias,” in the selection and use of evidence (Nickerson, 1998). DCF social studies, for example, sometimes included decades-old information that had questionable relevance to current parental fitness. In employing expert witnesses, the same witnesses were sometimes used across and within cases. Thus, for example, an expert might predict that a mother would never be fit then be asked one year later to determine whether the mother had made progress. In such cases, the expert would either need to find the mother unfit once again, or admit that he or she had made a wrong prediction.

Conclusion and Implications. Few forms of state intervention are as severe or invasive as the termination of parental rights. With shorter permanency timelines under the Adoption and Safe Families Act, decision makers are mandated to move quickly in making TPR decisions. In this context, it is important that social workers understand how judges resolve TPR cases, what information they use, the form it takes, and how it is being applied. Social workers must work to assure that TPR decisions are influenced by relevant information.