A Case Record Review of Termination of Parental Rights Cases Involving Parents with a Disability

 

Background and Purpose:  While there is growing attention to the high rates of termination of parental rights (TPR) of parents with disabilities, there has been little attention to how services are delivered to a parent with disability in the child welfare system.  Findings from other countries suggest that parents with disabilities experience various forms of discrimination within child welfare proceedings, such as infrequent visitations, lack of services, biased workers, and lack of service modifications.  The purpose of the current study was to explore how parental disability was identified and addressed in child welfare cases that ended in TPR, and the types of  services, service modifications and supports provided to parents with disabilities.

Methods:  This study used an extensive case record review of 31 child welfare cases in which a parent with a disability had his/her rights terminated. All parents with a TPR were identified in the child welfare data system in Minnesota between 2000-2009. Those parents were then matched to their educational records in the department of education database to determine the presence of a disability label when in school. The sample consisted of parents identified as having both a disability and a TPR from a county with a high rate of TPRs of parents with disabilities (60% for small counties) or a county with 5 or more TPRs of parents with disabilities.. Of the 54 cases identified from 11 counties that met the study criteria, 4 counties with 31 cases consented to participate in this study. An extensive case record review protocol and coding system was developed, and then data were analyzed to measure identification of disability, and type and frequency of modifications, services and supports needed and received.

Results: A majority of parents (87.1%) were known to have a disability by child welfare workers, yet only 22.6% were identified by the worker as having disability-related needs. Only 6.5% of parents’ case records documented how child welfare services would be modified for accessibility, and no parents received modified services during the initial assessment. The most frequent modifications made to child protection services (CPS) and court proceedings included repetition (41.9% CPS, 29% court), reminders (35.5% CPS, 22.6% court), and extra time for parental understanding (25.8% CPS. 22.6% court). Approximately one fifth of the parents’ case records documented the need for disability supports. Despite that, evidence suggests that workers helped arrange parental supports in the following ways; in-home parent training (48.4%), supported housing (41.9%), safety planning (35.5%), and parenting classes (35.5%).

Implications:  This study highlights how parents with disabilities may not have their disability needs recognized by CPS workers, receive routine service modifications mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act, nor be identifying as needing disability-related parental supports. Child welfare systems should be structured to support workers to provide appropriate services and supports to parents with disabilities. Workers need training in identifying parental disability, in matching the needs of parents with disabilities with appropriate supports, and in providing modifications to CPS services to reduce unnecessary TPRs.