The Institutional Web: Fathers of Color Navigating Child Welfare and Intersecting Systems

Background and Purpose: Fathers of color (i.e. Black, Indigenous, Latinx, and Asian) play a pivotal role in child well-being, yet remain marginalized in child welfare services (Bellamy, 2009; Maxwell et al., 2012). Active paternal involvement can reduce maltreatment risk, strengthen attachments, and improve family outcomes (Campbell et al., 2015; Harty & Ethier, 2022). However, these fathers navigate an “institutional web” that includes child welfare, family support, child support, and criminal justice, often shaped by structural racism and punitive policies (Cancian et al., 2017; Kobulsky et al., 2021). The interconnectedness of these systems means that an action or policy in one domain can trigger cascading effects in others, further complicating fathers’ lives. This review investigates how fathers of color experience these overlapping systems and aims to inform culturally responsive practice, policy, and research.

Methods: Following the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews, we searched six major databases (Google Scholar, PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, Sociological Abstracts) for peer-reviewed articles and legal literature published between 2008 and 2023. We focused on sources addressing fathers of color involved with child welfare and at least one intersecting system: family support, child support, or criminal justice. After removing duplicates, two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, followed by full-text review for eligibility. Data were charted using a structured template in MAXQDA, capturing study characteristics, paternal experiences, and systemic interactions. A thematic analysis identified overlapping barriers, engagement strategies, and policy considerations. A third reviewer resolved discrepancies to ensure rigor, transparency, and reliability.

Results: Of the 143 child welfare-related sources, 13 examined links with family support, 5 explored overlaps with child support, and 8 focused on intersections with the criminal justice system. Fathers of color consistently reported marginalization, limited cultural responsiveness, and punitive financial or legal challenges across systems. In child welfare contexts, paternal engagement was often overlooked, especially for justice-involved fathers or noncustodial fathers with child support arrears. Programs specifically designed for fathers enhanced parenting involvement, reduced stress, and increased father-child contact, though sample sizes and data disaggregation by race or immigrant status remained limited. While some interventions integrated culturally tailored content, most did not address systemic racism or intersystem coordination. Findings underscore pervasive gaps in research, practice, and policy alignment for these diverse father populations. Overall, paternal engagement remains largely unrecognized.

Conclusions and Implications: This review highlights complex intersections between child welfare, family support, child support, and criminal justice systems, emphasizing multifaceted challenges faced by fathers of color. These interactions significantly impact paternal engagement and family outcomes, yet current systems inadequately address cultural and systemic barriers. Policies often subject fathers to punitive cycles, exacerbating family separation and impeding reunification efforts. Effective reforms require interdisciplinary, culturally responsive strategies to dismantle systemic inequities and promote positive father involvement. Future research should employ intersectional, mixed-method approaches to explore nuanced experiences of fathers of color navigating interconnected systems. Policy reforms prioritizing systemic changes, inclusive support services, and enhanced integration across systems can improve father-child relationships, reduce disparities, and promote equitable outcomes for diverse families in the child welfare context.