Foster Care Is No Longer the Accepted Mode of Permanency: Centering Family Preservation and Reunification for Black Families in Ontarios Child Welfare System

Background and Purpose: Black families are disproportionately and disparately represented across the child welfare continuum in Ontario. Black children are more likely to be substantiated for child maltreatment concerns, be removed from their family homes, and stay in out-of-home care (OOHC) longer than children of other racial backgrounds. Although there has been an increased focus surrounding permanency within child welfare agencies, little is known about how this extends to Black children and their families. This qualitative study explores how child welfare staff describe the risk of apprehension among Black families, including when apprehension is needed, and how they have shifted their practice to focus on family preservation and reunification within Ontario’s child welfare system.

Methods: Semi-structured individual interviews and focus groups were conducted with 79 participants who were employed by or adjacent to the Ontario child welfare system (front-line child welfare workers, supervisors, agency leads, EDI specialists, and lawyers). The research team used Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis to identify participants’ experiences working with Black families and what influenced their decision-making.

Results: Three major themes were identified. First, child welfare staff described how Black children were at risk of entering, or enter, care when the harm (or risk of harm) within their family home outweighs the natural harm and trauma of being placed in OOHC. Circumstances that increased the likelihood of apprehension was workers’ inability to consult with organizational support after hours (e.g., legal) or find eligible kin/kith (e.g., police record, limited finances, lack of space at home, found process to be too intrusive). Workers reported that family isolation/lack of support, severe mental health concerns or substance use by the parent/caregiver, cases where extreme physical or sexual abuse occurred, or parent-child conflict were likely to result in a child being apprehended. Second, workers emphasized the importance of, and increased focus, on preserving Black families through workers increased use of safety and permanency planning, exploring existing networks (e.g., child’s father, paternal family, and individuals outside of the immediate family unit such as church community), and utilizing their ongoing involvement (e.g., voluntary service agreements). Third, workers stressed how family reunification should be at the forefront of decision-making and practice as soon as Black children are brought into care given that they often do not receive adequate support, experience racism, and fare worse when in OOHC. Increasing parent-child access and encouraging and maintaining connections to family, community, and culture were particularly important in promoting family reunification to improve long-term outcomes. However, some workers noted challenges (e.g., differences in parent-child values) in reuniting Black families.

Conclusion and Implications: The findings reveal that family preservation and reunification should be central to child welfare practice with Black families. Recommendations for policy and practice include: slowing down practice, especially during after hours; ensuring that fathers are considered when there are concerns of family separation; reviewing kin assessments and policies; and ensuring that when family separation occurs that Black children continue to maintain connections with their families, communities, and culture.