The Impossibility of ‘Good Mothering’ in Child Welfare Systems When Referred for Non-Traditional Harms

Due to harmful narratives within child welfare and child protection services and systems, mothers in contact with these services who aim to meet the symbolic representation of the ‘ideal mother’ frequently find themselves being portrayed as the ‘bad mother’, even when their referral is ‘non-traditional’ (i.e., not specifically due to their perceived harmful actions or inactions). Through ‘ideal mother’ symbolism and narratives, there is disenfranchisement of service-engaged mothers; they are mistreated by services, which is normalised by wider discourses around motherhood. Mothers within these child welfare systems consistently experience judgement, the problematising of their parenting practices, and disempowerment despite not being the direct cause of harm to their children. This creates a sense of shame and makes the injustice of mothers’ experiences within child welfare systems invisible. This is a conceptual paper combining data generated from previously published work and a lived experience example (work with young mothers; mothers in contact with the criminal justice system; mothers with children who cause harm; and those with children experiencing extra-familial harm) using qualitative, participatory, and action-based approaches, and through emancipatory interview processes, disenfranchised mothers described their contact with child welfare and child protection systems as a source of structural, political, and/or societal injustice. Thus, such qualitative emancipatory work provides ways to acknowledge mothers in contact with child welfare services due to non-traditional harms, as they are a disadvantaged group who are too often disempowered to action change. Thus, we argue that participatory and action-based research should be a preferred method of exploring mothers’ experiences of child welfare systems, opening routes for reforming, as well as understanding systematic potential of services as oppressive and problematising rather than supportive and empowering.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Social Sciences
Published
2025-02-10
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14020097
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Child Welfare and Adoption
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.37

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The Impossibility of ‘Good Mothering’ in Child Welfare Systems When Referred for Non-Traditional Harms

Nikki Rutter, Katherine R. O’Brien, Rachael Owens, Carlene Firmin et al.
1 citations
Social Sciences
Child Welfare and Adoption
2.37
article

The Impossibility of ‘Good Mothering’ in Child Welfare Systems When Referred for Non-Traditional Harms

Nikki Rutter, Katherine R. O’Brien, Rachael Owens, Carlene Firmin, Donna Garvey
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Due to harmful narratives within child welfare and child protection services and systems, mothers in contact with these services who aim to meet the symbolic representation of the ‘ideal mother’ frequently find themselves being portrayed as the ‘bad mother’, even when their referral is ‘non-traditional’ (i.e., not specifically due to their perceived harmful actions or inactions). Through ‘ideal mother’ symbolism and narratives, there is disenfranchisement of service-engaged mothers; they are mistreated by services, which is normalised by wider discourses around motherhood. Mothers within these child welfare systems consistently experience judgement, the problematising of their parenting practices, and disempowerment despite not being the direct cause of harm to their children. This creates a sense of shame and makes the injustice of mothers’ experiences within child welfare systems invisible. This is a conceptual paper combining data generated from previously published work and a lived experience example (work with young mothers; mothers in contact with the criminal justice system; mothers with children who cause harm; and those with children experiencing extra-familial harm) using qualitative, participatory, and action-based approaches, and through emancipatory interview processes, disenfranchised mothers described their contact with child welfare and child protection systems as a source of structural, political, and/or societal injustice. Thus, such qualitative emancipatory work provides ways to acknowledge mothers in contact with child welfare services due to non-traditional harms, as they are a disadvantaged group who are too often disempowered to action change. Thus, we argue that participatory and action-based research should be a preferred method of exploring mothers’ experiences of child welfare systems, opening routes for reforming, as well as understanding systematic potential of services as oppressive and problematising rather than supportive and empowering.

Social SciencesVol. 14(2)
Durham University (GB)
Department for Education, UK Government, Economic and Social Research Council
Openalex Percentile: Top 14%
Child Welfare and Adoption
2.37
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.