In Whose Best Interest? A Canadian Case Study of the Impact of Child Welfare Policies in Cases of Domestic Violence

Abstract

North American child protection systems have been experiencing an era of sweeping child welfare reform over the last decade. Despite the breadth of these changes, legislative and policy impacts are rarely evaluated to ascertain whether changes are resulting in the outcomes they were designed to achieve. Using a participatory research framework, 70 participants from relevant service sectors and service recipients from a large urban centre in Canada, were interviewed about legislation in cases of children exposed to domestic violence. While most stakeholders noted the ‘‘spirit of the Act’’ to be well-meaning and based on a credible body of child research, there were serious concerns cited with the implementation and impact of policies that resulted from this piece of child welfare legislation. Reluctance of abused women to disclose or seek services for their families, isolation between helping professionals from different sectors, increased demand for services, increased surveillance of mothers, and decreased accountability of perpetrators were predominant themes identified. These data strongly suggest that response models be tested as pilot studies, rigorously evaluated and fully implemented only when there are assurances that appropriate and adequate services are available to meet the complex needs of the communities they are designed to serve.

Full text

In Whose Best Interest? A Canadian Case Study
of the Impact of Child Welfare Policies in Cases
of Domestic Violence
Ramona Alaggia, MSW, PhD
Angelique Jenney, MSW
Josephine Mazzuca, PhD
Melissa Redmond, MSW
North American child protection systems have been experiencing an era of sweeping child
welfare reform over the last decade. Despite the breadth of these changes, legislative and
policy impacts are rarely evaluated to ascertain whether changes are resulting in the
outcomes they were designed to achieve. Using a participatory research framework,
70 participants from relevant service sectors and service recipients from a large urban
centre in Canada, were interviewed about legislation in cases of children exposed to
domestic violence. While most stakeholders noted the ‘‘spirit of the Act’’ to be
well-meaning and based on a credible body of child research, there were serious concerns
cited with the implementation and impact of policies that resulted from this piece of child
welfare legislation. Reluctance of abused women to disclose or seek services for their
families, isolation between helping professionals from different sectors, increased demand
for services, increased surveillance of mothers, and decreased accountability of
perpetrators were predominant themes identified. These data strongly suggest that
response models be tested as pilot studies, rigorously evaluated and fully implemented
only when there are assurances that appropriate and adequate services are available to
meet the complex needs of the communities they are designed to serve.
KEY WORDS: domestic violence, child abuse, child maltreatment, qualitative research.
Over the past decade, North American child pro-
tection services have experienced an era of
sweeping child welfare reforms. The predomi-
nant changes reflected in these reforms include
the implementation of risk assessment models
and family preservation initiatives, the strength-
ening of ‘‘the best interest of the child’’ princi-
ples, an increased emphasis on child neglect, the
redesigning of permanency planning, and the
implementation of differential response models.
Despite the breadth of these reforms, legislative
and policy impacts have not been sufficiently
evaluated to determine if the reforms are achiev-
ing their desired outcomes.
From the Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto
(Alaggia, Redmond) and Child Development Institute,
Toronto (Jenney, Mazzuca).
Contact author: Ramona Alaggia, Associate Professor,
Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, 246 Bloor
Street West, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1, Canada.
E-mail: ramona.alaggia@utoronto.ca.
doi:10.1093/brief-treatment/mhm018
ªThe Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail:
journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org.
1
Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention Advance Access published August 28, 2007

Legislative amendments to the Ontario Child
and Family Services Act were implemented in
2000. These amendments resulted in more em-
phasis being placed on investigating children
exposed to domestic violence (DV). The recog-
nition of exposure to DV as a form of child mal-
treatment represented a shift in child protection
services. As a result of most provinces across
Canada recognizing exposure to DV as a form
of child abuse, it has become clear that expo-
sure of children to DV occurs with alarming
frequency and these children are increasingly
coming to the attention of child welfare author-
ities. Child welfare agencies across Canada have
experienced a dramatic rise in reports of emo-
tional abuse, a large proportion of which are
children exposed to DV (Trocme
´et al., 2005).
In Ontario, where the present study was con-
ducted, the reported rate of exposure to DV
increased by 319% between 2000 and 2005
(Fallon et al., 2005). Cases involving DV are also
the most frequently substantiated form of child
maltreatment (Trocme
´et al., 2005). Clearly, in
light of these numbers, such changes have sig-
nificantly affected how professionals in related
sectors work with children and families and
given rise to growing concerns about child
welfare policies and practices that respond to
exposed children. Yet, the impact of these pol-
icies on professionals and their clients had not
been investigated in this jurisdiction.
This article reports on a qualitative study that
sought to understand the implications of child
welfare reporting policies on professional
practice, on mothers’ willingness to disclose in-
timate partner violence knowing that child
welfare involvement may be an outcome, and
on experiences of mothers with the child wel-
fare system and other related service sectors.
DV is a pervasive and concerning social phe-
nomenon in Canada. Statistics Canada (2005)
reports that 7% (653,000) of all Canadian
women have experienced some form of spousal
abuse in a current relationship in the preceding
5 years. When women were asked about inci-
dences of abuse they have experienced in
any previous relationship, 21% of Canadian
women reported incidences of violence (Statis-
tics Canada, 2005). It is widely recognized that
women often face a host of barriers that may
limit their choices about how to respond to vi-
olence in their relationships. Women’s rights
advocates point to a myriad of reasons to ex-
plain why many women are unable to leave
abusive relationships; they acknowledge that
leaving an abusive relationship is a difficult
process that may take several attempts (Hilton,
1992). Among the factors that may inhibit
women’s choices about dealing with violence
are economic barriers, emotional dependence,
cultural and religious prohibitions regarding
separation and divorce, problematic custody
and access orders, and the dangers
of increased lethality involved in leaving
(Alaggia, 2001; Lee, 2000; McDonald, 1999;
Pagelow, 1992; Sev’er, 2002; Shaffer & Bala,
2004; Shirwadkar, 2004). Of note, women
who leave relationships in which they are being
battered are more likely to be murdered than
women who stay (Davis & Srinivason, 1995;
Mahoney, 1991).
For immigrant and refugee women, the notion
of disclosing abuse or leaving the abusive part-
ner is further complicated by the fear of disap-
proval by her cultural communities, negative
consequences of such actions on her immigra-
tion status, especially if sponsored by her hus-
band, economic and language barriers, and fear
of dealing with unfamiliar legal systems
(Alaggia & Maiter, 2006; Lee, 2000; McDonald,
1999; Pratt, 1995; Shirwadkar, 2004).
Women involved in abusive relationships may
not be the only ones impacted by the violence.
According to the Canadian 2004 General Social
Survey, in one third of self-reported cases of
spousal violence, victims also reported that their
children saw or heard the violence. In the most
recent Transition Home Survey, between April
ALAGGIA ET AL.
2 Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention

1, 2003, and March 31, 2004, more than 95,000
women and children were admitted to 473 shel-
ters across Canada, the majority of whom were
escaping abusive relationships (Taylor-Butts,
2005). Because reporting domestic abuse is diffi-
cult for many women and many parents mistak-
enly believe they are shielding their children
from exposure to violence, it is safe to assume
that these numbers are underestimates.
There is a growing body of evidence docu-
menting the serious and persistent negative
effects of childhood exposure to woman abuse.
Exposure to DV may impact a child’s social,
psychological, and behavioral functioning;
some children require lengthy and expensive
treatment as a result (Edleson, 1999; Wolfe,
Crooks, Lee, McIntyre-Smith, & Jaffe, 2003).
When compared to children who have not wit-
nessed woman abuse, exposed children show
greater internalizing behavior problems (de-
pression, anxiety, social withdrawal), greater
externalizing behavior problems (hyperactivity,
aggression), more aggressive social problem--
solving strategies, lower social competence,
lower self-esteem, lower school performance
and academic achievement, poorer information
intake capacities, lower levels of curiosity and
distortion of neutral information, poorer per-
formance on intelligence tests, greater posttrau-
matic stress disorder symptomology, more
attributions of self-blame and guilt for the vi-
olence, less secure attachments with caregivers,
and more difficulties in affect regulation and
physical symptoms such as headaches and
stomachaches (Edleson, 1999; Jaffe, Wilson,
& Wolfe, 1988; Wolfe et al., 2003). Some re-
search also suggests that children exposed to
DV are more likely to perpetrate violence
against others. This particular finding supports
social learning theory, which suggests that ex-
posure to DV in childhood may condition a new
generation of abusers and victims, thus con-
tinuing the cycle of violence (Cummings,
1998; McGee, 2000).
Several methodological limitations hamper
investigation in this area. Most studies neither
distinguish among co-occurring forms of abuse
nor separate these effects from those of children
who are only exposed to DV. This research of-
ten relies on shelter samples in which the effects
of poverty are significant and may account for
poorer child outcomes. Other studies rely on
mothers’ reports of their children’s behaviors
and issues (self-selection and self-reports) and
do not use collateral sources of information.
Children’s resilience to violence is an area that
is just now beginning to be better understood,
including identifying protective factors and
coping mechanisms, which can influence the
impact and outcome of DV exposure. Yet, these
significant findings are not fully integrated in
policy and practice. Finally, few studies employ
an experimental design utilizing control
groups.
In an effort to serve the best interests of chil-
dren, child welfare systems have developed
policies and practices based on the documented
detrimental effects of witnessing violence,
without addressing these methodological short-
comings. A clear illustration of this conflict is
the inclusion of childhood exposure to DV as
a form of child maltreatment and the simulta-
neous ‘‘failure to protect’’ provisions employed
by child welfare workers when DV does not
stop. Admittedly, these are not easily resolved
issues. On the one hand, children’s emotional,
social, and physical well-being need to be con-
sidered and protected, and on the other hand,
for a number of women leaving an abusive re-
lationship may not be possible for some time.
When abused mothers do not leave abusive
relationships, they can be held responsible
for exposing their children to continued vio-
lence and may have their children removed
for child endangerment under this legisla-
tion. However, when put to the legal test in
New York City by a group of mothers who
were victims of DV and had their children
Impact of Child Welfare Policies
Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention 3

taken into protective custody, a federal judge
found that constitutional rights and that such
a policy was unconstitutional (Nicholson v.
Williams, 2002).
Numerous Canadian and American research-
ers have raised questions about the reach of
child welfare laws, suggesting that perhaps
these have gone too far and women are being
inadvertently revictimized by the child welfare
system (Edleson, 2004; Jaffe, Crooks, & Wolfe,
2003; Magen, 1999; Magen, Conroy, & Del
Tufo, 2000). Some of this research suggests that
the unintended consequences of these policies
may be driving serious social problems ‘‘under-
ground.’’ For example, Jaffe et al. (2003) high-
light that current legal and policy responses
to children exposed to DV may inadvertently
create conditions where woman abuse victims
are hesitant to disclose the violence. Accord-
ingly, they recommend evaluating the intended
and unintended consequences of Canadian legal
and policy responses on children exposed to
woman abuse.
Method
Objectives
The aim of this study was to examine and assess
the implications of child welfare reporting leg-
islation for women who are victims of DV, their
children, and the service professionals who
help them and their families. The study was
conducted in a large urban setting in Ontario,
Canada. The overarching research questions
were developed after a review of the literature
and an environmental scan with child welfare
agencies and related service sectors (area of
service provision including health care pro-
viders, legal professionals, and child welfare
workers). The environmental scan was
completed through a consultation with
groups of helping professionals and academics
(Roundtable on Child Welfare Practices in
Woman Abuse Cases, University of Toronto,
July 2004). The following key research ques-
tions were developed: (a) What is the impact
of child welfare legislation that defines child-
ren’s exposure to DV as a form of child maltreat-
ment on disclosure of woman abuse?; (b) What
is the impact of child welfare policy on abused
mothers accessing services for themselves and
their children?; and (c) How does this legisla-
tion impact on the practices of social service
providers in the Violence Against Women
(VAW) sector, health care services, police,
and the child welfare system?
The research questions were pursued within
a participatory action research framework as
described by Maguire (1997) and recommended
by family violence researchers (Edleson, 1998;
Gondolf, Yllo, & Campbell, 1997; Renzetti,
1997; Riger, 1999). In order to reach out and
identify major stakeholder groups, including
abused women and the range of service pro-
viders, various data collection methods were
utilized: (a) Key informant interviews with
service providers (including police, shelter
workers, VAW service providers, legal profes-
sionals, health care workers) and previous cli-
ents (mothers who had been investigated by
child welfare authorities due to DV issues) to
highlight salient issues in the field, assist in
the development of interview guides, and iden-
tify other relevant stakeholders; (b) focus
groups with mothers previously in abusive
relationships who had child welfare contact,
child welfare workers, and VAW service
providers; and 3) gathering, compiling, and
analyzing existing statistics, as collateral data,
from social service agencies such as child wel-
fare sources, health care settings, and VAW
services where available. Data collection began
in March 2005 and ended in November 2005.
A Research Advisory Committee was formed
early in the project to ensure that the research
process was guided by those affected by and
ALAGGIA ET AL.
4 Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention

working with the problems of DV and its im-
pact on mothers and children. Quarterly meet-
ings were held with the lead researchers during
the course of the research. Survivors of DV on
the Committee chose to participate through
e-mail correspondence and telephone inter-
views for confidentiality reasons. Interview
guides were developed by the researchers,
and input was sought from committee members
and survivors of DV to ensure that the areas
addressed were relevant to all stakeholders
involved. The study received institutional
approval by the University of Toronto, Health
Sciences I Ethics Review Committee, and two
local Children’s Aid Society ethics review
boards. As with any research study involving
people, especially those from vulnerable
groups, measures to ensure confidentiality
were stringently followed and written in-
formed consent was sought from everyone
participating in the research.
Key informant interviews and focus groups
were audiotaped with the permission of partic-
ipants. All interview tapes were subjected to
intensive content analysis, which involved lis-
tening to the tapes to develop and identify
emerging themes. A subsample of interviews
(75%) was analyzed using a qualitative data
analysis software package, N*Vivo, for line-
by-line microanalysis to further refine theme
development. Some interviews were deemed
to be less relevant to the focus of the study be-
cause child welfare involvement occurred for
issues other than DV; three key informants
declined to be audiotaped and audio problems
were experienced on another three.
The trustworthiness and authenticity of the
data were established through maintaining
detailed researcher notes, audiotapes, and tran-
scriptions of the interviews, memos, and an
audit trail. Analysis of data occurred with
multiple coders to maximize consistency and
breadth of themes and to reduce bias. Three
researchers and two research assistants con-
ducted independent analyses of the transcripts,
which resulted in satisfactory agreement on
themes and subthemes. In other words, each re-
searcher independently identified themes that
emerged from the data. As well, the thematic
findings were reviewed on an ongoing basis
by the Research Advisory Committee as a form
of member checking.
Sampling for key informants was purposive
with the intention of capturing the perspectives
of various sectors of service delivery. The key
informants included program administrators/
managers, frontline child welfare workers,
social workers, child advocates, women’s advo-
cates, police, health care providers, legal pro-
fessionals, and survivors of woman abuse. In
total, 30 key informants were interviewed
and 6 focus groups were conducted. Table 1
outlines the various participant groups and
settings involved in this study.
Sampling for recipients of services was pur-
posive and occurred through key informants
who invited women for participation. Flyers
were also posted in agencies. Researchers were
given names of potential participants from ser-
vice providers only with the consent of service
recipients. Two focus groups were run with
women who were survivors of DV. Women
affected by violence who participated were
given a small honorarium of $25 to compensate
for their time. Transportation, a meal over the
dinner hour, and child care were also provided.
Exclusion criteria included ensuring that the
woman was out of the abusive relationship to
ensure her safety. Child welfare participants
were workers and clients sampled from Jewish,
Catholic, Aboriginal, mainstream child welfare
services and ethno-specific agencies. Frontline
workers and managers were interviewed, and
women survivors of abuse represented young
to middle-aged women, women from all
socio-economic strata, Canadian born and
immigrant women, as well as women from dif-
ferent racial and/or ethnic backgrounds.
Impact of Child Welfare Policies
Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention 5

Results
Enduring themes emerged consistently from
the key informant interviews and focus
groups with service providers and service
recipients. The themes were verified with the
Research Advisory Committee as a means of
member checking and are described as follows.
Quotes are supplied for confirmability of
findings.
Themes
Policy Impact on Professional Practice. The
first predominant theme was the impact of the
legislation on internal policies and practices of
all the service sectors sampled. For example,
shortly after the child welfare amendments in
2000, the police force in the jurisdiction of
the study area implemented an internal policy
to report to child welfare authorities all domes-
tic dispute calls they responded to where they
found evidence of children residing in the
home. One police informant explained:
They will generally contact Children’s Aid
right from the house as well and they will ad-
vise the victim the purpose of that is to assist
them as well. Those things are generally done
right from the scene .... The call is made
a good ninety-nine percent of the time.
Police key informants explained that child
welfare agencies are best equipped to investi-
gate and evaluate whether children are being
emotionally harmed so they leave it to them
to determine dispositions and take appropriate
action.
Service providers in the VAW sector cited se-
rious implications in having to report their cli-
ents to child welfare agencies. They explained
that universal reporting practices potentially
take control and choices away from women.
Ultimately, women are held accountable for
the abuse they experience from their partners
and this diminishes or ignores perpetrator ac-
countability. Although the majority of VAW
workers agreed with, ‘‘the spirit of the Act,’’
they recounted several unintended consequen-
ces of the duty to report. The primary conse-
quence is on the relationship between workers
and clients. This possible breach of trust may
make women more reluctant to use shelters
and other services. VAW service workers voiced
concerns that often the mothers’ safety is not
considered as directly linked to that of their chil-
dren and that this ‘‘disconnect’’ puts the family
at risk. Finally, VAW workers highlighted their
observations around victim blaming:
Ideally it could be that children were not
taken away but both children and mom got
the support, rather then her being punished
TABLE 1. Study Respondents
Key informant interviews Focus groups
Eight child welfare informants (three administrators
and five frontline workers)
Three groups of child welfare workers
(total 18 individuals)
Eight VAW service providers One VAW service provider (total six individuals)
Two survivors of woman abuse Two groups of survivors of woman abuse
(total 16 individuals)
Four legal professionals
Four police officers
Four health care providers
Total: 30 individual key informant interviews Total: 6 focus groups (40 individuals)
ALAGGIA ET AL.
6 Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention

which really that is how it is presented, ‘you
messed up and for whatever reason you
weren’t able to [leave]’. I think there is an
underlying message of blame the woman
for being in the situation that she is.
Respondents from the health care sector
explained that child welfare legislation has cre-
ated ‘‘confusion and anxiety for physicians.’’
One health care key informant summarized:
There [are] two types of anxiety. One is, ‘Am I
doing the right thing?’ ‘Am I supposed to call
on this?’ ‘What constitutes grounds for call-
ing?’ If you read the Act, it’s not completely
clear and so there is some ambiguity and that
makes it hard for physicians. The other is,
‘How will this impact on my relationship with
this patient?’ ’ ... because disclosure is volun-
tary and we know there are lots of barriers
which prevent women from disclosure already
and if the need to report to child welfare may
act as another barrier? ‘Will this, in fact, pre-
vent a woman from asking for assistance?’
Another identified concern is that of time
restrictions for physicians and their reluctance
to address the issue of DV with their patients.
One key informant from the health care sector
observed: ‘‘It is the reason why physicians
don’t ask about violence because if they get
a yes answer it is going to throw a wrench into
the rest of their day and they are going to have
to deal with it and often it is better not to ask
the question.’’
Finally, interpretation of the legislation re-
garding the reporting of exposed children dif-
fers, and as a result practices vary. For example,
several key informants pointed out that dif-
fering interpretations of the legislation led to
inconsistent referrals. One shelter worker
explained, ‘‘We still have some schisms, for ex-
ample the mandatory reporting. Some shelters
are reading the Act differently.’’
Policy Impact on Disclosure and Reporting
of DV. A wide range of experiences were de-
scribed by the mothers interviewed. Some
mothers described their involvement with child
welfare as brief but supportive and being lim-
ited to ‘‘checking in’’ after a referral had been
made, ensuring that the perpetrator was out of
the home, and referrals to community resour-
ces. As one participant describes:
I found it, actually, very helpful. The man
I spoke to was kind. He was concerned. He
asked how I was, was there anything they
could do? Did you have plans and I told
him I had a plan to come here [child therapy
centre]. And he said, ‘If there is anything else,
you call us’. So it wasn’t a threatening thing.
It was a good thing.
Others reported a level of intrusion that was in-
timidating and blaming. One mother explained:
And it’s like, I feel like, I am always battling.
I talked with the worker yesterday and I said
to her, I think, three times, ‘We’re not going
to talk about me. We’re going to talk about
him and the children. We are not going to
talk about me’. And, it takes so much to be
able to do that and to get them to understand
I am not the one who needs to be told.
This dynamic between workers and clients was
echoed by some professionals. A women’s ser-
vice worker described her experience:
It starts up being woman abuse and the kid
has witnessed it, then it ends up being does
she have a job, does she have supports, how’s
her parenting? ....and if that woman has
a criminal record, if she has been in the men-
tal health system, disability, she is a Black
woman, Aboriginal woman, young woman,
the system will hold her and scrutinize her
right because of class, race, and gender.
Impact of Child Welfare Policies
Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention 7

Some women had previous involvement with
child welfare, and although those issues may
have been resolved earlier, they believed that
any previous contact influenced the current
investigation in a negative way. They felt mis-
understood and wanted the opportunity to
explain their situations more fully. Other
women explained that although they feared
and even resisted the involvement of child wel-
fare authorities, it was that very involvement
that really opened their eyes to the negative
environment their children were living in
and helped them make the decision to leave.
In general, though, women voiced concerns
that they felt they were being investigated
when they were not the perpetrators of
violence.
Overall, the precise impact of the legislation
on women’s disclosures is difficult to assess.
Mothers’ perceptions of what may happen
appear to be a predominant factor in driving
fear and apprehension of triggering a child wel-
fare investigation. As one police key informant
described:
The perception, I think, with a lot of women
is that if they report something child welfare
will be called and my child or children will
be taken away. I think that perception is
out there. Does that legislation have a direct
effect on women not coming forward? I am
sure it does. To what degree, it’s really tough
to know.
This view is further verified by observations
made by a shelter worker immediately after
the legislation was amended:
We had been working with women individ-
ually and in groups and we had to say that if
things are going really badly at home right
now we have to report to CAS. They all left
the service, they felt so betrayed and even the
women who were not directly affected were
so angry at us.
Sectoral Isolation. Service providers consis-
tently described feeling isolated from other
sectors. Numerous reasons were cited, such
as conflicting mandates of service provision,
differing codes of professional conduct, power
imbalances among systems, and competition for
scarce resources.
There are numerous quotes from service pro-
viders and recipients to support observations of
cross-sectoral isolation: ‘‘I am not convinced that
we are all working in as integrated way as we
could or should. That is, child welfare, author-
ities, police, perhaps the shelters ...’’ (Child
Welfare Worker); ‘‘Right now we are not work-
ing as teams.’’ (Health Care Provider); ‘‘It was my
lawyer who I really, really trusted who also dis-
couraged me, ‘Don’t get CAS involved. They will
take your children away, etc.’’’ (Survivor).
A lack of understanding of cross-sector man-
dates and inadequate communication appear to
explain a large part of this isolation. For exam-
ple, power imbalances between sectors were
reported with some sectors being perceived
as having more legislative powers. One VAW
worker observed:
[The] other thing that happens, and this is
a big problem, that once the referral is made,
once the report is made, we don’t know what
happens. It is a black box. We don’t know
if child welfare investigated. Did they take
action? Is the home safer? Is there a plan?
We have no idea.
Professional colleges and associations influ-
ence how professionals from various sectors
handle issues of consent and confidentiality.
For example, health care providers and legal
service professionals adhere to a different code
of confidentiality than social workers. For
physicians, consent issues figured prominently
in their interviews, given that confidentiality is
central to the physician–patient relationship.
Pressure to report to child welfare without
ALAGGIA ET AL.
8 Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention

the patient’s expressed consent put physicians
in a dilemma. One physician explained the
questions and dilemmas that ‘‘duty to report’’
raises for them: ‘‘Are they doing the right
thing? How will this impact on the patient–
physician relationship? Will this act as another
barrier to disclosing woman abuse?’’ In con-
trast, social workers were very clear about their
professional obligations to report child abuse,
putting the best interest of the child ahead of
other considerations, despite the impact on
their relationship with parents.
Perpetrator Accountability. Except for the
legal system, no other service sector professio-
nals felt they had much opportunity, access, or
competence to intervene with the abusive part-
ner. First, most sector informants explained
that they do not have the mandate to intervene
with the offending partner. From the first point
of referral, the case is opened in the mother’s
name: CAS is a scary system for women. Even
the file is in the mother’s name. I think we need
to be focusing on the one causing the harm in
the family. Why aren’t they going after the
abuser and using their power to keep him
out of the home? Instead we are sending moth-
ers to parenting groups (VAW service worker).
If the abusive partner is uncooperative, profes-
sionals cited that they cannot interview him. Of-
ten, the perpetrator is impossible to locate. For
instance, several key informants mentioned that
defense lawyers usually instruct their clients not
to talk to child welfare authorities. A child wel-
fare key informant described this dilemma:
I think it would be good if we could also make
the perpetrator more accountable for what he
has done in the sense that a lot of the times
when they are charged with assaulting and
they are given a certain order or conditions.
We, a lot of times, don’t know where that
perpetrator is in terms of following up with
that person. It’s always because we don’t
know that person’s whereabouts, we’re fol-
lowing up with mom, following up with
the children, but Dad’s off the hook.
This is further verified by abused women as one
survivor explained: ‘‘Why is this all up to me?
How come? I refuse to believe the solution to
this problem is the court system. Who’s going
to help my kids and who’s going to sit down
and tell this man that it is his responsibility
to get therapy and to reconnect with these kids
or to leave them alone?’’
Second, most service providers feel they do
not have the training to deal with the abusive
partner. Another child welfare worker stated:
We’re probably not very skilled as we should
be in working with the fathers and it’s pretty
hard in a system to hold men accountable for
their abusive behaviors if you never meet
with them and never talk to them.
While the importance of accountability with
the perpetrator is acknowledged, service pro-
viders believed that there are no mechanisms
to ensure accountability:
No matter how you cut it, the abuser gets off
most of the time. He is not held accountable
and not made responsible, and the onus is still
on the woman in keeping her kids safe. (VAW
key informant)
Marginalization Due to Race, Class,
Sexual Orientation, Ability, and
Immigration Status. These data clearly indi-
cate that women who are marginalized due to
race, sexual orientation, immigration status,
class, and ability have greater barriers in dis-
closing and accessing services for themselves
and their children. These women include
women of color, lesbian mothers, women with
disabilities, mothers of children with disabil-
ities, immigrant and refugee women, women
without immigrant status, women of various
Impact of Child Welfare Policies
Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention 9

cultural and religious backgrounds, financially
disadvantaged women, and women with mental
health issues or addictions. Fear of harsher
treatment and discrimination based on skin
color (for both their partners and themselves),
lack of services for lesbian mothers and their
children (gay positive environments), fear of
deportation for recent immigrants or women
sponsored by their partners, language
obstacles, physically inaccessible services,
and fear of losing school placements for chil-
dren with disabilities were among the addi-
tional barriers identified as issues for woman
survivors from marginalized communities.
Racial discrimination and prejudicial atti-
tudes were also cited as a reality not only in
the lives of newcomers but also for all women
of color. Service providers highlighted that ra-
cial discrimination should be taken into consid-
eration in any assessment of women of color
who are living with woman abuse. As one in-
formant put it, ‘‘If you are brown, you are trea-
ted as stupid, even if you were born and raised
here.’’ Attitudes and inaccurate assumptions by
professionals were noted as problematic.
The study data indicate that involvement
with child welfare creates enormous fears for
women who do not have landed immigrant
(i.e., legal resident) status because any involve-
ment with authorities can be viewed negatively
in the status review process. Women with pre-
carious immigration status may fear deporta-
tion if their sponsor is the abusive partner
and he is charged and convicted. They are gen-
erally apprehensive regarding involvement
with authorities such as police or child welfare
for fear that this will negatively impact on their
application bid. For example, a police informant
described feeling in a bind but confessed he
would ultimately make a decision to report to
immigration authorities:
If we have information in our possession
about the victim or the husband we have
to notify immigration. It is not uncommon
where a victim is being investigated for being
in the country or the husband as well. We
have no choice in the matter; we have to no-
tify immigration and whatever happens after
that we have no control over.
For many newcomers to Canada, there is little
understanding of the child welfare system be-
cause similar systems may not exist in their
countries of origin. One VAW worker
explained:
There is no question that is one of the major
stumbling blocks that we find here in this
area is the language and the lack of knowl-
edge of how things do work in Canada versus
where they came from or what the expecta-
tions are.
Immigrant and refugee women are often con-
fronted with language and cultural barriers in
accessing support and services after disclosing
abuse. Canadian practices are foreign to many
newcomers. For example, one worker from
an ethno-specific service explained that some
women simply do not know ‘‘how to separate
from their husbands’’ noting that in some parts
of China both spouses must agree and sign for
a separation to occur, so they assume it is the
same in Canada.
For women with physical disabilities, many
issues arise around the decision to leave an abu-
sive relationship. Often these women either rely
on their partner for physical support or have
established a network of care that would be
difficult to recreate if they left their current
surroundings. As one VAW service provider
described:
Another barrier is physical accessibility or
inaccessibility, so not even being able to get
into an agency. A whole other issue is if
some women want to leave and their partner
ALAGGIA ET AL.
10 Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention

is also their caregiver, where do they go? And
women with disabilities who have children
it is the whole fear of them not being viewed
as competent parents.
Discussion
The occurrence of DV signals a crisis in the fam-
ily. Whether disclosure occurs by the victim or
through outside party detection/intervention,
parents and children are in need of sensitive
and effective responses in the immediate crisis.
The manner in which systems respond to this
crisis is critical to the trajectory the family will
follow and may have an impact on outcomes.
The urgency and necessity of assessing the con-
sequences of child welfare policies in the lives
of women and children is clearly demonstrated
in this study because these policies drive the
actions of helping professionals. Legislative
amendments to the Ontario Child and Family
Services Act were developed with the ‘‘best
interests of the child’’ at heart, based on the
best available child research. In the 1990s,
DV was not being identified by child welfare
workers. Once awareness was heightened
through the convergence of DV and child wel-
fare research, exploratory probing revealed
a high incidence in families investigated by
child protection workers. As well, public
awareness was increasing about the problem
of children exposed to DV that resulted in more
reporting. These study data strongly suggest
that although the legislation was well inten-
tioned, both negative and positive outcomes
have emerged.
Although the intent of the legislation was in-
formed by current research and supported by
various helping professionals serving children,
numerous concerns have also emerged. Reluc-
tance of women to disclose DV or seek services
for their families; isolation between helping
professionals from different sectors; increased
surveillance of mothers; barriers due to race,
class, sexual orientation, ability, and immi-
gration status; and lack of accountability of
perpetrators were predominant themes and
subthemes identified from the interview data.
While most study participants, service pro-
viders, and clients noted that the ‘‘spirit of
the Act’’ was well meaning, problems with
its implementation and subsequent impact on
families and services have been documented
(penalizing mothers, inhibiting disclosure espe-
cially for marginalized women, and taxing
already stressed systems are among the three
most significant consequences).
Unfortunately, similar findings from previ-
ous research that clearly documents the sub-
stantial implications of child welfare policies
for children exposed to DV have not been taken
into account throughout the implementation
process in Ontario. For example, similar legisla-
tion in Minnesota was repealed in 2000 after
most counties experienced a 50%–100% in-
crease in reporting of children exposed to adult
DV (see Minnesota Association of Community
Social Service Administrators, 2000). Of
interest, this was the same year that Ontario,
Canada, introduced changes to the Child and
Family Services Act to strengthen exposure
to ‘‘adult conflict’’ under ‘‘duty to report.’’
Since Minnesota’s instatement and subsequent
retraction of definitional changes in their child
welfare legislation, Edleson, Gassman-Pines,
and Hill (2006) have deconstructed the pivotal
events leading up to these changes and tracked
the aftermath. They conclude that legislators
made changes to language—viewing child
exposure to DV as neglect—without fully
understanding the resounding impact on prac-
tice. They did not anticipate the floodgate of
referrals that resulted. Furthermore, sufficient
funding was not infused for this influx, and
therefore, these new cases were not dealt with
adequately (Edleson et al., 2006). Our data in-
dicate that a very similar scenario has unfolded
Impact of Child Welfare Policies
Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention 11

in Ontario where one of the largest child wel-
fare organizations reported a 500% increase in
referrals between 2000 and 2003 (environmen-
tal scan, Children’s Aid Society of Toronto,
2003).
In response to increasing referrals for service,
valiant efforts have been made by sector profes-
sionals in this study’s jurisdiction to respond in
more integrated, coordinated, and culturally
responsive ways. Partnerships, collaboration
agreements, and protocols have been developed
across several of the sectors, and cross-sectoral
trainings have been initiated. In particular, one
child protection agency has formed a team of
specialists that offers an alternative response
specifically for DV cases. Yet funding has not
been increased to all child welfare services
or community-based agencies to the degree
needed to address the growing demand for more
specialized DV and child protection services, nor
has it been increased to develop greater commu-
nity capacity. Despite the hard work by profes-
sionals to respond to current demands, their
efforts are undermined by structural limitations.
Data from our study support findings in the
literature regarding mothers feeling penalized
by these policies (Edleson, 1998, 2004; Jaffe
et al., 2003; Magen, 1999; Magen et al., 2000;
Sev’er, 2002). In this study, there were also
examples of mothers citing incidents where
child welfare investigations were helpful, espe-
cially when the intervention was the catalyst
for leaving an unhealthy family environment
for the sake of children. However, these posi-
tive accounts were in the minority and con-
trasted by the high volume of narratives
about reluctance to report and fears around
any child welfare involvement. These fears
might be generalized to other services that
are perceived to have ‘‘duty to report’’ obliga-
tions, such as shelters, raising concerns that
some women may not disclose or report partner
violence, ultimately resulting in a lack of ser-
vice utilization for women and children in dan-
gerous situations. Based on theories indicating
that disclosure is closely linked with seeking
and accessing services, without self-disclosure,
opportunities for counseling and support are
greatly minimized (Cepeda-Benito & Short,
1998; Kelly & Achter, 1995; Vogel & Wester,
2003).
Implications for Practice and Research
The warning bell was sounded on potential
consequences of child welfare policies on fam-
ilies and services as early as 1999 (Edleson,
1998; Jaffe et al., 2003; Magen, 1999; Magen
et al., 2000; Sev’er, 2002). In 2003, Jaffe
et al. after reviewing and analyzing legal and
policy responses to children exposed to DV
went so far as to recommend, ‘‘a moratorium
on legislation for children exposed to woman
abuse without [such] an analysis and evalua-
tion’’ (p. 212). They suggested that jurisdictions
considering this type of legislation collect and
analyze baseline data of the number of children
exposed to woman abuse currently identified
by different systems first and then evaluate
the capacity of systems to respond to an in-
crease in reporting before instituting legislative
changes. These steps were not taken in Ontario,
therefore necessitating reforms of the legisla-
tion in the current child welfare transformation
planning, a new initiative to address these and
other problems in child welfare service delivery
(Ontario Child Welfare Transformation Plan).
Currently, several jurisdictions across Canada
are moving toward adopting differential re-
sponse models, including Ontario where this
model has been explored through a recent
round of child welfare reforms (Ontario Child
Welfare Transformation Plan, 2005). Since
the completion of this study in 2005 a model
of differential response has been implemented
in Children’s Aid Societies of Ontario and is un-
dergoing evaluation of impact in cases of do-
mestic violence.
ALAGGIA ET AL.
12 Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention

Support for differential response models
across North America has been driven in part
by a dramatic increase in reporting but also
by feedback from mothers who fear child
welfare involvement and possible apprehen-
sion of their children (Devoe & Smith, 2003).
Differential response (Waldfogel, 1998) is an ap-
proach that relies on accurately classifying
cases into varying levels of risk wherein chil-
dren referred to child welfare for exposure to
DV would be initially screened as low or high
risk and referred accordingly, with only the
more serious cases going to child protection
services and low-risk cases being referred to
voluntary community-based services. Ameri-
can studies have just begun to assess the impact
of the implementation of differential response
in various jurisdictions (English, Edleson, &
Merrick, 2005; Kohl, Barth, Hazen, & Land-
sverk, 2005). Preliminary findings indicate that
in jurisdictions operating with a differential re-
sponse model, the majority of cases of DV are
less likely to be subjected to full investigative
procedures from child welfare authorities. A
smaller number of cases where DV is identified
as a risk factor are put through full investiga-
tions; cases that are subjected to full investiga-
tions are usually those with co-occurring forms
of maltreatment. In these cases, there is a higher
likelihood of ongoing child welfare involve-
ment and apprehension. As well, there is a high
number of DV indicated cases that are rere-
ferred to the child welfare system and it is un-
clear as to why (English et al., 2005; Jaffe et al.,
2003). Evaluative studies of this nature are
scant. More research is critically needed.
Additionally, Edleson (2004) points out that
the research on the impact of exposure to DV
for children is not adequately integrated into
practice responses. Policy and practice should
reflect that not all children are affected in
the same ways and to the same degree and that
developmental factors and family characteris-
tics should be taken into account.
Finally, the problem of dealing with the
perpetrator of violence has been a thorny
issue—one that has been identified throughout
the literature (Strega, 2006) and clearly emerged
in our data. Perpetrators of violence are often
avoided in child welfare systems for lack of
training, mandate, or accessibility. Alaska has
lead the way in carving out new legislation
that moves to exclude the perpetrator of the
violence from the family rather than putting
the burden on the victims to flee with their
children (Edleson et al., 2006). While this
issue was raised in consultations to legislative
reforms in Ontario, it remains unresolved.
The current investigation was limited to
a small, nonrepresentative sample of child wel-
fare involving families, child welfare workers,
administrators, and other professionals who re-
layed their experiences with the child welfare
system when working with DV cases. It would
be interesting to see if these findings play out
on a larger level. In other words, are these
trends true for a larger, representative sample
of families? Future research should focus on
establishing the effectiveness of differential re-
sponse models in child welfare before these are
implemented. One significant area for investi-
gation is whether safety and risk assessment
tools used in child welfare are valid in cases in-
volving DV. Another is whether adequate and
effective community resources are available for
referral and ongoing service. As well, given the
lack of rigorous longitudinal studies detailing
services provision in child welfare, there are
questions about whether cases in the differen-
tial deemed to be ‘‘low risk’’ or ‘‘no risk’’ re-
ceive appropriate, adequate, and effective
services.
Our findings offer unique insights into how
the legislation has impacted abused mothers
and service providers. More consideration
needs to be given to how the changes in legis-
lation have impacted on disclosure of DV; on
the help-seeking behaviors of abused women;
Impact of Child Welfare Policies
Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention 13

and on those who provide child welfare and
VAW services. Our findings were consistent
with previous research, and we echo the recom-
mendations made by experts in the field who
have gone before us. Although in Ontario we
are moving forward with this legislation, we
feel strongly that differential response models
should be primarily introduced as pilot studies,
rigorously evaluated, and only implemented
when there are assurances that appropriate, ad-
equate, and effective services are available to
meet the complex needs of the communities
they are designed to serve.
Funding
United Way of Greater Toronto; Social Sciences
and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the participants in
this study for sharing their time and experiences.
We also extend our appreciation to Child
Development Institute of Toronto for their support
and involvement in the study. Conflict of Interest:
None declared.
References
Alaggia, R. (2001). Cultural and religious influences
in maternal response to intrafamilial child sexual
abuse: Charting new territory for research and
treatment. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 2, 41–60.
Alaggia, R., & Maiter, S. (2006). Domestic violence
and child abuse: Issues for immigrant and refugee
families. In R. Alaggia & C. Vine (Eds.), Cruel but
not unusual: Violence in Canadian families. (pp. 99–
126). Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
Alaggia, R., & Trocme
´, N. (2004). Roundtable on child
welfare practices in domestic violence cases.
Toronto: University of Toronto.
Cepeda-Benito, A., & Short, P. (1998). Self-
concealment, avoidance of psychological services
and perceived likelihood of seeking professional
help. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 58–64.
Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (2003). Long range
plan 2003: Beyond environmental scan. Toronto,
Ontario, Canada: Children’s Aid Society of Toronto.
Child Welfare Transformation (2005): A strategic plan
for a flexible, sustainable and outcome oriented
service delivery model, Ministry of Children and
Youth Services, Ontario, Canada, June 2005.
Cummings, E. M. (1998). Children exposed to
marital conflict and violence: Conceptual and
theoretical directions. In G. W. Holden, R. A.
Geffner, & E. N. Jouriles (Eds.), Children exposed to
marital violence: Theory, research, and applied
issues. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association. p. 55–93.
Davis, L. V., & Srinivason, M. (1995). Listening to
the voices of battered women: what helps them
escape violence. Affilia, 10, 49–69. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Devoe, E. R., & Smith, E. L. (2003). Don’t take my
kids: Barriers to service delivery for battered
mothers and their young children. Journal of
Emotional Abuse, 3, 277–294.
Edleson, J. (1998). Responsible mothers and
invisible men: Child protection in the case of adult
domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 13, 294–298.
Edleson, J. (1999). Children witnessing of adult
domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 14, 839–870.
Edleson, J. L. (2004). Should childhood exposure
to adult domestic violence be defined as child
maltreatment under the law? In P. G. Jaffe, L. L.
Baker, & A. J. Cunningham (Eds.), Protecting
children from domestic violence: Strategies for
community intervention (pp. 8–29). New York:
Guilford Press.
Edleson, J. L., Gassman-Pines, J., & Hill, M. B.
(2006). Defining child exposure to domestic
violence as neglect: Minnesota’s difficult
experience. Social Work, 51, 167–174.
English, D. J., Edleson, J. L., & Herrick, M. E.
(2005). Domestic violence in one state’s child
protective case load: A study of differential case
dispositions and outcomes. Children and Youth
Services Review, 27, 1183–1201.
ALAGGIA ET AL.
14 Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention

Fallon, B., Trocme
´, N., MacLaurin, B., Knoke, D.,
Black, T., Daciuk, J., et al. (2005). Ontario
incidence study of reported child abuse and neglect,
OIS-2003: Major findings. Toronto, Ontario,
Canada: Centre of Excellence for Child Welfare.
Gondolf, E., Yllo, K., & Campbell, J. (1997).
Collaboration between researchers and advocates.
In G. K. Kantor & J. Jasinski (Eds.), Out of darkness:
Contemporary research perspectives on family
violence (pp. 255–267). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hilton, Z. N. (1992). Battered women’s concerns
about their children witnessing wife assault.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7, 77–86.
Jaffe, P. G., Crooks, C. V., & Wolfe, D. A. (2003).
Legal and policy responses to children exposed to
domestic violence: The need to evaluate intended
and unintended consequences. Clinical Child and
Family Psychology Review, 6, 205–213.
Kelly, A.E. & Achter, J.A. (1995). Self concealment
and attitudes toward counseling in university
students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42,
40–46.
Kohl, P. L., Barth, R. P., Hazen, A. L., & Landsverk,
J.A. (2005). Child welfare as a gateway to domestic
violence services. Children and Youth Services
Review, 27, 1203–1221.
Lee, M.-Y. (2000). Understanding Chinese battered
women in North America: A review of the
literature and practice implications. In D. de Anda
& R. M. Becerra (Eds.), Violence: Diverse
populations and communities (pp. 215–241). New
York: Haworth Press.
Magen, R. H. (1999). In the best interests of battered
women: Reconceptualizing allegations of failure
to protect. Child Maltreatment, 4, 127–135.
Magen, R., Conroy, K., & Del Tufo, A. (2000).
Domestic violence in child welfare preventative
services: Results from an intake screening
questionnaire. Children & youth services review.
Special issue: Woman abuse and child protection: A
tumultuous marriage (Part I), 22, 251–274.
Maguire, P. (1997). Doing Participatory Action
Research: A Feminist Approach. Amherst:
University of Massachusetts Press.
Mahoney, M. (1991), Legal images of battered
women: Redefining the issue of separation.
Michigan Law Review, 90, 1–94.
McDonald, S. (1999). Not in the numbers: Immigrant
women and domestic abuse. Canadian Woman
Studies, 19, 163–167.
McGee, C. (2000). Childhood experiences of domestic
violence. Philadelphia, PA: Jessica Kingsley.
Minnesota Association of County Social Service
Administrators Children’s Committee (2000).
Co-occurring spouse abuse and child abuse:
Domestic violence fiscal note —January 2000.
St. Paul, MN: Author.
Nicholson v. Williams. (2002). 203 F. Supp. 2d 153,
E.D. N.Y.
Pagelow, M. (1992). Adult victims of domestic
violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7,
187–120.
Pratt, A. (1995). New immigrant and refugee
battered women: The intersection of immigration
and criminal justice policy. In M. Valverde, L.
MacLeod, & H. Johnson (Eds.), Wife assault
and the criminal justice system: Issues and
policies (pp. 84–104). Toronto, Ontario,
Canada: Centre for Criminology, University of
Toronto.
Renzetti, C. M. (1997). Violence and abuse among
same-sex couples. In A. P. Cardarelli (Ed.),
Violence between intimate partners: Patterns,
causes and effects. Toronto, Ontario, Canada:
Allyn and Bacon.
Riger, S. (1999). Working together: Challenges in
collaborative research on violence against women.
Violence Against Women, 5, 1099–1117.
Sev’er, A. (2002). A feminist analysis of flight of
abused women, plight of Canadian shelters:
Another road to homelessness. Journal of Social
Distress and Homelessness, 11, 307–324.
Shaffer, M. & Bala, N. (2004). The role of family
courts in domestic violence: The Canadian
experience, 171-187. In Jaffe, P., Baker, L. &
Cunningham, A. (Eds). Protecting Children from
Domestic Violence: Strategies for Community
Intervention. New York: The Guilford Press.
Shirwadkar, S. (2004). Canadian domestic violence
policy and Indian immigrant women. Violence
Against Women, 10, 860–879.
Statistics Canada (Canadian Centre for Justice
Statistics). (2005). Family violence in Canada:
A statistical profile 2005. Ottawa, July 2005
Impact of Child Welfare Policies
Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention 15

(No. 85-2324-XIE). Ottawa, Canada: Minister of
Industry.
Strega, S. (2006). Failure to protect? Child welfare
interventions when men beat mothers. In R.
Alaggia & C. Vine (Eds.), Cruel but not unusual:
Violence in Canadian families. Waterloo: Wilfrid
Laurier University Press.
Taylor-Butts, A. (2005). Shelters for abused women.
Juristat (Catalogue no. 85-002, Vol. 25, No. 3).
Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Centre for Justice
Statistics.
Trocme
´, N., Fallon, B., MacLaurin, B., Daciuk, J.,
Felstiner, C., Black, T., et al. (2005). Canadian
incidence study of reported child abuse and neglect—
2003: Major findings. Ottawa: Minister of Public
Works and Government Services Canada.
Vogel, D.L. & Wester, S.R. (2003). To seek help
or not to seek help: The risks of self-disclosure.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50(3),
351–361.
Waldfogel, J. (1998). Rethinking the paradigm
for child protection. Future of Children, 8,
104–119.
Wolfe, D. A., Crooks, C., Lee, V., McIntyre-Smith,
A., & Jaffe P. (2003). The effects of exposure to
domestic violence: A meta-analysis and critique.
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 6,
171–187.
ALAGGIA ET AL.
16 Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention