Tag: family

The Impact of Removing Children from Their Parents

The removal of children from their parents is one of the government’s most drastic interventions in child welfare. While sometimes necessary to protect children from harm, this process can also cause significant trauma. Because of these potential harms, the decision to separate families must be carefully considered to ensure that no child enters the foster care system unnecessarily.

A complex web of state and federal constitutional principles, statutes, administrative regulations, judicial decisions, and agency policies governs child removal decisions. These legal frameworks are designed to place a high burden on child welfare professionals, emphasizing family preservation whenever possible. However, widespread inconsistencies in how these policies are applied create an unpredictable, often traumatic, and sometimes punitive experience for the very children they aim to protect.

Across the country, significant variations exist in:

1. Who has the authority to remove a child
2. Who makes the removal decision
3. The evidentiary burden required for removal
4. How quickly a judicial officer must review the decision
5. What occurs at the judicial review, including access to legal representation

This article examines these critical questions and the broader process by which children are removed from their parents’ custody. At the heart of this issue is the government’s parens patriae authority—the legal doctrine granting the state the power to act as a guardian for those unable to care for themselves, including children. While protecting vulnerable children is an essential governmental duty, the U.S. legal system must balance this interest against a parent’s fundamental constitutional right to family integrity. This includes the right to direct the care, custody, and control of their children.

Yet, an examination of the foster care system reveals a bureaucracy that often fails to rigorously scrutinize the decision to separate families. Without careful oversight and reform, unnecessary removals will continue to inflict lasting harm on children and families alike.

The Impact of Removing Children from Their Parents

This article argues that the process of removing children to foster care is misaligned with the core values of child welfare and the legal principles governing civil child abuse and neglect cases. Through clinical, legal, and empirical analysis, it highlights the need for child welfare professionals to critically reassess the principles guiding involuntary child removals.

Part Two examines the profound impact of removal on families, detailing the various forms of trauma experienced by both children and parents when separation occurs.
Part Three provides a legal overview of the removal process, exposing nationwide inconsistencies in child welfare practices that undermine family rights.
Part Four presents administrative data from child welfare agencies, revealing three key issues:

1. Removal decisions are inconsistent and unpredictable.
2. There is significant uncertainty about why children enter foster care.
3. Many children may be placed in foster care unnecessarily.

Finally, the article concludes with specific policy and practice recommendations aimed at reducing child welfare’s reliance on removal as a default safety intervention.

The phrase aegrescitque medendo, originating from Virgil’s Aeneid, serves as a fitting metaphor for the unintended harm caused by child removals. While removal is sometimes necessary to protect children, it is disproportionately applied to impoverished families experiencing social and environmental stressors rather than actual abuse or neglect. For decades, child welfare policy has emphasized family preservation, yet flawed removal practices persist, often in cases where support services could have prevented separation.

Child welfare professionals must refine their decision-making process, ensuring that removal is only used as a last resort to prevent serious, imminent harm. The widespread lack of understanding regarding the trauma of removal, coupled with inconsistencies in child welfare policies, has led to an unjustified overreliance on this intervention. In too many cases, well-intentioned professionals resort to removal prematurely, reinforcing the cautionary lesson of aegrescitque medendo: attempting to help can sometimes cause more harm.

The Impact of Removal on Children and Parents

The moment a child is removed from their parents, their life is irrevocably altered. Foster care placement separates them from their family, siblings, teachers, friends, and community—replacing familiarity with uncertainty. This ambiguity manifests in several ways:

1. Placement reason ambiguity – Confusion about why they were removed.
2. Structural ambiguity – Uncertainty about what foster care means.
3. Temporal ambiguity – Anxiety over how long they will remain in care.
4. Placement context ambiguity – Uncertainty about where they will live.
5. Relationship ambiguity – Confusion about the people they will live with.
6. Role ambiguity – Uncertainty about their role within new familial environments.

The foster care system, intended to protect children, often inflicts lasting emotional and psychological harm. Without urgent reform, removal will continue to be overused, exacerbating the very problems child welfare aims to resolve.

The Traumatic Impact of Child Removal and Foster Care Placement

When left unaddressed, the uncertainty surrounding child removal can be deeply traumatic.

A. The Trauma of Removal and Placement in Foster Care

In child welfare discussions, trauma is often examined in terms of what happens to a child before or after entering foster care. However, it is equally critical to recognize the trauma caused by the very act of removal itself.

Children in foster care are not only separated from their parents but are also forced to build new relationships with unfamiliar figures such as foster parents, caseworkers, lawyers, teachers, and service providers. Many experience multiple placements, enduring repeated disruptions that exacerbate their psychological distress. These unanticipated moves contribute to relational losses, disenfranchised grief, and complex trauma—a condition arising from prolonged exposure to unresolved traumatic events that compromise personal security and emotional well-being.

Children who endure complex trauma may suffer from:

• Emotional dysregulation
• Dissociation
• Impaired self-concept
• Cognitive difficulties
• Long-term health consequences

To mitigate this harm, child welfare professionals must prioritize keeping families safely together whenever possible.

B. The Psychological and Biological Impact of Removal

Research overwhelmingly indicates that removal and foster care placement inflict emotional and psychological trauma on children. This intervention—meant to ensure safety—is the most extreme action taken by child welfare agencies and often results in severe stress responses.

The trauma of removal triggers a surge of stress hormones, flooding a child’s brain and body. Even brief separations cause elevated cortisol levels, which can damage brain cells—and unlike other areas of the body, many brain cells cannot regenerate. Harvard Medical School professor Dr. Charles Nelson warns:

“There’s so much research on this that if people paid attention at all to the science, they would never do this.”

While removal is sometimes necessary, it is overused.

C. The Apprehension Transaction and Its Consequences

Significant gaps in child welfare policy fail to fully address the harm caused by removal. Though intended to prevent imminent danger, removal itself often causes serious and lasting harm.

The apprehension transaction—the process of forcibly removing a child from their home and placing them in foster care—shatters a child’s sense of stability, relationships, and personal identity. Often taken without warning, children describe the experience as ambiguous, traumatic, and even akin to kidnapping.

Children report feeling:

• Confusion about why they were taken
• Fear of their uncertain future
• Loss of identity and belonging

More than half of children entering foster care are placed with strangers, further amplifying their distress. In unfamiliar settings, children struggle with role ambiguity, questioning whether they are still a son, daughter, brother, or sister. This emotional turmoil places significant strain on their psychological well-being and relationships.

Child welfare professionals must recognize the profound trauma removal inflicts on children and families. Every effort should be made to provide family-centered interventions, ensuring removal is a last resort. When removal is unavoidable, the process must be handled with sensitivity, expertise, and trauma-informed care to minimize its devastating impact.

The Psychological Impact of Family Separation on Children and Parents

A. The Trauma of Ambiguous Loss in Children

When children are removed from their families, they not only endure emotional strain but also experience the distress of ambiguous loss—a psychological state where a loved one is physically absent but psychologically present. Unlike death, ambiguous loss leaves children in a state of uncertainty, triggering anxiety, confusion, despair, and other negative mental health effects. Research suggests that the child welfare system often neglects these experiences, leaving children vulnerable to additional stressors that can negatively impact their mental and behavioral health.

A significant study on foster care alumni found that 25% of former foster children experience post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)—a rate nearly twice as high as that of U.S. war veterans. These findings underscore the urgent need to mitigate the long-term consequences of family separation and ensure that children do not remain in foster care unnecessarily.

B. The Psychological Toll of Child Removal on Parents

The trauma of family separation extends beyond children—it profoundly affects parents as well. For mothers who have had their children removed, the experience can create an identity crisis, leading to role ambiguity. One mother described her experience:

“They’ve taken my kids away. I don’t have anybody to mother.”

Role ambiguity causes grief, confusion, and trauma for parents who no longer feel they have a parental role in their children’s lives. Additionally, parents often experience ambiguous loss, not knowing when—or if—they will be reunited with their children. This uncertainty can lead to deep emotional distress, as one mother recounted:

“I went insane. I broke down, nearly died. I couldn’t stay in my house. I couldn’t be around their clothes… I found myself just wandering, looking for them. Even though I knew they weren’t there, it was as if they had died. But they didn’t—someone took them, and I couldn’t get them back.”

The mental and social health of parents deteriorates significantly following the removal of a child. Studies show that mothers who lose custody of their children experience increased rates of anxiety and substance use disorders within two years of separation. Support for parents is not just beneficial—it is essential. Ideally, interventions should be implemented before child removal becomes necessary, as separation often exacerbates existing challenges.

C. Inadequate Training and Standards for Child Removal

Despite the severe trauma caused by family separation, there is little guidance in policy and practice on how to minimize removals or conduct them within a trauma-informed framework. Law enforcement officers—who are frequently authorized to remove children—are not required to undergo training on the psychological and emotional impact of these removals. Additionally, many states do not mandate the presence of trauma-informed clinicians during the removal process, leaving children and parents without immediate emotional support.

Further complicating matters, child welfare policies in many states allow up to seven days before a caseworker is required to conduct an initial visit with a child after removal. This delay exacerbates the trauma experienced by children, contradicting the core mission of child welfare: protecting children from harm.

The U.S. child welfare system imposes considerable stress on the very children and parents it aims to serve—most of which could be prevented.

III. The Child Removal Process

Given the trauma associated with child removal, it is critical that the legal system closely monitors the process to ensure that only children who truly require removal are separated from their families. However, child removal procedures vary widely across jurisdictions, raising serious concerns about consistency and fairness.

State laws differ on who has the authority to remove children without a court order in emergency situations. In most states, law enforcement officers are empowered to remove children. In others, child welfare agency staff, such as caseworkers or investigators, hold this authority. Some states even allow private citizens—including doctors, prosecutors, nurses, and nurse practitioners—to make removal decisions.

The lack of uniform standards and trauma-informed protocols in child removal practices raises urgent questions about the effectiveness of the legal system in protecting vulnerable children while minimizing unnecessary separationsThe wide range of individuals authorized to remove children from their parents raises critical questions regarding their training, qualifications, and ability to make such a life-altering decision. Additionally, states vary significantly in their standards for emergency removals. For instance, Florida and North Carolina allow removals based on an authorized individual’s reasonable belief that a child is a victim of abuse or neglect. In contrast, Alabama, Connecticut, and Kentucky require evidence that the child is in imminent danger of serious harm. Some states, including Colorado and Michigan, mandate proof that no available service or program could prevent removal, aligning with federal requirements for reasonable efforts to keep children out of foster care—though enforcement is inconsistent. Other states, like Illinois, Indiana, and New Jersey, impose the strictest standard, requiring proof that immediate removal is absolutely necessary to prevent significant harm due to delays in obtaining a court order.

A case illustrating these differences is that of Debra Harrell, who allowed her nine-year-old child to play at a local park while she worked at McDonald’s. Unable to afford daycare, she believed this was a reasonable arrangement. However, after an adult reported the child alone, the police arrested Harrell for child abandonment and placed her daughter in foster care. Depending on jurisdiction, the legal response to such cases varies widely. In some states, an officer’s subjective determination of neglect is enough for removal. Others require proof of immediate danger, while a few mandate consideration of in-home services before resorting to removal. The strictest states prohibit removal unless the child is in immediate life-threatening danger, leaving no time to obtain a court order.

These legal disparities reflect how states perceive the impact of removal on children and families. States that allow removal based solely on suspicion create a system driven by subjective judgment, while those with stringent standards ensure that removal is a last resort, requiring clear evidence of harm and the infeasibility of court intervention.

Beyond removal criteria, states also differ in the timing of court reviews post-removal. Some jurisdictions mandate hearings within 24 hours, while others allow up to 96 hours. Outliers like Arizona and North Carolina permit hearings within 7 days, New Mexico within 10 days, and Montana within 20 days, potentially leaving children and parents without legal recourse for weeks. These delays significantly impact families, as critical decisions—such as child placement, schooling, and parental visitation—are made without court oversight, potentially exacerbating trauma.

Parental ability to challenge removals is further complicated by variations in legal representation. Attorneys are crucial in contesting removals, clarifying legal standards, providing essential case information, and identifying alternative placements. Research indicates that early legal representation reduces unnecessary removals and expedites reunification’s. Despite this, many states fail to appoint counsel at the outset of child welfare cases. Mississippi, for example, does not guarantee parents the right to an attorney at any stage, while Texas appoints counsel only at the full adversary hearing, occurring 14 days post-removal. Other states, such as Delaware, Minnesota, Nevada, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Virginia, Missouri, and Wyoming, grant courts broad discretion in appointing counsel, leading to inconsistent representation. Even in states with stronger legal protections, logistical delays often prevent timely attorney appointments, leaving parents unrepresented during critical proceedings.

Some jurisdictions prioritize child representation over parental legal support. In Washington, D.C., a guardian ad litem may be appointed immediately upon removal, yet parents do not receive legal representation until the first court hearing, potentially days later. This discrepancy disadvantages parents, undermines their ability to challenge removals, and disregards extensive research on the traumatic effects of family separation.

These procedural deficiencies raise significant concerns about the unnecessary trauma inflicted by removals. The question remains: how often are children in the U.S. removed unnecessarily? While definitive data is lacking, an examination of administrative records suggests that the frequency and justifications for removals warrant closer scrutiny.

IV. REMOVAL DYNAMICS IN THE FOSTER CARE SYSTEM This section explores empirical evidence regarding the frequency, causes, and necessity of child removals. Since 2009, the U.S. foster care system has removed children from their parents over 250,000 times annually. Understanding the underlying reasons for these removals is essential to ensuring that child welfare interventions prioritize family preservation whenever possible.

Sources

1. Child Welfare Information Gateway. Child Protection and Child Welfare Policies by State. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2023, https://www.childwelfare.gov.
2. U.S. Children’s Bureau. Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) Report. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2023, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/research-data-technology/statistics-research/afcars.
3. American Bar Association. Legal Standards in Child Welfare Cases: Representation and Removal Criteria. 2023, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_interest/child_law/.
4. National Coalition for Child Protection Reform. Analyzing Child Removal Practices in the United States. 2023, https://nccpr.org/.
5. National Conference of State Legislatures. State-by-State Policies on Foster Care and Removal Procedures. 2023, https://www.ncsl.org/human-services/child-welfare.
6. The Marshall Project. How Legal Representation Impacts Child Welfare Cases. 2023, https://www.themarshallproject.org.
7. Pew Charitable Trusts. Effects of Early Legal Representation on Family Reunification. 2023, https://www.pewtrusts.org.