Caregiver Intellectual Disability, Statutory Context, and Case Outcomes In U.S. Child Welfare

Background
Caregivers with intellectual disabilities are frequently described as being over-represented in the U.S. child welfare system. U.S. jurisdictions vary in statutory language that permits consideration of parental ID in termination of parental rights (TPR) proceedings (TPR-ID statutes) and in affirmative parenting rights statutes that limit disability-based denial or termination. National quantitative evidence of disproportionate involvement of caregivers with ID in the child welfare system is limited and complicated by inconsistent documentation. Guided by Critical Disability Theory, Ecological Systems Theory, and the jurisprudence scholarly tradition, this study examined the prevalence of these statutes and whether the statutory context corresponded with patterns in national administrative child welfare data.

Methods
A sequential mixed-methods design was used. Aim 1 involved systematic legal review and jurisdiction-year coding (2013–2023) for all 50 states and five U.S. territories, examining the presence of TPR-ID and affirmative parenting rights statutes using Structured Analytic Techniques. Aim 2 analyzed restricted 2023 NCANDS investigated-report data. Jurisdictions with >40% unknown/missing/unreported caregiver ID were excluded, yielding 13 jurisdictions (N = 1,190,949). Outcomes included substantiation (binary disposition) and termination-related outcomes approximated using adoption service indicators.

Results
As of 2023, 39 jurisdictions had TPR-ID statutes and 19 had affirmative statutes. Jurisdictions with TPR-ID statutes did not have higher proportions of investigated cases involving caregivers with ID. In bivariate analyses, cases involving caregivers with ID were more likely to be substantiated than other cases (42.6% vs. 34.5%; RR ≈ 1.24). In models including statutory context, caregiver intellectual disability remained positively associated with substantiation (OR = 1.20, 95% CI [1.14, 1.26]). However, this association attenuated when additional caregiver disability categories were included (OR = 0.94, 95% CI [0.88, 1.00]). TPR-ID statutes were associated with higher overall odds of substantiation, whereas affirmative statutes were associated with lower odds. Adoption-service analyses were limited by substantial missingness and rare events.

Conclusions and Implications
Observed substantiation differences associated with caregiver intellectual disability appear partly attributable to broader disability documentation patterns. Statutory context was consistently associated with substantiation outcomes, underscoring the relevance of legal environments and administrative classification practices in child welfare decision-making. Substantial jurisdictional variation in disability reporting limits inference and underscores the need for improved administrative data collection.