Interpreting Child Emotional Abuse In Immigrant Families: Iranian Divorced Mothers In Canada

Background and Purpose: Child emotional abuse (CEA) is a complex and context-dependent form of maltreatment, often defined through professional judgment rather than clearly observable behaviors. In multicultural democracies such as Canada, these judgments are shaped by dominant cultural norms that may not fully reflect the experiences of immigrant families. This creates challenges for equitable child welfare practice, particularly when culturally normative parenting behaviors are interpreted as harmful. This study examines how Iranian divorced mothers in Canada interpret and classify emotionally ambiguous parenting behaviors, with the aim of understanding how cultural meaning-making interacts with institutional authority in defining harm. By centering caregivers’ perspectives, the study contributes to social work research at the service of democracy by examining how fairness, inclusion, and voice are negotiated in child welfare decision-making.

Methods: A sequential explanatory mixed-methods design was employed. Phase 1 uses a vignette-based survey (N = 150–200) to assess how participants classify and rate the severity of twelve emotionally ambiguous parenting scenarios. Multivariate regression models examine variation in harm classification across migration-related, socioeconomic, and institutional factors. Phase 2 consists of semi-structure interviews (n = 20–25) with a purposive subsample selected based on divergent response patterns. Framework Analysis is used to explore how participants justify their evaluations, with attention to cultural norms, gendered expectations, and institutional experiences. Integration occurs across phases to generate explanatory insights linking classification patterns to underlying interpretive processes.

Results: Findings are expected to demonstrate systematic variation in thresholds for classifying child emotional abuse across culturally normative parenting practices, particularly in areas related to discipline, emotional expression, and parent–child relationships. Variation is anticipated to be associated with factors such as length of residence, institutional contact, and socioeconomic position. Qualitative findings are expected to demonstrate that participants draw on multiple, and sometimes competing, frameworks when interpreting parenting behaviors, including culturally embedded beliefs, migration-related constraints, and perceived risks of institutional intervention.

Conclusions and Implications: Classifications of child emotional abuse are not solely technical determinations but are shaped by cultural context and institutional power. These findings have important implications for democratic social work practice. When dominant frameworks are applied without sufficient contextual understanding, there is a risk of inequitable intervention and the marginalization of immigrant families’ perspectives. Advancing social work research at the service of democracy requires greater attention to how diverse caregiving practices are interpreted within institutional systems. This study contributes to this goal by identifying pathways toward more equitable, culturally responsive child welfare practices that balance child protection with inclusion and respect for diverse family voices.