![[ Visit Client Website ]](images/banner.gif)
Child Removal Experiences in East Jerusalem
Background: The focus of this study is on parents from East Jerusalem whose children were removed from their homes by a court order of the State of Israel following allegations of maltreatment. As in other areas marked by a complex conflict and socio-political realities, life in East Jerusalem provides a context in which child abuse and neglect also should be examined through a different lens. While research typically addresses trauma resulting of child maltreatment from the children’s perspective, little is known about the perceptions of parents whose children were removed from their home by court order - particularly when parents’ legal status may influence social workers’ decisions regarding the removal. Intersectionality theory is used as a framework to explain the multiple social statuses that shape parents’ perspectives.
Objective: This study seeks to give voice to mothers and fathers living in a geo-political conflict area, whose young children were removed from their home by a court order. Particularly, what parents perceive as the trauma experienced by their children and what is their perceptions of their children’s responses to the removal from home.
Methods: Semi-structured interviews with 22 parents of children at risk from East Jerusalem. The interviews were conversational in nature, took 50–120 min to complete and were conducted in Arabic. The qualitative analysis was based on the principles of grounded theory seeking to understand the meaning parents attributed to their experiences, and their interpretation of their children’s trauma of the removal. Given the characteristics of the study’s participants we applied Greenfield’s research paradigm that emphasizes socio-cultural perceptions among minority groups. Data analysis was conducted through thematic classification and yielded two themes.
Results: The analyses generated two main themes each with several sub-themes: I) cumulative trauma included the risk factors attributed by the parents to their children’s situation (e.g., their young age, the abuse and neglect, and living in a conflict zone such as East Jerusalem). II) the parents’ perceptions about the children’s responses to the cumulative trauma that sometimes included their reactions to the traumatic events assuming that their child reacted in the same way. The findings highlight both the needs and dependence of this vulnerable group, offering a basis for improving relationships with the welfare authorities and making them less intimidating.
Conclusions: First, the study gives voice to parents whose children were removed from their homes, a perspective that is largely absent from existing research. Second, it recognizes the abusive families as a vital source of insight and affirms their right to participation. Additionally, it sheds light on child removal in the unique context of East Jerusalem, particularly given the parents’ limited civil rights that fosters mistrust toward the welfare and the judicial systems. Finally, the findings may also help professionals and policymakers better understand the population’s complex realities, supporting the development of more sensitive interventions.