Between Visibility and Survival: Child Welfare Engagement with Latine Immigrant Families In a Context of Legal Violence

Background and Purpose:
Intensified immigration enforcement has contributed to rising forced family separations among immigrant families, placing new demands on child welfare systems across the United States. Agencies not designed to respond to immigration-related separations have been required to adapt rapidly, often with limited guidance, as they navigate complex practice challenges. These shifts have reshaped frontline practice as workers strive to maintain engagement, safety, and permanency within a rapidly changing policy environment. Child welfare mandates require visibility, documentation, and compliance (e.g., home visits, court participation), while immigrant families navigating legal precarity often rely on invisibility, avoidance, and withdrawal to reduce risk. This tension creates challenges for engagement. Drawing on a California statewide study, this research asks: (1) How do immigrant families navigate child welfare systems amid heightened enforcement and fear? and (2) How do service providers respond to tensions between system mandates and immigrant survival strategies?

Methods:
Data are drawn from a 2026 qualitative study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with (n = 50) service providers across California, including (n = 40) public child welfare workers and (n = 10) legal service providers serving Latine immigrant families. Participants were recruited via purposive and snowball sampling across urban and rural counties. Interviews explored barriers to engagement, service delivery adaptations, cross-system dynamics shaping access to care, and how legal stressors influenced families’ resettlement experiences. Interviews were transcribed and double-blind coded by the research team to enhance analytic rigor. Data were analyzed using Braun and Clarke’s reflexive thematic analysis.

Results:
Three key findings emerged. First, strategic invisibility and system avoidance shaped engagement. Immigrant families increasingly relied on kinship networks and community-based supports while avoiding formal systems due to fears of enforcement, surveillance, and family separation. This avoidance conflicted with mandates for visibility and compliance, complicating engagement and case planning. Second, adaptive and creative legal advocacy emerged as a response to structural constraints. Legal service providers employed flexible strategies to navigate shifting policies, documentation barriers, and risks associated with cross-system involvement, sustaining legal pathways and access to relief. Third, moral distress and trust-centered practice characterized provider experiences. Child welfare providers described tension between system mandates and risks to families, prompting shifts toward relational, culturally responsive, and trauma-informed approaches. These included prioritizing trust-building in which workers slowed down the casework process, adapting service delivery to reduce risk exposure, and strengthening collaboration with community-based organizations and rapid response networks.

Conclusion and Implications:
Findings highlight the need for policy and practice shifts that better align child welfare systems with the realities of immigrant families. Policy reforms should strengthen confidentiality protections, support cross-system collaboration, and allow flexibility in service delivery. Practice approaches that center trust-building, culturally responsive engagement, and low-risk service delivery can improve participation and reduce harm. Workforce development should include training in immigration policy, trauma-informed engagement, and strategies to address moral distress.