"We All Know Who CAS Is": Black Caregivers' Perceptions of Child Protection and (In)Voluntary Services In Ontario

Background and Purpose: Rooted in a historical legacy of family separation in Canada, encounters with child welfare often generate extreme stress, driving a central paradox where Black parents avoid services that may be helpful, to protect their children from surveillance and the potential of family separation. While existing literature documents pervasive anti-Black racism within the child welfare system, there is limited research exploring how Black families come to make sense of the child welfare system. This study seeks to fill this gap by examining Black caregivers’ perceptions of child welfare, particularly as it relates to child welfare investigations and voluntary service. This study is guided by two research questions: (1) what are Black caregivers’ perceptions of child welfare? And (2) how do Black caregivers’ perceptions of child welfare shape their interactions with child protection workers?

Methods: Utilizing Interpretive Phenomenology as a methodological approach, the Parenting Under Threat study investigates how child maltreatment referrals, investigations, and services delivered by Children Aid Societies shape the lived realities of Black caregivers and youth across Ontario (i.e., Greater Toronto Area, Hamilton, London, Ottawa, and Windsor). The research team conducted one-hour individual interviews and focus groups with 33 Black caregivers and 3 Black youth from across Ontario, who had encountered the child welfare system between 2017 and 2026. The study aims to document these lived experiences and interrogate the institutional logics that sustain racial inequities, with the goal of informing more equitable and accountable policy and practice frameworks.

Results: Study findings revealed three major themes: (1) the threat of apprehension: "They're just like the police", (2) the need for protection vs system realities and (3) the coercion of (in) voluntary services. Black caregivers frequently relied on metaphors of policing to describe their experiences with child welfare. Negative perceptions of child welfare were often deeply entrenched before any direct contact with the agency. Instead, perceptions of child welfare were often formed prior to migrating to Canada and/or vicariously through witnessing a loved one navigate an investigation. Despite deep-seated fears, some caregivers acknowledged the necessity of child protection services and even experienced relief when receiving help for behavioral challenges. However, participants noted a clash between this need for intervention and the reality of practice, where systemic anti-Blackness often left their families' actual needs unmet and their autonomy stripped. Additionally, the studies highlighted the illusory nature of “voluntary” compliance. Most caregivers were either uninformed of their right to refuse services or felt entirely unable to exercise it. The fear of looking “guilty” and a desire to avoid further escalation prevented caregivers who were aware of their right to refuse service from exercising this right even when they desired to, resulting in caregivers providing pseudo compliance to protect their families.

Conclusion and Implications: These findings underscore a disconnect between the supportive intent of child welfare and the policing reality experienced by Black families. To reduce the indirect and direct harms inflicted on Black families, the child welfare sector must move toward community-accountable models of care that empower Black caregivers.