Navigating Fear and Fragmentation: Service Provider Responses to Latine Immigrant Families In Child Welfare Contexts

Background and Purpose: In the context of increasingly restrictive and rapidly shifting immigration policies under the Trump Administration, there has been a notable rise in forced family separations among immigrant families due to immigration enforcement and raids placing new and unanticipated demands on child welfare systems. These dynamics raise critical questions about access, trust, and equity in public systems central to a functioning democracy. Service providers and legal professionals face heightened challenges in supporting Latine immigrant families while maintaining trust, safety, and access to care. This study examines how front line child welfare workers, administrators and legal service providers respond to the evolving needs of Latine immigrant communities and how these dynamics shape service utilization, engagement, and system avoidance.

Methods:
Data are drawn from a 2026 qualitative statewide study. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted with a sample of n = 50 service providers across urban and rural counties in California, including n=40 public child welfare workers and n=10 legal service providers, many of whom primarily serve Latine immigrant families. Interview guides included questions exploring service providers’ experiences working with immigrant families, perceived impacts of immigration policy on service delivery, barriers to engagement and access, cross-system coordination, and strategies used to support families navigating child welfare and legal systems. Data were double-coded by members of the research team to enhance analytic rigor and were analyzed using Braun and Clarke’s reflexive thematic analysis.

Results:
Findings reveal four key themes. First, immigration-related fear operates as a structuring force in system engagement, limiting families’ willingness to interact with public institutions central to care and protection. Latine immigrant families increasingly rely on informal support networks while avoiding formal systems particularly child welfare due to fears of enforcement, surveillance, and family separation. Second, a structural misalignment exists between child welfare mandates and immigrant family survival strategies. System requirements such as visibility, compliance, and documentation often conflict with families’ efforts to reduce exposure and risk. Third, providers describe emergent adaptive practices in response to enforcement contexts, such as developing informal and creative strategies to mitigate fear, sustain engagement, and navigate system constraints, often without formal policy guidance. Fourth providers report role expansion and boundary blurring, frequently extending beyond formal responsibilities to address gaps in coordination and support access across systems. Participants described taking on multiple functions such as coordinating legal, health, and social services, providing informal support, and assisting with system navigation. This role expansion reflects both the complexity of families’ needs and the fragmentation of available services, placing additional demands on frontline workers.

Implications and Conclusions:
Findings underscore the importance of cross-sector collaboration, culturally grounded and linguistically responsive practice, and flexible service models in advancing equitable access to care. In a democratic society, child welfare and legal systems serve as critical public institutions; however, in the current climate of fear and exclusion, the promise of equitable access is undermined. Implications call for strengthened policy protections, targeted workforce training, and system-level reforms that center trust, inclusion, and accessibility for Latine immigrant communities navigating heightened uncertainty and risk.