Assessments, assumptions and ableism: examining court-ordered parenting capacity assessments of parents with intellectual disability and cognitive difficulties.
Saved in:
| Title: | Assessments, assumptions and ableism: examining court-ordered parenting capacity assessments of parents with intellectual disability and cognitive difficulties. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Kong, Peiling, Collings, Susan, Spencer, Margaret |
| Source: | Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability. Jun2025, Vol. 50 Issue 2, p196-210. 15p. |
| Subjects: | Child removal, Legal status of children, Risk assessment, Cognitive testing, Research funding, Parenting, Parents with disabilities, Courts, Cognition disorders, Discrimination against people with disabilities, Physicians, Child care, Social support, Psychosocial factors |
| Geographic Terms: | New South Wales |
| Abstract: | Background: Parental intellectual disability is considered a risk factor for child removal internationally. In New South Wales, Australia, authorised clinicians are court appointed experts who assess parenting and cognitive capacity in child protection matters. Method: This study examined a sample of 20 assessment orders requesting parenting capacity and cognitive capacity assessments and corresponding authorised clinician reports. Results: Authorised clinicians were requested to assess whether parental intellectual disability and cognitive impairment posed the risk of harm to children. Clinicians assessed parents as either "able with support" or "unable" to provide adequate care to their child. Conclusion: Our findings highlight the law's conceptualisation of risk, parenting capacity, and cognitive impairment in binary terms (i.e., risk or no risk, able or unable), which in turn limits casework planning and clinicians' framing of parents' abilities. We provide recommendations to improve fair and equitable assessment processes for parents with cognitive difficulties, as well as access to timely and appropriate services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Background: Parental intellectual disability is considered a risk factor for child removal internationally. In New South Wales, Australia, authorised clinicians are court appointed experts who assess parenting and cognitive capacity in child protection matters. Method: This study examined a sample of 20 assessment orders requesting parenting capacity and cognitive capacity assessments and corresponding authorised clinician reports. Results: Authorised clinicians were requested to assess whether parental intellectual disability and cognitive impairment posed the risk of harm to children. Clinicians assessed parents as either "able with support" or "unable" to provide adequate care to their child. Conclusion: Our findings highlight the law's conceptualisation of risk, parenting capacity, and cognitive impairment in binary terms (i.e., risk or no risk, able or unable), which in turn limits casework planning and clinicians' framing of parents' abilities. We provide recommendations to improve fair and equitable assessment processes for parents with cognitive difficulties, as well as access to timely and appropriate services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 13668250 |
| DOI: | 10.3109/13668250.2024.2417425 |
