Mothers’ Experiences with Child Protection Services: Using Qualitative Feminist Poststructuralism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The postpartum period is often portrayed as a blissful, calm and loving time when mothers, partners and family members bond with their newborn babies. However, this time may be experienced quite differently when mothers are monitored by Child Protection Services. Having a baby under these circumstances can be very difficult and traumatizing. While all new parents require support and information to help them through the transition to parenthood and address physical and psycho-social changes, mothers who are involved with Child Protection Services require more specialized support as they encounter higher incidences of postpartum stressors and higher rates of poverty, mental illness and substance abuse. The impact of support for mothers involved with Child Protection Services is not well-understood from the perspective of mothers. AIM: The aim of the study was to understand how new mothers in Nova Scotia prioritized their postpartum needs and where they went to obtain information and support. METHODS: Feminist poststructuralism was the methodology used to understand how the experiences of five mothers who accessed a family resource center and had been involved with Child Protection Services in Nova Scotia Canada had been personally, socially and institutionally constructed. RESULTS: Themes include: (1) We are Mothers, (2) Being Red Flagged, (3) Lack of Trust, (4) Us Against Them and (5) Searching for Supportive Relationships. CONCLUSION: Personal stories from all participants demonstrated how they experienced stigma and stereotypes from healthcare workers and were often not recognized as mothers. They also struggled to find information, supports and services to help them keep or regain their babies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".