“Every Removal is a Trauma”: Parents and Service Workers’ Perspectives on Risk Factors, Trauma, and Barriers when Interacting with British Columbia's Ministry of Children and Family Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research study used semi-structured qualitative interviews to examine the concept of parental neglect within British Columbia’s Ministry of Child and Family Development (MCFD). Using the lived experiences of 7 parents who have had encounters with MCFD as well as 4 Service Workers who have worked for, or alongside, MCFD in the last 15 years this study identified risk factors that can lead to neglect categorized as parents unable or unwilling to provide care. The findings show a reluctance to support chronic issues parents face that inflame risk factors and stress leading to inadequate coping skills needed for parenting abilities. Through a neoliberalism and gender discrimination lens this study was able to identify barriers to efficacy within the MCFD process, such as a lack of funding for mental health services leading to long waitlist, stigma surrounding substance use and biases from servicer workers around expectations for how a parent should behave in a highly stressful situation like child apprehension. This study found that there were relationships between with mental health issues, poverty, a lack of parental advocacy and negative experiences with MCFD. Parental advocacy, a restructuring of funding to allow for more individualized care helping to address the issues of waitlists, reducing substance abuse stigma by viewing it through a mental health lens, and supporting Service Workers mental health while also increasing Service Worker training are small steps that can be taken to mitigate the added traumas resulting from encounters with B.C.’s child welfare system.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".