Disability, Pregnancy, and Child Protective Services: Experiences of Birthing People in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We explored disabled birthing parents' fear of, and involvement with, child protective services in the perinatal period, including how such experiences impacted their prenatal, birth, and postpartum care. Birthing parents with a physical, sensory, and/or intellectual or developmental disability were recruited in Ontario, Canada, and completed semi‐structured interviews about their perinatal care experiences. Using an interpretive phenomenological analysis approach, the following themes were constructed among 11 participants. Participants described being labelled as an ‘instant red flag’, with assumptions from perinatal health care providers about their parenting impacting their perinatal care experiences. They remembered ‘jumping through hoops’ to prove themselves as parents, describing unrealistic expectations from child protective services and noting that such services often hindered their early parenting abilities. Finally, they identified that ‘no one helps us’, pointing out a lack of tailored support to facilitate parenting and newborn care and scepticism towards perinatal service involvement. Our findings show the need for systemic reform in the practices and policies of child protective services, enhanced disability training for perinatal health care providers and social service professionals, and tailored services and strengthened informal support networks for prospective and new parents with disabilities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".