Child Abuse & Neglect 51 (2016) 427–434 Separating coercion from provision in child welfare Leroy H. Pelton * University of Nevada, Las Vegas Preventive supports should be accessible without conditions attached a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Received 13 July 2015 Accepted 10 August 2015 Available online 12 September 2015 I n a liberal-democratic society that respects individual rights and highly values the family and its autonomy, child removal is one of the gravest and most intrusive actions that government can take. Yet there is gen- eral consensus that a humane society has the obligation to protect its members from harm, especially those who cannot protect them- selves, and may, on occasion, have to resort to child removal in its attempts to do so. There is less agreement on where exactly the limits on * Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Leroy H. Pelton, School of Social Work, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 4505 Maryland Parkway, Box 455032, Las Vegas, NV 89154. Electronic mail may be sent to Leroy.Pelton@unlv.edu. such action and other coercive intrusions into the lives of children and their families should be set. I shall contend here that state coercion (in the form of removal) should be considered only when narrow standards concerning child harm, sexual exploitation, and endangerment thereof are not met, and that services (except for the medical treatment of children) should not be coercively imposed upon parents. We should, instead, seek to protect children and promote http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.08.007 0145-2134/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.