J Appl Res Intellect Disabil 2016; 1–12 wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jar | 1 Published for the British Institute of Learning Disabilities © 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Accepted: 11 November 2016 DOI: 10.1111/jar.12323 SPECIAL ISSUE Child protecion services and parents with intellectual and developmental disabiliies Traci LaLiberte | Krisine Piescher | Nicole Mickelson | Mi Hwa Lee Department of Social Work, University of Minnesota Twin Ciies, Saint Paul, MN, USA Correspondence Traci LaLiberte, Department of Social Work, University of Minnesota Twin Ciies, Saint Paul, MN, USA. Email: lali0017@umn.edu Background: Informaion about parents with intellectual and developmental disabiliies (IDD) in the child protecion system (CPS) coninues to evolve. This study examined characterisics, experiences and representaion of parents with IDD across three CPS decision points, as compared to parents with other disabiliies and parents without disabiliies in the United States. Methods: The sample consisted of 303,039 individuals: 2,081 were individuals ideniied as parents in a CPS invesigaion; 1,101 had children in out-of-home care (OHC); and 308 experienced terminaion of parental rights (TPR). Descripive staisics, chi-square analysis, disparity indices and logisic regression were employed. Results: Parents with IDD were signiicantly more likely than parents without disabiliies (but not signiicantly more likely than parents with other types of disabiliies) to experience disproporionately representaion. Conclusions: Parents with IDD are generally over-represented within CPS; however, this representaion is dependent upon the comparison group uilized and other risk factors. CPS system-level changes are necessary. KEYWORDS child protecion, disparity, intellectual and developmental disabiliies, out-of-home care, parental disability, terminaion of parental rights 1 | INTRODUCTION People with intellectual and developmental disabiliies (IDD) have experienced a long history of discriminaion and prejudice, especially as it pertains to their ability to live full, independent lives, create fam- ilies and parent their children. Evidence of past societal aitudes, acions and policies related to parening with IDD (e.g., eugenics, invol- untary sterilizaion and insituionalizaion) clearly demonstrates this proliic prejudice and discriminaion in the United States (USA) as well as in the United Kingdom (UK) and Australia (Booth & Booth, 1993; Diekema, 2003; Macklin & Gaylin, 1981; Prouty, Smith, & Lakin, 2005; Ricks & Dziegielewski, 2000). Broad-based acions to prevent people with IDD from having children have been signiicantly reduced (Aunos & Feldman, 2002; Maraino, 1990; Prouty et al., 2005), but negaive societal aitudes regarding parening with IDD coninue with respect to maltreatment and meeing developmental milestones (Ackerson, 2003; Burgen, 2007; Lighfoot, LaLiberte, & Hill, 2010; McConnell & Llewellyn, 2002; Watkins, 1995). Negaive stereotypes have not been limited to that of general society. Social service workers and other professionals charged with supporing individuals in living their fullest self-directed lives expressed signiicant concerns about people with IDD marrying and raising children (Aunos & Feldman, 2002). However, professionals in these roles have also asserted that parents with dis- abiliies can successfully parent when appropriate supports and ser- vices can be put in place (Wade, Llewellyn, & Mathews, 2008). In addiion to discriminaion and prejudice, parents with IDD face addiional challenges in parening. Parents with IDD oten ind themselves in poverty due to employment in low-paying jobs, under- employment or unemployment (Booth & Booth, 1993; McConnell & Llewellyn, 2002; Tymchuk, 2001). Life challenges for parents with IDD are also compounded by co-occurring disabiliies, such as mental illness (Chaplin, Gilvarry, & Tsakanikos, 2011; Llewellyn & Hindmarsh, 2015; Llewellyn, McConnell, & Ferronato, 2003) and/ or substance abuse (Chapman & Wu, 2012; van Duijvenbode et al.,