DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2397.2006.00409.x Int J Soc Welfare 2006: 15: 230– 239 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WELFARE ISSN 1369-6866 © 2006 The Author(s) Journal compilation © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare. 230 Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA McConnell D, Llewellyn G, Ferronato L. Context-contingent decision-making in child protection practice Int J Soc Welfare 2006: 15: 230–239 © 2006 The Author(s), Journal compilation © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare Research on child protection practice has been concerned mainly with the problem of the maltreating parent. System philosophies and processes and the influences on these, while addressed by some authors, have not received the attention they deserve. Understanding the ways in which child protection practices are constructed offers insights into the equitable or otherwise application of these processes to different groups of parents within our communities. In the study reported here we examine how child protection workers make decisions about removing children and subsequently initiating court proceedings. By focusing our analysis on a particularly vulnerable group of parents, those with intellectual disability, we highlight the ways in which child protection workers carry out their legislative mandate to keep children safe. David McConnell, Gwynnyth Llewellyn, Luisa Ferronato Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Lidcombe Context-contingent decision-making in child protection practice Key words: intellectual disability, child protection, decision- making, court action David McConnell, Senior Lecturer (Disability), School of Occupa- tion and Leisure Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, PO Box 170, Lidcombe, NSW 1825, Australia E-mail: D.McConnell@fhs.usyd.edu.au Accepted for publication October 26, 2005 Introduction In child protection practice, the cruel or uncaring parent mythologised in the media is rarely encountered (Buckley, 1999; Clarke, 1993; Parton, 1995; Pelton, 1989; Thorpe 1994). Most cases do not feature battered babies, and evidence of wilful maltreatment, if present, is rarely clear and compelling. Rather, child protection cases typically involve children and families marginalised by poverty, social isolation, addiction, disability and/or minority status (Dingwall, Eekelaar & Murray, 1983; Fernandez, 1996; Gibbons, Conroy & Bell, 1995; Gough, Boddy, Dunning & Stone, 1989; Lindsey, 1991, 1994; Morton, 1999; Pelton, 1989; Thorpe, 1994). In this context, the decision to remove a child is a complex one. Shrouded in ambiguity and uncertainty, the ‘right’ decision is rarely, if ever, equally apparent to all (Parton, 1998). Families headed by parents with intellectual disability are among those who attract intense scrutiny from child protection authorities. In the USA, Taylor et al. (1991) examined 206 consecutive cases before the Boston Juvenile Court. In 31 cases (approximately 15 per cent of the total sample) either one or both parents were identified as intellectually impaired (IQ < 79). Llewellyn, McConnell and Ferronato (2003) report similar findings from their review of 407 consecutive Children’s Court cases in Sydney, Australia: parents with intellectual disability featured in 8.8 per cent (n = 25) of cases that were initiated by the statutory child protection authority. In England, Booth, Booth and McConnell (2004) recently reviewed 437 cases involving public law applications by local authorities under the Children Act 1989. Parents with intellectual disability featured in 22.1 per cent of these cases. The figures from these studies suggest there is significant over-representation of parents with intellectual disability in care proceedings in comparison with the general population estimate for this parental disability of between 0.25 per cent and 0.99 per cent (Australian Institute of Health & Welfare [AIHW], 1998; Mirfin-Veitch, Bray, Williams, Clarkson & Belton, 1999). For more than two decades, scholars in North America, the United Kingdom and Australia have voiced concerns about the child protection process and how decisions are made in cases featuring parents with intellectual disability (e.g. Booth & Booth, 1993; Gilhool & Gran, 1985; Haavik & Menninger, 1981; Hayman, 1990; Levesque, 1996; McConnell & Llewellyn, 2000; Watkins, 1995). The available evidence, which comes mostly from single case review, suggests that child protection authorities presume that child maltreatment or parenting failure is inevitable and/or that parenting deficiencies are irremediable (Gilhool & Gran, 1985; Haavik & Menninger, 1981; Hayman, 1990; Hertz, 1979; Levesque, 1996; Marafino, 1990; Payne, 1978). This is alarming given the now abundant research evidence demonstrating that intellectual disability per se is not an adequate indicator of parenting capacity or an insurmountable