Child Welfare Case Manager’s Views of Parenting Capacity Assessments: An Exploratory Study

Abstract

Parenting capacity assessments (PCAs) are used in child protection as one tool in determining whether a parent has the capacity to provide good enough care for their child. If the parenting capacity assessor feels that there are challenges to meeting ‘good enough’ parenting requirements, then these assessments aid in planning for interventions that may support the parent in making needed changes. The assessment can also help in decision-making regarding the termination of parental rights. When child welfare matters are brought before the courts, assessors may provide expert testimony to assist judges. To date, there is very little research on the utility of these assessments from the child welfare case manager’s perspective. This paper presents the results of a small, preliminary qualitative study exploring the views of case managers (n = 28) in one Canadian province. Thematic analysis was performed inductively. The major themes arising from the research include: (1) What is the PCA meant to do; (2) cultural considerations regarding validity with various populations; (3) clarity of purpose: to assist the courts as opposed to clinical decision-making; (4) referral and process issues; (5) the place of the child’s voice; (6) the utility of the conclusions and recommendations; (7) specialized concerns, such as parents living with disabilities; and (8) possible negative impacts related to performing a PCA.

1. Introduction

Child welfare (CW) gets involved in the lives of families based upon concerns about the safety of children and the capacity of parents to provide ‘good enough’ care to their children. There are substantial discussions about the place of CW in the over-representation of racialized and Indigenous children involved with the system, including in out-of-home care. There are discussions about the abolition or significant diminishment of CW within society (Hyslop and Pease 2025; Roberts 2025). These arguments extend to how case managers make decisions and the degree to which information and assessment gathering is valid within the populations most involved. In Canada (Fallon et al. 2021), Australia (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and National Indigenous Australians Agency 2026), New Zealand (Keddell et al. 2026), and the USA (Dettlaff 2023), there is a robust body of literature showing that the legislation, policy, and practice of CW is rooted in Eurocentric understandings of family, parenting, and the best interest of the child (Gregory et al. 2026). Validity concerns also apply to other collective and communal parenting environments, which include immigrant and refugee families that tend to be over-represented within the Canadian child welfare population (Choate 2027; Antwi-Boasiako et al. 2022; Fallon et al. 2021).

Other research has shown that Black populations are subject to more intense CW involvement in the United States (Roberts 2022, 2025; Dettlaff and Boyd 2020; Dettlaff et al. 2020; Putnam-Hornstein et al. 2013), Canada (Noorishad et al. 2023; Antwi-Boasiako et al. 2022; Mohamud et al. 2021), and England (Department for Education 2024; Bywaters et al. 2020).

Legislation consistently points to the notion that a parent must be ‘good enough’ to have children involved with CW sustained in or returned to parental care (Choate 2027; Choate and Engstrom 2014). In addition, the legal system focuses upon the ‘best interest of the child’, a term that became more common as a result of the work of Goldstein et al. (1973, 1979), although exactly how to apply this is subject to a variety of legislation and jurisprudence. Within the social science literature, there is a lack of consensus about the clinical application of the term (Choate 2027).

One of the tools used by CW to consider both the best interests of the child (BIC) and the ‘good enough’ parent is the parenting capacity assessment (PCA). These assessments are performed by professionals external to CW, typically psychologists, social workers, or psychiatrists. The process includes a review of relevant records, clinical interviews with parents and possibly the child, and the administration of psychometrics that might include personality, mental health, parenting, and child behavior inventories, as well as other tools specific to the referral questions from CW. In addition, observation of the parents and child together and, if that is not in the home, a visit to the family home may occur to consider the physical context of parenting. There are a variety of collateral sources of data used, such as schools, therapists, parenting coaches, and personal references. The report is provided to CW, but it is also reviewed with the parents (Choate 2027; Budd et al. 2011; Pezzot-Pearce and Pearce 2004).

The literature is increasingly questioning the utility of these assessments to properly inform decision-making (Smith and O’Donnell 2023), particularly in relation to parents external to Eurocentric, nuclear family dynamics (Walkem 2021). Nonetheless, courts continue to give credence to the PCA and the experts who perform them (Choate 2027).

The PCA used in CW work is different from that performed in family law matters. The core questions are different. In CW, there is a fundamental worry about the capacity of parent(s) to care for their child. There is no assumption that there is a ‘good enough’ parent, while at the same time, CW and the courts must be acutely aware that parenting is not static, requiring a formative approach to assessment that considers ability over time.

In family law, parents tend to be at odds about how best to raise the child, but there is a belief that one or both have the capacity to care for the child. In the CW context, therefore, the assessment process operates by asking if the parent(s) has the capacity to be ‘good enough’ for their child and, if not, whether sufficient change is possible within a reasonable timeframe. Time is based on legislative requirements, within which decisions for children need to be made by child welfare and the courts. If change is not possible within these constraints, the question turns to what other care arrangements need to be made, which can include kinship, foster, group, or adoption living arrangements. This may mean that the parent will lose a relationship with the child, although there is an increasing awareness that the BIC should include connection to family in some way, as well as to the child’s culture and community. In general, outcomes for children tend to be poorer when those connections are not sustained, as long as they can be done so safely (Venables et al. 2025; Boyle 2017).

Child welfare will do an initial investigation into whether there is enough concern that a file should be opened within the legal parameters of the jurisdiction. Once opened, the goal of family preservation is, in most jurisdictions, the primary goal of CW interventions. This is true in all 13 provinces and territories in Canada, as well as across the USA, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and Ireland, and throughout the European Union and other countries (see Berrick et al. 2023). The notion of family preservation will have different legal and policy frameworks, but keeping families together is a common theme. This is an important consideration for the context of the PCA.

The PCA process is performed at the request of courts or CW. It requires parents to visit a professional and to engage in extensive interviews, psychometric testing (in most cases), and a parent–child observation (which ideally occurs in the home), as well as granting access to medical, educational, and therapy records. Parents are asked to give a list of ‘collateral’ sources who can talk about the parent in that role. These might include family, therapists, and teachers, as well as others who may have insight. For the parent, it is an intrusive process (Choate 2027; Budd et al. 2011; Pezzot-Pearce and Pearce 2004). The PCA is best done after initial engagement, but with enough time for the parent to understand the results of the PCA and to engage in the change process (Platt and Riches 2016).

Canada passed legislation in 2019 specifically focused on the best interests of the Indigenous child, laying out specific factors and priorities associated with sustained cultural connection (An Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis Children, Youth and Families 2019). The application of this legislation is evolving. It adds a set of specific considerations for the PCA, as specific considerations are set out for the BIC when child welfare is involved with Indigenous children. Historically, the PCA has not been culturally grounded, although that is changing, partially pushed by shifts in law and considerations by the courts.

This paper seeks to examine how case managers perceived the need, utility, and impact of PCAs commissioned by CW to assist in dispositional decision-making regarding a child. To my knowledge, there has not been prior work specifically exploring this perspective, although there is a rich body of literature on processes associated with assessing parental capacity (Choate 2027; Budd et al. 2011; Pezzot-Pearce and Pearce 2004).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Design

This study used constructivist grounded theory (CGT) as a design and analysis framework (Charmaz 2014). Data were collected through interviews with 28 case managers in one Canadian province. Their experience ranged from 1 year to over 25 years, working across 8 different provincial sites. A semi-structured interview was used, focusing on the understanding that the case manager had about the purpose and reasons for having a PCA completed; what factors lead a worker to seek out a PCA or to not do so; their perception of what a PCA report should do; what makes the PCA report useful or not; can the PCA process be harmful, and if so, in what ways; how is the report used; considerations about whether the PCA process tends to delay decision-making; and the applicability of recommendations given the social, cultural, and economic position of the parent(s). All participants raised issues in unstructured conversation when asked about other issues they may wish to discuss.

2.2. Recruitment and Data Gathering

A notice was sent out to various CW offices within the jurisdiction during the period of December 2025–March 2026. This invited workers to participate in the interview by contacting the author directly. Inclusion criteria were current employment in a case manager position with experience using PCAs. Snowball sampling occurred as case managers suggested to colleagues that they participate in the research. Consent forms were sent to possible participants prior to the interview. All but one person continued to the interview. None withdrew during the interview process.

Participants could choose in-person (with 4 doing so) or online interviews (with 24 doing so). Interviews were audio-recorded either through Google Meet or via an audio recording device, lasting 45 min on average. Interviews were conducted by the author. A transcript was produced, which was checked by the author by comparing it to the recording. All identifying information on the transcripts was removed. In accordance with constructivist grounded theory, data and thematic saturation were achieved (Saunders et al. 2018; Charmaz 2014).

2.3. Data Analysis

Transcripts were analyzed immediately after interviews, with initial coding being performed at that point. Transcripts were then re-read, with further coding undertaken. Note-taking was done during interviews, which acted as a reflective point for the author. This led to eight themes. The areas of the interviews where case managers were invited to bring up any other issues particularly focused on the cultural issues related to the PCA, as well as the ways in which courts tended to give preference to PCA evaluators who had a narrow range of data, as opposed to the case manager, who knew the breadth of the case and related issues.

Using grounded theory as outlined by Charmaz (2014), initial coding was done as the data were being collected. This allowed identification of recurring themes, along with evidence of saturation. It was after this that focused coding was undertaken. I took the view in data gathering that I was not in the position of a case manager and thus did not have their perspective, nor have I worked in that role. Positionally, this allowed me to remain curious as case managers described utility, frustration, and confusion with various aspects of these assessments, including what to do with them upon receipt. In accordance with the researcher curiosity position, the participants were teaching while I learned.

An inductive approach was used, focusing upon the notion of what patterns are emerging (Charmaz and Thornberg 2021). This allowed me to identify patterns as they were emerging while framing possible theoretical frameworks as the process continued. Thus, additional interviews were not yielding new codes, as was evident with interview 26, which was confirmed by carrying on with two more interviews (Saunders et al. 2018). Consistent with Charmaz (2014), a combination of inductive and focused coding was used—inductive as interviews progressed and focused upon completion of data gathering.

3. Results

The eight identified themes, arising from the analysis of the interviews, help to inform how CW case managers identify both strengths and concerns regarding the use of PCAs. Within each theme, there are important sub-themes.

3.1. What Is the PCA Meant to Do?

At the core, the question is about understanding both what a PCA is and what it is meant to do. Participants felt that there is was not a common understanding, meaning that the PCA might be a tool that could be used for a variety of purposes. This could be seen as a positive, allowing for targeting towards a specific concern(s).

I think that each individual practitioner has a different view on what a parenting capacity assessment is supposed to do.

(P002)

Participants spoke about the PCA as a way to answer questions about how change might occur or why efforts at change have not been successful thus far. In concert with this, several participants saw these assessments as one pathway for trying to answer questions that workers have not been able to answer through their own direct work or through other resources. The PCA can act as a second opinion, particularly when workers are worried that return of the children to parental care may be unsafe. It can also act as a way for parents to talk about the issues with another professional and explore concerns within a different relationship from what they have with the case managers.

Participants did not see the PCA as being determinative, particularly as it is an assessment at one point in time. Other efforts can be occurring simultaneously to the PCA, such as therapy, in-home support programs, parent education, and increasing support from within the community or family systems. There were conflicting opinions as to whether a PCA should be undertaken when interventions are occurring. There were advantages and disadvantages, with no consensus on when it might be best.

The PCA was seen as quite useful in some cases. For example, as one case manager put it:

I also think they’re good to have a different set of eyes and have the client or service users lives viewed through a different lens through somebody that doesn’t necessarily have and I know we’re not supposed to have emotional involvement what we do and maybe it’s a good refresher for the worker as well as the client or the parent that we’re working with….

(P002)

The PCA can reassure the case managers that the case is being managed appropriately or, alternatively, may benefit from shifts in interventions or focus. One case manager stated:

It feels better and it has more weight for somebody else to say the things that I think we are already know, but we’re worried I think to be the ones to say it because of that. What about if we’re wrong? So let’s have somebody else with the different kind of education ask a bunch of questions and determine perhaps what we already know. And is that a valid thing?

(P008)

Another aspect is the idea that the PCA can assist the case manager’s decision-making.

I want to have everything and I feel like there needs to be everything that you could possibly get to either support this parent in parenting or connection or be able to justify the decisions that we’re making for child protection (in not returning children).

(P009)

Participants pointed out that there are times when the PCA should not be undertaken, particularly when there are barriers to an objective assessment. A common example is when a parent is involved in the criminal justice system and the PCA could be prejudicial to that. Other examples included when a parent was in active addiction or experiencing an acute mental health situation that required specific assessment and treatment. Case managers suggested that the PCA may be appropriate after those issues have been addressed.

3.2. Cultural Considerations Are a Concern Regarding Validity with Various Populations

This theme was discussed by most participants. Their concerns focused on the significant representation of Indigenous and other racialized populations within the CW population. The rates of these populations vary across Canada, although in the province where this research occurred, Indigenous families are the most common population (Bonnie et al. 2022; Fallon et al. 2021). Respondents expressed concerns about the validity of PCAs for these populations due to there not being a universal understanding of parenting. Cultural behaviors, beliefs, and practices vary, and participants felt that Eurocentric framing was too often the basis upon which PCAs were completed. As one case manager put it, if culture is not being considered, “Are you then being told that parts of your culture and the way you parent are wrong?” (P008). In the same vein, another case manager observed, “And when you have one kind of generic outline, I don’t feel that it meets all the different cultural needs…” (P011).

For Indigenous families, the place of CW is one of power that can replicate emotions related to the inter-generational trauma from historic and ongoing colonization (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada 2015). Respondents described the parenting capacity assessor as yet another dominant societal power figure. There was a common worry that racism continues to get replicated in CW, including through the PCA.

When working with communal or collective parenting units, a common concern was whether the assessor could take into consideration the ways in which it is not just the ‘legal’ parents who are raising the child. This is challenging as CW law focuses upon the legal guardians. At the same time, how can the best interests of the child be considered in these various extended family constellations? A couple of workers describe that some families they work with belong to highly collectivist communities, where it is not just family but also members of the community who raise the children.

In terms of the process of the assessment, case managers pointed out that different cultures welcome and engage with professionals such as assessors in specific ways.

With Indigenous people, relationships are really important. And I think if you have a good relationship with a person from an Indigenous community, they could do a parenting assessment, but again, I feel that people should have the support they need. Like you know, they know they’re being judged. They know they’re being looked at... You don’t get the full story when you’re gonna do assessments on them unless you have a relationship…otherwise it becomes a threatening tool….

(P011)

Given these diverse family and parenting constellations in varying cultural contexts, participants returned to the conflict between the legal parent and those that are raising the child.

Well I think that the context should be the context that the family actually is. So if that means grandparents, aunts and uncles live in the home, or are close, and they support then everybody needs to be in the assessment to talk about how this child is actually parented. Not just the capacity of the say one mom who might have some difficulties but other people don’t in the family that are supporting.

(P018)

Another participant noted, however, that it would be quite unusual to include grandparents other than as a collateral source of information, even when they played a significant role in raising the children. The case managers saw this as denying the family a valid assessment from the perspective of how the child was actually being raised and by whom.

3.3. They Are Often Undertaken to Assist the Courts as Opposed to Clinical Decision-Making

Case managers spoke frequently about the courts not seeing them as possessing expert knowledge. This meant that PCAs are undertaken not to discover new knowledge, but to have a ‘credible’ voice before the courts. Participants, who felt they had longer-term, nuanced, and more detailed relationships with parents, see their voices diminished for a ‘PCA voice’ that is short-term, limited, and not based upon a working relationship with the parents and others involved with the child. There is value in the PCA reinforcing what was already understood about the parents, as well as when new perspectives open up alternative interventions.

Even though courts can be deferential to PCAs, in a separate work (Choate 2027), I note that courts tend to take a holistic view of the data presented. Thus, courts can give the evidence from the case manager’s experiences varying weights, and the same is true for the PCA. In other words, courts do not view the PCA uncritically (Choate 2027).

3.4. Referral and Process Issues

Case managers wanted PCA assessors to be aware that the process was not just a clinical review, but, as noted above, a power-oriented intrusion in the lives of parents. As one participant noted, “For the parent, this may be the worst time of their life—no children at home, no certainty about the future, no control” (P027).

I think parenting assessments can carry a lot of weight in court. And I think that sometimes even more weight than the work that’s actually done day in and day out by the worker. Umm and I don’t think that’s always an appropriate weight to put on things.

(P017)

Part of the challenge for case managers is that the number of practitioners conducting PCAs can be quite limited, particularly in rural and remote areas. This meant that some would only seek a PCA if absolutely necessary, as they did not want to clog up access. At the same time, they also worried that the assessors are then seen as being aligned with CW.

Once a decision was made to get a PCA, case managers stated that clear questions and objectives led to better reports. Participants acknowledged that they owned the responsibility for ensuring the questions are specifically relevant to the case, even when the court has ordered the PCA. This allowed for a stronger connection between the case issues and the expertise of the assessor. This did not mean that the assessor was bound to just the questions posed, as they needed room to explore and comment upon matters arising in the course of the assessment. Case specificity in the referral helped to avoid pro forma approaches to assessment and recommendations.

Participants generally supported including CW background materials with the referral as a way of informing the assessor about issues such as why CW was involved, what efforts had been made to date, current worries, and other related materials that CW may have, such as medical and mental health information. In addition, if the court had ordered the assessment, then the details of that order should be sent to the assessor. A few case managers worried that the materials could bias the assessor, although the majority felt that when an assessment is undertaken without the background, then “The assessment is really only as good as the information that is shared and provided” (P010), which includes information from CW, as well as other sources, such as collaterals, therapists, doctors, and natural support figures in the lives of the parents. Case managers felt that the assessor must gather information from a variety of sources.

In terms of the PCA process, case managers emphasized the need for the assessor to see the parents and the child together and to visit the home to better understand the living and economic pressures, along with meeting the other support persons who may be living in the home. Case managers felt that this would give a clearer, more valid, and more contextual view of what parents may be facing on a day-to-day basis. Even if the children could not attend the home due to court orders, the assessor should still attend the home. Case managers noted that observations between parents and children, as well as home visits, add stress to the process. This can be true not only for the parents and children but also for others in the home, such as in inter-generational family environments. The case managers acknowledged that stress but felt that this provided the assessors with insights that were not otherwise available, such as how interactions, stimulation, co-regulation, and learning are supported. Reliance on the views of others working in the home, such as family support workers, was seen as valuable collateral data, but should not replace the assessor gaining direct knowledge.

3.5. The Place of the Child’s Voice

Whether the child should be interviewed was one area where there were quite divided views. Some case managers felt that it was essential for the child to have a voice in some manner. This might include being interviewed directly or ensuring that the child was seen with the parents in as natural an environment as possible, such as in the family home or another environment that is familiar to the child. Issues such as co-regulation, relational activity, and formal and informal learning directly occur across the range of stressors in the parent–child relationship. There are cases where parents see their children in only supervised situations in visit rooms at the child welfare office, at visits at agency sites, and even in a community setting. Case managers acknowledge that this created an artificial environment, making it harder for the family to behave as they might in their homes. Case managers felt visits to the homes with the children were the best option, which gave the child a voice through interactions and relational dynamics.

The most important part of the assessment is seeing that natural environment.

(P012)

I would think that seeing the functioning in the home, seeing how the parents are in the home in their natural setting, seeing how they interact with their children. In a natural setting is important.

(P017)

As for interviews with the children, participants worried that children may have been interviewed several times by the time of the PCA. In some cases, this meant intersections interactions with a variety of professionals such as police and forensic social workers, medical personnel, and specialized workers in child abuse and sexual abuse clinics, as well as the various case managers. The impact on the child of having too many such meetings was seen as detrimental. Participants observed that the assessment was about the parent, so the child should be involved only to the extent that it was necessary. The child can have a less direct but valid voice through observations, where the child’s relational behaviors tell stories. In-home visits were seen as more valid than visits in supervised or community settings. Adding another formal interview was seen as elevating the risk for the child.

3.6. The Utility of the Conclusions and Recommendations

Participants expressed a degree of frustration regarding the routine nature of recommendations. Some bluntly expressed that they could pretty much predict what specific assessors would recommend.

Yeah, I think some of our clinicians are assessors who just do the typical template that stands out to me because I feel it’s not shaping an assessment for the specific information and parent’s information.

(P010)

They sought more focus on the actual possibility for change, including how that might be achieved. They also want to know what barriers may exist and if they are movable. The participants described that implementing the recommendations was their obligation, but assessors needed to be mindful of the resources within the geographical area in which the parents reside. In their role as case managers, participants are looking for creativity in how change might be approached in ways that shift the conversation away from typical approaches that have been tried by CW. As Platt and Riches (2016) highlight, an effective PCA is about finding the capacity for change, motivating it, and seeking success. While not always possible, participants described being open to trying different interventions whenever they are reasonable and support the BIC, including enhancing what the support network can do. Participants recognize that in “some cases, it might be really, really clear that capacity is not present” (P024), but they did not describe that as the case in the majority of cases.

Some of the key issues participants looked for in a PCA report included:

• Has the assessor laid out what is unique to the family context and then applied that to the assessment conclusions?
• Do the parents present with an understanding of the concerns for their child and their role in change? In a similar vein, do the parents know what it is that their child needs, and can they do that specifically to meet each child’s individual needs?
• What is the standard of comparison that the assessor has used in order to draw conclusions?
• Has the assessor brought all of the data, including as-needed testing, together, so that the case managers, as well as the courts, have an integrated view of the family and the case?
• Has the assessor taken steps to ensure the parents understand the conclusions and recommendations?

Especially the ones that come back with really clear next steps. It focus, refocuses the attention.

(P009)

A concern for participants is the stability of the conclusions and recommendations. One example given is what happens if the parents separate—is the PCA still valid then? If the parent engages in the change process recommended in the PCA, would that mean that the conclusions may no longer be valid? Participants saw the PCA as having short-term validity.

Participants believed that the assessor should be neutral relative to the various parties in the CW process. For the participants, this was connected to avoiding confirmation bias. The value of this is in ensuring a balanced view of the parent.

But also to highlight areas of strength as well. So if there’s strengths that we can continue to build upon to be able to understand that more clearly and adapt our plan to be able to incorporate some of those learnings that yeah, so I’m gonna want to unpack that because there’s some really good information there.

(P010)

3.7. Specialized Concerns, Such as Parents and/or Children Living with Disabilities

This issue received less attention than might have been anticipated, given that there is an over-representation of parents living with various forms of disability (Lightfoot and Dangle 2026), such as autism spectrum disorder (Byrnes and Friedman 2025), intellectual disabilities (LaLiberte et al. 2024), and fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (Badry et al. 2023). Most responses focused on intellectual disabilities, especially in relation to low IQ. Participants wondered whether a parent had sufficient intellectual capacity to manage the needs of their child.

There was a lot of unanswered questions, that we were not able to get through the assessment process, and we had a child very, very high needs. In that situation, we determined early on, and a parenting assessment would be required. And it made a lot of sense, and eventually it went to trial, and it all made a lot of sense and gave us a lot of understanding about what the guardian and what the child needed to be able to be successful together. And what it did was it gave us the opportunity because we had it done so early.

(P017)

One participant wondered about parenting in a situation where there is a child with a disability and another without; whether there was more than one child with a disability; and the strain that parenting children with disabilities places on the parenting role. This was seen as presenting challenges for the assessor, as it forces a consideration regarding sustaining the family unit and, if not possible, then what does that mean?

Participants felt that assessors need to be informed about the disabilities that are relevant, as parenting in each circumstance will be unique. Standardized approaches do not tell the story. Although not using the word ‘ableist’, participants were concerned assessors might prejudge such parents.

3.8. Possible Negatives Related to Undertaking a PCA

The comments above highlight some of the concerns about harms from the process. Other ideas arose specifically when discussing this topic. Participants were particularly concerned with the PCA process delaying decision-making for children. As one participant stated, “We should never be the reason court is delayed” (P021) in respect to permanency decisions. This was discussed in the context of the time it takes from referral to report, which participants saw as being at least 3 months, if not more.

Participants raised concerns that just going through the process can be harmful for parents who will need, again, to tell the stories of their traumas and their history with CW and related agencies. Participants felt this was a common concern for virtually all of the families they worked with. Parents in domestic violence relationships were a common area of concern, as the parent has likely told the story several times. For parents with inter-generational trauma, particularly Indigenous parents, as noted above, this can feel like a dominant society yet again imposing its power. The assessor is “dropping into their (parents) lives for a brief moment” (P027) and will not be able to build a real relationship with them. Thus, participants were concerned that traumatized parents face further trauma within the PCA process, particularly if the support systems are weak or absent. The other concern is that these very support systems may be called upon as collateral resources for the assessor, which may have negative effects on the parent–support person relationship.

I feel like parenting capacity assessments are also done in a parent’s hardest time of life. They don’t have their kids [who are in] care most of the time when this is done. Who knows what other stressors that are going on or what’s going on and then they’re having to go through this very intensive and intrusive parenting assessment about their whole lives and everything their whole story.

(P027)

Participants wondered just how long a PCA is valid for. This is particularly true when the parent is working with CW, engaging with support, and working through change.

Technically I mean, it’s only valid until it’s up until it’s completed, because it’s based on everything that’s happened and moving forward with that piece of time that’s happened in this instance and what the that reason is involved... time has passed maybe they’ve been engaged in those recommendations and things are different.

(P019)

4. Discussion

This exploratory research highlights the experiences of case managers seeking and receiving PCAs. They strongly focused on the needs of serving CW, the parents, and the child. The goal for most CW cases is family preservation, which is frequently in CW legislation and court decisions, while contemplating the best interests of the child at the same time. It is a difficult balance. This research points out that the PCA is one element for case managers, but it is not the only or even primary element. Participants talked about their legislated obligations, which the parenting capacity assessor does not hold. Canadian legislation across 13 provinces and territories, along with the federal legislation regarding Indigenous families, makes the best interest of the child the priority. This is common in many jurisdictions (Choate 2027). Given the role of the courts and the legislated mandate of CW, a professional conducting a PCA on behalf of an agency does so within a position of power. Case managers spoke, in various ways, about how the courts emphasized the ‘expertise’ of the assessor, giving it preference even when the clinical work by the case manager and others involved with the family contradicted the PCA. This is an area that deserves greater analysis in subsequent research.

The PCA itself has significant power both in terms of how the parent is judged and also, as suggested by participants, in what happens next, both in terms of case management and in whether the courts see the parent as possibly being ‘good enough’. If we ignore the ‘power’ that an assessor has, then we enhance the structural biases built into the CW system.

In various ways, case managers felt PCAs were effective in looking at the capacity of the parents to be ‘good enough’ to meet the needs of the child and/or the capacity for change. The challenge is how the PCA can support front-line decisions about ‘good enough‘ in pragmatic versus theoretical ways. Case managers must consider more than what the PCA tells them. It is one source of data but not ‘the’ source, even when courts seem to place importance on the voice of the expert doing the PCA.

Participants spoke about seeking the PCA as a way to help them sort through the clinical challenges, while the courts (and lawyers) were typically seen as trying to figure out evidentiary matters. Participants were frustrated that their extensive involvement with the family seemed to have less credibility than the assessor who has short-term (albeit specialized) involvement. This is a challenge in law, where the expert is seen to have greater capacity to assess parents, which may be true in specialized areas but not in an overall sense. The CW case manager has much more overall data than the assessor.

A PCA is not a comprehensive view of what the parent is capable of, particularly given that the support systems around the parents and the children do not play a significant role in the assessment. In addition, non-Eurocentric families are often engaging in parenting in ways that support the needs of the child. It is the larger family and community systems that, together with the parents, achieve ‘good enough’ for the children (Lansford 2021).

The PCA does not consider the impact of risks external to the family beyond considering how the parents can seek to protect, although such control can be challenging (Bain and Harris 2024). A more detailed consideration of these issues is more in the realm of the case manager.

Case managers were clear that the PCA needed to yield actionable recommendations specific to each case, as they need to be mindful of what has already been tried and what is possible to do within the community in which the parents reside. This can vary dramatically from urban to rural and remote locations. Due to increasing technology availability, some increased services are available in rural areas but not so much in remote areas. The Canadian legislation on Indigenous child welfare is a beginning step, recognizing that many communities are able to provide supports that are directly linked to culture. Participants repeatedly spoke about the need for an assessor to consider referral questions from a cultural perspective and make recommendations with such a view in mind. There is frustration when assessors approach the work formulaically, including the use of psychometrics that may be invalid or of limited validity with the cultures CW most works with. Case managers are seeking assessments that truly support the CW practice done by assessors who understand the place and role of CW in society.

Although not a specific theme, there were suggestions in some interviews about whether the PCA is always the right way to go about determining the role of parents regarding the best interests of the child. In some cases, risk and domestic violence assessments, cognitive assessments, mental health evaluations, and adaptive capacity might better serve to inform. This might also move past the concerns about formulaic approaches to PCAs, shifting to a more nuanced consideration of the facilitators and barriers to meeting the needs of the child. In various ways, participants spoke about case-specific approaches enhancing the value of the assessment to the clinical work with the parents. Thus, the question becomes what CW needs to know and what is the best way to assess that.

When thinking about how case managers can pragmatically apply the learnings from this work, the starting point is asking what needs to be known and what is the best way to find that out. Then, consideration is given as to whether a PCA should be sought. This can lead to more focused analysis and, when a PCA is deemed appropriate, allow the case manager to target the questions to the assessor, helping to avoid formulaic PCA reports. The PCA is meant to serve CW, as well as other parties to the process, such as the parents themselves and the children, along with legal processes. That obligation should not be shifted to the assessor.

5. Limitations and Future Directions

This is a small, exploratory study that is, to my knowledge, the first to consider the voices of case managers regarding PCAs. There is a need to engage in a larger conversation to determine whether the themes found here are common or if there are other issues yet to be identified. In addition, this study represents one jurisdiction and is impacted by self-selection bias, meaning that participants were motivated to speak about the topic. As is typical of research of this nature, the views of the participants and the nature of the questions have an influence, which may limit the generalizability of this project. Hopefully, this paper leads to more research that can expand our understanding of this area of work, which has a powerful influence within CW systems.

Looking across Canada, the use of PCAs varies significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, based on cases reported by the courts as per the CanLii (the Canadian Legal Information Institute), which provides public access to published legal decisions. Choate (2027) notes that there is significant diversity in the ways in which CW and the courts approach PCAs, not just in Canada but also in many jurisdictions that use this assessment approach, including the USA, New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom, Ireland, and European Union countries. The point is that there is still much to be learned about how case managers, courts, parents, and children are impacted by this approach.

As noted in several places in this paper, culture plays an important role in how families function, including the ways in which children are parented. The existing formats for PCAs largely fail to adapt to cultural realities. It is a fallacy that there is ‘a right way’ to raise a child. This needs substantial attention in the research and practice literature.

This preliminary research might act as a way to open up broader dialogues across jurisdictions on whether the PCA is the best way to answer questions regarding the BIC. Given that there is not one model of parenting, there may also be a need for multiple pathways to assess parents’ ability to be ‘good enough’. For example, there is little focus on non-ableist approaches to assessing the capacity of a parent with various forms of ability challenges. There is a body of literature related to this (McConnell et al. 2017), although it does not appear to have had a profound impact on how PCAs are conducted (Choate 2027). The challenge is to frame disabilities from a strength and functional view to see how the parent adapts to be ‘good enough’. In so doing, the assessor should be quite inclusive of understanding how the support systems enable the parent. It is an area that needs to be challenged within the mainstream CW literature and practice. (Kong et al. 2024).

The voice of parents who have undergone a PCA would add an important but unresearched aspect. This is complex work, involving innumerable social, economic, and cultural contexts.

There were some issues that did not form a significant part of the conversations, such as access to social determinants of health as a barrier to successful parenting. This was rather surprising, given that this is a common concern in families connected with CW. Perhaps this is an area that is not able to be addressed by PCAs, given that it may be outside of the scope. This seems worthy of further consideration.