Can Systematic Justice Be Achieved for Parents with Intellectual Disabilities in Deprivation of Custody Cases?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is well written, constructed and provides very interesting case studies.

I have a few questions and suggestions.

 

 

1.        What does the term ‘custody deprivation’ mean? I assume it means, removing the child from the custody of the child’s parents. Is it a legal term in Iceland? Many international jurisdictions don’t use this term.

2.        Line 489 ‘…the system…’ I wonder whether it would be better to use plural (systems) or actually name them, because it sounds as if there are some (not just one) ‘systems / agencies’ involved, not just child protection (CP) and that it is an accumulation and compounding of health, CP and courts / legal agencies.

3.        The discussion / conclusion is the weakest section. I know this is a case study and not a theoretical article, but I wonder, given some of the references, that the discussion conclusion could compare briefly and point to other practices. Some of these are referenced / described in the following articles and some of the authors are already referenced in this article:

·      https://wwild.org.au/parents-with-intellectual-disabilities-2/

·      Spencer, M. (2001). Proceed with caution: The limitations of current parenting capacity assessments. Developing Practice: The Child, Youth and Family Work Journal, 1, Winter, 16-24.

·      Spencer, M. (2000). Issues in assessing parenting capacity. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 44, 470-471.

·      Spencer, M. & Llewellyn, G. (2007). Working Things out Together: A Collaborative Approach to Supporting Parents with Intellectual Disabilities. In C. Bigby, C. Fyffe & E. Ozanne (Eds.)Issues https://www.intellectualdisability.info/family/articles/parents-with-intellectual-disabilities

·      https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1744629519829965?icid=int.sj-abstract.citing-articles.28

 

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Comment 1 “What does the term ‘custody deprivation’ mean? I assume it means, removing the child from the custody of the child’s parents. Is it a legal term in Iceland? Many international jurisdictions don’t use this term.”

Response 1. Yes, it is a legal term in Iceland. We have published and given talks in numerous international conferences using this term and no one so far has questioned it. In our case, we have been using the official English translation of the Icelandic Child Protection legislation (Child Protection Act, No. 80/2002) from the start of our research in this area, specifically Article 29. The Icelandic term “forsjársvipting” is translated in this law as “Deprivation of custody”, hence our terminology. However, if the reviewer is uncertain about this, others may well be. The Law Insider references this as: “Deprivation of custody means transfer of legal custody by the court from a parent or the parents or a previous legal custodian to another person, agency, or institution.” However, the fact that the reviewer asks about this, suggests others may ask as well so perhaps something needs to be done. Reviewer 3 also asked for clarification about this terminology.

To be honest, both the official translation and what I have seen looking around the net seems to be ‘deprivation of custody’ which is admittedly not what we use (custody deprivation). We therefore revised the title as “Can Systematic Justice be Achieved for Parents with Intellectual Disabilities in Deprivation of Custody Cases?” And any other place we found this language (see below). We could also add a footnote explaining this if the reviewer and/or editor wishes (much like what is written above)

• Line 3: title change; line 13; keywords line 22; line 52; line 60; 90-91; 94-95; 107; 120; 125; 194; 218; 221; 261; 263: 283-284; 291; 292; 304; 309; 353; 379; 455; 470-471; 485; 501; 509-510; 542.

Further, given the fact that Reviewer 3 asked for this clarification, specifically in the introduction, we have added the following text: Line 26-30; “Our specific focus is that of deprivation of custody orders (Is. forsjársvipting). According to Icelandic child protection legislation, the court may deprive the parent or parents of custody if the child protection committee finds that the child may be at risk due to the lack of fitness of the parents due to, among other things, ‘mental instability’ or ‘low intelligence’”

Comment 2 “Line 489 ‘…the system…’ I wonder whether it would be better to use plural (systems) or actually name them, because it sounds as if there are some (not just one) ‘systems / agencies’ involved, not just child protection (CP) and that it is an accumulation and compounding of health, CP and courts / legal agencies.”

Response 2: Good point. Yes, given how these systems work together and mutually support one another, we tend to think of this as a conglomerated ‘System’ even though as the reviewer pointed out they are in fact multiple systems. We have made the change as requested.

• Line 489 now reads as ‘these systems’

Comment 3: “The discussion / conclusion is the weakest section. I know this is a case study and not a theoretical article, but I wonder, given some of the references, that the discussion conclusion could compare briefly and point to other practices. Some of these are referenced / described in the following articles and some of the authors are already referenced in this article.”

Response 2: Thank you for this comment and thank you for the references. We have tried to work the material into the discussion where we could while also paying attention to word/length limitations.

• Line 503-504; 637-638 . International research has also shown that informal support, such as neighbors and friends, are also critically important but under researched in the literature [32].
• Line 507-509: …would be invoked and followed by ‘all means have been tried,’ all of which generally emerge from parenting capacity assessments and the validity of which have been questioned in the international arena for decades [33, 34].

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

"Can Systematic Justice Be Achieved" is both captivating and tragic. This research is critically important and has introduced me to another way to consider disability injustice and its correctives. I love the sentiment for hope that Protective Services are not ableist.

Protective Services need to be called out and intervene in support of these parents v. removing the children from their mother and to foster care.

Author Response

 

Reviewer 2

Comments 1: “Can Systematic Justice Be Achieved" is both captivating and tragic. This research is critically important and has introduced me to another way to consider disability injustice and its correctives. I love the sentiment for hope that Protective Services are not ableist.

Protective Services need to be called out and intervene in support of these parents v. removing the children from their mother and to foster care.”

Response 1: Thank you for your comment and positive feedback. We appreciate the time you have taken to review it and are pleased that is resonates with other scholars in the field.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article provides critical insights into the 'rough justice' (Booth and Booth 1994) served up to parents with intellectual disability in Iceland.  Interestingly and sadly, the case studies and your critical observation are all too familiar and not confined to how things work in the Icelandic Justice System. This may be worth noting; what you are speaking about is not unique to Iceland and is systematic of the unconscious basis and blatant discriminatory societal attitudes about the reproductive capabilities and rights of persons with intellectual disability.  This may be woven into your excellent overview of Mitchell and Snyder’s historical expose of eugenicism, particularly 'Atlantic Eugenics' 

Here are some recommendations. I trust they are minor in nature and would enhance the article.

In the introduction, for international readers, clarify what a deprivation order means.

Line 262-263 What justice looks like, we contend, in part, takes the form of establishing a number 262 of legal victories through challenging custody deprivation orders through the courts. Here you could elaborate on what you mean by legal victories.  I would suggest you define drawing on Article 12 and 13 UNCRPD.  and that the court upholds Article 23 calling on child protection to provide 'appropriate assistance'. 

Line 426-428 I would cite the work of (Broadhurst & Mason, 2017; Buek & Mandell, 2023; Hinton, 2018; Mayes & Llewellyn, 2012).  These Researchers discuss women’s responses to having their children involuntarily removed and highlight that it is not uncommon for women to become pregnant again soon after care proceedings (Broadhurst & Mason, 2017; Buek & Mandell, 2023; Mayes & Llewellyn, 2012). Broadhurst et al (2015) interpret this phenomenon of rapid repeated pregnancy during or soon after care proceedings to be a maladaptive grief response that exposes women to future child removal (Broadhurst & Mason, 2017).

Here are the references: 

Broadhurst, K., Alrouh, B., Yeend, E., Harwin, J., Shaw, M., Pilling, M., ... & Kershaw, S. (2015). Connecting events in time to identify a hidden population: Birth mothers and their children in recurrent care proceedings in England. The British Journal of Social Work, 45(8), 2241-2260.

Broadhurst, K., & Mason, C. (2017). Birth parents and the collateral consequences of court-ordered child removal: Towards a comprehensive framework. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 31(1), 41-59.

Buek, K. W., & Mandell, D. J. (2024). Perinatal health profiles associated with removal from the home and subsequent child protective services report in maltreated infants. Child maltreatment, 29(2), 259-271.

Mayes, R., & Llewellyn, G. (2012). Mothering differently: Narratives of mothers with intellectual disability whose children have been compulsorily removed. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 37(2), 121-130.

I suggest deleting lines 478 -480 as this statement is unnecessary to your argument. As of the time of writing, we are learning more of the troubling experiences of the [478] children in the foster care system that will need to be brought to light. However, as the [479] result of the trauma this family has already endured, we have opted not to pursue this at [480] the moment. The failure and problems of the foster care system is another issue, and I suggest unwise to conflate the two. 

I suggest. Line 518: "Further, without intervention, the number of notifications grew to the point where 519 we felt child protection acted out of frustration with the continual notifications more than 520 motivated by concern that the children were really being abused. To make matters worse, [this strikeout section is an assumption that you can not back up.  The fact the tally of notifications was used against the mother is a fact [521] the tally of notifications were later used as a form of evidence against the mother (‘we now 522 have X number of notifications’) 

Line 505-506 It became such a standard script that we felt that we would 505 almost be qualified to write the arguments for child protection lawyers. These lines could be less targeted. I suggest rewriting to say On review the file, such phrases presented as a standard script (cut out what you felt you could do better). 

At line 502 I suggest drawing on the literature about the importance of independent advocacy for parents involved in custody matters.  

Author Response

 

Reviewer 3:

Comment 1: “This article provides critical insights into the 'rough justice' (Booth and Booth 1994) served up to parents with intellectual disability in Iceland.  Interestingly and sadly, the case studies and your critical observation are all too familiar and not confined to how things work in the Icelandic Justice System. This may be worth noting; what you are speaking about is not unique to Iceland and is systematic of the unconscious basis and blatant discriminatory societal attitudes about the reproductive capabilities and rights of persons with intellectual disability.  This may be woven into your excellent overview of Mitchell and Snyder’s historical expose of eugenicism, particularly 'Atlantic Eugenics'”

Response 1: Thank you for your comment. As to the point of these attitudes rooted in genetics not being unique to Iceland, this sentiment was never our intent and the Eugenic Atlantic section was framed in this way. For example, while we outline the history of this in Nazi Germany, via Mitchell and Snyder, we also follow their lead that this was a North Atlantic phenomenon and that (lines 164-166) Iceland was a late comer, following the lead of the other Nordic nations and followed similar practices. We feel that it is clear that Iceland is a follower of others and therefore not unique in this regard. However, we also considered adding this instead in the introduction to make this clear. But lines 44-45 of the intro reads: “However, research in Iceland over the last couple of decades, and even older research abroad, suggests that these are deeply entrenched practices and resistant to change.” The ‘even older research abroad’ also suggests here that Iceland is not unique as well. But to drive this point home we have amended this to read: “However, research in Iceland over the last couple of decades, and even older research abroad, suggests that these are deeply entrenched practices and resistant to change, and which are by no means unique to Iceland.”

Comment 2: “In the introduction, for international readers, clarify what a deprivation order means.”

Response 2: Agreed. Reviewer 1 made a similar comment. In our case, we have been using the official English translation of the Icelandic Child Protection legislation (Child Protection Act, No. 80/2002) from the start of our research in this area, specifically Article 29. The Icelandic term “forsjársvipting” is translated in this law as “Deprivation of custody”, hence our terminology. We changed this to deprivation of custody to reflect a more exact translations throughout the text (and title) and added for further clarity to the intro: Line 26-30; “Our specific focus is that of deprivation of custody orders (Is. forsjársvipting). According to Icelandic child protection legislation, the court may deprive the parent or parents of custody if the child protection committee finds that the child may be at risk due to the lack of fitness of the parents due to, among other things, ‘mental instability’ or ‘low intelligence’”

Comment 3: “Line 262-263 What justice looks like, we contend, in part, takes the form of establishing a number 262 of legal victories through challenging custody deprivation orders through the courts. Here you could elaborate on what you mean by legal victories.  I would suggest you define drawing on Article 12 and 13 UNCRPD.  and that the court upholds Article 23 calling on child protection to provide 'appropriate assistance'.”

Response 2: Agreed. Line added material to elaborate this in 269-270  “By this we mean a court rejection of the demand from the child protection committee for deprivation of custody and the subsequent provision of appropriate assistance to parents in their child rearing duties as delineated in the UN CPRD, Article 29 [21]”

Comment 4: “Line 426-428 I would cite the work of (Broadhurst & Mason, 2017; Buek & Mandell, 2023; Hinton, 2018; Mayes & Llewellyn, 2012).  These Researchers discuss women’s responses to having their children involuntarily removed and highlight that it is not uncommon for women to become pregnant again soon after care proceedings (Broadhurst & Mason, 2017; Buek & Mandell, 2023; Mayes & Llewellyn, 2012). Broadhurst et al (2015) interpret this phenomenon of rapid repeated pregnancy during or soon after care proceedings to be a maladaptive grief response that exposes women to future child removal (Broadhurst & Mason, 2017).”

Response 4: Agreed. Thank you for the comment as well as the references. We are aware of the child replacement phenomenon and have seen this happen in our research and experiences as well. I suppose it was not included due to concerns about word count and length, but its inclusion helps. We have also included a modified version of your language here, as what you have written expresses this rather well and hope you are ok with that and we thank you for the comment. We have limited ourself in terms of the added references in reflection of word length/limitations as we also responded to other reviewers who requested additional use of the literature.  It now reads: “This has been recognized in the international literature [35, 36]. One analysis interprets rapid pregnancy after these events as a grief response, but which also opens the mother to future child protection interventions [37].”

Comment 5: “I suggest deleting lines 478 -480 as this statement is unnecessary to your argument. As of the time of writing, we are learning more of the troubling experiences of the [478] children in the foster care system that will need to be brought to light. However, as the [479] result of the trauma this family has already endured, we have opted not to pursue this at [480] the moment. The failure and problems of the foster care system is another issue, and I suggest unwise to conflate the two”

Response 5: Agreed and thank you. Those lines have been deleted.

Comment 6: “I suggest. Line 518: "Further, without intervention, the number of notifications grew to the point where 519 we felt child protection acted out of frustration with the continual notifications more than 520 motivated by concern that the children were really being abused. To make matters worse, [this strikeout section is an assumption that you can not back up.  The fact the tally of notifications was used against the mother is a fact [521] the tally of notifications were later used as a form of evidence against the mother (‘we now 522 have X number of notifications’)”

Response 6: Agreed and thank you and we have deleted the suggested strikethrough.

Comment 7: “Line 505-506 It became such a standard script that we felt that we would 505 almost be qualified to write the arguments for child protection lawyers. These lines could be less targeted. I suggest rewriting to say On review the file, such phrases presented as a standard script (cut out what you felt you could do better).”

Response 7: Agreed. However, it really does not add much to the argument so we have opted to omit this entirely.

Comment 8: “At line 502 I suggest drawing on the literature about the importance of independent advocacy for parents involved in custody matters.”

Response 8: Agreed and thank you. Reviewer 1 had suggested something similar and we have amended it to include both comments. Line 509-512: “International research has also shown that informal support, such as neighbors and friends, are also critically important but under researched in the literature [32] while others have stressed the importance of the role of independent advocates in supporting parents with ID [38].”