Re-hearing parents as risks to children: Institutional listening practices in a California child welfare court

Abstract

Building on scholarship on the politics of listening and the listening subject, this article proposes re-hearing as a listening practice where empowered actors assert that various qualities of personhood are hearable or perceivable in relation to what marginalized persons say, do, or are otherwise associated with. Although there is an expectation that in US courts lay actors can have a hearing and a voice before the law, I identify how practices of re-hearing shaped how parents and their narratives were heard (or left unheard) in a California child welfare court. My ethnographic research examined the listening and entextualization practices of judges, attorneys, and social workers involved in child welfare case management in California. I found that re-hearing practices co-constructed the continued marginalization of lay actors within contexts of state surveillance by attributing suspicion to parents and their silences in ways that exceeded and constructed evidence collected against them. Ultimately, I argue that child welfare courts and professional actors within them collectively comprise a listening institution that normalizes re-hearing low-income and racialized parents through frameworks of deficiency and risk.