How can we talk about child protection without talking about child protection?

Abstract

Language used by professionals when describing or speaking with parents of children within child protection services can be stigmatizing and harmful. Professionals across health, welfare and childhood education sectors frequently encounter parents who are experiencing multiple social, economic, and health adversities that impact their children's health, development, wellbeing, or physical safety. Families experiencing multiple adversities are often caught within intergenerational cycles of disadvantage and marginalisation which are difficult to escape. A public health response to child protection responds to those experiencing adversities and provides prevention, early support, and responses before situations escalate to where children's safety is under threat. Nurses, social workers, physicians, midwives, and lawyers are some examples of professionals who form the broader network of health, welfare, and early childhood professionals who are well-placed for child protection public health responses to prevention and early intervention that empowers families to disrupt intergenerational disadvantage. Language used throughout society and across health, welfare and education sectors to respond to families experiencing adversities including violence and maltreatment may inadvertently further marginalise these families and reduce their willingness to seek and accept support. This language has particularly significant consequences when used across government policy, health and welfare systems and by service providers and practitioners to enact a child protection public health response. This paper firstly summarises the historical and social context shaping the language used when supporting families impacted by violence and child maltreatment, and concludes with strategies to address unhelpful language that can perpetuate marginalisation and stigma.