A Balancing Act: How Professionals in the Foster Care System Balance the Harm of Intimate Partner Violence as Compared to the Harm of Child Removal.

The striking prevalence of child exposure to intimate partner violence (IPV) and its associated adverse health outcomes necessitates a robust response from professionals who must grapple with the ethical dilemma of how to serve and support children in these circumstances. In 2020, 42 participants from four different professional backgrounds (attorneys, nonprofit leadership, licensed therapists, and social workers) were interviewed or participated in a focus group discussion. All groups acknowledged the shortfalls of current intervention practices, which often result in child removal. Group 1, which included social workers that work for children's legal services, minor's counsel, and Los Angeles Department of Child and Family Services social workers, were more conflicted in their recommendations for change. Some Group 1 participants recommended more training, while others thought more training would make little difference and recommended more substantial changes to prevent child removal when possible. Group 2, which included parents' counsel, and Group 3, which included social workers, attorneys, and nonprofit leadership at IPV nonprofits, were more closely aligned in their recommendations, primarily focusing on systemic changes to the child welfare system. Participants whose employment required them to advocate for parents tend to view child removal from a non-offending parent as harmful for both the child and IPV survivor. These findings illuminate how the perspectives of these diverse participants are influenced by their professional and personal experiences.