Children and Youth Services Review 60 (2016) 3441

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Children and Youth Services Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth

Fathers in child welfare: What do social work textbooks teach our students?
Katrina Brewsaugh ,1, Anne Strozier
University of South Florida, School of Social Work, 13301 Bruce B. Downs Blvd, Tampa, FL 33612, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Research indicates that fathers in the child welfare system provide benets to children's well-being and positive
Received 27 June 2015 development, yet child welfare workers often do not engage fathers in services. Previous studies in Canada and
Received in revised form 19 November 2015 the United Kingdom have found that child welfare training perpetuates negative perceptions of fathers. The cur-
Accepted 19 November 2015
rent study conducted a content analysis of 217 vignettes in the texts used in required classes for students com-
Available online xxxx
pleting a concentration in child welfare classes in nine schools of social work at the public universities in a
Keywords:
Southern U.S. state. Coding was completed independently by three researchers with an inter-rater reliability of
Fathers 79%. Findings indicated that despite men being the perpetrator in 51% of vignettes, women were portrayed in
Child welfare just over half of vignettes (51%) as the sole caregiver responsible for ensuring the child's safety when the
Textbooks abuse occurred. The data were organized into ve themes of how men and women were portrayed in the vi-
Content analysis gnettes: Men as Threat, Men as No Different than Women, Men as Irrelevant, Men as Absent, and Women as De-
fault Clients (the rst four suggested by Scoureld (2001), and the last by the researchers). Results indicate that
the bias against including fathers in child welfare services reported in other studies seems to start at the begin-
ning of students' learning about child welfare work, in their required textbooks. Recommendations include
updating child welfare textbooks to better address the role of men and fathers in children's lives, and increasing
professors' and eld instructors' awareness of the bias against men and fathers in child welfare.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction visitation with a father and a positive father-foster parent relationship

Recent research has shown that fathers play an important role in the
positive development of children, even when fathers do not reside with
their children (East, Jackson, & O'Brien, 2006; Sarkadi, Kristiansson,
Oberklaid, & Bremberg, 2008). A National Survey of Child and Adoles-
cent Well-Being study found that around one-third of children involved
in the child welfare system were living with their biological fathers
(Bellamy, 2009). However, research indicates that child welfare services
are often maternally focused and workers rarely make efforts to engage
the fathers of children involved in services (Brown, Callahan, Strega,
Walmsley, & Dominelli, 2009; Franck, 2001; Lazar, Sagi, & Fraser,
1991; O'Donnell, 2001; Strega et al., 2008). The systematic disregard
for fathers has created what Jaffe (1983) called de facto discrimination
against men by child welfare workers.
Fathers, even those whose children are involved with child welfare
systems, may provide benets to children's well-being and positive de-
velopment. The presence of a biological father is associated with a de-
creased likelihood of entering care (Bellamy, 2009) and child
protective services involvement (Berger, Paxson, & Waldfogel, 2009).
A review of 173 placements in Belgium found that more frequent
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: KBrewsaugh@AECF.org (K. Brewsaugh).
1
Present address: Annie E. Casey Foundation, 503 N. Charles St., Baltimore, MD 21201,
United States.
decreased foster children's internalizing behaviors (Vanschoonlandt,
Vanderfaeillie, Van Holen, De Maeyer, & Andries, 2013). Data from a
multi-state study showed that children who received both nancial
and nonmonetary support from a nonresidential father were twice as
likely to be reunied (usually with the mother) than children receiving
no father support (Malm & Zielewski, 2009). Even when a father is not
deemed a suitable placement, his compliance with his case plan is pos-
itively associated with children's placement with relatives, possibly due
to identication of paternal relatives (Coakley, 2013). Finally, an evalu-
ation of Family Treatment Drug Courts found that simply identifying the
father in administrative records increased the time children spent with
a parent and increased odds of reunication (Burrus, Green, Worcel,
Finigan, & Furrer, 2012).
Similar to mothers, fathers can also present risks to children's safety
and well-being. Analysis from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing
Study found that families in which the man was a biological father to
only some or none of the children in the home had higher child welfare
contact than families where the man was the biological father to all chil-
dren in the home (Berger et al., 2009). While mothers comprise the
largest proportion of child abuse and neglect perpetrators, fathers or fa-
ther gures are frequently in the home at the time of an allegation
(Zanoni, Warburton, Bussey, & McMaugh, 2013). Domestic violence
and child maltreatment often co-occur, increasing the risk that men
who abuse their partners will at some point abuse children in the
home (Zanoni et al., 2013). Studies of child fatalities have found

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.11.015
0190-7409/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 K. Brewsaugh, A. Strozier / Children and Youth Services Review 60 (2016) 3441
mixed evidence on whether biological fathers or unrelated men pose a
greater threat (Cavanagh, Dobash, & Dobash, 2007; Klevens & Leeb,
2010), though there is general agreement that men are more likely
than mothers to cause serious physical harm to children (Zanoni et al.,
2013).
That fathers, like mothers, are complex individuals who can present
both risks and assets to children should not in itself be a noteworthy
nding. Yet, within child welfare fathers are often viewed exclusively
as dangerous, absent, or unimportant (Scoureld, 2001a) and are rarely
contacted or engaged by workers (Brown et al., 2009; Franck, 2001;
Lazar et al., 1991; O'Donnell, 2001). This maternal focus occurs even
though fathers and father-gures are frequently present when protec-
tive services are initiated (Bellamy, 2009; O'Hagan, 1997). What re-
mains unknown is why a maternal focus in child welfare persists
despite evidence that supports father inclusion, though various theories
have been put forward. These include external forces such as adminis-
trative policies that, intentionally or not, lead to a focus on mothers,
lack of available or effective services for fathers, and workers' high case-
loads (Brown et al., 2009); factors internal to workers such as their own
relationships with their fathers (Veneziano, 2009), lack of comprehen-
sive knowledge in working with fathers (Zanoni et al., 2013); and soci-
etal forces such as the gendered nature of parenting roles (Wolins,
1983) and stereotypes about low-income men of color (Brown et al.,
2009).
Several authors have posited that research, textbooks, and social
work curricula perpetuate traditional gender norms related to parent-
ing. Shapiro and Krysik (2010) found that father-related variables
were included in 24% of family-focused articles in six journals with
high social work citation ratings from 2004 to 2008; fathers themselves
were involved as research participants in only 12.5% of articles. A similar
review of Social Work Abstracts Plus from 1977 to 2000 found only 118
articles about fathers, most of which were about noncustodial fathers
(Strug & Wilmore-Schaeffer, 2003). Gender-neutral terms such as par-
ents or families are often used throughout publications even though no
fathers were involved in the research (Risley-Curtiss & Heffernan,
2003; Strega et al., 2008).
Other authors have noted that social work and child welfare educa-
tion reinforces gendered social norms and negative perceptions of fa-
thers. McPhail (2008) noted that calls for more inclusion of gender in
social work curricula are synonymous with increasing the content on
women. She critiques the invisibility of men in the study of gender, ask-
ing how social work interventions would change if they recognized the
full range of masculinities (McPhail, 2008). A review of BSW curricula in
Canada found minimal content related to fathers (Walmsley, Strega,
Brown, Dominelli, & Callahan, 2009). Only four out of 59 course outlines
had required readings on fathers and only three courses specically in-
cluded father content as part of at least one class session. Index reviews
of the required textbooks for the courses found only one child welfare
text included a specic reference to fathers (Walmsley et al., 2009).
Clapton's (2009) review of British training materials and texts found
that while fathers were frequently not mentioned, when fathers were
discussed they were almost exclusively portrayed as bad men. No pre-
vious U.S. researcher has examined social work textbooks to assess the
portrayal of fathers in the child welfare system. This study reviewed vi-
gnettes in social work texts required for child welfare classes examine
the way in which men, and fathers specically, are portrayed.
2. Methods
2.1. Data collection
In 2010, each school of social work in a large Southern state was
contacted to ascertain the textbooks that were used in required classes
for students in the Title IV-E Child Welfare program. The Title IV-E pro-
gram is a federally funded program to provide BSW and MSW students
with stipends to train them for careers in child welfare. The authors
35
obtained copies of each textbook used in the Title IV-E programs and
copied the vignettes in the books for review. Four texts were excluded
because they were memoirs, two were excluded as they did not contain
vignettes related to child abuse/neglect, and one was excluded because
it was a novel. Table 1 lists the 12 textbooks with the number of vi-
gnettes in each textbook. All vignettes were scanned for coding. Vi-
gnettes were included in the study if child abuse or neglect occurred
and the gender of the perpetrator was either stated or strongly implied.
Vignettes not meeting these two criteria, as well as those presenting
historical vignettes that occurred prior to 1970, were excluded. A total
of 217 vignettes were included in the analysis.
2.2. Coding
The researchers initially created 24 variables on which to code vi-
gnettes. One variable was deleted early in the coding process as it was
quickly found to be irrelevant. Eleven variables (see Table 2) reected
types of child abuse or neglect (CAN) that can warrant child welfare in-
volvement. These variables were based on the CAN variables used by the
Children's Bureau (Children's Children's Bureau, 2015). For each vi-
gnette, the relationship of the CAN perpetrator to the primary child
abuse victim was coded (e.g. father, mother, parents/step-parents).
Some vignettes recounted an intergenerational cycle of abuse in
which the parent of the child victim was also abused by his/her parent.
In such cases, the perpetrator was coded as a grandparent as in accor-
dance to the person's relationship to the child victim. Each vignette
could have more than one CAN variable indicated.
Five variables (see Table 3) were used to capture qualitative aspects
of vignettes. Absent/Non-Custodial was used to code parents who were
not part of the household such as though incarceration or divorce.
Table 1
Included texts and count of vignettes.
Text citation Total Vignettes
vignettes applicable
to
study
Berrick, J.D., Needell, B. Barth, R.P., Jonson-Reid, M., 7 7
(1998). The tender years. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Crosson-Tower, C. (2005). Understanding child abuse and 120 93
neglect. 6th Edition. Boston MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Crosson-Tower, C. (2009). Exploring child welfare: A 97 49
practice perspective. (5th Ed.). Needham Heights, MA:
Allyn and Bacon
Crosson-Tower, C. (2010). Understanding Child Abuse and 3a 2
Neglect. 8th Edition. Boston, MA: Pearson Publishing.
Downs, S W., Moore, E., & McFadden, E. J. (2009). Child 24 18
Welfare and Family Services Policies and Practice. 8th
Edition. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Ellis, R.A., Dulmus, C.N. & Wodarski, J.S. (2003). Essentials 12 4
of Child Welfare; From the Essentials of Social Work
Practice Series. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley and
Sons.
Frankel, A. J., & Gelman, S. R. (2004). Case management. 1 1
2nd Edition. Lyceum Books.
Mather, J., Lager, P. B., & Harris, N. J. (2006). Child welfare: 15 10
Policies and best practices. 2nd Edition. Brooks Cole.
Pecora, P.J., Whitaker, J.K., Maluccio, A.N., & Barth, R.P. 6 4
(2000). The child welfare challenge. (2nd Ed.). New York:
Aldine de Gruyter.
Popple, P., & Vecchiolla, F. (2007). Child welfare social 44 24
work: An introduction. Boston, MA: Pearson Education,
Inc.
Samantria, K. (2004). Culturally Competent Public Child 5 4
Welfare Practice. Pacic Grove, CA: Thomson,
Brooks/Cole.
Wolfe, D.A. (1999). Child Abuse, 2nd Ed. Thousand Oaks, 2 1
CA: Sage Publications.
a
Only vignettes that were different from the earlier edition were included.
36 K. Brewsaugh, A. Strozier / Children and Youth Services Review 60 (2016) 3441

Table 2 secondary review of these vignettes revealed a notable number in

Summary of perpetrator gender for CAN variables. which the only CAN type indicated for men was abandonment. Our ini-
CAN type Vignettes/cases Male Female Both tial denition of abandonment was broad and based on any parent who
N % N % N % N %
knowingly abdicated parental custody and responsibility, usually by
leaving the family and ending all contact. A closer review revealed
Abandonment 16 7.4% 1 6.3% 13 81.3% 2 12.5%
that this led to many vignettes being coded as abandonment when
Alcohol abuse 47 21.7% 22 46.8% 20 42.6% 5 10.6%
Drug abuse 40 18.4% 2 5.0% 24 60.0% 14 35.0% one parent (usually the father) left the child in the sole custody of the
Sexual abuse 73 33.6% 68 93.2% 2 2.7% 3 4.1% other parent (usually the mother). Such cases are not generally dened
Physical abuse 54 24.9% 27 50.0% 16 29.6% 11 20.4% as neglect by most child welfare systems. We decided to recode the ab-
Domestic violence 25 11.5% 23 92.0% 0 0.0% 2 8.0% dicating parent in these vignettes as absent/non-custodial (n = 23 vi-
General neglect 73 33.6% 2 2.7% 56 76.7% 15 20.5%
Medical neglect 18 8.3% 0 0.0% 13 72.2% 5 27.8%
gnettes) so that abandonment reected only those instances in which
Educational neglect 7 3.2% 0 0.0% 6 85.7% 1 14.3% child welfare became involved due to the parent(s)' absence. The nd-
Emotional abuse/neglect 21 9.7% 10 47.6% 9 42.9% 2 9.5% ings, therefore, are based on the recoded data.
Failure to protect 20 9.2% 1 5.0% 18 90.0% 1 5.0%

Nominal effect on case was used to code a person who was mentioned
so briey as to be inconsequential to the understanding of the vignette.
Parent not mentioned was used to code instances in which a mother, fa-
ther, or both parents were never mentioned in a vignette. Responsible
for safety was used to code which person was portrayed in the vignette
as being responsible for protecting the child(ren) from harm when the
abuse occurred. Finally, Focus of intervention was used to code whose
behavior an intervention was intended to change. For example, parent-
ing classes are intended to change the behavior of a mother, father, or
both. A child protective investigation or placement in foster care with
no other services was coded as having no intervention.
Three independent coders (the two authors and a MSW student
working as a Graduate Assistant) analyzed and coded vignettes in
assigned texts, with every third vignette double-coded for establish-
ment of inter-rater reliability. The inter-rater reliability was established
in several ways: (1) coders met regularly to discuss differences in cod-
ing, (2) they adjusted initial codes, (3) they added codes that emerged
from the data, and (4) they deleted codes that did not prove meaningful.
To calculate inter-rater reliability, coder agreement, prior to reaching
consensus, on each of the 23 variables was marked as a binary yes/no.
The total number of yeses was divided by the total of number of vari-
ables for the cases (23*217) was used to calculate the overall level of
agreement. An acceptable inter-rater reliability of 76% was achieved.
2.3. Data analysis
Descriptive frequencies of perpetrators for each variable were found
to overwhelmingly reect biological or step-parents rather than ex-
tended or extra-familial relationships. Therefore, each variable was
transformed into a new variable reecting male, female, or both genders
(i.e. both parents). A summary variable was created to describe the gen-
der of CAN perpetrators in each vignette as either male only, female
only, or both genders. Frequencies were re-run on the transformed
variables.
In our preliminary analysis of the data, we found a notable discon-
nect in the gender of the perpetrator and gender of the person receiving
a child welfare intervention, particularly for male perpetrators. A
3. Findings
Table 2 displays the distribution of child abuse and neglect (CAN)
types across the vignettes and the gender distribution of the perpetrator
for each CAN type. Because more than one CAN type may be present in a
vignette, the columns do not sum to 100. General neglect and sexual
abuse were each present in one-third of the vignettes, tying them for
the most frequent form of CAN. Physical abuse and alcohol abuse were
the second and third most common CAN type (25% and 22%, respec-
tively). Child death due to CAN occurred in only eight vignettes (4%),
reecting the rarity of such events. Three of the child death vignettes
recounted true events (Popple & Vecchiolla, 2007, p. 22, 2007, p. 30,
2007, p. 270).
Table 3 displays the distribution of non-CAN variables across the vi-
gnettes and the gender distribution for each indicated variable. The ma-
jority of vignettes (97%) had enough information present in order for
the coders to infer who was portrayed as responsible for ensuring the
victim's safety when the CAN occurred. An intervention focused on
changing an individual's behavior was present in 58% of the vignettes
(investigation and placement in foster care were not counted as inter-
ventions). At least one parent was not mentioned at all in just over
one-third of vignettes (36%).
Looking at the gender of the perpetrator across all types of CAN
within a vignette, a male was the only perpetrator in 33% of vignettes
and a female was the only perpetrator in 32%. The remaining 35% of vi-
gnettes had perpetrators of both genders. When the number of vi-
gnettes with both genders as perpetrators is added to the male only
and female only vignettes, the total number of male perpetrators
(n = 147) was slightly more than the total number of female perpetra-
tors (n = 143). Thus, males were indicated as a perpetrator in 51% of vi-
gnettes versus the 49% of vignettes in which a perpetrator was female.
This relative parity in gender of perpetrator only emerged after the de-
cision to recode some abandonment vignettes as absent/non-custodial.
Perpetrator gender by CAN type reected fairly predictable gen-
dered patterns. Males were most frequently the perpetrators of sexual
abuse, physical abuse, and domestic violence. Females were most
often the perpetrators of abandonment, drug abuse, general neglect,
medical neglect, educational neglect, and failure to protect. Rates of
male and female perpetrators of alcohol abuse and emotional abuse

Table 3
Summary of gender for non-CAN variables.

Non-CAN variables Vignettes/cases Male Female Both Child/victim

N % N % N % N % N %

Absent/non-custodial 67 30.9% 55 82.1% 10 14.9% 2 3.0% NA NA

Nominal effect on case 33 15.2% 28 84.8% 5 15.2% 0 0.0% NA NA
Parent not mentioned 78 35.9% 54 69.2% 14 17.9% 10 12.8% NA NA
Responsible for safety 211 97.2% 47 22.3% 108 51.2% 56 26.5% NA NA
Focus of intervention 126 58.1% 9 7.1% 43 34.1% 21 16.7% 53 42.1%
 K. Brewsaugh, A. Strozier / Children and Youth Services Review 60 (2016) 3441
were fairly even. In cases in which child death due to CAN occurred,
mothers were at fault in ve instances (two due to physical abuse,
three due to general neglect), fathers were at fault in two instances
(both due to physical abuse), and both parents were charged with mur-
der in one instance (physical abuse).
Gendered patterns also emerged for non-CAN variables. Males were
nearly exclusively indicated as being absent or non-custodial, being
mentioned in passing with no real effect on the vignette, and not
being mentioned at all. Females were the sole perpetrators in approxi-
mately one-third of vignettes but were portrayed as the sole caregiver
responsible for ensuring the child's safety when the abuse occurred in
just over half. The high proportion of child/victim as the focus of behav-
ior change interventions is likely due to the texts by Crosson-Tower
(2005, 2010) which included a chapter focused on working with adult
survivors of CAN. If those vignettes are excluded, the disproportionate
focus on females for intervention becomes even more apparent at 59%
versus 12% for males and 29% for both genders.
Overall, the gendered patterns of CAN and non-CAN variables reect
themes found by others about how child welfare views men and
women. Specically, we found examples of Scoureld's (2001a) con-
structs of men as a threat, men as irrelevant, men as absent, and men
as no different than women. There were not enough examples of
Scoureld's constructs of men as no use or men as better than women
to justify these as themes in the texts. Our ndings also reect the nd-
ings of others that men are either absent or portrayed negatively in child
welfare texts and literature (Clapton, 2009; Greif & Bailey, 1990;
Shapiro & Krysik, 2010). Our review found an additional theme:
women as default clients. The themes found in this study are: Men as
a threat, men as irrelevant, men as absent, men as no different than
women, and women as default clients.
3.1. Men as a threat
Scoureld's (2001a) ethnography found that men were often con-
structed as a threat to the safety of women, children, and workers. The
men as a threat theme included two sub-themes of sexual abuse and vi-
olence. Our review found a similar construction of men as a threat. Un-
surprisingly, the vast majority of sexual abuse in vignettes was
perpetrated solely by men (93%). In terms of relationship to the focus
child of the vignette, most of the sexual abuse perpetrators were biolog-
ical fathers (n = 40, 55%). Step-fathers (including mothers' boyfriends)
and other male relatives accounted for 19%. Men who were not related
to the victim by blood or marriage (i.e. teachers, strangers, clergy) were
perpetrators in 19% of vignettes. The two instances of female sexual
abusers were both mothers of the child victims. The higher proportion
of males indicated for sexual abuse in the vignettes is not surprising
given that men comprise the majority of sexual offenders (McLeod,
2015). However, a recent review found that females were the primary
perpetrator in 20% and co-perpetrators in 48% of substantiated abuse
cases (McLeod, 2015). Thus, males are disproportionately overrepre-
sented, and females underrepresented, in vignettes as sexual abuse per-
petrators compared to their rates in national child abuse statistics.
Understanding Child Abuse and Neglect (Crosson-Tower, 2005, 2010)
includes a chapter focused specically on sexual abuse. On the whole,
the chapter provides a balanced view of sexual abuse perpetrators, in-
cluding examples of mothers, fathers, siblings, other relatives, and
extra-familial perpetrators. Yet the section Effects of a Sexual Abusing
Family in the chapter Adults Abused as Children reects none of
this balance as all of the perpetrators were biological fathers.
Men as a threat due to violence was also clearly reected in the vi-
gnettes. The majority of vignettes with physical abuse and domestic vi-
olence were committed solely by men. Again, the majority of these
males were biological fathers: 33% for physical abuse and 72% for do-
mestic violence. The number of male perpetrators of violence increases
when vignettes in which both genders commit violence are added in.
While no females were indicated as the sole perpetrators of domestic
37
violence, there were two vignettes in which both genders were indi-
cated as being violent towards one another. The extreme end of violence
causing death was seen for both children and adults. There was rel-
ative gender parity in child death due to physical violence. There was
only one vignette in which a father's domestic violence caused the
death of the mother.
CPS petitioned for removal of all the children because Ms. Jones
[mother] was hospitalized after being severely beaten by Jack Smith [fa-
ther of youngest child]Two months after placement, Jeannie Jones
died. Jack Smith was charged with murder and convicted. He is serving
life in prison without parole.
[Downs, Moore, and McFadden (2009), p. 119.]
In eight of the vignettes, the sub-themes of men as sexually abusive
and violent are both seen in the same man. In four, the father sexually
abused his daughter(s) and beat the mother and/or son. In the other
four, the fathers were physically and sexually abusive to their daughters
in ways that could be deemed sadistic or torturous.
3.2. Men as no different than women
It was not unusual for men and women to be portrayed as equally
bad in vignettes. Both genders perpetrated at least one form of CAN
in 35% of vignettes. There were notable proportions of vignettes in
which both genders were portrayed as being drug users, physically abu-
sive, or medically or generally neglectful. Vignettes in which both gen-
ders were perpetrators exemplify this theme by showing both fathers
and mothers as capable of abuse and neglect.
There was also relative gender parity in perpetrators of emotional
abuse or who were alcohol abusers.
[The parents] did not comply with any of the stipulations in their case
planOver the course of their four-year placement, the children were
visited by their parents no more than a handful of times.
[Berrick, Needell, Barth, and Johnson-Reid (1998), p. 78.]
[The children] were placed in an adoptive home but were removed
soon after when the agency discovered that the parents were using ex-
treme physical discipline and not meeting the children's medical needs.
[Downs et al. (2009), p. 403.]
Fights began with their parents screaming at each other, but it would
not be long before their father's angry words would erupt into punches,
which [the] mother would return with equal vehemence.
[Crosson-Tower (2005), p. 62.]
The Men as no Different than Women theme was also reected by
both genders being abusive or neglectful in a vignette, but in different
ways. For example, there were cases where an addicted mother and
physically abusive father co-existed, or a mother failed to protect a
child after disclosure of sexual abuse.
Ray was abused by an uncle (his mother's brother) at family re-
unionsRay had the courage to tell [his mother] because he felt she
would be sympathetic. Instead the mother laughed derisively[and]
taunted him about his disclosure for years.
[Crosson-Tower (2005), p. 330.]
3.3. Men as absent
The proportion of males indicated as absent/non-custodial (82%)
clearly demonstrates the theme of men as absent. Except for two vi-
gnettes, these men were the biological fathers. As noted by Scoureld
(2001a), this theme relates to the construction of men who shirk their
38 K. Brewsaugh, A. Strozier / Children and Youth Services Review 60 (2016) 3441
parenting responsibilities, choose to avoid being around when workers
visit, and/or are not present due to incarceration, divorce, or starting
new families. These fathers were portrayed as having little or no com-
mitment to their children, a theme discovered in focus group discus-
sions with child welfare workers about fathers. In vignettes, men in
this theme were often portrayed as unwilling to make personal sacri-
ces for their children, lacking commitment to both the child and the
mother, or moving on with his life.
3.4. Men as irrelevant
The irrelevance of men in children's care was reected in several
ways in the vignettes. Of the 78 vignettes in which at least one parent
was never mentioned, the majority (69%) were cases in which there
was no mention of the child's father. Even when mentioned, fathers
were frequently described as knowingly abandoning their children,
generally by walking out or having simply left. Explanations for fa-
thers' lack of custody included being divorced or separated, incarcera-
tion, or having no interest. Similar to the men as absent theme, the
vignettes rarely described efforts to involve these fathers. In 12% of the
vignettes the mention of a father had no more than a nominal effect
on the case. In other words, the events described in the vignettes
would have been no different than if the father was not mentioned at
all. The quotes below contain a few examples of fathers being men-
tioned in only one or two sentences in a vignette, exemplifying the
manner in which the mention of a father had a nominal effect on the
events being described.
My boyfriend said he was okay with me being pregnant, but as it went
on, he didn't want the responsibility. He isn't a part of our lives now.
[Popple and Vecchiolla (2007), p. 165.]
[The mother] spoke of the girls' fathers. Alice's was a migrant worker
from Puerto Rico, whom she had dated for a short time, and Karen's
was a white college student, with whom she had been particularly
impressed.
[Crosson-Tower (2005), p. 84.]
In contrast, there were just ve vignettes in which mention of the
mother had only a nominal effect on the events. In all ve, the mothers
were mentioned in only single sentence. Unlike the nominal mentions
of fathers, all of the nominally mentioned mothers were custodial and
four of the ve were the non-offending parent.
In some of the vignettes, the lack of interventions with men displays
poor child welfare practice that could actually increase the risk of harm
to children. One such example is a vignette on pages 8587 in Crosson-
Tower (2005). A child protection investigator is visiting a home due to
allegations of neglect. As the worker converses with the mother, the
narrative states that the mother.
looked furtively at the clock and suggested that the worker leave be-
fore her husband [the children's father] got home. When asked why, she
could only respond that he would not like nding the worker there. Mrs.
Wales agreed that the worker might return on another occasion. During
the next few visits the worker learned the following about the Wales
family.
[Crosson-Tower (2005), p. 86.]
While the vignette goes on to provide more information on the
Wales' relationship and history, it remains unclear if the worker ever
met or talked with Mr. Wales. We could not discern if the information
about Mr. Wales was relayed directly from him or through Mrs.
Wales. The vignette states there is no evidence that he has ever abused
his wife, (p. 86), but we have no idea how that conclusion was reached.
As found in other research, workers are inclined to avoid men who may
be violent (Cavanagh et al., 2007; O'Hagan, 1997; Scoureld, 2001a)
which may increase the risk of harm to children through not adequately
assessing men's true risk.
A nal way that men are portrayed as irrelevant is when their desire
not to assume child care responsibilities is accepted without challenge.
In Pecora et al. (2000, pp. 333334) a family is referred to the child wel-
fare system due to a severe burn on a three-year-old. The married par-
ents are in the process of separating and the vignette does not assign a
perpetrator, instead noting the parents' conicting accounts. At a per-
manency planning review, the father expresses a desire only to be in-
volved through visitation. His request is apparently allowed and
unchallenged as the vignette goes on to detail services provided to the
mother. While the mother had to complete many sessions of counseling
and parent aide visits before reunication, the father was granted unsu-
pervised monthly weekend visits after only participating in monthly
family sessions to discuss issues and facilitate communication,
(p. 333).
3.5. Women as default clients
Throughout the vignettes there was a near universal portrayal of
women as the default client for child welfare services. This theme de-
scribes the assumption that women provide child care, are expected
to have higher standards for child safety, and are the natural recipients
of interventions aimed at protecting children from harm. As discussed
above in the Men as Irrelevant theme, women were disproportionately
the focus of interventions in vignettes. That same evidence supports the
theme that women are the default clients for child welfare workers.
As shown in Table 4, there was a disproportionate portrayal of fe-
males as responsible for children's safety regardless of the perpetrator.
Only 60% of men in vignettes in which men were the sole perpetrator
were portrayed as being responsible for the child's safety when the
abuse occurred, compared to 97% of women in vignettes with women
as sole perpetrators. Even in vignettes where both genders were perpe-
trators, females were portrayed as solely responsible for child safety in
43%.
One way in which this theme is expressed is by vignettes in which
child welfare services are initiated due to a mother's failure to protect
children from an abusive man.
Kevin [father] was physically abusive to Renee [mother] and became
agitated when Janice [their infant] fussedWhen Janice was four
months old, Kevin beat her severelyRenee was reported to child pro-
tective services for child maltreatment because she had failed to protect
her daughter.
[Berrick et al. (1998), p. 55.]
Mothers were indicated for failure to protect in nearly all of the 20
vignettes with this abuse type; in none were interventions or services
provided to the fathers or boyfriends. In one vignette, the father perpe-
trated domestic violence and sexual abuse (Downs et al., 2009, pp.
249252). Even though the mother ed to a domestic violence shelter
and hid the children with an aunt so the father could not nd them,
the vignette states that the mother's earlier living conditions had ex-
posed the children to sexual and physical abuse and that she needed
Table 4
Cross-tab of CAN perpetrator gender and gender portrayed as responsible for child safety
when abuse occurred.
Gender of perpetrator(s) in vignette Responsible for safety during abuse
Male Female Both
N % N % N %
Male only 42 61.8% 10 14.7% 16 23.5%
Female only 1 1.5% 66 97.1% 1 1.5%
Both genders 4 5.3% 32 42.7% 39 52.0%
 K. Brewsaugh, A. Strozier / Children and Youth Services Review 60 (2016) 3441
to learn how to protect her children. The child welfare worker provided
the mother with assistance in obtaining housing, food stamps, and WIC
in addition to educating the mother about avoiding dangerous relation-
ships in the future. The only activity aimed at the father was a
restraining order; he was not mandated to complete any services to ed-
ucate him on not battering and molesting other women and children.
As shown in Table 5, interventions were disproportionately focused
on females regardless of the perpetrator's gender. Even when both gen-
ders were perpetrators, females were the sole targets of interventions in
half of such vignettes. In some of these, the offending male perpetrated
the abuse prior to leaving the household (either by choice or by man-
date of the mother or court), so the mother was the only one in the
home for the intervention. However, in other vignettes, the interven-
tions were clearly targeted at the mother even when the father was
also culpable. One vignette (Pecora et al., 2000, pp. 203205) begins
by mentioning the mother and her common-law husband (also the
children's father). Yet, for nearly an entire page, only the mother is men-
tioned. The vignette recounts that the mother left the children unsuper-
vised, didn't ensure her children were fed, wasn't able to manage the
household, etc. The father's failings were that he drinks heavily, and al-
though he manages to work, he never contributes to the household,
(Pecora et al., 2000, p. 204). Even though he lives in the household, he
is not viewed as contributing to the children's neglect. No mention is
made of attempting to intervene with the father; only that he evaded
any real responsibility, (Pecora et al., 2000, p. 205). Interventions by
the in-home worker were clearly focused on changing the mother's be-
havior; the father's role in providing adequate food and supervision for
his children is never acknowledged. A similar example, involving a mar-
ried couple with four children, comes from Crosson-Tower (2005,
p. 309). Though the family is intact, the vignette focuses on the mother's
change in behavior.
Due to her depression, the mother began sleeping a good part of the
day, expecting Hank [father] to watch the children. But Hank, too, felt
overwhelmed by the situation and began staying out more and
more[Mother] was determined not to lose her children. Once trust
was established, she readily complied with the agencies' suggestions.
4. Discussion
This study found that the child welfare texts examined were gener-
ally women-focused with men portrayed negatively or not at all. This
nding reects research conducted in other English-speaking countries
(Clapton, 2009; Walmsley et al., 2009). Additionally, the themes in the
texts align with ethnographic and phenomenological research on the
way in which child welfare workers talk about and construct mothers
and fathers (O'Donnell, Johnson, D'Aunno, & Thornton, 2005;
Scoureld, 2001a, 2001b). This study expanded pervious research in
two ways: by examining the subjective differences in how men and
women are portrayed in case vignettes; and by going beyond who per-
petrated abuse by analyzing who received child welfare interventions.
Table 5
Cross-tab of CAN perpetrator gender and gender of focus for intervention.
Gender of perpetrator(s) in vignette Focus of intervention (behavior change)
Male Female Both
N % N % N %
Male only 7 58.3% 3 25.0% 2 16.7%
Female only 1 3.6% 23 82.1% 4 14.3%
Both genders 1 3.0% 17 51.5% 15 45.5%
Note: Vignettes in which the child/victim was the focus of intervention were excluded
from the cross-tab. This greatly lowered the number of male only by excluding vignettes
related to victims in therapy for sexual abuse.
39
In many ways the ve themes work as a system, each theme a part of
the machine that reinforces and justies Western gender norms about
parenting and family life. Both men's threat to the safety of women
and children and men's absence support assumptions that men are ir-
relevant to child welfare, making women the default clients. The two
themes of men as irrelevant and women as default clients are essentially
opposing sides of the same coin. Women are the default clients because
men are irrelevant and vice versa. Even in vignettes where both parents
were in the home, vignettes focused more attention on the behavior of
and services to mothers.
The imbalance found between perpetrators and intervention targets
may stem from the similar imbalance in who the vignettes portray as re-
sponsible for ensuring children's safety. In vignettes where abuse was
perpetrated solely by men, women were portrayed as solely or partially
responsible for children's safety from the abuse in 38% of the vignettes;
42% of interventions in male-only perpetrated vignettes were focused in
part or in whole on women. The disproportionate focus on women in vi-
gnettes where men perpetrated all or some of the abuse was frequently
due to such men leaving the family before child welfare services inter-
vened. Scoureld (2001a) and O'Donnell et al. (2005) both found that
workers often did not think of men as primary, or even secondary, cli-
ents. This was particularly true when men were viewed as a threat.
Workers in Scoureld's study saw their job as pressuring women to
leave violent men; it was not their job to change the men's behavior.
The lack of interventions provided to male perpetrators in the vi-
gnettes not only unfairly blames mothers for men's behavior but reects
child welfare practice that could further jeopardize child safety. When
workers focus their interventions on simply getting abusive men to
leave the family, rather than engaging men in services, they are poten-
tially creating new clients for the child welfare system as these men
are likely to nd another woman with children and the cycle of abuse
will begin again. If the child welfare system's purpose is to protect chil-
dren from abuse then the possibility of allowing such men to move on to
new victims is antithetical to said purpose. This is not to imply that
these men should all be locked up or permanently segregated from chil-
dren. Rather it is that these men should be provided with interventions
that directly address the abuse they perpetrated and allow them the op-
portunity to become safe parents and partners (Pennell, Rikard, &
Sanders-Rice, 2014).
The non-CAN variables of Absent/Non-Custodial, Nominal Effect on
Case, and Parent Not Mentioned were almost exclusively male. All of
the 21 vignettes in which both Absent/Non-Custodial and Nominal Effect
on Case were present were coded as male (20 of which were fathers).
These fathers were mentioned almost as an afterthought, as if to provide
an answer to a reader who may ask Where is the dad? Workers in the
vignettes did not take actions towards contacting, engaging, or provid-
ing services to absent fathers. Rather, their absence, whether by choice
or circumstance, was reason enough to focus solely on the mother. Sim-
ilarly, both Scoureld (2001a) and O'Donnell et al. (2005) found that
the absence of men was viewed by workers as a bad thing in general,
but there was ambivalence regarding the responsibility of the worker
to engage these absent men.
When mothers were noted in vignettes as absent/non-custodial, the
context was different than that for fathers. Mothers were absent due to
death or incarceration. Only one vignette described a mother as abdicat-
ing her parenting role by walking out and leaving children in the sole
custody of the father (who was emotionally neglectful). The women
as default clients theme is also reected by mothers perpetrating over
80% of abandonment in vignettes. In most of these vignettes, the chil-
dren were left in the care of a grandparent or neighbor or the children
were already in foster care when the mothers disappeared. The overall
sense from the texts is that when fathers leave, they are absent; when
mothers leave, they have abandoned their children.
Others have noted that the maternal focus of child and family ser-
vices is both discriminatory towards men (Jaffe, 1983) and anti-
feminist (Carlson et al., 2006; Risley-Curtiss & Heffernan, 2003;
40 K. Brewsaugh, A. Strozier / Children and Youth Services Review 60 (2016) 3441
Silverstein, 1996). The disproportionate focus in the vignettes on work-
ing with mothers perpetuates a long-standing mother-blaming culture
in the child welfare eld. Domestic violence vignettes reected the com-
mon practice of viewing the mother as needing to learn to protect her
children rather than viewing the men as needing to learn not to batter
their partners. As Risley-Curtiss and Heffernan (2003) noted, failure to
protect is an overt form of mother-blaming because it is almost exclu-
sively applied to women. The maternal focus reected in the vignettes
is anti-feminist in that it perpetuates oppressive cultural beliefs that
force women to bear the costs, both economic and societal, of raising
children.
5. Limitations
A limitation of this study is that the sample was drawn from only one
state, therefore limiting generalizability. Future research should expand
this study beyond one state to increase its generalizability. Either a ran-
dom sample of Title IV-E texts used in social work programs across the
United States or the selection of the top 10 best-selling child welfare so-
cial work texts would be benecial. Another limitation, also affecting
generalizability, is that one-third of the applicable vignettes were from
a single author (Crosson-Tower, 2005, 2009, 2010), giving a dispropor-
tionate weight to this author's experience and view of child welfare in
our ndings. Two of the Crosson-Tower texts (2005); 2010) contain
multiple chapters with a focus on sexual abuse which may have skewed
the data towards more male-only perpetrator vignettes. At the time of
writing, the age of the texts ranged from ve to 17 years with a median
of ten years. The age of the texts may have impacted our ndings as
there has been an increasing focus on father involvement in recent
years. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using a simple percent of
agreement which may be a limitation as it did not take into account
the possibility of chance agreement. Finally, while the overall inter-
rater reliability was acceptable, reliability was low for the two variables
unique to the study, Responsible for Safety and Focus of Intervention,
which had inter-rater reliabilities of 38% and 35% respectively. However,
the impact of the low reliability for these two items was mitigated by
reaching consensus on all vignettes that were double-coded. Addition-
ally, inter-rater reliability in coding of perpetrators for CAN variables
ranged from 70% to 96%, indicated high agreement on both abuse type
and perpetrator identication.
6. Implications for practice
The bias against including fathers in child welfare practice may start
at the beginning of students' learning about child welfare work in
their required text books. Authors of the texts may argue that the vi-
gnettes accurately represent current child welfare practice. However,
what is the benet of training new workers to perpetuate a practice
that is discriminatory and potentially unsafe for children? The results
of this inquiry, coupled with ndings from others, suggest several impli-
cations for the training of child welfare students.
First, child welfare textbooks should be updated to better address
the role of men and fathers in children's lives. This would include
more information on the importance of fathers to children's positive
outcomes, more positive portrayals of fathers, and vignettes that in-
clude fathers as clients of child welfare interventions. Second, professors
of child welfare courses are strongly encouraged to increase their
awareness of the bias against men and fathers in child welfare and chal-
lenge this myth in textbooks and classes. Field instructors should sup-
port student awareness of this bias and teach students to be inclusive
of fathers and mothers. Finally, students should be provided with the
skills and tools necessary to work inclusively with fathers and men in
general. This could include increasing students' comfort in working
with men as well as training on how to assess the potential risks and
protective factors of fathers, methods that promote men's involvement
in services, and effective interventions for men who perpetrate various
types of child abuse.
We acknowledge that not all men are safe to be around children;
dangerous men do exist. But neither are all women safe to be around
children. Yet child welfare services frequently focus on making mothers
safe enough while fathers with similar histories are excluded. In the
future, child welfare texts and training should provide students with
the understanding and commitment to engage all parents in providing
safe, nurturing families for children. It is essential that social work pro-
fessionals view clients without bias and base their interventions on fair
and complete assessments.
References
Bellamy, J. L. (2009). A national study of male involvement among families in contact with
the child welfare system. Child Maltreatment, 14(3), 255262. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1177/1077559508326288.
Berger, L. M., Paxson, C., & Waldfogel, J. (2009). Mothers, men, and child protective ser-
vices involvement. Child Maltreatment, 14(3), 263276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1077559509337255.
Berrick, J., Needell, B., Barth, R. P., & Johnson-Reid, M. (1998). The tender years: Toward de-
velopmentally sensitive child welfare services for very young children. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Brown, L., Callahan, M., Strega, S., Walmsley, C., & Dominelli, L. (2009). Manufacturing
ghost fathers: The paradox of father presence and absence in child welfare. Child &
Family Social Work, 14(1), 2534. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2206.2008.
00578.x.
Burrus, S. W. M., Green, B. L., Worcel, S., Finigan, M., & Furrer, C. (2012). Do dads matter?
Child welfare outcomes for father-identied families. Journal of Child Custody, 9(3),
201216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2012.715550.
Carlson, T. S., McGeorge, C. R., Dejean, S. L., Grams, W. A., Linde, S., & Michael, R. V. (2006).
A feminist conceptual analysis of the predominant introductory textbook in couple
and family therapy training. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 17(2), 1739. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1300/J086v17n02_02.
Cavanagh, K., Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (2007). The murder of children by fathers in
the context of child abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31(7), 731746. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.chiabu.2006.12.016.
Children's Bureau (2015). Child maltreatment 2013. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administra-
tion on Children, Youth and Families, Children's Bureau Retrieved from http://
www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/research-data-technology/statistics-research/child-
maltreatment.
Clapton, G. (2009). How and why social work fails fathers: Redressing an imbalance, so-
cial work's role and responsibility. Practice, 21(1), 1734. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
09503150902745989.
Coakley, T. M. (2013). The inuence of father involvement on child welfare permanency
outcomes: A secondary data analysis. Children and Youth Services Review, 35(1),
174182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.09.023.
Crosson-Tower, C. (2005). Understanding child abuse and neglect (6th ed.). Boston, MA:
Allyn Bacon.
Crosson-Tower, C. (2009). Exploring child welfare: A practice perspective (5th ed.). Boston,
MA: Allyn Bacon.
Crosson-Tower, C. (2010). Understanding child abuse and neglect (8th ed.). Boston, MA:
Ally.
Downs, S. W., Moore, E., & McFadden, E. J. (2009). Child welfare and family services: Policies
and practice (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn Bacon.
East, L., Jackson, D., & O'Brien, L. (2006). Father absence and adolescent development: A
review of the literature. Journal of Child Health Care, 10(4), 283295. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1177/1367493506067869.
Franck, E. J. (2001). Outreach to birthfathers of children in out-of-home care. Child
Welfare: Journal of Policy, Practice, and Program, 80(3), 381399.
Greif, G. L., & Bailey, C. (1990). Where are the fathers in social work literature? Families in
Society, 71(2), 8892.
Jaffe, E. D. (1983). Fathers and child welfare services: The forgotten clients? In M. E. Lamb,
& A. Sagi (Eds.), Fatherhood and Family Policy (pp. 129137). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Klevens, J., & Leeb, R. T. (2010). Child maltreatment fatalities in children under 5: Findings
from the National Violence Death Reporting System. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34(4),
262266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2009.07.005.
Lazar, A., Sagi, A., & Fraser, M. W. (1991). Involving fathers in social services. Children and
Youth Services Review, 13(4), 287300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0190-7409(91)
90065-P.
Malm, K. E., & Zielewski, E. H. (2009). Nonresident father support and reunication out-
comes for children in foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(9),
10101018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.04.016.
McLeod, D. A. (2015). Female offenders in child sexual abuse cases: A national picture.
Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 24(1), 97114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10538712.
2015.978925.
McPhail, B. A. (2008). Re-gendering the social work curriculum: New realities and com-
plexities. Journal of Social Work Education, 44(2), 3552. http://dx.doi.org/10.5175/
JSWE.2008.200600148.
 K. Brewsaugh, A. Strozier / Children and Youth Services Review 60 (2016) 3441
O'Donnell, J. M. (2001). Paternal involvement in kinship foster care services in one father
and multiple father families. Child Welfare, 80(4), 453479.
O'Donnell, J. M., Johnson, W. E., Jr., D'Aunno, L. E., & Thornton, H. L. (2005). Fathers in child
welfare: Caseworkers' perspectives. Child Welfare: Journal of Policy, Practice, and
Program, 84(3), 387414.
O'Hagan, L. (1997). The problem of engaging men in child protection work. British Journal
of Social Work, 27(1), 2542.
Pecora, P. J., Whittaker, J. K., Maluccio, A. N., Barth, R. P., & Plotnick, R. D. (2000). The child
welfare challenge: Policy, practice, and research (2nd ed.). Hawthorne, NY: Aldine De
Gruyter.
Pennell, J., Rikard, R. V., & Sanders-Rice, T. (2014). Family violence: Fathers assessing and
managing their risk to children and women. Children and Youth Services Review, 47
(Part 1), 3645. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.11.004.
Popple, P., & Vecchiolla, F. (2007). Child welfare social work: An introduction. Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Risley-Curtiss, C., & Heffernan, K. (2003). Gender biases in child welfare. Aflia, 18(4),
395410. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886109903257629.
Sarkadi, A., Kristiansson, R., Oberklaid, F., & Bremberg, S. (2008). Fathers' involvement and
children's developmental outcomes: a systematic review of longitudinal studies. Acta
Paediatrica, 97(2), 153158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1651-2227.2007.00572.x.
Scoureld, J. B. (2001a). Constructing men in child protection work. Men and
Masculinities, 4(1), 7089. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1097184X01004001004.
Scoureld, J. B. (2001b). Constructing women in child protection work. Child & Family
Social Work, 6(1), 7787. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2206.2001.00189.x.
Shapiro, A. F., & Krysik, J. (2010). Finding fathers in social work research and practice.
Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics, 7(1) (Online).
41
Silverstein, L. B. (1996). Fathering is a feminist issue. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20
(1), 337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1996.tb00663.x.
Strega, S., Fleet, C., Brown, L., Dominelli, L., Callahan, M., & Walmsley, C. (2008).
Connecting father absence and mother blame in child welfare policies and practice.
Children and Youth Services Review, 30(7), 705716. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
childyouth.2007.11.012.
Strug, D., & Wilmore-Schaeffer, R. (2003). Fathers in the social work literature: Policy and
practice implications. Families in Society, 84(4), 503511. http://dx.doi.org/10.1606/
1044-3894.145.
Vanschoonlandt, F., Vanderfaeillie, J., Van Holen, F., De Maeyer, S., & Andries, C. (2013).
Mental health of foster children: Do biological fathers matter? Child Welfare, 91(6),
149166.
Veneziano, R. A. (2009). Social work students' perceptions of fathers' and mothers'
warmth and control: Implications for pedagogy and research. Journal of
Baccalaureate Social Work, 14(2), 123139.
Walmsley, C., Strega, S., Brown, L., Dominelli, L., & Callahan, M. (2009). More than a play-
mate, less than a co-parent: Fathers in the Canadian BSW curriculum. The Canadian
Social Work Review, 26(1), 7395.
Wolins, M. (1983). The gender dilemma in social welfare: Who cares for children? In M. E.
Lamb, & A. Sagi (Eds.), Fatherhood and family policy (pp. 113128). Hillsdale, NJ: Law-
rence Erlbaum Associates.
Zanoni, L., Warburton, W., Bussey, K., & McMaugh, A. (2013). Fathers as core business in
child welfare practice and research: An interdisciplinary review. Children and Youth
Services Review, 35(7), 10551070. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.04.
018.