13 Child Protection in a Rural Setting

This chapter will review the unique aspects of providing mandated child protection services in a Canadian rural setting.  First, the development and current state of child welfare in Canada will be presented with specific reference to child welfare services in rural Canada. Secondly, a review of rural social work practice models and the characteristics of effective rural social workers will be explored. Finally, the policy, practice and ethical considerations of child protection within a Canadian rural setting will be presented, drawing on the author’s experiences working in a rural community.

Child Welfare in Canada

Intervention by the state into the family is relatively recent in Western countries. During Roman times, laws were based on the concept of patria potestas, which viewed children as the property of their fathers allowing them complete control over their children’s lives. This control included the right to sell his children into slavery or even put them to death. With the spread of Christianity, the powers of the father became more circumscribed but still allowed fathers the right of “reasonable chastisement” of their children (Bala, 2004, p. 2). With the advent of the Industrial Revolution in the mid-19th century, the condition of children began to gain the attention of social reformers that resulted in the beginning of the child welfare system.

The development of the current child welfare system originated in urban centers. Social reformers including J.J. Keslo—founder of the first Children’s Aid Society in Toronto—were part of the Child Saving and Child Rescue movements (MacLaurin & McCormak, 2007). The increasing numbers of neglected and abandoned children in urban settings were the focus of these movements. Members were motivated by their Christian beliefs to save these neglected and abandoned children from their current circumstances to be raised in good Christian homes (Cameron et al., 2007). Ontario became the first province in Canada in 1893 to enact legislation allowing the state to intervene in families and remove children from their caregivers, if the children were deemed to be neglected or abandoned (Bala, 2004). In Manitoba and Saskatchewan, the first child welfare legislation was enacted 1898 and 1909 respectively (Dornstauer & Macknack, 2009; Hurl, 1984).

Despite the enactment of child welfare legislation in most provinces at this time, delivery was urban-focused, and delivery of services to rural areas was left to either the family and/or churches in the area to address (Dornstauder & Macknack, 2009). Child neglect, youth delinquency, unwed mothers and the most severe cases of physical abuse remained the focus of any child welfare interventions for the next 50 years (Bala, 2004; Oliver, 2017).

With the medical discovery of the “battered child syndrome” in the 1960s by radiologist Dr. Kempe, public awareness of child physical abuse increased dramatically (Cameron et al., 2007).  In the 1970s and 1980s child sexual abuse came to public attention and, along with the adoption of mandatory reporting laws, dramatically increased the numbers of families that were reported to child welfare authorities (Bala, 2004). Over this time period, the stigma against unwed mothers receded and child welfare authorities’ involvement was restricted to underage mothers with limited familial support. The responsibility for young offenders also shifted to the youth criminal justice system after several legislative changes (Bala, 2004). The focus on child abuse in child welfare agencies resulted in child protection workers gaining skills in forensic techniques similar to those used by law enforcement. Coupled with the use of the adversarial court system to determine the fate of abused and neglected children, this shift undermined the ability for many social workers to develop helping relationships with their clients (Oliver, 2017).

The  location of most child welfare agencies has been in large urban settings since their inception. Historically, child protection services in rural areas were often left to volunteer community groups or churches. Rural children that came to the attention of authorities would be placed in urban institutions or foster homes upon removal from their familial homes (Dornstauder & Macknack, 2009). The history of child welfare services in Indigenous communities is distinct from the above history, and is outside the scope of this chapter. The genocidal Residential School system which systematically removed Indigenous children from their families and communities (Hamilton & Sinclair, 1991) and the 60s Scoop that initiated the forced removal and adoption of Indigenous children into non-Indigenous homes across North America and Europe have resulted in the overrepresentation of Indigenous children in state care today (Mandell et al., 2007).

The current child welfare system is predicated on a threshold model – that is, families have to meet a specific threshold to come to the attention of child protection workers. As a result, most child welfare systems provide reactionary services rather than preventative supports to help families struggling with parenting. Over the years, there have been several critiques of the threshold model, especially since the adoption of mandatory reporting requirements in most jurisdictions (Lonne et al., 2016). Many of the families that come to the attention of the system are marginalized within society (e.g., Indigenous, people of colour and families living in poverty) and would benefit from tangible resources. The current structure and funding models of child welfare systems do not adequately support the needs of families living in poverty. The focus on child protection by the system results in a focus on individual pathology instead of the systemic issues that impact families. Often the primary response to confirmed cases of child abuse and neglect is to remove the children from the home, which has resulted in dramatic overrepresentation of children from marginalized communities in care (Cameron et al., 2007).

Unique Aspects of Rural Social Work Practice

Rural communities have been defined in multiple ways, but “ultimately, rural communities are communities of people” that can “be locational, geographical, or associational” (Daley, 2021, p. 8). World views and values often set rural communities apart from urban settings. Riebschleger and Pierce (2018) suggest that rural people belong to a diverse group who can experience social and historical stigma, and they emphasize the importance of personal relationships in rural communities. Daley (2021) indicates that this element is often demonstrated in the close-knit communities that value family connections which often become individuals’ primary support. Informal helping networks are also common, such as reliance on neighbors or religious institutions (Riebschleger, 2007; Riebschleger & Pierce, 2018). Churches are gathering places for families and in some rural communities are the only viable option to obtain assistance (Lewis et al., 2013). In a study conducted by Zellmer and Anderson-Meger (2011), rural residents from two Midwestern states reported that they were less likely to trust a professional social worker over their church, which impacted their use of services and relationships with social workers.

Ginsberg (2011) identifies higher levels of depression, substance abuse, domestic violence, and child abuse in rural settings. In a Canadian context, rural rates of police-reported violence against children and youth was nearly twice as high compared to urban settings. Women residing in rural areas experienced higher rates (789/100,000) of interpersonal violence than urban women (447/100,000) in 2018, with rural women in Saskatchewan and Manitoba with the highest rates in comparison with other provinces (Burczycka, 2018). A survey of rural physicians found that alcohol abuse was a major issue facing patients in rural British Columbia and that 76.4% of the respondents reported difficulty referring these patients for treatment, due to limited services (Slaunwhite & Mcdonald, 2015).

In a study of rural homelessness in Alberta, Schiff and Turner (2016) found that youth, victims of domestic violence, newcomers and Indigenous peoples were noted as sub-populations of rural homelessness. From an international perspective, Pugh and Cheers (2010) discuss the impact of changing local, regional and international economies on rural communities. The authors suggest that it is important for social workers to understand the consequences of higher unemployment rates and depopulation in rural areas and how these factors shape the lives of their clients. Riebschelger and Pierce (2018) add that child welfare workers should have an understanding of the historical context of rural communities they reside in, many of which were founded on agriculture and extraction economies. The decline of these industries can affect the overall sense of community.

There has been debate over the years about what type of social work practice works best within rural settings. Initially, it was argued that community development approaches were most appropriate based on the lack of resources available in rural areas. Currently, it is generally agreed that a generalist approach works best, as it allows social workers to use “multiple methods to address individual, family, group, organizational, and community problems” (Daley, 2021, p. 213). Generalist social workers are defined as practitioners “whose knowledge and skills encompass a broad spectrum and who assesses  problems and their solutions comprehensively” (Barker, 2014, p. 174). Rural communities often have limited specialized resources compared to more urban settings; rural social workers need to adopt a generalist practice approach that includes providing a variety of supports, whether it be basic life skills, counselling for mental health concerns, or advocacy for specialized housing (Schmidt, 2021). Furthermore, Daley and Avant (2014) suggest that although a generalist approach has been deemed best suited for rural practice settings, there is still a need for social workers to hold specialized and advanced skills in specific areas.

There is a need for a mixed model of strength based as well as a collaborative approach that aim to empower individuals and communities in identifying their unique needs for both formal and informal resources. As Riebschelger and Pierce (2018) suggests, rural social workers report that working in these areas requires a great deal of independence, creative thinking in terms of accessing services, and interdependence among service providers. The literature suggests that due to the complexities of issues faced by rural and northern communities, there are higher expectations for social workers not only to fill multiple roles, but also to utilize various practice models to ensure they are meeting the needs of clients and communities.

Daley (2021) expands on the generalist approach to detail the theoretical perspectives that inform his model of rural social work. His model integrates a systems, problem-solving and person-in-environment perspective into the generalist practice. He advocates for an expanded strengths perspective that includes both individual strengths and community assets, and which encourages rural social workers to use the concepts of Geimeinschaft and Gesellschaft from social exchange theory in their assessments (Daley, 2021).

The generalist approach is rooted in systems theory that informs social work assessments by understanding issues on individual, familial, group, organizational and community levels. The problem-solving method provides a guideline to engage, assess and work towards solutions for issues that are presented to social workers by clients, families and communities. The person-in-environment perspective closely aligns with ecological theory by highlighting how the individual and their environment affect each other in both positive and negative ways, and can reinforce behaviors (Barker, 2014; Daley, 2021).

A strengths perspective ensures that social workers review the support systems, resources and capacities at individual, familial and community levels instead of assuming a deficit approach to problems that are presented (Saleebey, 2012). Daley (2021) argues that a strengths perspective is particularly important to counter the stigma against rural peoples present within society that has been perpetrated by popular media. Finally, drawing on social exchange theory, Daley (2021) encourages rural social workers to utilize the concept of Gemeinschaft to understand areas characterized as “local, closely integrated community” whose “members share strong values and beliefs and maintain personal and direct social bonds (Barker, 2014, p. 172). In contrast, urban communities are described by the concept of Gesellschaft, a “complex, impersonal type of society” whose “members possess few shared values and have social bonds that are impersonal, narrow, and strictly functional” (Barker, 2014, p. 177). Both concepts are classic descriptions of rural and urban communities, and most areas fall along a continuum. Rural communities can vary depending on location and geography, and with the arrival of the internet in some communities the classic characterization of rural communities has dramatically changed.

Rural social workers need the ability to be creative, be community based, engage successfully in interdisciplinary work, be open to working with natural helpers in the community, and demonstrate ethical behavior in their private lives. A commitment to continuous learning by rural social workers is vital to the wellbeing of their clients. This commitment includes learning about the social environment in which they are situated, and strengthening their understanding of general values and perspectives. Daley (2021) argues that “the effective rural social worker has to mine the existing books and articles for relevant content on rurality” (p. 37). In my own practical experience, I spent time learning about the history of the Mennonite population that had returned to Canada from colonies in Mexico and Paraguay and whose children were coming to the attention of child protection services. I also endeavored to understand values rooted in their Christian faith that influenced how they raised their children and interacted with the outside world (Harder, 2021). It is important that rural child protection workers understand that parents from conservative religious communities will often seek parenting advice solely from their religious leaders (Loue, 2017).

Understanding the values of any rural community is important for rural child protection workers to be effective (Harder, 2021). Harder (2021) advocates that protection workers should demonstrate “a stance of curiosity about their faith, values and ways of life” (p. 73) that can help to develop trust and a positive working relationship. Schmidt (2021) advocates that social workers complete a community profile that include information on the “history of the community, information on geography and climate, local government structure, important cultural and social events…economic indicators…employment rates, housing stock…and the degree of economic equality and inequality” (pp. 216-217). Without this information it will be more difficult for social workers that are new to the area to develop rapport and effective working relationships with community members.

The practice of cultural humility by rural social workers is critical as rural communities vary and understanding the context of each community helps clarify the socialization of those being served (Daley, 2021; Norris, 2018). In contrast to cultural competence which positions the social worker as the expert in specific cultures, Ortega and Faller (2011) maintain that cultural humility shifts the workers’ stance to one of continually learning about the culture from the clients’ perspective. The specific skills needed to practice cultural humility include active listening, reflecting, reserving judgment, and entering the client’s world. The foundation of these skills is the willingness of the social worker to “develop self-awareness and a respectful attitude toward diverse and multiple points of view” (Ortega & Faller, 2011, p. 44). This perspective fits well with the relational approach to child protection in a rural setting that will be expanded upon further in the next section.

Policy, Practice and Ethical Aspects of Child Welfare in a Rural Setting

Policy

The field of child welfare has been described as an “ideological battleground” (Cameron et al., 2007, p. 3) as the policies and practices of the system reflect the current beliefs about children, families and the right of the state to intervene in family affairs. Canadian legislation, policy and practice reflect these shifting beliefs over time. Since the inception of child protection systems, the areas of policy and practice have seen pendulum swings in Western countries between child protection and family support (Cameron et al., 2007). Increased public awareness through sensational media reports (Lonne et al., 2016) and government inquiries highlight the failures of the system, with front line workers accused of either not intervening soon enough to save a child or of intervening in a manner criticized as state overreach (Cameron et al., 2007). As a result, child protection is one of the most difficult and stressful jobs in social work practice (Lonne et al., 2016).

Within rural settings, the family support services that might be more accessible in an urban context are often not available (Belanger et al., 2008). Furthermore, most child welfare policies are developed with an urban lens and reflect little understanding of the rural communities (Delaney & Brownlee, 2009). For example, child welfare policy has encouraged protection workers to access day care services for families at risk, when these services or access to transportation may be unavailable in rural settings.

Rural Child Protection Practice Models

Daley  (2021) presents a good framework for rural social work practice that integrates a strengths perspective; however, child protection workers need to understand the complexity of child protection work and acknowledge the mandate they are charged with, by never underestimating the risk inherent in cases of child abuse and neglect. Turner (2017) argues that “to do child protection work well we need a mind like a steel trap infused with the compassion of the Buddha” (as cited in Oliver, 2017, p. viii). Oliver (2017) similarly presents a strengths-based approach integrated with solution-focused models to highlight the need for positive relationships with families and children involved in the system, while still ensuring assessment of all family members’ safety. Assessment frameworks such as the Signs of Safety® developed by Turnell and Edwards (1999) emphasize the need for relationship-based approaches within child protection practice (Oliver, 2017).

The relational approach to child protection does not seek to “individualise problems and blame parents for not being able to look after their children,” but rather looks for solutions that harness the strengths within the family and community, and provides additional support to help families function well enough to care for their children (Lonne et al., 2016, p. 133). The relational approach combines the “respect for persons and social justice” through the lens of social relations within the family and community (Lonne et al., 2016, p. 133). It is important for child protection workers to acknowledge the power they hold within their positions. It is very easy for child protection workers to become punitive in their interactions with a family, especially when workers lack experience or adequate supervision, in severe cases of child abuse, or when workers are experiencing stress (LeBlanc et al., 2012; Lonne et al., 2016).

de Boer and Coady (2007) advocate that good child protection workers demonstrate a relational approach to families by combining the “soft, mindful and judicious use of power” with a “humanistic attitude and style that stretches traditional professional ways-of-being” (p. 35).  Some of the practice strategies suggested include: an understanding of power and how that impacts families; responding to hostility from parents with compassion and understanding; providing accurate and honest information about the reasons for the involvement of the worker; avoiding prejudgement of referral information by deeply listening to the perspectives of the family; looking for strengths within the family and community; demonstrating a genuine and down-to-earth attitude; developing relationships with the family through small talk; getting to know the whole family utilizing a person-in-environment context; and finally, being hopeful about the family’s ability to cope and to meet mutually-set goals (de Boar & Coady, 2007). Child protection workers need to develop a level of comfort and skill in dealing with tension and potential conflict inherent in child abuse investigations. Karp (1984) outlines the steps in dealing with resistance, which include acknowledging, surfacing and honoring that resistance to deepen the relationship between the worker and parents.

Oliver (2017) developed a model for child protection practice which she describes as “firm, fair and friendly” after interviewing several Canadian child protection workers. She found that many of the workers adapted the strengths perspective by acknowledging the state power inherent in child protection work and using this power constructively to help parents provide better care for their children. Oliver (2017) argues that the field of social work has historically ignored the concept of power within worker-client relations or sought to equalize this power dynamic. The “firm, fair and friendly” practice model seeks to balance collaborative approaches with the use of power constructively. The mandated power that child protection workers hold is acknowledged and interrogated to be used judiciously to ensure child safety. To follow this practice model, child protection workers need to complete their assessments impartially and listen to all the perspectives, so they can fully understand the family dynamics and be continually open to new information. During this process, workers constantly assess their interactions with the family and adjust their use of collaboration and authority techniques accordingly. Finally, the foundation of the model is transparency with the family. Workers need to be honest about the reasons they are involved with the family, and the responsibility and response of the worker and agency to child safety concerns.

The current child welfare system continues to adopt an individual focus in child protection services. Abusive or neglectful parents are assessed without taking into consideration their social location or socioeconomic status. Lonne et al. (2016) argues that the child welfare system needs to move away from this focus on parental blame and the narrow definitions of the best interests of the child towards a relational approach with parents and a focus on family and community networks that will engage meaningfully in problem-solving. The integration of anti-oppressive and feminist approaches within child protection practice are important for rural social workers to help deconstruct organizational and societal contexts such as the overrepresentation of marginalized populations within the child welfare system and focus on how patriarchy plays out in family dynamics (Lonne et al., 2016).

Rural Child Protection Worker Characteristics

Many of the characteristics of effective rural social workers are the same as those needed for successful rural child protection workers. As mentioned earlier, rural social workers need to be creative, community-based, able to work with other professional disciplines, natural helpers, practice cultural humility, and demonstrate ethical behavior in both their practices and their private lives (Daley, 2021). Riebschleger et al. (2015) identify that rural child protection workers need to have knowledge of rural poverty, lack of formal resources, and historical trauma affecting many rural populations. Oliver (2017) maintains that successful child protection workers should demonstrate humility and comfort with the power inherent in their role. Child protection workers who operate from the “firm, fair and friendly” model demonstrate humility by “constantly learning from their clients, their colleagues, their families, and their mistakes” (Oliver, 2017, p. 177). The power within a mandated role includes both the acceptance that child protection is important and necessary work, and conviction that power and authority can be used constructively to help make families safer for children (Tuck, 2013).

Ethical Issues in Rural Child Protection Practice

Rural child protection practice involves unique ethical issues that social workers need to be aware of, and they should have the tools and skills to address ethical issues when they arise.  Barsky (2019) argues that within child welfare practice the “value conflicts and ethical issues are pervasive” (p. 383). Daley (2021) highlights the most common ethical dilemmas to face rural social workers are dual relationships, working in a fishbowl, and confidentiality. Lonne et al. (2016) maintains that ethical dilemmas in child protection are linked to “client vulnerability, unequal power relationships and the centrality of relationship in effective ethical practice” (p. 4) while Barsky (2019) identifies ethical dilemmas that involve value conflicts rooted in religious beliefs as particularly challenging.

The Canadian Association of Social Workers Code of Ethics (CASW, 2005) advises social workers to avoid dual relationships, but does not ban these relationships altogether, since dual relationships are often unavoidable in rural communities (Daley, 2021). For social workers in small communities, it is difficult to avoid contact with clients in local grocery stores or at recreational activities (e.g. sports leagues) (Humble et al., 2013). Piché et al. (2015) highlight that some social workers responded to these challenges by limiting their social life within the community; however, this avoidance can lead to social isolation. Daley (2021) advocates that managing dual relationships includes conversations with clients to strategize how to address contact in the community to protect the confidentiality of the clients. For ethical breaches in dual relationships it is important that agencies develop clear guidelines and policies on dealing with these ethical breaches.

Confidentiality in social work practice is a complex area and requires that rural social workers consult regularly with colleagues, supervisors, and their provincial regulatory bodies when ethical dilemmas arise. One of the major challenges to confidentiality is the receipt of third-party information when working in rural communities (Halverson et al., 2009). The community size and personal connections among individuals results in most people having information about each other (Piché et al., 2015). Agency staff within child protection agencies, who have resided in rural communities for years, often have relevant information about community members that is typically not available to urban child protection workers. In my own experience, these agency staff can provide valuable informatio^[1]n on new protection intakes which allow an initial assessment on the risk to the child, family history, natural helpers, and any risk of violence towards the worker. Child protection assessments rely on accurate information so the worker can make informed decisions and plan successful interventions. On the other side, although I may have been made aware of some information from agency staff members, I was always very cautious to complete my child protection assessment from my direct interactions with the family and significant others. I also would ask families to give me their perspectives on any “community stories” that had been shared with me.

Consultations  with colleagues are very helpful in working through ethical dilemmas. The structure of the rural child protection unit in which I was employed allowed for discussion about ethical dilemmas within the weekly team meetings where critical decisions (e.g. removal or return of a child to their family) were made. The role of the supervisor was critical in creating the environment for healthy dialogue about how some of our own values could be affecting our decision making. I recall one contentious family situation that involved emotional abuse and neglect. The father was observed to be verbally abusive towards his young child, who was exhibiting concerning behaviors (e.g. being silent when playing with his toys so as not to elicit an angry response from his father); the mother was assessed as often neglectful of the basic needs of the child. One member of the team strongly advocated for the child’s removal, as she argued that the threshold had been met for child abuse; however, other team members felt that removal of the child without any physical injuries would be difficult to prove in court, and that premature removal of the child could be more detrimental to the child’s wellbeing. In one team meeting, this worker strongly advocated for apprehension of the child to “teach the father a lesson,” but was quickly challenged. Further discussion by the team helped this worker acknowledge how her anger and frustration with the parents’ behaviour was impacting her assessment of the family situation. Decisions about child abuse and neglect are difficult due to imprecise laws (see case scenario on investigating child physical abuse), recognition that child abuse and neglect are socially constructed concepts that are influenced by personal and societal attitudes, and challenges of accurately predicting child protection risk especially in cases of less extreme abuse and neglect concerns (Barsky, 2019).

Ethical decision making includes social workers that practice reflective and reflexive practice as “child abuse and neglect are socially constructed phenomena, and prone to blame, prejudice, discrimination and othering” (Lonne et al., 2016). Reflective practice includes the ability to critically reflect on social work knowledge, values and policy alternatives to ensure that the actions taken in child welfare practice are effective. Rural child protection workers need to continually review their positionality and how their “ethnicity, class, gender, sexuality, ability, religion and other factors create our identity and biases” (Schmidt, 2021, p. 212). Reflexivity widens the lens to help social workers deconstruct current child protection practice to the prevailing societal ideologies (Payne, 2009). Within my own practice, I needed to examine my own values about child abuse and neglect and reflect deeply when I found myself becoming angry about the abuse children were suffering and slipping into punitive responses towards parents. Child welfare organizations need to encourage open dialogue about differing values about parenting and child abuse and how these values can impact individual social workers’ practice.

Safety for Child Protection Workers in Rural Settings

One prominent issue for workers involved in child protection is personal safety. Several cases in which I was involved included parents (especially fathers) with a history of violence, and who were often angry about my role in agency intervention. In rural areas there is also easy access to firearms, as guns are used for hunting and safety issues related to lack of easily accessible police services and potentially-dangerous wildlife. In one case, extreme domestic violence towards the mother also endangered the children in the home. The father had threatened both me and the police if the children were removed from his care. When the children were apprehended, my male team colleagues ensured my safety by driving behind me on the way home for a few weeks. Eventually, when the child was returned to the mother’s care the father was allowed visitation rights and a male worker was assigned to work with the father.

Historically, child welfare agencies have not had policies to ensure the safety of workers.  Increasingly, agency workers and their unions have advocated for mandatory buddy systems when dealing with clients who have a history of violence; also recommended are official policies to guide both workers and their supervisors when clients have demonstrated or threatened physical violence. Child protection workers should become trained in safety precautions and de-escalation techniques (Hawranick et al., 2009). Under most child welfare legislation in Canada, workers can also request the assistance of law enforcement for child apprehensions.

Another way to ensure my safety as a protection worker was for my supervisor not to assign me any cases for the small town in which I lived that was within the catchment area of the agency. This practice did not always provide complete anonymity, as families involved with the agency often travelled between different towns for recreational purposes (e.g. hockey leagues) and there was always a chance that I would run into clients in my off hours. Unfortunately, for many workers in more isolated communities this practice is not possible (Hawranick et al., 2009).

Conclusion

It is apparent that “rurality affects practice” (Daley, 2021, p. 212) and that there are distinct practice realities for rural child protection workers requiring specific skills. Ginsberg maintains that rural social work is “simply good social work that reflects and considers the environment in which practice takes place” (as cited in Daley, 2021, p. 4). Providing child protection in a rural setting compounds the challenges of the work; however, when workers are informed by relational approaches that integrate strengths-based solutions, problem solving models, and critical perspectives it is possible for child protection workers to be effective. As described by Turnell (2010), “the best child protection practice is always both forensic and collaborative and demands that professionals are sensitized to and draw upon every scintilla of strength, hope and human capacity they can find within the ugly circumstances where children are abused” (p. 21). The work of child protection is not for the faint of heart, but when done well, and when engagement and supports are offered so that families and children can thrive, it can be a rewarding social work career.

References

Bala, N. (2004). Child welfare law in Canada: An introduction. In N. Bala, M. K. Zapf, R. J. Williams, R. Vogl, & J. P. Hornick (Eds.), Canadian child welfare law: Children, families and the state (2nd ed., pp. 1-25). Thompson Educational Publishing.

Barker, R. L. (2014). The social work dictionary (6th ed.). NASW Press.

Barsky, A. E. (2019). Ethics and values in social work: An integrated approach for a comprehensive curriculum (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Belanger, K., Price-Mayo, A. P., & Espinosa, D. (2008). The plight of rural child welfare: Meeting standards without services. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 1(4), 1-19.

Canadian Child Welfare Research Portal. (n.d.). Do I need to report child abuse and neglect? https://cwrp.ca/frequently-asked-questions-faqs

Burczycka, M. (2018). Police-reported violence happens between intimate partners. Statistics Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2019001/article/00018/02-eng.htm

Cameron, G., Freymond, N., Cornfield, D., & Palmer, S. (2007). Positive possibilities for child and family welfare: Options for expanding the anglo-american child protection paradigm. In G. Cameron, N. Coady & G. R. Adams (Eds.), Moving toward positive systems of child and family welfare: Current issues and future directions (pp. 1-77). Wilfrid Laurier University Press.

Canadian Association of Social Workers. (2005). Code of Ethics.

Cowley, L. E., Maguire, S., Farewell, D. M., Quinn-Scoggins, H. D., Flynn, M. O., & Kemp, A. M. (2018). Factors influencing child protection professionals’ decision-making and multidisciplinary collaboration in suspected abusive head trauma cases: A qualitative study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 82(2018), 178-191.

Criminal Code, R.S.C., C-46, s.43 (1985). Retrieved from http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/index.html

Daley, M. R. (2021). Rural social work in the 21st century: Serving individuals, families, and communities in the countryside (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Daley, M. R., & Avant, F. L. (2014). Down home social work: A strengths-based model for professional practice. In T. L. Scales, C. L. Streeter, & H. S. Cooper (Eds.), Rural social work: Building and sustaining community capacity (2nd ed., pp. 5–17). Wiley.

de Boer, C., & Coady, N. (2007). Good helping relationships in child welfare: Learning from stories of success. Child and Family Social Work, 12(1), 32-42.

Delaney, R. & Brownlee, K. (2009). Understanding ethics in rural and northern practice. In R. Delaney & K. Brownlee, K. (Eds.), Northern and rural social work: A Canadian perspective, (pp. 109-129). Centre for Northern Studies.

Dornstauder, F., & Macknak, D. (2009). 100 years of child welfare services in Saskatchewan: A survey. SASW.

Durrant, J. E., Fallon, B., Lefebvre, R., & Allan, K. (2017). Defining reasonable force: Does it advance child protection? Child Abuse & Neglect, 71(2017), 32-43.

Durrant, J.E. (2007). Corporal punishment:A violation of the rights of the child. In R.B. Howe & Covell (Eds.), Children’s rights in Canada: A question of commitment (pp.99–125). Wilfred Laurier University Press.

Gabaeff, S. C. (2015). Exploring the controversy in child abuse pediatrics and false allegations of abuse. Legal Medicine, 18(2016), 90-97.

Ginsberg, L. (2011). Social work in rural communities (5th ed.). Council on Social Work Education.

Good Gingrich, L. (2016). Out of place: Social exclusion and Mennonite migrants to Canada. University of Toronto Press.

Halverson, G., Brownlee, K., & Delaney, R. (2009). Ethical considerations for northern and rural social work. In R. Delaney & K. Brownlee (Eds.), Northern and rural social work: A Canadian perspective, (pp. 109-129). Centre for Northern Studies.

Hamilton, A. C. & Sinclair, C. M. (1991). Child welfare. In A. C. Hamilton & C. M. Sinclair, Report of the Aboriginal justice inquiry of Manitoba: Volume 1: The justice system and Aboriginal People. Province of Manitoba.

Harder, J. (2021). Understanding and partnering with Amish communities to keep children safe. Child Welfare, 99(1), 69-91.

Hawranick, S., McGuire, P., & Livingston Looman, C. (2009). Worker safety in the child welfare system. Journal of Contemporary Rural Social Work, 1(1), 29-37.

Humble, N., Lewis M., Scott, D., & Herzog, J. (2013). Challenges in rural social work practice: When support groups contain your neighbors, church members, and the PTA. Social Work with Groups, 36(2-3), 249-258.

Hurl, L. (1984). The politics of child welfare in Manitoba, 1922-1924. Manitoba History, 7. http://www.mhs.mb.ca/docs/mb_history/07/childwelfare.shtml.

Karp, H. B. (1984). Working with resistance. Training and Development Journal, 38(3), 69-73.

King James Bible. (2007). King James Bible Online. https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611-Bible/ (Original work published 1611)

Jacobson, M. (2002). Local realities: A frontier perspective on child protection team practice. Child Welfare, 81(5), 737-755.

LeBlanc, V. R., Regehr, C., Shlonsky, A., & Bogo, M. (2012). Stress responses and decision making in child protection workers with high conflict situations. Child Abuse & Neglect, 36(5), 404-412.

Lewis, M., Scott, D., & Calfee, C. (2013). Rural social service disparities and creative social work solutions for rural families across the life span. Journal of Family Social Work, 16, 101-115.

Lonne, B., Harries, M., Featherstone, B., & Gray, M. (2016). Working ethically in child protection. Routledge.

Loue, S. (2017). Handbook of religion and spirituality in social work practice. Springer.

MacLaurin, B., & McCormack, M. (2007). Child protection in Canada. In The welfare of Canadian children: It’s our business. A collection of resource papers for a healthy future for Canadian children and families (pp. 73-82). Child Welfare League of Canada.

Mandell, D., Clouston Carlson, J., Fine, M., & Blackstock, C. (2007). Aboriginal child welfare. In G. Cameron, N. Coady & G. R. Adams (Eds.), Moving toward positve systems of child and family welfare: Current issues and future directions (pp. 115-157). Wilfrid Laurier Univeristy Press.

Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved August 3, 2021 from https://www.merriam-webster.com/

Miller-Perrin, C. L., & Perrin, R. D. (2013). Child maltreatment: An introduction (3rd ed.). Sage.

New American Standard Bible. (2020). New Amercian Standard Bible Online (Original work published 1971).

Norris, D. (2018). Cultural humility within rural practice wisdom.  In J. Riebschleger & B. J. Pierce (Eds.), Rural child welfare practice: Stories from “the field” (pp. 60-67). Oxford University Press.

Oliver, C. (2017). Strengths-based child protection: Firm, fair, and friendly. University of Toronto Press.

Ortega, R. M., & Faller, K. C. (2011). Training child welfare workers from an intersectional cultural humility perspective: A paradigm shift. Child Welfare, 90(5), 27-49.

Payne, M. (2009). Critical reflection and social work theories. In R. Adams, L. Dominelli & M. Payne (Eds.), Critical practice in social work (pp. 91-104). Palgrave MacMillan.

Piché, T., Brownlee, K., & Halverson, G. (2015). The development of dual and multiple relationships for social workers in rural communities. Contemporary Rural Social Work Journal, 7(2), 57-70.

Platt, D. & Turney, D. (2014). Making threshold decisions in child protection. A conceptual Analysis. The British Journal of Social Work, 44(6), 1472-1490.

Pugh, R., & Cheers, B. (2010). Rural social work: An international perspective. Policy Press.

Riebschleger, J. (2007). Social workers’ suggestions for effective rural practice. The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 88(1), 203-213.

Riebschleger, J., Norris, D., Pierce, B., Pond, D. L., & Cummings, C. (2015). Preparing social work students for rural child welfare practice: Emerging curriculum competences. Journal of Social Work Education, 51(2), S209-S224.

Riebschleger, J., & Pierce, B. (2018). Rural child welfare practice. In J. Riebschleger & B. J.

Pierce, (Eds.), Rural child welfare practice: Stories from “the Field” (pp. 1-21). Oxford University Press.

Saleebey, D. (2012). The strengths perspective in social work practice (6th ed.). Pearson Education Inc.

Schmidt, G. (2021). Culture and resource scarcity: Social work practice in Canada’s remote communities. In A. Opačić (Ed.), Practicing social work in deprived communities: competencies, methods, and techniques (pp. 209-221). Springer International Publishing.

Schiff, J., & Turner, R. (2016). Rural homelessness in western Canada: Lessons learned from diverse communities. Social Inclusion, 4(4), 73-85.

Signs of Safety. (n.d.). What is signs of safety? https://www.signsofsafety.net/what-is-sofs/

Slaunwhite, K., & Macdonald, S. (2015). Alcohol, isolation, and access to treatment: Family physician experiences of alcohol consumption and access to health care in rural British Columbia. The Journal of Rural Health, 31(4), 335-345.

Straus, M. A. (2001). Beating the devil out of them: Corporal punishment in American families and its effects on children (2nd ed.). Transaction.

Tuck, V. (2013). Resistant parents and child protection: Knowledge base, pointers for practice and implications for policy. Child Abuse Review, 22(1), 5-19.

Turnell, A. (2010). The signs of safety: A comprehensive briefing paper. Resolutions Consultancy.

Turnell, A., & Edwards, S. (1999). Signs of safety: A safety and solution oriented approach to child protection casework. W.W. Norton & Co.

Zellmer, D. D., & Anderson-Meger, J. (2011). Rural midwestern religious beliefs and help seeking behavior: Implications for social work practice. Social Work & Christianity 38(1), 29–50.