Understanding Denial and the Role of Practitioners in Moving Forward

Child welfare organizations are crucial in supporting practitioners in understanding and navigating denial in child welfare. Often, denial is borne out of fear and anxiety and represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the role and function of CPS. CPS organizations must intentionally shift practitioner mindsets away from a binary view of denial (‘they are right,’ ‘they are wrong’) toward a higher-level strategy of conceptualization that speaks to a more nuanced approach to prevention (one that holds everyone involved accountable for safety and wellbeing of children and families). Above all else, effective child welfare practice must focus on protecting children, not on who is ‘right’ or ‘wrong.’ As the harm reduction pioneer Eve M. Skidmore recently wrote, in the context of jails, The goal is not about right and wrong but about who is at the table. (Skidmore, 2022).

One of the most critical shifts in child welfare practice is to view disputes as a natural part of the caregiving experience rather than as outright denial. The term denial suggests that one side is right while the other is wrong. However, child welfare is rarely about determining an absolute truth. Although law enforcement aims to determine "who did it," CPS's role is to ensure children's safety and well-being (with their caregivers, kin or their community when possible). Andrew Turnell and Susie Essex (2006) have long advocated reframing denial as a dispute where caregivers and practitioners acknowledge different perspectives on the same event. This reframing helps practitioners move away from an adversarial stance and fosters a more collaborative environment; one focused on finding solutions rather than proving fault. For example, in cases where caregivers dispute the severity of an incident, rather than insisting on admitting wrongdoing, practitioners should ask questions that direct the conversation toward safety, allowing caregivers to shift from defending themselves to actively participating in creating solutions (I understand that your position is that you did not harm your child, and I was not there to know what occurred. What are your thoughts on collaborating to ensure your child remains safe moving forward regardless of what happened or what others believe happened?). The goal of CPS should not be to gather evidence against families but to hold them accountable for the future safety of their children.

The Role of Fear, Anxiety, and the Fight, Flight, or Freeze Response

Fear and anxiety are powerful motivators for caregivers to dispute the allegations in child welfare practice. When faced with the (often) obvious threat of losing their children, caregivers enter the ‘fight, flight or freeze’ response (Cannon, 1932), which psychologists define as a primal threat-detection reaction that mobilizes the entire organism in response to a real or perceived threat. Perceptions of losing one’s children can result in some or any combination of a dispute with CPS (fight), avoidance of meetings with CPS (flight) or collapse into emotional shutdown (freeze). Understanding this response is critical to comprehending why caregivers dispute CPS involvement. Research on how humans make decisions, such as Daniel Kahneman’s work described in Thinking, Fast and Slow (2011), helps us understand why caregivers react with their gut rather than their rational mind in response to perceived threats. Kahneman notes that someone using his ‘System 1’ thinking will act instinctively under stress. This part of the brain is fast and emotional and responds in intuitive ways that are also reactionary versus rationalistic. Caregivers using their System 1 brains tend to be defensive because they are reactive to the fear-inducing presence of CPS, not necessarily because they want to hide the truth. Practitioners in child welfare must create and manage the conversation in ways that help caregivers transition from System 1 to System 2 thinking, where they can talk about safety in more practical, solution-focused ways. For example, ask someone: ‘What would help you overcome these challenges?’ I am using System 2 thinking.

In summary, different parts of our brain work differently under stress. System 1 thinking is fast, emotional, intuitive, and reactive. System 2 thinking is slow to access, more deliberate and clinical, logical, and reflective.

One of the most overlooked and critical aspects of child welfare practice is the language practitioners use and the need for a balanced, thorough consideration of risk. For instance, adopting the referral sources perspective as ‘truth’ is the fastest way to talk oneself into an adversarial position with caregivers. Referral sources only present one (critical) view of reality, and yet, if investigators present that view to caregivers without some indication that they recognize that it is only one view of what is going on/something that needs investigation/not necessarily ‘the truth,’ the practitioner has implicitly told caregivers that they are on the side of the investigator (most of the time, unintentionally). This can lead to significant conflict and mistrust, as the caregiver feels the practitioner has already decided what happened (formed a judgment). This dynamic can escalate disputes, as the caregiver feels misunderstood and unfairly judged. Therefore, practitioners must approach their work cautiously and thoroughly, ensuring that all perspectives are considered and respected.

When presenting concerns to caregivers, the practitioner's language is crucial in determining whether a productive, rigorous, and balanced assessment that is a trust-based relationship can be established. According to Turnell and Essex (2006), language in child protection must be precise, balanced, and respectful of the perspectives involved. When a practitioner says, “A school official reported that your child arrived with bruises, and that worries us,” they are subtly positioning themselves with the school’s viewpoint, implying that the school’s perspective is factual. While the concern may be valid, the language presented the situation as a done deal, leaving little room for the caregiver to share their perspective. In contrast, a more balanced approach might be, “A school official noticed bruises and expressed worries. We would like to hear your thoughts on that and understand what might have happened from your perspective.” This approach acknowledges the referral source’s concerns and signals to the caregiver that their perspective is equally important. The goal is to initiate a dialogue, not a confrontation, and to build trust and respect with the caregiver.

Studies about cognitive biases (such as Danai Kahneman’s outstanding book Thinking, Fast and Slow (2011) magnify the rationale for neutral language. As Kahneman explains, one of the most pervasive cognitive biases is confirmation bias, our tendency to accept or seek data confirming what we already believe. When practitioners assume the perspective of the referral source too swiftly, they tend to confirm that view rather than seek information that might suggest an alternative explanation. Neutral language can help practitioners avoid that bias by enabling them to conduct a balanced, sophisticated, risk-based assessment. When the practitioner adopts the perspective of the referral source, they risk their relationship with the caregiver during their initial engagement, which might reduce the chance of developing a collaborative safety plan. This is important because it puts the practitioner at risk of alienating the caregivers and creating and escalating disputes unnecessarily. For example, a practitioner who says something such as: ‘The police are concerned that you have been drinking too much and not picking up your children for school’ has framed the caregiver as guilty in the eyes of the state and instantly forces the caregiver into a defensive position.

When caregivers feel judged, they often shut down and deny the allegations, which hinders the practitioner's ability to conduct an objective risk assessment and develop an effective safety plan. Brené Brown’s (2012) research on shame and vulnerability highlights that when individuals feel judged or blamed, they are more likely to become defensive and disengaged. In emotionally charged conversations, caregivers can be pushed into a "terror zone," where rational thinking is impaired (Argyris, 1999). They may feel they are being "taken away from their children" or "looked down upon." They might also perceive that we, as practitioners, have preconceived notions about them before even reviewing the case details. This creates a counterproductive dynamic of defensiveness, making it difficult for the practitioner and the caregiver to move forward meaningfully.

Practical Strategies for Using Balanced Language and Conducting a Comprehensive Risk Assessment

1) Validate Multiple Perspectives: Always frame the referral source’s concerns as one perspective, not the gospel truth. For example: ‘The school has noticed X and has expressed a concern, but I would like to hear from you to understand your side.’ This approach communicates that the caregiver’s position and contribution to the process are valuable because they share their position, which is valued. 

2) Promote a Balanced Explanation: Practitioners should strive to use neutral, collaborative language. For example, instead of saying, ‘You have been accused of neglect, and I must share that with the police.’ say, ‘There is a worry about your child’s wellbeing. Let us discuss what happened and how we can work together to address that.’ This prevents invoking a reaction based on guilt or blame.

3) Ask Behavioural Questions: Practitioners should strive continually to listen and ask questions, encouraging caregivers to share their perspectives. For example: ‘What do you think happened that prompted this concern?’ and ‘How do you feel about what was said, and what steps do you hope we can take together?’

4) Validate the Caregiver’s Emotions: Practitioners should strive to acknowledge the caregiver’s feelings, struggles, and hardships. Brené Brown (2012) notes that creating a safe space for vulnerable people requires a humane response, including empathy. In particular, the child welfare field emphasizes the importance of empathy, given the vulnerability of those it serves.

5) Avoid Confirmation Bias: Always guard against cognitive biases that steer decisions in one direction. For example, seek out information inconsistent with the referral source's perspective. In so doing, the practitioner is more likely to include this information in their risk-assessment calculation, which can help ensure their assessment is balanced and thorough (Kahneman, 2011).

Moving Beyond Dispute: Establishing Safety with Caregivers, Not Away from Them

Child welfare should always focus on collaboratively creating safety and well-being with caregivers, not away from them (whenever possible). When CPS takes a stance that feels adversarial in gathering evidence to hold against families, it reinforces the caregivers' fear that CPS is there to “catch” them in the act and hold them accountable for danger rather than support them. However, establishing safety is a shared responsibility, not imposed by CPS alone. Child welfare is most effective when caregivers actively participate in the safety process. Andrew Turnell’s Signs of Safety model (2008) emphasizes the importance of holding caregivers accountable for creating and maintaining safety without obsessively focusing on past harm. In this sense, accountability is not about punishing families for what happened to their children but about creating a plan that ensures their children will be safe moving forward. Practitioners should work to create a relationship-driven process where caregivers feel supported in developing safety measures, not alienated by blame.

Consider this scenario: A parent accused of neglect disputing the severity of the situation. Rather than pursuing evidence to substantiate who caused the neglect, the practitioner might ask, ‘What can we do to go forward so that your children will be safe and properly cared for?’ The conversation ends the protective gaze of the past. It replaces it with a shared investment in a common future, transforming a protective social worker-caregiver relationship into a cooperative one.

The Importance of Understanding What Caregivers Stand to Lose

Practitioners should recognize what caregivers stand to lose if they admit to an event or incident they dispute, which is vital in untangling familial discord. When CPS gets called, many caregivers are placed in a doubly vulnerable position because the risk of admitting fault or misconduct, whether real or perceived, can be catastrophic in that it comes with the prospect of arrest, loss of access to children, damaged relationships with extended family and community, and a trail of reputational damage. When stakes are so high, what do caregivers gain from agreeing to ‘work with CPS’ or admitting to fault? Not much. This sets the stage for the seemingly automatic response of caregivers facing allegations of family discord: Deny, deny, deny!

What Caregivers Stand to Lose: The Stakes of Admission

In the context of child welfare, the layers of risk facing caregivers if they admit to a harmful event include the following:

·      Loss of Access to Children: When caregivers acknowledge an event that CPS identifies as harmful to children, the immediate, terrifying, and most typical consequence is loss of access to children. Feeling that their children are at risk of being removed from their lives typically triggers much of the resistance and dispute from caregivers facing allegations. Affirming substance abuse, domestic violence or maltreatment of children can lead to arrest or prosecution. These further spike the fear and anxiety that caregivers feel in child welfare situations, also increasing their likelihood to dig in their heels and contest what CPS is alleging, even when some of the claims may be accurate.

·      Legal Consequences and Arrest: Affirming substance abuse, domestic violence, or maltreatment of children can lead to arrest or prosecution in child welfare situations. Arrest, though not as typical for child welfare cases as media accounts, might cause public anxiety about CPS involvement. 

·      Damage to Reputation and Relationships: The stakes for admitting harm in child welfare contexts often extend beyond the immediate family system and affect an entire community of families and children within the caregiver's circle of care. Caregivers may fear acknowledging an incident permanently damaging their relationships with extended family, friends, and a broader social circle. The stigma associated with CPS involvement can lead to caregivers being ostracized by their community and losing their support network at the very time they need it most.

·      Loss of Employment or Financial Security: For caregivers, admitting to behaviours that led to CPS involvement can also mean losing their job, especially in professions that require criminal record checks or where child safety is a concern. This potential for financial devastation only heightens their self-preservation and motivates them to resist or dispute CPS interventions.

The combined weight of these possible outcomes creates a situation where caregivers have minimal incentive to admit to an event. Practitioners must understand that, in the face of these daunting prospects, caregivers are driven by self-preservation, and their instinct to protect themselves may override their willingness to cooperate or engage with CPS. As Andrew Turnell and Susie Essex (2006) suggest, practitioners should focus not on obtaining admissions but on developing safety plans that ensure whatever harm may have occurred is not repeated.

What Do Caregivers Get in Return?

When considering what caregivers stand to lose by admitting to an event, it is essential to recognize what they gain in return from CPS or child welfare practitioners if they accept responsibility: often, nothing positive (in fact, they experience all of the above-detailed outcomes). Caregivers know that admitting fault typically results in further scrutiny, restrictions on access to their children, and a cascade of adverse outcomes. From the caregiver’s perspective, cooperating with CPS has no upside beyond potentially reducing the immediate pressure. Still, the long-term consequences remain daunting (admitting responsibility does not lead to safety and well-being for children). This creates a psychological and emotional impasse, where the caregiver feels that cooperation only leads to more harm. As Daniel Kahneman (2011) describes in his work on cognitive biases, individuals under threat are likely to engage in loss aversion, which tends to focus more on avoiding losses than on achieving gains. For caregivers, preventing the loss of their children, their freedom, and their reputation is far more pressing than any potential gains that could come from cooperating with CPS. Practitioners must understand that when caregivers feel there is no benefit to admitting fault, they will likely resist and dispute CPS interventions out of self-preservation.

In cases of child abuse, particularly sexual abuse, the admission of blame by a caregiver does not inherently enhance the child's safety. Safety, as defined by Andrew Turnell, refers to a consistent pattern of protective behaviours from the adults around the child over a period, rather than isolated actions or verbal admissions of guilt (Turnell, 2012). This definition highlights that genuine safety involves sustained acts of care and well-being that ensure the child’s protection in the long term. While practitioners may seek admissions of guilt as part of their process, believing it provides closure or validation, this pursuit can inadvertently shift the focus away from the child's ongoing safety needs. The reality is that even when caregivers admit to abuse, safety is not restored until there is a demonstrated, consistent pattern of actionable behaviours that ensure the child's well-being. As such, pressing for admissions can serve more to satisfy the practitioner’s sense of resolution rather than contribute to the child's immediate or long-term safety. The focus must remain on creating and sustaining protective environments for the child rather than obtaining verbal admissions.

Shifting focus away from admissions of guilt or holding caregivers accountable for past harm significantly reduces caregiver defensive responses. Holding caregivers accountable for safety helps to refocus the conversation on what the child needs and from whom to be safe rather than on whether the caregiver did anything wrong that merits punishment (insisting that a safety plan that consists of rules about who will do what, when, where and how to ensure safety and wellbeing is emphasized). In cases where the dispute centres on misunderstandings or miscommunications, this helps avoid the caregiver's potential for succumbing to feelings about being 'punished' for something they did not do or for an incident that might not rise to the level of maltreatment. A caregiver might deny and dispute an allegation that they faced inequities in access to poverty-reduction programming. For example, a caregiver might dispute an allegation that they neglected their child because they misunderstood the child's medical care needs. Instead of getting the caregiver to admit to doing something wrong, the practitioner could plan how the child will get the needed care.

In addition to focusing on safety, practitioners must recognize caregiver self-preservation and engage directly with this concern. For example, safety planning can be co-developed with caregivers and their support systems so that caregivers feel they have a voice in the process and their concerns are heard. When caregivers are involved in creating safety plans, they have less reason to see CPS as an adversary. Caregivers should be part of safety planning rather than have plans imposed upon them, and these plans are not about blaming caregivers or punishing them. They are about preventing future harm to the children and ensuring their long-term safety and wellbeing. Practitioners should emphasize this fact clearly, frame safety regarding the children’s needs, and how a safety plan can also help protect caregivers from misunderstandings or false allegations. Practitioners should consider emphasizing how safety planning will be a collaborative approach that includes them and their network and will be developed by them to include processes and actions that work for them. Brené Brown, professor at the University of Houston Graduate College of Social Work and the author of Daring Greatly (2012), and other emotional researchers emphasize that when people feel understood and respected, they are motivated to cooperate and are less likely to resist or dispute interventions.

The Importance of Empathy: Building Trust to Support Safety

Empathy is also crucial to avoiding disputes and empowering caregivers to be meaningful participants in safety planning. Brené Brown (2012) found that vulnerability and shame maintained the ‘us versus them’ culture. In a highly adversarial system such as child welfare, a heightened fear of vulnerability on the part of caregivers will only exacerbate the defensive (reactive) nature of the interactions. In child welfare, a fear-based culture of mistrust is prevalent at all levels of the system, and it hurts all involved. Moving from a fear-based response to a more sensitive empathic response reduces the ‘emotional distance’ that triggers disputes. For instance, a practitioner might begin an introduction meeting by stating: ‘I can appreciate that you are scared about what this means for your family, and that is understandable.’ Such a comment contributes to caregivers feeling ‘seen and heard,’ a phrase Brown uses to convey empathy. Empathy provides a starting point from a protective rather than a suspicious place. Brown notes that when people understand why someone is acting the way they do, they let down their guard and begin to trust the other person. From trust, caregivers may develop other competencies, such as coordination and communication. Once caregivers are primed through empathic engagement, practitioners can further develop caregivers’ competencies by enacting Brown’s second turning point in trust formation: creating reciprocal vulnerability. To do this, practitioners can elicit caregivers’ feelings about safety by asking open-ended questions like: ‘Tell me about all the times you or others around you made sure your children were safe and well looked after. What did you and others do to ensure your children were safe and well looked after?'

While empathy and compassion are essential, they must be balanced with accountability. However, this accountability should focus on safety, not the harm that brought CPS into the family’s life. Practitioners should focus on asking, “What do we need to do to keep your children safe?” rather than “Why did this happen?” Holding caregivers accountable for safety involves creating specific, actionable steps that caregivers, CPS, and the family’s broader support network can agree on. This process helps avoid the shame and guilt that often arise from focusing on past danger. For example, in cases involving substance abuse, rather than repeatedly focusing on what the caregiver is drinking, how much of it and how the caregiver’s behaviour endangered the child, the practitioner can ask, "What steps can we take to ensure that safe and sober caregivers always look after your child? This reorientation away from blame and toward actionable safety planning reduces the caregiver’s defensiveness and increases their engagement in the process.

Building Networks to Establish Safety

Involving the family’s broader support network is another critical component of ensuring child safety. Rather than relying solely on the CPS-worker-family dynamic, practitioners should bring in extended family members, close friends, or community leaders who can help create a robust safety plan. This approach, advocated by Turnell and Essex (2006), ensures that a network of trusted individuals familiar with the family’s unique needs supports the child's safety. Practitioners should frame this network involvement as a positive, collaborative effort to keep the family together. This influences focus and suggests how community members will share responsibility in ensuring the child’s well-being (e.g., if the caregiver is facing mental health problems, practitioners would recommend a close relative to continue monitoring the caregiver’s progress and to step up help if the caregiver has a difficult day). The idea is to normalize abundance and community connection, reduce pressure on the caregiver to provide everything singlehandedly and reassure the family that CPS is working with them, not against them.

Furthermore, Using insights from Kahneman’s (2011) work on cognitive biases, practitioners can help caregivers shift from emotional, reactionary thinking to more rational, solution-focused thinking. By reframing disputes as opportunities to enhance safety rather than contests to determine guilt, practitioners can engage caregivers in System 2 thinking, which is more deliberate and less emotionally charged. For example, asking a caregiver, “What steps can we take to ensure your child’s safety from here on out?” encourages them to think proactively and shifts the conversation away from blame.

Conclusion

Family disputes in child welfare are complex and often rooted in fear, anxiety, and a desire for self-preservation. By reframing these disputes as differing perspectives rather than denial, practitioners can foster a more empathetic, compassionate approach that focuses on building safety with caregivers, not away from them. The key is to create a relationship-driven process where families are involved in decision-making and feel supported by their networks. By holding caregivers accountable for safety, not past danger, practitioners can build trust, reduce defensiveness, and ensure that children are protected within a supportive and understanding environment. Drawing on the works of Kahneman, Brown, Turnell, Essex, and others, this approach emphasizes empathy, collaboration, and the shared responsibility of ensuring child safety.

References

Argyris, C. (1999). On Organizational Learning (2nd ed.). Blackwell.

Brown, B. (2012). Daring Greatly: How the Courage to Be Vulnerable Transforms the Way We Live, Love, Parent, and Lead. Gotham Books.

Cannon, W. B. (1932). The Wisdom of the Body. Norton & Company.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Skidmore, E. M. (2022). Harm Reduction in Jails: Changing Perspectives on Safety and Collaboration. New York, NY: Harm Reduction Press.

Turnell, A., & Essex, S. (2006). Working with Denied Child Abuse. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Turnell, A. (2012). Signs of safety: A solution and safety oriented approach to child protection casework. Wagga Wagga, Australia: Resolutions Consultancy.