Using procedural justice theory to understand public perceptions of child protection

ABSTRACT

The psychological literature indicates that the public may expect child protection practitioners to respond punitively toward parents who maltreat children. This conflicts with the intention of child protection, who are not responsible for punishing those who have harmed children. Instead, many systems aim to practice under restorative principles, which are collaborative and inclusive of children and families. In this review, we consider the theoretical and practical implications of a tension between a public expectation of retribution and the non-retributive foundation of child protection, including the potential impact on practitioners’ wellbeing and their ability to implement non-retributive practices.

KEYWORDS:

• Retribution
• child protection
• child welfare
• procedural justice
• restorative justice

Child protection systems are controversial. Histories of poor decisions, systemic racism and marginalization of minority communities plague this service in many countries (Cénat et al., 2021; Krakouer, 2023; Murphy et al., 2023). The ability to remove a child from parental care – a power shared only with police – has life-changing consequences for the children and families implicated and can result in further trauma (Trivedi, 2019). Additionally, many child protection systems are exposed to a “crisis” of ever-increasing demand for services, with increasing notifications and substantiations of child abuse (Spratt & Nett, 2012). Moreover, this sector is rife with chronic workforce issues such as high levels of employee turnover and burnout (Harrison et al., 2018; Lonne et al., 2013). Child protection practitioners are exposed to many unique challenges, and child protection systems worldwide are often subjected to significant scrutiny and blame (Lawrence et al., 2019; Lonne et al., 2013; Morris, 2005). Concurrently, many systems are engaging in ongoing efforts to improve the experiences of children and families and practitioners.

The purpose of child protection is to protect vulnerable children and young people from harm caused by abuse and/or neglect. Crucially, as child protection is part of civil law,¹ practitioners are required to take a non-retributive approach in practice, as they are not tasked with punishing those who have been reported to maltreat children. However, there is a tension between this non-retributive approach and the basic psychological mechanisms of justice reasoning. The psychological justice literature suggests that in this context, observers (e.g., members of the public) may approach child protection scenarios with a criminal law lens, and will be motivated to punish those who maltreat children, leading to an expectation that child protection will take a punitive approach to parents who maltreat children. A public need for (or expectation of) retribution can undermine progressive law reform and acceptance of the interventions unique to child protection (Sivasubramaniam, 2017); thus, it is important to understand how this public expectation of retribution may contribute to negative public perceptions of child protection, and how this tension impacts both practitioners’ wellbeing and their ability to engage in non-retributive practice.

In this paper, we provide a broad overview of two key areas of literature. First, we include a review of some of the existing challenges within child protection practice, including poor public perceptions of this service. Importantly, while we discuss the intention of child protection as being non-retributive, we recognize the incongruence that can exist between intention and practice, such that the day-to-day operation of this service may not align with this intended purpose. Studies have documented problematic service delivery of child protection, including negative impacts on children and families (Gypen et al., 2017) and on minority groups (Cénat et al., 2021; Merritt, 2021; Tilbury & Ramsay, 2018), or even for practitioners who can experience moral injury due to working in a system that constrains their ability to work in accordance with personal values (Haight et al., 2017; He et al., 2021). There is an extensive literature on how these issues are emphasized for First Nations communities worldwide, such as in Anglophone countries like in Australia, Canada, or in the US, whose overrepresentation in child protection systems is complicated by histories of being subject to systemic racism, marginalization and slavery (for excellent systematic reviews, see: Cénat et al., 2021; Murphy et al., 2023). Thus, while we note that differences can exist between intention and practical operation, the focus of this review is on the intention of child protection, which is not to punish service users, noting that this may not align with the perceived experience of some populations.

We then review the literature on the psychology of justice reasoning to aid an understanding of public perceptions of child protection. This includes a consideration of procedural justice theory and its development, highlighting boundary conditions of procedural justice models, and how people’s justice reasoning shifts away from procedural concerns to retributive concerns under particular conditions. We then apply these principles of justice reasoning to the child protection context to examine the factors that may undermine public support for this service. Given minimal research has applied this literature to this context, we provide examples of its application throughout. Throughout the review, we outline the practical implications of the tension between retributive expectations of the public and the non-retributive purpose of child protection. Specifically, we consider how this tension may impact frontline child protection practitioners and undermine public support for child protection systems. Finally, we highlight several gaps in the literature and offer recommendations for further research to address these gaps.

Child protection

Many child protection systems have experienced a continuous increase in notifications and substantiations of child abuse (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2021; Canadian Child Welfare Research Portal, n.d.; GOV.UK, 2020; Spratt & Nett, 2012; U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2020). For example, every year the number of children reported to Australian child protection systems continues to increase, with this number nearly doubling in five-years in the 2018–2019 reporting period, and a dramatic increase during the period of the COVID-19 pandemic (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2020, 2021). Furthermore, children and young people from marginalized communities (such as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in Australia, or African American, Indian American, or Alaska Native children in the USA) are disproportionately represented in systems (Adoption et al., 2020; Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2021; U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2020). Children involved in systems generally experience poorer life outcomes than those not exposed to the system, especially those who are removed from parental care (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2021; Bromfield & Holzer, 2008; Cashmore, 2011). Further, the intergenerational transmission of maltreatment and child protection involvement is a pervasive problem; children involved in systems are more likely to grow up and maltreat their own children and become re-involved in the system as parents (Armfield et al., 2021; Widom et al., 2015).

This ongoing crisis has led to increased scrutiny and criticism of the competency of child protection systems, placing significant pressure on an already pressured system (Connolly, 2009) and on frontline practitioners. Child protection practitioners work in a challenging, demanding, and stressful role – this workforce is highly vulnerable to work-related stress, vicarious trauma, burnout, or even physical violence, all of which are damaging to practitioners’ wellbeing (Gibbs, 2001; Harrison et al., 2018, Healy et al., 2009; Kearney, 2013; Lonne et al., 2013; McFadden et al., 2015). While practitioners find their work to be meaningful (Ellett et al., 2007; Lawrence et al., 2019), many also experience moral distress in their inability to act in accordance with their values due to the demands and systemic constraints (Haight et al., 2017; He et al., 2021). In addition to the challenges already faced by practitioners in their daily work, child protection systems hold poor public reputations (Juhasz & Skivenes, 2017; Skivenes & Benbenishty, 2022) and are often the target of public scrutiny which undermines public perceptions of the legitimacy and is further damaging for practitioners.

The perceived legitimacy of an authority figure or body refers to public endorsement of practices within that body’s statutory power, which are otherwise outside normative standards (Bradford et al., 2020; Tyler & Jackson, 2014). Child protection systems hold significant and controversial power in their ability to disrupt a family unit, which is one of the most private of spheres, by removing a child from a home. Perceived legitimacy drives public acceptance of such powers, and is largely dependent on alignment with societal values (Bradford et al., 2020; van der Toorn et al., 2011). In this context, sensationalized media reports relating to child fatalities (e.g., media articles reporting “child protection failures” to intervene early enough; Perkins, 2016) may lead to members of the public being dissatisfied with the procedures employed by practitioners, and viewing child protection as acting in a way that does not align with societal values (Keddell et al., 2022). In this way, the perceived legitimacy of child protection is undermined, and this has implications for practitioners trying to carry out their daily work. While the misalignment in values between parents involved in systems and this service has been documented (Buckley et al., 2011; Dumbrill, 2006; Merritt, 2021) and may be more salient, factors underlying public perceptions are untested.

The assessment of risk to inform child protection decision-making is often a target of this scrutiny, and the highly challenging nature of risk assessment is often underestimated. Child protection practitioners are constantly tasked with assessing risk of harm to a child; this occurs more formally in decisions to remove or place children in homes, or more implicitly such as in quick decisions during home visits (Cook, 2017). However, because the risk is concerned with human subjects, some error variance is inevitable (Chenot, 2011; D’andrade et al., 2008; Enosh & Bayer-Topilsky, 2015; Munro, 2019; Rzepnicki & Johnson, 2005). At the most severe end, risk assessments can inform decisions that place children in unsafe environments where they are exposed to further harm or, in rare cases, can lead to child fatality (Kearney, 2013). In the general media, such incidents are commonly publicized as an act of gross negligence by child protection; for example, one news article described child protection as having “missed a number of opportunities to remove” a teenager before his eventual death (King, 2013). Such reports may create further discomfort for practitioners engaging in the already ambiguous and challenging task of assessing risk of harm (Benbenishty & Fluke, 2020; Chenot, 2011; Connolly, 2009; Connolly & Masson, 2014; Kearney, 2013, Littlechild, 2008; Maslen & Hamilton, 2020). Thus, in this controversial context where risk judgments can be ambiguous, but where a risk-averse culture condemns any error, child protection practitioners may face additional pressure of public scrutiny when assessing risk of harm.

Feeling undervalued and disrespected is tied to employee turnover (Gibbs, 2001; Lawrence et al., 2019; Lonne et al., 2013; Tham, 2007; Westbrook et al., 2006). For this controversial and highly regulated workforce, this is likely to be compounded by the additional impact of public blame, scrutiny, and reduced legitimacy (Lawrence et al., 2019; Lonne et al., 2013). It is widely documented that many international child protection systems hold poor reputations and are exposed to public scrutiny (Juhasz & Skivenes, 2017; Kearney, 2013). While there is a clear influence of the media on public perceptions of this service, there is scant research investigating the specific factors driving poor public perceptions, despite the cumulative impact this creates on this workforce and their ability to safely and effectively enact their work. Given the lack of research investigating public perceptions of this service, we turn to the psychological literature to understand what may be driving negative public perceptions of the child protection sector.

The psychology of justice reasoning

The literature on the psychology of justice is an extensive body of research examining the factors which shape perceptions of justice (or “fairness”)² in decision-making situations. Justice reasoning is particularly helpful in understanding evaluations of situations where authorities determine outcomes for others. Research began with the investigation of distributive justice, followed by investigations of procedural justice which are now dominant in the literature. The justice literature most relevant to child protection is reviewed below.

Distributive justice

Distributive justice refers to perceptions of the fairness of outcomes resulting from decisions (Deutsch, 1975, 1985; Leventhal, 1976). Early theorists argued that evaluations of outcome fairness are shaped by principles of deservingness (i.e., whether an outcome is proportionate to the person’s contribution), equality (i.e., whether an outcome is comparable to what others receive), and need (Adams, 1965; Deutsch, 1975; Tyler & Lind, 1992; Walster et al., 1973). In the child protection context, distributive justice and principles of deservingness are important for understanding public perceptions of the outcomes prescribed by practitioners following child maltreatment, such as whether a child is removed from parental care, and where they are placed afterward. However, early distributive justice researchers did not consider the importance that a decision making process itself has on notions of justice (Cohen, 1987), which eventually led to the investigation of procedural justice (Thibaut & Walker, 1975, 1978).

Procedural justice

Whereas distributive justice focuses on outcomes, procedural justice research explores people’s evaluations of a process from which outcomes are derived (Sivasubramaniam & Heuer, 2015; Thibaut & Walker, 1978). The centrality of this research became evident as many social interactions involve power imbalances where the recipient of a decision does not have decision making powers, but their acceptance of outcome is important (e.g., in interactions with authority figures, such as in workplaces, courtrooms, or with police; Sivasubramaniam, 2017; Tyler & Jackson, 2014). Importantly, there is a clear power imbalance with child protection and the broader public, with practitioners able to exercise statutory powers to intervene within families.

Over time, a significant body of research has demonstrated that the processes used to reach a decision enhance people’s acceptance of decisions, even when outcomes are undesirable (Thibaut & Walker, 1975). Importantly, current theoretical models indicate that when authority figures demonstrate four core features, termed the “relational variables,” during proceedings, people’s perception of procedural fairness of the overall interaction is enhanced. These features include: Permitting a decision recipient an opportunity to voice their opinion, being trustworthy (i.e., having good intentions and displaying genuine concern), being respectful (i.e., polite interpersonal treatment), and preserving neutrality (i.e., objectivity of decisions made by an authority figure; Folger, 1977; Lind & Tyler, 1988; Thibaut & Walker, 1975, 1978). While the importance of this theory is well-established (MacCoun, 2005), only one study has applied the principles of procedural justice in the child protection context (Venables & Healy, 2019) despite the clear relevance of procedural justice theory to this context.

Procedural justice theory helps to understand the evaluations of those administering the decision, those receiving the decision, and those observing the decision (Heuer et al., 2007; Politis et al., 2020). In the child protection context, this would include practitioners, children and families, and the general public, respectively. While the perspectives of parents involved in systems has been explored in the literature (e.g., see: Buckley et al., 2011; Dumbrill, 2006; Merritt, 2021), perspectives in the broader public are understudied (Berrick et al., 2023). However, the psychological literature on justice may provide insights. Despite not being directly implicated by the outcome, observers of a decision making situation are still profoundly impacted by perceived injustice in the treatment of others (Hafer & Bègue, 2005; Hegtvedt et al., 2009; Lerner, 1980; Sivasubramaniam & Heuer, 2015), and so the same may be assumed about public perceptions of decisions made by this service. Importantly, there are boundary conditions to this theory; specifically, under established conditions, the drivers of perceived fairness shift away from relational factors and toward more deservingness-based factors – and, importantly, these conditions are very likely to occur in the child protection context.

Boundary conditions of procedural justice theory

Although a significant body of research has demonstrated that satisfaction with decision-making processes is shaped by the aforementioned relational variables (Tyler & Lind, 1992), much of this traditional justice research has not accounted for the profound impact of emotionally and morally provocative situations on shifting people’s justice reasoning away from relational concerns (Hafer, 2012; Hafer & Correy, 1999; Heuer & Stroessner, 2011; Lerner, 2003, 2023).

Emotionally provocative injustices

This emotional experience is still relevant to an observer, who is not implicated by the outcome, when evaluating the fairness of a situation (Hafer, 2012; Lerner, 2003; Lerner & Simmons, 1966), such as a member of the general public hearing about a child protection case in the media. Salient emotions, particularly contempt, anger, and disgust can shift people’s reasoning away from a thoughtful, logical, and deliberative process that is concerned with whether child protection treated the maltreating parent respectfully (such as allowing them input into decisions about a child), to a deservingness-based model that is driven more strongly by a visceral and heuristic reaction to injustice (Bastian et al., 2013; Bright & Goodman-Delahunty, 2006; Darley & Pittman, 2003; Goldberg et al., 1999; Lerner, 2003, Lerner, 2023; Mikula et al., 1998; Rozin et al., 1999). This may lead to dissatisfaction with decisions made by child protection which adhere to procedurally fair processes, such as placing a child back into the care of a previously harming parent.

Morally provocative injustices

Similarly, transgressions that violate people’s moral values can activate “moral mandates” in the public, which are strong, idiosyncratic, core beliefs about what is fundamentally right or wrong, and can be experienced as imperatives to act upon (Bauman & Skitka, 2009; Mullen & Skitka, 2006; Skitka & Houston, 2001). Moral mandates can also lead to a disregard for due process, as they drive perceptions of fairness to reflect whether a process or outcome has addressed the moral concern (Bauman & Skitka, 2009; Mullen & Skitka, 2006; Skitka & Mullen, 2002) rather than the integrity of the process itself. For example, a highly emotive response to child abuse may facilitate this moral framing in lay people, rather than allowing for more deliberative consideration of nuanced personal circumstances which may have contributed to the abuse. This can result in the public condemning decisions made by child protection which aims to implement restorative principles following child abuse, such as prioritizing family reunification.

Deservingness-based justice

Further to this dissatisfaction, strong emotional and moral responses to injustice can impact public motivation toward how child protection respond to maltreating parents. Rather than being concerned about how well respectful procedures are adhered to – the anger, disgust, or contempt, or moral violation of child abuse may cause the public to become motivated to ensure the wrongdoer receives a punishment they are seen to deserve (Bojczenko & Sivasubramaniam, 2020; Carlsmith et al., 2007; Darley, 2009; Hafer, 2012; Heuer et al., 1999; Lerner, 2003).

Research in several, highly emotive contexts supports the emergence of deservingness-based justice judgments. For example, lay people will endorse very harsh punishment of someone, such as torture (an act which is otherwise consensually immoral), after learning that the person has engaged in reprehensible behavior (Drolet et al., 2016). Emotionally-charged criminal trials can shift juror decisions away from adhering to fair and respectful proceedings (Goldberg et al., 1999; Grady et al., 2018; Nuñez et al., 2016). And experimental research demonstrates that the public endorses preventive detention orders for sexual offenders who pose a risk to the community, partly as a means of punishing these offenders, even when explicitly informed that preventive detention should not be used as a mechanism for punishment (Bojczenko & Sivasubramaniam, 2020; Carlsmith et al., 2007). Thus, strong emotional reactions lead to more negative treatment and outcomes (such as harsher punishment) for certain offenders perceived as deserving (Skitka & Houston, 2001) – perhaps including those who harm children, though this has not been directly tested.

Retribution

We have described the profound impact of strong emotional and moral reactions which lead to deservingness-based retributive impulses in lay people (Goldberg et al., 1999; Lerner & Keltner, 2001). Retributive justice is an important component of the criminal justice system, aiming (among other things) to maintain the social order by restoring the moral imbalance that the transgression created (Australian Law Reform Commission ALRC, 2010; Carlsmith et al., 2002; Feather, 1999; Wenzel et al., 2010). However, it has no place in the intended frameworks of the civil justice system in which child protection is situated – yet, a public desire for retribution among members of the public may be influencing current poor perceptions of child protection.

Retributive impulses

The profound sense of injustice evoked by emotive and moral transgressions motivates people to restore a sense of justice, and punishing the transgressor can be a psychologically satisfying way to address this (Carlsmith et al., 2002; Gromet, 2012; Lerner & Keltner, 2001; Lerner & Tiedens, 2006; Strelan & van Prooijen, 2013). As noted above, this retributive impulse is essentially fueled by salient emotions and moral mandates, which can override concerns for ensuring fair processes and instead drive punitive outcomes (Carlsmith & Darley, 2008; Darley & Pittman, 2003; Gromet, 2012). Thus, in response to child abuse, the public may be less concerned with how respectfully child protection treated the maltreating parent, and instead focus on whether the parent was adequately punished. Therefore, the psychological justice literature suggests that in highly emotive situations where transgressions, such as the abuse of a young and innocent child, violate people’s moral values, lay people expect retribution against those who harm children (Bojczenko & Sivasubramaniam, 2020; Hafer, 2011; Lerner & Miller, 1978; Lerner & Simmons, 1966). However, retributive impulses in the public would directly conflict with the non-retributive purposes of child protection, who instead aim to enact many principles of restorative justice in their work.

Restorative justice and child protection

Restorative justice

Restorative justice is an alternative approach used in both criminal and civil contexts in many Western justice systems (Saulnier & Sivasubramaniam, 2015). This approach draws on the traditional procedural justice notions of fair and respectful processes (Saulnier & Sivasubramaniam, 2015), which underlie the intention of many child protection practices. Unlike retributive justice, which aims to punish a transgressor, restorative justice has a reparative focus of “restoring” all affected parties after a transgression has occurred, including restoring the perpetrator to a less harmful lifestyle (Bazemore, 1998; Braithwaite, 1989, 2002; Gromet, 2012; Gromet & Darley, 2006; Saulnier & Sivasubramaniam, 2015). A great deal of research has established the therapeutic role of restorative practices in various contexts, including enhanced satisfaction with processes by victims or increased accountability in perpetrators (Bergseth & Bouffard, 2013; Connolly, 2009; Latimer et al., 2005; Okimoto et al., 2009; Rodriguez, 2007; Wenzel et al., 2010). In the child protection context, these therapeutic benefits would apply to affected children, but also their families, communities, and broader systems.

Principles of restorative justice in child protection

Many principles of restorative justice are embedded within child protection legislature and practice in Australia and internationally (AIHW, 2021; Bromfield & Holzer, 2008; Connolly, 2009; Fernandez, 2014; Gal, 2015; Juhasz & Skivenes, 2017; Lonne et al., 2013; Neff, 2004; Spratt & Nett, 2012; Venables & Healy, 2019). While it is not the sole approach used by practitioners, critical factors of restorative principles in practice, as Connolly (2009) neatly described, include empowering family members, restoring children’s safety, restoring the family’s care, and restoring familial relationships. Interventions enacting restorative values include those which are relationally-based (i.e., prioritize building relationships with service users), which aim to maximize participation and agency of children and families, and which are respectful and transparent (Connolly, 2009; Gal, 2015).

As a statutory service, child protection practitioners are mandated to act according to several legislative guidelines; in Victoria, Australia, this is primarily the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (CYFA). Examples of restorative principles within legislature include: a focus on the child and the harm caused (rather than on the transgressor) following child maltreatment; practitioners must consider how best to protect the child’s best interests (CYFA, 2005, s. 10 [1]), connection to culture (CYFA, 2005, s. 10 [3][c]), positive development (CYFA, 2005, s. 10 [2]), and agency (CYFA, 2005, s. 10 [3][d]); practitioners must include parents in collaboration and consensus as much as possible (CYFA, 2005, s. 11 [e]) and assist children and families with referrals to appropriate support services in order to help restore the child and/or the parent to help mend the family (Juhasz & Skivenes, 2017; Søbjerg et al., 2020; Spratt & Nett, 2012). Thus, restorative principles are a key approach (alongside others) guiding child protection responses, and retributive concerns are not factored into decision making in this context.

Specific examples of restorative interventions include family group conferencing and differential responses. Family group conferences involve the participation of all family members with child protection when making decisions about the child after maltreatment has occurred (Connolly, 2006, 2009; Connolly & Masson, 2014; Morris & Connolly, 2012; Pennell, 2006; Williams & Segrott, 2018).This intervention requires practitioners to organize and coordinate meetings with a child’s wider family network to discuss concerns and collaborate on a plan for the best interests of the child. This process is particularly vital for cultural groups whose family structures differ from Western conceptualizations and extend beyond that of biological parents/nuclear families, to cultural Elders or community members more broadly. Similarly, differential or alternative responses – while variable across different child protection systems – are all fundamentally concerned with reducing the need for intrusive interventions and diverting families away from child removal and adversarial court processes by encouraging voluntary engagement from families (Lonne et al., 2015; Merkel-Holguin et al., 2015; Venables & Healy, 2019; Waldegrave & Coy, 2005). Both approaches have process-focused goals and aim to encourage collaboration between all stakeholders (e.g., child protection, parents, carers, community members and children where possible) and grant all stakeholders voice (Cohen, 2016; Connolly, 2009; Gromet, 2012; Saulnier & Sivasubramaniam, 2015). This differs from traditional approaches where practitioners determine outcomes for children and families without providing opportunity for input; this can be experienced as adversarial by families.

Thus, child protection practitioners are not tasked with engaging in retributive practice; rather, guided by restorative approaches, they are tasked with building collaborative relationships with parents who have been reported to maltreat their child/ren to work toward achieving an outcome that serves the best interest of the child. These restorative processes aim to be inclusive, collaborative, empowering for families, and are grounded in well-researched restorative philosophy (Connolly, 2006, 2009; Venables & Healy, 2019). Importantly, the restorative approach centralizes the importance of considering the circumstances of each individual case; therefore, particular restorative approaches would be tailored to each family and set of circumstances. For example, in a case where neglect is the primary reason a family is reported to child protection, the restorative approach may include mechanisms to educate and reengage carers with children; to do this, practitioners need to build relationships with the parent to understand their unique circumstances and refer them to support services (Munro et al., 2017). In cases where family violence is present, the restorative approach may involve interventions which provide each family member voice but particularly collaborate with non-harming parents/family members, strengthen relationships between them and children, attempt to enhance accountability in the transgressing parent and educate them, and empower and support victim survivors (Victoria State Government, 2023, 2024).

Given their therapeutic benefits to children and families, it is crucial to understand how to enhance the ability of practitioners to engage in restorative approaches. However, researchers have noted barriers to practitioners’ ability to feasibly enact core principles of restorative processes in their often fast-paced and crisis-driven work (Connolly, 2006, 2009; Connolly & Masson, 2014, Cortis et al., 2019; Healy et al., 2012; Venables & Healy, 2019). Time-constraints and large workloads have been noted, which reduce the ability to implement restorative practices that often require time to build trust, rapport, and collaborative relationships with service users.

As outlined in the literature reviewed earlier, it is highly likely that public expectations of retribution also limit the feasible application of restorative practices. Research has demonstrated that there are caveats to lay people’s endorsement of restorative justice; for instance, for more severe crimes, lay people endorse restorative approaches only when they are supplemented with punishment (Gromet & Darley, 2006, 2009; Okimoto et al., 2009). Lay endorsement of restorative practices may be undermined by retributive expectations that the emotionally provoking nature of this context evokes. Furthermore, lay understanding of the function of child protection, as well as lay retributive expectations, are currently unclear despite public perceptions of child protection generally being documented as poor.

Perceptions of child protection

While the mechanism driving poor public perceptions of child protection is untested, there is reason to expect that lay people experience retributive expectations toward those who harm children, and the conflict this causes with child protection’s non-retributive function may contribute to poor public perceptions. Existing retributive impulses and poor perceptions among the public may also be exacerbated by the ways in which the public are exposed to child protection cases.

Formal inquiries

Child protection systems are periodically and incidentally reviewed through formal inquiries (Commission for Children and Young People [CCYP], 2020; Fernandez, 2014). The purpose is to provide independent oversight and scrutiny, particularly when there are persistent or recurring issues (CCYP, 2020). They also increase accountability, encourage reflections, and provide useful recommendations for systemic improvements (Ayre, 2001; Lawrence et al., 2019). However, because inquiries are targeted toward determining the cause of system failures, they inadvertently place themselves in a position of attributing blame, often to the detriment of individual practitioners (Harrison et al., 2018; Kearney, 2013; Lawrence et al., 2019; Lonne & Thomson, 2005; Munro, 2019). For example, a recent inquiry into the Victorian child protection system reported the causes of 27 child fatalities during the 2019–20 period to be related to premature case closure, poor risk assessments, inadequate responses to mental health, and poor communication with other service providers (CCYP, 2020). While inquiries are extremely helpful and necessary in informing needed refinements (Higgins & Katz, 2008; Lonne & Thomson, 2005; Maslen & Hamilton, 2020), they can also perpetuate a cycle of increased oversight, leading to more blame (Ayre, 2001; Lawrence et al., 2019; Lonne & Thomson, 2005).

The impact of the media

The findings of formal inquiries and audits are made public, which can lead to media coverage that is overwhelmingly harsh, critical, and blaming (Ayre, 2001; Juhasz & Skivenes, 2017). The media nearly exclusively reports poor outcomes such as non-accidental child fatalities, despite these incidents being rare (Kearney, 2013). Little attention is paid toward positive child protection-related outcomes that can also occur, such as research documenting improvements in social development and emotional wellbeing in children involved in systems (Dickens et al., 2019; Forrester et al., 2009). This media attention often implicitly or explicitly asks how catastrophic outcomes happened, or who allowed this to happen to an innocent child? (Ayre, 2001). It is often explained by a child protection system’s negligence or failure to protect children from an obvious source of harm (Ayre, 2001; Fernandez, 2014). The use of rhetoric and sensationalism exacerbates the moral outrage that this publicity creates (Fernandez, 2014; Harrison et al., 2018). Such portrayals engender harmful biases, misplaced emphasis, and ascribe blame to child protection practitioners (Ayre, 2001; Harrison et al., 2018; Lawrence et al., 2019; Munro, 2019), which impacts public perceptions of the legitimacy of child protection systems and contributes to low levels of public confidence and trust (Juhasz & Skivenes, 2017).

This skewed media attention is likely to perpetuate lay people’s retributive expectations of child protection, thus conflicting with the restorative aims of practitioners. As described, retributive impulses are activated via an automatic, intuitive, and visceral processing system which ensues following strong emotional and moral reactions (Lerner, 2003, 2023; Sivasubramaniam, 2017). The ability to modulate this via a more considered and deliberative processing system would enable consideration of contextual factors of child abuse, such as the capacity, resources, or personal histories of parents who harm children (Assink et al., 2018). However, activating this type of processing requires cognitive resources including effort, time, and motivation (Sivasubramaniam, 2017). Cognitive busyness, combined with quick and inattentive consumption of news will generally preclude the deliberative processing needed to shift people away from visceral, heuristic processing that underpins deservingness-based blame attribution (Sivasubramaniam, 2017). This difference in processing responses to child abuse represents another dissonance between practitioners and the public, further highlighting the tension between the retributive expectations of lay people versus non-retributive goals of this service. In addition, there are other factors that may contribute in systematic ways to these varied public opinions about child protection practice and that may enhance public expectations of retribution.

Factors potentially impacting perceptions of child protection

Political orientation

Personal factors and preferences can impact endorsement of restorative and retributive approaches. Research robustly indicates that people who align with right-wing or conservative political views are more likely to endorse punitive responses to criminal offending than people with liberal, or left-wing political views (Bojczenko & Sivasubramaniam, 2020; Clark & Wink, 2012; Nemeth & Sosis, 1973; Payne et al., 2004; Silver & Silver, 2017), especially when compared to restorative approaches (Gromet & Darley, 2011). Further, Juhasz and Skivenes (2017) surveyed 4,003 members of the public to investigate community confidence in child protection systems in England, Finland, Norway, and the USA, and found that left-wing political orientation related to a higher level of confidence across all four systems compared to those with more right-wing views (Juhasz & Skivenes, 2017). Collectively, this research suggests that people who align with more conservative political views are more likely to endorse, or expect, retributive responses to transgressions, but this has not been tested in the child protection context. Thus, future research should investigate whether political orientation influences lay people’s endorsement of child protection’s non-retributive practice.

Hindsight bias

Hindsight bias is also likely to impact public evaluations of child protection. Hindsight bias is the tendency to overestimate the obviousness of an outcome once the outcome is known (Fischhoff, 1975; Roese & Vohs, 2012). Formal inquiries and media portrayals of child protection-related fatalities occur after the outcome is known, but investigating the cause of an outcome while knowing the eventual outcome can hinder sound appraisal and can lead to an overestimation of the predictability of that outcome (Benbenishty & Fluke, 2020; Kearney, 2013). Reports can concentrate on a single factor while not accounting for the salience of accompanying factors that would have impacted the risk assessment at the time (e.g., time pressures, workloads, uncertainty, moral and legal obligations, workplace culture, or anxiety about being held accountable; Barnes, 1984; Kearney, 2013; Lonne et al., 2013; Munro, 1999). Several researchers have noted the potential impact of hindsight bias in formal inquiries within this context (Gowda, 1999; Kearney, 2013; Munro, 2010, 2019); however, no research has examined the influence of hindsight bias on community perceptions of child protection, specifically the influence on retributive expectations toward people who harm children.

Race

Finally, the role of race is also likely to impact public perceptions and expectations of this service. For example, experimental research has demonstrated that perceptions of procedural justice are influenced by race, such that observers of a mock interaction between police and respondents of different races evaluated respectful treatment as fairer toward respondents of cultural majorities relative to those of minority groups (Johnson et al., 2017). This is problematic – as previously noted, cultural minorities and First Nations peoples are overrepresented in many child protection systems (Adoption et al., 2020; Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2021; U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2020), whereas the population (i.e., the public) is predominately white in many countries where this is the case, such as in Australia and the US (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2022; United States Census Bureau, 2021). Thus, the impact of structural racism is another factor which may reduce public support for procedurally fair practices (including restorative principles) and instead enhance people’s retributive motives and expectations toward parents who harm children (Jackson et al., 2023; Johnson et al., 2017).

Conclusion and future directions

Non-retributive principles underpin the intention of child protection legislation and practice. However, there is evidence to suggest that many factors limit the enactment of these principles in practice. This is apparent in research documenting practitioners’ perspectives about the difficulty of enacting restorative interventions (Venables & Healy, 2019), or in research documenting service users’ dissatisfaction of this service, who view child protection as harsh and detrimental (Buckley et al., 2011; Dumbrill, 2006). Thus, while restorative practices exist, the lack of implementation contributes to dissonance between the intention and operation of this service. Understanding the barriers to enacting non-retributive principles, such as restorative practices, and why those barriers are occurring, may shed light on how this can be improved. Our review suggests that increasing the use of restorative interventions may improve the quality of services provided to children and families and subsequently public perceptions of this service.

In this broad review, we applied the procedural justice literature to a novel context to consider a theoretical tension between the non-retributive goals of child protection and the retributive impulse that may be engendered in lay people. Essential elements of the existing literature indicate a strong theoretical rationale for the existence of this tension, such as through research demonstrating that motivations to restore justice in response to highly emotionally and morally provoking transgressions generate retributive methods, and this is exacerbated by an observers’ values/ideologies, skewed and sensationalized exposure to this service, and by factors relating to transgressors, such as race.

We have also highlighted a notable gap of the lack of research on public perceptions of this highly emotive context, and no research investigating retributive motives in the community. As we have attempted to review an understudied and complex area, we note that our review is broad in nature, and may therefore not capture the nuances of public experiences of this service. There may not be a monolithic “public perception” of child protection, as we refer to it throughout this review, as many personal, social, or systemic factors are likely to impact how the public perceives this service. However, we have outlined clear directions for future research, which we hope will continue to provide further insights and understanding of this complex, but important area of study. We therefore encourage researchers, in future, to empirically investigate how the principles of justice reasoning apply to the child protection context, in order to determine how the retributive impulse may be affecting support for child protection and their non-retributive frameworks.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Commonwealth’s contribution of support to the student through the Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship. Nina Papalia is supported through an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award (DE220100147) grant. The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of Dr. Taylor Gogan, who provided valuable feedback on drafts of this manuscript.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The work was supported by the Australian Research Council Early Career Researcher Award [DE220100147]; Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship .

Notes on contributors

Stacey Politis

Stacey Politis is a Provisional Psychologist and PhD Candidate (Clinical Psychology) at Swinburne University. Her PhD applies the social psychology of procedural justice to the child protection context, with an aim of understanding public perceptions of this service and improving the ability of practitioners to engage in safe and effective practice. In addition to her research, Stacey has previously worked as a child protection practitioner and currently works clinically with adults presenting with personality disorder and other complex needs.

Diane Sivasubramaniam

Diane Sivasubramaniam is Chair of the Department of Psychological Sciences at Swinburne University. She is currently Director of the Social Psychology of Innovation (SPI) Research Group at Swinburne, and leads (with Dr. Sam Wilson) the Public Interest Technology Research Program in Swinburne University’s Social Innovation Research Institute. Diane was awarded her PhD from the University of New South Wales in 2006. Before moving to Swinburne University, she completed Postdoctoral Fellowships at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and Barnard College, Columbia University, and was an Assistant Professor at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT) in Canada. Diane’s research focuses on the social psychology of procedural and distributive justice, with applications in jury decision making, interrogations, and law enforcement technologies.

Nina Papalia

Nina Papalia is a Senior Lecturer at the Centre for Forensic Behavioural Science, Swinburne University of Technology, and a registered clinical forensic psychologist. She is also a current Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award Fellow. She conducts clinically informed and policy relevant research that focuses on improving mental health and intervention services for young people in the child protection and justice systems and on the prevention of violence and offending.

Notes

1. Some severe cases of child maltreatment can involve police intervention and result in criminal charges being pursued against the person who has harmed a child. Thus, criminal proceedings can occur simultaneous to child protection intervention; however, this is enforced under separate legislation and by authority figures independent of child protection practitioners.

2. The terms “justice” and “fairness” are used interchangeably in this field.