TRIVEDI_CROP.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 7/27/19 8:13 AM
536 N.Y.U. REVIEW OF LAW & SOCIAL CHANGE [Vol. 43:523
Researchers have found that racial bias exists at each stage of child welfare
proceedings, from investigation to mitigation efforts to ultimate removal.
87
Statis-
tics confirm that minority families, and Black families in particular, are less likely
to receive in-home services meant to address underlying causes and prevent re-
moval.
88
Thus, the state is more likely to permit white children to remain with
their families, and take Black children away from theirs when faced with similar
allegations.
89
For example, a 2002 study by the Minnesota Department of Human
Services found that Black children are five times more likely to be removed than
children of other races.
90
Sixteen years later, in 2018, Black children in Minnesota
were still three times as likely as white children to be involved in the state’s child
welfare system.
91
As a result, in April of 2018, parents in Minnesota filed a Sec-
tion 1983 lawsuit against the state alleging in part that child protective laws were
being enforced in a discriminatory manner.
92
Poverty, of course, plays a significant role in exacerbating racial disparities.
This is particularly true, because (1) as many outsiders are surprised to learn, the
majority of cases in the child welfare system deal with neglect, not abuse;
93
and
(2) poverty is often conflated with neglect
94
or creates circumstances that may
lead to neglect.
95
Indeed, research shows that “[i]nadequacy of income, more than
any other factor, constitutes the reason that children are removed.”
96
Child welfare
87. Fred Wulczyn, Robert Gibbons, Lonnie Snowden, & Bridgette Lery, Poverty, Social Dis-
advantage, and the Black/White Placement Gap, 35 CHILD. & YOUTH SERVS. REV. 65, 66 (2013).
88. Ledesma, supra note 79, at 36 (citing Susan L. Brooks & Dorothy E. Roberts, Social Jus-
tice and Family Court Reform, 40 FAM. CT. REV. 453, 454 (2002) (quoting CHILDREN’S BUREAU,
U.S. DEP’T HEALTH & HUMAN SERVS., NATIONAL STUDY OF PROTECTIVE, PREVENTIVE, AND
REUNIFICATION SERVICES DELIVERED TO CHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILIES (1994))) (finding disparities
“even when [minority children] have the same problems and characteristics as white children”).
89. Dorothy E. Roberts, Child Welfare and Civil Rights, 2003 U. ILL. L. REV. 171, 172–73.
90. CHILDREN’S SERVS. ADMIN., MINN. DEP’T OF HUMAN SERVS, STUDY OF OUTCOMES FOR
AFRICAN AMERICAN CHILDREN IN MINNESOTA’S CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM 4 (2002),
https://www.leg.state.mn.us/docs/pre2003/mandated/020299.pdf [https://perma.cc/ZLV6-L3E4].
91. Christopher Magan, Black Children Disproportionately Removed from Their Families;
State Lawmakers Seek Fix, PIONEER PRESS (Apr. 10, 2018, 4:16 PM), https://www.twincities.com/
2018/04/10/black-children-are-disproportionately-removed-from-their-families-state-lawmakers-
seek-legislative-fix/ [https://perma.cc/8AFX-6ZJD].
92. Complaint, Mitchell v. Dakota Cty. Soc. Servs., No. 18-cv-01091-WMW-BRT (D. Minn.
Apr. 24, 2018).
93. See, e.g., Dorothy E. Roberts, Poverty, Race, and New Directions in Child Welfare Policy,
1 WASH. U. J.L. & POL’Y 63, 68–69 (1999).
94. Tanya Asim Cooper, Racial Bias in American Foster Care: The National Debate, 97
MARQ. L. REV. 215, 228 (2013) (“That poverty has been confused and conflated with child neglect
and even parental turpitude is not new.”); see also MacFarquhar, supra note 44 (“You may be
shocked by the living conditions you encounter, but you’re not allowed to remove children solely
because of poverty—if, for instance, there’s no food in the kitchen because the parent’s food stamps
have run out—only for ‘imminent risk’ due to abuse or neglect. But it’s often difficult to draw a line
between poverty and neglect.”).
95. Christina White, Federally Mandated Destruction of the Black Family: The Adoption and
Safe Families Act, 1 NW. J.L. & SOC. POL’Y. 303, 314–15 (2006).
96. DUNCAN LINDSEY, THE WELFARE OF CHILDREN 175 (2d ed. 2004); see also Joyce, supra