Most parents know the feeling—that quick flash of panic when a child falls, bumps a table, or wakes up with a bruise you don’t remember seeing the day before. For many families, it’s a passing worry. But for families living with financial strain, those same everyday moments can carry a heavier weight. A simple accident can raise questions, draw concern, or, in rare but serious cases, trigger a child-welfare investigation.

Research shows that 85% of families investigated for neglect have incomes below 200% of the poverty line, and referrals are disproportionately concentrated among families who are unemployed, receive public assistance, or live in high-poverty neighborhoods. Understanding these dynamics is especially important for those supporting families professionally, as small misinterpretations can have significant psychological consequences.

To explore why this happens—and why it disproportionately affects families facing poverty—I spoke with Dr. Niran Al-Agba, a pediatrician with over two decades of experience. In reviewing suspected child-abuse cases across 23 states, she has observed a troubling pattern: many allegations arise not from actual abuse or neglect, but from misinterpreted childhood injuries or medical conditions. When these events are viewed through socioeconomic bias, parents can experience intense stress, fear, and trauma while navigating everyday challenges and worrying that ordinary accidents might be mistaken for abuse or neglect.

How Poverty Changes What Professionals See

Poverty does not cause abuse, but it may shape the lens through which injuries, delays in care, and family behaviors are interpreted. For instance, research on scarcity and cognitive load shows that financial stress narrows attention, reduces cognitive bandwidth, and increases reliance on heuristics—mental shortcuts that can misclassify normal or ambiguous behaviors as neglect or danger. Implicit and confirmation biases further heighten this risk: When poverty or race is visible, ambiguous information is more likely to be interpreted as evidence of wrongdoing.

As Dr. Al-Agba notes, “many of the families investigated are marginalized, low-income, or immigrants—groups historically more vulnerable to misinterpretation.” National data reflect these disparities, with low-income and marginalized families disproportionately reported to child protective services. Recognizing these dynamics is essential for professionals to distinguish between true risk and the effects of poverty, reducing unnecessary interventions and promoting equitable decision-making.

The Psychological Toll of Investigation and Removal

When families living in poverty are reported to child protective services, the investigative process can be profoundly destabilizing. Parents often experience acute stress reactions—panic, hypervigilance, sleep disturbances, and difficulty communicating—that reflect normal physiological and psychological responses to perceived threat. Research on trauma and stress shows that these fear-driven behaviors can be misinterpreted as evasiveness, defensiveness, or guilt, creating a feedback loop that amplifies scrutiny and psychological strain.

Children are particularly vulnerable in these situations. Dr. Al-Agba notes that even short separations from caregivers can shake a child’s sense of safety, disrupt their emotional balance, and trigger heightened anxiety. When removals happen unnecessarily, children often carry lingering effects—difficulty trusting others, struggles with relationships, and heightened stress responses—that can last well beyond reunification.

Reducing the Risk of Unnecessary Child-Welfare Removals

For psychologists, clinicians, and child welfare professionals working with this population, the following strategies can help prevent unnecessary trauma for families while still prioritizing child safety:

Avoid definitive language when evidence is unclear: When observations or medical findings are ambiguous, use wording that reflects probability or the need for further evaluation rather than certainty. For example, instead of stating that a bruise “must” indicate abuse, describe it as “concerning” or “warrants further assessment.” Framing findings this way helps reduce cognitive biases—such as anchoring or premature closure—and lowers the risk that initial impressions disproportionately influence subsequent decisions.
Use a multidisciplinary lens to improve family assessments: For mental health and medical professionals working with families under investigation, consulting with other qualified clinicians using a multidisciplinary approach—provides important context, clarifies normal developmental variations, and minimizes the impact of initial interpretations. This collaboration ensures that families’ circumstances are fully understood before high-stakes decisions are made, supporting more accurate and psychologically informed assessments.
Screen for scarcity-related barriers: Take a close look at whether missed appointments, delayed care, or environmental challenges are the result of limited access to resources—like transportation, affordable childcare, or healthcare—rather than abuse/neglect. Recognizing these structural barriers helps mental health professionals separate systemic obstacles from parental behavior and make more accurate, context-sensitive assessments.
Use trauma-informed interviewing: Recognize that stress, fear, and hypervigilance are normal responses for parents under scrutiny. Framing questions and conversations with empathy reduces the likelihood that protective behaviors are misread as guilt or evasiveness, improving both communication and assessment accuracy.
Prioritize family-preserving supports whenever safe: Whenever possible, provide concrete resources and community-based supports that help families stay together. These strategies protect children, reduce psychological harm, and maintain parent-child attachment, all without compromising safety.

Bottom Line

Better outcomes occur when professionals pause to distinguish medical uncertainty, developmental norms, access barriers, and genuine risk. Considering context before drawing conclusions can prevent unnecessary trauma and preserve family integrity. As Dr. Al-Agba emphasizes, “This begins with asking a simple but critical question: Are we interpreting the evidence, or are we interpreting the family?” Applying evidence-based, bias-aware, and deliberate decision-making can reduce wrongful removals while protecting children who truly need intervention.

Family Dynamics Essential Reads

© 2025 Ryan C. Warner, Ph.D.