Читать книгу Fragile Families - Naomi Glenn-Levin Rodriguez - Страница 7

Introduction

It was Esperanza¹ Foster Family Agency’s annual holiday party and I was sitting with Liliana, Bailey, and Emma’s foster father, Trevor. We were eating enchiladas and listening to Trevor speak about the challenges and rewards of being a foster parent, the “high highs and the low lows.” Emma, not quite two years old, had been leaning between the knees of her other foster father, Josh, while Trevor spoke. Partway through his speech she toddled over to Trevor and put her arms up. He reached down and scooped her up with one arm and she laid her head against his shoulder, one small hand on the back of his neck. The room was filled with a collective sigh—here was a perfect moment between father and daughter, an image of the sort of relationship that Esperanza Foster Family Agency stood for. I knew Trevor and Emma well and Trevor certainly felt like Emma’s father to me. Emma’s pending adoption would be finalized soon, and Trevor and Josh would be Emma’s permanent family.

Yet as I sat watching them under the glow of the lanterns and the warm San Diego evening sky, I thought about all the other relationships in which Emma was embedded. Her biological mother and father meeting her at Chuckie Cheese the next week, still hoping for her return. Her grandmother who had wanted to take her in but felt too old to do so without help. Emma’s older siblings, placed with various extended family. The broader social networks that connected her back to family in Honduras, a set of legal relationships that would be severed by her pending adoption and new legal birth certificate, which would list Trevor and Josh as her parents.

I tried to imagine how the scene would feel if Emma’s biological parents and siblings were in the room. They had been neglectful and unstable, but they had not been violently abusive. Emma’s social worker had eventually ruled out reunification with Emma’s parents, but she had considered the possibility of placing Emma with her extended family right up until the last few months, when she determined that no relative was able to take in Emma permanently. So Emma had never been simply Trevor and Josh’s child, and, in fact, had been in another foster home prior to placement with Trevor and Josh. She was removed from that home due to an allegation of physical abuse, which was later determined to have been unfounded. There were many ways her case could have gone, many lives she could have led. This is the case for all of us, but for foster children and families, the numerous trajectories one might experience are made more visible. And the traces of those other possible lives remain, shadowing families that are made through the awkward, fumbling, haphazard intervention of the state. The webs of social relatedness in which children and families are embedded, the networks that are interrupted, and the decisions that bring a child to one possible future while foreclosing others are the subject of this book. The central contention of this book is that in the context of child welfare, through relations that are ostensibly about protecting children and preserving families, vulnerability, inequality, and the contours of belonging, race, and citizenship are produced and reinforced.

Interventions

I initially met Trevor, Josh, and Emma, along with the other foster families, children, and social workers who are the primary subjects of this book, through Esperanza, a small foster family agency in San Diego that focused on Latina/o children and their families. Foster care, at its most basic level, is the site of one of the most concrete, heavy-handed state interventions into the private, intimate lives of families. Social workers are empowered to make decisions about whether children face a threat of danger, and if so, to remove them physically and legally from their parents’ care. As I describe in more detail in Chapter 4, social workers are given broad latitude in enacting or deferring these forms of intervention—there is no protocol detailed enough to capture the complexity of family circumstances that bring children and their parents under the purview of child welfare authorities.² In the San Diego region, these interventions are deeply entangled with immigration policy and politics. Practices of detention and deportation, alongside racializing processes and structural violence, construct national boundaries as they position particular families as more likely to be subjects of state intervention. This book focuses on the everyday experiences of Latina/o families whose lives are shaped at the nexus of child welfare services and immigration enforcement.

“The state” is, of course, not a monolithic, faceless force but, in the context of child welfare services, is enacted through daily interactions among social workers, lawyers, judges, children, and families. Policy and political climate shape the terrain in which these interactions take place. But because social work, like many other fields in which the state operates, is a highly discretionary practice, foster care is also a means through which precariousness is produced for people’s lives in ways that activate social relations of race, citizenship, and nationality. Social workers’ assessments of a family’s “fit-ness,” their daily practices and budgetary constraints, alongside their sense of what a “good,” “safe” home looks like, give force to the lived experiences of categories of race, class, and gender and demarcate boundaries of citizenship and nationality. Judicial determinations solidify these assessments and give them the force of law. As such, the impacts of social workers’ and legal actors’ decisions are profound and often permanent, though the social categories that inform these decisions, as I describe in Chapter 2, are shifting and unstable.

Many families come into contact with child welfare services because of the precariousness of their lives—unsafe housing, unstable employment, and the conditions of violence, drug use, and domestic violence made visible by the heightened police presence in impoverished communities. Yet the child welfare system itself, as I elaborate in the chapters that follow, is also a site where precariousness and vulnerability are produced. As social workers physically and legally sever relationships between parents and children, as they ask parents to meet goals that are outside the realm of parental capabilities due to economic or legal constraints, families teeter on the edge of dissolution, and often fall into the brink. Those families that are eventually reunited are brought back together after a period of extended separation, often filled with trauma, insecurity, and hardship for both parent and child. And few resources are available to help families heal and transition once the child welfare apparatus has receded from their lives.

To be clear, this book does not argue for the primacy of the biological family, nor does it call into question the biological family’s centrality to current policy and law in the contemporary United States. The focus on the biological family as the de facto best place for children to be raised has been both lauded and critiqued in the realms of child welfare and immigration law (Bartholet 1999; Briggs 2012; King 2009; Yablon-Zug 2011; Zavella 2012). Rather than asking whether the biological family should be positioned in this manner, I accept this premise as a starting place. Throughout the chapters that follow, I argue that an inherent right to the integrity of a biological, or natal, family is not in fact equally extended to, and protected for, families with members who fall outside of the normative framework of “good” citizens. This may be due to a variety of factors that undermine an individual’s belonging to the nation and their rights to full citizenship, including circumstances relating to race, class, nationality, legal citizenship, language use, or other mitigating factors.³

The research for this book was conducted in the San Diego-Tijuana region between 2008 and 2012. The cities of San Diego and Tijuana are deeply economically entangled and socially estranged.⁴ They share a history of exchange through the recruitment of laborers from Tijuana to compensate for San Diego labor shortages, the use of Tijuana by U.S. citizens as a site for access to goods and entertainment during the Prohibition era, and particularly through the Border Industrialization Program and the implementation of NAFTA in the mid-1990s (Proffitt 1994).⁵ The period from the establishment of NAFTA in 1994 to the present day has seen the tightening of business partnerships and explosive growth of the Tijuana population. Despite the fact that the Tijuana/San Diego area is the “busiest migration corridor in the western hemisphere” (Katsulis 2008:4), and thus an obvious site for considering the possibilities of binational collaboration and engagement, the two cities remain sharply separated by U.S. border enforcement and immigration policies.⁶

The social ties that do exist are largely constructed through individual family and social relations rather than facilitated through official government channels. Communities are formed across international lines through “transborder lives” (Stephen 2007), as individuals move across national, racial, and linguistic borders, suspended between, and participating in, multiple geographic spaces, living “neither here nor there” (Zavella 2011).⁷ This lack of formal collaboration between governmental entities contributes to the absence of a clear protocol for navigating child welfare circumstances that engage individuals living on both sides of the border, as official means of collaboration would rely on an acknowledgment of connectedness that U.S. government officials are reticent to accept. As such, although the child welfare cases recounted throughout this book often draw in family members on both sides of the border, there is little protocol in place for formalized binational collaboration between the two social service or judicial systems.

Laura, a veteran social worker and head of a regional office in San Diego County, lamented to me at a fundraising event that many foster children perhaps only ten physical miles from their grandmother’s home in Tijuana would be placed in a foster home with strangers in San Diego. Laura’s view was that this resulted from the unnecessary difficulty of cross-border collaboration, not because a San Diego foster home was understood to be best for that particular child. As I discuss in Chapter 2, however, some social workers and legal actors did interpret the best interest of the child to be equated with “not Mexico,” even if the child welfare system officially recognized family members as always preferable to a non-relative foster home, regardless of their country of residence. As such, the character of the relationship between these two cities, both connected and divided, established the conditions of possibility for shaping, and dividing, families in this region.

Esperanza Foster Family Agency was my starting point, and from there I connected with families, legal advocates, dependency court authorities, policy makers, and other small foster family agencies. I attended trainings and orientation sessions for foster parents, dependency lawyers, and legal advocates, as well as the monthly meetings of the San Diego network of foster family agencies. I conducted more than 60 formal and informal interviews with lawyers, judges, legal advocates, social workers, and current and former foster parents, and met with many of my interviewees multiple times. In Tijuana, I initially made contact with local orphanages through a network of San Diego donors. From there I was able to build relationships with a number of orphanage directors who connected me to social workers, lawyers, and medical staff at the Desarrollo Integral de la Familia (DIF), which provided child welfare services to Tijuana residents. Driving between Tijuana and San Diego each week, and tracking cases in both cities, gave me a view of the San Diego-Tijuana region, the ruptures and continuities, which few San Diego residents without ties to Tijuana experience. As I describe in further detail in Chapter 1, the child welfare systems in San Diego and Tijuana operated largely as distinct systems, rather than as a single, regional agency spanning the international border. However, numerous child welfare cases did involve family members, agencies, social workers, and legal actors from both cities, and mechanisms did exist, including the Mexican embassy and the International Liaison Office, staffed by San Diego County social workers, to facilitate communication between the San Diego child welfare agency and the DIF Tijuana.

I conducted participant observation as an intern at Esperanza Foster Family Agency, shadowing social workers and spending time with the foster families I met through the agency’s daily operations. Although I was fortunate to interact with a number of state-employed San Diego County social workers and administrators, and to conduct a number of informal interviews and observations, I was not given official research access to the public child welfare agency.⁸ This barrier shaped the material of this book in profound ways, and placed smaller agencies, legal actors, and foster families at the center of my analysis. Biological parents were primarily handled by the public agency, and for this reason my interactions with them were more limited than with the foster families, social workers, and other service providers involved in the child welfare system. And although I use the term “biological” throughout this book to refer to the parents from whom children are removed in the context of child welfare interventions, it should be noted that not all parents are necessarily “biological” in this context. Children may, of course, be removed from stepparents, adoptive parents, and other legal guardians. Social workers and legal actors commonly used the term “bio parents” to refer to the parents from whom foster children had been initially removed, regardless of the existence of a biological link between parent and child.

My role at Esperanza was complex. When interacting with foster children and families, my role was as a researcher. Though I accompanied Esperanza social workers on their official business, I was careful to make it clear that I was not in any way part of the decision-making processes that would shape the trajectory of any child’s case. In the office, however, I participated as an intern in almost every aspect of social work practice—filing papers, fielding phone calls, typing case notes, organizing files, and preparing trainings and orientation sessions under the guidance of the head Esperanza social worker at the time. My relationship with Corinne, the Esperanza social worker who appears most frequently in the pages that follow, was the most intimate. Although there were five Esperanza employees at the beginning of my most extended research period in 2010, I worked with Corinne through an organizational transition that left her as the only Esperanza employee. She was a Mexican national, and fluent in Spanish and English. Her family had moved back and forth between San Diego and Baja California for years, primarily to enjoy U.S. schooling opportunities for Corinne and her siblings. Corinne had recently graduated from a local university, and was employed at Esperanza on a work visa while preparing to apply to graduate school. Many days I worked across from Corinne, on the edge of her desk, chatting and making our way through office tasks together throughout the day. Corinne left the agency in February 2010 because Esperanza had been merged with a broader social service organization and her new boss did not wish to renew the sponsorship that was necessary for her to maintain her U.S. visa. Alicia, who replaced her, was also the sole Esperanza employee until August 2011, when Esperanza operations were temporarily suspended. These conditions created an opportunity for me to be extremely useful to this small agency, which facilitated the research process in innumerable ways. Although I was initially unsure how eager busy social workers would be to share their experiences with me, and how willing foster and biological parents would be to discuss their intimate, sometimes painful experiences, I found that almost everyone I spoke with was quick to dismiss my concerns and generous in sharing their stories. Most of the individuals I spoke with felt that the foster care process was misunderstood or simply absent from public conversation, and that the problems were vast and needed to be discussed and addressed. Interviews were conducted in both Spanish and English; all translations are my own.

Children’s experiences play a central role in the stories that follow, though their own voices and perspectives are notably, and intentionally, absent. Although many of the older children I spent time with, ranging from five to eight years old, had much to say about their experiences in foster care, the majority of children whose cases I followed were between infancy and five years old. Focusing on this young demographic limited children’s ability to communicate about, and reflect on, their experiences, but also foreclosed the possibility of their being able to actively and willingly commit to participation in a research project. I wrote about children primarily in contexts where social workers were already actively documenting their experiences and during the course of my formal and informal interviews with foster parents. Voices of children are occasionally present in the text, but the majority of my analysis focuses on the way children were positioned as objects of intervention and of protection, rather than as active subjects participating in and shaping the contours of their lives.

A Temporality of Interruptions

I tell the stories of the children, parents, social workers, and legal actors who are introduced in this book through fragmented narratives. The cases themselves weave in and out, and often end abruptly, without resolution. Crucial details of many cases are missing and the end result for each child is often absent in the stories I tell in the pages that follow. In this way, the structure of the book and its stories mirror the experience of families embroiled within the child welfare system. As I recount, the actors and agencies involved often operate with partial information and constrained access. Cases are opened and closed according to the recommendations of social workers and lawyers and the determinations of judges. Decisions are often made based on incomplete case notes, and case files handed from social worker to social worker often go unread by overworked social workers who are regularly operating in crisis mode and constantly pressed for time. Social worker turnover is tremendous and children routinely interact with more than half a dozen case workers over the course of two years in foster care, which, at the time of this writing, is the average time a child spends in the system. Children and parents who have been legally separated often have difficulty locating each other, and obstructing this continued connection may, in some circumstances, be the goal of the child welfare agency, pursued in the name of child protection. Child welfare authorities operate in this realm of partial knowledge—it is a rare case that involves institutional actors who have a clear sense of what feels to them to be the “full story” from beginning to end. As a researcher, my access was similarly partial and fragmented, and there were few stories that I was able to track from start to finish. The gaps and omissions, however, are central to how this system operates, and are part of the story that needs to be told.

The temporality not only of the cases themselves, but also of parenthood and family, constitutes a strand that weaves throughout the text. The normative model of contemporary family formation is based on underlying assumptions about biology, blood, sameness, and permanence. These first three concepts—blood, biology, and sameness—have been thoroughly critiqued and eroded by the emergence of new kinship studies that began to gather force in the early 1990s (Ginsburg and Rapp 1991; Weston 1991; Franklin and McKinnon 2002). Permanence, however, has largely been left unaddressed in the scholarly literature, and temporary families, like foster families, continue to be positioned in popular discourse as “less than” (Wozniak 2001). Parenting, in many ways, is understood in popular discourse to be about both the everyday and the passage of time. Family invokes a sense of permanence; the birth or adoption of a child is understood to make a claim on the rest of that parent’s life. I suggest in the chapters that follow that the experiences of foster families, and of biological families separated by state intervention, erode any easy linkages between experiences of family and assumptions about permanence.

Social workers and legal actors also confront the complexity of temporal limitations. Lawyers and judges, in making determinations about child removal, placement, and custody, must, in essence, predict the future. They ask themselves whether they think children will face future harm if they remain in the care of their natal families, and they must ask themselves whether that potential harm may be more or less impactful than the harm of dislocation, of the severance of kinship ties, of starting over again in a new family setting. Legal actors make these decisions in the context of inordinate caseloads of hundreds of foster children often during bi-annual court hearings that regularly take less than ten minutes from start to finish.

Social workers face similar predictive conundrums as well as a constant pull between short-term and long-term goals. The removal of a child for their short-term protection may be the best immediate solution while also being the intervention that may cause the most long-term damage. As Connolly (2000) reminds us, social services have roots in a charity model—one that expects short-term support to produce lasting consequences. Child Welfare Service interventions rarely offer adequate support to families with deeply rooted, complex problems informed by structural inequalities that shape their access to food, housing, employment, or mental health services (Lee 2016). Social workers routinely hand off cases every six months, a strategy that allows them to specialize in particular phases of the child welfare system, such as the initial investigation process, or the pursuit of an adoptive placement after family reunification has failed. This procedure narrows the necessary range of social worker expertise while also facilitating a focus on the short term, relieving them of having to consider the impacts of their decisions six months, or five years, down the line. Social workers know that the resources and supports the county provides are largely inadequate to address, in a substantial way, the challenges the families they work with face. Because they are unable to make substantial, systemic changes, they steel themselves for “frequent flyers,” children and parents whom they expect to return again and again to state custody and state scrutiny. In this sense, the actors present in this book are enmeshed in fraught relations of temporality and power.

A Note on Violence

The child welfare system does the important work of intervening in circumstances where children may be experiencing extreme forms of physical, sexual, or emotional abuse. However, the vast majority of child welfare interventions in the United States involve concerns about neglect, often linked to conditions of poverty or to parental drug use. In the state of California in 2011, for example, 81.5 percent of children who entered foster care entered due to allegations of neglect, 9.8 percent for physical abuse, 2.4 percent for sexual abuse, and 6.3 percent for “other” reasons.⁹ The news media draw the public’s attention to foster cases that represent extreme, rather than typical, experiences of child abuse and of foster care. The cases I recount do not, in general, address the more extreme forms of violence and mistreatment from which child welfare services are tasked with protecting children. I avoid addressing these cases partly because they are the extreme minority of child welfare cases. Furthermore, my focus is on the discretionary processes and daily practices that constitute cases where the decision-making process is less clear, and where social workers, lawyers, and family members might be more likely to disagree about how to proceed. Regardless how categories of race, class, and citizenship might impact circumstances that are framed as instances of child abuse and neglect, it would be rare to question the decision to remove a child or to terminate parental rights in the face of extreme forms of violence. Cases that are unclear, and situations where one might imagine multiple possible outcomes, are cases that allow us to center the role of discretionary decision-making, and all the aspects that inform such a process. These, I suggest, are the richest sites for considering the way boundaries of citizenship, belonging, worthiness, race, and nation are produced through daily interactions between families and representatives of the state.

Boundaries of Belonging

As numerous scholars have noted (Dreby 2012; Chavez 2008; De Genova and Ramos-Zayas 2003), immigration enforcement and ideas about “illegality” impact most, if not all, Latina/os in the United States, regardless of their citizenship status. The framework of the “illegal immigrant” collapses categories of race, nationality, and citizenship to draw distinctions between who does and who does not belong within the boundaries of the state. At this particular historical moment, concerns about illegality, deportation, citizenship, and rights are center stage in popular and political discourse. Increased media coverage of parental deportations and the separation of families with young children alongside growing criticism of the rise in deportations under the Obama administration have raised humanitarian concerns about the contemporary U.S. approach to immigration. And, as I discuss in Chapter 1, the 2014 influx and subsequent deportation of a large number of Central American unaccompanied minors raises complex concerns about protections for children and families, and the broader question of the extension, or denial, of basic rights to non-U.S. citizens. Critiques of birthright citizenship, brought into mainstream political debate by Senator Lindsay Graham, ask the American public to consider how U.S. citizens are “made” and whether place of birth or parentage should be the primary factor in determining membership, belonging, and rights. Debates surrounding the DREAM Act have questioned the worthiness and the culpability of those referred to as the “1.5 generation,” children born abroad who entered the United States without authorization, or who overstayed tourist visas, and have grown up attending U.S. schools, experiencing themselves as unquestionably American, although with severely restricted legal rights.¹⁰ Finally, 2016 presidential candidate Donald Trump has garnered support for his candidacy through an immigration stance that includes banning all Muslims from legal entry to the United States, and building a wall on the U.S. border with Mexico. Taken together, these issues highlight contemporary struggles over the boundaries of belonging, tensions between social and legal forms of citizenship, and rising (though not novel) trends in anti-immigrant sentiment and xenophobia.

Numerous scholars have focused on the impacts of and responses to restrictive immigration policies on youth and families (Dreby 2010, 2015; Zayas 2015; Pallares 2015; Terrio 2015; Gonzales 2016, among others) and others have focused on the specific policies constraining immigrants’ lives at the “systemic level” (Zatz and Rodriguez 2015:10; see also Heidbrink 2014; Bhabha 2014). I focus on the enactment of the policies themselves in the context of child welfare interventions—how the everyday interactions and decisions of social workers, family members, and legal actors breathe life into the policies and laws that shape child welfare and immigration in the contemporary United States. It is through daily interactions that the delineations that draw lines between citizen and “other” come to impact the intimate lives of Latina/o families. As Boehm (2012:9) reminds us, “the overlapping spheres of state power and intimate lives cannot be separated.”

The ways in which ideologies of race, nation, and citizenship shape the expression of state power inform this book at a number of levels. At the most basic level, Latina/o parents who are in the U.S. without authorization are particularly vulnerable to the removal of their children through child welfare service intervention. As noted above, experiences of poverty, including presence in low-wage, unstable jobs, limited access to safe and affordable housing, and constrained ability to provide adequate childcare and medical care, are often translated into a language of “neglect.” These forms of structural violence, where racialization and structural inequality come together, produce circumstances that increase the tenuousness of Latina/o family formations as that language of “neglect” both mobilizes and justifies child welfare interventions.

Second, social workers, lawyers, and judges who are authorized to make custody recommendations and determinations, and to effect the removal, placement, and adoption of children, are far from immune to the way conceptions of “good” parents and “safe” homes are shaped by categories of race, class, nationality, and language use. As described in Chapter 4, these circumstances complicate the role of discretionary decision-making practices among social workers and legal actors, and create the space for discriminatory patterns to take shape despite social workers’ best intentions. And finally, the impacts of race, class, and citizenship categories take shape through the crossborder collaboration (or lack thereof) between social service agencies on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border. As such, I explore the complexities of institutional systems and bureaucratic practices that span the border region. The conditions of “interlegality” (Santos 1995), where individuals are caught up at the nexus of overlapping legal systems, are fraught as different state systems confront questions of citizenship, belonging, and rights in distinct ways.

At all levels, the impact of ideologies of race, nation, and citizenship are profoundly shaped by current trends in immigration policy and enforcement, and the politicization of the U.S.-Mexico border in the wake of 9–11. Much as Walters (2002:267) approaches deportation as “constitutive of citizenship,” I suggest that child welfare interventions into Latina/o families are constitutive of the production of the “good” family and, in turn, the “good” citizen. Importantly, the boundaries of belonging that are drawn throughout this book are not generally drawn under conditions of overt racism or explicit violence. Instead, I emphasize the ways the quotidian workings of the child welfare system serve as a site that illuminates how minute decisions ripple out to shape whole populations—primarily through gaps in institutional knowledge, discretionary decision-making, and processes of translation.

The child welfare system operates through categories such as “good” or “bad” parent, “stable” or “unstable” home, “abuser,” “abandoner,” and so on. The immigration system similarly operates through legal categories of the detainee, the deportee, the legal permanent resident, the citizen, and the criminal “alien.” As parents and families live their lives amid these agencies, their individual actions and decisions are congealed and solidified, frozen into the operative agency categories. Not only do these categories work to reduce an individual to a single frame, but they also haunt the individual in the future. Despite their future actions, traces remain and color the way institutions interact with them and shape their path forward from the initial incident that pulled them into the agency’s gaze. The existence and implementation of these categories compels parents to contend with interpretations of their actions within these categories, since parents are rarely in a position to contest their categorization. These categorization processes also enable institutional authorities to understand their own decisions as simply applying the appropriate, ostensibly objective label to a parent based on an institutional definition. Thus categories of “fit” or “unfit,” “good” or “bad,” trump other designations such as “under-resourced” or “impoverished” that are not codified within the child welfare system and might undermine clear categories of “good” or “bad” parenting. In this sense, categorization practices serve as a mode of cultural production in which “bad” parents come into existence through institutional processes and discourses.¹¹

In this approach, I take inspiration from Bowker and Star, whose work Sorting Things Out (1999) offers a comprehensive analysis of the politics of categorization and the ways that categories are experienced as natural even while they operate as potent sites of political and social struggle.¹² For Bowker and Star, classification systems, while understood to be a necessary feature of social interaction, can never be merely descriptive. These classifications are productive of hierarchies of value, serving as key technologies for excluding certain subjects while framing others as normative and natural. As such, I ask how the interactions between social workers and families might facilitate the equation of illegality with “unfit” parenting or translate instances of involuntary deportation into the institutional category of “child abandonment.”

Although the interactions I detail throughout this book are not always across languages, they are always across hierarchies of power and authority. Legal actors, social workers, and parents enact their relationships through language, among other modes of exchange and communication. Their employment, or reworking, of one another’s terms and ways of speaking serve to construct, reproduce, and occasionally undermine the power relations that mark the terrain of child welfare. My approach to translation, as I detail below, is thus not limited to cross-border or cross-language exchanges. Rather, I engage translation as a practice through which boundaries of citizenship, worthiness, and belonging are produced and reinforced, and as a framework for understanding complex interactions among myriad institutional authorities and the families entangled with the child welfare system.

I employ the concept of translation not only to make sense of how categories operate but also to make sense of the inter-institutional engagement that occurs at the juncture of the multitude of organizations that constitute the child welfare system. As legal organizations, government institutions, and nonprofit agencies come together, they do so through their own sets of agency protocols, employing the jargon, acronyms, and legalese that constitute their users as members of particular institutions. Terms such as “biomom” or “TPR’d” (shorthand for saying that someone’s parental rights were terminated, as in “We TPR’d her”) serve to demarcate the expert from the nonexpert.¹³ Yet while these terms may be employed across institutions, they have different meanings for different actors, and figure into their daily practices in varied ways.

Translational processes give shape to interactions, where an ongoing and strategic struggle for “imperfect equivalences” (Clifford 1997) is, in a sense, a defining characteristic of engagement among differently situated people. As such, the mode of translation, as I employ it, attends to how meaning is constituted through movement across contexts and how a single referent takes on different meanings and facilitates different actions and interpretations in such contexts as a family’s home, a social worker’s file, or a courtroom exchange. Following Brenneis (2004), who considers translational processes in the institutional context of funding agencies, I explore the way “key terms and phrases move and circulate across various domains and of how their meanings and prescriptive implications are transformed and negotiated in new settings” (582).¹⁴ I examine not only the processes through which the messy lives of individuals are translated into concrete legal categories but also how modes of translation and analogy-making enable engagement among disparate agencies and actors. The language through which these institutions interact enables the various agencies that constitute the child welfare system to come together, facilitating exchanges among individuals who use overlapping terms and referents, such as “unfit parent” or “best interest of the child,” but with vastly different meanings. These exchanges necessarily engage asymmetrical power relations, as the usage of these terms by different agencies and actors—judges, lawyers, social workers, and family members—carries different degrees of weight.

Organization of the Book

The book begins with an exploration of the politics of worthiness and the boundaries of belonging, with a focus on the political relationship between the United States and Mexico in the context of anti-immigrant sentiment and legislation. Chapter 1, “Worthy” Migrants, is built around an examination of the cases of two children, both born in Tijuana and entangled in child welfare agencies on both sides of the border. This chapter charts how the boundaries of citizenship and state responsibilities for minors are carved out through narratives, advocacy work, and institutional processes that make only some children legible as deserving of state protection.

Chapter 2, Belonging and Exclusion, takes a historical perspective to consider the separation of Latina/o children and families alongside other histories of child removal in the United States, each of which illuminates historical concerns about race, citizenship, and normative family forms that continue to inform the present. I foreground an examination of the “best interest” principle, a legal framework that has been mobilized to justify the removal of children from a number of marginalized communities and is currently deployed in U.S. immigration and dependency courtrooms to justify the separation of children from parents who are categorized as “deportable.” This chapter examines the discretionary decision-making processes through which circumstances of poverty and other forms of structural violence are translated into institutional categories of “fit” and “unfit” parents through the framework of “best interest.”

The processes that position some families as “unfit” are complicated by the gaps and overlaps between immigration enforcement and child welfare policy. Chapter 3, Working the Gap, turns to the dual sets of obstacles and opportunities that arise at the juncture of these two overlapping legal systems. Through an exploration of the way child welfare and immigration enforcement systems each affect the other while proceeding on parallel tracks, I explore two main sets of outcomes. The first set involves problematic interactions between these two systems—court negotiations, documentary practices, and legal constraints—that create profound obstacles to family reunification for those caught up simultaneously in both systems, regardless of the intent of individual social workers, lawyers, advocates, and judges. The second set of outcomes concerns the production of possibilities for creative maneuvering, whereby legal advocates work within the gap between the two systems, using unexpected avenues to pursue citizenship and reunification strategies that do not, at first glance, appear to be within the realm of the intent of the law. I emphasize the translational processes through which immigration enforcement actions, such as detention and deportation, become reworked into child welfare categories of “unfit” parents. This chapter considers the ways the impact of legal systems exceeds their official mandate as discrete systems interact with each other in unexpected and unintended ways. In the case of child welfare and immigration enforcement, these interactions increase the precariousness and vulnerability of Latina/o families, an issue heightened in border regions where these two legal systems frequently come together.

Chapters 4 and 5 examine the production of boundaries of belonging on a more intimate scale. Rather than working at the level of legal systems, institutional practices, and nation-state relationships, these chapters ask about the decision-making processes and intimate interactions that shape the trajectory of children and families entangled in these institutional contexts. Chapter 4, Decisions, Decisions, focuses on interactions among social workers, children, and families. This chapter argues that the making and unmaking of families happens on an intimate, everyday scale where social workers are required to make decisions about child custody in the context of limited time, budgetary constraints, and lack of knowledge and protocol about how best to proceed in any particular case. I emphasize social worker discretionary decision-making practices as a form through which state authorities shape Latina/o families and the boundaries of belonging in the contemporary United States. Individual decisions become solidified and routinized through everyday agency practice in a manner that obscures the subjective and often discriminatory assessments of Latina/o families and Spanish-speaking nation-states that give shape to child welfare practice. Chapter 5, Intimacies, focuses on the perspectives of biological and foster parents embroiled in the child welfare system while performing the everyday tasks of caring for and about their children. This chapter emphasizes the fragility of parent-child relationships in the face of state intervention, and explores the ways biological and foster parents defer to, resist, and navigate social worker authority as they struggle to maintain connections with their children. The conclusion draws these themes together and asks how an examination of the experiences of Latina/o families in foster care might illuminate quotidian processes and intimate relations through which the boundaries of belonging, worthiness, citizenship, race, and nation are produced and remade.