What About Disabled Parents? (with Dr. Robyn Powell)
Season 3, Episode 2 of The upEND Podcast
The family policing system considers parents with mental health issues and other disabilities to be an inherent threat to their children. We reject that premise.
Because of ableism, the legacy of eugenics, and the violence of poverty, disabled parents face a high risk of separation by the family policing system.
In this episode, Dr. Robyn Powell discusses how the child welfare system weaponizes the idea of “predictive neglect” to discriminate against parents with disabilities and further enshrine stigma around mental health.
How can we build a future where disabled families are supported through care, community, and trust—not surveillance and punishment?
Reclaiming Safety is upEND’s exploration of frequently asked questions about family policing abolition. This discussion about disability justice is an accompaniment to the essay Reclaiming Safety for Children of Parents with Disabilities by Charisa Smith.
About Our Guest:
Dr. Robyn Powell is an Assistant Professor of Law at Stetson University College of Law and a Senior Research Associate at the Lurie Institute for Disability Policy at Brandeis University. Her work focuses on disability law, reproductive justice, family regulation, and constitutional law, with a special emphasis on the rights of disabled parents and the abolition of the family policing system.
She is the principal author of the National Council on Disability’s landmark report Rocking the Cradle, Ensuring the Rights of Parents with Disabilities and Their Children, and her scholarship—featured in leading law reviews and interdisciplinary journals—examines how law and policy continue to reinforce ableism and the legacy of eugenics.
Disabled parents are too often treated as risks before they are ever seen as caregivers. Predictive neglect frameworks can slide quickly into bias when disability and poverty are conflated with danger. Supporting families through accessible services, adaptive resources, and community based care is far more protective than surveillance. Conversations like this push back on the assumption that disability equals incapacity. Children are safer when systems invest in support rather than suspicion.