Do we really protect children? Evaluating child protection measures in two meta-analyses

Abstract

Child maltreatment is a global issue that has been extensively studied due to its profound and long-lasting impact on children's well-being. To protect children from maltreatment, juvenile courts can impose child protection measures. But do these intrusive measures actually improve developmental outcomes for children? This review seeks to address this question by conducting two separate meta-analyses. The first synthesised studies compared children under child protection to children from the general population (7 studies, 56 effect sizes), whereas the second synthesised studies compared children under child protection to children from similar at-risk populations that did not receive the same protection (8 studies, 21 effect sizes). The results showed that children under child protection scored on average less favourably across developmental outcomes than children from the general population (d = −0.78, p < 0.001), and even less favourably as parental mental health problems increased. Also, effect sizes were more negative for children's psychopathology (d = −0.94, p < 0.001) than for outcomes related to life achievements (d = −0.34; n.s.). However, on average, children under protection did not differ from children in similar at-risk populations (d = 0.05, p = 0.739). It is concluded that, although child protection measures are intended to ensure a child's safety, our findings provide no indication that they lead to improved developmental outcomes when comparing children under protection with those from the general and at-risk populations. Future rigorous research is needed to better understand the true impact of child protection on children's development.