Skip to main content
Full access
Commentary
Published Online: 1 April 2021

Addressing Risk Factors Among Parents With Serious Mental Illness: Commentary on Ostrow et al.

As Ostrow et al. note in this issue, parents with serious mental illness are vulnerable to child protective services (CPS) involvement, to disruptions in relationships with children through voluntary or involuntary out-of-home placements, and, ultimately, to the termination of parental rights (1). The authors bring important attention to the numerous risk factors associated with CPS involvement among parents with serious mental illness, comparing those with and without CPS involvement.
The risk factors for CPS involvement (e.g., lower levels of education, lower income), unfortunately, distinguish mothers and fathers with serious mental illness from parents without mental illness and from people with serious mental illness who are not parents (2). For example, findings from a prior study indicate that parents with serious mental illness are less likely than parents without serious mental illness to be employed and more likely to be dependent on government assistance (2). Even though parents with serious mental illness are more likely to be employed than adults with serious mental illness who are not parents, they are significantly more likely than parents without serious mental illness to be living in poverty.
Findings from the Ostrow et al. study (1) also corroborate results from a prior, large-scale study that interviewed mothers with co-occurring psychiatric and substance use disorders living with or separated from minor children (3). Data for that study were obtained between 1998 and 2003. Although the mothers did not differ in symptom severity, mothers separated from children had more children, had more often been homeless or in juvenile detention or jail, and had lower incomes than those living with all of their children. Mothers separated from children had more extensive histories of traumatic and stressful life events. They differed significantly from mothers living with children on items from the Life Stressor Checklist–Revised (4) parallel to those reported in the Ostrow et al. study (e.g., unwanted or uncomfortable sexual experience). Mothers separated from children were significantly less likely to have been receiving outpatient counseling services, likely reflecting unmet service needs.
Perhaps the most significant finding of the Ostrow et al. study, although not explicitly stated, is that the situation for parents with serious mental illness and their families does not seem to have changed in the past 20 years. Parents with serious mental illness face the same challenges and risks that this population faced in 2000, with the same unmet service needs. Ostrow and colleagues (1) conclude that interventions must be developed to target social disadvantages and stressors faced by parents and promote positive parenting. They highlight the missed opportunities to work with people with serious mental illness, to view parenthood as a reasonable or realistic life goal, and to view success in this role as a source of meaning and strength. To fail in this role, as the authors point out, may well undermine recovery-oriented outcomes.
The issue that remains is why these families’ needs have not been addressed by the mental health community or child welfare system. In a recent systematic review of recovery-oriented parent interventions, only three were identified: one in the United States, one in Finland, and one in the Netherlands (5). In addition, an online intervention for parents with serious mental illness has been developed and tested (6).
Given the dearth of interventions specifically targeted to these parents, adapting existing evidence-based parenting interventions to meet the unique challenges conveyed by serious mental illness would make sense. Although these interventions may not be readily available, some efforts at adaptation have been made, in particular for parents with depression and anxiety (e.g., the Mental Health Positive Parenting Program derived from the Triple P model) (7). Alternatively, and with perhaps broader impact, existing evidence-based programs or practices (e.g., supported employment, supportive housing) could be infused with information about a person’s family status, wishes, and goals. A recent initiative in Massachusetts, developed with extensive stakeholder input, has resulted in the practitioner- and setting-agnostic ParentingWell Practice Profile (8). The intention is to make parenting and family life a part of the routine conversation with the person served in any setting. By fitting this topic into the normal workflow, parenting and family life goals can be addressed, along with plans for training and employment, stable housing, symptom reduction, and illness management.
The child welfare system is often the system to provide services and supports to prevent family disruptions and to reunite parents with serious mental illness and their children when possible. The Adoption and Safe Families Act, the federal law that governs the child welfare system, requires child welfare agencies to provide “reasonable efforts” in most cases so that families can be reunified. Nonetheless, long-standing research, as cited in Ostrow et al. (1), indicates that the child welfare system often fails to provide appropriate, individually tailored services to parents with serious mental illness, as well as those with other disabilities, perhaps because these resources do not exist. In turn, these families are disrupted or denied the opportunity to reunify.
More recently, Congress passed the Family First Prevention Services Act of 2017 (“Family First Act”), which may offer opportunities to expand the availability of resources and to develop and implement family-focused services for adults with serious mental illness who are parents. Specifically, the Family First Act provides Social Security Title IV-E funds for 12 months of in-home parenting skills programs, substance use treatment, and mental health services to keep families intact and children out of foster care. Child welfare agencies should use the Family First Act’s additional funds to provide services and supports that are individually tailored to meet the specific needs of parents with serious mental illness. However, this most likely requires a collaborative effort between service sectors—mental health and child welfare—to be most effective.
Ultimately, we need to shift the practice or treatment paradigm to a proactive rather than a reactive stance, to resilience rather than deficits, and to prevention rather than remediation. Researchers should explore the characteristics and factors that coalesce to make adults with serious mental illness successful as parents. Future intervention development could build on the identification and enhancement of strengths and the alleviation of stress and symptoms. Preventive intervention and mental health promotion should begin in childhood for all people, including those vulnerable to developing serious mental illness, when children learn to care for and take care of others.
Many parents with serious mental illness and their families have unmet needs, as corroborated by Ostrow et al.’s study. Mental health providers and the child welfare system must work together to ensure that parents with serious mental illness and their families are supported adequately. A social determinants of health framework suggests the value of changing both public policies and social norms to address inequities (9). Adults with serious mental illness must have access to services and practitioners who support them in achieving all of their life goals, including parenting and family life. Mental health begins with families, and parenting for people with serious mental illness is a social justice issue.

References

1.
Ostrow L, Kaplan K, Zisman-Ilani Y, et al: Risk factors associated with child protective services involvement among parents with a serious mental illness. Psychiatr Serv 2021; 72:370–377
2.
Luciano A, Nicholson J, Meara E: The economic status of parents with serious mental illness in the United States. Psychiatr Rehabil J 2014; 37:242–250
3.
Nicholson J, Finkelstein N, Williams V, et al: A comparison of mothers with co-occurring disorders and histories of violence living with or separated from minor children. J Behav Health Serv Res 2006; 33:225–243
4.
Wolfe J, Kimmerling R, Brown PJ, et al: The Life Stressor Checklist–Revised; in Instrumentation in Stress, Trauma, and Adaptation. Edited by Stamm BH. Northbrook, IL, Sidran Press, 1996
5.
Reupert A, Price-Robertson R, Maybery D: Parenting as a focus of recovery: a systematic review of current practice. Psychiatr Rehabil J 2017; 40:361–370
6.
Kaplan K, Solomon P, Salzer MS, et al: Assessing an Internet-based parenting intervention for mothers with a serious mental illness: a randomized controlled trial. Psychiatr Rehabil J 2014; 37:222–231
7.
Phelan RF, Howe DJ, Cashman EL, et al: Enhancing parenting skills for parents with mental illness: the Mental Health Positive Parenting Program. MJA Open. 2012; 1(suppl):30–33
8.
Nicholson J, English K: ParentingWell Practice Profile. Waltham, MA, Brandeis University, National Research Center for Parents With Disabilities; Massachusetts Department of Mental Health, 2019. https://heller.brandeis.edu/parents-with-disabilities/parenting-well/index.html
9.
Compton MT, Shim RS: Mental illness prevention and mental health promotion: when, who, and how. Psychiatr Serv 2020; 71:981–983

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Go to Psychiatric Services
Go to Psychiatric Services
Psychiatric Services
Pages: 466 - 467
PubMed: 33789460

History

Received: 28 October 2020
Accepted: 5 November 2020
Published online: 1 April 2021
Published in print: April 01, 2021

Keywords

  1. parenting
  2. child welfare

Authors

Details

Robyn M. Powell, Ph.D., J.D. [email protected]
Stetson University College of Law, Gulfport, Florida (Powell); Lurie Institute for Disability Policy (Powell) and Institute for Behavioral Health (Nicholson), Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts.
Joanne Nicholson, Ph.D.
Stetson University College of Law, Gulfport, Florida (Powell); Lurie Institute for Disability Policy (Powell) and Institute for Behavioral Health (Nicholson), Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts.

Notes

Send correspondence to Dr. Powell ([email protected]).

Competing Interests

The authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.

Funding Information

This research was funded by the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR grant 90DPGE0001). The contents of this commentary do not necessarily represent the policy of NIDILRR, nor endorsement by the federal government.

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Export Citations

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.

Format
Citation style
Style
Copy to clipboard

View Options

View options

PDF/EPUB

View PDF/EPUB

Login options

Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.

Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens login

Not a subscriber?

Subscribe Now / Learn More

PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.

Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share article link

Share