bs_bs_banner

doi:10.1111/cfs.12313

Recognizing the ‘big things’ and the ‘little things’ in child

protection cases
Marit Ursin*, Siv Oltedal† and Carolina Muñoz‡
*Norwegian Centre for Child Research, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway, †University
of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway, and ‡Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile

Correspondence:
Marit Ursin
Norwegian Centre for Child Research
Norwegian University of Science and
Technology
Loholt allé 87, Trondheim NO 7491
Norway
Email: marit.ursin@svt.ntnu.no
Keywords: family displays, family
practices, institutionalization, Latin
America, residential care, social
exclusion
Accepted for publication: July 2016
ABSTRACT
In this article, we explore how ‘family’ is conceptualized and negotiated
in a Mexican and a Chilean child protection institution. We draw on em-
pirical material from two qualitative studies, employing a multi-method
approach. By using a theoretical framework from family sociology, we
explore how ‘family’ is done and displayed by families of children in res-
idential care despite socio-economic, structural and institutional con-
straints. These displays consist mainly of ‘little things’ of a mundane
character, such as homemade food, sweets, gifts, clothing and family
photos, and more intangible displays as family narratives, affection
and parental responsibility. The empirical material reveals how profes-
sionals commonly disregard these displays in favour of ‘big things’ such
as housing, employment, nuclear family structure, therapy and parental
school attendance. The professionals’ recommendations and decisions
in child custody cases can be interpreted as recognitions or rejections
of family displays, as the acceptable limits of unconventionality are
legally, socially and culturally drawn.

INTRODUCTION emphasized, few studies examine Latin American con-

An international review on family decision-making in
child protection cases urges for increased involvement
by families in determining arrangements aimed at se-
curing the well-being of their child, as families are not
only found to be positive towards participation but also
provide constructive assistance (Morris & Connolly
2012). By taking family practices and children’s lived
experiences into consideration, suitable interventions
can be developed (Morris 2013), ensuring better emo-
tional, social and educational outcomes for children in-
volved (Morris & Burford 2007). Additionally, family
involvement is vital in enabling family reunification
(Sen & Broadhurst 2011). Although highly vulnerable
families are over-represented in child protection sys-
tems, remarkably little is known about their perspectives
and experiences (Clarke & Hughes 2010). The small
but growing body of literature on the matter is mostly
restricted to the global North (Ayón & Aisenberg
2010). Although the need for in-depth analysis of chil-
dren in institutional care in alternative regions has been
texts (Quiroga & Hamilton-Giachritsis 2014).
The aim of this article is threefold. First, it begins to
fill this ‘regional’ gap, focusing on two child protection
institutions in Chile and Mexico. Second, it responds
to a recent call for the development of ‘nuanced
practice capable of recognizing and working with the
ways highly vulnerable families “do family” and the
processes that support and inhibit professional inter-
ventions’ (Morris 2013:198). It seeks to increase our
understanding of the perspectives of marginalized fam-
ilies for whom perceptions of ‘family life’ may differ
from normative ideas. Third, we examine how families
and professionals communicate ‘good enough’ family
practices, linking their experiences to the sociological
concepts of ‘doing family’ (Morgan 1996) and
‘displaying family’ (Finch 2007). Sociological theories
relating to the family have developed considerably
the last decades, yet their application in research with
families with children in residential care is limited
(Jones & Hackett 2011; for exceptions, see Kendrick
2013 and Biehal 2014). By borrowing concepts from

1 Child and Family Social Work 2016 © 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 The ‘big things’ and the ‘little things’ M Ursin, S Oltedal and C Muñoz
family sociology, there is potential for creating new ap-
proaches on how to understand contemporary family
life and advance professional discretion, communica-
tion and rapport in working with disadvantaged families.
The overall focus of this article is to explore how ‘fam-
ily’ is done and displayed by families of children in resi-
dential care and how these displays are perceived by
professionals (social workers and psychologists),
reflecting the complexity of practices, ideas, values and
norms of what counts as a ‘proper’ way of doing family.
First, the theoretical framework and merging sociologi-
cal understandings of family with social work are
explained, followed by a description of the study’s meth-
odology. Then, contexts of the child protection institu-
tions studied are outlined. The ways in which family is
done and displayed by families of institutionalized chil-
dren are explored, followed by the ways professionals as-
sess these ways before concluding comments are
offered.
DISPLAYING FAMILIES IN SOCIAL WORK
Contemporary studies within family sociology focus pri-
marily on family relatedness, as socially constructed
(Chambers 2012) rather than as reflecting traditional
hegemonic perceptions on how family should be. Mor-
gan (1996) introduced the concepts of family practices
and doing family, which emphasize social practices in ev-
eryday life, providing ‘an empirical basis for the analysis
of relationships derived not from biological, legal or nor-
mative definitions but in terms of observed interactions’
(Ermisch & Brynin 2009:4). This represents a shift in
viewing family as a facet of social life rather than as a so-
cial institution, as ‘a quality rather than a thing’ (Morgan
1996:186), enabling recognition of a wide range of fam-
ily forms and practices that are historically and socio-
culturally contextualized.
Family practices are, however, not merely introvert
acts of doing family for its own sake but also contain
more communicative aspects. Finch (2007) argued that
family units try to ‘convey to each other and to relevant
audiences that certain of their actions do constitute
“doing family things” and thereby confirm that these
relationships are “family” relationships’ (p. 67). Such
family displays may include family narratives as well as
rituals such as meals, gifts, weddings and funerals.
Although Finch (2007) suggests that displays need to
be recognized as intended, we support Dermott &
Seymore (2011) in that displays exist even when not
reciprocated, providing an equally important lens for
understanding the boundaries of what constitutes family
relations.
2 Child and Family Social Work 2016
Although displays are features of all families, they are
often of higher importance for families that do not fit con-
ventional ideas of what a ‘proper’ family looks like (Finch
2007), such as single-headed, step and foster families.
There are also circumstances where the need for display
intensifies – when settings change and relationships are
renegotiated – as when parents are at risk of losing or have
lost child custody. While a focus on family practices may
overestimate the agency and choices that people have
with respect to how relating practices are institutional-
ized (Heaphy 2011), analysing processes of displays
and responses divulges how definitions and acceptance
of family are moulded by positions of power and hege-
monic ideas. Hegemonic discourse presents family as
normal and natural, constituted by the patriarchal nu-
clear family (Steel & Kidd 2001) with the norms and
practices of well-resourced, middle class families (Gillies
2005; Brown 2006; Heaphy 2011). Thus, such families
are predisposed to ‘successful’ displays, while working
class families are prone to be judged as ‘failing’ and thus
more often monitored by state agencies (Heaphy 2011).
How social workers perceive family is shaped by their
professional background, orientation and mandate and
is embedded in the institutions’ interpretive procedures
(Gubrium & Holstein 1990). Research has revealed a
discrepancy between how disadvantaged families per-
ceive their ways of doing family and how professionals
assess these ways (Morris 2013). This can be linked
with the notion of social exclusion as a relational pro-
cess, where policy provision and professional practices
devalue unconventional ways of doing family (Ward
2009). Perceiving social exclusion not only in terms of
distributive inequality but also as discursive marginali-
zation, exploring relations of power and control enables
us to detect what Sibley (1995) calls as exclusionary
practices rooted in the attitudes and cultural practices
of modern society. Although social work endeavours
to promote inclusion and reduce the impact of inequal-
ity, it is essential to explore exclusionary mechanisms
not only in the context of marginalized families’ rela-
tionships with society but also in their relationships with
professionals and state agencies (Barnes & Morris
2008). Clarke & Hughes (2010) caution against norma-
tive family-centred policies and social work services that
ignore alternative ways of doing family and that disre-
gard differences as potential sources of strength or resil-
ience. Using an ‘ethic of care’ perspective to explore
families’ needs and experiences holds considerable
potential, emphasizing ‘bottom-up’ approaches that
are sensitive to understanding why people make the
decisions they do and to the ethics that inform their
judgements (Morris & Featherstone 2010).
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 The ‘big things’ and the ‘little things’ M Ursin, S Oltedal and C Muñoz
METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH
In this article, we draw on two case studies in child pro-
tection institutions in Chile and Mexico that were part
of an international exchange research project funded
by a European Commission Seventh Framework
Programme, Marie Curie Actions. The project revealed
diverse understandings of family as expressed by mar-
ginalized service users as well as approaches dominant
in responding to specific needs of families. As argued
by Lee et al. (2010), case studies provide in-depth and
holistic descriptions of participants’ experience and
behaviours and contribute to social work knowledge
and practice. By using case studies as research design,
using a variety of data sources, we were able to reveal
the multi-faceted and complex character of the phe-
nomenon (Yin 2003). The empirical material in this
study does not allow generalization but enables a
cross-case study analysis, detecting communication pat-
terns between families and professionals in the child
protection systems in Chile and Mexico. A cross-case
study analysis was facilitated by a similar methodologi-
cal approach, identical interview guides and standard-
ized format of reporting.
A multi-method approach consisting of 3 months of
qualitative fieldworks was applied in both sites, explor-
ing the different contexts and communication forms in
which family is done, displayed, defined and negotiated.
The approach included participant observation, docu-
mentation analysis and semi-structured interviews with
families and professionals (social workers and psycholo-
gists). Participant observation was conducted, focusing
on encounters between family members and profes-
sionals, such as visit days, parental schools, enrolment
meetings and home visits. Professionals’ discussions
were also observed (e.g. court hearings and staff meet-
ings). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with
family members of institutionalized children in Chile
(six interviews) and Mexico (10 interviews), exploring
their perspectives on family life as well as communica-
tion on family matters with the professionals. All partic-
ipants were informed of the voluntary character of the
study, and their identities were anonymized.
In both sites, family members were recruited through
professionals as well as by researchers during visit days
and parental school. This strategy has several implica-
tions. First, only families who visited their children were
reached; thus, only their voices are represented in this
study. Second, family members recruited by the profes-
sionals may have had a positive attitude towards the
institution. Third, it was challenging to recruit families,
as they were only allowed to spend a couple of hours
3 Child and Family Social Work 2016
with their enrolled children weekly – many preferred to
spend this time with the children rather than engaging
in the study.
CHILD PROTECTION INSTITUTIONS IN CHILE AND
MEXICO
Contemporary child protection systems in Chile and
Mexico have roots in the philanthropist movement of
saving children that emerged in the late 1800s
(Kuznesof 2005). This movement was double-edged,
perceiving poor children not only as endangered but
also potentially dangerous. The concept of ‘irregular’
families and children was introduced as an antidote to
the ‘regular’ middle class families (Donzelot 1979). A
judicial reformulation of the state’s role incorporated a
protective ‘parens patriae’ responsibility to children,
exerting social control over poor families as they were
perceived as failing to properly raise their offspring
(Pilotti 2000). The numbers of children in institutional
care increased dramatically throughout the 1900s
(Kuznesof 2005).
Despite a deinstitutionalization movement in many
parts of the world and important advances in contempo-
rary public policy in Latin America, moving from a cor-
rectional view towards a rights-based child welfare,
institutional care still remains the main option in many
Latin American countries (Quiroga & Hamilton-
Giachritsis 2014). There are approximately 77 children
in institutional care per 100 000 in Mexico and 28 per
100 000 in Chile (UNICEF 2013). The interplay be-
tween organizational and cultural variables evidences
the strong legacy of deep-rooted understandings of the
place of child care services in family life. Until this legacy
can be effectively challenged, the implementation of a
rights-based approach remains partial (Muñoz 2013).
Contemporary child protection services in Chile and
Mexico, though traditionally framed as having a child
protection approach, have adopted practices that move
them closer to a family service orientation (Gilbert
1997), such as a focus on family dysfunction and thera-
peutic interventions. This is in line with studies else-
where, showing that national policies on child
protection are difficult to pinpoint in these typologies
as they shift and blend (Gilbert 2012).
The Mexican institution was located at the outskirts
of Monterrey, Mexico’s third most populous city. It is
a private, non-profit institution that offers a multidisci-
plinary social service focused on reintegrating young
people in their family and society. Staff consists of
trained caregivers, teachers, medical doctors, nurses,
social workers and psychologists. At the time of study,
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 The ‘big things’ and the ‘little things’ M Ursin, S Oltedal and C Muñoz
the institution housed nearly 200 children ranging from
infants to 18-year-olds, the majority in the age bracket of
six to 15. The minority of children were enrolled volun-
tarily by their family members, and the majority were in
state custody. Of the 40 children enrolled the year of the
study, 13 were enrolled on the families’ initiative, while
the rest are child protection cases. In the same period,
26 children left. In their annual report, the institution
mentions several reasons of enrolment, including do-
mestic violence, neglect, parental substance addiction
and abandonment.
The Chilean child protection institution is located in
the country’s capital, Santiago. It is a state-owned in-
stitution for children aged zero to six. The state imple-
ments child protection policies under the Department
of Justice and more specifically through institutions
belonging to or providing services for the Chilean
National Service for Children. Both state and non-
governmental agencies that provide residential services
for children receive state funding. In contrast to the
Mexican institution, this is a transitory residential insti-
tution in cases where there is a court order of loss of
parental rights, stemming from a violation of a child’s
rights for which the parents are deemed responsible.
Children reside at the institution, while the best care
option is assessed, ideally in a period between 3 to
6 months but often exceeding this. The institution is
located within a hospital, with no outdoor areas.
Approximately 80 children resided in nine rooms at
the time of fieldwork. The children remain mostly in-
doors, except from frequenting school and kindergar-
ten. Professional female caregivers take care of the
children. Additionally, medical doctors and nurses
are employed, as well as three pairs of duos, each
consisting of one psychologist and one social worker.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ‘LITTLE THINGS’ —
DISPLAYING FAMILY WITHIN INSTITUTIONAL
CONSTRAINTS
The families in this study lacked the day-to-day intimacy
that often characterizes ways of doing family, practiced
through everyday rituals as common meals, play time,
bed time routines and conversations. Yet, they were able
to find ways of doing family, being ‘separate yet con-
nected’ (Smart & Neale 1999:67). Of great importance
were the visit days, allowing the families to be physically
reunited and socialize. These social encounters not only
allowed them to do family but also to display their famil-
ial bonds, as displaying family relationships is often
‘rooted in direct social interaction between the partici-
pants, through which the nature of relationships is
4 Child and Family Social Work 2016
established and reinforced by a sense that relevant
others are supporting the social meanings thereby
established’ (Finch 2007:75). Thus, the displays worked
at several levels: for themselves – a reassurance for both
children and adults; for each other – an equally needed
reassurance; for the surrounding world, such as friends,
neighbours, work colleagues and peers within the insti-
tution; and last but not the least, for professionals. In
an everyday life saturated by poverty and institutionali-
zation, the families succeeded in doing the ‘little things’
to maintain a sense of family unity and nurturing parent-
hood. However, as the empirical material reveals, the
professionals often showed a lack of engagement, un-
derstanding and appreciation of the ways in which fam-
ily life and parenthood were being performed.
The Mexican visit days occurred in the green outdoor
area close to the institution’s entrance gate, while the
Chilean visit days took place in a corridor or in a play-
room. Both visit days were mostly attended by women,
the majority being mothers, and supervised by staff, in-
cluding social workers and psychologists. Access to the
visit days depended on whether the family members
could afford the bus fare as well as not working these af-
ternoons. Besides poverty constraints, there were also
institutional restrictions; the family members had to ap-
ply, pass psychological tests and receive a pass to be
granted access. Several parents disliked the testing and
the surveillance at visit days, perceiving it as signalling
distrust. For the practitioners, however, there was a con-
stant tension between providing support for the families
while also addressing the concerns that had led the chil-
dren there. There were also restrictions based on kinship
in Chile, allowing admittance only to parents and grand-
parents. One woman was troubled that her granddaugh-
ter was not allowed to visit her one-year-old grandson,
explaining:
She was really close with the boy because my granddaughter
loved him. And the boy also did her good. He really liked being
with her. To see the faces of the family is good for him so he
doesn’t forget the family. Because they are young, and if they
don’t see you, they forget you, and that’s my fear.
For the majority of the children who received vis-
itors, the visit days are crucial in order to maintain
familial relations. As the woman expressed, physical
encounters and time spent together are particularly
important for the younger children to ensure that
they remember their family. The social workers at
both institutions argued that children who receive
family visits coped better with institutionalization,
which corresponds with previous research (Sen &
Broadhurst 2011).
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 The ‘big things’ and the ‘little things’ M Ursin, S Oltedal and C Muñoz
The number of visitors peaked in the Mexican institu-
tion during Christmas celebrations, supporting the idea
of shared holidays as archetypical family events that
build and maintain family identity (Jones & Hackett
2011). As this was not possible in Chile, a mother la-
mented: ‘I would come every holiday even if I would
only be sitting on a chair, sleeping over’. The Mexican
families also spent children’s birthdays together, often
bringing food on such occasions. These meals were
highly appreciated, as eating together has the quality of
a family ritual (Jones & Hackett 2011) and is central to
defining and sustaining the family as a social unit (Mc-
Intosh et al. 2011). Because the visit days entailed a
sense of surveillance, the birthday meals were also overt
family displays (James & Curtis 2010). By bringing
homemade food, mothers and grandmothers demon-
strated family relations imbued with care and affection,
and a sense of family belonging was achieved and rein-
forced (Punch et al. 2010). Yet at several instances, the
professionals refused to allow family members to eat if
it was not cleared in advance, causing disappointment
and distress among both young and old.
In addition to food, Mexican family members
brought small gifts and sweets for the children, ‘carefully
selected for a particular individual to convey the mean-
ing of the relationship’ (Finch 2007:77). Economic
and material contributions were highly valued and con-
stituted a vital part of being a ‘good’ parent in both sites.
However, neither food nor gifts were permitted in the
Chilean institution, as the children were not allowed to
have personal belongings. This generated feelings of an-
ger and agony among the visiting family members. One
mother said: ‘They don’t accept that we bring clothes to
the children, don’t accept that we bring food or any
other present […]. Something good for him, to make
him happy’. This shows a need to express nurturing feel-
ings towards her son and a desire to make him feel bet-
ter. She continued: ‘They don’t allow us to bring
clothes. They wear clothes that no longer fit, shoes that
don’t fit anymore’. She expresses both a preoccupation
of her son’s well-being and a feeling of failure to success-
fully perform parenthood through dressing her child
‘properly’. Appearance represents the social standing
of the individual and by extension that of his or her fam-
ily (Morgan 1996:128); thus, a child’s physical appear-
ance exhibits the status and moral achievement of its
carers (Christensen 2000:48). An unkempt child could
‘reflect negatively upon the family and in a circular
sense, the “quality” of the family could be embodied in
the child’s appearance’ (Rees & Pithouse 2008:342).
By prohibiting families to bring clothes, the institution
obstructs the families from providing such displays.
5 Child and Family Social Work 2016
Although severely restricted in families with institu-
tionalized children, embodiment and intimacy are part
and parcel of family life (Morgan 1996). The visit days
enabled face-to-face contact between the family mem-
bers, and although many families wished that this
intimacy could unfold in an unsupervised and non-insti-
tutionalized context, most families seized the time
together to be physically close, strengthening familial
bonds. Touch was essential for their reassurance and
as a means of communication (Rees & Pithouse 2008),
and hugs, kisses, strokes, holding hands and picking
fleas out of children’s hair symbolized care and affec-
tion. Yet there were incidents where the professionals
did not seem to understand the emotional value of these
situations, as when a Mexican mother enrolled her two
children and was not informed of when to say goodbye.
After having signed the legal documents, she returned to
the reception area to find her children gone. Sad and
confused, she was told that they had formally entered
the institution and that she would see them when
granted access to visit day. Many families wished to
physically memorize the togetherness of the visit days
in photos. To take pictures of one’s children is a natural
part of parenting – not doing so may be interpreted as
parental indifference (Sontag 1990:8). Among children
in residential care, photos can provide a sense of
continuity in their everyday lives, enabling a presence –
though fictitious – of missed family members, thus func-
tioning as indirect family contact (Cleaver in Sen &
Broadhurst 2011:299). Cell phones with cameras are
commonplace in Chile and Mexico, but the Chilean
families were prohibited to photograph their children,
and noncompliance was reported to the Court. This
obstructed the performance of parenthood and hin-
dered families in displaying family, as photos make ‘fam-
ily history and belonging more tangible and, therefore,
more robust’ (Jones & Hackett 2011:47; Finch 2007).
As part of the visit days, many family members partic-
ipated in the social workers’ parental school. This was
an important arena for performing family, as attendance
did not only convey parental responsibility but was also
obligatory for families to retrieve child custody, making
it an accredited family display by the professionals
(discussed later). Other displays – equally imbued with
parental responsibility – were often disregarded. For in-
stance, many family members approached professionals
during visit hours, asking about their young ones. This
was frequently perceived as time-consuming and both-
ersome by the professionals, who answered polite but
rushed. In Mexico, a social worker became annoyed
when a mother asked for a copy of the legal document
transferring the child custody to the institution. Rather
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 The ‘big things’ and the ‘little things’ M Ursin, S Oltedal and C Muñoz
than recognizing these acts as representative of care and
of concern, the focus group discussions revealed that the
professionals perceived the families as having ‘no
references to honesty, responsibility’. This does not cor-
respond with the fact that many parents were preoccu-
pied with the circumstances in which they raised their
children, and that one third of the Mexican families
actually solicited help from the institution. Among
them, a mother who enrolled her children because she
worked long hours and worried that they spent too
much time unsupervised, an act that can very well be
interpreted as protective and responsible.
The families’ concerns about their institutionalized
children were narrated on various occasions. Yet there
were also stories expressing joy and pride in their chil-
dren, as when a young mother described her daughter
as very social and a future social worker in parental
school in Chile. Telling stories – whether of delight or
worry – was an important way to display family relation-
ships (Finch 2007), as the use of family narratives en-
ables individuals to understand their lives and present
relationships as viable and valid (Weeks et al.
2001:11). These narratives conveyed familial care, be-
longing and intimacy to those both within and outside
of the family (Jones & Hackett 2011:47). The family
members were also given the opportunity to formally
narrate their family’s history during enrolment meetings
or court hearings. The professionals decided whether to
accept or reject the narratives presented. More often
than not, the narratives were met with scepticism and
predispositions, as demonstrated by an incident in the
Mexican institution when a mother wanted to temporar-
ily enrol her baby as a result of acute economic hardship
after her boyfriend had left her. The social worker asked:
‘Have you always depended on men?’ The woman re-
plied no, but that she had wanted to start a family. The
social worker continued: ‘Don’t you see a pattern?
Don’t you think this will be repeated?’ Based on little in-
formation, the social worker assumed that there was a
pattern of male dependency. This concurs with previous
research, which suggests that professionals use a biased
lens while evaluating women’s ‘primary narratives’
(Smith in Pollack 2010). While telling her story to the
social worker, the young mother nearly cried on several
occasions. To show emotions is natural and essential
when doing family. It may also work as family displays,
as tears express care and concern for loved ones. Yet
the social worker determined: ‘You’ll need therapy to
become more balanced’. This reflects the attitude of
the professionals in both institutions, regarding adult
emotional outbursts as manifestations of weakness and
mental imbalance. Similarly, Brown (2006) found that
6 Child and Family Social Work 2016
mothers’ emotional restraint was expected in child pro-
tection cases. Male family members were met with the
same anticipations, as described by a father in Chile:
They [professionals] do not need a weeping dad, scandalous,
having tantrums. No, they need an adult father, mature, respon-
sible. So many times we have arrived here and they have told us
something, [and then] when we come home we cry […] because
we know that here we have to be strong.
This shows how the families’ encounters with the pro-
fessionals are sites of performing parenthood, but it also
reveals how families’ ways of doing and displaying fam-
ily are misinterpreted as immature, uncultivated and out
of control.
In exploring how families with children in institu-
tional care do and display family, it becomes obvious
that their scope of action is severely limited not only as
a result of poverty but also institutionalization. Yet,
because of institutionalization and loss of custody, the
desire to perform family is strong – as a reassurance for
themselves and their children or grandchildren (‘we
are still a family and we care for each other’) and as an
attempt to convince social workers, psychologists,
judges and others who may influence the custody case
(‘we are a ‘good’ family and care for each other’). Within
their scope of action is the ability to do the ‘little things’
in everyday family life to convey togetherness, care and
responsibility, such as bringing food, sweets, gifts and
clothing, taking family photos, creating and sharing
family narratives and showing affection and parental re-
sponsibility within the institutional boundaries. These
‘little things’ are manifestations of the families’ emo-
tional and social struggle of being separated. This is in
line with previous studies that reveal that marginalized
families will use and describe their own ‘ethic of care’
if offered spaces within professional processes to do so
(Morris 2006).
However, these displays cannot be merely carried out;
they must be recognized for retrieval of custody. Yet
they were often unnoticed, ignored or rejected, and in
some cases, curbed. Paradoxically, it seems that the
scrutiny and surveillance to which the families are sub-
jected – the very visibility of their lives – actually render
them invisible (Pollack 2010). This corresponds with
similar studies, revealing that marginalized families’
strengths are under-recognized (Morris et al. 2008),
and that much of the caring that happens is taken for
granted, made invisible or not valued (Williams 2004).
As suggested by previous studies, when professionals fail
to recognize these displays or the importance of them,
this might have implications for their professional per-
ceptions and evaluations of the families as well as have
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 The ‘big things’ and the ‘little things’ M Ursin, S Oltedal and C Muñoz
consequences for the well-being and life quality of the
children and their family members (Brown 2006; Mor-
ris & Burford 2007; Morris & Featherstone 2010; Sen
& Broadhurst 2011; Morris 2013).
ACCENTUATING THE ‘BIG THINGS’ — FAMILY
DISPLAYS FROM A PROFESSIONAL POINT OF VIEW
An important part of social workers’ and psychologists’
tasks is to monitor, evaluate and report how family
members do family. This is given attention in inter-
views, parental school, visit days and home visits. In
Chile, their evaluation is vital when the court decides
whether a child should return to the family, transfer to
a long-term institution or be adopted. In Mexico, their
evaluations are used in court hearings as well as in staff
meetings. How professionals perceive parental compe-
tencies and family practices depend on whether the dis-
plays are recognized and accredited. Hence, public
performance of ‘good parenting’ – and successful family
displays – has profound consequences in a legal context
(Smart & Neale 1999). As seen, displays of the ‘little
things’ often fall on deaf ears. In decision meetings
and court hearings, however, the professionals empha-
size the ‘big things’ considered essential in promoting
proper child development. Typical ‘big things’ are ther-
apy and parental school attendance, formal employ-
ment, tenured housing, improved economic situation
and nuclear family structure. The appreciation of these
‘big things’ is echoed when family members voluntarily
enrol their children in the Mexican institution, having
to sign a legal document with a list of obligations to fulfil
to retrieve custody. Although the family members are
supposed to write the list on their own initiative, the pro-
fessionals’ suggestions are easily confused with requests
to grant enrolment.
The ‘big things’ are embedded in an ‘expert dis-
course’ (Pollack 2010) and are quantified, documented
and certified through tenancy contracts, work contracts,
bank statements and registered attendance in therapy
and parental school. Professionals collect and record
relevant ‘facts’ extracted from the messiness of real life
and insert them into categories on a report form (Brown
2006). For instance, in the Chilean court hearings, the
number of times the family members have been present
at parental school is reported, while the manner of par-
ticipation is less important. The ‘big things’ are quick
and easy to verify, thus convenient for professionals with
high caseloads. This stands in contrast to the more in-
tangible existence of the ‘little things,’ which are usually
rooted in the everyday life and of a more mundane and
emotional character. Because of the significance of
7 Child and Family Social Work 2016
documentation and privileging of text, families’ subjec-
tive knowledge is rendered irrelevant (Pollack 2010).
Instructing parents – mostly mothers – to attend ther-
apy is defined as increasing their empowerment, yet it
might also be a regulatory strategy (Pollack 2010).
Likewise, mandatory parental school regulates parents’
performance through reference to ‘authoritative’ advice
that enables them to comply with hegemonic norms
(Gillies 2005). This is embedded in a moral underclass
discourse (Levitas 2005), reconfiguring social exclusion
to be ‘a state of mind’ amendable to cognitive restru-
cturing (Pollack 2010). In Ward’s (2009) words:
The onus placed on certain, excluded individuals, to integrate
within the mainstream may also be experienced as a form of so-
cial control which limits, or seeks to limit, people’s choices about
how and where to live their lives (p. 242).
This approach individualizes and pathologies social
exclusion as it seeks to alter excluded people’s charac-
teristics before their re-integration into mainstream so-
ciety (Daly & Silver 2008). Gillies (2005) criticizes it
for resembling a punitive prescription for compulsory
moral conformity rather than an attempt to address the
structures of disadvantage.
‘Big things’ are often activities that are time-consum-
ing and costly, ranging from transport costs to attend
therapy to buying a house. Taking the economic hard-
ship of most of the families into account, their possibility
to fulfil these requirements is minimal. The Chilean
Court requested a woman to find a new residence to re-
trieve custody of her niece who had been sexually
abused by a member of the household. Because of eco-
nomic difficulties, the woman could not fulfil this re-
quirement. Whether the person who had abused the
girl could leave the household or how the woman could
be supported was not discussed. In most cases of volun-
tarily enrolment in Mexico, the period of institutionali-
zation is much longer than initially anticipated
because, as explained by a social worker, the families
‘have not made an effort or have not made the changes
or have not accomplished what they promised’. Once
again, economic constraints or financial aid were sel-
dom discussed. Clearly, the lack of economic resources
hinders the families in displaying family in a manner ex-
pected by professionals and the court system. Yet, these
constraints were habitually framed under the assump-
tion of individual responsibility and perceived as familial
dysfunction rather than as part of structural problems
and social exclusion (Muñoz 2013).
In a similar manner, family members’ lack of formal
employment was repeatedly stated as impeding chil-
dren’s way out in both countries, as when the Chilean
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 The ‘big things’ and the ‘little things’ M Ursin, S Oltedal and C Muñoz
Court demanded a woman who had been fired to find
work before regaining custody of her granddaughter.
An emphasis on work as the route to social integration
and cohesion is embedded in a social inclusion dis-
course (Levitas 2005), where parents are connected to
hegemonic moral values through their work commit-
ments (Gillies 2005). Yet, as Gillies (2005) underscores,
directing mothers (and grandmothers) out of the home
to gain financial independence holds a certain paradox,
as it ignores the significance of their care commitments
(Williams 2004). Moreover, the requirement of employ-
ment reconfigures poverty and social exclusion as a per-
sonal problem requiring an individual response,
underplaying the significance of structural inequalities
and power relations (Dominelli in Ward 2009). In
accentuating the ‘big things,’ class differences are
neglected and the crucial impact of poverty disregarded
(Gewirtz in Gillies 2005; see also Brown 2006).
Also of importance in the eyes of the social workers
and other professionals was the family structure. The
focus group discussions revealed that the nuclear family
persists as a powerful normative ideal, buttressed by
strong institutional focus and capable of exerting sub-
stantial moral force (Jackson in McIntosh et al. 2011).
The heterogeneous dyad of mother and father was per-
ceived as an ideal, promoting healthy development of a
child, as explained by a Mexican professional: ‘The ma-
ternity–paternity function is affection, drawing limits,
helping the child to integrate into the society, not
allowing the possibility of a child to end up excluded
in an institution’. As elsewhere, the ‘breakdown’ of the
so-called traditional nuclear family was perceived as
the cause of social ills (Steel & Kidd 2001) and uncon-
ventional family forms perceived as producing a ‘parent-
ing deficit’. The Mexican professional continued
explaining:
The families that we attend are really dysfunctional in that they
couldn’t—because of several circumstances—fulfil the principal
functions; taking care of their children, having a relation as a cou-
ple. I’m not talking about matrimony, many times our parents
are not married—they’re couples. Our children are often of dif-
ferent fathers. Thus they haven’t had the capacity to maintain
this relation, which could facilitate the children’s development.
However, as Kuznesof (2005) highlights, although
the nuclear family is presented – both from a historical
and a legal perspective – as the ‘proper’ way of doing
family throughout Latin America, the majority of chil-
dren are born outside such families.
Many of the families in both sites were single-headed,
which is a tell-tale sign of inadequate parenting
(Gubrium & Holstein 1990). Fathers are perceived as
8 Child and Family Social Work 2016
the key disciplinary figure (Kuznesof 2005); thus, their
absence was perceived as damaging by the professionals.
As Brown (2006) emphasizes, the ideal of motherhood,
against which women’s childrearing performance is
measured, is frequently out of sync with the actual expe-
riences. During a home visit prior to the egress of two
boys, a Mexican social worker interviewed their mother
and uncle. She stated that the mother had ‘problems
with impulse control’ before she addressed her brother,
saying ‘[the institution] has faith in you’. In Chile, the
professionals mentioned the possibility of adopting a
new-born of a young single mother. The grandfather ex-
plained that he panicked, becoming very conscious of
the necessity to display family in a ‘proper’ manner as
the professionals ‘could notice something at whatever
moment and apply for adoption’. This suggests how dif-
ficult it is for single parents to display family ‘appropri-
ately’ (Heaphy 2011), and furthermore, how failure to
do so may have irredeemable consequences.
In defining what counts as a ‘proper’ way of doing
family in the custody cases, the professionals are in a
dominant position, while the families are side-lined.
Although social workers and psychologists are responsi-
ble for the monitoring, evaluating and reporting of the
family practices, they are part of a larger system. In
court, they are mediators, while the judges have the final
say. On a more structural level, policies, politics, legal
frameworks and institutions define which family prac-
tices and displays are valid, as hegemonic ideas of
‘proper’ ways of doing family are socially produced,
politically determined and institutionally implemented.
As power is a major source of social discipline and con-
formity, family displays are highly political linked to
inclusions and exclusions from being legally recognized
as family (Heaphy 2011).
CONCLUDING COMMENTS
The empirical material presented in this article reveals
how disadvantaged families with children in care display
family in a variety of ways. Because of structural and in-
stitutional constraints, these displays consist mainly of
‘little things’ of a mundane character, such as food, gifts,
clothing and family photos, and more intangible dis-
plays, such as family narratives, emotional affection
and parental responsibility. For family members, the
recognition of these displays is a key, as it could entail
regaining custody. Yet, the social workers, psychologists
and judges commonly disregard these displays in favour
of ‘big things’ such as tenured housing, formal employ-
ment, nuclear family structure and therapy and parental
school attendance. While the structural constraints
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 The ‘big things’ and the ‘little things’ M Ursin, S Oltedal and C Muñoz
impeding the families in fulfilling these requirements are
dismissed, the professionals yearn to guide and regulate
the families in authoritarian interventions disguised as
therapeutic support and empowerment. The profes-
sionals’ requests and decisions in the child custody cases
can hence be interpreted as recognitions or rejections of
family displays, as the acceptable limits of unconven-
tionality are legally, socially and culturally drawn. More-
over, it shows how their socially constructed world
shapes their definitions of ‘good’, ‘proper’ and ‘valued’
displays (Heaphy 2011) while they neglect alternative
views, ideas and models of family and family practice.
The empirical material reveals the power imbalance
between professionals and families and the complex
ways in which custody cases are intertwined with pro-
cesses of social exclusion. By systematically omitting
the discriminatory and the material origins of exclusion
that render the families disadvantaged in the first place,
advocating for individual change through improved per-
sonal skills and employment (Ward 2009), social exclu-
sion is reduced to ‘a state of mind’ (Pollack 2010).
Rather than promoting inclusion, the professionals fur-
ther marginalize the families by ignoring or discarding
their voices, practices and experiences through exclu-
sionary mechanisms (Sibley 1995). These mechanisms
conceal potentially valid ways of performing family and
cause unnecessary and prolonged periods of institution-
alization. The institutionalization further marginalizes
the child as well as the family, for instance, because of
stigma (Stein 2006), and the inability to participate in
normal relationships and activities (Ward 2009). In
short, the professionals’ insensitivity to the ‘little things’
does not only ignore excluding processes but also cre-
ates new ones – reinforcing the social exclusion of the
children and their families.
Professionals who work in close relations with families
have a unique opportunity to broaden their definitions
and perceptions by tuning into and becoming more sen-
sitive to the ‘little things’ and making them count. As
Brown (2006) urges, both policymaking and evaluation
processes should contain substantive attention to fami-
lies’ experiential knowledge (see also Morris 2013).
For professionals, to engage with marginalized families
and deliver efficiently the reality of family life must be
understood and the potential limitations of normative
portrayals of ‘family’ recognized (Clarke & Hughes
2010). It is essential to encourage and facilitate for fam-
ilies to do and display family on their own terms. In listen-
ing to adults’ and children’s experiences of family life
and by paying close attention to how they go about mak-
ing moral and practical decisions in particular contexts,
we gain insights in relationships of care and intimacy as
9 Child and Family Social Work 2016
much as accounts of problems and distress (Williams
2004). This will not only advance professional discre-
tion, communication and rapport in working with dis-
advantaged families but also help nuance custody cases
and increase the well-being of institutionalized children
and their family members.
REFERENCES
Ayón, C., & Aisenberg, E. (2010). Negotiating cultural values and
expectations within the public child welfare system. Child and
Family Social Work, 15(3), 335–344.
Barnes, M. & Morris, K. (2008) Strategies for the prevention of so-
cial exclusion: an analysis of the children’s fund. Journal of Social
Policy, 37, 251–270.
Biehal, N. (2014). A sense of belonging: meanings of family and
home in long-term foster care. British Journal of Social Work, 44
(4), 955–971.
Brown, D.J. (2006). Working the system: re-thinking the institu-
tionally organized role of mothers and the reduction of “risk” in
child protection work. Social Problems, 53(3), 352–370.
Chambers, D. (2012) A Sociology of Family Life. Cambridge: Polity
press.
Christensen, P. (2000) Childhood and the cultural constitution of
vulnerable bodies. In: The Body, Childhood and Society (ed A.
Prout). Hampshire: Macmillan Press.
Clarke, H. & Hughes, N. (2010). Introduction: family minded pol-
icy and whole family practice — developing a critical research
framework. Social Policy and Society, 9, 527–531.
Daly, M. & Silver, H. (2008) Social exclusion and social capital: a
comparison and critique. Theory and Society, 37, 537–566.
Dermott, E. & Seymore, J. (2011) Developing ‘displaying families’:
a possibility for the future of the sociology of personal life. In:
Displaying Families — A New Concept for the Sociology of Family
Life (eds E. Dermott & J. Seymore). New York: Palgrave
MacMillan.
Donzelot, J. (1979) La policia de las familias. Malaga: Pre-textos.
Ermisch, J. & Brynin, M. (2009) Changing Relationships. New York:
Routledge.
Finch, J. (2007) Displaying families. Sociology, 41(1), 65–81.
Gilbert, N. (1997) Combatting Child Abuse: International Perspectives
and Trends. New York: Oxford University.
Gilbert, N. (2012). A comparative study of child welfare systems:
abstract orientations and concrete results. Children and Youth Ser-
vices Review, 34(3), 532–536.
Gillies, V. (2005). Meeting parents’ needs? Discourses of ‘support’
and ‘inclusion’ in family policy. Critical social policy, 25(1),
70–90.
Gubrium, J. & Holstein, J. (1990) What is Family? California:
Mayfield Publishing.
Heaphy, B. (2011) Critical relational displays. In Displaying Families
— A New Concept for the Sociology of Family Life (eds E. Dermott
& J. Seymore). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
James, A. & Curtis, P. (2010) Family displays and personal lives.
Sociology, 44(6), 1163–1180.
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 The ‘big things’ and the ‘little things’ M Ursin, S Oltedal and C Muñoz
Jones, C. & Hackett, S. (2011) The role of ‘family practices’ and
‘displays of family’ in the creation of adoptive kinship. British
Journal of Social Work, 41(1), 40–56.
Kendrick, A. (2013) Relations, relationships and relatedness: resi-
dential child care and the family metaphor. Child and Family So-
cial Work, 18(1), 77–86.
Kuznesof, E. (2005). The house, the street, global society: Latin
American families and childhood in the twenty-first century.
Journal of Social History, 38(4), 859–872.
Lee, E., Mishna, F., & Brennenstuhl, S. (2010). How to critically
evaluate case studies in social work. Research on Social Work Prac-
tice, 20(6), 682–689.
Levitas, R. (2005) The Inclusive Society? Social Exclusion and New
Labour. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
McIntosh, I., Dorrer, N., Punch, S. & Emond, R. (2011) ‘I know
we can’t be a family, but as close as you can get’: displaying fam-
ilies within an institutional context. In: Displaying Families — A
New Concept for the Sociology of Family Life (eds E. Dermott & J.
Seymore). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Morgan, D. (1996) Family Connections. Cambridge: Polity press.
Morris, K. (2006) Camden FGC Service: An Evaluation of Outcomes.
London: Borough of Camden.
Morris, K. (2013). Troubled families: vulnerable families’ experi-
ences of multiple service use. Child and Family Social Work, 18
(2), 198–206.
Morris, K., et al (2008) Think Family: A Literature Review of Whole
Family Approaches. London: Cabinet Office.
Morris, K. & Burford, G. (2007) Working with children’s existing
networks — building better opportunities? Social Policy and Soci-
ety, 6, 209–217.
Morris, K. & Connolly, M. (2012). Family decision making in child
welfare: challenges in developing a knowledge base for practice.
Child Abuse Review, 21(1), 41–52.
Morris, K., & Featherstone, B. (2010). Investing in children, regu-
lating parents, thinking family: a decade of tensions and contra-
dictions. Social policy and society, 9(04), 557–566.
Muñoz, C. (2013) Reframing Chilean Social Care for Children (PhD
thesis). Birmingham: University of Birmingham.
10 Child and Family Social Work 2016
Pilotti, F. (2000) Globalización y Convención sobre los Derechos del
Niño: El contexto del texto. Washington DC: Organización de los
Estados Americanos.
Pollack, S. (2010) Labelling clients ‘risky’: social work and the neo-
liberal welfare state. British Journal of Social Work, 40(4),
1263–1278.
Punch, S. McIntosh, I. & Emond, R. (2010) Children’s food prac-
tices in families and institutions. Children’s Geographies, 8(3),
227–232.
Quiroga, M.G., & Hamilton-Giachritsis, C. (2014). “In the name
of the children”: public policies for children in out-of-home care
in Chile. Children and Youth Services Review, 44, 422–430.
Rees, A. & Pithouse, A. (2008). The intimate world of strangers—
embodying the child in foster care. Child and Family Social Work,
13(3), 338–347.
Sen, R. & Broadhurst, K. (2011). Contact between children in out-
of-home placements and their family and friends networks: a re-
search review. Child and Family Social Work, 16(3), 298–309.
Sibley, D. (1995) Geographies of Exclusion. London: Routledge.
Smart, C. & Neale, B. (1999) Family Fragments? Cambridge: Polity
press.
Sontag, S. (1990) On Photography. New York: Anchor books.
Steel, L. & Kidd, W. (2001) The Family. New York: Palgrave.
Stein, M. (2006). Research review: young people leaving care. Child
and Family Social Work, 11(3), 273–279.
UNICEF (2013) La Situación de los niños, niñas y adolescentes
en las instituciones de Protección y Cuidado de América Latina
y el Caribe. http://www.unicef.org/lac/UNICEF_Estudio_sobre_
NNA_en_instituciones.pdf Accessed 28 February 2016
Ward, N. (2009) Social exclusion, social identity and social work:
analysing social exclusion from a material discursive perspective.
Social Work Education, 28(3), 237–252.
Weeks, J., Heaphy, B. & Donovan, C. (2001) Same Sex Intimacies.
London: Routledge.
Williams, F. (2004). Rethinking Families. London: Calouste
Gulbenkian Foundation.
Yin, R. (2003). Case Studies Research: Design and Methods. Thou-
sand Oaks: Sage.
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd