Bureau of Justice Assistance

U.S. Department of Justice

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE

Safeguarding Children of 

Arrested Parents
Cover Photo Credit: ©fotolia/kellyoptra

IACP EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP

Vincent Talucci

Executive Director

PROJECT STAFF

John Firman

Director

Research, Programs & Professional Services Directorate

Philip Lynn

Manager

IACP National Law Enforcement Policy Center

Sara Dziejma

Project Specialist

IACP National Law Enforcement Policy Center

Kelly Burke

Program Manager

Juvenile Justice and Child Protection Initiatives

Sabrina Rhodes

Project Specialist

Juvenile Justice and Child Protection Initiatives

BJA EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP

Denise E. O’Donnell

Director

Kristen Mahoney

Deputy Director

Tracey Trautman

Deputy Director

Pam Cammarata

Associate Deputy Director

PROJECT STAFF

Gregory Joy

Policy Advisor

Law Enforcement

Melanie Davis

Grant Manager
Safeguarding Children of 

Arrested Parents

August 2014

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE
This project was supported by Grant No. 2010-DJ-BX-K002 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. 

The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the 

Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention, the Office for Victims of Crime, and the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, 

Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the 

author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 

or the IACP.
Acknowledgments iii

Acknowledgments

The IACP and its partner agencies wish to thank the members of the focus group for providing invaluable 

insights and comments on both the Model Policy and the Concepts and Issues Paper. This important project 

could not have been accomplished without their professional assistance.

Ann Adalist-Estrin

Director

National Resource Center on Children and Families 

of the Incarcerated at Rutgers University Camden

Ross Arends

Supervisory Special Agent

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and 

Explosives

Deborah Augustine

Acting Chief

Office of Congressional & Public Affairs

Victim Witness Program & Demand Reduction Section

Drug Enforcement Administration

Kristie Brackens

Juvenile Justice Specialist

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Crystal Brown

Senior Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General

Office of the Deputy Attorney General

Chris Burbank

Chief of Police

Salt Lake City Police Department

Luiz Casanova

Assistant Chief of Police

New Haven Police Department 

Melanca Clark

Senior Policy Analyst

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Taffy Compain, CPM

National Foster Care Specialist

Children’s Bureau

Administration for Children, Youth and Families

Gregory Crawford

Correctional Programs Specialist

National Institute of Corrections

Madeleine de Boinville

Social Science Analyst

Office of Human Service Policy

US Department of Health and Human Services

Rebecca Flatow

Public Health Analyst

Office of Policy, Planning and Innovation

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration

Jocelyn Fontaine, Ph.D.

Senior Research Associate

Urban Institute

Elizabeth Gaynes

Executive Director

Osborne Association 
iv SAFEGUARDING CHILDREN OF ARRESTED PARENTS

Bria Gillum

Policy Assistant

Justice & Regulatory Policy

White House Domestic Policy Council

Karen Joyce-McMahon

Deputy Program Director

Office for Victim Assistance

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Tanya Krupat

Program Director

Osborne Association

Eddie Levins

Deputy Chief of Police

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department

Mark Lomax

Executive Director

National Tactical Officers Association

Catherine Luby

Child Welfare Program Specialist

Children’s Bureau

Administration for Children, Youth and Families

Dr. Steven Marans

Director

Yale University

National Center for Children Exposed to Violence 

Patrick R. Melvin

Chief of Police

Salt River Indian Reservation Police Department

Debra Nightwine

Chief Inspector

Investigative Operations Division

United States Marshals Service

Joyce Pfennig, Ph.D.

Program Specialist

Children’s Bureau

Administration for Children, Youth and Families

Tonya Robinson

Special Assistant to the President

Justice & Regulatory Policy

White House Domestic Policy Council

Eugene Schneeberg

Director

Center for Faith-Based & Neighborhood 

Partnerships

Fred Wilson

Director of Operations

National Sheriffs’ Association

Yousry Zakhary

Director

IACP President

Woodway Public Safety Department
Table of Contents v

Acknowledgments.................................................................................................................................................iii

Table of Contents................................................................................................................................................v

About the Organizations...................................................................................................................................vii

Letter from the Bureau of Justice Assistance...................................................................................................viii

Letter from the IACP..........................................................................................................................................ix

Preface....................................................................................................................................................................xi

Concepts and Issues Paper.................................................................................................................................1

I. Introduction...............................................................................................................................................1

II. Definitions....................................................................................................................................................2

III. Scope of the Problem: How Many Children are Affected?.......................................................................3

IV. Legal Responsibilities of Law Enforcement for Children of Arrested Parents...........................................6

V. Policy and Procedures...............................................................................................................................8

A. Overarching Policy..............................................................................................................................8

B. Interagency Coordination and Training .............................................................................................9

C. Pre-Arrest Planning .........................................................................................................................12

D. Making an Arrest..............................................................................................................................13

E. Appropriate Placement of a Child.....................................................................................................15

F. Booking.............................................................................................................................................16

G. Follow-Up Visits ..............................................................................................................................17

H. Documentation................................................................................................................................18

Model Policy.....................................................................................................................................................19

I. Policy...................................................................................................................................................19

II. Purpose..............................................................................................................................................19

III. Definitions..........................................................................................................................................19

IV. Procedures.........................................................................................................................................20

Table of Contents
vi SAFEGUARDING CHILDREN OF ARRESTED PARENTS
About the Organizations vii

Vision and Mission

The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) strengthens the nation’s criminal justice system and helps 

America’s state, local, and tribal jurisdictions reduce and prevent crime, reduce recidivism, and promote 

a fair and safe criminal justice system. BJA focuses its programmatic and policy efforts on providing a wide 

range of resources, including training and technical assistance (TTA) to law enforcement, courts, corrections, 

treatment, reentry, justice information sharing, and community-based partners to address chronic and 

emerging criminal justice challenges nationwide. 

BJA’s mission is to provide leadership and services in grant administration and criminal justice policy 

development to support state, local, and tribal justice strategies to achieve safer communities. 

About BJA

Founded in 1893, the Association’s goals are to advance the science and art of police services; to 

develop and disseminate improved administrative, technical and operational practices and promote their 

use in police work; to foster police cooperation and the exchange of information and experience among 

police administrators throughout the world; to bring about recruitment and training in the police profession 

of qualified persons; and to encourage adherence of all police officers to high professional standards of 

performance and conduct.

Since 1893, the International Association of Chiefs of Police has been serving the needs of the law 

enforcement community. Throughout those past 100-plus years, we have been launching historically 

acclaimed programs, conducting ground-breaking research and providing exemplary programs and services 

to our membership across the globe.

Professionally recognized programs such as the FBI Identification Division and the Uniform Crime 

Records system can trace their origins back to the IACP. In fact, the IACP has been instrumental in forwarding 

breakthrough technologies and philosophies from the early years of our establishment to now, as we begin 

the 21st century. From spearheading national use of fingerprint identification to partnering in a consortium 

on community policing to gathering top experts in criminal justice, the government and education for 

summits on violence, homicide, and youth violence, IACP has realized our responsibility to positively affect 

the goals of law enforcement.

Vision and Mission

The IACP shall advance professional police services; promote enhanced administrative, technical, and 

operational police practices; foster cooperation and the exchange of information and experience among 

police leaders and police organizations of recognized professional and technical standing throughout the 

world.

We shall champion the recruitment and training of qualified persons in the police profession and 

encourage all police personnel worldwide to achieve and maintain the highest standards of ethics, integrity, 

community interaction and professional conduct.

About the IACP
viii SAFEGUARDING CHILDREN OF ARRESTED PARENTS
ix

International Association of

Chiefs of Police

44 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 200

Alexandria, VA 22314–2357

Phone: 703-836–6767; 1-800-THE 

IACP

Fax: 703-836–4543

Web: www.theiacp.org

President

Yousry “Yost” Zakhary

Director

Woodway Public Safety 

Department

Woodway, TX

Immediate Past President

Craig T. Steckler

Chief of Police

Fremont Police Department

Fremont, CA

First Vice President

Richard M. Beary

Chief of Police

University of Central Florida 

Orlando, FL

Second Vice President

Ronal W. Serpas

Superintendent of Police

New Orleans Police Department

New Orleans, LA

Third Vice President

Terrence M. Cunningham

Chief of Police

Wellesley Police Department

Wellesley, MA

Fourth Vice President

Donald De Lucca

Chief of Police

Golden Beach Police Department

Golden Beach, FL

Vice President at Large

Kent W. Barker

Chief of Police

Tualatin Police Department

Tualatin, OR

Vice President at Large

James R. Craze

Chief of Police

Greenbelt Police Department

Greenbelt, MD

International Vice President

Barbara Fleury

Police Advisor

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Permanent Mission of Canada to 

the United Nations

New York, NY 

Vice President-Treasurer

Dwight E. Henninger

Chief of Police

Vail Police Department

Vail, CO

General Chair Division of State 

Associations of Chiefs of 

Police 

Peter L. Carnes

Chief of Police

Stonehill College Police & Safety

Easton, MA

General Chair Division of State and 

Provincial Police

Colonel Michael D. Edmonson

Deputy Secretary, Public Safety Services

Superintendent, Louisiana State Police

Baton Rouge, LA

Parliamentarian

James McLaughlin, Jr. 

Executive Director

Texas Police Chiefs Association

Elgin, TX

Executive Director

International Association of Chiefs of 

Police

Vincent Talucci

Alexandria, VA

Dear Colleague,

The arrest of a parent can, and often does, have significant lasting effects on children, whether they 

personally witness the arrest or not. That is why the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the 

Bureau of Justice Assistance have created this document to provide protocols for law enforcement to help 

address the needs of children at the time of, and just following, their parent’s arrest. 

There are numerous benefits associated with safeguarding the children of arrested parents. First and 

foremost, it supports the immediate, as well as future, physical, emotional, and psychological well-being 

of the child. In addition, a coordinated response helps to maintain the all-important relationship between 

child and parent, which further enhances the child’s development. Also, while often overlooked, the 

image of police, developed by children during these encounters, can have long-lasting effects on their 

overall views of law enforcement, and their future willingness to cooperate with police and to abide with 

the law. 

The procedures outlined in this document can be utilized to both ensure the wellbeing of children, while 

also maintaining the integrity of the arrest and officer safety. Agencies should consider adopting these 

recommendations, incorporating the general principles into their overall policing philosophy in an 

ongoing effort to provide the highest level of service to their communities. 

Sincerely,

Yousry “Yost” Zakhary

President

International Association of Chiefs of Police 

Serving the Leaders of Today and Developing the Leaders of Tomorrow
x SAFEGUARDING CHILDREN OF ARRESTED PARENTS
Preface xi

Preface

On June 12, 2013, Deputy Attorney General of the United States James M. Cole 

delivered remarks at the White House where he 

announced that “the International Association of 

Chiefs of Police (IACP), with funding support from 

the Department of Justice (DOJ) is developing a 

model protocol and training on protecting the 

physical and emotional well-being of children when 

their parents are arrested.” 

The IACP project announced by the Deputy 

Attorney General is part of an overarching White 

House Domestic Policy Council justice initiative 

focused on reducing trauma experienced by 

children who have parents in prison or jail. This 

is a broad-based undertaking given the myriad of 

situations in which parental arrest, incarceration, 

or both can have a negative impact on a child’s 

physical, mental, social, and emotional well-being. 

Parental incarceration is now recognized as among 

the “adverse childhood experiences” that increase 

a child’s risk of negative outcomes in adulthood, 

including alcoholism; depression; illegal drug use; 

domestic violence and other criminal behavior; 

health-related problems; and suicide, among 

others.1 Minimizing the trauma experienced by 

children at the time of their parent’s arrest has the 

potential to lessen this risk, improving outcomes in 

the short and long-run. 

1

 See Ginny Puddefoot and Lisa Foster, Keeping 

Children Safe When Their Parents are Arrested: Local 

Approaches That Work (California Research Bureau, 

July 2007) and “Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) 

Study,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

http://www.cdc.gov/ace/findings.htm (accessed March 

7, 2014).

On September 10, 2013, the Department of 

Justice, Office of Justice Programs’ Bureau of Justice 

Assistance (BJA) awarded supplemental funding to 

IACP to engage its National Law Enforcement Policy 

Center in the development of a Model Policy and 

Concepts and Issues Paper that would assist law 

enforcement agencies in developing measures 

to safeguard children when a parent is arrested. 

Instrumental to this process was the use of a 

focus group composed of federal, state, local, and 

tribal practitioners with expertise in child welfare, 

law enforcement, children’s mental health, and 

children with incarcerated parents. In addition, 

the IACP will develop training to assist agencies 

with implementing the policy 

The resulting Model Policy is incorporated in 

and forms the basis for issues and topics examined 

in the Concepts and Issues Paper. The Model Policy 

should be used as a template for agencies to 

develop and/or customize an internal policy, which 

should also reflect the input and coordination 

of partner organizations in order to incorporate 

their resources and capabilities. The intent of the 

Concepts and Issues Paper is twofold. First, it is 

intended to provide greater insight for readers of the 

Model Policy concerning the rationale underlying 

the policy positions and directives. Second, it is 

intended to provide an understanding of the most 

promising practices that have been identified and 

that will form the basis for development of law 

enforcement training modules addressing issues 

involving children of arrested parents.
xii SAFEGUARDING CHILDREN OF ARRESTED PARENTS
Concepts and Issues Paper 1

Concepts and Issues Paper

I. Introduction

The arrest of a parent can have a significant 

impact on a child whether or not the child is present 

at the time of the arrest. Depending on age and 

quality of the relationship with the parent, children 

may feel shock, immense fear, anxiety, or anger 

towards the arresting officers or law enforcement 

in general. Over the past two decades, increasing 

emphasis has been placed on examination of the 

effects of these events on children of various ages 

and the ways in which law enforcement can make 

sure that an involved child doesn’t “fall through 

the cracks.”2 Research clearly indicates that such 

events can and often do have a negative impact 

on a child’s immediate and long-term emotional, 

mental, social, and physical health.3 Symptoms such 

as sleep disruptions, separation anxiety, irritability, 

and even more serious disorders or post-traumatic 

reactions have been documented.4 In addition, 

later problems with authority figures in general and 

law enforcement in particular can arise if officers 

or other service providers do not take the time to 

address the needs of the child. Time taken with a 

child under these trauma producing circumstances 

is time well spent. The kindness and assistance of 

2

 See Marcus Nieto, In Danger of Falling Through the 

Cracks: Children of Arrested Parents (California Research 

Bureau, Sacramento, California, State Library, April 

2002), https://www.library.ca.gov/crb/02/09/02-009.

pdf (accessed March 10, 2014).

3

 See the Report of the Attorney General’s 

National Task Force on Children Exposed to Violence 

(December 12, 2012), 29–35, http://www.justice.gov/

defendingchildhood/cev-rpt-full.pdf (accessed March 7, 

2014).

4

 Puddefoot, 15.

an officer with a child creates lasting impressions 

even among very young children. Treating a child 

with compassion and thoughtfulness is not only 

the proper thing to do, it is also a hallmark of good 

policing that can have long-term positive benefits 

for the child and the community.

Unfortunately, many, if not most, law 

enforcement agencies do not have policy, 

procedures, or training that specifically address 

actions that should be taken to reduce and prevent 

trauma associated with the arrest of a parent. For 

example, a seven-year study of all local California 

law enforcement agencies found that two-thirds of 

responding agencies did not have written policies 

outlining officer responsibilities for a child at the 

time of a parent’s arrest. Additionally, about half of 

responding child welfare agencies had no written 

protocols describing how to minimize trauma that 

may be experienced by a child of an arrestee.5

These findings may not reflect the situation in 

many jurisdictions around the country, but they 

do strongly suggest that both law enforcement 

and community partner organizations who share 

responsibility for child welfare in arrest situations 

may lack the training or preparation necessary to 

respond appropriately. 

5

 Nieto, 1.

Treating a child with compassion and 

thoughtfulness is not only the proper thing 

to do, it is also a hallmark of good policing 

that can have long-term positive benefits for 

the child and the community.
2 SAFEGUARDING CHILDREN OF ARRESTED PARENTS

When children are involved during the arrest of 

a parent, police officers are often confronted with 

many overlapping challenges and responsibilities. 

They must perform their duties in sometimes 

difficult or even chaotic situations, while also 

fulfilling their legal responsibility to protect the 

interests of an innocent child at the scene. Readily 

available alternatives, such as placing a child with 

a neighbor, relative, or family friend, often must 

be made with some urgency, but with minimal 

information on the capacity or suitability of those 

persons to provide adequate and safe care. Efforts 

to reduce the trauma on children created by the 

arrest cannot always be addressed in a coordinated 

or timely manner given exigencies associated 

with some arrests, particularly those involving 

greater risks to officers. For example, officers may 

unexpectedly encounter armed or violent suspects 

who must first be subdued before any additional 

action can be taken.

Similarly, child welfare services (CWS) often has 

limited resources to respond to these situations in 

a timely manner and all too often, its services may 

not be established with a complete understanding 

of law enforcement requirements, policies, and 

practices during arrest situations. In addition, 

involving CWS may not be necessary in all arrest 

situations or appropriate as defined by state law or 

agency policy. The same can be said of a lack of 

law enforcement understanding of CWS policies, 

procedures and responsibilities. Without crosstraining and a procedure for the coordination of 

services between law enforcement and CWS, as 

well as other partner organizations, the needs of 

the child may be inadequately or only sporadically 

met. 

Fortunately, law enforcement is developing 

a greater understanding of the overall impact of 

violence and parental incarceration on children. 

Efforts to keep families connected, even if a parent 

is incarcerated, are part of the overall movement 

championed by many correctional systems. Among 

law enforcement agencies, the philosophy of early 

intervention in the life of a child to support positive 

development is being recognized as part of the 

overall strategy to prevent crime and violence. 

Showing kindness and concern to a child whenever 

possible, but especially during a difficult time, 

will help influence his or her opinions towards 

law enforcement then and later in life. Helping to 

prevent or minimize a child’s exposure to potentially 

traumatic events is an operationally sound law 

enforcement strategy to promote public safety and 

reduce the likelihood of future misconduct, criminal 

behavior, and victimization. It is also consistent 

with law enforcement’s community service and 

assistance function and is a direct component of 

principles of community policing, problem solving, 

and conflict resolution.

Law enforcement officers and their agencies 

have long been attuned to the dangers of civil 

liability for failure to train. In the present context, 

failure to train officers to take reasonable measures 

to safeguard children at the time of their parent’s 

arrest and to ensure that appropriate actions are 

taken before, during and after the arrest, can have 

legal implications for officers and their employing 

jurisdictions. In addition to the legal consequences, 

protection of a child in these and related situations 

should also be viewed as an ethical, moral, and 

pragmatic responsibility that serves the short-term 

and long-term interests of both law enforcement, 

its justice partners and the communities they serve.

II. Definitions

Child: Any unemancipated person under the 

age of 18, or as otherwise defined by state law, 

whether or not he or she is present at the arrest. 

(As used herein, “child” refers to both an individual 

child or multiple children.)

Parent: Any adult who is legally responsible for 

the well-being, supervision, and care of a child. In 

most cases, this individual is a biological or adoptive 

parent, or guardian. 

Fortunately, law enforcement is developing a 

greater understanding of the overall impact of 

violence and parental incarceration on children. 

Efforts to keep families connected, even if a 

parent is incarcerated, are part of the overall 

movement championed by many correctional 

systems.
Concepts and Issues Paper 3

Caregiver: A responsible adult selected to 

temporarily care for the child in situations where 

another individual with legal custody of the child 

is unavailable. In some cases, responsibility for the 

temporary care and supervision of a child may be 

delegated to a relative, neighbor, friend, or another 

adult, as they are willing and able.

Child Welfare Services (CWS): A public service 

agency, or its contractee, that has authority to 

assume responsibility for the care, welfare, and 

temporary supervision of a child pursuant to law.

Partner Organization: A group or agency with 

interests aligned with this department with regards 

to safeguarding a child from trauma when his or 

her parent is arrested. This may include, but is 

not necessarily limited to, CWS, probation/pretrial 

entities, victim advocates, corrections, medical/

mental health services, schools, youth-serving 

organizations and faith-based programs.

Trauma: Individual trauma results from an 

event, series of events, or set of circumstances 

that is experienced by an individual as physically 

or emotionally harmful or threatening and that 

has lasting adverse effects on the individual’s 

functioning and physical, mental, social, emotional, 

or spiritual well-being.6

Responsible Adult: An individual over 18 years 

of age who can pass a preliminary NCIC check and 

clear a child protection registry background check 

to ensure that he/she does not have any arrests 

for founded cases of child abuse, sexual crimes, 

domestic violence, recent arrests for drug use or 

possession, or other violent felony violations.

III. Scope of the Problem: How Many 

Children are Affected?

There are no accurate statistics on the number 

of children who are present when their parent is 

arrested since these numbers are not routinely 

6

 “Trauma Definition: Part One – Defining Trauma,” 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration, http://www.samhsa.gov/traumajustice/

traumadefinition/definition.aspx (accessed April 15, 

2014).

captured in arrest reports or collected by any central 

authority. However, statistics on incarcerated 

parents collected by the U.S. Department of Justice, 

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) cast some light 

on the issue, even though it is recognized that far 

more arrests are made than are represented by the 

data on incarcerated persons in state and federal 

prisons.

According to the most recent data originally 

published in 2008 by BJS, and updated in 2010, 

among federal and state prisoners: 

 An estimated 809,800 prisoners of the 

1,518,535 held in the nation’s prisons at 

mid-year were parents of minor children—52 

percent of state inmates and 63 percent of 

federal inmates.

 An estimated 1,706,600 children have a 

parent in prison (i.e., 2.3 percent of the U.S. 

population under 18 years of age). Note 

that this does not include children who have 

parents in jail.

 Incarceration of mothers increased 122 

percent and the incarceration of fathers rose 

76 percent between 1991 and 2007.

 More than half of mothers held in state prison 

reported living with at least one of their 

children in the month before arrest, compared 

to 36 percent of fathers.

 Among federal inmates, mothers were twoand-one-half times more likely than fathers to 

report living in a single-parent household.

 Among parents living with their minor children 

prior to incarceration, more than threequarters of mothers, compared to just over a 

An estimated 809,800 prisoners of the 

1,518,535 held in the nation’s prisons at midyear were parents of minor children—52 

percent of state inmates and 63 percent of 

federal inmates.
4 SAFEGUARDING CHILDREN OF ARRESTED PARENTS

quarter of fathers reported providing most of 

the daily care of their children.7

The increase in parental incarceration 

between the years 1991 and 2007 is of particular 

note within the present discussion. The arrest 

of any parent presents the clear possibility that a 

child may experience immediate trauma or have 

traumatic reactions at a later time. Possibly the 

most vulnerable among those cited above is the 

child of an incarcerated mother. Incarceration of a 

mother can have the most severe and long-lasting 

consequences for her child, as she is most often the 

primary, if not the only, caregiver. Separation from 

a primary caregiver represents a crisis for children 

and should be given special consideration.8

Recognition that the child of an incarcerated 

mother may be the most deeply affected by this 

separation is not to suggest that the arrest of a 

father or male guardian may not have the same 

impact or that officers should hesitate to make 

arrests of mothers when required. It is mentioned 

here to highlight the need to pay particular attention 

to arrests involving primary caregivers (arrested 

women or others who identify as primary caregivers) 

through coordination with partner organizations. 

Through this combined effort, all reasonable steps 

should be taken to minimize the child’s exposure to 

the arrest, to allow the arrestee to reassure the child 

and stay with the child until the caregiver is present, 

to ensure placement with a responsible adult, and to 

7

 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice 

Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Special Report, 

Parents in Prison and Their Minor Children, revised 

March 30, 2010, http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/

pptmc.pdf (accessed April 15, 2014).

8

 American Academy of Pediatrics: Committee on 

Early Childhood, Adoption, and Dependent Care (2000), 

“Developmental Issues for Young Children in Foster 

Care.” Pediatrics, 106 (5), pp. 1145-1150.

guarantee that follow-up with the child is performed 

where necessary by the law enforcement agency, 

partner organizations, or both.

In spite of the need for law enforcement to 

closely monitor the arrest of primary caregivers, in 

most cases, mothers, the survey of California’s law 

enforcement agencies cited previously does not 

suggest any particular emphasis by agencies on the 

needs of the child of an arrested mother. This is in 

spite of the fact that these agencies reported that 

the arrested sole caretaker of a child is a woman 

in over 80 percent of the cases. Additionally, 

almost half of all law enforcement agencies (42 

percent) did not know the number of mothers 

with minor children arrested in their jurisdictions.9

This latter fact underscores the failure of many law 

enforcement agencies to fully document when 

arrested parents are responsible for children and 

the importance of doing so routinely in arrest 

reports.

Another group of children of arrestees who 

are particularly vulnerable are teenagers. In some 

cases this is because they are viewed as being able 

to manage on their own, or, in other instances 

because they state that they can cope on their own 

or with the assistance of friends or other persons. 

A 2006 presentation by Nell Bernstein, author of 

All Alone in the World: Children of the Incarcerated, 

addressed this issue through review of actual case 

studies. 

Teenagers, [she noted] are the most 

vulnerable to being left alone when a parent is 

arrested. Among police departments that said 

they had a written policy outlining officers’ 

responsibility for minor children of an arrested 

caretaker, only 55 percent defined “minor” 

as all children under 18. The rest offered 

definitions that ranged from 16 and under to 

10 and under. In other words, children who 

would not be permitted to sign a lease, get a 

job or enroll themselves in school because of 

their age were, as a matter of explicit policy, 

deemed old enough to be left behind in empty 

apartments. 

9

 Nieto, 1.

Incarceration of a mother can have the most 

severe and long-lasting consequences for her 

child, as she is most often the primary, if not 

the only, caregiver. Separation from a primary 

caregiver represents a crisis for children and 

should be given special consideration.
Concepts and Issues Paper 5

Terrence fell into this category. He was 15 

the day police broke down his door and took 

away his mother, who had a problem with 

drugs. “Call somebody to come watch you,” 

he remembers an officer advising him on the 

way out. But Terrence had no one to call. For 

a few weeks, he got by on what was left of 

the family’s food stamps. When they ran out, 

he cracked open his piggy bank, netting 56 

dollars. When that was gone, he washed cars 

in the neighborhood and sold newspapers 

door-to-door. At 15, he was old enough to be 

left alone, but too young to get a real job. 

Terrence bought groceries with his odd 

job earnings, but he couldn’t keep up with the 

bills. First the electricity got cut off, then the 

water and gas. Once his apartment went dark, 

then cold, Terrence began spending more and 

more time with friends from school who lived 

together in a foster home nearby. When he 

began spending the night there, the foster 

father took notice. Terrence explained his 

situation, and the man arranged for Terrence 

to be placed with him on an emergency basis. 

Five months had passed since his mother’s 

arrest before Terrence’s abandonment 

registered as an “emergency” with anyone.10

The foregoing is not to suggest that children 

in other age groups are less susceptible to trauma 

resulting from parental arrest. Children of all ages 

are vulnerable to potential trauma following the 

arrest of their parent and reactions vary somewhat 

by age. 

Nell Bernstein’s accounts also revealed the 

following common reactions:

...Some children’s own experience during 

or after their parent’s arrest may leave them 

feeling that they themselves have done 

something wrong, and are being punished—

even incarcerated. One young woman 

described coming home from science camp 

one afternoon to find police in her home. One 

squad car had just left with her mother; now 

another took her to the children’s shelter. She 

felt, she told me, “that my life was over. That 

10 Puddlefoot, 10.

I would never see my family again. I thought 

I had done something wrong because I had 

to go away too. But my family says I didn’t.” 

This young woman was 27 years old when she 

told me this story—and she still didn’t sound 

convinced.

...For many children, a parent’s arrest is 

the moment when their invisibility is made 

visible; when it is made clear to them just 

how easily they may be overlooked within the 

systems and institutions that come to claim 

their parents. With appalling regularity, young 

people have described to me being left to fend 

for themselves in empty apartments for weeks 

or even months in the wake of a parent’s 

arrest. In most cases, these children were not 

present when their parent was arrested; they 

simply came home from school to find their 

parent gone and were left to draw their own 

conclusions. But some told me of watching 

police handcuff and remove a parent—the 

only adult in the house—and simply leave 

them behind. 

The first time I heard such a story was 

from a young man named Ricky. Like a third of 

all incarcerated mothers, Ricky’s mother was 

living alone with her children when she was 

arrested. Ricky was nine years old, and his 

brother under a year, when the police came to 

his house and took away his mother. 

“I guess they thought someone else was in 

the house,” Ricky said, when I asked him how 

the police had come to leave him by himself. 

“But no one else was in the house. I was trying 

to ask them what happened and they wouldn’t 

say. Everything went so fast. They just rushed 

in the house and got her and left.” 

...For many children, a parent’s arrest is the 

moment when their invisibility is made visible; 

when it is made clear to them just how easily 

they may be overlooked within the systems and 

institutions that come to claim their parents.
6 SAFEGUARDING CHILDREN OF ARRESTED PARENTS

After the police left with his mother, Ricky 

did what he could. He cooked for himself 

and his brother, and changed the baby’s 

diapers. He burned himself trying to make 

toast, and got a blister on his hand, but he 

felt he was managing. He remembered that 

each day, his mother would take him and 

his brother out for a walk. So he kept to the 

family routine, pushing the baby down the 

sidewalk in a stroller every day for two weeks, 

until a neighbor took notice and called Child 

Protective Services. 

I heard many more stories like these....but 

I heard another kind of story too, that left me 

more hopeful—stories where they were seen, 

and heard, at the time of an arrest; where 

someone took the time to look out for them, 

talk to them, perhaps find a relative to care for 

them. And when this is what happened, they 

told me, it colored all their future interactions 

with authority—colored them in a way that 

made it much more likely that they would 

respond positively to authority, to law, in the 

future.11

Parental arrest and incarceration are 

associated with a number of other negative 

childhood experiences including household 

substance abuse, parental mental illness, physical 

or emotional neglect, and household violence.12

One comprehensive, longitudinal examination 

- The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) 

Study - examined a range of the health outcomes 

11 Puddlefoot, 10.

12 James A. Reavis, Jan Looman, and Briana Rojas, 

“Adverse Childhood Experiences and Adult Criminality: 

How Long Must We Live before We Possess Our Own 

Lives?” The Permanente Journal 17, no. 2 (Spring 2013): 

44–48.

associated with traumatic events experienced early 

in life, and the range of behavioral, social, mental 

and physical effects, including physical and mental 

health disorders, aggressive behavior and adult 

victimization that can manifest throughout one’s 

lifetime.13 

Though witnessing a parent’s arrest may 

appear to be a short, relatively quick life event, the 

trauma that it can create may be a compounding 

risk factor that ultimately has a detrimental impact 

on the child’s well-being and development.

IV. Legal Responsibilities of Law 

Enforcement for Children of Arrested 

Parents

It may seem obvious that law enforcement 

has an inherent responsibility to ensure that 

children of arrested parents are properly cared 

for, but the typical lack of law enforcement policy 

and procedures in this regard reflects lack of 

awareness by many departments concerning the 

process surrounding, and sufficiency of, the care 

that should be provided. Unfortunately, federal 

courts are also “unsettled when it comes to when 

and under what circumstance a law enforcement 

officer has the responsibility for the safety of 

minors at the time of a guardian’s arrest.”14 State 

statutory law addressing the legal responsibility of 

law enforcement officers to provide for the safety 

of children after a parent’s arrest is generally 

nonexistent or lacking in specificity.

The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment 

forbids the government from depriving individuals 

of life, liberty, or property without “due process 

of law.” However, in 1989, the U.S. Supreme 

Court found that the Due Process Clause does not 

13 Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study,” 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, http://

www.cdc.gov/ace/findings.htm (accessed March 7, 

2014).

14 Marilyn C. Moses and Cathy Girouard, “Written 

Policies for Responding to Children after a Parent 

or Caretaker Is Arrested,” The Police Chief 72, no. 9 

(September 2005): 135–145.

Though witnessing a parent’s arrest may 

appear to be a short, relatively quick life 

event, the trauma that it can create may be a 

compounding risk factor that ultimately has a 

detrimental impact on the child’s well-being 

and development.
Concepts and Issues Paper 7

provide an affirmative right to government aid.15

However, the Court has established two exceptions 

that may create a law enforcement officer’s duty to 

protect and violations of which may subsequently 

be prosecuted under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Federal 

courts vary considerably in their interpretation 

of what constitutes either of the two exceptions, 

so law enforcement agencies should familiarize 

themselves with rulings in their federal district and 

circuit.

The first exception involves whether a “special 

relationship” exists, such as when an officer takes 

a suspect into custody and transports him or her 

to jail, thus making the officer responsible for the 

suspect’s safety while in custody. Another example 

of a special relationship is when an officer makes 

a specific promise to protect an individual from 

another party.16

Possibly of more significance in context of 

the present discussion is the exception related 

to “state-created danger.” Under this exception, 

a duty to protect may exist if an officer or other 

government operative leaves a person in a more 

dangerous situation than the one in which he or 

she was found, creating a previously nonexistent 

danger or increasing the danger. 17

Specific circuits apply different tests to 

determine whether a state-created danger 

exception exists. For example, officers were found 

to have created a danger for three children who 

they left in a vehicle by themselves on the side 

of a limited access highway at night when their 

uncle was arrested for drag racing. The children 

decided that the only way to get help was to 

leave the vehicle and walk along the highway until 

they found a telephone. They then called their 

mother, but could not identify their location. The 

mother was unable to pick them up due to lack 

of transportation. They were finally located by a 

15 DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social 

Services, 109 S. Ct. 998, 1003 (1989).

16 See for example, Pinder v. Johnson, 54 F. 3d 1169, 

1175 (4th Cir. 1995) cert denied, 116 S. Ct. 530 (1995).

17 L. Cary Unkelbach, “No Duty to Protect: Two 

Exceptions,” Chief’s Counsel, The Police Chief 71, no. 7 

(July 2004): 12–14.

neighbor several hours after leaving the car. The 

officers’ actions constituted “gross negligence” 

or “reckless endangerment” according to the 7th 

Circuit Court, which found the officers liable for 

both emotional and physical injuries sustained by 

the children.18 

In another case, two children, 11 and 13 years 

of age, spent the night at a friend’s house, who 

was also a minor. That night, law enforcement 

raided the apartment and arrested the mother 

on narcotics and related charges leaving the three 

children in the apartment alone. In spite of their 

ages and potential exposure to a drug environment, 

and the fact that they were left without adult 

supervision, the court held that the officers could 

not foresee potential dangers as compared to the 

circumstances in the foregoing case. The children 

were inside a building with a telephone that they 

could use to contact another responsible adult. The 

court therefore found that the officers were not 

negligent.19

In summary, an attorney analyzing these and 

similar cases concluded:

The courts have not been as consistent 

or as prescriptive as law enforcement 

administrators would like with regard to 

guidance in this area. It seems as though the 

courts are sending the signal that as long as 

the children are not so young as to shock the 

conscience and no harm results, the officer 

can leave children in risky situations and be 

found to have made an unfortunate judgment 

call but one that does not rise to the level of 

deprivation of qualified immunity. But if the 

abandoned child is harmed in some way, the 

officer should have anticipated it and will be 

found guilty of gross negligence and reckless 

disregard for safety. The problem with this 

18 White v. Rochford, 592 F.2d 381 (7th Cir. 1979) 

as cited by Moses. For a similar case with a different 

outcome, see the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals case 

Walton v. City of Southfield, 995 F.2d 1331 (6th Cir. 

1993) as cited by Moses.

19 Valita M. v. City of Chicago, 1986 WL 15133 (N.D. Ill. 

1986) as cited by Moses.
8 SAFEGUARDING CHILDREN OF ARRESTED PARENTS

guidance is that it requires the officer to 

foresee the future.20

Yet, in spite of the rulings of these and other 

courts, there is another principle that provides 

guidance to officers beside that of the fear of legal 

liability—the need to provide the best level of 

service possible to ensure the well-being of a child 

of an arrested parent. The policy and procedures 

that follow are designed to assist officers in fulfilling 

their responsibility to serve the best interests of the 

child, rather than simply applying the bare bones 

compliance that may be gleaned from court rulings.

V. Policy and Procedures

A. Overarching Policy

The overriding policy statement of the Model 

Policy that guides this discussion paper states that:

It is the policy of this department that 

officers will be trained to identify and respond 

effectively to a child, present or not present, 

whose parent is arrested in order to help 

minimize potential trauma and support a 

child’s physical safety and well-being following 

an arrest.

While the focus of this document and the 

recommended protocols that follow target the 

protection of a child’s well-being during parental 

arrest, the needs and requirements of law 

enforcement during arrest situations cannot be 

overlooked. The integrity of the arrest; safety 

of officers, arrestees, and innocent bystanders, 

including children; and adherence to departmental 

20 Marilyn Moses, “Written Policies for Responding to 

Children after a Parent or Caretaker Is Arrested.”

procedures and training when performing an arrest 

must all be balanced in the context of a wide variety 

of situations and environments—the elements of 

which may be unknown or only partially known to 

arresting officers. All officers should be well versed 

in procedures for conducting arrests in a wide 

variety of circumstances.21 Therefore, conducting 

arrests is addressed here only to the extent that 

additional measures may be needed prior to and 

during arrests to help safeguard the child of an 

arrested parent. 

The Model Policy’s statement of purpose 

expands on the direction, intent, and philosophy of 

the project. It states:

The purpose of this policy is to establish 

new and enhance existing collaboration 

between this department, child welfare 

services (CWS), and other key partner 

organizations in order to minimize the 

potential trauma to a child whose parent is 

arrested. Whenever possible, the child should 

be diverted from official custody and be placed 

with a responsible caregiver. The primary 

goal of this policy is to minimize trauma 

experienced by the child who witnesses a 

parent’s arrest and the separation caused by 

the arrest while maintaining the integrity of 

the arrest and the safety of officers, suspects, 

and other involved individuals.

Two important positions incorporated in this 

statement need to be singled out for attention. 

First, this statement recognizes that safeguarding 

a child’s well-being is the shared responsibility 

of a number of partner organizations within the 

community, not only law enforcement. Partner 

organizations can be local, or they may be 

regional offices or groups representing state or 

national child welfare enterprises. Collaboration 

and coordination between law enforcement and 

partner organizations is essential for meeting the 

21 See, for example, policies, procedures, and 

discussion papers on the following topics “Off-Duty 

Arrests,” “Executing Search Warrants,” and “Arrests,” 

published by the IACP National Law Enforcement Policy 

Center, International Association of Chiefs of Police, 

Alexandria, VA.

The child of an arrested parent needs to 

understand that he or she is not to blame and 

has done nothing wrong. Placing the child with 

a trusted and familiar adult or family member 

may add a level of stability to the situation 

and help the child cope with the other changes 

occurring during the period of stress.
Concepts and Issues Paper 9

varied needs of a child whose parent has been 

arrested.

Second, whenever reasonably possible, a child 

who may be affected by parental arrest should 

not be placed in the custody of a law enforcement 

agency or CWS, but rather be placed temporarily 

with a caregiver, often the other parent, a close 

relative, or family friend. Custody provided by 

law enforcement or CWS may in some instances 

be the only, if not the best option, particularly 

when a responsible adult who is able to serve as 

a caregiver cannot readily be located. But, custody 

of this type should not be routinely regarded as 

the only or even the best option. Custody by a law 

enforcement agency or CWS can have a significant 

negative emotional impact on a child adding to 

the trauma of parent-child separation that the 

arrest may cause and possibly creating an enduring 

stigmatization. For example, a child may feel, in 

being taken away from familiar surroundings and 

friends that he or she has done something wrong 

and is being punished. The child of an arrested 

parent needs to understand that he or she is not 

to blame and has done nothing wrong. Placing the 

child with a trusted and familiar adult or family 

member may add a level of stability to the situation 

and help the child cope with the other changes 

occurring during the period of stress.

In addition, law enforcement officers should 

be aware that children love their parents and 

that most of these arrested individuals love their 

children, even though they may have made bad 

decisions without consideration for their children’s 

well-being. Children of all arrested parents—

no matter how the parent is judged—can be 

negatively affected by the arrest and the ensuing 

separation. Many of these arrests are not related 

to violent crimes, drugs, or abuse-related offenses. 

The objective of law enforcement-child interaction 

during arrests is not typically to “protect” the child 

from their parents, unless abuse or neglect are 

evident. Rather, the role of law enforcement is to 

protect the child from trauma that may be caused 

as a result of the arrest. It is often beneficial to 

allow the parent to explain the situation directly 

to the child to prevent future feelings of guilt or 

wrongdoing on the part of the child.

B. Interagency Coordination and Training 

Law enforcement officers understand the 

needs and requirements of making arrests, such as 

the need to gain control of the situation; develop 

reasonable suspicion and probable cause to make 

an arrest absent an arrest warrant; and ensure 

the security of the arrest scene and arrestee. Far 

fewer officers are fully aware of the impact of the 

parent’s arrest on his or her child, whether the child 

is present or not. By the same token, professionals 

from CWS are educated and generally have handson experience in dealing with trauma among 

children, but may not have a good understanding of 

law enforcement procedures and protocols during 

arrests. 

Law enforcement officers can be trained to have 

a better understanding of the needs of children 

at the time of their parent’s arrest and possible 

law enforcement responses. But realistically, 

few departments have the resources to address 

this issue effectively on their own. Coordination 

of law enforcement with CWS and other partner 

organizations combines the two disciplines into 

a promising model for meeting the needs of the 

child and the family, as well as the community’s 

need for public safety. Demonstration programs 

using this approach have been used in a number of 

jurisdictions, to include New Haven, Connecticut; 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina; Boston, 

Massachusetts; and San Francisco, California. Many 

jurisdictions have developed written agreements 

that spell out the intentions of each agency, their 

roles and responsibilities, and the services that can 

or will be provided under various circumstances—

such as planning jointly in advance of a tactical 

arrest, responding to arrests where child placement 

becomes problematic, providing on-site problem 

solving and emotional support for children and 

families following the arrest of parents, or arranging 

for follow-up visits by law enforcement officers 

Coordination of law enforcement with CWS and 

other partner organizations combines the two 

disciplines into a promising model for meeting 

the needs of the child and the family, as well as 

the community’s need for public safety.
10 SAFEGUARDING CHILDREN OF ARRESTED PARENTS

to ensure that temporary caregivers can and are 

providing suitable care. 

Written agreements may already exist in 

jurisdictions between law enforcement and 

CWS to ensure joint response under specific 

conditions, such as abuse/neglect, drug-related 

arrests, or domestic violence. These protocols 

can often provide the basis for development of 

more extensive interagency collaboration and 

expanded response to a wider variety of parental 

arrest situations. However, the development of 

successful collaborative agreements requires 

that parties to the agreement accept several 

underlying concepts. It must be recognized that 

issues surrounding children of arrested parents 

are not just a law enforcement, but a community 

responsibility that can have far-reaching, negative 

consequences for children as they mature. This 

directly affects demands on community mental 

health services and related partner organizations. 

In sum, it has broad consequences for the present 

and future well-being of neighborhoods across 

jurisdictional boundaries, from crime prevention 

and control, to schools effectively educating their 

students, and the ability of mental health agencies 

to deliver services, among many other implications. 

There must also be a clear commitment by leaders 

of the partnership to succeed by working together 

to provide positive interventions and services to 

children of arrested parents, ideally outside the 

child welfare system.

The Model Policy lists four basic steps for the 

establishment of interagency coordination.

 The law enforcement agency should have a 

cooperative agreement with CWS and partner 

organizations responsible for safeguarding 

a child from harm when his or her parent 

is arrested and addressing trauma that has 

occurred. This can be in the form of a letter 

of agreement or a binding or non-binding 

memorandum of understanding.22 Each of 

these documents should, at a minimum, 

define individual agency responsibilities 

and commitments; specific operational 

22 Examples of MOUs, Letters of Understanding, 

and similar cooperative agreements can be found in 

Puddefoot, Appendices 5 and 6.

protocols; cost sharing, if necessary; shared 

work spaces, if required; meeting schedules 

and information/data exchange protocols; 

training responsibilities; issues related to 

confidentiality of information and records; and 

terms of agreement severability.

 The law enforcement agency and partner 

organizations should ensure that they meet 

regularly to exchange information on individual 

cases, as well as to evaluate the effectiveness 

and efficiency of joint operations. Operational 

review and evaluation is particularly important 

during the initial phases of the partnership in 

order to identify problems that may arise and 

implement corrective actions.

 The law enforcement agency should designate 

a liaison who is responsible for ensuring 

that follow-up is conducted to support the 

well-being of the child of an arrested parent. 

This may be a full or part-time assignment 

depending on the volume of incidents of this 

type encountered by the department. When 

the budget does not permit assignment of 

an officer in a full- or part-time capacity, 

departments can explore the possibility of 

using an individual from another partner 

organization to fill this role. Officers should 

be able and required to record in arrest or 

incident reports each time a child’s parent 

is arrested, whether the child is present or 

not, so that the liaison can monitor incidents 

on a case-by-case basis and respond with 

appropriate follow-up. The liaison should 

also be present at all interagency children of 

arrested parents meetings as the department 

representative and work closely with partner 

organizations to address operational problems 

and ensure efficiency of services provided. The 

liaison should also prepare periodic reports on 

the number and types of children of arrested 

parents responses made including any followups with an evaluation of case outcomes.

 Officers should be provided with a list of 

participating partner organizations and contact 

information so that they may take advantage 

of services provided through the interagency 

agreement.
Concepts and Issues Paper 11

As previously mentioned, law enforcement and 

partner organizations must also be prepared to 

recognize and effectively respond to professional 

culture differences that can negatively impact 

working relationships. Mutual understanding of 

the legal and operational roles and responsibilities 

of partner organizations such as CWS, and those 

of law enforcement agencies are essential to 

building trust, understanding, and a collaborative 

working partnership. Training and education of 

law enforcement officers are most often geared 

toward conflict resolution and peacekeeping. 

Officers may not fully understand or appreciate the 

need for and role of social service organizations. 

By the same token, the education of social service 

professionals does not necessarily provide them 

with an understanding and appreciation for the 

many, varied, difficult, and sometimes dangerous 

encounters law enforcement officers face on a 

routine basis. This cultural divide can be and has 

been overcome in many jurisdictions, most often 

through co-training and joint operational efforts, 

although this goal may take years to fully realize. 

For success to be achieved, law enforcement 

agencies and partner organizations must be 

willing to understand and respect the importance 

of different ways of thinking, recognize different 

agency goals, mandates, and responsibilities, and 

share a commitment to persist in a collaborative 

effort for the benefit of the common good. The 

ultimate goal of this cooperation is to help avoid or 

mitigate the trauma experienced by a child of an 

arrested parent.

As such, officers need to be trained by CWS and 

other partner organization professionals to respond 

to and effectively communicate with children 

of all ages whose parents are being arrested. 

Professionals who work with children and families 

are in a position to train officers on the meaning 

of and practical application of “trauma-informed”23

practices when responding to children during 

parental arrest, as well as during a myriad of other 

police-youth interactions. These personnel can also 

provide officers with a basic knowledge of how 

23 See for example, Eva J. Klain and Amanda R. 

White, Implementing Trauma-Informed Practices in 

Child Welfare (ABA Center on Children and the Law, 

November, 2013).

trauma presents itself in children at different ages 

and stages of development, including common 

signs and symptoms, and de-escalation techniques. 

This recognizes that the officer’s role is not to 

serve as a mental health professional or trauma 

expert, but to ensure the overall well-being of the 

child, protect the child from further harm, protect 

the officer, and connect the child or family to 

community resources that may be better equipped 

to address these problems. 

The success of this effort requires the “buy in” 

of departmental personnel—many of whom may 

be initially skeptical of the program’s value and 

the need for them to become involved in matters 

that they believe are not their responsibility. 

Helping prevent a child’s exposure to trauma is 

an operationally sound law enforcement strategy 

that can effectively reduce the likelihood of future 

misconduct or criminal behavior. Additionally, 

in these cases, the trauma experienced by the 

child may be blamed on or associated with the 

officer. Minimizing this trauma is directly linked to 

community perception of law enforcement, which 

translates into an officer safety issue. It is also 

consistent with the officer’s community service and 

assistance function and is a clear component of 

principles of community policing, problem solving, 

and conflict resolution. 

One key component of buy-in centers around 

who delivers the information. Law enforcement 

officers are often most receptive to new ideas 

and programs when they are championed by 

fellow officers. Therefore, where possible, cotraining with both a law enforcement trainer and a 

childhood trauma specialist has proven to be most 

effective. In this approach, officers gain knowledge 

and understanding from both law enforcement 

personnel and child development/trauma 

Minimizing this trauma is directly linked to 

community perception of law enforcement, 

which translates into an officer safety issue. It 

is also consistent with the officer’s community 

service and assistance function and is a clear 

component of principles of community policing, 

problem solving, and conflict resolution.
12 SAFEGUARDING CHILDREN OF ARRESTED PARENTS

professionals in a manner that is most suitable for 

their understanding and assimilation within the law 

enforcement culture.

The introduction to concepts and protocols 

regarding the appropriate response to children of 

arrested parents should begin in recruit training 

and be reinforced thereafter in regular in-service 

training. Officers who are introduced to these 

principles and protocols at the beginning of their 

careers are far more likely to accept and apply 

them as a natural part of their law enforcement 

responsibilities. Supervisory leadership also plays an 

important part in ensuring that officers understand, 

accept, and apply what they have learned. 

Reciprocal training by law enforcement 

officers for CWS and other partner organizations 

is equally critical. Just as law enforcement 

officers may have their own notions about social 

service organizations, those who work in these 

professions may also have preconceived notions 

and perceptions of law enforcement work and law 

enforcement officers, some of which may inhibit 

inter-organizational working relationships. In spite 

of its many rewards, law enforcement work can be 

challenging, placing officers in situations that must 

be resolved in a short period of time, often without 

sufficient information and in the midst of chaos. 

Arrest situations can be very unpredictable. While 

they may have some rudimentary understanding of 

these facts, social service personnel do not normally 

understand the reality and dynamics of these and 

related law enforcement-citizen encounters. It is 

therefore incumbent on law enforcement officers 

to educate their partner organizations in the 

policies, procedures, and departmental and legal 

requirements under which they must operate. This 

basic knowledge may lay the foundation for these 

partner organizations to better assist and become 

acculturated into law enforcement operations. 

C. Pre-Arrest Planning 

An important measure that law enforcement 

can take to protect a child when his or her parent 

will be arrested is to determine, when reasonably 

possible, whether a child is, or is reasonably likely 

to be, at the arrest location. Of course, this is not 

always possible. Arrests made of drivers for motor 

vehicle violations and similar unanticipated arrests 

do not allow for such planning. However, when 

an arrest or search warrant is being executed or 

officers expect that it is probable that questioning of 

a suspect at his or her home or other location may 

lead to an arrest, there may be time to determine 

whether it is likely that a child will be present or 

may be under parental care of the suspect. A check 

of departmental records may indicate that a child 

was present during prior encounters or arrests, 

a preliminary drive-by of the proposed arrest 

location may reveal a child’s toys around the house, 

or a check with CWS, when time permits, may 

determine that a child is or is likely to be present.

In some cases, where timing is not a critical 

concern, an arrest may be postponed so that it 

will not be conducted in the presence of the child. 

Decision making in this regard is based on a number 

of factors that must be weighed collectively before 

determining the best approach for conducting the 

arrest, considering law enforcement requirements, 

the safety of the community and the interests of the 

child. These types of decisions are more common 

when using tactical teams to conduct arrests. Predeployment checklists are commonly used by such 

teams and should always factor in risks associated 

with a child. If delay is not possible, arrangements 

should be made in advance to have additional law 

enforcement officers and/or representatives from 

CWS and/or appropriate partner organizations at 

the scene or on call. 

There may be other situations in which officers 

can weigh the importance of making an arrest 

against the trauma that it might inflict on a child who 

is present. For example, officers may understand 

to a degree of certainty when, in accordance with 

It is therefore incumbent on law enforcement 

officers to educate their partner organizations 

in the policies, procedures, and departmental 

and legal requirements under which they must 

operate. This basic knowledge may lay the 

foundation for these partner organizations to 

better assist and become acculturated into law 

enforcement operations. 
Concepts and Issues Paper 13

historical precedent and local circumstances, an 

arrestee will be processed and released within 

a short period of time, generally a few hours. If 

departmental policy permits, the use of a citation in 

lieu of arrest may serve the same ends as an arrest. 

Use of a citation avoids the need to separate the 

child from his or her parent and expose the child to 

the arrest and eliminates the need to transfer the 

child to another caregiver or have him or her spend 

time at a law enforcement lockup until the parent 

is released. Officer judgment in making these types 

of decisions is essential. Before making a decision 

to cite rather than arrest, departmental policy must 

provide such discretion—and obtaining supervisory 

authorization is recommended. 

Dispatched calls for service generally do not 

provide officers with time to determine whether a 

child will be present, and if they do, generally there 

is not enough time to fully prepare for the potential 

encounter with a child located at the dispatched 

location. One measure to assist in these situations 

is to require emergency communication operators 

to ask whether a child is present as a standard part 

of their protocol, much in the same way in which 

they may ask if weapons are present at the scene. 

If present, this information can be provided to 

responding officers. 

Finally, with respect to pre-arrest planning, 

it is useful, if possible, to determine in advance if 

the arrestee is English-language proficient. If not, 

arrangements should be made for a translator. 

Ideally, the translator should be someone from 

a partner organization who can speak with the 

arrestee, other adults, and children who are 

present in age-appropriate language. If this is not 

possible, a fellow officer who has had training 

on issues related to the appropriate response to 

children of arrested parents is a good alternative. 

Proper communication is essential in these arrest 

situations. It is even more important when dealing 

with families from other cultures that hold parents 

and elders in particularly high esteem. Removing 

a parent under arrest in these situations can take 

on added emotional weight and requires officers to 

be particularly cognizant of explaining the reasons 

for this action to the child in terms that they will 

better understand. Thus, precise interpretation is 

particularly important.

When neither of these options is available, 

officers should not resort to using the child to 

interpret for adults, or parents to interpret for 

the child. Failure to understand what is being said 

can pose both safety concerns for officers and 

may present problems for a child who may be 

improperly or inaccurately informed of what is 

transpiring. Additionally, it may place a child in the 

situation where he or she may be called to testify 

in court about what was said during the incident. 

For example, a child may be purposely misinformed 

about the reason for the arrest or be told to hide or 

discard evidence of a crime. Such information may 

become germane to a subsequent court proceeding 

and the child may be called upon to testify about 

what was said.

D. Making an Arrest

In order to safeguard the welfare of a child 

during the arrest of a parent, it is essential to 

determine if a child is present at the proposed 

arrest location or at another location. While one 

would assume that this action takes place routinely, 

research indicates the exact opposite. As of 2002, 

it was the exception that parents were asked about 

the presence of or their responsibility for a child. 

The authors in one study state:

According to our survey, officers in only 

13 percent of law enforcement agencies ask 

whether an arrestee has dependent children 

every time an arrest is made, whether or not 

children are present. Officers in a majority of 

law enforcement agencies do not ask about 

an arrestee’s children at the scene of a crime 

or when making an arrest. If children are 

present at the time of arrest, officers in 42 

percent of the responding departments will 

inquire about their care. If an arrestee offers 

information about children, officers in 39 

percent of the departments will get involved, 

...it is an essential initial measure for arresting 

officers to ask individuals, when safe to do 

so, specifically whether they are a parent 

responsible for any minor children or living with 

any minor children.
14 SAFEGUARDING CHILDREN OF ARRESTED PARENTS

and 12 percent will ask about children when 

there is physical evidence at the scene (toys, 

clothes, baby bottles, etc.).24

The presence of a child is inadequately 

addressed in a large number of arrest situations 

throughout the United States given that a majority 

of departments still do not have policies and 

procedures for responding to children of arrested 

parents. Therefore, it is an essential initial measure 

for arresting officers to ask individuals, when safe 

to do so, specifically whether they are a parent 

responsible for any minor children or living with 

any minor children. The inquiry must include any 

child who may not be present at the time but is 

expected to be picked up from school or return 

home from school, a babysitter, a friend’s house, or 

other location or activity. 

When a child is not at home at the time of 

the arrest, the arresting officer or a backup officer 

or supervisor should ensure that appropriate 

arrangements are made, either through the 

law enforcement agency or through a partner 

organization, to place the child with a responsible 

adult. If the child is at school or daycare, the arrested 

parent should be consulted on who should pick 

the child up and who will provide temporary care. 

Most schools have lists of approved adults who, 

in the absence of a child’s parents, are authorized 

to pick up the child. These would usually be the 

logical choices. If they are not available, however, 

officers may need to contact the school principal or 

similar adult and discuss the most appropriate and 

least traumatic means of transporting the child to 

temporary care. 

Some parents may be reluctant to disclose the 

presence of a child or their responsibility for a child 

who is not present. The parent’s fear is often that 

the child will be taken by CWS or similar agencies, 

24 Nieto, 1.

and that the arrest may result in loss of custody. As 

such, officers should be aware of any indications of 

a child in the home, such as toys, clothing, diapers, 

or other items. 

When arrests are performed outside the home, 

officers should also inquire whether the arrestee is 

responsible for a child and whether taking him or 

her into custody will require that arrangements be 

made for care of the child. As some of the legal case 

studies previously discussed reveal, the presence of 

a child during arrests made during traffic stops is a 

common scenario. In these and similar instances, 

officers must not only focus on the integrity of 

the arrest, but also ensure that arrangements are 

made for care of the child. Options include calling 

the other parent or other legal guardian(s), or 

another responsible adult, such as a relative, or a 

close family friend and arranging for transportation 

of the child to a safe location or calling upon an 

appropriate partner organization to take the child 

into temporary custody until other arrangements 

can be made. The option that is patently 

unacceptable in these or other arrest situations is 

to leave the child unattended. The officer charged 

with addressing the child’s care must not leave the 

scene of an arrest until suitable arrangements have 

been made for care of the child. This applies equally 

to all children, defined previously as anyone under 

the age of 18. Officers should not assume that a 

teenager can be safely left without supervision.

The integrity and safety of the arrest, quelling 

of commotion, and de-escalation of conflict, 

whether in a residence or elsewhere is of primary 

importance. When accomplished, officers may then 

focus on obtaining proper care for a child. However, 

in situations where a child is present, officers are 

encouraged to make certain allowances in order 

to reduce the potential of trauma. For example, 

when reasonable and prudent, the arrest—

including handcuffing and questioning—should be 

performed away from the sight and hearing of the 

child. 

One author notes that....in the absence of 

[police] protocols or planning, 70 percent of 

children who are present at a parent’s arrest watch 

that parent being handcuffed. Nearly 30 percent 

are confronted with drawn weapons. Many go on 

The officer charged with addressing the child’s 

care must not leave the scene of an arrest until 

suitable arrangements have been made for 

care of the child.
Concepts and Issues Paper 15

to demonstrate the symptoms of post-traumatic 

stress syndrome. Smaller children may respond 

by becoming unable to eat or to sleep, losing the 

ability to speak, or even reverting from walking to 

crawling.25

 When it is appropriate and safe to do so, the 

parent should be given the opportunity to speak to 

the child, explain what is happening and reassure 

him or her that arrangements will be made for 

his or her care and safety. Parents should also be 

given first consideration to identify someone who 

they feel would be most suitable and best situated 

to take care of their child. In some cases, efforts 

to comfort the child or make appropriate child 

care placement decisions may not be prudent 

or possible. The parent being arrested may be so 

distraught as to make the child even more upset. 

The parent may not be articulate enough to convey 

an appropriate message, may not understand how 

best to comfort the child, or may be incapable of 

doing so because of impairment by alcohol, drugs, 

or mental instability. If the parent is incapable 

or unwilling to comfort and inform the child, an 

officer or trained representative from a partner 

organization, such as a social worker, caseworker, 

or victim advocate, when available, should perform 

this task. The child should be spoken to in an 

age- and developmentally-appropriate manner 

and to the degree possible, be provided with an 

explanation of what is happening. Above all, the 

child should be made to understand that he or she 

has done nothing wrong and that arrangements 

will be made so that he or she will be safe and 

well cared for. Additionally, children generally 

worry about what will happen to their parent and 

whether he or she will be safe. Therefore, to the 

extent possible, officers should provide information 

to the caregiver about how they can locate the 

parent for visitation. 

When a child is removed from the home, it 

is often comforting to them to keep items with 

them that are familiar or make them feel safe. 

Parents should be asked about these items, or if 

that is not appropriate, the child should be allowed 

to select some favorite toys, clothing, blankets, 

books, photographs, or foods. In addition, officers 

25 Puddlefoot, 9. 

should inquire about any of the child’s special 

needs such as medical or mental health conditions, 

physical impairments or limitations, allergies, or 

developmental disorders, as well as any medications 

or treatments necessary for these conditions.

E. Appropriate Placement of a Child

Normally, the best placement of a child is with 

another parent or legal guardian, particularly if the 

child can remain in his or her own home. Moreover, 

this is usually legally required barring any issues 

that would disqualify the other parent or guardian. 

Exceptions to this arise when there are concerns 

about the capability or competency of the second 

parent or legal guardian to provide proper physical 

care, emotional support, and supervision of the 

child. 

Parents have the right to express their 

preference in where they would like their child to 

be housed and the person(s) who should provide 

care and supervision. If the arrested parent has 

sole custody of the child, he or she should be given 

a reasonable opportunity to select a caregiver 

unless the arrest is for child abuse or neglect. 

However, some arrested parents do not make the 

best placement decisions for their child. Some 

children have been left in homes where drugs or 

alcohol abuse is present, supervision is poor or 

nonexistent, or caregivers are abusive or neglectful. 

Even when parents make appropriate decisions, 

some potential caregivers may simply not have the 

financial resources; physical capabilities; housing 

requirements; or, when working on a daily basis, the 

time necessary to provide proper supervision and 

care. Officers may ask the child, in age appropriate 

language, if he or she feels safe and comfortable 

with the proposed caregiver, or has any concerns 

that would make them uncomfortable or put them 

in danger. However, it is the responsibility of the 

Normally, the best placement of a child is with 

another parent or legal guardian, particularly 

if the child can remain in his or her own home. 

Moreover, this is usually legally required 

barring any issues that would disqualify the 

other parent or guardian.
16 SAFEGUARDING CHILDREN OF ARRESTED PARENTS

police and, in some cases, CWS to check with the 

temporary caregiver to ensure the child’s wellbeing. 

As such, as soon as reasonably possible, some 

basic checks of the proposed caregiver should be 

performed. Follow-up visits can provide additional 

information about the capabilities and ability of 

the caregiver to care for the child, and can lead 

to referrals for supportive services to address 

the child’s and caregiver’s needs. At arrest, a 

preliminary NCIC check of the selected caregiver(s) 

should be performed by the law enforcement 

agency and CWS case files should be checked if 

possible. Any arrests for child abuse or neglect, 

sexual crimes, domestic violence, or recent arrests 

for major drug offenses and/or violent felonies 

should automatically disqualify the individual from 

taking custody of the child. 

If the parent cannot or will not provide the 

name and contact information of a preferred 

caregiver, officers should make arrangements 

to have the child taken into the care of CWS or 

another authorized partner organization. Referral 

to CWS and similar child protection agencies 

should be avoided whenever reasonably possible. 

Similarly, referral to CWS is not always necessary 

or appropriate. In many cases state laws dictate 

the circumstances under which CWS can or must 

be involved. In many situations, the child of an 

arrested parent is not inherently in harm’s way. 

Many children of arrested parents live in homes 

with caring and nurturing adults. Placement of 

these children in institutional care can have a 

significant, negative impact on them. Therefore, 

whenever reasonably possible, placement with a 

familiar, responsible adult is the preferred option. 

In the absence of parental decisions, an older 

child may express a preference for where and with 

whom they would like to stay. This preference 

should be given reasonable consideration pending 

a determination of whether the placement is safe 

and a responsible adult is present to ensure the 

child’s well-being and proper supervision. 

F. Booking

Intake and prisoner processing at a jail or other 

holding facility is another point in the arrest process 

in which law enforcement officers can inquire as to 

whether an arrestee has a dependent child who 

would be affected by the incarceration, even if 

incarceration is for a short period of time. It is also a 

point at which law enforcement agencies can check 

whether the question about a dependent child has 

been asked of the arrestee. Even parents who have 

refused to identify a dependent child previously 

when asked, may have second thoughts about 

that decision when they fully realize that they will 

be held in confinement for an indefinite period of 

time.

Therefore, a routine question during the 

booking process should be the name and age of the 

arrestee’s child. If the arrest creates an interruption 

in a child’s supervision and care, the arrestee 

must be given reasonable opportunities to make 

alternative arrangements for care if this has not 

already been addressed by the arresting officer(s) 

or other personnel. The arresting officer can be 

queried as to arrangements that may have already 

been made and those arrangements that still may 

need to be addressed. This information should be 

entered into the booking report along with the 

name, address, and phone number of the caregiver. 

If arrangements are still in process or there are 

questions that have not been completely answered 

concerning the child’s care and supervision, the 

arresting and/or booking officer(s) should take 

all appropriate measures, with or without the 

assistance of the arrestee, to ensure that adequate 

arrangements for the child are completed. 

One issue for agencies to consider is allowing 

the arrestee to use his or her cellular telephone 

to make arrangements for care of the child. This 

may prove especially important if the arrestee 

must contact the child directly. Many children are 

taught to never accept a call from an unknown 

...as soon as reasonably possible, some basic 

checks of the proposed caregiver should 

be performed. Follow-up visits can provide 

additional information about the capabilities 

and ability of the caregiver to care for the child, 

and can lead to referrals for supportive services 

to address the child’s and caregiver’s needs.
Concepts and Issues Paper 17

number. Therefore, using a telephone in the 

booking location would most likely result in the 

child not answering. By allowing the arrestee to 

use his or her cellular telephone, the likelihood of 

speaking directly with the child is greatly increased. 

In addition, many individuals no longer memorize 

their phone numbers and only have them saved 

in their cellular phones, which they may rely 

exclusively on to make calls; and which will not 

accept the collect charges that are commonly 

associated with telephones in jail or holding facility 

settings. However, this consideration should not 

be extended in cases where the cellular telephone 

may be used as evidence. 

G. Follow-Up Visits 

Although the realities of budget and manpower 

limitations may make this difficult, whenever 

reasonably possible, law enforcement agencies 

should strive to ensure that the arresting officer or 

departmental liaison officer visit the caregiver who 

has assumed responsibility for the child. Telephone 

contacts alone are generally insufficient to ensure 

that the child’s welfare is being adequately 

addressed. On-site visits to the caregiver’s 

residence are most important when NCIC checks 

and any potential CWS case file checks have not 

yet been completed. It is also more important to 

physically visit the caregiver when the arrestee 

cannot or is unlikely to make bond based on the 

offense or cannot appear before a magistrate in a 

timely manner to establish release criteria.

If a telephone call is all that can be performed, 

the inquiring officer can still gain some assurance 

as to whether the child is being cared for properly. 

The officer should speak to the child in an ageappropriate language and ask how he or she feels, 

when he or she last ate and what was eaten, 

whether he or she took a bath or cleaned up, and 

the child’s feelings about the caregiver. Does the 

child feel safe and comfortable or uncomfortable 

and fearful? In many cases, the use of yes/no 

questions may be prudent to provide the child 

with an opportunity to respond truthfully without 

fear of negative interference from the caretaker 

who may be listening. These types of inquiries and 

related follow-up questions can provide valuable 

information that can help determine whether 

additional on-site follow-up may be necessary. They 

also provide the child with reassurance that his or 

her safety is important. This is particularly valuable 

and noteworthy for children when it comes from 

a law enforcement officer. When speaking with 

the caregiver, an officer can ask similar questions 

about the child’s behavior and care and any signs 

or symptoms of serious problems. During these 

discussions, the caregiver can also be provided 

with information on community resources and 

services that may be needed to address perceived 

problems.

Depending on the circumstances of the arrest, 

child placement, and other considerations, the 

arresting officer or the liaison officer may seek the 

assistance of CWS or another partner organization 

representative to participate in the home visit. 

However, CWS caseworkers and other similar 

agencies may have guidelines and restrictions 

on when and how they can become involved 

in such visits, and officers should be aware of 

these protocols. Without a warrant, probable 

cause, permission of the caregiver, or exigent 

circumstances, officers may not enter the residence 

to perform a visual inspection of the home 

environment or to communicate with the child. 

Normally an individual who has agreed to serve 

as a caregiver will permit an officer to enter the 

residence and, if necessary, allow a social worker or 

caseworker to also enter to converse with the child 

and the caregiver. When in the home, questions 

similar to those asked by phone can be posed to 

the caregiver and the child. Additionally, the officer 

will have a better opportunity to read the body 

language of involved parties, get a visual picture 

of the home environment, and even determine 

if the placement may be negatively affected by 

family crises. Social workers or caseworkers are in 

the best position to determine whether a family 

may be in crisis, based on such factors as the 

recent death of a close family member, financial 

Follow-up with the caregiver and the child 

during the time frame immediately surrounding 

and following the arrest of the parent is 

essential.
18 SAFEGUARDING CHILDREN OF ARRESTED PARENTS

problems that would affect the ability to care for 

the child, indications of substance abuse, marital 

or domestic tensions/problems, frequent visits and 

“sleep overs” by different boyfriends or girlfriends, 

and major illnesses of the caregiver or immediate 

family members.

Follow-up with the caregiver and the child 

during the time frame immediately surrounding 

and following the arrest of the parent is essential. 

Longer-term follow-up may also be needed to 

ensure that the child and others involved in the 

situation, including the arrested parent, are 

receiving the support that is needed. A child may 

initially appear unaffected by the arrest, but later 

show increasing signs of trauma. Law enforcement 

agencies should work with partner organizations 

to provide ongoing information and assistance 

to these children and their families in an effort to 

minimize the lasting negative effects of the arrest. 

H. Documentation

Law enforcement agency policy must 

require that whenever an arrest is made, the 

existence of an arrestee’s child, whether present or 

not, be noted in the arrest report along with related 

documentation that will allow the department 

and others to monitor the safety and well-being 

of the child. A “check the box” report format will 

help ensure that officers have asked parents about 

their responsibility for any child. When a child of 

the arrestee is identified, the following types of 

information should be recorded:

 the identities and biographical information of 

any dependent child whether or not he or she 

was present at the arrest;

 any of the child’s special needs such as 

medical or mental health conditions, physical 

impairments or limitations, allergies, or 

developmental disorders;

 the identities, addresses, and contact 

information for any actual or potential 

caregivers;

 the names and contact information of any 

involved representatives from partner 

organizations;

 the names and contact information of any 

adult contacted for notification purposes, such 

as school officials;

 the final placement determination for the 

child; and any information or observations that 

suggest the need for further investigation into 

the child’s living conditions and general wellbeing, such as any indications of a household 

in crisis. 

Simply collecting the data is not enough. 

Departments must aggregate and analyze the 

information and share the results both internally 

and with partner organizations as appropriate.

Law enforcement agency policy must require 

that whenever an arrest is made, the existence 

of an arrestee’s child, whether present or not, 

be noted in the arrest report along with related 

documentation that will allow the department 

and others to monitor the safety and well-being 

of the child.
Model Policy 19

Model Policy

I. POLICY

It is the policy of this department that officers 

will be trained to identify and respond effectively 

to a child, present or not present, whose parent is 

arrested in order to help minimize potential trauma 

and support a child’s physical safety and well-being 

following an arrest. 

II. PURPOSE

The purpose of this policy is to establish new 

and enhance existing collaborations between this 

department, child welfare services (CWS), and 

other key partner organizations in order to minimize 

the potential trauma to a child whose parent is 

arrested. Whenever possible, the child should 

be diverted from official custody and be placed 

with a responsible caregiver. The primary goal of 

this policy is to minimize trauma experienced by 

the child who witnesses a parent’s arrest and the 

separation caused by the arrest while maintaining 

the integrity of the arrest and the safety of officers, 

suspects, and other involved individuals.

III. DEFINITIONS 

Child: Any unemancipated person under the 

age of 18, or as otherwise defined by state law, 

whether or not he or she is present at the arrest. 

(As used herein, “child” refers to both an individual 

child or multiple children.)

Parent: Any adult who is legally responsible for 

the well-being, supervision, and care of a child. In 

most cases, this individual is a biological or adoptive 

parent, or guardian. 

Caregiver: A responsible adult selected to 

temporarily care for the child in situations where 

another individual with legal custody of the child 

is unavailable. In some cases, responsibility for the 

temporary care and supervision of a child may be 

delegated to a relative, neighbor, friend, or another 

adult, as they are willing and able.

Child Welfare Services (CWS): A public service 

agency, or its contractee, that has authority to 

assume responsibility for the care, welfare, and 

temporary supervision of a child pursuant to law.

Partner Organization: A group or agency with 

interests aligned with this department with regards 

to safeguarding a child from trauma when his or 

her parent is arrested. This may include, but is 

not necessarily limited to, CWS, probation/pretrial 

entities, victim advocates, corrections, medical/

mental health services, schools, youth-serving 

organizations and faith-based programs.

Trauma: Individual trauma results from an 

event, series of events, or set of circumstances 

that is experienced by an individual as physically 

or emotionally harmful or threatening and that 

has lasting adverse effects on the individual’s 

functioning and physical, mental, social, emotional, 

or spiritual well-being.26 

Responsible Adult: An individual over 18 years 

of age who can pass a preliminary NCIC check and 

clear a child protection registry background check 

to ensure that he/she does not have any arrests 

26 Trauma Definition: Part One – Defining Trauma.” 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration. http://www.samhsa.gov/traumajustice/

traumadefinition/definition.aspx
20 SAFEGUARDING CHILDREN OF ARRESTED PARENTS

for founded cases of child abuse, sexual crimes, 

domestic violence, recent arrests for drug use or 

possession, or other violent felony violations. 

IV. PROCEDURES

A. Chief Executive Responsibilities

1. Agency Coordination

a. This department shall have a 

cooperative agreement with CWS and 

partner organizations that can provide 

on-site and other assistance to law 

enforcement requests for assistance 

when a child’s parent is arrested. 

b. Regular meetings shall be held 

involving all partner organizations to 

review and evaluate the effectiveness 

of joint operational protocols and to 

make improvements where necessary.

c. The department’s chief executive 

shall designate a liaison who is 

responsible for ensuring that follow-up 

is conducted to support the well-being 

of the child of an arrested parent.

d. Officers shall be provided with a list of 

agencies that have partnered under 

the cooperative agreement, along 

with contact information for each. 

These agencies may be contacted 

by the arresting officer, or another 

component of this department, when 

officers need assistance during the 

arrest of a parent. 

2. Training

a. Officers of this department shall be 

trained to effectively communicate 

with the child using developmentally 

appropriate language during a 

parental arrest.

b. This department shall provide recruit 

training and routine in-service training 

on child development and the effects 

of trauma on the child so that officers 

can effectively support the well-being 

of a child of an arrested parent.

c. Training will be available to CWS staff 

and other partner organizations on 

the role, responsibilities, and protocols 

of law enforcement during arrest 

situations. Cross training will be 

provided to officers of this department 

by CWS staff and representatives of 

other partner organizations on their 

roles, responsibilities, and policies 

for a child when his or her parent is 

arrested.

B. Pre-Arrest Planning

1. Call takers at the emergency 

communications center (ECC) shall ask 

callers if a child is present at the scene.

2. If ECC determines that a child is present 

at the scene of a reported incident, 

responding officers shall be notified. 

3. When service of an arrest or search 

warrant is planned

a. Where possible, officers shall 

determine whether any child is likely 

to be present at the location. 

b. When reasonably possible, officers 

may delay an arrest until the child is 

not likely to be present (e.g., at school 

or daycare), or consider another time 

and place for making the arrest. If 

delay is not possible, arrangements 

should be made in advance to have 

representatives from CWS and/or 

appropriate partner organizations at 

the scene or on call.

4. When reasonably possible, officers shall 

determine if the arrestee and other 

family members are English-language 

proficient. If not, arrangements should 

be made to provide a translator. A 

parent should not be allowed to interpret 

for a child and a child should not be 

allowed to interpret for a parent. 
Model Policy 21

C. Making an Arrest

1. General Procedures

a. The officer shall inquire whether 

the arrestee is a parent of a child 

who would need arrangements for 

supervision because of the arrest. The 

inquiry shall include any child who 

may not be present at the time but 

who is expected to return home from 

school, a babysitter, a friend’s home, 

or other location or activity.

b. Adults may be reluctant to disclose the 

presence of or responsibility for a child 

for fear that they may lose custody. 

Therefore, when making an arrest, and 

when safe to do so, the officer shall 

be aware of any items in plain view 

that may indicate the presence of a 

child, such as toys, diapers, and similar 

items. 

c. If a parent is responsible for a child, 

whether or not the child is present, a 

determination regarding appropriate 

placement shall be made (see IV.D.).

2. When a Child is Present

If a child is present, the officer shall

a. Take custody of the child in 

accordance with state law when the 

officer reasonably believes there is 

a threat of imminent danger to the 

child.

b. Make the arrest, whenever reasonable 

and prudent, including handcuffing 

and questioning, in a location away 

from the child’s sight and hearing. 

c. Determine whether the arrestee will 

be permitted to speak with the child 

prior to being removed subsequent to 

the arrest.

d. Not leave the scene of the arrest until 

the child is in the care of a caregiver

3. When a Child is Not Present

a. When a child is not present, the 

officer shall ensure that appropriate 

arrangements are made, either 

through this department, CWS or a 

partner organization, to place the child 

with a caregiver.

b. If the arrest occurs while the child 

is not present (e.g., at school or 

daycare), the officer should be 

prepared to discuss with the arrested 

parent how the child will be picked up 

and by whom.

D. Determining Appropriate Placement of a 

Child

1. The child should be placed with another 

parent if this individual is capable of 

assuming responsibility for and care 

of the child. If questions should arise 

concerning the capability or competency 

of the second parent, the officer should 

request assistance from a supervisor.

2. If another parent is not available, the 

arrested parent should be given a 

reasonable opportunity to select and 

contact a caregiver unless there is a 

compelling reason not to do so or the 

arrest is for child abuse or neglect. 

3. A preliminary NCIC check and, when 

possible, check of CWS case files shall 

be conducted on the caregiver chosen 

by the parent as soon as reasonably 

possible. Any arrest for child abuse, 

sexual crimes, domestic violence, recent 

arrests for drug offenses, or other violent 

felonies shall disqualify the individual 

from taking custody of the child. 

4. If possible, a secondary caregiver should 

also be identified.

5. If the parent is unable or unwilling to 

identify a caregiver, and other suitable 

arrangements cannot be secured within 

a reasonable period of time, the child 

shall be taken into the custody of CWS or 

another authorized partner organization.
22 SAFEGUARDING CHILDREN OF ARRESTED PARENTS

E. Interacting with a Child

1. Where appropriate and safe, the parent 

should be given an opportunity to 

reassure the child and explain what is 

happening.

2. If the parent is unable to provide 

reassurance to the child, the officer shall 

provide an explanation to the child, in an 

age- and developmentally-appropriate 

manner. It should be emphasized that 

the child has done nothing wrong and 

will be safe.

3. When reasonably possible, the officer 

shall ask the parent about items or 

objects that provide particular comfort to 

the child, such as toys, clothing, blankets, 

photographs or food that can be taken 

with the child. 

4. The officer shall ask the parent about 

any medical, behavioral, or psychological 

conditions and/or required treatments 

of the child that would become the 

responsibility of a caregiver.

F. Booking

1. The booking officer shall ask the arrestee 

if he or she is responsible for a child. 

2. If the arrest creates an interruption in a 

child’s supervision and care, the arrestee 

shall be given reasonable opportunities 

to make alternative arrangements for 

such care if appropriate arrangements 

have not already been ensured by the 

arresting officer, other components of 

this department or through partner 

organizations.

3. The name, address, and phone number 

of the caregiver shall be entered into the 

booking record. 

G. Follow-Up

Follow-up should be performed wherever 

possible to ensure the continued safety and 

well-being of the child. The department 

liaison and/or the arresting officer shall work 

with partner organizations to determine the 

responsibility for and scope of follow-up.

H. Documentation

Whenever an arrest is made, the existence 

of a child, present or not, shall be noted in 

the arrest report and documentation shall 

include, at a minimum, 

1. the identity and biographical information 

of the child involved, whether or not he 

or she was present at the arrest;

2. any of the child’s special needs such as 

medical or mental health conditions, 

physical impairments or limitations, 

allergies, or developmental disorders;

3. the identities, addresses, and contact 

information for any actual or potential 

caregivers;

4. names and contact information of 

any representatives from partner 

organizations involved;

5. names and contact information of any 

adult contacted for notification purposes, 

such as school officials; 

6. the final placement determination for 

the child; and 

7. any information or observations that 

suggest the need for further investigation 

into the child’s living conditions 

and general well-being, such as any 

indications of a household in crisis.

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE

44 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 200 • Alexandria, VA 22314-2357

703-836-6767 800-THE-IACP FAX: 703-836-4543

www.TheIACP.org