Child Welfare and Healthy Marriage and Relationship Education:
A Research to Practice Brief
By: David Schramm, Ph.D., Extension Specialist, University of Missouri; Ted Futris, Ph.D.,
Extension Specialist, University of Georgia; and Renay Bradley, Ph.D., University of Georgia
Introduction
The goal of child welfare services is to “promote
the well-being of children by ensuring safety,
achieving permanency, and strengthening
families to care for their children successfully”
(Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2011a).
Many families enter the child welfare system
because of suspected instances of child abuse
or neglect. Child welfare professionals work to
examine those cases, support families that
need help caring for children, arrange for foster
care when needed (i.e., when a child’s safety is
jeopardized), and facilitate permanent, longterm
solutions for child placement (e.g.,
reunification with the biological family,
adoption). Child welfare services also provide
support for foster care youth (i.e., emerging
adults who age out of the system). As such,
child welfare professionals come into contact
with a variety of individuals and families,
including biological parents of children, their
extended families, foster and adopting families,
and exiting foster youth as they begin to
establish their own adult romantic relationships
(Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2011a).
Due to their immediate contact with this host of
individuals and family members, child welfare
professionals are in an ideal position to engage
in family strengthening efforts, including couple
and co-parenting relations between biological
and non-biological (e.g., kinship, step-, foster,
adoptive) parents. Such efforts can assist child
welfare professionals in reaching their goals of
helping families become stable and safe
havens that promote optimal child health and
well-being, which will ultimately lead to more
permanent placements.
The purpose of this brief is to provide a
summary of key research findings related to the
child welfare field and describe how
strengthening couple and co-parenting
relationships encourages family stability and
consequently child safety, permanence, and
well-being, and how integration of healthy
marriage and relationship education strategies
into child welfare services can contribute to this
effort.
Risk Factors and Child
Welfare Services
Compared to the general population, children
and adults involved with child welfare services
often exhibit more challenges to mental,
emotional, social, and economic well-being
(Leve, Fisher, & Chamberlain, 2009). For
example, parents involved with child welfare
services are more likely than the general
population to have experienced substance use
(Forrester, 2000), have been incarcerated
(Phillips & Dettlaff, 2009), and have histories of
abuse themselves (Kaufman & Zigler, 1993). In
addition, parents from “fragile families” (i.e.,
born to unwed parents/raised by a single
parent) are more likely to experience poor
quality intimate relationships (Waldfogel,
Craigie, & Brooks-Gunn, 2010). Poverty is
strongly associated with child maltreatment,
particularly child neglect (Brown, Cohen,
Johnson, & Salzinger, 1998; Office of Child
Abuse and Neglect & DePanfilis, 2006). Lowincome
parents tend to face increased
stressors and life challenges that make stable
couple relationships especially
1
Child Welfare and Healthy Marriage and Relationship Education:
A Research to Practice Brief
challenging. Such challenges and stressors
may include histories of prior abuse, low levels
of trust and commitment, and lack of healthy
relationship models Similarly, lower levels of
educational attainment, which are often found in
lower socioeconomic groups, are associated
with higher divorce rates, lower marital
satisfaction, and more accepting views of
divorce (Wilcox, 2010).
Child Welfare Services
In 2009, about 3.3 million referrals were made involving alleged maltreatment of
approximately 6 million children; over 700,000 referrals were substantiated cases.
78% of cases involved child neglect (i.e., inadequate child supervision; failure to
attend to the child’s physical, emotional, or educational needs; spousal abuse in the
child’s presence; parental drug or alcohol use that interferes with parenting abilities;
and inadequate medical care for the child);
18% involved physical abuse (i.e., inflicting injury on the child through behavior such
as kicking or burning);
10% involved sexual abuse (i.e., inappropriate sexual behavior with a child, such as
fondling); and
8% involved psychological abuse (i.e., conveying that a child is not wanted or
worthless, threatening a child).
In 2010, 400,000 children were in foster care.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2010)
Furthermore, low income blended or fragile
families are more likely to experience high
conflict within the household, which has the
potential to reduce the investment that nonresident
parents make in their children, diminish
the quality and quantity of parenting and
decrease the ability of non-resident parents to
contribute to their children financially
(McLanahan, 2009). Taken together,
characteristics of parents in the child welfare
system coupled with the stressors and life
challenges they often experience make it
difficult for them to develop and maintain a
healthy couple relationship that, in turn, creates
a stable, supportive and safe environment for
children.
Disproportionality and Access
to Services
Nationally, African American and Native
American children are disproportionately
represented in the child welfare system, with
certain states having particularly high
percentages of disproportionality. For example,
2% of all foster care children in the nation are
Native American, but in Hawaii, Minnesota, and
South Dakota more than 7% of each state’s
foster children are Native American (Child
Welfare Information Gateway, 2011b). Although
both groups are disproportionately poor and
poverty is strongly associated with incidences
of child maltreatment, poverty alone does not
explain the disproportionate representation
(Fluke, Harden, Jenkins & Ruehrdanz, 2010).
Scholars disagree as to which and how other
factors impact disproportionality in the child
welfare system, though they agree that there
are several that are interrelated (Fluke et al.,
2010).
2
Child Welfare and Healthy Marriage and Relationship Education:
A Research to Practice Brief
Chart 1: Race-Ethnicity of Children in Total Population vs. in Foster Care in 2008
Percentage of Total Child Population* Percentage of Children in Foster Care**
56%
1%
4%
14%
22%
2% 1%
31%
20%
40%
American Asian African-American Hispanic White, non-Hispanic
Indian/Alaskan
Native
Source: Child Welfare Information Gateway (2011b).
One such factor is family structure, which is
important to achieving a safe and stable home
environment. Single parenthood is a significant
risk factor for child maltreatment and children
are most at risk when their parent is living with,
but not married to a partner (Fluke et al., 2010;
Gillham et al., 1998; Sedlak & Broadhurst,
1996).
Despite documented disproportionality in child
welfare system involvement and disparities in
child welfare experiences, as well as benefits of
healthy relationships on child well-being
outcomes, economically disadvantaged and
minority groups often have limited access to
healthy marriage and relationship education
services (Halford, 2011). This is not due to lack
of interest; several researchers have found high
levels of interest across races and classes in
receiving such information and education
(Johnson et al., 2002; Karney et al., 2003;
Ooms & Wilson, 2004). Having child welfare
professionals offer healthy marriage and
relationship education services to families,
regardless of family structure or demographics,
provides another potential means of
strengthening families within the child welfare
system.
Healthy couple relations can
buffer the impact of financial
strain on children.
Economic stressors can contribute to
more negative parenting practices.
Healthy couple relationships can offset
the impact of financial strain on
negative child outcomes. This link has
been found across married, nonmarried,
and single-parent households
as well as across racial groups (see
Conger, Conger, & Martin, 2010).
* U.S. Census Bureau’s 2008 American Community Survey, which provides statistics on children and youth under 18 as one-year estimates.
** U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (2009) AFCARS data for FY 2008, which provides statistics on children and youth in the
child welfare system up to age 20 (although only 5% are 18+ years) on September 30, 2008.The two columns of percentages show the
disparity between each race’s representation in the general population vs. its representation in the foster care population. Note that this does
not show each group’s representation in the child welfare system as a whole, just representation in out-of-home care.
3
Child Welfare and Healthy Marriage and Relationship Education:
A Research to Practice Brief
Spillover effect of couple
relations on parenting.
When high amounts of stress are
present in couple and co-parenting
relationships, parents are more likely
to be overly punitive, harsh, or
hostile toward their children. Certain
negative emotional states can
increase parents’ likelihood of
abusing their child (Lundahl, Nimer,
& Parsons, 2006). In contrast,
positive and supportive couple and
co-parenting relationships are
associated with more positive
parental engagement (Carlson &
McLanahan, 2006).
Child Safety
Multiple studies have shown that unhealthy or
abusive relationships between parents and
romantic partners can be harmful to children’s
health, development, and safety (Gerard,
Krishnakumar, & Buehler, 2006; Taylor,
Guterman, Lee, & Rathouz, 2009). This
association has been found for both mothers
and fathers and in both marital and non-marital
relationships. The quality of dynamics between
parents can spill over into child functioning in a
variety of ways, prompting potentially adverse
and unsafe outcomes for children (Carlson &
McLanahan, 2006). For example, when couples
are violent toward one another, they are also
more likely to be violent and abusive toward
their children (Taylor, Guterman, Lee, &
Rathouz, 2009). Couples who experience high
levels of conflict may also be more likely to
display unhealthy parenting practices that can
be unsafe for children (Cowan & Cowan, 2002;
Lundahl, Nimer, & Parsons, 2006). Direct
experiences of violence or inadequate
parenting can have serious consequences for
children’s overall health and development
(Moylan et al., 2010). Being a witness to
violence or conflict between parents can
indirectly impact children (Moylan et al., 2010)
and exposure to violence in the home is
considered to be a form of neglect (Centers for
Disease Control, 2012). Neglectful families
often have problems interacting and
communicating in positive ways; family
members often experience less empathy, lack
emotional closeness, and have poor negotiation
skills (Office of Child Abuse and Neglect &
DePanfilis, 2006).
Child Permanency
The quality of parent-couples’ relationships
contributes to the overall stability of the family,
which can have consequences for all family
members, including children (Cummings &
Davies, 2002). Child welfare services strive to
arrange for alternate living arrangements for
children when there is an unsafe home
environment and to assist with reunification,
adoption, or other permanent family
connections for children leaving foster care. In
either case, families must be highly stable for
permanency to occur (Wulczyn, 2005).
Unfortunately, many forms of family instability
remain high or are on the rise (Lebow,
Chambers, Christensen, & Johnson, 2012),
which may hinder permanent placements. For
example, almost half of all first marriages end in
divorce (Raley & Bumpass, 2003; Tejada-Vera
& Sutton, 2010). Instances of couples who
choose to live together (i.e., cohabit) and not
marry have also increased in recent years;
cohabitors provide much less stable
environments for their children (Kline et al.,
2004). Additionally, approximately 40% of
children are now born to unwed parents,
whether they live together or not (Ventura,
2009), which can also impact children adversely
(Dunifon & Kowaleski-Jones, 2002). Thus,
strengthening parental relationships and
encouraging family stability may ultimately
promote child permanency.
4
Child Welfare and Healthy Marriage and Relationship Education:
A Research to Practice Brief
Foster and Adopting Parents
Also Need Support
Foster children often enter the home with a
number of emotional, behavioral, psychological,
and medical needs. Foster families must strive
to be warm and supportive despite these many
challenges (Orme & Buehler, 2001). Children’s
experiences in out-of-home placements can
either help or hinder their opportunity for
permanent placement. Ensuring that children
experience stability and achieve optimal
developmental outcomes involves placement
with foster parents who will protect and nurture
them (Harden,
2004). Upon entry
of a foster child
into a home, the
stress
experienced by
foster parents
may exacerbate
existing problems
between them or
heighten their risk
for conflict
(Buehler, Cox, &
Cuddeback,
2003). In addition,
the effects of
marital conflict on
foster children may be particularly detrimental
given the already unstable attachments and
dysfunctional home environments these foster
children have already experienced. In general,
the challenges associated with becoming a
foster family, including limited support from
child welfare agencies and caring for children
with complex issues, can leave foster parents
feeling overwhelmed and frustrated, causing
many to leave within their first year of service
(Chipungu & Bent-Goodley, 2004). Overall,
because relationship problems can have
adverse effects on children, consideration
needs to be given to couple functioning in foster
families (Harden, 2004; Lindsey, 2001).
Post-foster care adoption has witnessed a
dramatic increase over the last two decades as
a means of providing permanent placement for
children in the child welfare system. In 1995,
approximately 26,000 foster children were
adopted (Houston & Kramer, 2008), whereas
over 53,000 were adopted in 2010 (U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services,
2011). Adoptive families and adoptees vary
widely with respect to such characteristics as
nationality, age at adoption, developmental
capabilities, and past experiences of abuse and
neglect. Given this variability, the nature of
impact on a family from an adoption is difficult
to generalize, though certain trends do appear.
Overall, when
adopted children
have histories of
abuse and
neglect, adopting
families are likely
to encounter a
variety of
stressors that
contribute to
family discord
(Houston &
Kramer, 2008).
For instance,
adoptive parents
of special-needs
children experience higher than average levels
of stress and difficulty with family cohesion
(McGlone, Santos, Kazama, Fong, & Mueller,
2002). A successful transition for adoptive
parents is also heavily shaped by the degree of
informal and formal support received by the
adoptive individual or couple (Houston &
Kramer, 2008; Zosky, Howard, Smith, Howard,
& Shelvin, 2005). Strengthening the couple
relationship offers one additional means to
buffer against stressors experienced by
adoptive families and increase the likelihood of
adoption permanency.
Why is it important to prepare foster youth
who age out of the system for healthy
relationships?
These soon-to-be adults are at an increased risk for
harmful outcomes including homelessness, early
pregnancy, incarcerations, victimizations, and poverty
(Avery, 2010). Post-foster care adults who become
homeless are also more likely to have their own
children in foster care compared to homeless parents
who did not (Roman & Wolfe, 1995). In addition,
foster care alumni report feelings of isolation and
loneliness following their exit, with an absence of
caring, stable relationships (Geenen & Power, 2007).
5
Child Welfare and Healthy Marriage and Relationship Education:
A Research to Practice Brief
Providing Support for Parents
Also Provides Support for
Children
Estimates suggest that 7% of all children will
have some involvement in the child welfare
system during their lifetimes (Barth et al., 2005).
As such, child welfare service agencies are
highly involved in the lives of millions of
individuals and families across the nation,
including biological, kinship, foster, and
adoptive families. Child welfare professionals
promote the well-being of children by ensuring
safety, achieving permanency, and
strengthening families so that they may care for
children successfully (Child Welfare Information
Gateway, 2011a). Improving long-term
outcomes for children in the child welfare
system seems difficult to accomplish without
strengthening relationships among parents and
caregivers.
Children living in a household in which the
parental relationship is marked by high support
for partners and low parental conflict are at less
risk for a variety of undesirable outcomes
(Cowan & Cowan, 2002). Exposure to parental
conflict has been associated with both
externalizing (e.g., conduct disorder,
aggression, antisocial behavior) and
internalizing (e.g., depression, anxiety)
problems among children (Grych & Fincham,
1990). Beyond exposure to conflict, having
parents know how to manage conflict
appropriately appears highly important to how
children are impacted by it. When parents
employ more constructive strategies to manage
conflict, children demonstrate more pro-social
behaviors (McCoy, Cummings, & Davies, 2009)
and less aggressive tendencies (Cummings,
Goeke-Morey, & Papp, 2004) over time.
Connections between parental conflict and child
outcomes may also be partially due to poor
parenting practices that are often the result of
couple conflict (Krishnakumar & Buehler, 2000).
Child welfare professionals can work to
encourage child safety and well-being by
providing holistic support that includes
strengthening parents’ couple and co-parenting
relationships. By helping couples and coparents
learn how to strengthen their
relationships, manage conflict, and jointly
navigate parental responsibilities, child welfare
professionals can increase family stability and
reduce levels of risk to which children are
exposed. Such efforts may ultimately lead to a
reduction in the number of children that are
placed outside of the home due to parent-based
risk factors (e.g., domestic violence, substance
abuse). Improvements in family stability may
also lead to earlier reunification and placement
permanency.
Child Welfare Services and
Family Life Education
The primary objective of family life education,
defined as “the educational effort to strengthen
individual and family life through a family
perspective” (National Council on Family
Relations, 2012) is to enrich and improve the
quality of individual and family life. As noted
previously, with a primary focus on children,
child welfare services has a similar objective.
Historically, there have been many efforts within
the child welfare system to develop and deliver
a variety of services, including voluntary or
mandated parent training. Parent-training
programs have been referred to as a “linchpin
of governmental responsibility…to provide
reasonable efforts to preserve, maintain, or
reunify families who become involved with child
welfare services” (Barth et al., 2005). In
previous decades, these services included
homemaker sessions where economic skills
and parenting assistance were provided
(Hutchinson & Sudia, 2002). Some agencies
expanded their parenting programs to include
training associated with money management,
health, safety training, job finding, and
6
Child Welfare and Healthy Marriage and Relationship Education:
A Research to Practice Brief
overcoming addictions (Lutzker, Bigelow,
Doctor, & Kessler, 1998).
In addition to parenting education and other
services focused on family reunification, child
welfare service agencies also offer programs
for youth aging out of foster care. These
independent living programs provide services
that focus on teaching discrete and concrete
skills with the overarching goal to prepare older
foster youth to be self-sufficient when they
leave foster care (Lemon, Hines, & Merdinger,
2005). Skills such as money management,
housekeeping, nutrition, postsecondary
education preparation, job readiness and
retention, and transitional living arrangements
are frequently taught (U.S. General Accounting
Office, 1999). To date, however, there has been
little to no focus on relationship education.
Integrating Healthy Marriage
and Relationship Education
into Child Welfare
Despite the established role that a parent’s
relationships play in children’s welfare, child
welfare professionals often focus on
interventions that only contribute distally to
relationship functioning. Shifting to a more
direct focus on improving relationship skills, as
a holistic approach to strengthening families,
may have positive impacts on adults and
children alike. Child welfare professionals
cannot be expected to focus on relationship
education without proper training. Arming child
welfare professionals with the skills and
resources needed to provide relationship
education to the families they serve is a critical
step toward improving child health and safety.
Programs that teach healthy marriage and
relationship skills include structured education
to individuals and couples about relationship
knowledge, principles, and skills. Similarly
structured educational programs exist for a
variety of other family issues, including
parenting, nutrition, finances, and divorce. As
previously noted, parenting education is
frequently advocated and utilized in child
welfare services as the primary intervention to
preserve or reunify families (Barth et al., 2005),
yet there is little focus on relationships outside
the primary parent-child relationship.
Misconceptions related to
healthy marriage and
relationship education.
The purpose of healthy marriage and
relationship education is not to drive
people to marriage; rather, the aim is to
support individuals in developing
healthy romantic relationships
(regardless of marital status) and help
those who choose marriage to reach
their goal of a lasting, stable, mutually
satisfying marriage.
Healthy marriage and relationship education is
part of a holistic approach to preserving and
reunifying families. However, there are some
common misconceptions related to healthy
marriage and relationship education. To begin,
healthy marriage and relationship education is
explicitly distinct from couples counseling or
therapy. Whereas couple therapy is more
specific to the individual or couple and focuses
on improving particular problems that are often
serious, healthy marriage and relationship
education is a type of family life education that
focuses on increasing individual and couple
understanding of relationship principles and
skills by sharing information, tools, and
strategies (Myers-Walls, Ballard, Darling, &
Myers-Bowman, 2011).
More specifically, the focus of healthy marriage
and relationship education is not advocating
that people ‘get married,’ rather, the aim is:
To assist individuals in developing
healthy romantic relationships
(regardless of marital status), which
includes making active choices about
7
Child Welfare and Healthy Marriage and Relationship Education:
A Research to Practice Brief
relational commitment and encouraging
the safe dissolution of dangerous,
violent relationships; and
To help those who choose marriage to
reach their goal of a lasting, stable,
mutually satisfying marriage (Ooms,
2005).
Thus, programs and services designed to teach
healthy marriage and relationship skills aim to
equip individuals and couples with resources
and skills (e.g., positive communication and
conflict management) that can facilitate the
development and maintenance of healthy and
safe couple and marital relationships (Halford,
Markman, Kline, &
Stanley, 2003). Such
information and
behaviors can then,
in turn, help parents
work together to
meet their children’s
needs, protect them
from harm, and
provide stability and
permanency in their
lives. As noted
earlier, the need for
healthy marriage and
relationship
education services
may be greatest among low-income
populations, as such groups often have limited
access to such services (Halford, Markman, &
Stanley, 2008) and are at high risk for
relationship instability (Cherlin, 2005).
Regarding the effectiveness of healthy marriage
and relationship education, comprehensive
reviews of such programs show improvements
in both communication skills and relationship
quality among general and low-income
populations (Hawkins et al., 2008; Hawkins &
Fackrell, 2010). For example, programs
targeting unwed single parents have
demonstrated positive program impacts,
including helping parents learn skills that are
conducive to establishing and maintaining
healthy relationships (e.g., listening, anger
management, acceptance of criticism) (Cox &
Shirer, 2009). In addition, intervention services
that combine relationship and parenting
education have been shown to result in more
positive relationship and parenting behaviors
and higher levels of father engagement than
parenting education services alone (Cowan,
Cowan, Pruett, Pruett, & Wong, 2009). Thus,
through participation in healthy marriage and
relationship education services, individuals and
couples can demonstrate attitudinal and
behavioral changes associated with improved
relationship and parenting quality.
Child welfare professionals experience heavy
demands as they work with full caseloads,
which often limit the amount of time they have
with each family. Child welfare professionals
may find shorter tools more useful, and select
them based on what the parents want or need
at the time. The Merging Marriage and
Relationship Education into Child Welfare
Services tip sheet (available at
www.HealthyMarriageandFamilies.org)
provides lessons learned and strategies for
incorporating healthy marriage and
relationship education into child welfare
services
To date, there have
been few efforts to
integrate healthy
marriage and
relationship
education into child
welfare services.
There is some
evidence, however,
that individuals,
foster youth, and
families in the child
welfare system may
be open to receiving
healthy marriage and
relationship
education training (Antle, Johnson, Barbee, &
Sullivan, 2009; Antle, Frey, Sar, Barbee, & van
Zyl, 2010) and adoptive parents have also
expressed interest (Mooradian, Hock, Jackson,
& Timm, 2011). In recent years, grantees have
worked to develop curricula, tools, and training
for child welfare professionals so that they can
have the background knowledge and skills to
provide basic healthy marriage and relationship
education to families. In this way, educating
child welfare professionals on the value of
healthy marriage education and strategies to
address the topic with families they serve can
be incorporated into their body of knowledge
and skills.
8
Child Welfare and Healthy Marriage and Relationship Education:
A Research to Practice Brief
Conclusion
The impact of couple and co-parenting
relationship problems on the well-being of
adults and children has received increasing
recognition by federal and state government
services (Halford, Markman, & Stanley, 2008;
Hawkins et al., 2008). As outlined in this review,
children whose parents have healthy
relationships—whether married or nonmarried—are
at less risk for abuse, experience
greater stability, and fare better on a broad
range of child outcomes. The promotion of a
safe and supportive home environment for a
child is inextricably linked to creating a safe and
supportive couple and co-parenting relationship
between parents. Healthy marriage and
relationship education offers a direct means for
creating this safe and supportive family
environment. Thus, incorporating healthy
marriage and relationship education into child
welfare services could be viewed as adding a
“tool” to their existing toolbox of knowledge and
skills, which can be used to help individuals or
couples when needed. Though clearly not a
cure-all, healthy marriage and relationship
education represents an underutilized resource
within child welfare that, if appropriately and
effectively implemented, can strengthen
families and help ensure the safety,
permanency, and well-being of children in the
child welfare system.
Healthy marriages matter.
When adults have more supportive and
less conflicted couple and co-parenting
relationships, the entire family system
is equipped to better handle stressors
in their lives, which helps to maintain
family cohesion and child safety and
permanency.
Integrating healthy marriage and
relationship education into child
welfare services—tips for child
welfare professionals.
The following is a sample of ideas for how child
welfare professionals can teach clients healthy
relationship skills within their current work roles.
This model was used to develop the Healthy
Relationship and Marriage Education Training
curriculum for child welfare professionals,
funded by the Administration for Children,
Youth, and Families, Children’s Bureau (Grant
90CT0151). The goal of this project was to
meet the safety, permanency, and well-being
needs of vulnerable children in the child welfare
system by increasing child welfare workers’
access to and implementation of relationship
and marriage education.
Care for Self: Encourage clients to
identify the stressors in their lives and
consider how they typically cope with
those stressors. Are any of the coping
mechanisms unhealthy? Ask what the
children see and learn when the client
takes care of his or her own health, such
as with exercise and healthy food. Help
the client to identify small steps toward
improved health, such as budgeting and
cooking meals and walking or running
routinely.
Choose: Consider asking clients to
identify barriers or obstacles that
prevent them from establishing or
maintaining healthy relationships. How
can they make a conscious effort to
overcome those obstacles?
Know: Encourage single parents and
youth to move slowly into new
relationships as they get to know new
9
Child Welfare and Healthy Marriage and Relationship Education:
A Research to Practice Brief
partners. Help them explore important
things to learn about new partners and
the influence of their relationship
choices on their children’s safety and
well-being.
Care: Ask caregivers to share happy
memories of time spent with their
partners, families, or foster children. Ask
them to describe why the experience
was positive and what their partners did
to contribute to it.
Share: Ask clients to describe a close
friendship and what that relationship is
like (e.g., What made you want to be
friends with the person to begin with?
Why do you remain friends with that
person? What have you done together
that has made you closer and
strengthened the friendship?). After
hearing about the friendship, ask the
client how they incorporate – or could
incorporate – those same
characteristics/factors into their romantic
relationship.
Manage: Help to normalize low levels of
conflict by telling clients that all couples
argue—and that it is how they argue
that is important and contributes to
relationship satisfaction. Just knowing
that all couples face similar challenges
can help partners feel better about their
situations and feel like the issues they
face are not insurmountable.
Connect: Families live within the
context of a larger community of
relationships. Help clients identify
meaningful connections in their lives,
including friends, family and community
members, for support in managing their
challenges and supporting their goals.
Strong relationships with others can
form a collective “safety net” for
individuals and families.
References

Antle, B. F., Frey, S. E., Sar, B. K., Barbee, A. P., & van Zyl, M. A.
(2010). Training the child welfare workforce in healthy couple
relationships: An examination of attitudes and outcomes.
Children and Youth Services Review, 32(2), 223-230.
Antle, B. F., Johnson, L., Barbee, A., & Sullivan, D. (2009).
Fostering interdependent versus independent living in youth
aging out of care through healthy relationships. Families in
Society, 90(3), 309-315.
Avery, R. J. (2010). An examination of theory and promising
practice for achieving permanency for teens before they age
out of foster care. Children and Youth Services Review,
32(3), 399-408.
Barth, R. P., Landsverk, J., Chamberlain, P., Reid, J. B., Rolls, J.
A., Hurlbury, M. S., & Kohl, P. L. (2005). Parent-training
programs in child welfare services: Planning for a more
evidence-based approach to serving biological parents.
Research on Social Work Practice, 15(5), 353-371.
Brown, J., Cohen, P., Johnson, J. G., & Salzinger, S. (1998). A
longitudinal analysis of risk factors for child maltreatment:
Findings of a 17-year prospective study of officially recorded
and self-reported child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 22(11), 1065-1078.
Buehler, C., Cox, M. E., & Cuddeback, G. (2003). Foster parents’
perceptions of factors that promote or inhibit successful
fostering. Qualitative Social Work, 2(1), 61-83.
Carlson, M. J., & McLanahan, S. S. (2006). Strengthening
unmarried families: Could enhancing couple relationships
also improve parenting? Social Service Review, 80(2), 297-
321.
Cherlin, A. J. (2005). American marriage in the early twenty-first
century. The Future of Children, 15(2), 33-55.
Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2011a). How the child
welfare system works. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Child Welfare Information Gateway (2011b). Addressing racial
disproportionality in child welfare. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Chipungu, S., & Bent-Goodley, T. B. (2004). Meeting the
challenges of contemporary foster care. The Future of
Children, 14(1), 74-93.
Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., & Martin, M. J. (2010).
Socioeconomic status, family processes, and individual
development. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 685-
704.
Cowan, P. A., & Cowan, C. P. (2002). Interventions as tests of
family systems theories: Marital and family relationships in
children’s development and psychopathology. Development
and Psychopathology, 14(4), 731-759
Cowan, P. A., Cowan, C. P., Pruett, M. K., Pruett, K., & Wong, J.
J. (2009). Promoting fathers’ engagement with children:
Preventive interventions for low-income families. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 71(3), 663-679.
Cox, R. B., & Shirer, K. A. (2009). Caring for my family: A pilot
study of a relationship and marriage education program for
low-income unmarried parents. Journal of Couple &
Relationship Therapy, 8(4), 343-364.
Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. T. (2002). Effects of marital
conflict on children: Recent advances and emerging themes
in process-oriented research. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 43(1), 31-63.
10
Child Welfare and Healthy Marriage and Relationship Education:
A Research to Practice Brief
Cummings, E.M., Goeke-Morey, M. C., & Papp, L. M. (2004).
Everyday marital conflict and child aggression. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 32(2), 191-202.
Dion, M. R. (2005). Healthy marriage programs: Learning what
works. The Future of Children, 15(2), 139-156.
Dunifon, R., & Kowaleski-Jones, L. (2002). Who's in the house?
Race differences in cohabitation, single parenthood, and
child development. Child Development, 73(4), 1249-1264.
Fluke, J., Harden, B.J., Jenkins, M. & Ruehrdanz, A. (2010,
September). Research synthesis on child welfare
disproportionality and disparities. In Alliance for Racial
Equity in Child Welfare (2011, December). Disparities and
Disproportionality in Child Welfare: Analysis of the Research
(papers for a research symposium).
Forrester, D. (2000). Parental substance misuse and child
protection in a British sample: A survey of children on the
Child Protection Register in an inner London district office.
Child Abuse Review, 9(4), 235-246.
Geenen, S., & Powers, L. E. (2007). Tomorrow is another
problem: The experiences of youth in foster care during their
transition into adulthood. Children and Youth Services
Review, 29(8), 1085-1101.
Gerard, J. M., Krishnakumar, A., & Buehler, C. (2006). Marital
conflict, parent-child relations, and youth maladjustment: A
longitudinal investigation of spillover effects. Journal of
Family Issues, 27(7), 951-975.
Gillham, B., Tanner, G., Cheyne, B., Freeman, I., Rooney, M., &
Lambie, A. (1998). Unemployment rates, single parent
density, and indices of child poverty: Their relationship to
different categories of child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse
& Neglect, 22(2), 79-90.
Grych, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Marital conflict and
children's adjustment: A cognitive-contextual framework.
Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 267-290.
Halford, W. K., Markman, H. J., Kline, G. H., & Stanley, S. M.
(2003). Best practice in couple relationship education.
Journal of Marital & Family Therapy, 29(3), 385-406.
Halford, W. K., Markman, H. J., & Stanley, S. (2008).
Strengthening couples' relationships with education: Social
policy and public health perspectives. Journal of Family
Psychology, 22(4), 497-505.
Harden, B. J. (2004). Safety and stability for foster children: A
developmental perspective. The Future of Children, 14(1),
31-47.
Hawkins, A. J., Blanchard, V. L., Baldwin, S. A., & Fawcett, E. B.
(2008). Does marriage and relationship education work? A
meta-analytic study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 76(5), 723-734.
Hawkins, A. J., & Fackrell, T. A. (2010). Does relationship and
marriage education for lower-income couples work? A metaanalytic
study of emerging research. Journal of Couple &
Relationship Therapy, 9(2), 181-191.
Houston, D. M., & Kramer, L. (2008). Meeting the long-term
needs of families who adopt children out of foster care: A
three-year follow-up study. Child Welfare, 87(4), 145-170.
Hutchinson, J. R., & Sudia, C. E. (2002). Failed child welfare
policy: Family preservation and the orphaning of child
welfare. New York, NY: University Press of America
Kaufman, J. & Zigler, E. (1993). The intergenerational
transmission of abuse is overstated. In R.J. Gelles & D. R.
Loseke (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Kline, G. H., Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., Olmos-Gallo, P. A.,
St. Peters, M., Whitton, S. W., & Prado, L. M. (2004). Timing
is everything: Pre-engagement cohabitation and increased
risk for poor marital outcomes. Journal of Family
Psychology, 18(2), 311-318.
Krishnakumar, A., & Buehler, C. (2000). Interparental conflict and
parenting behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Family
Relations, 49(1), 25-44.
Lebow, J. L., Chambers, A. L., Christensen, A., & Johnson, S. M.
(2012). Research on the treatment of couple distress.
Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 38(1), 145–168.
Lemon, K., Hines, A. M., & Merdinger, J. (2005). From foster care
to young adulthood: The role of independent living programs
in supporting successful transitions. Children and Youth
Services Review, 27(3), 251-270.
Leve, L. D., Fisher, P. A., & Chamberlain, P. (2009).
Multidimensional treatment foster care as a preventive
intervention to promote resiliency among youth in the child
welfare system. Journal of Personality, 77(6), 1869-1902.
Lindsey, E. W. (2001). Foster family characteristics and
behavioral and emotional problems of foster children:
Practice implications for child welfare, family life education,
and marriage and family therapy. Family Relations, 50(1),
19-22.
Lundahl, B. W., Nimer, J., & Parsons, B. (2006). Preventing child
abuse: A meta-analysis of parent training programs.
Research on Social Work Practice, 16(3), 251-262.
Lutzker, J. R., Bigelow, K. M., Doctor, R. M., & Kessler, M. L.
(1998). Safety, health care, and bonding within an
ecobehavioral approach to treating and preventing child
abuse and neglect. Journal of Family Violence, 13(2), 163-
185.
McCoy, K., Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. T. (2009).
Constructive and destructive marital conflict, emotional
security and children's prosocial behavior. Journal Of Child
Psychology And Psychiatry, And Allied Disciplines, 50(3),
270-279.
McGlone, K., Santos, L., Kazama, L., Fong, R., & Mueller, C.
(2002). Psychological stress in adoptive parents of specialneeds
children. Child Welfare, 81(2), 151-171.
McLanahan, S. (2009). Fragile families and the reproduction of
poverty. The Annals of the American Academy of Political
and Social Science, 621(1), 111-131.
Mooradian, J. K., Hock, R. M., Jackson, R. & Timm, T. M. (2011).
What couples who adopt children from child welfare want
professionals to know about supporting their marriages.
Families in Society, 92(4), 390-396.
Moylan, C. A., Herrenkohl, T. I., Sousa, C., Tajima, E. A.,
Herrenkohl, R. C., & Russo, M. J. (2010). The effects of child
abuse and exposure to domestic violence on adolescent
internalizing and externalizing behavior problems. Journal of
Family Violence, 25(1), 53-63.
Myers-Walls, J. A., Ballard, S. M., Darling, C. A., & MyersBowman,
K. S. (2011). Reconceptualizing the domain and
boundaries of family life education. Family Relations, 60(4),
357-372.
National Council on Family Relations. (2012). What is family life
education? Retrieved from http://www.ncfr.org/cfle-
certification/what-family-life-education.
Office of Child Abuse and Neglect, Children’s Bureau &
DePanfilis, D. (2006). Child neglect: A guide for prevention,
assessment and intervention. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
11
Child Welfare and Healthy Marriage and Relationship Education:
A Research to Practice Brief
Ooms, T. (2005). The new kid on the block: What is marriage
education and does it work? (Couples and Marriage Policy
Brief No. 7). Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social
Policy.
Ooms, T. & Wilson, P. (2004). The challenges of offering
relationship and marriage education to low-income
populations. Family Relations, 53(5), 440-447.
Orme, J. G. & Buehler, C. (2001). Foster family characteristics
and behavioral and emotional problems of foster children: A
narrative review. Family Relations, 50(1), 3-15.
Phillips, S. D. & Dettlaff, A. J. (2009). More than parents in prison:
The broader overlap between the criminal justice and child
welfare systems. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 3(1), 3-22.
Raley, R. K. & Bumpass, L. L. (2003). The topography of the
divorce plateau: Levels and trends in union stability in the
United States after 1980. Demographic Research, 8, 245-
260.
Roman, N. P., & Wolfe, P. (1995). Web of failure: The relationship
between foster care & homelessness. Washington, DC:
National Alliance to End Homelessness.
Sedlak, A. J. & Broadhurst, D. D. (1996). Third national incidence
study of child abuse and neglect (NIS-3). Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families, Administration on
Children, Youth and Families, National Center on Child
Abuse and Neglect.
Stokes, J. & Schmidt, G. (2011). Race, poverty and child
protection decision making. British Journal of Social Work,
41(6), 1105-1121.
Taylor, C. A., Guterman, N. B., Lee, S. J., & Rathouz, P. J.
(2009). Intimate partner violence, maternal stress, nativity,
and risk for maternal maltreatment of young children.
American Journal of Public Health, 99(1), 175-183.
Tejada-Vera, B., & Sutton, P. D. (2010). Births, marriages,
divorces, and deaths: Provisional data for 2009. National
Vital Statistics Reports, 58(25). Hyattsville, MD: National
Center for Health Statistics.
U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2012). Injury
Center: Violence Prevention. 10. Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/childmaltreatment/de
finitions.html.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration
for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth
and Families, Children’s Bureau. (2010). Child maltreatment.
Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration
for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth
and Families, Children’s Bureau. (2011). Child Maltreatment
2010. Retrieved from
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/index.ht
m#can.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2011). Adoption
and Foster Care Analysis Reporting System: FY 2010
Estimates (Report 18). Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury
Prevention and Control, Division of Violence Prevention.
(2012). Child maltreatment: Definitions. Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/childmaltreatment/de
finitions.html.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1999). Foster care:
Effectiveness of independent living program ervices
unknown (Report No. GAO/HEHS-00-13). Washington, DC:
Author.
Ventura, S. J. (2009). Changing patterns of nonmarital
childbearing in the United States (NCHS Data Brief No. 18).
Hyattsville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
National Center for Health Statistics.
Waldfogel, J., Craigie, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2010). Fragile
families and child well-being. The Future of Children, 20(2),
87-112.
Wilcox, W. B. (2010). When marriage disappears: The new
middle America. Charlottesville, VA: National Marriage
Project/Institute for American Values.
Wulczyn, F., Barth, R. P., Yuan, Y. T., Jones-Harden, B. &
Landsverk, J. (2005). Beyond common sense: Child welfare,
child well-being, and the evidence for policy reform. New
York, NY: Aldine De Gruyter.
Ybarra, G. J., Wilkens, S. L., & Lieberman, A. F. (2007). The
influence of domestic violence on preschooler behavior and
functioning. Journal of Family Violence, 22(1), 33-42.
Zosky, D. L., Howard, J. A., Smith, S. L., Howard, A. M., &
Shelvin, K. H. (2005). Investing in adoptive families: What
adoptive families tell us regarding the benefits of adoption
preservation services. Adoption Quarterly, 8(3), 1-23.
Used our Product?
Please tell us how. Email:
info@HealthyMarriageandFamilies.org
Reference Product #035
www.HealthyMarriageandFamilies.org
This product was produced by ICF International with funding provided by the United States Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families, Grant: 90FH0002. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this
material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families.
12