Regulating the Mind: Constructing, Performing, & Mandating “Insight” in Child Protection Cases

Abstract

The concept of “insight” plays a critical role in child protection court decisions yet remains poorly defined and potentially problematic. Through critical discourse analysis of case files from one African American mother's four-year fight to regain custody of her infant son, this study examines how insight functions as a discursive practice to reproduce systems of power and control. Using Gee's (2014) analytical framework, we show how insight operates as a mechanism of state control by demanding specific performances of compliance and contrition. Our analysis reveals how the insight discourse is deployed without clear definition to both justify child removal and determine reunification criteria, while systematically delegitimizing parental perspectives that diverge from those of state authorities. We argue that by requiring mothers – particularly mothers of color – to demonstrate insight through acceptance of state narratives, the system maintains authority while obscuring racial and class-based assumptions underlying judgments of parental fitness. This study raises legal and ethical concerns regarding how parental capacity is evaluated in child protection proceedings.