Overview:

Disabled parents face systemic discrimination in child custody cases, despite ADA protections.
Unjust family separations are driven by family court bias and historical eugenics.
Vague state laws and hypothetical situations fuel custody discrimination and results.
Parental rights advocacy, legal reform, and education are outlined for changing systemic ADA discrimination against disabled parents.

Summary: Disabled Parents' Rights: Exposing Child Custody Discrimination
Introduction
Exposing Prevalent Discrimination: The Reality for Disabled Parents
Case Studies of Injustice: Alice Goltz and Sarah Gordon
Revealing Shocking Statistics: The Scale of Custody Discrimination
Background: The Dark Legacy: Eugenics and Modern Custody Bias
ASFA's Impact: How Timelines Disadvantage Disabled Parents
Legal Precedents: Exposing Misuse of "Best Interest"
Unveiling State Law Disparities: A Patchwork of Discrimination
State Law Disparities: A Comparison
ADA Failures Exposed: Legal Barriers in Family Courts
Advocating for Change: Action Steps for Parents and Allies
Additional Resources
References

Introduction

Growing up, I never thought I could be a blind parent. How would that work? How could I keep my child safe? When I was 14, I went to a conference in Baltimore that changed my life. For the first time, I met blind parents and blind grandparents. New possibilities sprouted in my mind. Three years later, I heard my first story of a blind parent losing custody of their child due to social workers and the courts seeing blindness as a negative, defining characteristic.

Unfortunately, parents with disabilities, not just blind parents, in the United States today face systemic discrimination from social services, healthcare workers, and the courts regarding their fitness to parent. With congressionally funded programs teaching children and adults with disabilities independent living skills and providing vocational rehabilitation services, have they never considered how a disabled person could become a parent? Or when they do, how would a disabled person parent a child?

Despite federal protections under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, family courts often make custody decisions based on bias rather than a parent's actual ability to care for their child. This post explores real cases, systemic barriers, and the legal protections that should—but often don't—prevent discrimination against disabled parents.

Exposing Prevalent Discrimination: The Reality for Disabled Parents

If surveys were conducted and respondents were honest, I imagine more people than not would struggle to accept that a blind couple can be good parents. What the survey says would not improve if the questions were around a single blind parent.

In the United States, the question for the courts, however, is not whether someone can be a perfect parent. If this were the barometer for parental fitness, everyone would lose custody of their children.

The real question is this. Is an individual a fit parent? And if so, is it in the child's best interest to remain in their custody?

In other words, are the courts using logic and reason to determine if an individual is unfit as a parent, regardless of their disability? Or are they using unconscious bias to judge individuals as unfit parents because of their disability?

Case Studies of Injustice: Alice Goltz and Sarah Gordon

Alice Goltz's daughter was born in the early spring of 2007.

Alice has fragile X syndrome, resulting in a 'mild cognitive disability' and dystonia, causing her arms to tremor when under stress.

Shortly thereafter, a nurse reported to the Vermont Department of Children and Families, raising concerns about her ability to parent. She underwent multiple assessments to determine her fitness. At one of the last assessments, she "was required to walk up a metal staircase while carrying her daughter. During this exercise, Alice's arms tremored, which, according to the evaluator, proved that Alice could not care for her daughter. She ultimately lost custody. She did not drop her daughter. She did not make any grave error in judgment. Her arms trembled, and that became the justification to take her daughter away.

In 2012, Sarah Gordon's child was taken away two days after her birth because the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families assumed that "Ms. Gordon was unable to learn how to safely care for her daughter because of her disability and [denied] her the opportunity to receive meaningful assistance from her mother and other service providers during visits." Fortunately, she and her child were reunited.

Revealing Shocking Statistics: The Scale of Custody Discrimination

In a 2012 report entitled Rocking the Cradle, the National Council on Disability outlined many troubling statistics.

Parents with an intellectual or psychiatric disability experience a removal rate between 40-80 percent.
Around 13 percent of parents with physical disabilities report discrimination in custody cases.
"Parents who are deaf or blind report extremely high rates of child removal and loss of parental rights."

The article Legal Ableism by ROBYN M. POWELL goes much deeper into the systemic discrimination faced by parents with various disabilities... To capture some of the statistics here:

"Forty-two states and the District of Columbia include parental disability as grounds for termination of parental rights in their laws."
"Among 2,064 appellate cases involving mothers with disabilities, ninety-three percent resulted in the termination of their parental rights."
"19 percent of all children were placed in foster care partly due to parental disability."
"Children of disabled parents were more likely than children of parents without disabilities to be placed in the foster care system with non-relatives and to have a case plan goal of long-term foster care."

Where did the systemic discrimination against disabled parents come from?

Background: The Dark Legacy: Eugenics and Modern Custody Bias

The eugenics movement justified the forced sterilization of disabled individuals under the belief that they were unfit to reproduce. This movement arose in the late 1800s and truly took off in the twentieth century.

In the famous 1927 Supreme Court decision Buck v. Bell, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote that "It is better for all the world if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind… Three generations of imbeciles are enough." ⁱⁱⁱ

Who were these parents? Though we cannot say for certain that all parties agreed on the definition of those "manifestly unfit from continuing their kind," the way the law was applied reveals all.

Scholars estimate that "an estimated 70,000 Americans, many of whom were disabled, poor, or people of color, were subjected to forced sterilization," before the end of the twentieth century. ^iv While these practices have been outlawed, their legacy lingers in modern custody cases where disability is still seen as a parental deficit.

A blind father holds his sleeping baby, who appears to be smiling, while the mother stands behind them, smiling warmly.

ASFA's Impact: How Timelines Disadvantage Disabled Parents

In 1997, Congress passed the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA). States were concerned that states were too ready to return children to unsafe parents and "sought to permit states to modify their practices to move more efficiently toward terminating parental rights and placing children for adoption."

The law says that "states must make 'reasonable efforts' to preserve a family before they remove a child and place him or her in an out-of-home placement and to reunify a family if a child has already been removed." However, the same law gives states permission to determine when reasonable efforts are not required. It also introduced "strict timelines for children separated from their parents to be either reunified or placed in new homes, which "can have a disproportionate impact on parents with ID who may require additional time to learn and process information, or additional services that take additional time and attention to procure." ^v

Legal Precedents: Exposing Misuse of "Best Interest"

In the following years, three Supreme Court cases attempted to clarify the law.

In Stanley v. Illinois, the courts declared that states must determine actual unfitness.
In Santosky v. Kramer, SCOTUS ruled that they must "prove parental unfitness by clear and convincing evidence to terminate parental rights."
In Quilloin v. Walcott, the justices ruled that "a state may not permanently separate the ties between a father and his child based solely on a finding that terminating parental rights was in the child's best interest."

Boiled down, according to the Supreme Court, before any child can be legally removed from any parent's home, a parent must be proven to be unfit and that it is in the child's best interest to be removed.

The "best interest of the child" standard is a foundational principle in family law, but it is frequently misused when evaluating disabled parents. Instead of focusing on actual harm or a parent's ability to provide care, courts often rely on hypothetical concerns about what a parent "might" struggle with due to their disability. This creates a legal loophole where discrimination can be justified under the guise of child protection.

The blind parent may not see a train or a car coming. If they cannot see said impeding train or car, how can they parent a child?

Unveiling State Law Disparities: A Patchwork of Discrimination

Different states have varying definitions of parental disability, criteria for termination of parental rights, and levels of ADA compliance. Although the differences appear marginal, they create confusion for parents with disabilities and legal advocates, reinforcing systemic barriers. Below is a comparative table highlighting the disparities:

State	Definition of Parental Disability	Grounds for Termination	ADA Compliance
Oregon	Must be able to provide suitable care	Parental disability alone cannot be grounds for termination; a direct link between the disability and harm to the child must be established.	ADA definition of disability
South Carolina	Minimal care	Physical disability can be sole grounds for termination, even without evidence of abuse or neglect.
Massachusetts	Minimal care	Recent changes remove disability as sole grounds for termination; courts must consider how adaptive equipment or supports can assist parents with disabilities.
Mississippi	Minimal care	Physical disability can be sole grounds for termination, even without evidence of abuse or neglect.
Oklahoma	Applies to those with severe disabilities, potential future scenarios as evidence	Physical disability can be sole grounds for termination, even without evidence of abuse or neglect.	Severity determination arbitrary
Alaska	Emotional disturbance	Mental illness, serious emotional disturbance, or mental deficiency that places the child at substantial risk of physical harm or mental injury.	Vague term, usually applies to children
New York	One court-appointed psychiatrist or psychologist needs to testify	Termination can occur if a parent has a mental illness or intellectual disability that impairs their ability to care for the child, as testified by a court-appointed expert.	No expert specialization required
California	Child can be removed if the parent or guardian will remain disabled	Disability that renders the parent unable to care for and control the child, with reasonable efforts made to assist the parent.	Non-compliant
Vermont	Termination of parental rights proceeding must focus on the 'welfare of the child' rather than question whether the parents' treatment was 'consistent with the requirements of the ADA.'	Disability can be considered in termination proceedings if it affects the parent's ability to care for the child.	Non-compliant
Tennessee	Permits it if the courts deem it 'unlikely that the parent or guardian will be able to assume or resume the care of and responsibility for the child in the near future.'	Mental incompetence or impairment that prevents the parent from adequately providing for the child, and the condition is expected to persist.
Connecticut	Predictive neglect	Parental acts of commission or omission, including physical or mental disability, deny the child necessary care.

This table exposes the alarming inconsistencies in how states define and apply parental disability in custody cases, further emphasizing the need for legal reform.

State Law Disparities: A Comparison

The most bizarre and discriminatory laws are those that permit potential future hypothetical scenarios as evidence to determine someone's ability to parent. Additionally, some states still use IQ scores to determine unfitness, even though studies show no connection between intelligence and parenting ability.

Tennessee may permit a parent unfit if the courts determine it is "unlikely that the parent or guardian will be able to assume or resume the care of and responsibility for the child in the near future." Oklahoma laws are nearly identical to Tennessee's.

California states flat out that a child can be removed if the parent or guardian remains disabled.

In New York, only one court-appointed psychiatrist or psychologist needs to testify "that a parent's intellectual, psychiatric, or emotional disability renders them unfit to parent. The statute provides no additional information about what qualifications the expert must have, nor does it include requirements on how the expert reaches their determination." ^vi

In Connecticut in the early 2000s, the Department of Children and Families removed "Joseph Jr. and Daniel immediately following their births… this time based on a theory of 'predictive neglect.

None of these states require experts to specialize in parents with disabilities, nor do they outline which assessments are acceptable. This is why Alice and other parents with disabilities can be given completely invalid assessments to determine fitness, often needing to go beyond what non-disabled parents are asked to prove.

A blind father sits on the ground in a park, playing with toy cars with his young son, who is standing beside him. This moment showcases a blind parent's love and engagement, challenging misconceptions.

ADA Failures Exposed: Legal Barriers in Family Courts

The Challenge of ADA Enforcement in Family Courts

Even with legal protections, the ADA and Section 504 are often not upheld in family court. These laws guarantee reasonable accommodations for disabled parents.

This includes sign language interpreters, accessible materials, and assistive technology.
However, many states refuse to provide these accommodations or even hear discrimination complaints.

The ADA Ambiguity of "Reasonable Accommodations"

The term "reasonable accommodations" is open to interpretation.
This ambiguity allows for inconsistent application of the ADA.

State Court Resistance to federal ADA mandates

The Vermont Supreme Court ruled that the "welfare of the child" takes priority over ADA compliance.
California courts reject ADA noncompliance as grounds for appeal.
Vermont prioritizes children's needs over parents' ADA rights.
New York, and Connecticut have failed to create a standard for applying the ADA.

The Parent's Dilemma. What recourse is available when courts will not address ADA discrimination claims?

Advocating for Change: Action Steps for Parents and Allies

Know Your Rights:
- Research your state's custody laws. Many still have discriminatory language, such as "mental deficiency" or "emotional illness" as grounds for termination. If facing discrimination, demand reasonable accommodations under the ADA (e.g., accessible court documents, ASL interpreters).
- Resource: Find information on the ADA at the U.S. Department of Justice's ADA Website.
Document Every Interaction:
- Keep records of all meetings, emails, and decisions involving child services.
- Record biased statements or refusals to provide accommodations.
- Keep these records organized, and in multiple formats if possible.
Raise Awareness:
- Share your story. The more real-life cases are exposed, the harder they are to ignore.
- Educate others. Most people don't realize how common custody discrimination is.
- Use the hashtag #DisabledParentsRights when sharing on social media.
Push for Legal Reform:
- Advocate for the removal of outdated, vague, and discriminatory language in state custody laws.
- Resource: Join the National Disability Rights Network (NDRN) to advocate for disability rights.
- Support legislation that strengthens ADA compliance in family courts.

At AccessAbility Officer, this issue is personal. Our CEO, Tanner Gers, is a disabled parent who understands firsthand the challenges disabled families face. We believe that every parent deserves the right to raise their children with dignity and respect.

This fight for parental rights is not isolated. Learn more about AccessAbility Officer's commitment to disability rights in our recent blog post: Section 504 Under Attack: Gender Dysphoria and the Fight for Disability Rights

Tanner, a blind father, gives his daughter a bouquet of flowers. She smiles while holding them, capturing their close bond and warmth.

If you learned anything from this article, share it!

Your support helps bring awareness and drives policy change to end custody discrimination against disabled parents.

Additional Resources

The Arc - Advocates for and serves people with intellectual and developmental disabilities and their families.
American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD) - Works to increase the political and economic power of people with disabilities.