The child welfare system, more accurately referred to as the family policing system, employs extensive surveillance that disproportionately targets marginalized families, subjecting them to relentless oversight. Scholars observe that this ongoing surveillance obstructs effective parenting, exacerbates existing injustices, and contradicts its stated protective purpose. Instead of safeguarding, surveillance transforms into a tool of control against the families it should assist, particularly those who are already vulnerable. This Article extends the analysis of the family policing system’s surveillance practices to encompass parents with disabilities and their children, revealing the unique consequences of continuous observation. The system’s ableism amplifies scrutiny of disabled parents, disregarding their disability-related needs and causing harm under the guise of protection. The culmination of this persistent surveillance results in heightened systemic harm, trapping families in an inescapable cycle of perpetual scrutiny.

In response, this Article provides a nuanced and novel analysis of the extensive surveillance targeted at disabled parents and their children by the family policing system. It begins by detailing the legal framework that supports the surveillance apparatus, investigating constitutional protections, federal and state statutes, and disability rights laws. The exploration then turns to the intricate network of surveillance ensnaring disabled parents and their families. This encompassing scrutiny includes mandated reporting, family policing system investigations, “service” plans, child maltreatment registries, and digital surveillance tools. Subsequently, the Article uncovers the harms arising from this surveillance, both directly and within a broader context of societal injustices. Concluding with a call to action, the Article proposes normative legal and policy solutions to challenge the system’s pervasive surveillance. These measures encompass revising the definition of neglect, constraining the system’s scope of surveillance, establishing rights akin to Miranda warnings, revoking mandated reporting laws, ensuring prompt access to legal representation, and reimagining support systems for families. These solutions must be integrated into broader initiatives aimed at abolishing the family policing system entirely, freeing marginalized families from the cycle of being pathologized, controlled, and punished. Ultimately, the only path to liberating disabled parents and their children from perpetual scrutiny is through the complete dismantling of the family policing system, ensuring they are no longer under the watchful eye of all.

The history of the United States is marred by a shameful record of using reproduction to oppress disabled people through state-sanctioned legislation, policies, and programs that deprive them of their bodily autonomy and self-determination. Disabled people face structural, legal, and institutional barriers to accessing reproductive health services and information, including contraception and abortion care. They also experience high rates of violence and reproductive coercion, as well as stigma and discrimination from health providers. Consequently, people with disabilities are more likely to experience maternal morbidity and mortality, rendering pregnancy particularly dangerous for some.

The Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision exacerbates this complex and challenging situation. Mounting abortion restrictions, coupled with the myriad barriers and challenges that people with disabilities already face, will result in some being forced to carry pregnancies to term even if they pose serious health risks or go against their wishes. Subsequently, should they choose to raise their children after childbirth, they will likely encounter ongoing threats to their parental rights due to pervasive assumptions of incompetence, inadequate family support, constant surveillance and scrutiny, and ableism within the family policing system’s laws, policies, and practices. Thus, the ruling creates a paradox for disabled people, where they may be forced to bear children but subsequently denied the opportunity to rear them, perpetuating a historical pattern of exploitation and subjugation.

In response, this Article presents a nuanced and novel analysis of the Dobbs decision and its implications for people with disabilities. To do so, first, the Article examines the profound impact of forced pregnancy on disabled people, delving into the underlying reasons for high rates of unintended pregnancies among this group. It also highlights the dangers and violations of bodily autonomy and self-determination that forced pregnancy entails for disabled people. Next, the Article’s focus shifts to the denial of parenting rights for people with disabilities, even after being compelled to bear children, exploring the societal, legal, and institutional obstacles that hinder their ability to parent, such as assumptions of incompetence, inadequate family support, constant surveillance and scrutiny, and ableism within the family policing system. Thereafter, it introduces the concept of disability reproductive justice and its relevance to these complex issues, providing a framework based on the principles of disability justice and reproductive justice to transform society into one that respects and supports disabled people’s reproductive freedom. Finally, the Article proposes legal and policy solutions guided by the principles of disability reproductive justice to address the reproductive needs of disabled people and dismantle the systemic causes of reproductive oppression, emphasizing the necessity of a comprehensive approach considering the rising threat to reproductive freedom.

Building upon the foundation laid by All Our Families: Disability Lineage and the Future of Kinship, this Review examines the complex issues surrounding care and their relevance to people with disabilities. Part I delves into the contrasting perspectives of the disability rights movement and disability justice. By juxtaposing the emphasis on independence with a focus on interdependence, I unravel the intricate dynamics shaping the care experiences of disabled people. Part II presents a descriptive analysis unveiling the current realities of care. In doing so, I seek to expose the limited availability and access to care, the legal and bureaucratic impediments hindering effective care delivery, and the pervasive inequities faced by both unpaid and paid caregivers. Finally, Part III proposes a normative vision for reimagining care. I suggest strategies for broadening availability and access to care, challenging legal and bureaucratic impediments to care, confronting caregiver inequities, and fostering mutual aid networks within disabled communities. This Review’s analysis of care issues and transformative proposals aims to enrich disability, health, and family law discourse, providing valuable insights and shaping discussions and actions toward more inclusive and equitable legal frameworks and practices.

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, states have rushed to enact restrictive abortion bans, often with vague and narrow health exceptions that disproportionately endanger the lives and well-being of people with disabilities. This Article argues that focusing on the disproportionate impact of these laws on disabled people is a critical strategy for dismantling the broader attack on reproductive freedom. It examines the deficiencies of current health exceptions, critiquing their subjective language, inconsistent application, and failure to account for the complexities of medical emergencies, particularly in the context of disability. The Article highlights the omission of mental health considerations and clashes between state and federal laws. Furthermore, it explores how these bans exacerbate existing barriers disabled people face when seeking healthcare while ignoring the disproportionately high risks of pregnancy-related complications and maternal mortality among the disability community. Drawing on constitutional arguments, the Article contends that even under rational basis review, these bans lack a legitimate governmental interest and instead perpetuate discrimination by contradicting core disability rights principles of bodily autonomy and self-determination. It explores potential avenues for challenging these laws, including leveraging state constitutional provisions, expanding health exceptions, and protecting abortion providers through statutory presumptions and burden-shifting provisions. The Article emphasizes the importance of moving beyond a purely medicalized framing of abortion rights and toward a more holistic, intersectional vision of reproductive justice that fully includes and empowers the disability community. It concludes with a call for robust coalition-building between the disability rights and reproductive justice movements to drive incremental change and ensure that reproductive autonomy is respected and protected for all.