The Situation of Children with Disabilities from the De-Occupied Territories of Southern Ukraine: Coping Strategies and Perspectives of Families Affected

Aim of the study and research questions

This research examines how parents of children with disabilities from the de-occupied territories of southern Ukraine perceive and navigate their children’s socialisation, education, and emotional adaptation during and after displacement. By foregrounding parental perspectives, the study highlights the often invisible labour of caregiving under conditions of war and displacement and its consequences for family resilience. In doing so, we aim to emphasise the specific needs of these families and their children with disabilities. Such research is essential for designing adequate support aimed at reducing hidden burdens, strengthening family resilience, and rebuilding pathways for the social inclusion of children with disabilities. Specifically, we address two research questions:

1. How do parents in disrupted environments – marked explicitly by the loss of education, healthcare, and professional support – interpret their children’s peer interactions and developmental trajectories?

2. How can these parental interpretations be understood and employed as resources for resilience and psychosocial adaptation, and thus as coping strategies?

This focus is significant for scholars, policymakers, and practitioners working in social disability research, education in emergencies, and humanitarian response. By drawing attention to parents’ lived experiences, the study informs the design of community-based and family systems interventions that reduce hidden burdens, strengthen resilience, and rebuild pathways to social participation.

The situation of children with disabilities in Ukraine

The full-scale war in Ukraine has triggered a profound crisis in education, social support, and children’s mental health, with the collapse of community and therapeutic structures severely restricting development opportunities (Slozanska et al. 2025). Zaviršek and Cox (2024) note that the longstanding marginalisation of persons with disabilities, rooted in the Soviet period, has been sharply intensified by the conflict. While networks of specialised institutions existed, the war exposed systemic neglect, leaving many residents unprotected after closures. Furthermore, in post-socialist contexts of institutional practice, such as Ukraine, the problem is particularly acute, as deeply rooted and often unconscious forms of stigmatisation continue to reproduce exclusion. Children and individuals with sensory impairments face particular risks, while insufficient data and limited humanitarian focus highlight the dangers of their ‘invisibility’ in crisis contexts. Ukrainian scholarship and prior experience with inclusion in education have proven crucial for adapting to these unpredictable challenges (Lytovchenko 2023; Boriak and Sheremet 2024).

Research documents the particular challenges of evacuation and adaptation for children with disabilities. A survey of parents by Nabochenko et al. (2024) revealed widespread emotional instability, restlessness, anxiety, overreliance on digital media, cognitive decline, and sleep problems among children. Parents reported similar levels of anxiety and restlessness, pointing to intergenerational trauma. More than half of families lacked access to psychological support, exposing systemic gaps. The authors call for family-centred interventions that combine parental guidance, therapeutic programmes, and education.

Access to healthcare services is restricted, and mental health is adversely affected, not at least for people with physical impairments (Boyarchuk and Koshmaniuk 2024). Qualitative findings show that persons with intellectual disabilities faced compounded risks during conflict, including unmet basic needs, barriers to evacuation and shelters, exclusion from civil defence planning, and heightened stress due to rapidly changing conditions (Vromans et al. 2024). Miliutina and Haievska (2023) emphasise that armed conflict generates a wide range of psychological and emotional difficulties that hinder learning and aggravate motivational problems for children with disabilities. Interrupted schooling, displacement, economic instability, and the breakdown of communication networks pose significant barriers, particularly for children in unfamiliar environments. For those with severe speech impairments, paralinguistic communication (gestures, facial expressions) often becomes the only means of establishing contact and forming first words, highlighting the need for specialised interventions.

In this context, socialisation emerges as a particularly complex process, closely linked to children’s psycho-emotional state and sense of security. Wartime experiences show that integration into the social environment depends not only on access to education but also on the ability of children and families to cope with trauma. Accordingly, contemporary educational and rehabilitative practices must adopt trauma-informed approaches that build trust, foster resilience, and strengthen family resources (Vrochynska, Verbovskyi and Kotlomanitova 2023; Boriak and Sheremet 2024).

Despite recognition of caregivers’ crucial role, little research examines the family dynamics of children with disabilities in frontline and conflict-affected regions. Most available knowledge comes from humanitarian reports rather than systematic studies. Three key gaps stand out: insufficient documentation of disability prevalence and needs in war-affected areas; limited exploration of the role of peers and environmental changes in socialisation, despite evidence of families as relational ecosystems; and the under-researched impact of parental trauma on caregiving and advocacy, particularly in relation to resource depletion. Addressing these gaps is crucial for providing adequate psychosocial and educational support.

Data collection and instruments

Drawing on the outlined theoretical perspectives, the study employed a qualitative design to capture parental narratives of children’s social adaptation. Participant recruitment for the interviews was conducted through a combination of targeted and accessible channels, including information posters displayed in dormitories for internally displaced persons, social media announcements about educational and psychosocial services for populations from war-affected regions, as well as direct invitations issued during the registration of children in educational institutions and the provision of humanitarian assistance, facilitated by the Department for Children and Youth Affairs of Kryvyi Rih and local non-governmental organisations. This recruitment strategy ensured the inclusion of families with diverse experiences of displacement and educational needs.

Data were generated through semi-structured interviews (Bryman et al. 2022), conducted in Ukrainian face-to-face and lasting 30 minutes to 1 hour. Interviews were conducted with parents during the enrolment process in the centre’s activities. The interview guide focused on domains central to social development: communication and conversation; self-protection and social negotiation; participation and peer interaction in play; and group belonging and emotional involvement. Coping strategies and adaptive practices in the context of war and displacement were also addressed. This strategy enabled the integration of parents’ lived narratives of caregiving, trauma, and displacement with accounts of children’s communication, negotiation, and peer participation. In doing so, the study provides a multidimensional account of how resilience and adaptation are facilitated – or obstructed – in conditions of forced displacement and educational disruption.

Between 2023 and 2024, the study involved 35 families with children with disabilities who had been relocated from the de-occupied Kherson and Mykolaiv regions to Kryvyi Rih. A total of 35 parents or guardians participated in the interviews, comprising 30 women and 5 men. The sample consisted of 19 two-parent families, 12 single-mother households, and 4 guardian families. The children, comprising 11 girls and 24 boys, were aged 6–15 years. They presented various impairments and disabilities (Prokhorenko et al. 2021; see Appendix A), including mild to severe learning and intellectual difficulties, socio-adaptive and socio-cultural challenges, speech and musculoskeletal impairments, delayed psychological development, autism spectrum disorder, schizoaffective disorder, and occasional minor visual or physical problems.

Ethics and consent

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Methodological Council of Kryvyi Rih State Pedagogical University (June 1, 2023, No. 12). Research involving families raising children with disabilities during war presents particular ethical challenges. Participants were fully informed about the study and their right to withdraw; written and verbal consent was obtained. Interviews were conducted in a supportive environment with psychosocial assistance available, and interviewers were trained to respond sensitively to signs of distress.

All data were anonymised during transcription and stored securely on encrypted university servers. To address the power asymmetry between researchers and displaced families, the voluntary nature of participation was emphasised, evaluative language was avoided, and interviews were framed as opportunities for parents to contribute to knowledge on disability, displacement, and resilience.

Analysis

All interview data were analysed using Avidnote for audio-to-text transcription in Ukrainian and HyperRESEARCH 4.5.7 for qualitative coding, following Braun et al.’s (2022) six-phase thematic analysis framework. Transcription was conducted on GDPR-compliant EU servers to ensure compliance with data protection regulations. During Phase 1 (familiarisation), two Ukrainian-speaking authors repeatedly read the transcripts and documented initial analytic observations, facilitating immersion in the data and reflexive note-taking (Kabir et al. 2025).

In Phase 2 (coding), initial codes were generated in HyperRESEARCH through line-by-line coding of parental narratives, with particular attention to behavioural and emotional coping patterns. Relevant data segments were systematically coded, clustered, and retrieved. Phase 3 (theme development) was theoretically informed by trauma-informed psychology (Cook et al. 2005) and GST (Harris 1995), enabling analysis of both family-level adaptation to displacement and peer-related processes, including emotional regulation, social initiative, and belonging.

In Phase 4, candidate themes were organised and visualised using an interactive thematic map to identify relationships between codes and broader patterns. During Phases 5 and 6, themes were reviewed, refined, and consolidated into six higher-order analytic domains, which structure the presentation of results.

In line with the journal’s editorial policies, and because the authors are not native English speakers, generative AI tools (ChatGPT) and Grammarly were used exclusively for language editing and stylistic refinement; the authors made all analytical decisions regarding coding and interpretation.

Loss of safety and the search for control

Analysis of parental interviews shows that the loss of home was experienced not only as physical displacement but as a rupture of safety, continuity, and relational space, particularly for families raising children with disabilities. Children’s distress was primarily expressed through daily routines and play, clustering around two trauma-related response patterns: hyperarousal (irritability, emotional outbursts, heightened reactivity) and emotional withdrawal (silence, apathy, reduced initiative). Regulation of these responses was closely linked to parental coping strategies.

Three dominant parental coping patterns were identified. The first, anxious coping, involved emotional merging with the child’s distress and was marked by parental helplessness, somatic stress, and overprotective practices. Children’s hyperarousal was interpreted as cumulative loss rather than situational frustration: ‘If one piece does not fit, it is not just crying – it is a scream of despair’ (D._01). Emotional regulation in these dyads remained highly dependent on parental states.

The second pattern reflected avoidant coping, characterised by emotional distancing and suppression of war-related narratives. While parents actively rebuilt external support networks, children’s distress was often minimised, corresponding with pronounced emotional withdrawal: ‘She just exists … like a shadow’ (I._13).

The third pattern involved delegating emotional regulation to school-based professionals. Although this provided functional stability, reduced parental emotional presence limited the reconstruction of home as a relational, rather than purely physical, space.

In these cases, the school became the primary site for emotional regulation and behavioural support, while parental involvement was reduced mainly to functional coordination. Although this arrangement provided stability for some children, the absence of sustained parental emotional presence constrained the reconstitution of home as a relational construct, rather than merely a physical location.

Heightened sensitivity and regression

Parents frequently reported heightened sensitivity to external stimuli, with ordinary sounds or movements triggering strong reactions. These behaviours reflected both acute stress responses and the collapse of previously fragile coping strategies. One mother explained: ‘Any loud sound in the street – and he runs to us. We hug a hundred times a day’ (M._03). Another parent described how displacement had destroyed her son’s fragile sense of safety: ‘His wall has become impenetrable […] If earlier he would at least play silently, now he hides. It’s as if he has become invisible’ (P._001). Such accounts illustrate how trauma can lead to regression, with children actively defending themselves against interaction. Parents recognised the severity of these reactions and the need for long-term therapeutic intervention: ‘After displacement, his shell has turned into a bunker’ (P._001).

To cope, parents sought to remain physically and emotionally present, establishing daily rituals of support and care. This ‘invisible labour’ provided a stabilising anchor but often came at the cost of parental well-being. Active parents sometimes acted impulsively, resisting professional advice when children’s negative symptoms intensified, while others, exhausted by caregiving demands, withdrew emotionally. In both cases, reliance on personal beliefs about child development limited the potential for effective interventions.

Behavioural dysregulations

Parents reported a broad spectrum of behavioural dysregulations after displacement, from dominance in play and peer conflicts to withdrawal and dependence on adults. These disruptions reflected both the loss of routines and the collapse of stable peer ecologies, with parents or digital devices often substituting for peers.

Relocation intensified feelings of scrutiny and rejection. One mother explained: ‘She feels that everyone is looking at her … Without a teacher personally taking her hand, she will never take the first step’ (F._05). Such accounts show how stigma and disrupted peer belonging intersect, making adult mediation essential. Boys were often described as interpreting minor losses as existential threats: ‘If someone suggests another game or starts winning, A. sees it as a threat … With the phone or tablet – any loss is taken as a personal defeat’ (D._01). Here, play became a stage for re-enacting environmental instability, and perceived powerlessness intensified war-affected distress. Adolescents displayed either aggression or muted disengagement.

One parent recalled: ‘At school – it’s nothing but trouble … Everyone is afraid of him’ (O._011), while others described withdrawal into solitary routines or small digital peer groups (L._10). These contrasting responses mirror the dual trajectories of hyperarousal and withdrawal in trauma psychology, undermining the peer socialisation processes emphasised by GST.

Parents themselves faced strain in mediating these behaviours. Some sought structure, others avoided confrontation due to fatigue or anxiety. In both cases, the absence of professional support revealed the limits of family-based coping and the burden of ‘invisible labour’ in contexts where peer interaction was fractured.

Digital refuge

In the absence of stable environments, digital technologies became central to children’s attempts to maintain continuity and regulate distress during displacement. Parents frequently described smartphones and tablets as emotional anchors symbolising stability in disrupted lives: ‘The phone and tablet became her little island of stability’ (S._02). For some children, devices functioned as tools of self-soothing, buffering anxiety and intrusive thoughts – ‘his “white noise” that drowns out anxious thoughts’ (Ki._18). In trauma-informed terms, such digital immersion offered temporary emotional regulation while carrying risks of withdrawal.

At the same time, digital spaces enabled resilience by sustaining peer relationships and supporting the continuity of identity. Parents reported that online interactions allowed children to remain connected with friends from their home communities while cautiously forming new ties through courses, chats, and online events. However, prolonged reliance on virtual environments also reduced engagement in offline social contexts: ‘If an activity in real life isn’t highly interesting, he simply refuses’ (Ye._12).

Parents thus navigated a delicate balance between enabling digital refuge and encouraging offline participation, highlighting the often-invisible labour involved in sustaining developmental and social ‘normality’ under conditions of displacement.

Barriers to socialisation

Parents described the loss of familiar friends as one of the most profound barriers to the socialisation of displaced children with disabilities. Parents frequently noted that speech impairments, cognitive difficulties, or severe anxiety further compounded the challenge of entering new groups. From the perspective of solastalgia, the longing for a lost social world deepened children’s sense of disconnection and made them especially vulnerable to unfamiliar settings.

One father described his daughter’s withdrawal during school breaks: ‘Everyone runs around shouting, and my daughter just stands by the wall and watches. Other children approached once or twice, asked her something, but when she stayed silent – they never came back. She looks at them with eyes full of longing, but she cannot overcome the fear that they will laugh at her’ (Sh._07). Another mother observed how displacement erased years of fragile progress: ‘All that little courage we built up over the years has vanished. In the group, she became invisible’ (F._05). These accounts show how disrupted peer ecologies not only interrupted children’s integration but also unravelled prior achievements in confidence and communication.

Parents also reported how trauma translated into a state of classroom ‘absence,’ with children unable to engage cognitively or socially. As one mother noted: ‘Before all this, she was quick, bright. But now all her strength probably goes into just surviving what happened. She doesn’t communicate with anyone. She has shut down’ (V._09). Here, trauma-informed psychology helps explain withdrawal as a survival strategy: energy is redirected away from learning and interaction toward basic coping mechanisms.

Despite these barriers, examples of resilience emerged. A father of a girl in a wheelchair proudly shared: ‘She is not shy at all. She rolls up to anyone and starts talking … The only problem is not her character, but the stairs and the lack of ramps’ (T._28). Others highlighted how participation in activities, while possible, came at an emotional cost: ‘She takes part in activities, but afterwards she is emotionally drained. She needs a lot of time to recover’ (S._02). Even small breakthroughs, such as a boy who, after months of silence, communicated symbolically by handing his parents a wooden figure, were interpreted as milestones of adaptation (Ki._18).

Adolescents displayed particularly complex patterns, oscillating between social proactivity and private despair. One mother described her daughter as outwardly eager to rebuild peer circles yet inwardly burdened: ‘She is the first to introduce herself, organises meetings, trips to the cinema … Talking to friends is the only thing that brings her joy. Yet at home in the evening, she may shut herself away and cry again’ (H._19). Such contradictions demonstrate how young people, in the absence of stable peer ecologies, struggle to negotiate belonging while carrying unresolved trauma.

Overall, the findings show that displaced children with disabilities occupied a spectrum between withdrawal and proactive engagement, with most positioned uneasily in between. Parents assumed the role of mediators and emotional companions, attempting to scaffold children’s entry into new groups. However, their efforts alone could not substitute for the peer-based socialisation processes that GST identifies as fundamental. Nor could they counter the solastalgic loss of familiar social worlds, which left children vulnerable to cycles of longing, insecurity, and fragile adaptation.

Influence of parental trauma

Children’s adaptation was closely linked to their parents’ psychological state. Many parents described a form of emotional symbiosis, where children mirrored adult anxiety, despair, or resilience. This interdependence meant that fluctuations in parental well-being directly shaped children’s emotional stability and social behaviour. As one displaced mother reflected: ‘We are in symbiosis. The parents’ state determines the children’s state’ (D._12). Such accounts illustrate how the invisible labour of caregiving operated in two directions. While parents sought to regulate their children’s emotions, children simultaneously absorbed and reflected the household’s psychological climate. For some families, displacement led to a reversal of generational roles. Several parents described children assuming adult-like responsibilities, taking on tasks to sustain family functioning. A mother of a girl explained: ‘She suddenly grew up. She looks after her younger sister, helps with cooking. She holds us together’ (R._20). While this parentification could temporarily stabilise family life, it also carried risks of emotional exhaustion, role confusion, and the erosion of childhood. These findings highlight how displacement amplifies the interdependence between parental trauma and children’s adaptation. When parents were able to project resilience, children often displayed greater stability; when parents succumbed to despair, children mirrored withdrawal, anger, or heightened anxiety. In this sense, parental trauma operated as both a barrier and a mediator of children’s socialisation, shaping how young people negotiated belonging in disrupted environments.