This article examines the confidence the population (N = 4,003) has in the child welfare system in four countries -England, Finland, Norway and the USA (California). We find that about half or less of the population reports having confidence in the system, which is slightly higher than the confidence in the civil servants in the same countries. The Nordic countries display more confidence in the child welfare system than the Anglo-American countries. The similarity between the countries is, however, greater than anticipated. As for independent variables that can shed light on differences in confidence levels, we find three variables to be related to a higher confidence level, and these are a left wing political orientation, lower age, and higher education. This study contributes in filling a knowledge gap on studies about trust in the child welfare system, but we emphasize that we have studied an aspect of trust that rests on the population's impressions of a system, and not their substantial knowledge about, or identification with, this system.
This paper examines parents' legal argumentation in 15 appealed care order (child removal) cases in one Norwegian district court, asking on what grounds parents appeal their case. I investigate the pragmatic, ethical, and moral bases in arguments by applying a discourse ethics framework, viewing argumentation as either justifications or excuses of the parenting in question. The analysis reveals complex reasons for appealing, displaying parents both justifying and excusing both specific situations and the totality of their parenthood. Parents primarily apply pragmatic and ethical adversarialism, followed by pragmatic blaming and claims of change, moral justifications about due process, and ethical excuses about age and own life histories. Interestingly, normalization emerges as a third strategy, where parents explicitly aim to widen the scope of parental normality and adequacy, challenging the common defense dichotomy. The study provides new insight into an important and sensitive field, and indicates that parents engage in similar concrete strategies when, most often unsuccessfully, defending their parenthood.
Removing a newborn from his or her birth parents’ care is arguably a stark display of state power into the family. This study explores birth parents’ engagement with care proceedings in all ( N = 177) newborn care orders in Norway between 2012 and 2016. The study asks which arguments parents use to assert their care rights, their focus, and whether arguments differ depending on the parents’ risks. Applying the defence dichotomy and seeing arguments as accounts, the analysis revealed parents primarily both justifying and excusing risks, and in two-thirds of cases rationalizing their care rights. Parents primarily denied harm and pinpointed (failed) service provision efforts, as well as excused their situation by claiming sufficient change and placing blame on i.e. child welfare services. Rationalizations did not defend parenting as such, but claimed normalcy and deservingness, as well as echoing concerns raised. Arguments were primarily parent- and service-focused. Parents with substance use risks blamed significantly less than parents with personality risks, and parents with intellectual disability risks demanded significantly more leeway as ‘new parents’ than parents with personality risks. The study reflects how a marginalized demographic similarly, comprehensively, and most often unsuccessfully, engages with the child welfare system. The arguments reveal both alignment and misalignment in understandings of acceptable state intervention and responsibilities. It points to the dire need for knowledge about parents’ actual understanding of child welfare services, as well as clear communication and feedback between parents, their legal counsel, and social workers in assessments and service provision.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.