A B S T R AC TGiven that in our view the child has a fundamental right to be heard in all collective deliberative processes determining his or her future, we set out, firstly, what is required of such processes to respect this right -namely that the child's authentic voice is heard and makes a difference -and, secondly, the distance between this ideal and practice exemplified in the work of child welfare and child protection workers in Norway and the UK, chiefly in their display of an instrumental attitude to children's views.

No abstract

Research on whistle-blowing in the Norwegian public sector shows remarkable findings compared with international research. A very high proportion of employees blow the whistle when they experience misconduct, and the majority of these people receive positive reactions. Furthermore, a majority of the whistle-blowers report that the conduct that led them to blow the whistle improved. These positive findings are different from those reported in international research displaying that whistle-blowing is difficult, often results in retaliation and is rarely effective. This article seeks to shed light on the positive Norwegian experiences, first by exploring how power resources can help us understand the extent and types of whistle-blowing, the consequences for the whistle-blower and the effectiveness of the practice. Second, the article asks whether a Norwegian model of labour relations promotes a communicative ‘culture’ where employees can freely voice their opinions and critical remarks, and report misconduct. The findings show that power resources to a little degree can explain whistle-blowing activity and its results. It is plausible to assume that the strong emphasis on collective arrangements and laws reduces the impact of an individual employee’s power resources by making the reporting process less arbitrary. Furthermore, it could be argued that the Norwegian model establishes structures for a communication culture that facilitates whistle-blowing.

No abstract

We consider the problem of reconciling the two commitments to hear a child and to promote a child's best interests by identifying the principal issues at stake and illustrating them by reference to legal decision-making in the domains of health in the United Kingdom and custody and child protection in Norway. We agree that a child's views are not authoritative but dispute Harry Brighouse's claim that they are only of consultative value, affirming the fundamental right of a child capable of expressing a view of doing so and of thereby participating in the procedures where decisions affecting his or her interests are made. In conclusion we offer a checklist of questions that need to be asked about the way in which jurisdictions combine their explicit commitments to the two principles of best interests and hearing the child's views.

No abstract

a b s t r a c tThis international comparative paper examines how child protection workers in four countries, England, Finland, Norway, USA (CA), involve children in decision making regarding involuntary child removal. The analysis is based on 772 workers' responses to a vignette describing preparations for care order proceedings. We examine children's involvement along three dimensions including information given to the child, information gathered from the child, and opportunities for their perspectives and interests to be considered. Results show that child protection workers weigh children's involvement differently based upon age. Staff in the four countries were more likely to talk with an older child, to provide information, to gather information, and to include in relevant decision making if the child were 11 compared to five in our vignette. Although the Nordic countries and England provide policy guidance regarding children's role in child protection decision making, we did not see consistently higher indicators of children's involvement from the respondents in these countries. Using child protection system frames to analyze the findings did not produce consistent differences between the family service systems and child protection systems included in this study. Findings highlight the wide range in practices concerning children's involvement in decision making, and the wide space for professional discretion in implementing practice with children at the local level.© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. IntroductionRemoval of a child from parental care to public care is a serious state intervention in the private relations of children and their parents. Children, the subject of removal, are sometimes involved in decisions about their separation, but they are not necessarily engaged as agents of their fate. Some states make explicit through legislation an expectation that children are involved in determining their future; others are silent on children's participation. And because we know that child protection workers, as street-level bureaucrats (Lipsky, 2010), sometimes employ wide discretion in their work with families, we do not know whether workers in various state systems are more or less inclusive of children's voice. This international comparative paper examines how child protection workers in England, Finland, Norway, and the US (California) involve children in decision making regarding preparations of a possible involuntary child removal. We refer to child protection workers as a common term across countries, even though each country may use different terms to describe front-line workers in their child welfare system. We use the term care order proceedings to refer to the court processes that authorize the separation of a child from his/her parent(s), and care order preparations for the agency-based policies and practices that help determine whether and when to make an application to the court. We examine children's involvement along three dimensions including information given to the child, inf...

No abstract