Child welfare and future assessments – An analysis of discretionary decision-making in newborn removals in Norway

Juhasz, Ida Benedicte

doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105137

Cited by 12 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The country differences may be due to the type of welfare state model and child protection system in the three countries, because the Norwegian family‐service‐oriented system typically provides many support measures to parents before more intrusive means of child protection are chosen. Furthermore, there is a comprehensive public service network for an individual in need of support, so when a mother with comprehensive needs is pregnant and gives birth, a lot of information about her is already within the system (Juhasz, 2020). Thus, the County Board as decision maker in these cases is able to assess the engagement with support services and the mother's needs and behaviour when deciding on a child's removal.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Judging parental competence: A cross‐country analysis of judicial decision makers' written assessment of mothers' parenting capacities in newborn removal cases

Krutzinna

Skivenes

2020

Child & Family Social Work

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines the discretionary reasoning of the judiciary in three jurisdictions, England, Germany and Norway, in cases deciding whether a newborn child is safe with her parents or intervention is necessary. Our analysis focuses on one specific dimension of decision makers' exercise of discretion, namely, if and how the strengths and weaknesses of the mother are considered. The data material consists of all decisions concerning care orders of newborns from one large city in Germany from 2015 to 2017 (n = 27) and 2016 in Norway (n = 76) and all publicly available newborn removal decisions in England for 2015-2017 (n = 14). The findings reveal a high number of risk factors in the cases and less focus on risk-reducing factors. The situation of the newborn is considered to be harmful, as most cases result in a care order. Judicial discretion differs by how much information, and what types of factors, are included in the justification for the decision. A learning point for decision makers and policymakers would be to actively undertake a balancing act between riskincreasing and risk-reducing factors.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Judging parental competence: A cross‐country analysis of judicial decision makers' written assessment of mothers' parenting capacities in newborn removal cases

Krutzinna

Skivenes

2020

Child & Family Social Work

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, the CWS is two-sided, as it offers support and exercises control and discipline. The CWS focuses on prevention and early intervention, offering support to vulnerable children and families with a low threshold (Juhasz, 2020). Interventions from the CWS can be voluntary or compulsory, although interventions such as use of force and out-of-home placement are the last solution in serious cases and must be decided by a court (Skivenes, 2011).…”

Section: Characteristics Of the Norwegian Welfare System And Child We...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond fear of child welfare services : An ethnographic study among Norwegian-Somali parents

Handulle¹

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In many countries, migrants and ethnic minorities express fear of child welfare service (CWS). This is reflected in Norwegian research and media, where fear and mistrust surround the debate on migrants’ relationship with the agency. This thesis explores Norwegian Somalis’ fears of the Norwegian CWS in the context of their situation in Norway and their social world. While the relationship between the Norwegian CWS and several migrant groups is strained, we know little about how fears are constructed and perpetuated within migrant communities. Throughout my dissertation, I emphasise that migrants’ relations to CWS –whether fear factors into it or not – must be understood in light ofprocesses and dynamics far beyond CWS. We must pay attention to tight-knit ethnic communities, social networks, marginalised positions and transnational relations. My inquiry is guided by two core questions: How is the fear of CWS constructed among Norwegian-Somali parents, and how does the fear of CWS impact their everyday lives? These questions were explored through nine months of ethnography, seven months in Oslo and two months in Somalia among returnees from Norway. Fieldwork consisted of, inter alia, observations in cafés and shops, participation in seminars and mosques, participant observation in a transnational school in Somalia, informal conversations, formally organised focus groups and in-depth interviews with parents. The three articles comprising the empirical part of the dissertation cover the following topics. The first article explores how CWS fears among Norwegian-Somali parents are embedded in social networks and transmitted via stories of child removals. This paper provides extensive insight into the construction and perpetuation of fear. The analysis suggests a particular social process underlying Somali parents’ fears, which we coin ABCD, pertaining to (a) their socioeconomic adversities; (b)coping through bonding social capital; (c) children as a “lifeline”;and (d) (disproportionate) diffusion of child removal stories. The results demonstrate the importance of child removal stories that are transmitted through tight-knit social networks as well as why and how these stories spread. Paper 2 is about how second-generation Somali parents portray middle-class identity when interacting with school and kindergarten personnel to avoid racial scrutiny and referrals to CWS. The paper examines how CWS scepticism and fear extend far beyond direct interactions between caseworkers and clients. We show how scepticism and fear influence parents’ encounters with institutions like schools and kindergartens, as these are institutions that have the power and obligation to potentially report to CWS. The third paper addresses Norwegian-Somali returnees’ struggle for a sense of belonging in Norway and their worries regarding their children’s future. It highlights the complexity of being a marginalised migrant in Norway and the consequences thereof. I show that parents utilise temporary return as a tool to strengthen their dual belonging to both Somalia and Norway by reconstituting belonging to both countries through parenting in Somalia. The results reveal that parents cultivate and reproduce Norwegian cultural repertoires when in Somalia in order to maintain a belonging to Norway and to prepare for their future return to Norway, while concurrently encouraging their children to be proud of their Somaliness. In sum, the findings from my thesis imply that Somali parents’ fears of CWS are drawn not only from their perceptions of that single institution but also from their experiences as Somali parents in Norwegian society as a whole. I therefore argue that, if we are to understand CWS fears among migrant parents in general and Somali parents in particular, we must adopt a broader approach that understands parents’ everyday lives and whether and how their experiences relate to socioeconomic marginalisation, racism, coping and networking. I also argue that, to understand CWS fears, we need a bottom-up methodological approach. The in-depth ethnographic account of the Norwegian Somalis’ CWS fears, investigated bottom-up, remains this study’s main contribution.

show abstract

“…Norwegian legal scholars Ofstad and Skar (2015) emphasize central parental concerns that are in effect in the newborn context: 'Drug use in utero or other circumstances for parents that may impact parenting, such as intellectual disabilities or severe mental illness will (…) be of importance ' (p. 103). From previous international research on risk and reasoning in care orders of newborns, we know that the aforementioned risks, as well as personality disorders or problematics, are often central, overlapping, and cumulative, in the overall considerations of risk to sufficient parenting (Barlow et al, 2014;Broadhurst et al, 2018;Juhasz, 2020;Krutzinna & Skivenes, 2020;Luhamaa et al, 2021;Ward et al, 2012). The centrality of parents' ability to make changes and utilize services and aid is also a central aspect of the care order context, especially for newborns (Juhasz, 2020;Lushey et al, 2018).…”

Section: A Triangle Of Riskmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…From previous international research on risk and reasoning in care orders of newborns, we know that the aforementioned risks, as well as personality disorders or problematics, are often central, overlapping, and cumulative, in the overall considerations of risk to sufficient parenting (Barlow et al, 2014;Broadhurst et al, 2018;Juhasz, 2020;Krutzinna & Skivenes, 2020;Luhamaa et al, 2021;Ward et al, 2012). The centrality of parents' ability to make changes and utilize services and aid is also a central aspect of the care order context, especially for newborns (Juhasz, 2020;Lushey et al, 2018). These mentioned concerns, mental illness, substance abuse, intellectual disabilities, and personality disorders, come with varying capacities to change behaviour and utilize help.…”

Section: A Triangle Of Riskmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With this knowledge, it becomes possible to target, evaluate and improve CWS and service provision (Alpert, 2005;Bouma et al, 2020;Lundahl et al, 2020). It also provides necessary input as to what is already known about decision-making behaviour and justifications in assessing parents and their capacities in newborn care orders, both in Norway and internationally (Broadhurst et al, 2018;Juhasz, 2020;Krutzinna & Skivenes, 2020;Luhamaa et al, 2021). The analysis finally sheds light on what legitimate state intervention consists of for this group of citizens.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Asserting the right to care – Birth parents’ arguments in newborn care orders

Juhasz

2022

Journal of Social Work

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Child welfare and future assessments – An analysis of discretionary decision-making in newborn removals in Norway

Cited by 12 publications

References 35 publications

Judging parental competence: A cross‐country analysis of judicial decision makers' written assessment of mothers' parenting capacities in newborn removal cases

Judging parental competence: A cross‐country analysis of judicial decision makers' written assessment of mothers' parenting capacities in newborn removal cases

Beyond fear of child welfare services : An ethnographic study among Norwegian-Somali parents

Asserting the right to care – Birth parents’ arguments in newborn care orders

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About