Justifying interventions in Norwegian child protection

Abstract

How are decisions about care orders of children in cases about violence justified? What important accounts are considered? In an in-depth analysis of 94 written care order decisions from the Norwegian County Boards, we examine decision-makers arguments and hereunder if there are differences in cases about migrant and non-migrant families. The analysis shows that justifications are largely rooted in a pragmatic discourse focusing on risk-levels, drawing on empirical evidence of violence. Additionally, there is a pragmatic-ethical discourse rooted in the decision-makers assessment of parents’ ability to change their behaviour, to meet the children’s needs, highlighting parental denial of violence and blaming the children. This serves the decision-makers in justifying whether the necessary care for the children is possible to attain. We find only a few differences between migrant and non-migrant cases: parents’ denial is more prevalent in migrant cases; in non-migrant cases consequences for the child is more prevalent; and more evidence of strong direct violence in migrant cases.

Pakistani children's lived experiences of relationships in the context of child protection services in Norway: An interpretative phenomenological analysis

“…To be able to help children, CPS relies on obligatory or voluntary reports of concern by public service employees or referrals about a child's situation by private individuals (Child Welfare Act, 1992). The most common reports are related to physical violence rather than psychological violence or sexual abuse (Løvlie & Skivenes, 2021). Once a case has been reported, CPS has 1 week to decide whether the case will be investigated.…”

Analyzing decision-maker’s justifications of care orders for newborn children: equal and individualized treatment

“…There has been an upswing in research on empirical analyses of judicial child protection decisions in severe child protection cases (Helland, 2021a , 2021b ; Helland & Nygård, 2021 ; Helland, Pedersen, & Skivenes, 2020 ; Juhasz, 2018 , 2020 ; Krutzinna & Skivenes, 2020 ; Løvlie & Skivenes, 2021 ; Luhamaa, McEwan-Strand, Ruiken, Skivenes, & Wingens, 2021 ). Although these give important insights into child protection decision-making, few of these have focused on the important aspect of equal treatment.…”