Care Order Cases in the European Court of Human Rights. Parents vs. children's rights

This article aims to examine the intersection where parents’ rights meet children’s rights in care order cases forwarded to the European Court of Human Rights, and how the court balances such rights in their rulings. The article reveals that both biological parents and children’s rights, in care order cases, are of less significance. It is the child’s interests which is the over-ruling argument. However, the article’s findings reveal that the biological parents’ standing in the ECtHR has increased in the latter years. Previous research has revealed that the ECtHR has turned towards a more child-centered approach in their deliberation (cf. ). This article argues that the ECtHR has taken a turn towards a more family-centered approach, rather than child- or parent-centered.acceptedVersio

The Convention on the Rights of the Child’s Imprint on Judgments from the European Court of Human Rights: A Negligible Footprint?

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is the sole interpreter of all matters on the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and has no obligations toward any other international law and/or jurisprudence. In the realm of children’s rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) is renowned as the most prominent source for all development of children’s rights. Officially, there is no connection between the ECHR/ECtHR and the CRC. Nevertheless, the ECtHR has acknowledged a reciprocal, harmonious relationship between the two conventions. By analysing all judgments from the ECtHR referring to the CRC, using a combination of quantitative and qualitative document analyses, this article aims to examine the CRC’s footing in the ECtHR. Leaning on concepts of legal mobilisation, lawfare, and availability heuristics, we argue that there has been a clear development in how the CRC is used in and by the ECtHR, indicating that the CRC has an increasingly stronger footing within the Court, especially in the past decade. Additionally, we argue that this development has strengthened children’s rights and that the CRC, at least indirectly, has had and still has a vital role in developing children’s rights within the ECtHR.publishedVersio

A Nationwide Study of Norwegian Beliefs About Same-sex Marriage and Lesbian and Gay Parenthood

In Norway, a gender-neutral Marriage Law that secured equal marriage and parenting rights for lesbian, gay and heterosexual couples took effect in January 2009. The aim of the current study was to explore Norwegian beliefs about equal marriage and parenting rights for lesbian, gay and heterosexual couples and the welfare of children with lesbian and gay parents. A sample of 1,246 Norwegians participated in the study by filling out a questionnaire. The majority reported that they were supportive of equal marriage rights for lesbian, gay and heterosexual couples, whilst there was less support for granting gay and lesbian couples equal right to become parents. The negative attitudes towards equal parenting rights for lesbian, gay and heterosexual couples were explained mainly by concerns about the welfare of children growing up with gay and lesbian parents.publishedVersio

“The troublesome other and I”: Parallel stories of separated parents in prolonged conflicts

This qualitative study aims to explore how noncohabiting parenting couples in prolonged conflict construct the other parent and themselves. Ten parents from five parent couples were interviewed. A dyadic analytical design was used, where parent's stories of conflict were analyzed in parallel with their co-parent. Drawing on positioning theory, self-identity as parents emerged as implicit counter positions in storylines, which construct the co-parent as “the troublesome other.” Two typologies of conflicted storylines were prominent in the findings: storylines of violations of trust, positioning the co-parents in relation to traumatic events in the past and, storylines of who is bad, positioning the co-parent as either a disloyal co-parent or a dysfunctional parent. The findings indicate that prolonged conflicts made it impossible to find available positions for cooperation. We argue that family therapists should aid each household toward promoting child and family resilience rather than continued efforts to solve chronic conflicts.publishedVersio

The emotional journey of motherhood in migration. The case of Southern European mothers in Norway

Based on focus group discussions and in-depth interviews with Greek, Italian, and Spanish mothers living in Norway, this article contributes to an emerging body of literature on the role of emotions in migration by exploring migrant motherhood as an emotional journey. Drawing on the work of Arlie Hochschild on emotions and her theoretical concepts of framing rules, feeling rules, and emotion work, the article explores how migrant mothers reflect on their emotions when raising their children in the context of migration. Migrant mothers’ accounts illustrate the ambivalent and contradictory emotional experiences they have when they manage rules about how they should make sense of, and feel about their mothering in both host and origin countries. Emotions of guilt, blame, remorse, pride, satisfaction, confidence, and happiness shaped mothers’ experiences of motherhood and social interactions across countries. Through emotion work, migrant mothers managed interdependent emotions and related to different feeling rules establishing and maintaining relationships across places, and negotiating, in this way, their belonging to multiple contexts. Using an emotions-based sociological perspective, we look at motherhood as a field for studying the functions of emotions and their interactions in the context of migration.publishedVersio

Contemporary discourses on children and parenting in Norway. An empirical study based on two cases

Background and overall aim: This dissertation aims to explore beliefs and contemporary discourses about children and parenting in Norway. It discusses the possible consequences of these beliefs and discourses for children’s and parents’ positions and possibilities in society. Based on a social constructionist and discourse framework, this study uses two cases, namely the Norwegian same-sex adoption rights debate and the Norwegian Child Welfare Services (NCWS) meeting with immigrant families. The rationale for this choice was that the study of how phenomena such as children and parenting are argued and conceptualized in settings that are different or outside of main-stream in particular contexts can illuminate current perceptions of these phenomena in the wider society. In an increasingly globalized world with rapid social changes, the meanings of children and parenting, in various contexts, are continuously negotiated and re-negotiated. Thus, there is a need for more knowledge about how we currently understand children and parenting, on-going processes in relation to developments in this understanding, and what this may mean and imply for children and parents in contemporary Norway. Research questions and methods: The following research questions were phrased to illuminate the overall aim: (1) What are Norwegian beliefs about equal marriage and parenting rights for lesbian, gay and heterosexual couples and the welfare of children growing up with lesbian and gay parents? (Paper I). The analyses were based on quantitative data from a web-based nationwide survey (n=1246) carried out in April-May 2008, (2) What images of children can be located in popular views on same-sex adoption rights? (Paper II). The analyses were based on responses to an open-ended question in the same data-set. A discourse analytic approach was chosen to explore images of children when respondents in their own words reflected on provisions for same-sex adopting rights in the New Norwegian Marriage Act; (3) What prevailing discourses on children and parenting can be located in newspaper texts that reflect on and problematize NCWS’ interaction with and intervention in immigrant families? (Paper III). The analyses were based on a body of newspaper texts (80) collected in the period 1 January 2011 – 30 April 2013. The texts featured a debated and often contested meeting between NCWS and immigrant parents. The same discourse analytic approach as for paper II was followed. Research question 4: The possible impact on children and parents of subject positions made available by these discourses was discussed based on the empirical findings from paper II and III. Empirical findings: Paper I: Slightly less than half the sample supported provisions for equal parenting rights in the New Norwegian Marriage Act. Among those not expressing such support, more respondents were unwilling to take a stand or uncertain as opposed to being against such provisions. Negative beliefs about equal parenting rights for same-sex and heterosexual couples were at large, explained by concerns about the welfare of children growing up in lesbian and gay families. In particular, there was a concern for possible bullying and stigmatization of such children. Paper II: Four concurrent discourses were identified: (1) children need to grow up in ordinary families; (2) children need dedicated parenting; (3) children are subjects of own individual rights, and (4) the best interest of the child is paramount. Discourse 4 seemingly had a superior standing, tentatively positioning children with a superior moral and abstract status. Paper III: Four interrelated and concurrent discourses on children and parenting were located: (1) no tolerance for parenting practices involving violence and force; (2) every child is subject of individual - and equal – rights; (3) good parenting is child-focused and dialogue based, and (4) Norwegian child welfare services – authoritative but also contested in family matters. These discourses as it seems, position children and parents in two main ways, children as pivots, and parents as guarantors for children developing proper skills, respectively. Discussion and conclusions: 1) Concerning children, understandings in all three papers were, as it seems, informed by a rights discourse, positioning children with individual rights and as citizens entitled to enjoy fundamental welfare state ideals such as for example humanitarianism, autonomy and justice. There is a need for vigilance concerning children’s position as subject of own individual rights. Watering down this position, may imply less power for children in relation to adults and revived notions of children as mainly appendages to the family. Furthermore, in all three papers understandings concerning children were at the same time informed by a risk discourse, positioning children as vulnerable, in need of adult protection, and typically, pushing notions of a sentimentalized child. Sentimentalizing children will imply poorer ability to realize the various contexts in which many children live and the actual challenges that they experience following various life circumstances. Consequently, there is a risk that society will not act, or focus on aspects that may not be helpful for children in their real-life situation. Importantly, both a rights discourse and a risk discourse, through a pre-occupation with safe-guarding and protecting children, feed into a broader discourse of control, and the need to supervise children, also in the family context. 2) Concerning parenting, findings indicated understandings informed by children as individuals, a need for extensive parental dedication, notions that emotional and relational aspects between children and parents were of particular importance, and the need for parents to acquire certain skills in order to appear child-centered, seemingly a premise for appearing competent. In the same-sex parenting debate it was for example typically argued that samesex parents perhaps even more so than other parents, affiliate with this thinking and the importance of such skills. In the case of NCWS meeting with immigrant families, findings showed extensive societal interest in assisting and securing these same values, through good information, but not the least through parent education, training and societal supervision. Processes that standardize and homogenize parenting easily position parents, who may have other experiences and therefore may think different about parenthood, as less valued or deficient. This may also increase feelings of being deviant or “outside” for groups of parents - and counter-act inclusion. Such processes will in general complicate the establishment of productive societal dialogues in this field, and perhaps in particular when meeting with various Norwegian welfare society institutions, where a good dialogue often is considered to be vital for adapted and sustainable help for children and families. Concerning the meeting with NCWS, lack of trust and poor dialogues may typically compel unproductive countermoves and withdrawal strategies from the involved parents. Some groups of children may thereby have less access to timely, necessary and adapted measures and interventions and consequently, enjoy less societal protection than other groups of children

Change and Stability in Public Beliefs About Same-Sex Family Rights in Norway in 2008, 2013, and 2017

Introduction In Norway, legal measures securing equal marriage and parenting rights for same- and different-sex couples took effect on January 1, 2009. The aim of this study was to assess Norwegian public beliefs about lesbian and gay family rights in the period of 2008–2017. Methods Three nationwide surveys representing the adult Norwegian population were conducted with a time series design (data collected in 2008, 2013, and 2017, n = 1246, 1250, and 1250, respectively) utilizing Web-based questionnaires. Results Over the 9-year period, there was a decline in negative beliefs about lesbian and gay parenting and marriage rights and gradually less concern about children growing up with same-sex parents, more so for men than for women. Beliefs about equal parenting rights remained more negative than beliefs about equal marriage rights. At all points in time, concern for children’s welfare was the strongest predictor of beliefs about equal parenting rights for same- and different-sex couples, and for all points in time, being older contributed to the explained variance. Conclusions We discuss how the findings may relate to policy developments concerning LGBTI rights in Norway. LGBTI rights have gained increasingly significant symbolic value in the public domain, and we suggest that it is productive to reflect on findings in relation to new landscapes of political and public discourse in Norway and Europe. Social Policy Implications The results reveal contemporary supportive public opinion regarding LGBTI family rights, which currently gives lawmakers a foundation for further institutionalizing LGBTI rights in domains such as in schools at every level and in institutions offering family support and counseling. However, there is also a need for political awareness of emerging discourses linking questions on same-sex family rights to broader divisive sociopolitical processes

Change and Stability in Public Beliefs About Same‑Sex Family Rights in Norway in 2008, 2013, and 2017

Introduction In Norway, legal measures securing equal marriage and parenting rights for same- and different-sex couples took effect on January 1, 2009. The aim of this study was to assess Norwegian public beliefs about lesbian and gay family rights in the period of 2008–2017. Methods Three nationwide surveys representing the adult Norwegian population were conducted with a time series design (data collected in 2008, 2013, and 2017, n = 1246, 1250, and 1250, respectively) utilizing Web-based questionnaires. Results Over the 9-year period, there was a decline in negative beliefs about lesbian and gay parenting and marriage rights and gradually less concern about children growing up with same-sex parents, more so for men than for women. Beliefs about equal parenting rights remained more negative than beliefs about equal marriage rights. At all points in time, concern for children’s welfare was the strongest predictor of beliefs about equal parenting rights for same- and different-sex couples, and for all points in time, being older contributed to the explained variance. Conclusions We discuss how the findings may relate to policy developments concerning LGBTI rights in Norway. LGBTI rights have gained increasingly significant symbolic value in the public domain, and we suggest that it is productive to reflect on findings in relation to new landscapes of political and public discourse in Norway and Europe. Social Policy Implications The results reveal contemporary supportive public opinion regarding LGBTI family rights, which currently gives lawmakers a foundation for further institutionalizing LGBTI rights in domains such as in schools at every level and in institutions offering family support and counseling. However, there is also a need for political awareness of emerging discourses linking questions on same-sex family rights to broader divisive sociopolitical processes

Self-legitimation and sense-making of Southern European parents' migration to Norway: The role of family aspirations

This article explores the migration narratives of Southern European parents living in Norway, where family projects emerged as a central theme. Migrant parents told stories not only of disillusionment and sacrifice but also of satisfaction, which they articulated around their aspiration to have a family life after migration. We analysed the informants' storytelling and explored the ways that family aspirations manifested. By articulating their migration experiences through their aspirations to grow their family, the migrant parents claimed a position as subjects in Norwegian discourses on parenting and citizenship and distanced themselves from discourses on labour immigration and immigrant parenting. The article aims to contribute to the scholarship on motivations for post‐2008 intra‐European migration and on narrative legitimation by drawing attention to the way migrants use their family projects as a vehicle for self‐legitimation, for claiming rightful membership to the host society and for justifying this position to themselves and others