Review of \u3cem\u3eThe Politics of Child Abuse in America.\u3c/em\u3e Lela B. Costin, Howard Jacob Karger and David Stoesz. Reviewed by Jill Duerr-Berrick, University of California, Berkeley.

Lela B. Costin, Howard Jacob Karger and David Stoesz, The Politics of Child Abuse in America. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. $29.95 hardcover

Review of \u3cem\u3eLoving across the color line: A White Adoptive Mother Learns About Race.\u3c/em\u3e Sharon E. Rush. Review by Jill Duerr Berrick

Book review of Sharon E. Rush, Loving across the color line. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2000. $23.95 hardcover

Review of \u3cem\u3eThrough my Own Eyes: Single Mothers and the Cultures of Poverty.\u3c/em\u3e Susan D. Holloway, Bruce Fuller, Marylee F. Rambaud and Constanza Eggers-Pierola. Reviewed by Jill Duerr-Berrick, University of California at Berkeley.

Susan D. Holloway, Bruce Fuller, Marylee E Rambaud and Constanza Eggers-Pierola, Through my own Eyes: Single Mothers and the Cultures of Poverty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998. $35.00 hardcover

La protección infantil frente al maltrato en los Estados Unidos

The U.S., known as a western industrialized country with a residual welfare state, has developed a system to respond to extreme family difficulties by focusing narrowly on children’s safety and risk of harm from parents or other caregivers. In contrast to many European nations, eligibility for family services is highly restricted and prevention services are typically short-term. For children who are ultimately separated from their parents to secure their safety, the U.S. welfare system places a high priority on returning children home as quickly as possible; and for those children whose reunification is forestalled, alternative opportunities for a permanent home are pursued. This paper suggests that a family system with broader eligibility and more saturated prevention services might benefit many more children and families than those currently assisted in the U.S. today.Los EE.UU. pueden reconocerse como un país industrializado occidental con un estado de bienestar residual. En él, se ha desarrollado un sistema para responder a las dificultades familiares extremas, centrado casi exclusivamente en la garantía de la seguridad y la prevención del riesgo de los niños por daños infligidos por parte de los padres u otros cuidadores. A diferencia de muchas naciones europeas, la elegibilidad para optar a la prestación de servicios para la familia está muy restringida y los servicios de prevención suelen ser de corta duración. En última instancia, se persigue garantizar la seguridad de los niños que son separados de sus padres, en este sentido, el sistema de bienestar norteamericano otorga una alta prioridad a la devolución al hogar lo antes posible, ofreciendo oportunidades alternativas de un hogar permanente para aquellos niños que no vuelven a sus familias de origen. Este artículo sugiere que un sistema familiar con elegibilidad más amplia y con servicios de prevención dedicados a una mayor cantidad de usuarios podría beneficiar a muchos más niños y familias de las que se asisten en la actualidad en los EE.UU

Parental Freedom in the Context of Risk to the Child: Citizens’ Views of Child Protection and the State in the US and Norway

Child protection is considered an appropriate government responsibility, but interventions into the family are also some of the most consequential for states. This study examines the normative basis for limiting parents’ freedom by exploring public attitudes about a child’s safety in the context of increasing risk. Using a randomized survey, we test the causal relationship between levels of risk and parental restrictions on representative samples in Norway and CA, US (n = 2148) – different welfare state and child protection models. Findings suggest that the public supports restricting parental freedom under conditions of risk and that severity of risk is taken into consideration. A majority favour restricting parental freedom under conditions of risk to the child; a minority resist restricting freedom, regardless of risk, and about one-third to one-half of respondents favour temporarily suspending parents’ rights by separating children to foster care. Residents of Norway are half as likely to support unrestricted parenting, regardless of risk, and are 1.5 as likely to endorse restricted parenting. Norwegians are also 20% less likely to support separating a child from his parent compared to US respondents. The study has implications for system design based on popular notions about parents’ freedom and family privacy.publishedVersio

International Perspectives on Child-responsive Courts

Child friendly justice and access to justice for children are explicit concerns for the European Union, the Committee on the Rights of the Child, the Council of Europe and the Child Rights International Network. This study examines court systems as child-responsive by eliciting the views of judicial decision makers on child protection cases (n = 1,479) in four legal systems (England, Finland, Norway and the USA (represented by California)), based on an online survey. In this paper, we asked judicial officials who have the authority to make care order decisions how they view the child-friendliness of the courts. We presented them with six statements representing standard features of child responsive courts. Findings show that there is considerable room for improving both structure and practice of the court proceedings, for example the use of child friendly language and child-sensitive time frames. There were variations across states, and some variation across type of decision maker. Implications for the development of education and training about the opportunities for children’s engagement are considered

Care order templates as institutional scripts in child protection: A cross-system analysis

This article compares blank care order application templates used in four countries (England, Finland, Norway, and USA (California)), treating them as a vital part of the ‘institutional scripts’ that shape practice, and embody state principles of child protection. The templates are used when child protection agencies apply to court for a care order, usually to remove a child from the family home. The templates prescribe and shape the type of information and analysis that is required justify such an extreme level of state intervention in family life. They are a mechanism and a manifestation of the principles and the legislation of each child welfare system, and are able to cast light on issues that might otherwise remain unseen or unnoticed in cross-country comparisons. The analysis of the documents compares the language and form of the four blank templates, their inter-textuality, their readership, and authors. The analysis highlights the discretionary space allocated to social workers across countries and the state frameworks within which child protection efforts are embedded