Securing permanence for children in care: A cross-country analysis of citizen's view on adoption versus foster care

If children in child protection cannot be cared for by their natural parents, should they be adopted or live in foster home? Results from a study of representative samples of populations (n = 12 330), in eight European countries—Austria, England, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Norway and Spain—and California, USA, reveal that people would recommend adoption over foster care, if a child in public care cannot grow up with their natural parent(s). There are cross-country differences between populations, and examining if institutional context such as type of child protection system explains differences, we find that child maltreatment-oriented systems are more supportive of adoption than other types of systems. Citizens having little confidence in the child protection system were only weakly correlated with preference for adoption. In conclusion, people prefer adoption as placement options for children in care are more than foster homes, and possible this finding reflects a sort of refamalialization of children into the private sphere.publishedVersio

Pathways to permanence in England and Norway: A critical analysis of documents and data

The English language term ‘permanence’ is increasingly used in high income countries as a ‘short-hand’ translation for a complex set of aims around providing stability and family membership for children who need child welfare services and out-of-home care. From a scrutiny of legislative provisions, court judgments, government documents and a public opinion survey on child placement options, the paper draws out similarities and differences in understandings of the place of ‘permanence’ within the child welfare discourse in Norway and England. The main differences are that in England the components of permanence are explicitly set out in legislation, statutory guidance and advisory documents whilst in Norway the terms ‘stability’ and ‘continuity’ are used in a more limited number of policy documents in the context of a wide array of services available for children and families. The paper then draws on these sources, and on administrative data on children in care, to tease out possible explanations for the similarities and differences identified. We hypothesise that both long-standing policies and recent changes can be explained by differences in public and political understandings of child welfare and the balance between universal services and those targeted on parents and children identified as vulnerable and in need of specialist services

Children’s Capacities and Role in Matters of Great Significance for Them

How do decision-makers in the judiciary approach children’s capacities as set out in Article 5 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child? Children in public care who cannot be reunified with their birth parents may be adopted, but are children given agency in these cases that are highly important to the involved children? We examine all judgments on adoptions from care made in Norway in a six-year period (2011-2016) involving children aged 4-17 years old, a total of 169 judgments. These cases are decided after a two- to three-day hearing in the court-like County Board. The results of our analysis are discouraging because many children are absent in the decision-maker’s justification and conclusion about adoption. Young children do not have their capacity assessed, and older children’s capacity undergoes a shallow assessment at best, and typically only their opinion is mentioned. Age is commonly used as a proxy for competency and maturity, and the role children’s opinion plays in the cases as well as in the decision-making is unclear overall. Possible explanations for this situation may be lack of guidelines for how to give children agency, that decision-makers do not have sufficient competency in assessing children’s capabilities, and/or that decision-makers are not aware of their obligations or are not willing to give children agency.publishedVersio

Child’s best interest in child protection legislation of 44 jurisdictions

publishedVersio

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

Begrensning av familielivet - en undersøkelse av borgernes syn på statlige inngrep og foreldres frihet i åtte europeiske land

This paper examines the public views – a total of 10,348 persons – on restrictions of personal autonomy of others to protect the interest of children. We use representative country samples of the adult populations of Austria, England, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Norway, and Spain, and ask them to consider an experimental vignette with three different parental conditions: substance abuse, mental health problems, and learning difficulties. The findings display that most people would restrict parental freedom to protect the child, and a stricter restriction when the parent struggles with substance abuse compared to mental health compared to learning difficulties. There are some country differences, and when examining the role of institutional context of child protective system, a correlation is detected with significant differences between population views in a right-oriented system versus a well-being system and maltreatment system. In light of the ongoing European debates about child protection and how controversial and contested this area of the welfare state seem to be, it is interesting to learn (also) from this study that people, across countries, individual differences, child protection systems, overall are supportive of state intervention and support in a situation with a child at potential risk.publishedVersio

Structuring Practice for Children’s Participation. Report I for the Participation Project: Mapping and Evaluating Organizational Guidelines

publishedVersio