Search

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 risk‐increasing and risk‐reducing factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Children's participation in legal proceedings affecting them personally has been gaining importance. So far, a primary research concern has been how children experience their participation in court proceedings. However, little is known about the child's voice itself: Are children able to clearly express their wishes, and if so, what do they say in child protection cases? In this study, we extracted information about children's statements from court file data of 220 child protection cases in Germany. We found 182 children were asked about their wishes. The majority of the statements found came either from reports of the guardians ad litem or from judicial records of the child hearings. Using content analysis, three main aspects of the statements were extracted: wishes concerning main place of residence, wishes about whom to have or not contact with, and children granting decision‐making authority to someone else. Children's main focus was on their parents, but others (e.g., relatives and foster care providers) were also mentioned. Intercoder agreement was substantial. Making sure that child hearings are as informative as possible is in the child's best interest. Therefore, the categories developed herein might help professionals to ask questions more precisely relevant to the child. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]