Search

Child welfare removals of children are among the most invasive decisions a state can make toward its citizens, and typically it is the courts that make these decisions. These interventions are regularly exposed to criticism. In this paper, we examine if and how care order proceedings could be improved in England, Finland, Norway, and California, USA. We have asked the judiciary decision‐makers about their view on what should be improved. Our findings show that the organization of the proceedings, including time and staff, are identified as issues in all four systems. Furthermore, the preparations by the child welfare agency are also mentioned as an issue, for English, Finnish, and Californian decision‐makers. Very few decision‐makers indicate features related to the individual, situational, and contextual dimensions, which is interesting since this would be expected from organization theory. The strong call for change in the way proceedings are organized indicates a need for modernization as well as better use of available competency from child development experts. The respondents focus on the elements that a decision‐maker has direct experience with and knowledge about, and this is indeed worth noting for policymakers in the four systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper compares how frontline staff in four national child welfare systems and policy contexts - Finland, Norway, England and the USA (specifically, California) - respond to questions about a scenario of possible harm to children. The countries have different child welfare systems that we anticipated would be reflected in the workers' responses ( n = 1027). The analysis shows differences and similarities between the systems, although often not in line with system expectations. There is also variation within the country samples. The study shows the complex interactions of individual and agency characteristics in addition to the role of proceduralised decision-making systems and professional discretion. Key Practitioner Messages Professional discretion differs., Proceduralised and high threshold systems result in less variation between workers' responses., System categories do not seem to capture the nuances of frontline decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examine how a sample of 301 child welfare workers in Norway, England and California, USA assess risk in cases of domestic violence. Decisions in child welfare cases are made under a high degree of uncertainty, and by using the vignette method, we explore whether child welfare systems and risk assessment approaches result in different assessment of risk level and substantiations. We find both cross‐country differences and similarities: Norwegian workers consider the risk level to be significantly higher than their peers in England and USA. However, workers' justifications for and identification of decisive factors in the case are strikingly similar across countries. These similarities are observed for both high‐risk and low‐risk assessors, and they may exist due to widespread knowledge about domestic violence and its negative consequences. We argue that the international differences in risk level assessments are due to system differences in the countries studied. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Citizens' opinions on child protection public policy are a key dimension of the legitimacy of a political order. We have conducted a survey vignette on a representative sample of citizens ( N = 4,003) in England, Finland, Norway, and California, USA. The findings show that citizens' opinions are clearly in favour of adoption (75%) rather than long-term foster care (25%). Context may partly explain the findings, as the responses of the majority of Anglo-American respondents are in line with practice in their countries but for the Nordic respondents, there is a substantial discrepancy between citizens' opinions and on-going child protection practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]