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 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]