Child welfare and future assessments – An analysis of discretionary decision-making in newborn removals in Norway

Ida Benedicte Juhasz

doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105137

Abstract

This study explores a particularly wide discretionary space set for decision-making within the Norwegian welfare bureaucracy; care order decisions concerning newborns directly removed from the hospital by the child protection system. The aim is understanding how decision-makers reason and justify in applying (child welfare) policy when decisions have a predictive and uncertain nature. To explore this, all (N = 19) written newborn care order decisions from 2016 decided by the County Social Welfare Board, where the parents have had no previous children removed, are analyzed. Under analysis are parents’ problems or problematic behavior and subsequent capacity to change. Three categories of change emerge; case problematics most often appear as permanent, a quarter as slow-moving, and a small number are transient, where some form of change is taking place. Further findings are large variations in the number of sources and contexts applied in the justifications. The study concludes that newborn cases involve a highly marginalized demographic within child protection, as decision-makers unitarily find high, long-lasting risk to equal minimal change capacity in a majority of the cases. Simultaneously, decision-makers appear to mitigate future uncertainty by invoking the parents’ childhoods, health and social welfare histories as parenting indicators.

Highlights

The delegation of discretion in welfare bureaucracy decisionmaking facilitates necessary individualization, but is not without its drawbacks
I probe at the accuracy of this critique by examining reasoning in child welfare care orders of newborn children: serious state interventions into family life, aimed at securing a child’s best interest
All the 19 decisions were unitarily decided by the Board, meaning no dissenting opinions by the three11 County Board members. 18 of 19 decisions were ruled as removals, with one case ruled as non-removal, proposing the mother and child a transition to a stay at family center (C17)

Summary

Introduction

The delegation of discretion in welfare bureaucracy decisionmaking facilitates necessary individualization, but is not without its drawbacks. Legal decision-makers and judges in child welfare systems are authorized discretion in making decisions about family structures, despite little systematic knowledge and research existing on what justifies decisions about removing a child from parental care These decisions are in the literature characterized as immensely difficult (Broadhurst, 2017; Munro, 2019; Ward, Brown, & Westlake, 2012), and must adhere to law, to established knowledge about children’s developmental needs, as well as normative ideas of what are legitimate reasons for state intervention into family life (Gilbert et al, 2011; Burns et al, 2017; Connolly & Katz, 2020; Berrick, Gilbert, & Skivenes, 2020). What arguments and evidence substantiate and justify conclusions about whether a parent can secure a child’s short- and long-term best interests?

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion