Abstract
In the present paper, we discuss three challenges with the Norwegian Child Protective System (CPS) that might have contributed to the recent criticism from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). First, how to balance the rights of the child with those of the parents. Second, the psychological field’s influence on the interpretation of what constitutes the best interest of the child, and third we describe several missing links in the CPS work. Throughout the paper, we find indications of a well-developed Act, but a less optional CPS practice. Likewise, we find evidence for a narrow interpretation of the best interest of the child related to CPS and expert psychologists’ application of attachment theory, and several organizational and educational shortcomings in the area of CPS. We conclude that the child is not fully seen as a legal subject in the eyes of the ECtHR, and that more research into CPS measures and organization are needed to better deliver adequate assistance to vulnerable families.
Highlights
Compared to many other western countries in the world, the Scandinavian countries, and Norway, appear to be among the most ‘child friendly’ in terms of the most recognized welfare variables affecting children that are measurable (UNDP, 2020)
During the past few years a stream of cases has been appealed to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) with a particular criticism regarding parental rights
This wave of criticism motivates a reflective imperative as to asking how well our Norwegian system is working in terms of the ECtHR and the Convention of the Rights of Children (CRC)
Summary
Compared to many other western countries in the world, the Scandinavian countries, and Norway, appear to be among the most ‘child friendly’ in terms of the most recognized welfare variables affecting children that are measurable (UNDP, 2020). During the past few years a stream of cases has been appealed to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) with a particular criticism regarding parental rights This wave of criticism motivates a reflective imperative as to asking how well our Norwegian system is working in terms of the ECtHR and the Convention of the Rights of Children (CRC). Support from other service areas of child welfare and health has become more frequent in the preventive work of vulnerable children. The present paper aims to discuss three main areas of concern that we believe contribute to the understanding of how well, or badly, the Norwegian system is working in terms of the ECtHR and the CRC. Our third concern is motivated by an identification of several missing links in the CPS work
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: International Journal on Child Maltreatment: Research, Policy and Practice
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
