How are decisions about care orders of children in cases about violence justified? What important accounts are considered? In an in-depth analysis of 94 written care order decisions from the Norwegian County Boards, we examine decision-makers arguments and hereunder if there are differences in cases about migrant and non-migrant families. The analysis shows that justifications are largely rooted in a pragmatic discourse focusing on risk-levels, drawing on empirical evidence of violence. Additionally, there is a pragmatic-ethical discourse rooted in the decision-makers assessment of parents’ ability to change their behaviour, to meet the children’s needs, highlighting parental denial of violence and blaming the children. This serves the decision-makers in justifying whether the necessary care for the children is possible to attain. We find only a few differences between migrant and non-migrant cases: parents’ denial is more prevalent in migrant cases; in non-migrant cases consequences for the child is more prevalent; and more evidence of strong direct violence in migrant cases.

No abstract

How is expert evidence used in care order proceedings when children are considered for foster care placement because of familial violence? What are important factors and how do the decision‐makers use and evaluate evidence from specialists and experts? In this in‐depth analysis of 104 published care order decisions from the Norwegian County Boards, I investigate how decision‐makers use and evaluate evidence from expert witnesses to determine whether a care order may be granted. The analysis shows that the evidence largely revolves around social functioning, care context and topics about how parents and children relate to each other. Led by the law, the decision‐makers use this evidence to determine whether the child's situation is harmful, whether support services are viable and whether a care order is in the child's best interests. I find that decision‐makers draw unevenly on evidence with regards to these legal requirements, and that the use predominantly defers to expert authority. However, there is also evidence of independent reasoning, where deferral to the epistemic authority of the experts is weakened. This is shown through evaluative and critical assessments and scrutiny of the disciplinary evidence.