No abstract

This article analyses how young people, with experiences of secure care, relate to the contradictory images of children in child welfare: the child in danger and the dangerous child. The study is based in Sweden and consists of in-depth interviews with 16 youths conducted repeatedly (three times) over a period of 2 years. Using the perspective of relational sociology, we demonstrate how abstract images of children are materialized through the institutional practices of broken, interrupted, forbidden and forced relations. Within this context, young people are found to relate differently to being placed in the institution by negotiating, opposing and transposing. All practices display their unfolding agency and struggle to make sense of the experience. The restrictive practices seem to deny young people relations through which a sense of safety and care can be established. We conclude by putting into question the very foundations of secure care within child welfare services.

This article explores refugee girls’ talk about friendship formation. Friendship is a complex process and a subjective experience. The study participants stressed similarity and cultural affinity as important criteria of forming friendships. Those who attended schools with a mixture of students described their native peers as having different temperaments and interests. Relatives were referred to as being best friends who one could trust and confide in. This suggests the need for a broad conceptualisation of friendship in research and practice.

This article reviews and compares the use of confinement and other restrictive measures against young people under 18 in child welfare and/or the criminal justice systems in Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and Norway. Young people are confined for a variety of reasons, including protection, care, treatment, and punishment. However, confinement of young people is a contested issue because it can be viewed as necessary but also potentially harmful. Comparison of legislation and practices reveals that while there are some similarities in the service provisions for young people, there are also significant disparities among the four countries regarding the organization, function, and frequency of the use of confinement and restrictive measures. While Denmark and Sweden use secure welfare institutions, Finland and Norway apply other restrictive measures. Despite the differences in approaches to confinement in the Nordic countries, the use of confinement is guided by the principle of the child's best interest, and the child welfare system is the main frame for confinement and intervention. The article discusses these disparate practices from the perspective of children's rights and identifies new avenues for research and practice.

No abstract