Improving decision‐making in care order proceedings: A multijurisdictional study of court decision‐makers' viewpoints

Abstract

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.

Social workers' perspectives on the role and function of independent experts in care proceedings in Norway: Contributions and devaluation

“…The social workers thus infer from this that the courts lack confidence in their assessments. This finding concurs with Skivenes and Tonheim (2019) who showed that Norwegian judicial decision-makers suggest the increased use of experts, as well as Beckett and McKeigue (2003) and Beckett et al (2007) who show that the court lacks confidence in social work assessments. According to Grundmann (2017), trust is a significant factor between experts and their clients, where trust is achieved by experts by being perceived as impartial and a possessor of scientific knowledge.…”

Justifying interventions in Norwegian child protection

“…10 Studies analysing judgements concerning removing children from their birth families covers varied topics: children of parents 8 See appendix (https://discretion.uib.no/projects/supplementary-documentation/#1552296903964-af7d19a0-9d4c) with an outline of the content of the written decisions. 9 In Skivenes and Søvig (2017) and Skivenes and Tonheim (2018) (Breen et al 2021).…”

Group decision-making theories for child and family social work

“…Collaborative decision-making practices in child and family welfare considered here include informal email exchanges and phone calls between professionals; structured case conferences or ad-hoc meetings; courts and comparable bodies; school-based collaborative arrangements; and multi-professional teams co-located within the same place and working under unitary management ([4]; Baginsky & Manthorpe, 2020;Burns et al, 2017;[12]; Skivenes & Tonheim, 2019).…”

“…To make decisions in a group, the individual members, each with their own knowledge and skill base ('professional judgement'), pool their assessments to reach (ideally) an agreed understanding and then contribute to deciding on an integrated plan of action (Dong et al, 2018). In child and family social work the composition of the group may vary across contexts (e.g., healthcare services, schools, social services, and courts) and jurisdictions, as well as according to the seriousness and complexity of the decision ([2]; [4]; Baginsky & Manthorpe, 2020;Burns et a., 2017;Skivenes & Tonheim, 2019).…”