Parental Freedom in the Context of Risk to the Child: Citizens’ Views of Child Protection and the State in the US and Norway

Abstract

Child protection is considered an appropriate government responsibility, but interventions into the family are also some of the most consequential for states. This study examines the normative basis for limiting parents’ freedom by exploring public attitudes about a child’s safety in the context of increasing risk. Using a randomized survey, we test the causal relationship between levels of risk and parental restrictions on representative samples in Norway and CA, US (n = 2148) – different welfare state and child protection models. Findings suggest that the public supports restricting parental freedom under conditions of risk and that severity of risk is taken into consideration. A majority favour restricting parental freedom under conditions of risk to the child; a minority resist restricting freedom, regardless of risk, and about one-third to one-half of respondents favour temporarily suspending parents’ rights by separating children to foster care. Residents of Norway are half as likely to support unrestricted parenting, regardless of risk, and are 1.5 as likely to endorse restricted parenting. Norwegians are also 20% less likely to support separating a child from his parent compared to US respondents. The study has implications for system design based on popular notions about parents’ freedom and family privacy.

Children’s rights and parents’ rights: Popular attitudes about when we privilege one over the other

“…Researchers found wide agreement across population groups regarding the need for children's services, but discrepancies across and within countries in attitudes about the threshold for defining “neglect,” and the appropriateness of an intrusive state intervention such as foster care. In particular, and relevant to the study reported here, respondents from Norway were somewhat more likely than respondents from the US to approve of a foster care placement, and child protection staff in Norway were significantly more likely to approve of foster care and to regard a specific description of parenting as “neglect.” Finally, a comparative study of residents in Norway and the US (CA), based on the same material as this study, suggested that Norwegians are more likely than Americans to favor restrictions on parental freedom when a child's safety is compromised (Berrick, Skivenes, et al, in press).…”

Populations trust in the child protection system: A cross-country comparison of nine high-income jurisdictions

“…This finding was not without exceptions, as trust in relation to child protection in some countries was markedly lower than the overall level of trust, for example, in California and Germany, and the converse holds for Spain, where we expected lower trust levels, but in which the findings show trust in the child protection system at the upper end. A possible explanation of these findings is that family autonomy is an especially strong norm in California and the US, in combination with a relatively low focus on children’s rights (Berrick, 2011; Meyer VN, 1923: 399–400; see also Berrick et al, in press). Furthermore, Americans tend to differ from Europeans in terms of having much lower expectations of welfare state responsibilities (Brooks, 2012).…”

“…Child protection systems in high-income countries are usually categorized into three types (Gilbert et al, 2011; see Berrick et al, in press): risk-oriented systems, family service-oriented systems and child centric-oriented systems. A risk-oriented child protection system has a relatively high threshold for intervention into the family, and its primary focus is on children’s health and safety.…”

“…In this study, we examine whether the public has a different level of trust of each component of the child protection system. In most countries, the child protection system has two main parts: first, frontline child protection staff and agencies that identify and intervene in cases of alleged abuse and neglect and, second, the judicial system, which has the final say in determining important decisions such as supervision orders, removal of children from homes and adoption from care (Berrick et al, in press). The public may have more confidence in the judicial system and judges than in social service agencies or vice versa.…”

“…This study is based on representative samples of populations in nine jurisdictions covering three types of child protection systems, including eight European countries (Austria, England, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Norway and Spain) and California in the United States (US). Through a child protection system, the state can provide help and services to families, but also undertakes invasive interventions to curtail or even terminate parental rights and responsibilities (Berrick et al, in press; Burns et al, 2017; Gilbert et al, 2011). 2 The state’s intervention in families on behalf of children, therefore, questions and problematizes the normative and positive position of the family, a core institution of society.…”