Professionalised, hybrid, and layperson models in Nordic child protection - actors in decision-making in out of home placements

Abstract

Decisions about child protection and interventions in families are one of the most difficult responsibilities of welfare states. The aim of this article is to describe and analyse the commonalities and differences in the child protection decision-making systems in Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark. We focus on the actors involved, especially the laypersons, and their role in the decision-making process when deciding on out-ofhome placements, both on voluntary and coercive grounds.The study is based on a comprehensive analysis of official documents, legislation, guidelines, and reports about child protection in each country together with a review of recent research in the area. This is complemented by 12 interviews with key informants with knowledge about the child protection systems in their respective countries.We found that there is an expanding influence from external experts and dwindling influence from laypersons. We discuss the organisation in terms of three different decision-making modelsa professionalised decision-making model in Finland, a hybrid decision-making model in Norway and Denmark, and a layperson decision-making model in Sweden. One conclusion is that all of the countries aim for children to be involved and for decisions to be made in compliance with the rule of law, but this is realised quite differently when it comes to which actors should be given the authority to make the decisions. Which model is the best would have different answers depending on which perspective the models are evaluated from. However, the consequences of decisionmaking models for children need to be studied further.

Collaboration of Child Protective Services and Early Childhood Educators: Enhancing the Well-Being of Children in Need

“…In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown, Bérubé et al ( 2020 ) argued that supportive systems, including healthcare and CPS, could not meet the needs of children due to the closing of schools and childcare centres. Several studies (Toros and Falch-Eriksen 2020 ; Jentsch and Schnock 2020 ) found that one of the challenges of COVID-19 for CPS was the loss of collaboration opportunities with key partners, including nursery schools. Jentsch and Schnock ( 2020 ) reported that the lockdown did not support the reporting process.…”

“…Several studies (Toros and Falch-Eriksen 2020 ; Jentsch and Schnock 2020 ) found that one of the challenges of COVID-19 for CPS was the loss of collaboration opportunities with key partners, including nursery schools. Jentsch and Schnock ( 2020 ) reported that the lockdown did not support the reporting process. Similarly, Turner ( 2020 ) addressed limited collaboration from key partners due to COVID-19.…”

“…Variables include the many, many parties to consider, care contexts that are hard to map, legal restrictions, the ongoing controversy of intrusion and the called-upon need to infringe upon the fundamental right to family life, and strict demands towards each decision being in the best interests of the child. CPS practice is considered an age-old public responsibility, and one that is difficult to enforce (Duncan 2019;Hultman et al 2018). Also, decision-making often involves limited knowledge and carries uncertainty in the interpretation of the care context, and whether or not to do something (Whittaker 2018).…”

Social workers’ views about children’s and parents’ competence in child protection decision-making

“…This is very different from adversarial child welfare decision-making systems, with courts as the main decision-making bodies, as highlighted in several Anglo-American studies (e.g., Burns et al, 2017). The Finnish system also stands out from the other Nordic countries with its emphasis on child welfare professionals making the majority of the removal decisions (Hultman et al, 2018). The practice obviously gives a lot of power to social workers but also to parents and children (of certain ages): they are given the power to say that the child can be taken into public care without court involvement.…”

Age limits for participation in child protection court proceedings in Sweden

“…For a more comprehensive description of the Swedish decision‐making system, see, for example, Hultman, Forkby, and Höjer, ()…”