The Hidden Proceedings – An Analysis of Accountability of Child Protection Adoption Proceedings in Eight European Jurisdictions

Abstract

How accountable are decisions about terminating parental rights to ensure an adoption from care? In this paper we examine if the proceedings in eight European jurisdictions are accountable to: a) the private parties, i.e. individuals that are concerned – such as parents, child; b) the general public that authorized the politicians and the government to make legislation; and c) the elected government, i.e. the legislators and the system that have granted the court, court-like or administrative body the authority to make these decisions. Our data material consists of national legislation, organizational guidelines (courts, child protection, or supervisory agencies), statistics and expert knowledge. The conclusions of our analysis are discouraging. There is only limited accountability for one of the most intrusive interventions by a state into the private lives of individuals. There is a lack of information about the proceedings as well as a lack of transparency. We identify systems that, with few exceptions, operate in isolation, with only a few outsiders having access or knowledge about what is going on. We cannot in this study say anything about the decision-making quality in these proceedings, they may be excellent, but the problem is that very few external actors are in a position to examine the quality of the decisions. This missing connection between the wider democratic society and this part of the legal systems in the eight democracies we studied is of huge concern, and we have indications that the situation is equally concerning in other European states.

The Invisible Child

“…Child protection decision-making processes in courts are an understudied area, with little currently known about the requirements and conventions of judicial justification (see Burns et al, 2017;Burns et al, 2019). This article contributes to current scholarship with insights into these processes.…”

Discourses between the Public and the Private: Transnational Families at the Crossroads

“…9 The lack of public statements from Barnevernet makes one claim or another difficult to verify. In the cases discussed here (as in Burns et al 2019), the lack of transparent decisions is seen as particularly problematic and leaves room for (mis)interpretations regarding the presence of normalizing ideologies from the side of the institution. Preferences in the choice of foster parents that might be linked to language, religion or cultural background can thus only be assumed but are not part of statistics.…”

Justifying interventions in Norwegian child protection

“…There exists a broad consensus that accountable exercises of state-power shall be justified and based on reason (Habermas 1996;Ward 2012). However, what constitutes a just and fair use of power differs among welfare states as well as between public sectors and disciplines (Burns et al 2017;Burns et al 2019;Svallfors 2012). A justification is in its simplest form a provision of a reason, an argument, an account, or a fact, that explains or defends a choice or a decision.…”