The Child’s Opinion and Position in Care Order Proceedings

An Analysis of Judicial Discretion in the County Boards’ Decision-Making

in The International Journal of Children's Rights
No Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

This paper examines whether, and in what way, the child participates in care order decisions heard by the Norwegian County Boards. If they are heard, how are their opinions weighed, and do the children themselves present their perspective of their situation? We analysed a total of 53 written rulings on care orders that included all the publicly available decisions in the time period from 2007–2013 that concerned a child in the age range of 5–11 years old. The findings show that the child’s opinion in seven out of ten cases is not mentioned or only very briefly mentioned. In the remaining of the cases, the opinion of the child is considered and given due weight. Finally, we find that rarely is the child’s perspective of the situation referred to in the written decisions. This means that the most important person in a care order decision-making process – the child – is not at the centre of the proceeding. The general conclusion is that children’s views about their needs, interests and perception of the situation are not evident in the County Boards’ reasoning in these care order cases, and it is the exception that their opinion is considered.

The Child’s Opinion and Position in Care Order Proceedings

An Analysis of Judicial Discretion in the County Boards’ Decision-Making

in The International Journal of Children's Rights

Sections

References

ArchardD. and SkivenesM. (2009) “Balancing a Child’s Best Interest and a Child’s ViewsInternational Journal of Children’s Rights 17121.

AlexyR. (1989) A Theory of Legal Argumentation: The Theory of Rational Discourse as Theory of Legal JustificationOxford: Clarendon.

BerntJ. F. and DoubletD. R.(1992) Retten og vitenskapen [English: The courts and Science]. University of BergenAlma Mater.

BlockS.OranD.OranH.BaumrindN. and GoodmanG. S. (2010) “Abused and neglected children in court: Knowledge and AttitudesChild Abuse and Neglect34(9) 659670.

BrodkinE. Z. (2012) “Reflections on Street-Level Bureaucracy: Past, Present, and FuturePublic Administration Review 72(6) 940949.

Circular Letter (Norwegian: rundskriv) Q-11/13 (March 2013) Rundskriv om barnets talsperson – kommentarer til forskrift 18. februar 2013 nr. 203 om barnets talsperson i saker som skal behandles i fylkesnemnda for barnevern og sosiale sakerOslo: Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion.

DworkinR. M. (1967) “The model of rules”University of Chicago Law Review35(1) 1446.

EckhoffT. and HelgesenJ. (1977) Legal sources (Rettskildelære). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

FreemanM. (2007) Article 3: The Best Interests of the ChildLeiden and Boston, MA.Martinus Nijhoff.

HabermasJ. (1996) Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy trans. William Rehg. Cambridge, Mass.MIT Press.

Maynard-MoodyS. and MushenoM. (2012) “Social Equities and Inequities in Practice: Street-Level Workers as Agents and PragmatistsPublic Administration Review72(1) 1623.

KingG.KeohaneR. and VerbaS. (1994) Designing social inquiry. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

KrizK. and SkivenesM.2015Child welfare workers perception of children’s participation: a comparasion of England, Norway and the United States (California)” Journal: Child and Family Social work.*

MolanderA.GrimenH. and EriksenE. O. (2012) “Professional Discretion and Accountability in the Welfare StateJournal of Applied Philosophy29(3) 214230.

The Child Welfare Act (1992) Act of 17 July 1992 No. 100 Relating to Child Welfare Services, Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion.

TullyJ. (1999) “To think and act differently: Focault’s Four Reciprocal Objections to Habermas´Theory” in AshendenS. and OwenD. (eds.) Foucoault Contra HabermasLondonSage90142.

van BijleveldG. G.DeddingC. W. M. and Bunders-AelenJ. F. G. (2013) “Children’s and young people’s participation within child welfare and child protection services: a state-of-the-art reviewChild & Family Social Work.

VisS. A.FossumS. (2013) “Representation of children’s views in court hearings about custody and parental visitations – A comparison between what children wanted and what the courts ruledChildren and Youth Services Review35(12) 21012109.

VisS. A.StrandbuA.HoltanA. and ThomasN. (2011) “Participation and health – a research review of child participation in planning and decision-makingChild & Family Social Work16(3) 325335.

WeissR. S (1994) Learning from Strangers; The Art and Method of Qualitative Interview Studies. The Free PressNew York.

Figures

  • View in gallery

    Summary of the findings of whether the child’s view was present or not, and if it was considered in the written decisions. N=53. Per cent. Consequently sums up to 99 per cent, when rounded to whole numbers.

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 72 72 29
Full Text Views 154 154 72
PDF Downloads 17 17 9
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0