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 RightsSearch for other papers by Anne-Mette Magnussen in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Marit Skivenes in
Current site
Google Scholar
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.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
Archard D., and Skivenes M. (2009), “Balancing a Child’s Best Interest and a Child’s Views”, International Journal of Children’s Rights 17, 1–21.
-
Alexy R. (1989), A Theory of Legal Argumentation: The Theory of Rational Discourse as Theory of Legal Justification, Oxford: Clarendon.
-
Bernt J. F., and Doublet D. R.(1992), Retten og vitenskapen [English: The courts and Science]. University of Bergen, Alma Mater.
-
Block S., , Oran D., , Oran H., , Baumrind N., and Goodman G. S. (2010), “Abused and neglected children in court: Knowledge and Attitudes”, Child Abuse and Neglect, 34(9), 659–670.
-
Brodkin E. Z. (2012), “Reflections on Street-Level Bureaucracy: Past, Present, and Future”, Public Administration Review 72(6), 940–949.
-
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 saker, Oslo: Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion.
-
Dworkin R. M. (1967), “The model of rules”, University of Chicago Law Review, 35(1), 14–46.
-
Eckhoff T., and Helgesen J. (1977), Legal sources (Rettskildelære). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
-
Freeman M. (2007), Article 3: The Best Interests of the Child, Leiden and Boston, MA., Martinus Nijhoff.
-
Habermas J. (1996), Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans. William Rehg. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.
-
Maynard-Moody S., and Musheno M. (2012), “Social Equities and Inequities in Practice: Street-Level Workers as Agents and Pragmatists”, Public Administration Review, 72(1) 16–23.
-
King G., , Keohane R., and Verba S. (1994), Designing social inquiry. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
-
Kriz K., and Skivenes M., 2015, “Child welfare workers perception of children’s participation: a comparasion of England, Norway and the United States (California)”, Journal: Child and Family Social work .*
-
Molander A., , Grimen H., and Eriksen E. O. (2012), “Professional Discretion and Accountability in the Welfare State”, Journal of Applied Philosophy, 29(3), 214–230.
-
The Child Welfare Act (1992) Act of 17 July 1992 No. 100 Relating to Child Welfare Services, Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion.
-
Tully J., (1999), “To think and act differently: Focault’s Four Reciprocal Objections to Habermas´Theory” in Ashenden S., and Owen D. (eds.), Foucoault Contra Habermas, London, Sage, 90–142.
-
van Bijleveld G. G., , Dedding C. W. M., and Bunders-Aelen J. F. G. (2013), “Children’s and young people’s participation within child welfare and child protection services: a state-of-the-art review”, Child & Family Social Work.
-
Vis S. A., , Fossum S. (2013), “Representation of children’s views in court hearings about custody and parental visitations – A comparison between what children wanted and what the courts ruled”, Children and Youth Services Review, 35(12), 2101–2109.
-
Vis S. A., , Strandbu A., , Holtan A., and Thomas N. (2011), “Participation and health – a research review of child participation in planning and decision-making”, Child & Family Social Work, 16(3), 325–335.
-
Weiss R. S (1994), Learning from Strangers; The Art and Method of Qualitative Interview Studies. The Free Press, New York.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 779 | 87 | 21 |
| Full Text Views | 521 | 121 | 13 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 303 | 65 | 1 |
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 RightsSearch for other papers by Anne-Mette Magnussen in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Marit Skivenes in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
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.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 779 | 87 | 21 |
| Full Text Views | 521 | 121 | 13 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 303 | 65 | 1 |