Care orders within the child protection system are some of the most invasive interventions a state can make. This article examines the discretionary space governments set out for child protection workers when they prepare care orders. We analyse the formalized framework for these decisions in England, Finland, Norway and the United States. We focus on knowledge, timelines, how children and parents are involved and accountability. We find that Norway and Finland have highly de-regulated systems with wide discretionary space, whereas England and the United States are highly regulated systems with narrow discretionary space. The United States differentiates itself with relatively little parent and/or child involvement in decision-making. England and Finland do not have defined deadlines for terminating the process, and Norway has few directives on what information to collect. Such differences will influence the quality of decisions as well as the principles of the rule of law.
AlexyR. (1989) A Theory of Legal Argumentation. Oxford: Clarendon.
4.
ArchardD.SkivenesM. (2009) ‘Balancing a Child’s Best Interests and a Child’s Views’, The International Journal of Children’s Rights17(1): 1–21.
5.
BerrickJ. (2011) ‘Trends and Issues in the US Child Welfare System’, in GilbertN.PartonN.SkivenesM. (eds) Child Protection Systems: International Trends and Orientations, pp. 17–36. New York: Oxford University Press.
6.
BoltonA.LenningsC. (2010) ‘Clinical Opinions of Structured Risk Assessments for Forensic Child Protection: The Development of a Clinically Relevant Device’, Children and Youth Services Review32(10): 1300–10.
7.
BrodkinE. (2012) ‘Reflections on Street-Level Bureaucracy: Past, Present, and Future’, Public Administration Review72(6): 940–9.
8.
California Department of Social Services. (2012) Child Welfare Services Manual: Policies and Procedures. Sacramento, CA: Health & Human Services Agency.
9.
Child Welfare Act of 1992, Norway. Child Welfare Act of 17 July 1992, Number 100 (Barneverntjenesteloven).
ConnollyM. (2007) ‘Practice Frameworks: Conceptual Maps to Guide Interventions in Child Welfare’, British Journal of Social Work37: 825–37.
13.
DuffyJ.CollinsM.E. (2010) ‘Macro Impacts on Case Worker Decision-making in Child Welfare: A Cross-national Comparison’, European Journal of Social Work13(1): 35–54.
14.
DunnM.ClareI.HollandA.GunnM. (2007) ‘Constructing and Reconstructing ‘Best Interests’: An Interpretative Examination of Substitute Decision-Making under the Mental Capacity Act 2005’, Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law29: 117–33.
15.
DworkinR. (1967) The Model of Rules. Scholarship Series, Faculty Scholarship, 1January. New Haven, CT: Yale Law School.
16.
ElsterJ. (1989) Solomonic Judgements: Studies in the Limitation of Rationality. Cambridge: Press Syndicate.
17.
EriksenE.O.SkivenesM. (1997) ‘The Problem with Legitimacy in Child Protection (Legitimasjonsproblemer i barnevernet)’, Bergen, LOS-notat 9705 (in Norwegian).
18.
EriksenE.O.WeigårdJ. (2004) Understanding Habermas: Communicative Action and Deliberative Democracy. London; New York: Continuum.
19.
Esping-AndersenG. (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
20.
FreemanM. (2007) ‘Article 3: The Best Interests of the Child’, in AlenA.Vande LanotteJ.VerhellenE.AngF.BerghmansE.VerheydeM. (eds) A Commentary on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, p. 28. Leiden: Nijhoff Publishers.
21.
GilbertN.PartonN.SkivenesM. (eds) (2011) Child Protection Systems: International Trends and Orientations. New York: Oxford University Press.
22.
HabermasJ. (1996) Between Facts and Norms. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
23.
HatchM. (2013) Organization Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
24.
HeywoodA. (2007) Political Ideologies. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
25.
HM Government. (2013) Working Together to Safeguard Children: A Guide to Inter-Agency Working to Safeguard and Promote the Welfare of Children. London: Department for Children Schools and Families.
26.
Lastensuojelu. (2011) Child Welfare 2011. Statistical Report 16. Helsinki: Terveyden ja hyvinvoinnin laitos, Suomen virallinen tilasto, Sosiaaliturva 2012.
MarinettoM. (2011) ‘A Lipskian Analysis of Child Protection Failures from Victoria Climbié to “Baby P”: A Street-level Re-Evaluation of Joined-up Governance’, Public Administration89(3): 1164–81.
29.
Maynard-MoodyS.MushenoM. (2012) ‘Social Equities and Inequities in Practice: Street-Level Workers as Agents and Pragmatists’, Public Administration Review72: 16–23.
30.
Ministry of Justice. (2008) ‘The Public Law Outline: Guide to Case Management in Public Law Proceedings’, Ministry of Justice, available at www.justice.gov.uk.
31.
MolanderA.GrimenH.EriksenE.O. (2012) ‘Professional Discretion and Accountability in the Welfare State’, Journal of Applied Philosophy29(3): 214–30.
32.
MunroE. (1999) ‘Common Errors of Reasoning in Child Protection Work’, Child Abuse and Neglect23(8): 745–58.
33.
MunroE. (2008) Effective Child Protection. Los Angeles, CA; London: Sage.
34.
NeedellB.WebsterD.ArmijoM.LeeS. (2013) California Child Welfare Indicators Project (CCWIP) reports. University of California at Berkeley California Child Welfare Indicators Project, available at http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare.
O’SullivanT. (2011) Decision-Making in Social Work. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
37.
PartonN.BerridgeD. (2011) ‘Child Protection in England’, in GilbertN.PartonN.SkivenesM. (eds) Child Protection Systems: International Trends and Orientations, pp. 60–88. New York: Oxford University Press.
38.
PiperC. (2000) ‘Assumptions about Children’s Best Interests’, Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law22: 261–76.
39.
PösöT. (2011) ‘Combatting Child Abuse in Finland: From Family to Child-centered Orientation’, in GilbertN.PartonN.SkivenesM. (eds) Child Protection Systems: International Trends and Orientations, pp. 112–30. New York: Oxford University Press.
40.
PösöT.SkivenesM.HestbækA.-D. (2013) ‘Child Protection Systems Within the Danish, Finnish and Norwegian Welfare States – Time for a Child Centric Approach?’, European Journal of Social Work17(4): 475–490.
41.
SkivenesM. (2011) ‘Norway: Toward a Child Centric Perspective’, in GilbertN.PartonN.SkivenesM. (eds) Child Protection Systems: International Trends and Orientations, pp. 154–82. New York: Oxford University Press.
