Abstract
The focus of this article is on exploring the rationales behind social workers’ decision-making in everyday tasks that involve handling new referrals regarding children and families. Such decisions are made in a legal context, but at the same time require the use of discretionary space and reasoning based on sources of professional knowledge. Drawing on qualitative data compiled through an ethnographic approach, this study provides an insight into everyday practice, reasoning and decision-making. The study demonstrates that one of the important rationales for decision-making is derived from the social worker’s direct experience of interacting with parents and children. A particular aspect of the interaction, parents’ reactions to being referred, is scrutinized and serves as a form of validation for legal action.
Keywords
Introduction
As welfare professionals, social workers at the front-line of child protection and welfare services are entrusted with responsibility to manage referrals concerning children and their parents. Determining whether or not a referral constitutes a matter for child protection might be one of the most important decisions social workers have to make. These decisions are made in a legal context, surrounded by law and regulations, but also in a context acknowledged to be ambiguous – particularly due to difficulties relating to defining and recognizing child abuse (Saltiel, 2016; Van de Luitgaarden, 2009), contradictory and missing information (Saltiel, 2016) and the emotional content of situations (O’Connor and Leonard, 2014). As such, these decisions call for the application of professional knowledge, laws, rules and procedures in every individual case, and create space for professional discretion (Lipsky, 1980/2010). This legal mandate with which social workers are entrusted also requires a careful balance between different interests, between children and adults, between legal obligations and relationships, between the future and the present, and in view of the distribution of power (Kettle, 2018). Taking all this into account, social workers are expected to make skilled decisions and justify their actions with rationales grounded in professional knowledge and good practice (Molander, 2016). Since decisions made in this context have significant consequences for children and families, providing an informed and rational foundation is important, from both a legal perspective and the perspective of professional ethics. Against this background, this study aims to explore some of the rationales social workers use to support decision-making in their everyday task of dealing with new referrals regarding children and families. Research within this area can tell us about professional practice, its proceedings and its justifications, behind the closed doors of the welfare state.
Orientation in the Swedish context
In an international context, Swedish child protection services have been described as a family support system that emphasizes preventive interventions and partnerships with families (Gilbert, 2012). Under its mandatory referral system, all professionals who encounter children and young people are obliged to report any suspicions of domestic conditions that are potentially harmful to a child. The general public is encouraged to do the same, although there are no obligations to do so. Although the system goes beyond a focus on risk prevention and actively promotes child welfare, its key objectives are nevertheless to prevent failures in upbringing and instances of harm to a child’s development (Katz and Hetherington, 2006).
It is noted that the number of children referred to child protection services continues to rise each year (NBHW, 2019). Figures quoted in the latest national survey show that as many as 180,000 children (corresponding to 8.9% of the child population) were referred to child protection services for initial assessment in 2018 (NBHW, 2019). Of these referrals, approximately 38% were found to be sufficiently serious to warrant further investigation, although there are significant differences between different municipalities. If an investigation is opened, its main purpose is to provide a comprehensive picture of a child’s situation and to determine whether additional support is needed.
Referrals are received by reception units, whose job is to conduct an initial assessment and determine whether a child needs protection or support (NBHW, 2019). According to Swedish legislation, this initial assessment should lead to an investigation if it is clear that the child’s needs are not being met. Information can only be gathered through contact with the person making the referral, the parent(s) and the child in question. Furthermore, the task must be undertaken within a specific timeframe. Child protection services must decide within 1 day of receiving a referral whether a child needs immediate protection, following which an initial assessment must be completed and a decision made on whether to open a further investigation within 14 days (Govt bill, 2012/13:10: 47). Common situations that constitute grounds for legal intervention include a child being exposed to physical, psychological or sexual abuse, as well as various forms of neglect by a parent or another adult in the child’s home environment (NBHW, 2014). Since 2014, legislation has been tightened to require social workers to respond to and initiate interventions on all referrals concerning alleged abuse and domestic violence without delay (NBHW, 2014).
Orientation in previous research
The research focussing on decision-making among street-level bureaucrats such as doctors, nurses, teachers and police officers shows that the rationales they provide about citizens’ eligibility to services are not solely based on case information and professional knowledge, but also on their perceptions of normality, stereotypes, personal values and moral concerns (e.g. Holmberg, 2000, 2003; Harrits and Møller, 2014; Maynard-Moody and Musheno, 2003). In this line of research, it is acknowledged that when faced with making a judgement under conditions of indeterminacy, street-level bureaucrats use interaction with clients to look for cues such as a person’s behaviour or perceived social status (Dubois, 2010; Maynard-Moody and Musheno, 2003). Among scholars interested in understanding discretionary judgement and decision-making in social work, it is generally recognized that decision-making is influenced by the interplay between case factors, personal factors, professional factors, organizational factors and broader contextual factors (Benbenishty et al., 2015; López et al., 2015; Whittaker and Taylor, 2018). Findings reveal that decision-making is not essentially about applying knowledge in a rational manner, and that the use of cognitive shortcuts – such as stereotyping, confirmation bias and availability bias – are ever present (e.g. Kahneman, 2011). Munro (1999), for instance, found that social workers base their judgements on a narrow evidence base, preferring vivid, memorable, emotional information that supports the existing view of the family. Hacket and Taylor (2014) suggest that social workers’ reasoning is heavily influenced by previous case history, as well as by experience of other similar cases. Similarly, Whittaker (2018) found that social workers base their reasoning on their previous repertoire of experience, looking for cues and constructing patterns. Spratt et al. (2015) show that social workers tend to interpret information selectively and in accordance with their pre-existing assumptions. An additional driver in social workers’ decision-making is whether parents are seen as cooperative and willing to share their parenting difficulties, and comply with social workers’ demands (Christiansen et al., 2010; Dingwall et al., 1983/2014; Keddell and Hyslop 2020; Leigh et al., 2020; McConnell et al., 2006; White, 1997).
Furthermore, research shows that social workers bring different values and a wide range of personal and professional experiences to the task of decision-making. Brunnberg and Pećnik (2007) found, for instance, that the age of the social worker, parenthood, and childhood history of corporal punishment and abuse all mattered in decision-making processes. Taking a comparative perspective, research conducted by Benbenishty et al. (2015) demonstrates the complex interactions between case characteristics and the characteristics of the professionals, as well as the country context in which decision-making takes place, highlighting the historical developments in public attitudes towards state intervention in family lives. Interestingly, it is shown that – independently of country context – little consideration was paid to parents’ wishes. A range of authors have also pointed to the influence of child protection and welfare orientation (Kriz and Skivenes, 2017), and of organizational (Taylor et al., 2008) and team cultures, on the framing of decisions (Helm and Roesch-Marsch, 2017), suggesting that decision-making cannot be separated from the context in which it takes place. Correspondingly, in an ethnographic study of front-line work of social workers, Saltiel (2016) found that in constructing rationales for their actions, social workers are dependent on social evidence gathered from members of the public, other professionals and colleagues’ case notes (although these might be of varying reliability). Taking a slightly different perspective, Keddell (2011) demonstrates that reasoning processes and decision-making are not entirely products of professional application of knowledge, but rather negotiated processes related to moral reasoning, identities and culpability. Although outdated, studies conducted by Dingwall et al. (1983/2014), White (1997), Buckley (2000) and Holland (2000) are worth mentioning, since they too point to decision-making as an interpretative process in which social workers rely on different constructions to explain the causes of involved parties’ behaviour, as well as their moral adequacy, worthiness and culpability.
Conceptual approach
In the presented research, a vast range of conceptual perspectives has been used. This study, however, approaches social workers as an example of ‘street-level bureaucrats’ who are entrusted with significant space for discretionary decision-making (Lipsky, 1980/2010; Molander, 2016). According to Molander and Grimen (2012) and Molander (2016), the discretion entrusted to welfare professionals has both structural (discretionary space) and epistemic (discretionary reasoning) dimensions. The structural dimension, comprising laws and various juridical documents, establishes knowledge about children’s developmental needs as well as societal ideas about acceptable ways of parenting, and requires the use of judgement to combine information about each individual case with professional knowledge and values in order address two sets of questions: What the case is and what should be done (ibid.). Thus, there is an epistemic aspect to discretion, which is seen as a kind of reasoning under circumstances of uncertainty that provides conclusions about what is true or right (Molander, 2016). It is the epistemic dimension of discretionary reasoning that is the focus of this study, since it relates directly to professional judgement, actions and decisions (Molander and Grimen, 2012). This epistemic reasoning may include analytical reasoning, intuition and the use and application of domain-specific knowledge and moral intuition (Hodgson et al., 2019). By studying discretionary reasoning, one may catch a glimpse of professional decision-making, as reasoning captures the gap between information and conclusions (Molander, 2016). Discretionary reasoning also paints a picture of professionals’ normative notions about what constitutes
Method
This article is part of a study focussing on front-line work in statutory child protection services. The study adapts an institutional, ethnographic style of research to explore everyday practices and reasoning in professional work inspired by Atkinson (1995). A combination of observations of ‘real time’ practices and individual and focus group interviews were conducted over the course of the study. The findings presented in this article draw on the analysis of material collected through observations and individual interviews.
The field work took place at two reception units in two municipalities in western Sweden. At the first unit, situated in a municipality with almost 60,000 inhabitants, the front-line team consisted of five social workers, a team leader and a manager. The second, larger unit was situated in a district of a larger municipality with around 600,000 inhabitants. This unit, made up of eight social workers, two team leaders and a team manager, serves nearly 60,000 people. In both areas, children represent approximately 20% of the population. The majority of the participants were women. They varied in age, and their professional experience ranged from 2 to 40 years of practising social work in statutory services. According to their own statements, they had all undergone academic social work training.
The field work was conducted by the first author between April and September 2021, during which time 10 weeks of observations were conducted. Observations were carried out 4 days a week between 8:30 a.m. and 3 p.m., allowing work to be tracked over a long period of time. No encounters between social workers and children or parents were observed, and the focus of the observations was entirely on ‘backstage talk’, during which actions are proposed and planned. A total of 95 observations were conducted in a number of different contexts, such as supervision sessions between practitioners and team leaders, group allocation and daily or weekly supervision meetings. Participation differed depending on the setting observed. During the observed sessions, more than 200 children, who had been referred for various reasons, were discussed.
Field notes were made on observations of everyday practice, and the first author tried to represent what was said in different encounters as accurately as possible. The age and the sex of the children discussed was not always explicit, and thus could not be noted by the researcher. By following a dialogue scheme, writing down phrases and using abbreviations, the first author attempted to follow conversations and focus on what was said rather than other aspects of the setting. While acknowledging that some details may have been lost during data collection, we deemed this a suitable approach as it allowed for more observations to be carried out.
Observations were supplemented with informal daily conversations and complemented by 16 individual semi-structured interviews with social workers and their team leaders, as well as three focus group interviews conducted during the same period. All the interviews were recorded, and half were transcribed verbatim. The rest were listened to repeatedly and transcribed in part, leaving out passages that were not considered relevant to the research question.
Analysis
The analysis of observations and interviews was an ongoing process throughout the course of the research. The first author, who conducted the observations, made analytical notes about the phenomena observed on the day of the observation session, which were later followed-up in the individual and focus group interviews. All field notes were read, and interviews were listened to repeatedly. Passages related to reasoning on further action on referrals 1 were collected in one document and then coded and analysed thematically, inspired by a six-stage model of thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Several themes, such as social workers’ rationales on risk, protocol-following, personal experiences and ‘fuzzy reasoning’, were identified during this process. The theme that was most prominent, being brought up in almost all discussed cases and constituting the focus of this article, was parental reactions to being referred. The empirical cases chosen to illustrate this theme were selected for their representativeness, their rich content and the outcome being clearly presented. However, due to ethical considerations, cases that included less common content and as such risked being identifiable were not chosen for inclusion. The material has been anonymized, and quotations that could have enabled an individual to be identified have been removed.
The guidelines of the Swedish Research Council (SRC, 2011) have been followed, and ethical approval has been granted for the study by Swedish Ethical Review Authority. 2 All participants gave their written consent to participate in the study, and all personal and geographical details that could compromise confidentiality have been removed. However, no consent was attained from the families concerned by the case talks and obtaining extensive, sensitive information inevitably gave rise to ethical issues.
The field notes and interview extracts were written in Swedish and later translated into English.
Findings
The majority of the cases discussed during the course of the field studies involved referrals made by other professionals such as teachers and police officers. Rather than containing uncontested evidence that the child has been maltreated, most of the accounts given by these referring professionals were related to various concerns for the child’s wellbeing. This finding is in line with previous research (e.g. Dahlberg et al., 2022) and comes as no surprise given the fact that Sweden has a mandatory reporting system that does not focus solely on abuse and neglect, but on all domestic conditions that might be harmful to a child. Following this line of thought and considering the difficulties embedded in the task of defining child abuse (Van de Luitgaarden, 2009), social workers seem to be pushed into using a range of interplaying rationales to support their judgements and to manage uncertainties. For instance, they must evaluate the source of the referral (Buckley, 2000; Kettle, 2018) as well as paying attention to previous case file history (Hacket and Taylor, 2014). However, what also appeared to be brought up regularly in different discussions about cases were rationales derived from the interaction with the parent(s) and the children, and their reactions to being referred. This major theme is the primary focus of this article and is explored in the following section.
Rationales derived from the interaction with parents and children
One way of managing the task of initial assessment seems to involve looking for different signals that can help social workers interpret situations, and one way of doing this is by paying attention to a parent’s reactions to the referral. Physical interactions with parent(s) (not always children) are thus seen as a valuable source of evidence and are an important part of judgement-forming and decision-making. Explaining the procedure after the referral is submitted, one social worker said the following in an interview: Lejla: You receive a referral, with very little information, maybe a few sentences. How do you go about getting an idea of what kind of family this is, what kind of parents? What kind of child? SW1: Well, you start by calling the parents and you say: “We have received a concern.” You may not say what it is about, but “a concern has come in and we would very much like to meet you, and we would like to do it today”. […] But you really do not want to provide much information on the phone because you want to see their reactions in person. How do they respond and what do they have to say before we go through the referral? (Interview with social worker.)
In other interviews, social workers explained that looking for a parent’s reaction could provide valuable insight into the parent’s attitude towards being referred to child protection and welfare services, their ability to provide a plausible explanation and their willingness to accept help. This finding is in line with research on street-level bureaucrats that highlights encounters between citizens and professionals as a valuable source of information (Dubois, 2010; Maynard-Moody and Musheno, 2003). Likewise, Holland (2000) finds that social workers use their interaction with the parent(s) as core evidence for decision-making, and that interactions are viewed as being inseparably intertwined with the social worker–client relationship.
Mutual agreement – plausible explanations
One particular aspect of the interaction seems to involve a capacity to reach a mutual agreement about events reported in a referral and the family situation. Reaching mutual agreement seems to involve judging the plausibility of the explanation provided by the parent (and occasionally also by the child). The characteristics of such explanations appear to be related to the parent’s perceived honesty and insight into their problems, but also their willingness to openly confess difficulties in their family lives. In some cases, showing respect for the authoritative interventions of social workers and other professionals could also be related to plausible explanations. This was the case in the following example of a mother of two children who was intoxicated in public. The field note was taken during a supervision session between one social worker and her team leader. The case the social worker wished to discuss concerned a mother of two children. The woman was referred by police for public intoxication on a Saturday night and not being able to use her phone to call home. The social worker assigned to the case makes a call to the home and consults the team leader before closing the case. She starts by saying what happened when the parents answered her phone call: SW8: The father shouted from the phone to his wife, “Good Lord (female name), come here”, who said that everything in the police referral was accurate. It was her birthday and her relatives wanted to celebrate with her. She said that she had one glass too many and does not usually get drunk. The police called the children’s father, who came and took her home. It was a one-off event, they say, and they have not said anything to the children. “You do not need to waste resources on me, there are others who need your services more.” The mother says she does not get drunk. TL: And there are no previous records? SW8: No, nothing. She is grateful that the police intervened and says that it will never happen again. And the father says: “I’m not at all worried. Things are going well at school, and we both have jobs and pretty good salaries. We live in a house, so I’m not worried.” Do I need to talk to the girls? TL: No, it’s not in their best interests that we talk to them about our concerns. No, it’s hard to say… Had it been in the middle of the day or a weekday, but on a Saturday night… SW8: Here they have not been with the children, and they protect the children by not telling them. TL: No, we don’t need to do any more here. The outcome of this referral was that the case was closed without further investigation based on the argument that “this was a one-off occurrence”. (Field note and transcript of a supervision session.)
In this excerpt, the social worker starts by restating the parents’ reactions to her phone call and the explanation the parents provided, namely, the incident being ‘a one-off event’. There are no previous files, and the social worker points out the parents’ gratitude for the police’s intervention. By confirming the events reported by the police and not denying them, and perhaps even by confessing her own wrongdoing, this parent offers an explanation that the social worker finds no reason to question. Asking the children for their opinion did not seem to be considered necessary, and the case was closed.
Implausible explanations
However, mutual agreement was harder to achieve when explanations given by the parties concerned (especially parents) were not found plausible by the social worker. Such explanations seem to involve parents not displaying enough insight into their behaviour and how it affects their children. Explanations were not considered plausible if they involved elements of not accepting responsibility for one’s own behaviour. This was the case with a teenage boy who was referred for behaving aggressively towards school staff. In the field note below, the social worker and her team leader are discussing his case. A month prior to the referral, he had – according to the school – hit a teacher with a ball and been suspended. He had later shaped his hands like a gun and pretended to ‘shoot’ his teachers. The case was assigned to a social worker who met with the boy and his mother at the office. During the interview, the boy and his mother contested the school’s accounts, offering another version of events. The social worker starts by presenting the background of the case and then proceeds by saying: SW: According to the boy, the school staff are mistreating him, behaving in a racist way because he is black and uses street language, calling teachers ‘bro’ and ‘man’. TM: Well, it is strange that he should be subjected to all of this because of the language he uses. What happened after the last incident? Did anything improve? SW: He is new at the school, and according to him he was treated the same way at a previous school. I think it’s… (sighs and shakes her head). I did try to get around this by asking him if there could have been something he misinterpreted, but he claims not. TM: He is 13 and should be able to reflect upon his behaviour. What does the mother say? SW: She believes him. She wants to report the school. She really does not accept responsibility for her part. TM: It is true that the school has a lot of middle-class pupils, but it is still concerning that he cannot reflect on his own behaviour. SW: Nor does the mother. The dialogue continues with the social worker saying that this is not the first school the boy has attended at which incidents have happened around him, and that he and the mother want to change school again. She adds that despite this, the mother wants proof of the allegations made against her son. On several occasions, the social worker voices concern for the boy’s lack of ability to reflect on his own behaviour, and the team leader confirms that the mother needs support to realize this and in her contact with the school. The outcome of this referral was a further investigation supported by the argument that ‘the mother needs support in her contact with the new school’. (Field note including the transcript of a supervision session.)
The discussion presented above did not take more than a few minutes, during which time the social worker tried to present the story of a troubling boy whose behaviour was a cause for concern for members of school staff. The discussion includes conflicting accounts of events leading to the referral, with the referrer’s account pointing to the boy’s aggressive behaviour and the explanation provided by the boy and the mother implying unjust treatment by the school. Stating that ‘it is not the first time he has felt mistreated at different schools’ and ‘[…] there could have been something he misinterpreted’, the social worker expresses doubts that the boy would be subjected to mistreatment by school staff solely due to the colour of his skin or use of language, suggesting that there must be more to the story. The statement that the boy has misinterpreted something implies a belief that the boy’s accounts are not ascribed much credibility, while at the same time giving greater legitimacy to the referrer. The mother’s judgement is also cast into doubt, as she refuses to acknowledge the concerns presented by the school or the social worker regarding the boy’s lack of reflection and the mother’s trust in her son. In this case, neither seems to deliver an explanation that aligns with the social worker’s view, and the case is sent for further assessment.
Absent explanations
It was not only implausible explanations offered by parents that could cause concern and be used to justify decision-making. The absence of explanations, or reactions to a referral, could also be used in a similar way. As mentioned above, reaching mutual agreement between the social worker and those affected by the referral regarding how the family situation is to be understood becomes difficult if the parents do not provide any explanations. In many observed case discussions, the parents’ inability to express themselves was highlighted as problematic. This was the case with the parents of a young girl discussed below. The field note was taken during a session in which social workers at the reception unit submitted cases to their colleagues at the investigation unit. One of the cases submitted at today’s session concerned a little girl whose father was stopped by the police for appearing to be under the influence of drugs. During the stop, the police officers noticed a knife and two razor blades in the car, so they brought the man to the station. The man tested negative for drugs and explained that the knives were his work tools. While the case was presented, the social worker who met the girl’s parents and the team leader said the following: SW9: When I met them, they said nothing about anything. That felt really worrying. They have previously had contact with adult social services. We are worried. No previous history with child protection for the girl, though. The mother was placed in care as a teenager, and after that she had frequent contact with adult social services. I thought the mother looked well, though. TL: You are worried because you could not get anything during the conversation with the parents, right? What is good? Everything, they say. Their lack of reasoning about what has happened… (TL signals to suggest concern.) (Field note and transcript of a meeting between social workers at the reception unit and the investigation unit.)
In this extract, a referral concerning a young girl is submitted for further investigation, and social workers at the reception unit account for their decision. Although the reasons that initiated the concern for the child are not confirmed and no previous involvement with child protection is found, the social workers continue to express their concerns. However, this persisting worry does not seem to be explicitly linked to the present situation of the child, who is barely mentioned. What is indicated, however, is both parents’ history of involvement with adult social services and mother being placed in care as a teenager. Stating ‘I thought the mother looked well, though’ may also be indicative of cue searching in the interaction. The social workers’ worries about not being able to obtain any information from the parents are highlighted, and the absence of reaction is used to warrant concern.
Discussion
The aim of this study was to explore some of the rationales social workers use to support their decision-making in their task of handling new referrals regarding children and families. Acknowledging that there may be many interplaying rationales for decision-making, such as previous case history, the findings presented above have, however, highlighted the interaction with the parents (and occasionally the children) as equally important. Previous studies on the tradition of street-level bureaucracy (Dubois, 2010; Harrits and Møller, 2014) and studies from the discipline of social work (Christiansen and Anderssen, 2010; Dingwall et al., 1983/2014; Holland, 2000; McConnell et al., 2006; White, 1997) have highlighted how clients’ attitudes and behaviour play an important role in professional decision-making. Judging by the findings presented above, social workers do not necessarily justify their actions by proving the
As findings from the research show, decision-making in child protection is not solely about the case characteristics; it is also closely influenced by the decisionmaker and the context in which it takes place (Benbenishty et al., 2015). Considering this, the importance of parents’ reactions to being referred may be attributed to the family support system whose task, as Katz and Hetherington (2006) have pointed out, is preventing failures in upbringing that can cause harm to child development. Thus, it may be suggested that even before the assessment is completed parents are identified as a main cause of children’s problems, and those who challenge this in the process of initial assessment may be understood as hindering mutual agreement and cooperation.
Finally, judging by the findings presented, initial assessments are characterized by competing accounts of what has caused a referral creating, and sustaining, uncertainties for social workers. In their attempts to navigate these and reach decisions, social workers face a task of ordering uncertain information collected throughout the course of assessment. In doing so, they do seem to favour some accounts over others, for instance giving higher status to accounts from other professionals as opposed to those provided by children and parents (e.g. field note 2). For instance, there is nothing in field note 2 to suggest that the boy’s and the mother’s versions of events that led to a referral may not be considered equally valid. There are, however, no easy ways for social workers to know whose account may be considered most valid. Favouring a referrer’s account risks putting the burden of proof on the children and parents, but at the same time downplaying their credibility. On the other hand, favouring certain accounts over others may be an inevitable part of professional (and human) practice that cannot be resolved, only highlighted and opened up for discussion.
Strengths and limitations
The strengths of this study lie in its ethnographic approach and the proximity with social workers’ everyday activities achieved by the first author, providing an insight into the content, proceedings and justifications of cases. These strengths, however, may also be the study’s potential limitation. The overall presence of a researcher might have influenced the participants’ behaviour, as well as the researcher’s dual role, as practitioner and researcher. However, it is reasonable to believe that extended periods of observation would have helped to reduce the participants’ sensitivity to observation. While acknowledging that the primary researcher’s prior knowledge, experience and insights into the field might have introduced bias, her explicit and tacit knowledge of organizational and professional practice may also have helped to identify aspects that may have been overlooked by an outsider.
Conclusion
The empirical data presented in this article suggests a variegated reality of child protection social workers and allow for a number of interesting elaborations upon issues of professional judgement and the rationales that support this. Taking into consideration the family support system context that emphasizes preventive interventions and partnerships with families (Gilbert, 2012), together with the complex nature of identifying child abuse and neglect (Van de Luitgaarden, 2009), the importance attached to the parents’ reactions appears reasonable. Nevertheless, this does raise the issue of the assumptions social workers make about the different parties’ reliability as a source of information and the accompanying concept of trust. The issue concerning the credibility of accounts when children’s wellbeing and safety are at stake is enormously difficult. The question is whether parents’ and children’s accounts regarding the reasons behind the referral are attributed more or less trust simply because they sound (in)credible, or whether there something in their status as clients of the welfare state that affects how they are heard. This question, as well as the question of interplay between credibility and social categories of parents and children, should be given more attention in future studies.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
