Working for the child’s best interests in child protection systems
Discretion gives a judge or another decision maker the legal authority to act or decide based on their own judgement. Discretion is necessary in child protection cases, as decisions should be tailor-made to a child and families on a case-by-case basis. There are currently large research gaps in discretion, both across the EU and globally. This is partly explained by a lack of awareness among social scientists on the topic of children and especially child protection. “Child protection is only a minor part of the welfare state, but with a potential for huge public outcry and attention because of its far-reaching powers,” says Marit Skivenes, professor in Political Science at the University of Bergen and DISCRETION project coordinator. In the DISCRETION project, which was funded by the European Research Council (ERC), researchers sought to fill in this research gap through an in-depth study into how discretionary decisions are made and justified in the best interests of the child. “A key motivation for the project was to reveal the mechanisms for why and how discretionary decision-making is exercised, and if decisions are adhering to the rule of law and due process,” explains Skivenes.
Examining the institutional context of discretion
The team first mapped decision-making in courts to gain knowledge about the reasoning and justification for making intrusive interventions. The project also examined child protection policies and organisational structures in eight European countries, to establish knowledge about the standards that decision makers should use when exercising discretion. The researchers faced a range of challenges due to the sensitivity of the cases, and the different countries’ regulations. “Almost all were solved with patience, stamina, an interdisciplinary team and attention to details,” adds Skivenes. “It demanded a lot of resources, so without the ERC grant, we could not have managed this.”
International inconsistency
The project findings revealed that there are huge differences between countries: in terms of justification for intrusive interventions, the decision-making factors considered relevant, how the children were described, and how their views were presented, among others. “An explanation for this can be found in country-specific child protection policies,” notes Skivenes. The project also revealed that the choice to exercise discretion was affected by decision makers’ individual values in terms of view of the child, and their assessment of risk. “Another finding, essential in this area of the welfare state, is a lack of transparency and accountability mechanisms,” says Skivenes. In six of the eight countries, there are very few opportunities for auditors, journalists, researchers or the general public to gain insight into proceedings about adoption from care.
Developing a global typology
The project developed a global typology of child protection systems, which was published as a handbook with Oxford University Press. This opens a whole new branch of scientific discussions within the areas of welfare state and child protection research. “This is a breakthrough for the scientific community,” adds Skivenes. “It is the first typology with a global approach and with substantial empirical basis from 50 countries covering all regions of the world.” The team now plans to empirically test and develop the child protection typology on a global scale.
Keywords
DISCRETION, child protection, system, welfare state, transparency, institutional, typology, research
