International perspectives on parents' participation in child protection agency decision making

Objectives This paper examines parents’ involvement in care order decision-making in four countries in edge-of-care cases, when the child protection worker has determined that placement in foster care is recommended. The... [ view full abstract ]

Objectives
This paper examines parents’ involvement in care order decision-making in four countries in edge-of-care cases, when the child protection worker has determined that placement in foster care is recommended. The countries represent different child welfare systems with Norway and Finland categorized as ‘family service systems,’ the US as a ‘child protection system’, and England as a hybrid system. The focus of the study is on whether the type and degree of involvement are different in these four countries, and whether the system orientation (family services to child protection) influences line level practice with parents.

Method
This paper draws on findings from an ongoing study of social work and judicial decision-making in child protection cases (2012-16). The study includes a sample of 772 child protection workers who completed an on-line survey including a vignette regarding a case requiring preparations for a care order. Staff were asked a series of questions about how they would involve parents in the case. We examine parents’ involvement along three dimensions: providing information to parents, collecting information from parents, and ensuring inclusion in the decision-making processes.

Results
The overall finding is that parental involvement is an important aspect of child protection practice in all four countries. Cross country differences reflect the relative importance between countries of involving parents. Based on the case vignette, child protection workers indicated a pronounced priority for informing the parents about the proceedings, whereas other aspects of parental participation were regarded as important, but relatively less so. The survey responses echo the legislative and policy frames in these countries, as well as the orientations of the child welfare systems. The findings do not show a consistent pattern of difference regarding parental involvement along the lines of the well-known child protection or family service orientations.

Conclusions
Child protection workers across the four countries aspire to include parents in their practice, but the precise ways in which this is accomplished (or not) vary. The findings show that the principles of practice should not be taken for granted; it is important also to examine the ways that state policy, agency regulations, and organisational context shape the way that these are understood and practiced.