Emergency out-of-home placements: decision-making pathways, discourses and implications for social work practice

Objective The aim of this study is to explore decision-making and implications of emergency out-of-home placements made by the Child Protection Service in municipalities in Norway. In such interventions, children and young... [ view full abstract ]

Objective
The aim of this study is to explore decision-making and implications of emergency out-of-home placements made by the Child Protection Service in municipalities in Norway. In such interventions, children and young people are forcibly removed from their families in accordance with the Norwegian Child Welfare Act (CWA). The Child Protection Service in each municipality has the authority to make and carry out such decisions, but the decision has to be agreed by the Regional Social Welfare Board. In the period 2008 to 2012, the number of such interventions increased by 47%

Method
Data was collected from semi-structured interviews with 36 frontline child protection workers in municipalities in Norway. Formal documents held by the municipalities and the Regional Social Welfare Board were also collected. Content analysis was carried out by NVivo 10.

Results and discussion
Two different pathways of out-of-home interventions have been identified; fast track and slow track. The fast track indicates that the child is moved from the family immediately or some days after the concern is recognized. The slow track indicates that several months can pass from the time an acute concern is recognized by the Child Protection Service until the out-of-home placement is carried out. In such slow track cases, the Child Protection Service needs to discuss the concern both with other organizations such as the police, teachers and with other specialized child protection services. Our initial findings indicate that the Child Protection Service shows signs of doubt about the situation of concern both before and after the decision to carry out an emergency out-of-home intervention.

After the out-of-home placement, two main pathways were identified, a return back to the family or a long-term out-of-home placement. The preliminary findings are discussed in relation to social work practice and to the discourse of the child’s best interests and the rights of the biological family. The study discusses the processes through which emergency out-of-home placement decisions move, and the opportunities for the Child Protection Service to prevent such interventions. The different pathways are discussed and related to the discourse of the child’s best interest and to the contending discourses of the rights of the biological family.

Conclusions
A preliminary conclusion is that the Child Protection Service, in some cases, should do more to explore the opportunities for empowering the family before an emergency out-of-home placement is enacted. In other cases, the Child Protection Service should make the out-of-home placement more directly. It is hard to find a single way in which such cases should be managed. The study highlights the complexity of emergency out-of-home placements and discusses implications for social workers and child protection frontline workers.

Corresponding author: Arve Lerum
Institution: University of Stavanger, Faculty of Social Science, Institute of Social Work
Position: Fellow, phd
E-mail: arve.lerum@uis.no