Is the Decision in the Best Interest of the Child? A Socio-Legal Study of Care Order Decisions in Norway

Objectives The aim of this study is to establish a framework for evaluating the use of best interest principle in child protection cases in Norway. In Norway it is the County Social Welfare Board that has the formal... [ view full abstract ]

Objectives
The aim of this study is to establish a framework for evaluating the use of best interest principle in child protection cases in Norway. In Norway it is the County Social Welfare Board that has the formal decision-making power to remove a child from the care of his or her parents. When deciding care order cases, the decision-makers must follow article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1989 (CRC), which states that: “In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.” Decision-making grounded on the “best interest” have however in practice shown to be difficult to evaluate, due partly to the ambiguity of “what is best”(Elster, 1989, Skivenes, 2002, Archard and Skivenes, 2010). The first part of the study aims to provide a framework - as to how to make best interest decisions - by using the guidance provided in The Child Welfare Act (1992) to set up criteria that the Norwegian law has stated as considered that should be made when determining the best interest of the child. The second part of the study analyses whether these considerations are actually found in the reasoning provided by the County Social Welfare Board in care order cases.

Method
The empirical data is based on 31 care orders from 2013. The decisions were systematically read with attention to what kind sources, voices and information the decisions referenced, and then the arguments were analysed using thematic content analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006). The reasoning in the decisions is seen as more then just simply “determining the facts of a case” - it is viewed as a “narrative construction” justifying the decision made (Travers and Banakar, 2005).

Results
The study shows the variety of references, voices and arguments used by the County Social Welfare Boards as justification for care order decisions. The findings further show that the decision-makers have a great deal of discretion in how they determine what they understand as the best interest of a child in a particular case.

Conclusions
The results of the study, in terms of both the length and type of arguments provided in some cases, raises the question of whether the decision-makers really have considered if, why and how the decision made is the best interest of the child.