Children's Guardian in England and Child's spokesperson in Norway: their objective and tasks in care order decisions

Author: Marie Hatlelid Føleide Centre for the Study of Professions (SPS) Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences Email: marie.foleide@hioa.no Objectives Child participation is an increasingly important... [ view full abstract ]

Author: Marie Hatlelid Føleide
Centre for the Study of Professions (SPS)
Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences

Email: marie.foleide@hioa.no

Objectives
Child participation is an increasingly important policy topic in child protection proceedings and decision-making. Children have the right to be heard, as informed by article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. In General Comment 12, the Committee on the Rights of the Child acknowledge that the term ‘right to participation’ has become more and more common, despite not featuring as a term in the CRC. The Committee states that the term describes a process of ‘information-sharing and dialogue between children and adults’ (CRC GC 12: 5). It further states that, in order to implement article 12, there must be meaningful participation embedded in continuous processes. The study will present the objectives and formal framework of the Children’s Guardian in England and the Children’s spokesperson in Norway. The aim of this study is to present and compare the countries’ approach on child participation in care order proceedings.

Method
The study is based on document analysis of laws, guidelines and relevant literature in England and Norway. The most relevant laws are the Children Act 1989, Section 41 in England, and the Child Welfare Act 1992, Section 7-9 in Norway. Other vital documents are draft resolutions, bills, regulations and inspection reports. A description is given of the framework that the guardians and spokespersons operate within, and the terms of their qualifications and training. Instructions on their role, tasks, and their level of independence and impartiality are compared.

Results
England and Norway have different and diverging arrangements on how to present the view of the child, both in terms of children’s legal safeguards and participatory rights.

Conclusions
The findings of the study show an expansion of the requirements for documentation and participation of the child in child protection cases in both countries. The indication is clearer in England than in Norway, where there are clearer stipulations of the factors that need to be considered both in law and in practice (Archard and Skivenes 2010; Samsonsen and Willumsen 2015). At its completion, the PhD research project hopes to contribute to a body of knowledge on children’s legal safeguards in child protection.