Judging parental competence: A cross‐country analysis of judicial decision makers' written assessment of mothers' parenting capacities in newborn removal cases

Jenny Krutzinna; Marit Skivenes

doi:10.1111/cfs.12788

journal article Open Access Aug 16, 2020

Judging parental competence: A cross‐country analysis of judicial decision makers' written assessment of mothers' parenting capacities in newborn removal cases

Jenny Krutzinna

Marit Skivenes

Child & Family Social Work Vol. 26 No. 1 pp. 50-60 · Wiley

View at Publisher Save 10.1111/cfs.12788

Abstract

AbstractThis paper examines the discretionary reasoning of the judiciary in three jurisdictions, England, Germany and Norway, in cases deciding whether a newborn child is safe with her parents or intervention is necessary. Our analysis focuses on one specific dimension of decision makers' exercise of discretion, namely, if and how the strengths and weaknesses of the mother are considered. The data material consists of all decisions concerning care orders of newborns from one large city in Germany from 2015 to 2017 (n= 27) and 2016 in Norway (n= 76) and all publicly available newborn removal decisions in England for 2015–2017 (n= 14). The findings reveal a high number of risk factors in the cases and less focus on risk‐reducing factors. The situation of the newborn is considered to be harmful, as most cases result in a care order. Judicial discretion differs by how much information, and what types of factors, are included in the justification for the decision. A learning point for decision makers and policymakers would be to actively undertake a balancing act between risk‐increasing and risk‐reducing factors.

Topics

No keywords indexed for this article. Browse by subject →

References

38

[1]

Children Act. (1989).England.http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/41/contents

[2]

Act on Proceedings in Family Matters and in Matters of Non‐contentious Jurisdiction (FamFG).Germany.https://www.gesetze‐im‐internet.de/englisch_famfg/index.html(Accessed Jan 21 2020).

[3]

Azar S. T. (2002)

[4]

10.1192/apt.4.2.101

[5]

10.1080/09649069.2019.1590902

[6]

Berridge D. (1997)

[7]

Brown R. (2016)

[8]

Burns K. (2017)

[9]

Child Welfare Act of 1992.Norway.https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1992-07-17-100

[10]

Cleaver H. (2011)

[11]

Common Assessment Framework for Children and Young People (CAF). For example:https://greatermanchesterscb.proceduresonline.com/pdfs/caf_guidance_practitioners.pdf

[12]

CRIN. (2016)Rights Remedies & Representation. Global Report on Access to Justice for Children.London UK: Child Rights International Network.

[13]

10.18261/9788215031415-2019-04

[14]

Relationship of Childhood Abuse and Household Dysfunction to Many of the Leading Causes of Death in Adults

Vincent J Felitti, Robert F Anda, Dale Nordenberg et al.

American Journal of Preventive Medicine 10.1016/s0749-3797(98)00017-8

[15]

Germany German Civil Code (BGB)

[16]

Gilbert N. (1997) 10.1093/oso/9780195100099.001.0001

[17]

10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199793358.001.0001

[18]

10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.04.005

[19]

Jones D. (2006)

[20]

10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105137

[21]

KidsRights Foundation (2019)

[22]

Kvello Ø. (2015)

[23]

Macleod C. (2018)

[24]

Otto R. (2003)

[25]

10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199793358.003.0004

[26]

Platt D. (2018)

[27]

Pluto L. (2016)

[28]

10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199793358.003.0008

[29]

Thoburn J.

[30]

Turney D. (2012)

[31]

UNICEF Office of Research. (2016).Fairness for Children: A league table of inequality in child well‐being in rich countries.Innocenti Report Card 13.Florence IT:UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti.https://www.unicef.org/publications/index_90833.html

[32]

UNICEF Office of Research 2017 UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti Florence IT

[33]

UNICEF Office of Research (2013)

[34]

10.1177/1368430215615683

[35]

Vis S. (2014)

[36]

Ward H. (2012)

[37]

10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199793358.003.0009

[38]

World Bank. (2019).World Development Indicators.https://databank.worldbank.org/reports.aspx?source=2&series=NY.GDP.PCAP.CD&country(Accessed Jan 21 2020).

Metrics

13

Citations

38

References

Details

Published: Aug 16, 2020
Vol/Issue: 26(1)
Pages: 50-60
License: View

Authors

J

Jenny Krutzinna

Department of Administration and Organization Theory, Centre for Research on Discretion and Paternalism University of Bergen Bergen Norway

M

Marit Skivenes

Department of Administration and Organization Theory, Centre for Research on Discretion and Paternalism University of Bergen Bergen Norway

Funding

H2020 European Research Council Award: 724460

Norges Forskningsråd Award: 262773

Cite This Article

Jenny Krutzinna, Marit Skivenes (2020). Judging parental competence: A cross‐country analysis of judicial decision makers' written assessment of mothers' parenting capacities in newborn removal cases. Child & Family Social Work, 26(1), 50-60. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12788

Judging parental competence: A cross‐country analysis of judicial decision makers' written assessment of mothers' parenting capacities in newborn removal cases

You May Also Like