Should we take their children? Caseworkers’ negotiations of ‘good enough’ care for children living with high-conflict parents
Journal article, Peer reviewed
Published version
Date
2020-08-21Metadata
Show full item recordCollections
Original version
Sudland C, Neumann CE. Should we take their children? Caseworkers’ negotiations of ‘good enough’ care for children living with high-conflict parents. European Journal of Social Work. 2020 https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2020.1805588Abstract
Few studies have explored caseworkers’ perspectives on children’s safety and emotional wellbeing in high-conflict families. Based on focus group and individual interviews with 31 Norwegian child protection services staff, this research concentrated on caseworkers’ assessments when they worry about the intensity of interparental conflicts and their ability to identify the right thresholds for interventions. While the participants agree that excessive conflict is a significant risk factor for children, the findings demonstrate that caseworkers have difficulty assessing the gravity of conflict and potential harmful effects on children, especially when the conflicts are the main cause for concern about the children’s wellbeing. This challenge is related to these professionals’ trouble with understanding how much parents’ behaviours towards each other are normal post-marital conflict and how disputes can affect parenting abilities. The results also show that caseworkers, despite long-lasting concerns, tend not to make care order applications to social welfare boards even if this step is considered. The conclusions include that parents’ higher socio-economic status denotes resilience, overshadowing intense conflict as a risk factor for children’s wellbeing. This perspective combines with the difficult task of deciding what constitutes emotional neglect versus poor parenting abilities to influence caseworkers’ discretionary reasoning and professional convictions. Få studier har undersøkt saksbehandleres beslutningsprosesser i saker som kjennetegnes av fastlåste foreldrekonflikter i barnevernet. Basert på fokusgruppeintervjuer og individuelle intervjuer med 31 ansatte retter artikkelen søkelyset mot saksbehandlernes skjønnsvurderinger i saker med fastlåste foreldrekonflikter og forhold som virker inn på deres risikoforståelser. Mens deltakerne er enige om at høykonflikt er en betydelig risikofaktor for barns utvikling, viser funnene fra denne studien at saksbehandlere har problemer med å vurdere konfliktenes alvorsgrad og dens potensielle skadevirkninger for barnet, spesielt når konflikten blir beskrevet som den primære bekymringen. Dette er knyttet til saksbehandlernes utfordringer med å trekke genser mellom normale og ikke normale konflikter i forbindelse med et samlivsbrudd, og hvordan konfliktene påvirker foreldrenes omsorgsevne. Resultatene viser også at saksbehandlerne vegrer seg for å fremme sak om omsorgovertakelse til tross for at de, i et flertall av sakene, vurderer det som nødvendig for å beskytte barnet. Studien viser videre at foreldrenes høye sosiale status forbindes med resiliens, noe som bidrar til at saksbehandlernes bekymringer for konfliktens skadevirkninger for barnet overskygges. Saksbehandlernes arbeid kompliseres ytterligere av at det er et uklart skille mellom skadelig foreldrepraksis og dårlig men ikke skadelig foreldrepraksis, noe som påvirker saksbehandlernes skjønnsutøvelse og profesjonelle autoritet.
Publisher
Taylor & FrancisSeries
European Journal of Social Work;Journal
European Journal of Social Work
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.