Social workers’ experiences of the use of experts in child protection cases: a comparative study from Norway and England

ABSTRACT

The use of independent experts varies by context, specifically in terms of the dynamics among experts, the child welfare services, and the legal system. This study enriches the current discussion of expertise in child protection cases, a subject that has received limited attention from the perspective of social workers. This explorative study delves into the experiences of social workers in child protection, comparing the use of independent experts in two settings: Norway and England. Comparing these two contexts allows us to better understand the different aspects of independent experts’ roles and functions and provide a nuanced picture of their varying contributions. These stories from social work practice in these settings not only inform our understanding of the dynamics within these specific contexts but also spark enquiry into the broader dynamics of expert involvement in child protection cases.

SAMMENDRAG

Bruken av uavhengige eksperter varierer avhengig av situasjonen, spesielt med tanke på samspillet mellom eksperter, barnevernet og rettssystemet. Denne studien bidrar til den pågående diskusjonen om ekspertise i barnevernssaker, et tema som ikke har fått mye oppmerksomhet fra perspektivet til sosialarbeidere. Denne studien utforsker sosialarbeideres erfaringer innen barnevern og sammenligner bruken av uavhengige eksperter i to forskjellige kontekster: Norge og England. Ved å sammenligne disse to kontekstene får vi bedre innsikt i de ulike rollene og funksjonene til uavhengige eksperter og får et mer nyansert bilde av deres ulike bidrag. Historiene fra sosialt arbeid gir ikke bare innsikt i dynamikken innenfor disse spesifikke kontekstene, men bidrar også til å utforske de bredere sammenhengene knyttet til eksperters involvering i barnevernssaker.

KEYWORDS:

• Child protection
• court
• expertise
• independent experts
• social workers

NØKKELORD:

• barnevern
• omsorgsovertakelse
• ekspertise
• sakkyndige
• sosialarbeidere

Introduction

This explorative study focusing on how social workers experience the use of independent experts in child protection cases compares two different contexts: Norway and England. The comparison offers opportunities to reflect on how the role of independent experts is played out, a phenomenon whose relevance extends beyond these two specific settings. Independent experts (i.e. experts employed by neither the child protection system nor the court) are commonly used in child protection cases to inform, elaborate on, and assess the most difficult cases before a court decision. As child protection is a significant and sensitive field, optimising the use of expertise may have direct implications for child welfare. The dynamics between professionals in an environment that requires unique knowledge and involves different areas of expertise can be challenging (Greve et al., 2023; Jang, 2013). In particular, such challenges are present in high-stakes situations and in collaboration where power dynamics are involved (Carlile, 2004), which is true of care order cases.

In this study, we acknowledge that professional expertise is not just a set of skills; it also involves self-perception and contextual factors. Presenting knowledge and assessments in care proceedings is not just about competence or outcomes; it may also involve emotional and cognitive experiences of power, status, and recognition.

Norwegian child protection and experts

The child welfare services (CWS) in Norway are a municipal body responsible for ensuring children’s right to a safe upbringing and preventing children from living under conditions that could be harmful to their well-being and development (Child Welfare Act, 2021 § 1-1). If interventions are not sufficient and the care is considered harmful, the CWS is responsible for initiating a care order, which will be decided upon by the Child Welfare and Health Boards (‘the Boards’). Although the Boards are civil courts, appealed care orders are dealt with in the courts. The board consist of a judge, a child and family expert (usually a psychologist) and a lay person.

The Child Welfare Act allows the CWS to engage an expert, but this is not mandatory nor is it done in all cases (Child Welfare Act, 2021 § 2-2). An expert can also be appointed by the Boards and the courts if the judges consider it necessary. The experts in Norway are almost all psychologists (NPF, n.d.; Melinder et al., 2021). The expert’s report weighs heavily with the Boards and courts, which usually follow the expert’s recommendations (Agenda Kaupang, 2015; Haugli & Nordhelle, 2014; Norwegian Directorate for Children, Youth and Family Affairs (Bufdir), 2021). A national committee assesses each expert report before it can be used in a care order decision (Ot.Prp.nr. 68, 2007-2008).

In Norway, there has been debate over the quality of independent experts’ work (Augusti et al., 2017; NOU, 2017, p. 12, pp. 57, 75; Greve et al., 2024) and criticism of the management of and access to experts (Norwegian Directorate for Children, Youth and Family Affairs (Bufdir), 2021; NOU, 2023, p. 7).

English child protection and experts

In England, the CWS is likewise organised at a municipal level (local authorities), which, according to the Children Act (1989), is meant to ensure services that ‘safeguard and promote the welfare of children’ (Children Act, 17(1)(a) 1989). When the CWS has serious concerns about a child’s care situation, a process is initiated to assess whether to start care proceedings. A care order decision is made by the courts, consisting of a single judge in these cases.

All parties to the care proceedings have access to the use of experts; however, this must be approved by the court. The court may grant permission if ‘expert evidence is necessary to assist the court to resolve the proceedings justly’ (Children and Family, Act, 2014, p. 13(6)). In England, experts mainly comprise psychologists or psychiatrists, drug and alcohol analysts, and independent social workers (Cassidy & Davey, 2011; Krishnamurthy & Reynolds, 2011). Children’s guardians who are trained professional child and family experts with a variation of academic backgrounds can also be considered experts in the court process. England has set up this Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, also called Cafcass, to promote the welfare of those involved in these cases.

Discussion regarding the use of experts in care proceedings in England has revolved around financial resources, with substantial funding allocated for experts (Cobb, 2013; Krishnamurthy & Reynolds, 2011; Masson, 2010), as well as time, as the involvement of experts often prolong the duration of the proceedings (Beckett & McKeigue, 2003; Ministry of Justice, Family Justice Review, 2011).

Research on independent experts in child protection

Independent experts’ profession varies but they are generally psychologists or psychiatrists (Greve et al., 2023). Other professions mentioned in the literature include social work (Brophy et al., 2012; Tilbury, 2019) and paediatrics (Mian et al., 2009; Tillyard QC, 2012).

The use of independent experts varies by context, specifically with regard to how the interaction between the expert, the CWS, and the court is organised (Dickens et al., 2017; Hultman et al., 2020; Skivenes & Tonheim, 2016). Research has shown that are several ways in which the experts’ reports has been effected (Hinton, 2019; Melinder et al., 2021; Robertson & Broadhurst, 2019). A scoping review shows that the most common reasons for using an expert include informing the court of the expert’s assessments of family functionality, investigating evidence of abuse, or informing the court about subjects that require particular expertise, such as learning disability (Greve et al., 2023). However, experts are also engaged by the CWS in preparation for going to court, where the CWS brings the expert evidence.

Studies on independent experts in child protection have largely focused on the experts’ methods and the use of experts from a legal perspective (Greve et al., 2023). Research examining the perspectives of child protection workers and families is scarce: there are only a few articles exploring child protection workers’ experience of using experts in care proceedings (Greve et al., 2023). Given that experts function to inform the court on child protection matters and assist the CWS in assessments, the limited exploration of the CWS’s opinions and practices concerning experts merits attention. Therefore, our aim is to explore child protection workers’ experiences of the use of independent experts in care protection cases.

Study and aims

This study contributes to the current discussion of expertise in child protection cases. The study’s research question is thus as follows: How do social workers in Norway and England experience the use of independent experts in child protection cases? This research question focuses on subjective experience and self-perception relative to the use of independent experts.

Method

This is a small-scale, in-depth study, which is considered meaningful when studying life worlds in terms of individuals’ own perceptions and subjective apprehensions (Berg & Lune, 2012). A narrative thematic analytical approach was considered appropriate, both for answering our research question and in view of the nature of our empirical data, which was collected by way of questions that were often answered through storytelling and case experiences. There is ethical approval for the study by Sikt  – Norwegian Agency for Shared Services in Education and Research (project number 885982).

Empirical data and participants

This study has two sets of empirical data. In Norway, we conducted six focus group interviews. These groups consisted of 31 social workers from 11 child protection agencies across Norway, ranging from rural agencies to big city offices. These focus group discussions took place between February and June 2021 and so far have resulted in one published paper (Greve et al., 2024). With regard to the English context, we have eight single interviews with social workers from seven different child protection offices across the UK. These interviews took place between April and August 2022. Interviews were chosen to gather information on specific parts of the focus group material, in order to conduct this comparative study. All four researchers are Norwegians and have been involved in the data collection process. All participants are educated social workers and are experienced in the use of independent experts. The Norwegian participants were recruited through direct contact with the services (their leaders) and represent a geographical variation. The English participants were recruited through email after access permission was granted from their management, also with geographical variation. The interview guide for both samples comprised three topics: reasons to use experts; how experts’ reports are used; and what kinds of knowledge and competence are needed from experts for care order assessments. The interview guide is semi-structured and has been adapted for both contexts and samples. Although two different research tools have been used to gather our empirical data, both have elicited meanings, perceptions, stories, discussions, and experiences from the social workers related to the use of experts in child protection cases.

Narrative thematic analysis from a comparative perspective

When we see outside our familiar context, we can see new perspectives. When countries provide the context, we can study a particular phenomenon across countries to learn more about it (Baistow, 2000). A central question to ask is to what extent these two contexts can represent national contexts for comparisons. We compare two social work practices in different contexts, in order to contrast similarities and differences and by asking questions relevant to the phenomenon (Ragin, 1994) of experts in child protection cases even in other contexts. In this study, the context of expertise in child protection cases in Norway and England serves as the particular context when exploring social workers` perspectives on the phenomenon. How do the social workers in these two contexts discuss and reflect upon the use of expertise in child protection cases?

We adopted a narrative analytical method because narratives as a research tool are viewed as stories from reality and not about reality (Riessmann, 2008). We attempt to present social workers’ perceived reality of working with experts in child protection cases. These experiences originated in real cases and were often expressed with emotions. We have used narrative thematic analysis in line with Riessmann (2008). The intention of thematic analysis is to uncover the deeper meanings and messages behind the stories and examples given by participants. After transcribing the interviews, we read them all several times within the research team (four researchers: three females and one male, these being three former social workers and one sociologist), and then examined each interview for stories and examples. Themes were identified across the stories, both within interviews and between the interviews, within one country and between two countries. In the findings section, themes are sometimes illustrated with quotes, sometimes with reference to the content of the specific interview, and labelled according to the social worker interviewed (e.g. E1 = first social worker interviewed from England, N1 = first focus group of social workers interviewed from Norway).

Qualitative research in general, and comparative research even more, request awareness of the reflexive construction of meaning (Frost et al., 2017). Since this research team consists of four native Norwegians, we have discussed the contexts and the findings with two English members of the broader research team, which was very helpful for approaching national differences.

Findings

With regard to social workers’ experience of using independent experts in child protection cases, we identified three major narrative themes: stories of hierarchy, competence, and legitimacy (Table 1).

Table 1. Overview of findings.

Hierarchy	Competence	Legitimacy
We are at the bottom of the hierarchy	We know the family	The judge shows whose expertise they trust
The experts stand above us in the hierarchy of power and trust	Useful, with in-depth expertise and a new perspective	The experts confirm our assessments
We are bullied in court	We lack confidence

Theme 1: stories of hierarchy

In the interviews in Norway and England, the social workers openly shared their experience of being low in the hierarchy of experts, social workers, and other professionals in the care proceedings system.

‘We are at the bottom of the hierarchy’

One overarching theme in our interviews is the perception among social workers that they are at the bottom of the professional hierarchy within child protection. Social workers in both Norway and England seemed to agree that this is a view shared by the public, the families involved, lawyers, court members, children’s guardians, and independent experts. This feeling of an existing hierarchy was consistently described in our interviews through case examples and stories. For instance, one English social worker described feeling that the court places children’s guardians above her in terms of competence and trust, which she expressed as follows:

It has never been said. I have been told this, and I feel the guardian – I know the guardian is a very important person because they represent the child’s voice and needs – but if it came head-to-head and I said that this needs to happen, and they said that needs to happen, I think what the guardian said would be heard, not what I said. (E5)

The sense of low status was not restricted to the courtroom: the social workers, especially in England, also felt disrespected by the public. Although the social workers in both Norway and England agreed that they are at the bottom of the hierarchy, the intensity of their feeling and their experience varied. English social workers expressed more frustration and openly stated that they felt undervalued and disrespected, while their Norwegian counterparts described disrespect of their competence less, although they also felt disregarded.

While the ‘bottom of the hierarchy’ narrative was prevalent, it was not accepted by all of the social workers. Two English social workers actively resisted their perceived low status in this hierarchy, as illustrated by this quote: ‘I do subscribe with a belief system that social workers are experts in their own rights; our assessments need to carry more weight as well. I do think there is a hierarchy’ (E2). The other social worker (E1) indicated that, while her colleagues often submitted to this implicit hierarchy placing social workers at the bottom, it is a notion that she refused to accept. She advised her colleagues to enter the courtroom with the mindset that ‘we are all experts in different ways’.

‘The experts are above us in the hierarchy of power and trust’

It was commonly expressed by the social workers in both Norway and England that independent experts are more trusted by society, the families involved, and the courts. This sentiment was illustrated in stories from both countries that show families often favouring expert opinions over those of social workers. One Norwegian focus group illustrated this viewpoint after relating a case where experts were given more trust than the social workers: ‘When experts are involved, the parents listen more to them than to us. There is distrust towards us because we are child protection’ (N1). Before the interview with one of the English participants began, she told us that ‘people in this country hate social workers’ so that we as Norwegians could better understand her perceived context for the conversation about social workers and experts in child protection cases.

The social workers in both countries indicated that due to the experts’ high position in the hierarchy, they wield significant influence in court decisions. As one participant from a Norwegian focus group succinctly put it, ‘The court mainly judges in line with the independent expert, so they have a lot of power.’ In England, this notion of power extends to children’s guardians from Cafcass, whose primary role is to represent the interests of the children involved. Many of the English social workers’ narratives pointed to the guardians’ high status and power in court. As one English social worker observed, ‘The time they (children’s guardians) spend with families is minimal. Yet, their views are carried so far in the court’ (E2). Another social worker was even more explicit, stating, ‘The children’s guardians definitely hold much power’ (E5).

The potentially negative consequences of this power imbalance were reflected upon in three of the focus groups in Norway, mainly with regard to the children. For instance, one shared a collective sense of feeling powerless as the result of a poor-quality expert report that led to children remaining in poor home conditions. The sentiment was summed up as ‘one person holds too much power’ (N6). This experience emphasised the potentially negative consequences of placing too much authority in the hands of one person.

‘We are bullied in court’

The social workers in both Norway and England agreed that the court is the main arena of power in child protection cases, given their legal role. While social workers in both contexts engaged in strategic preparation for court, their courtroom experiences differ. Specifically, the English social workers related stories of feeling bullied in court. In a story that illustrates this, E7 related how she has experienced being bullied in court: ‘I have had some awful situations where you get shouted at and I would say, please do not talk to me that way’ (E7). She said that she found it very gruelling to experience bullying and harassment after working so hard to prepare a serious case for court. In the interview, her voice grew louder as she discussed this, mirroring the frustration she felt over the matter. Her story resonated with other stories from the English social workers.

The most striking difference between the Norwegian and English social workers’ accounts of courtroom experiences is found in how they described the court atmosphere. In Norway, the courts are generally perceived as providing a fair review of the case. Although there may be varying levels of expertise among participants, there is a mutual sense of respect and the tone is largely congenial. Judges are described as reserved but cooperative.

Theme 2: stories of competence

The social workers shared a range of stories reflecting their perception of competence, which we grouped into three main categories: what they perceive as their core competence; the perceived usefulness of experts; and instances when they felt less confident in comparison with the experts.

‘We know the family’

A recurring opinion expressed in both contexts is the importance of long-term relationships with the families, which they felt was often undervalued in child protection cases. Unlike independent experts, children’s guardians, and the court, social workers frequently have extensive interaction with the families, sometimes over months and even years. Despite such long-term relationships, the social workers felt that their expertise was often overshadowed by that of independent experts, who usually spend significantly less time with the families. As one English social worker stated, ‘I should be equal. We are trained just like everyone else, but we are the ones that spend more time with the family’ (E5). Another interviewee echoed this frustration, saying; ‘It is quite frustrating that experts can make significant decisions about a case when they spend so little time with the family’ (E2). This sentiment was further highlighted in a Norwegian focus group, where a participant said, ‘I have seen experts doing their work in two weeks of intense conversations, but we have known the family for years, but their conclusion is given more weight. It does not feel good considering all the work we have put in’ (N6). The social workers felt that the experts, after just a few sessions, stated with confidence what a specific child and family needed and how their recommendations overruled the social workers’ assessments.

‘Useful, with in-depth expertise and a new perspective’

Both the Norwegian and English social workers valued specialised knowledge, especially in the fields of psychology, psychiatry, and medicine. According to the social workers we interviewed, it is essential to have expert input in order to understand the various aspects of cases, such as cognitive functioning, drug addiction, mental health issues, and children’s special needs. As one English social worker stated: ‘Sometimes we have those gaps in our knowledge as social workers. We know a bit about everything, but we are not necessarily experts in everything’ (E2). In Norway, however, the role of experts is complicated, given the blending of specialised and general competencies. The Norwegian social workers questioned what expert competence really entails, as the following quote articulates: ‘It is a shortcoming in the reports that they do not explain what their specialist competence is, and what more general competence is’ (N4). English social workers tend to be more specific when seeking out expertise and are aided by a system with a specialised division of expert roles. In contrast, Norwegian experts are primarily psychologists who provide general assessments, which leads to challenges in addressing specialised needs.

Both the Norwegian and English social workers appreciated the benefit of an independent expert providing a ‘fresh pair of eyes’ in complicated cases. This external perspective helps to add objectivity, particularly when relationships between the social worker and the family become strained. In the words of one English social worker, ‘It removes those personal relationships that I might have with the person I’m working with and helps to create a more objective way to see the fuller picture’ (E5). In one of the Norwegian focus groups (N4), several participants discussed how tense relationships with families can negatively affect parenting skills. This makes the role of the independent expert crucial. The same point is emphasised by the English informants in similar conflict cases. After recounting a case in which the family grew sceptical about her role, one social worker noted, ‘It often comes down to the relationship breaking down between the social worker and the parents, and the need to seek a fair assessment’ (E5).

‘We lack confidence’

Throughout our interviews and focus groups, we encountered various accounts that suggest fluctuating levels of self-confidence among social workers in terms of their professional expertise. Notably, this self-perception often puts them in a subordinate position relative to independent experts. As one participant from a Norwegian focus group stated, ‘Independent experts often state conclusions more boldly than we do. We hesitate to put our judgments in writing the same way, doubting whether we have sufficient documentation’ (N1). This was echoed in another focus group (N3), where there was consensus that social workers’ lack of self-confidence could be an issue. However, it is worth noting a positive trend in our Norwegian sample. All of the focus groups indicated that their confidence had grown in recent years, which they attributed to training and consequently elevated levels of competence.

Interestingly, this lack of self-esteem contrasts with the belief, shared by many social workers in both countries, that they are the real experts when it comes to assessing the needs of children and families. They emphasise that they are specifically educated for these assessments but still not acknowledged as experts. One example came from E4, who recounted her long-term involvement in a complex case. Despite her extensive knowledge of the family’s circumstances, her assessment was overridden by an external expert, a decision she strongly disagreed with.

Theme 3: stories of legitimacy

Throughout the interviews, legitimacy, being the acceptance, recognition, or authorisation of individuals as professionals, emerged as a crucial factor. Legitimacy plays a significant role in shaping social workers’ perceptions of both their own expertise and that of independent experts. We have categorised the various stories where legitimacy plays a role into two themes.

‘The judge shows whose expertise they trust’

Stories describing court situations were frequent among the English social workers we interviewed. In the English context, unlike the Norwegian context, the courtroom was described as a kind of theatre. As an English social worker (E1) put it, ‘You have to go in the court, and we are all experts in different ways. I do my hair and my make-up perfectly. My suit on, I look good, and I am going in and doing this!’ This quote illustrates how English social workers perceive the court as a setting where power dynamics are at play. They view it as a place where they have a specific role to fulfil, and they understand the importance of presenting themselves in a certain manner, in terms of both appearance and behaviour, in order to turn in their best performance. The English social workers described a process of striving diligently to build up their credibility and demonstrate their competence over time. As one English social worker told us, ‘A lot of that is like being in front of the headteacher and them telling me off’ (E4). This quote was accompanied by a case experience in which, for our interviewee, the decisive point was the judge’s previous knowledge of her as someone hard-working and trustworthy, as someone who advocates for the children involved. She explained in the interview how she works hard to earn the judge’s trust, and how empowered she feels when she gets this trust. Her intense efforts reflect the challenging dynamic that English social workers face within the court system as they strive to overcome initial scepticism and earn recognition for their expertise and dedication.

In Norway, the significance of involving independent experts in legal proceedings related less to performance than to social workers’ belief that an independent expert is necessary in court because the court typically requires it, indicating that social workers’ assessments alone are insufficient. This sentiment, consistently expressed throughout the focus groups, is conveyed in a statement by a participant from the first focus group: ‘At the moment it almost seems like the courts do not dare to make decisions without an independent expert’ (N1). This statement captures the prevailing attitude among the social workers and their perception of the courts’ reliance on independent experts. In fact, social workers from three groups (N1, N3, N4) shared experiences of courts routinely appointing experts. This practice reinforces the idea that independent expertise is a standard and integral part of the legal process in Norway and reflects the courts’ trust in experts.

‘The experts confirm our assessments’

While both contexts used experts to bolster and establish the case’s foundation, notable differences emerged in the practices and attitudes related to this. In the Norwegian context, participants stressed the necessity of having an expert, whereas in the English context, participants emphasised the need for an expert inclined to align with the social worker’s perspective.

In the focus groups, the Norwegian social workers discussed the necessity of involving an independent expert to validate their assessments in court. They proactively engage independent experts, aware that the courts may be hesitant to rule without such input. As one participant in N1 put it, ‘We know the court is reluctant to decide without an independent expert, so we proactively appoint one ourselves.’ This suggests the Norwegian social workers’ strategic focus on fortifying their cases through expert involvement.

Some of the English social workers indicated that they strategically undertake to find an expert who can confirm their views. As one social worker stated, ‘I needed to find an expert that the court would respect more than me’ (E4). We found several real case examples of social workers strategically appointing experts to emphasise the severity of the case and help build arguments that the court would trust, because it is the experience of these social workers that their own arguments are not heard as well as those of experts. In a focus group consisting of leaders (N3), we found important discussions about when to recruit an expert to ‘please’ the court and when it can be determined that ‘we have enough evidence and competence to carry our own case and arguments’. With regard to other social workers interviewed in both countries, this is often a decision to be made by leaders and legal teams.

Discussion

This study offers an opportunity to reflect on practices in which the phenomenon of using experts in child protection cases is played out. What are the social workers actually telling us, and how can we understand their examples and stories? We will now attempt to elaborate by highlighting the social workers’ observations on status and competence and how they perceive the role and function of independent experts in the two contexts.

What are social workers’ observations regarding status and competence?

The social workers from both countries portray social workers as being in the position of underdog as compared to independent experts, children’s guardians, lawyers, and judges. We find some protest against this position, loud voices that claim this is a false image and arguing that they also have adequate competence and, not least, that ‘we know the family’. The social workers in both contexts were aware that they need to consider the court’s perspective when providing their opinion, which reflects their understanding of the legal requirements in care proceedings. The social workers understood that they needed to be well-versed in the legal system’s language and norms and culture in order to effectively serve as professional witnesses in care proceedings. This is in line with Edwards’s (2009) term of relational expertise, which refers to the skill set involved in not only communicating professional knowledge across different disciplines but also taking into account the perspective of the receivers. Achieving this kind of expertise requires a blend of reflective and interactional abilities (Edwards, 2009; Edwards & Kinti, 2009). In the context of our study, the social workers displayed reflective ability by consciously considering the legal outcomes they sought to facilitate. In England, we encountered stories from social workers who experienced bullying in court by all parties present; these social workers felt the atmosphere in court was harsh. Research shows that social workers and external experts alike can fall prey to the intricate negotiations and attempts at manipulation that occur within and beyond the confines of the courtroom (Stevenson, 2012). Potter (2020) found that judges questioned social workers during care proceedings in order to address gaps or a lack of clarity in their evidence and to elaborate, which is reasonable to expect. However, Potter (2020) also finds that in ‘difficult and sensitive’ (p. 264) cases, judges ask social workers ‘discursive questions’. These queries are designed to prompt elaboration on general theory and research and substantiate the decision. When the cross-examination style is critical, a less experienced social worker may become defensive in court and struggle to make a positive impression as a skilled professional (Potter, 2020, p. 225). This form of questioning may partly explain the court atmosphere that our English informants described as challenging and akin to ‘bullying’. ‘We know the family’ is not sufficient in and of itself; it is also necessary to master the skills needed in court. Eloquent answers that argue to prove a case are necessary to satisfy examination by judges and lawyers in England (Potter, 2020). Understanding legal requirements is also important in Norway. In this context, psychological experts wield more influence in judicial proceedings than do the social workers involved (Agenda Kaupang, 2015; Haugli & Nordhelle, 2014; Norwegian Directorate for Children, Youth and Family Affairs (Bufdir), 2021). A factor in the greater influence of independent experts’ contribution may be their specialised training and preparation for legal settings, which means that they present their insights in a manner that aligns with judicial expectations (Greve et al., 2024). This skill set allows them to communicate more effectively in court and thus command greater respect and influence than social workers, who may not possess the same level of courtroom familiarity.

In Norway, the perception of being an underdog is not as pronounced as in England but is still prevalent. While English social workers primarily attributed their low status to their role within the court system, the Norwegian social workers perceived their status as lesser particularly compared to that of psychologist experts. It is plausible that independent experts exhibit greater confidence in their expertise and recommendations because of their detachment from the long-term responsibilities associated with the welfare of the child. They are typically engaged for a specific case and are not held accountable for the long-term outcomes of their recommendations, unlike the child protective services, which bear ongoing responsibility for the child’s welfare.

Another consideration is systemic pressures that affect these two professional categories differently. The child protective services operate under substantial external pressures, including media scrutiny, governmental oversight, and often tight financial constraints. These factors can affect not only their work but also the public perception of their reliability and effectiveness. We found that some English participants stated explicitly that people hate social workers. In England, a national culture of individual responsibility and blame directed at social workers seems to have a major influence on child protection (Munro, 2019). In contrast, Norway tends to embrace a culture more inclined to learning, with a ‘what can we learn from this’ mentality. Consequently, the Norwegian media landscape does not feature the same level of discussion personally blaming social workers (Samsonsen, 2016.) This may aid our understanding of how the English social workers in this study, in contrast with the Norwegian social workers, felt that all parties ‘hate social workers’. Nevertheless, when profound decisions about removing children from their families are at stake, it is understandable that parents mistrust child protection workers and perceive them as government representatives.

How do social workers in the two contexts perceive the role and function of independent experts?

A key aspect of this study is the opportunity it affords to reflect on the similarities and differences in how the social workers in the two contexts experience the use of independent experts in child protection cases. The social workers interviewed in Norway and England indicated that there is a need for expert contributions in these complex and serious cases and offered various reasons for this. At times, they require specialised competence, such as medical, psychological, and drug abuse knowledge; on other occasions, they find it valuable to have insight from ‘a fresh pair of eyes’ or a second opinion on the case. Additionally, being aware that the court may request expert assessments, the social workers engage an expert to support their assessment. Research shows that the use of independent experts varies by context and/or country, as does the rationale for engaging an expert (Dickens et al., 2017; Hinton, 2019; Hultman et al., 2020; Melinder et al., 2021; Robertson & Broadhurst, 2019; Skivenes & Tonheim, 2016), which is confirmed by our study. Our findings mirror this difference in how the role and function of independent experts are organised in the two countries. We find there is greater clarity in role and function when the English social workers discuss their experiences and their system. When in-depth knowledge is needed, for instance, in respect of parental drug abuse or cognitive functioning, social workers may request an expert such as a psychologist or medical professional. When the family asks for a second opinion of the assessment, an independent social worker who undertakes a new general assessment of the case, is appointed. In Norway, however, the role of experts is complicated by the blending of specialised and general competencies. In most child protection cases in Norway, independent experts are psychologists who conduct assessments similar to those already made by the social workers (Greve et al., 2024). The Norwegian social workers in this study question what expert competence really entails: is it in-depth psychological knowledge or is it more general social work knowledge? This division of in-depth knowledge versus more general child and family assessment seems far clearer for the English social workers in this study thanks to the separation of expert roles in the system. Hence, there are notable consequences for the practice field of the different expert strategies in the two countries.

Conclusion and implications for practice

Although this is a small-scale study, these social workers’ perspectives and stories offer valuable insights into social work practices and shed light on the dynamics surrounding the use of experts in child protection cases. It is evident that social workers in both Norway and England grapple with perceived underdog status when compared to independent experts. In Norway, emphasis is placed on the differing degrees of influence and status of social workers and psychological experts. In England, the courtroom environment is described as challenging. Social workers in both contexts face challenges in asserting their competence and navigating the legal system. The study also draws attention to the influence of systemic factors and cultural differences on the status and perception of social workers in child protection cases. These stories of social work practices in these two contexts can contribute to raising key questions about the dynamics around the use of experts in child protection cases beyond these two specific contexts.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by The Research Council of Norway, project number 300827, and Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Norway. The study is approved by Sikt  – Norwegian Agency for Shared Services in Education and Research, project number 885982.

Notes on contributors

Vibeke Samsonsen

Vibeke Samsonsen is PhD in Social Work and is an associate professor in the Department of Welfare and Participation at the Western University of Applied Sciences, Norway. Her field of research is child protection decision-making and high-conflict families.

Rakel Aasheim Greve

Rakel Aasheim Greve is currently a PhD student at the Department of Welfare and Participation at the Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Norway. Her field of research is child welfare services practices, including the use of independent experts and assessment of risk for child abuse.

Øivin Christiansen

Øivin Christiansen is a social worker with a PhD in Psychosocial Science. He works as a Senior Researcher at Regional Centre for Child and Adolescent Mental Health and Child Welfare West, NORCE Norwegian Research Centre, Bergen, Norway. He has broad experiences from child welfare practice, education, and research. His research interests include child welfare decision-making, family support, foster care, user participation, and services to marginalized families and children.

Tone Jørgensen

Tone Jørgensen is PhD in sociology and is an associate professor in the Department of Welfare and Participation at the Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Norway. Her field of research is within child welfare and child protection services, with a special focus on decision-making processes, the use of professional knowledge, and children's participation.