Children’s and parents’ involvement in care order proceedings: a cross-national comparison of judicial decision-makers’ views and experiences

References

• Administrative Office of the Courts, 2005. California juvenile dependency court improvement program reassessment. San Francisco, CA: Administrative Office of the Courts, Center for Families, Children, and the Court.
   Google Scholar
• Archard, D. and Skivenes, M., 2009. Balancing a child’s best interest and a child’s views. International journal of children’s rights, 17 (1), 1–21.
   Google Scholar
• Berrick, J., 2011. Trends and issues in the U.S. child welfare system. In: N. Gilbert, N. Parton, and M. Skivenes, eds.. Child protection systems. international trends and orientations. New York: Oxford University Press, 112–130.
   Google Scholar
• Berrick, J., et al., 2015. Children´s involvement in care order decision-making: A cross-country analysis. Child abuse & neglect, 49, 128–141.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berrick, J., et al., 2016. Parents’ involvement in care order decisions: a cross-country study of front-line practice. Child and family social work. doi:10.1111/cfs.12277
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berrick, J., et al., 2016a. Time, institutional support, and quality of decision making in child protection: a cross-country analysis. Human service organizations: management, leadership, & governance, 40 (5), 451–468.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berrick, J., et al., 2018. International perspectives on child friendly courts. International journal of children´s rights, 26, 251–277.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berrick, J.D., Cohen, E., and Anthony, E., 2011. Partnering with parents: promising approaches to improve reunification outcomes for children in foster care. Journal of family strengths, 11 (1), 14.
   Google Scholar
• Block, S.D., et al., 2010. Abused and neglected children in court: knowledge and attitudes. Child abuse and neglect, 34 (9), 659–670.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brophy, J., Jhutti-Johal, J., and Owen, C., 2003. Significant harm: child protection litigation in a multi-cultural setting. London: Lord Chancellor’s Department.
   Google Scholar
• Burns, K., Pösö, T., and Skivenes, M., eds., 2017. Child welfare removals by the state: a cross-country analysis of decision-making systems. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cashmore, J., 2002. Promoting the participation of children and youth people in care. Child abuse and neglect, 26 (8), 837–847.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Child Welfare Act 417/2007. Available 16 June 2018 from: https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/kaannokset/2007/en20070417_20131292.pdf
   Google Scholar
• De Godzinsky, V. (2012). Huostaanottoasiat hallinto-oikeuksissa. Tutkimus tahdonvastaisten huostaanottojen päätöksentekomenettelystä, Care orders in administrative courts. A study of the decision-making processes of involuntary care orders. Report 260. Helsinki: Oikeuspoliittinen tutkimuslaitos.
   Google Scholar
• Ekman, J. and Linde, J., 2003. Satisfaction with democracy: A note on a frequently used indicator in comparative politics. European journal of political research, 42, 391–408.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enroos, R., et al., 2017. The role and function of spokesperson in care order proceedings: a cross-country study in Finland and Norway. Children and youth services review, 74, 8–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eriksen, E.O. and Skivenes, M. (1997). The Problem with Legitimacy in Child Protection (Legitimasjonsproblemer i barnevernet), Bergen, LOS-notat 9705 (in Norwegian).
   Google Scholar
• Eriksen, E.O. and Weigard, J., 2004. Understanding habermas: communicative action and deliberative democracy. London, New York: Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Ferrin, M. and Kriesi, H., 2016. How Europeans view and evaluate democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gal, T. and Duramy, B., 2015. International perspective and empirical findings on child participation. from social exclusion to child inclusive policies. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gilbert, N., 1997. Combatting child abuse: international perspectives and trends. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gilbert, N., Parton, N., and Skivenes, M., 2011. Child protection systems: international trends and orientations. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J., 1996. Between facts and norms. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hart, R., 1992. Children’s participation: from tokenism to citizenship. Florence: UNICEF.
   Google Scholar
• Harwin, J., et al., 2016. After FDAC: outcomes 5 years later: final report. Lancaster: Lancaster University.
   Google Scholar
• Hunt, J., Macleod, A., and Thomas, C., 1999. The last resort: child protection, the courts and the 1989 children act. London: The Stationery Office.
   Google Scholar
• Jenkins, J.J., 2008. Listen to me! empowering youth and courts through increased youth participitation in dependency hearings. Family court review, 46 (1), 163–179.
   Google Scholar
• Jylha, M., Volpato, S., and Guralnik, J.M., 2006. Self-rated health showed a graded association with frequently used biomarkers in a large population sample. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 59 (5), 465–471. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.12.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kendall, J.R., 2010. Ex parte communications between children and judges in dependency proceedings. Child Law Practice, 29 (7), 97–107.
   Google Scholar
• Khoury, A., 2010. Seen and heard: involving children in dependency court. Children’s Rights Litigation, 12 (4), 1–23.
   Google Scholar
• Krinsky, M.A. and Rodriguez, J., 2006. Giving voice to the voiceless—enhancing youth participation in court proceedings. Nevada law journal, 6 (3), 1302–1314.
   Google Scholar
• Lens, V., 2016. Engaging parents in Family court: lessons from an observational study of child protection cases. Journal of social work, 17 (2), 129–146.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liefaard, T., 2016. Child-Friendly justice: protection and participation of children in the justice system. Temple law review, 88 (4), 905–927.
   Google Scholar
• Lundy, L., 2008. ‘Voice’ is not enough: conceptualizing Article 12 of the united nation convention on the rights of the child. British educational research journal, 33 (6), 927–942.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macgill, S. and Summers, A., 2014. Assessing the relationship between the quality of juvenile dependency hearings and foster care placements. Family court review, 52 (4), 678–685.
   Google Scholar
• Magnussen, A.M. and Skivenes, M., 2015. The child’s opinion and position in care order proceedings. International journal of children’s rights, 23 (4), 705–723.
   Google Scholar
• Masson, J., 2102. I think I do have strategies’: lawyers’ approaches to parent engagement in care proceedings. Child and family social work, 17 (2), 202–211.
   Google Scholar
• Masson, J., et al., 2013. Partnership by Law? The pre-proceedings process for families on the edge of care proceedings. Bristol & Norwich: School of Law, University of Bristol and CRCF, UEA.
   Google Scholar
• Masson, J., et al., 2008. Care profiling study: ministry of justice research series 4/08. London: Ministry of Justice.
   Google Scholar
• Morag, T., Rivkin, D., and Sorek, Y., 2012. Child participation in the family courts – lessons from the Israeli pilot project. International journal of law, policy and the family, 26 (1), 1–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NCJFCJ (National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges). (2016). Enhanced resource guidelines: Improving court practice in child abuse and neglect cases. Author: Reno, NV. Available from: https://www.ncjfcj.org/sites/default/files/%20NCJFCJ%20Enhanced%20Resource%20Guidelines%2005-2016.pdf
   Google Scholar
• NOU, 2012: 12 (2012). Ventetid – et spørsmål om tillit – En evaluering av statens karanteneregelverk, Waiting Time - A question of confidence - An evaluation of the state quarantine rule. Oslo: Government Administration.
   Google Scholar
• Nylund, A., 2017. An introduction to finnish legal culture. In: S. Koch, K. Skodvin, and J. Sunde, eds. Comparing legal cultures. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget, 285–316.
   Google Scholar
• Parton, N. and Berridge, D., 2011. Child protection in England. In: N. Gilbert, N. Parton, and M. Skivenes, eds. Child Protection Systems: International Trends and Orientations. New York: Oxford University Press, 60–88.
   Google Scholar
• Pearce, J., Masson, J., and Bader, K., 2011. Just following instructions? The representation of parents in care proceedings. Bristol: University of Bristol.
   Google Scholar
• Pösö, T., 2011. Combatting child abuse in Finland: from family to child-centered orientation. In: N. Gilbert, N. Parton, and M. Skivenes, eds. Child protection systems. international trends and orientations. New York: Oxford University Press, 112–130.
   Google Scholar
• Pösö, T. and Enroos, R., 2017. The representation of children’s views in the finnish court decisions of care orders. International journal of children’s rights, 25, 736–753.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pösö, T. and Huhtanen, R., 2017. Removals of children in Finland: a mix of voluntary and involuntary decisions. In: K. Burns, T. Pösö, and M. Skivenes, eds. Child welfare removals by the state: a cross-country analysis of decision-making systems. New York: Oxford University Press, 18–39.
   Google Scholar
• Pösö, T., et al., 2018. ”Voluntary” and “involuntary” child welfare: challenging the distinction. Journal of social work, 18 (3), 253–272. doi:10.1177/1468017316653269
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• President of the Family Division, 2014. President’s guidance on allocation and gatekeeping for care, supervision and other proceedings under part iv of the children act 1989 (public law). London: President of the Family Division.
   Google Scholar
• Rothstein, B., 2011. The quality of government: corruption, social trust, and inequality in international perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Skivenes, M., 2011. Norway: toward a child-centric perspective. N. Gilbert, N. Parton, and M. Skivenes, Ed. Child Protection Systems: International Trends and Orientations. Oxford University Press, 154–182.
   Google Scholar
• Skivenes, M. and Søvig, K., 2016. Judicial discretion and the child’s best interest – the european court of human rights on child protection adoption. In: E.E. Sutherland and L.-A.B. Macfarlane, eds. Implementing article 3 of the united nations convention on the rights of the child. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 341–357.
   Google Scholar
• Skivenes, M. and Tonheim, M., 2016. Improving the care order decision-making process: viewpoints of child welfare workers in four countries. Human service organization: management, leadership & governance, 40 (2), 1–11.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skivenes, M. and Tonheim, M., 2018. Improving decision‐making in care order proceedings: A multi-jurisdictional study of court decision makers’ experiences and opinions. Child and family social work, 08/15/2018.
   Google Scholar
• Summers, A. and Darnell, A., 2014. What does court observation tell us about judicial practice and the courts in child welfare? Journal of public child welfare, 9 (4), 341–361.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Summers, A., Gatowski, S.I., and Gueller, M., 2017. Examining hearing quality in child abuse and neglect cases: the relationship between breadth of discussion and case outcomes. Children and youth services review, 82, 490–498.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thoburn, J., 2010. Towards knowledge-based practice in complex child protection cases: a research-based expert briefing. Journal of children’s services, 5 (1), 9–24.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, N. and O’Kane, C., 1999. Children’s participation in reviews and planning meetings when they are ‘looked after’ in middle childhood. Child and family social work. 4, 221–230. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2206.1999.00112.x
   Google Scholar
• Timms, J. and Thoburn, J., 2006. ‘Your shout! looked after children’s perspectives on the children act 1989ʹ. Journal of social welfare and family law, 28 (2), 153–170.
   Google Scholar
• Toivonen, V.-M. (2017) Lapsen oikeudet ja oikeusturva. Lastensuojeluasiat hallintotuomioistuimissa, Children’s rights and Legal Safety – Child Welfare Cases in Administrative Courts. Helsinki: Alma Talent.
   Google Scholar
• Vis, S.A. and Fossum, S., 2013. Representation of children’s views in court hearings about custody and parental visitation – A comparison between what children wanted and what the courts rules. Children and youth services review, 35 (12), 2012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weisz, V., et al., 2011. Children’s participation in foster care hearings. Child abuse and neglect, 35 (4), 267–272.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wood, S.M. and Russell, J.R., 2011. Effects of parental and attorney involvement on reunification in juvenile dependency cases. Children and youth services review, 33 (9), 1730–1741: Available from: www.courts.ca.gov
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar