References

• Anderson, R. (2007). Thematic content analysis (TCA). Descriptive Presentation of Qualitative Data, 1–4. http://rosemarieanderson.com/wpcontent/uploads/2014/08/ThematicContentAnalysis.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Augusti, E.-M., Bernt, C., & Melinder, A. (2017). Kvalitetssikring av sakkyndighetsarbeid–en gjennomgang av vurderingsprosesser i Barnesakkyndig kommisjon, fylkesnemnder og domstoler. Tidsskrift for familierett, arverett og barnevernrettslige spørsmål, 15(4), 265–289. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.0809-9553-2017-04-02
   Google Scholar
• Baer, J. C., & Martinez, C. D. (2006). Child maltreatment and insecure attachment: A meta-analysis. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 24(3), 187–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/02646830600821231
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bala, N., Birnbaum, R., & Watt, C. (2017). Addressing controversies about experts in disputes over children. Canadian Journal of Family Law, 30(1), 71–128.
   Google Scholar
• Beckett, C., & McKeigue, B. (2003). Children in limbo: Cases where court decisions have taken two years or more. Adoption & Fostering, 27(3), 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/030857590302700307
   Google Scholar
• Beckett, C., McKeigue, B., & Taylor, H. (2007). Coming to conclusions: Social workers’ perceptions of the decision-making process in care proceedings. Child and Family Social Work, 12(1), 54–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2206.2006.00437.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhattacherjee, A. (2012). Social science research: Principles, methods, and practices. Textbooks Collection. 3. http://scholarcommons.usf.eda/oa_textbooks/3
   Google Scholar
• Booth, W., & Booth, T. (2004). A family at risk: Multiple perspectives on parenting and child protection. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32(1), 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3156.2004.00263.x
   Google Scholar
• Brophy, J., Jhutti-Johal, J., & Owen, C. (2003). Assessing and documenting child Ill-treatment in ethnic minority households. Family Law, 756–764.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, P., & Dean, S. (2002). Assessment as an intervention in the child and family forensic setting. Professional Psychology-Research and Practice, 33(3), 289–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.33.3.289
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Budd, K. S. (2005). Assessing parenting capacity in a child welfare context. Children and Youth Services Review, 27(4), 429–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2004.11.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Budd, K. S., Felix, E. D., Sweet, S. C., Saul, A., & Carleton, R. A. (2006). Evaluating parents in child protection decisions: An innovative court-based clinic model. Professional Psychology: Research & Practice, 37(6), 666–675. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.37.6.666
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Budd, K. S., Poindexter, L. M., Felix, E. D., & Naik-Polan, A. T. (2001). Clinical assessment of parents in child protection cases: An empirical analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 25(1), 93–108. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005696026973
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burns, K., Dioso-Villa, R., & Rathus, Z. (2016). Judicial decision-making and ‘outside’ extra-legal knowledge: breaking down silos. Griffith Law Review, 25(3), 283–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2016.1264100
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dale, P. (2010). Child protection risk assessment: An independent social work expert witness perspective. Family Law, 40, 628–635.
   Google Scholar
• Dickens, J., Berrick, J., Pösö, T., & Skivenes, M. (2017). Social workers and independent experts in child protection decision making: Messages from an intercountry comparative study. British Journal of Social Work, 47(4), 1024–1042. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcw064
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dror, I. E., McCormack, B. M., & Epstein, J. (2015). Cognitive bias and its impact on expert witnesses and the court. The Judges' Journal, 54(4), 8–14.
   Google Scholar
• Fialkov, M. J. (1988). Fostering permanency of children in out-of-home care: Psycho-legal aspects. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 16(4), 343–357.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Forslund, T., Granqvist, P., van Ijzendoorn, M. H., Sagi-Schwartz, A., Glaser, D., Steele, M., Hammarlund, M., Schuengel, C., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Steele, H., Shaver, P. R., Lux, U., Simmonds, J., Jacobvitz, D., Groh, A. M., Bernard, K., Cyr, C., Hazen, N. L., Foster, S., … Duschinsky, R. (2022). Attachment goes to court: Child protection and custody issues. Attachment & Human Development, 24(1), 1–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2020.1840762
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frost, N. (2017). From “silo” to “network” profession – A multi-professional future for social work. Journal of Children’s Services, 12(2-3), 174–183. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCS-05-2017-0019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harnett, P. (1995). The contribution of clinical psychologists to family law proceedings in England. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 6(1), 173–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585189508409883
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haugli, T., & Nordhelle, G. (2014). Sikker i sin sak? Om barn, sakkyndighet og rettssikkerhet. Lov og rett, 54(2), 89–108. https://doi.org/10.18261/ISSN1504-3061-2014-02-04
   Google Scholar
• Hinton, M. (2019). Why the fence is the seat of reason when experts disagree. Social Epistemology, 33(2), 160–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2019.1577512
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hultman, E., Forkby, T., & Höjer, S. (2020). Professionalised, hybrid, and layperson models in Nordic child protection – Actors in decision-making in out of home placements. Nordic Social Work Research, 10(3), 204–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/2156857X.2018.1538897
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, M. B. (1999). Psychological parent theory reconsidered: The New Jersey “JC” case, part II. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 17(2), 41–56.
   Google Scholar
• Kayser, J. A., & Lyon, M. A. (2000). Teaching social workers to use psychological assessment data. Child Welfare, 79(2), 197–222.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King, M. (1991). Child welfare within law: The emergence of a hybrid discourse. Journal of Law and Society, 18(3), 303–322. https://doi.org/10.2307/1410197
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kollinsky, L., Simonds, L. M., & Nixon, J. (2013). A qualitative exploration of the views and experiences of family court magistrates making decisions in care proceedings involving parents with learning disabilities. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(2), 86–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3156.2012.00726.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Læret, O. K. (2017). Sakkyndige som «demokratiets sorte hull»? En vignettstudie av sakkyndige psykologers vurderinger av barnevernssaker. The University of Bergen.
   Google Scholar
• Lennings, C. (2002). Decision making in care and protection: The expert assessment. Australian e-Journal for the Advancement of Mental Health, 1(2), 128–140. https://doi.org/10.5172/jamh.1.2.128
   Google Scholar
• Levine, M., & Battistoni, L. (1991). Corroboration requirement in child sex abuse cases. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 9(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2370090103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Limb, G. E., Chance, T., & Brown, E. F. (2004). An empirical examination of the Indian Child Welfare Act and its impact on cultural and familial preservation for American Indian children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28(12), 1279–1289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2004.06.012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Masson, J. M., Dickens, J., Garside, L. B., Bader, K. F., & Young, J. (2019). Child protection in court: outcomes for children. School of law, University of Bristol.
   Google Scholar
• McKenzie, K., & Cossar, J. (2013). The involvement of clinical psychologists in child protection work. Child Abuse Review, 22(5), 367–376. https://doi.org/10.1002/car.2205
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Melinder, A., Koch, K., & Bernt, C. (2021a). Som du spør, får du svar: En gjennomgang av mandater til sakkyndige i barnevernssaker. Tidsskrift for familierett, arverett og barnevernrettslige spørsmål, 19(1), 52–76. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.0809-9553-2021-01-04
   Google Scholar
• Melinder, A., van der Hagen, M. A., & Sandberg, K. (2021b). In the best interest of the child: The Norwegian approach to child protection. International Journal on Child Maltreatment: Research, Policy and Practice, 4, 209–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42448-021-00078-6.
   Google Scholar
• Mian, M., Schryer, C. F., Spafford, M. M., Joosten, J., & Lingard, L. (2009). Current practice in physical child abuse forensic reports: A preliminary exploration. Child Abuse & Neglect, 33(10), 679–683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2009.06.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milchman, M. S. (1995). Child sexual abuse assessment: Issues in professional ethics. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse: Research, Treatment, & Program Innovations for Victims, Survivors, & Offenders, 4(4), 95–113. https://doi.org/10.1300/J070v04n04_06
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Children and Equality. (2006). NOU 2006:9 Kvalitetssikring av sakkyndige rapporter i barnevernet.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Children and Equality. (2017). NOU 2017:12 Svikt og svik. Gjennomgang av saker hvor barn har vært utsatt for vold, seksuelle overgrep og omsorgssvikt.
   Google Scholar
• Norwegian Board of Health Supervision. (2019). Det å reise vasker øynene. Gjennomgang av 106 barnevernsaker. Helsetilsynet.
   Google Scholar
• Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z., & Elmagarmid, A. (2016). Rayyan — a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 5, 210. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Page, A., & Morrison, N. M. V. (2018). The effects of gender, personal trauma history and memory continuity on the believability of child sexual abuse disclosure among psychologists. Child Abuse & Neglect, 80, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.03.014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., & Moher, D. (2021). Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: Development of the PRISMA 2020 statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 134, 103–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.02.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters, M. D. J., Godfrey, C., McInerney, P., Munn, Z., Tricco, A. C., & Khalil, H. (2020). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis, JBI (Aromataris E and Munn Z, Ed.) Available from https://synthesismanual.jbi.global. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-12
   Google Scholar
• Peters, M. D. J., Marnie, C., Tricco, A. C., Pollock, D., Munn, Z., Alexander, L., McInerney, P., Godfrey, C. M., & Khalil, H. (2021). Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Implementation, 19(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1097/xeb.0000000000000277
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pruett, K. D. (1992). Bearing witness for babies: The role of the expert witness. Zero to Three, 13(3), 7–11.
   Google Scholar
• Rathus, Z. (2014). The role of social science in Australian family law: Collaborator, usurper or infiltrator? Family Court Review, 52(1), 69–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12071
   Google Scholar
• Richman, K. D. (2005). Judging knowledge: The court as arbiter of social scientific knowledge and expertise in LGBT custody and adoption cases. Studies in Law, Politics & Society, 35, 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1059-4337(04)35001-5
   Google Scholar
• Robertson, L., & Broadhurst, K. (2019). Introducing social science evidence in family court decision-making and adjudication: Evidence from England and Wales. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 33(2), 181–203. https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebz002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sampson, M., McGowan, J., Lefebvre, C., Moher, D., & Grimshaw, J. PRESS: Peer review of electronic search strategies. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2008. Revised edition retrieved from FHI.no.
   Google Scholar
• Sheehan, R., & Borowski, A. (2014). Australia’s children’s courts: An assessment of the status of and challenges facing the child welfare jurisdiction in Victoria. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 36(2), 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2014.916079
   Google Scholar
• Sibert, J. R., Maguire, S. A., & Kemp, A. M. (2007). How good is the evidence available in child protection? Archives of Disease in Childhood, 92(2), 107–108. https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.2006.110627
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skellern, C. (2008). Medical experts and the law: Safeguarding children, the public and the profession. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 44(12), 736–742. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1754.2008.01423.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skellern, C., & Donald, T. (2012). Defining standards for medico-legal reports in forensic evaluation of suspicious childhood injury. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, 19(5), 267–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2012.02.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skivenes, M., & Tonheim, M. (2016). Improving the care order decision-making processes: Viewpoints of child welfare workers in four countries. Human Service Organizations Management, Leadership and Governance, 40(2), 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2015.1123789
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skivenes, M., & Tonheim, M. (2019). Improving decision-making in care order proceedings: A multi-jurisdictional study of court decision-makers’ viewpoints. Child & Family Social Work, 24(2), 173–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12600
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stridbeck, U. (2020). Coerced-reactive confessions: The case of Thomas quick. Journal of Forensic Psychology Research and Practice, 20(4), 305–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/24732850.2020.1732758
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tilbury, C. (2019). Obtaining expert evidence in child protection court proceedings. Australian Social Work, 72(4), 392–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/0312407x.2018.1534129
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases: Biases in judgments reveal some heuristics of thinking under uncertainty. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Bijleveld, G. G., Dedding, C. W. M., & Bunders-Aelen, J. F. G. (2015). Children’s participation within child protection. Child & Family Social Work, 20(2), 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12082
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wills, C. D., & Norris, D. M. (2010). Custodial evaluations of Native American families: Implications for forensic psychiatrists. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 38(4), 540–546.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar