References

• Agenda Kaupang. (2015). Evaluering av barnesakkyndig kommisjon og vurdering av utvidet ansvarsområdet [Evaluation of the Expert Commission on Children and assessment of an extended mandate]. Ministry of Children and Equality. https://bit.ly/3iQ0YAW
   Google Scholar
• Augusti, E.-M., Bernt, C., & Melinder, A. (2017). Kvalitetssikring av sakkyndighetsarbeid–en gjennomgang av vurderingsprosesser i Barnesakkyndig kommisjon, fylkesnemnder og domstoler [Quality assurance of expert work – An appraisal of assessment processes in the Expert Commission of Children, the County Boards and the courts]. Tidsskrift for Familierett, Arverett og Barnevernrettslige Spørsmål, 15(4), 265–289. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.0809-9553-2017-04-02
   Google Scholar
• Baistow, K. (2000). Cross-national research. What can we learn from inter-country comparisons? Social Work in Europe, 7(3), 8–12.
   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
• Berg, B. L., & Lune, H. (2012). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Brophy, J., Owen, C., Sidaway, J., & Jhutti-Johal, J. (2012). The contribution of experts in care proceedings: Evaluation of independent social work reports on care proceedings.
   Google Scholar
• Carlile, P. R. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15(5), 555–568. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0094
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cassidy, D., & Davey, S. (2011). Family justice children’s proceedings–Review of public and private law case files in England and Wales. Research Summary, 5(11), 1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Children Act. (1989). Children Act 1989 Chapter 41. www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/41/
   Google Scholar
• Children and Families Act. (2014). Children and Families Act 2014 Chapter 6. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/6
   Google Scholar
• Child Welfare Act. (2021). Lov om barnevern (LOV-2021-06-18-97). Lovdata.
   Google Scholar
• Cobb, S. (2013). Legal aid reform: Its impact on family law. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 35(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2013.774607
   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. The British Journal of Social Work, 47(4), 1024–1042. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcw064
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, A. (2009). Relational agency in collaborations for the well-being of children and young people. Journal of Children's Services, 4(1), 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1108/17466660200900004
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, A., & Kinti, I. (2009). Working relationally at organisational boundaries: Negotiating expertise and identity. In H. Daniels, A. Edwards, Y. Engeström, T. Gallagher, & S. Ludvigsen (Eds.), Activity theory in practice: Promoting learning across boundaries and agencies (pp. 126–139). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Frost, E., Høyer, S., & Campanini, A. (2017). Outsiders and learners: Negotiating meaning in comparative European social work research practice. Qualitative Social Work, 16(4), 465–480. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325015621124
   Google Scholar
• Greve, R. A., Christiansen, Ø., & Jørgensen, T. (2024). Social workers’ perspectives on the role and function of independent experts in care proceedings in Norway: Contributions and devaluation. Child & Family Social Work, 29(1), 102–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.13054.
   Google Scholar
• Greve, R. A., Persdotter, B., Christiansen, Ø., & Jørgensen, T. (2023). The importance of information processing in child protection cases—A study of social workers’ integration of other professionals’ knowledge. British Journal of Social Work, bcad227, 1–19.
   Google Scholar
• Haugli, T., & Nordhelle, G. (2014). Sikker i sin sak? Om barn, sakkyndighet og rettssikkerhet. Lov og Rett, 53(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
• Jang, K. (2013). An understanding of optimal knowledge management for social work practice: Based on a process-oriented conceptualisation of knowledge integration. British Journal of Social Work, 43(7), 1364–1383. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcs053
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krishnamurthy, A., & Reynolds, K. (2011). Experts in public family law cases in England and Wales. System, 9, 1–5.
   Google Scholar
• Masson, J. (2010). The use of experts in child care proceedings in England and Wales: Benefits, costs and controls. Annual Legal Research Network Conference 2010. https://www.bristol.ac.uk/media-library/sites/law/migrated/documents/alrnc2010masson.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Melinder, A., Koch, K., & Bernt, C. (2021). 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
• 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
• Ministry of Justice. (2011). Family Justice Review: Final Report. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/217343/family-justice-review-final-report.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Munro, E. (2019). Decision-making under uncertainty in child protection: Creating a just and learning culture. Child & Family Social Work, 24(1), 123–130. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12589
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norwegian Directorate for Children, Youth and Family Affairs (Bufdir). (2021). Ensomme eksperter. Utredning av utdanningsprogrammet for og oversikten over barnefaglig sakkyndige [Lonely experts. A report of the educational programme for experts in child protection]. https://bit.ly/3PnAhQe
   Google Scholar
• NOU 2017: 12. (2017). Svikt og svik. Gjennomgang av saker hvor barn har vært utsatt for vold, seksuelle overgrep og omsorgssvikt [Failure and betrayal. A review of cases where children have been exposed to violence, sexual abuse and neglect]. Ministry of Children and Equality. https://bit.ly/2Eb6gzQ
   Google Scholar
• NOU 2023: 7. (2023). Trygg barndom, sikker fremtid — Gjennomgang av rettssikkerheten for barn og foreldre i barnevernet [Secure childhood, secure future – A review of the legal protection of children and parents in the child welfare services]. Ministry of Children and Families.
   Google Scholar
• NPF Norsk Psykolog Forening. (n.d.). Sakkyndiglisten [Registred independent experts]. https://www.psykologforeningen.no/publikum/sakkyndiglisten
   Google Scholar
• Ot.prp.nr. 68. (2007-2008). Om lov om endringer i lov 17. juli 1992 nr. 100 om barneverntjenester mv. (Barnesakkyndig kommisjon) [Changes in the Child Welfare Act July 17 1992 number 100]. Ministry of Children and Families. https://bit.ly/3Fuybth
   Google Scholar
• Potter, A. M. (2020). Local authority social workers’ evidence in care proceedings: Social work and legal evaluations of professional expertise. University of Bristol.
   Google Scholar
• Ragin, C. (1994). Constructing social research. Pine Forge Press.
   Google Scholar
• Riessmann, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. SAGE.
   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
• Samsonsen, V. (2016). Assessment in child protection: A comparative study Norway-England [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Stavanger.
   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 & Governance, 40(2), 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2015.1123789
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevenson, S. (2012). Inside the lion’s den: The risks to experts entering into child protection court proceedings. Journal of Social Work Practice, 26(3), 315–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650533.2011.599489
   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
• Tillyard QC, J. (2012). The role of the medical expert in care proceedings. Paediatrics and Child Health, 22(5), 177–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paed.2011.08.008
   Google Scholar