Family relatedness: a challenge for making decisions in child welfare
Search for other papers by Rosi Enroos in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Tarja Pösö in
Current site
Google Scholar
This article examines children’s and parents’ positions as rights holders and family members in child welfare decision making as seen by social workers who prepare child removal decisions. The study is based on qualitative interviews with social workers, each of which includes the story of one child’s case. The interviews were conducted in Finland, where the consent or objection expressed by parents and children of a certain age determine the decision-making process, as each of them can independently express a view about the removal proposal. The study highlights how family relatedness shapes the parties’ autonomy and self-determination through intergenerational, interparental and other dynamics of emotional and power relations. Relational autonomy is emphasised more than individual autonomy in the social workers’ descriptions. It is suggested that self-determination needs to be refined so that it acknowledges family relatedness as well as individuals as rights holders.
-
Akbar, G. (2019) Thinking critically about self-determination: literature review, Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics, 16(2): 2–9.
-
Asscher, J., Dijkstra, S., Stams, G., Dekovic, M. and Creemers, H. (2014) Family group conferencing in youth care: characteristics of the decision making model, implementation and effectiveness of the family group (FG) plans, BMC Public Health, 14(154), doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-154
-
Banks, S. (2006) Ethics and Values in Social Work, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
-
Benbenishty, R. and Fluke, J. (2021) Frameworks and models in decision-making and judgement in child welfare and protection, in J. Fluke, M. López, R. Benbenishty, E. Knorth and D. Bauman (eds) Decision-Making and Judgement in Child Welfare and Protection, New York: Oxford University Press, pp 3–26.
-
Berrick, J., Peckover, S., Pösö, T. and Skivenes, M. (2015a) The formalized framework for decision making in child protection care orders: a cross-country comparison, Journal of European Social Policy, 25(4): 366–78, doi: 10.1177/0958928715594540.
-
Berrick, J., Dickens, J., Pösö, T. and Skivenes, M. (2015b) Children’s involvement in care order decision-making: a cross-country analysis, Child Abuse & Neglect, 49: 128–41, doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.07.001.
-
Berrick, J., Dickens, J., Pösö, T. and Skivenes, M. (2017) Parents’ involvement in care order decisions: a cross-country study of front-line practice, Child & Family Social Work, 22(2): 626–37, doi: 10.1111/cfs.12277.
-
Buckley, H., Carr, N. and Whelan, S. (2011) ‘Like walking on eggshells’: service user views and expectations of the child protection system, Child & Family Social Work, 16(1): 101–10.
-
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.
-
Coffey, A. and Atkinson, P. (1996) Making Sense of Qualitative Data. Complementary Research Strategies, London/Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
-
Corbett, M. (2018) Children in voluntary care: an essential provision but one in need of reform, Irish Journal of Family Law, 21(2): 9–16.
-
Daly, A. (2018) Children, Autonomy and the Courts: Beyond the Right to be Heard, Leiden: Brill.
-
Diaz, C. (2020) Decision Making in Child and Family Social Work, Bristol: Policy Press.
-
Dingwall, R., Eekelaar, J. and Murray, T. (2014) The Protection of Children, 2nd edn, New Orleans, LA: Quid Pro Books.
-
Duffy, J., Collins, M. and Kim. S. (2018) Linking family engagement with a rights perspective: macro factors influencing practice, European Journal of Social Work, 21(1): 45–60. doi: 10.1080/13691457.2016.1255925
-
Dumbrill, G.C. (2006) Parental experience of child protection intervention: a qualitative study, Child Abuse & Neglect, 30: 28–37, doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2005.08.012.
-
Egelund, T. (1996) Bureaucracy or professionalism? The work tools of child protection services, International Journal of Social Welfare, 5(3): 165–74.
-
Ellingson, L. and Sotirin, P. (2020) Making Data in Qualitative Research, London: Routledge.
-
Eronen, T., Korpinen, J. and Pösö, T. (2020) Social workers as relational actors: descriptions of care order preparations in Finland, Nordic Social Work Research [early view], doi: 10.1080/2156857X.2020.1811137.
-
Falch-Eriksen, A. and Backe-Hansen, E. (eds) (2018) Human Rights in Child Protection: Implications for Professional Practice and Policy, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
-
Fox Harding, L. (2013) Perspectives in Child Care, Oxford: Routledge.
-
Furlong, M. (2003a) Critiquing the goal of autonomy: towards strengthening the ‘relational self’ and the quality of belonging in casework practice, European Journal of Social Work, 6(1): 5–18, doi: 10.1080/01369145032000099611.
-
Furlong, M. (2003b) Self-determination and a critical perspective in casework: promoting a balance between interdependency and autonomy, Qualitative Social Work, 2(2): 177–96. doi: 10.1177/1473325003002002004
-
Gambrill, E. (2008) Informed consent: option and challenges, in M. Calder (ed) The Carrot or the Stick? Towards Effective Practice with Involuntary Clients in Safeguarding Children Work, Lyme Regis: Russell House Publishing, pp 37–58.
-
Gibson, M. (2019) Shame and shaming of parents in the child protection process: findings from a case study of an English child protection service, Families, Relationships and Societies, 9(2): 217–33. doi: 10.1332/204674318X15447907611406
-
Gupta, A., Featherstone, B. and White, S. (2016) Reclaiming humanity: from capacities to capabilities in understanding parenting in adversity, British Journal of Social Work, 46(2): 339–54. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcu137
-
Healy, K. (1998) Participation in child protection, British Journal of Social Work, 28(6): 897–914. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjsw.a011407
-
Hiltunen, T. (2015) Äitiys, Huostaanotto ja Voimaantuminen [Motherhood, Care Order and Empowernment], Jyväskylä Studies in Education, Psychology and Social Research 541, Jyväskylä: Jyväskylän yliopisto.
-
Huhtanen, R. (2020) Suostumus huostaanottoon [Consenting to the taking of a child into care], Lakimies, 118(3–4): 300–23.
-
Juhila, K., Ranta, J., Raitakari, S. and Banks, S. (2021) Relational autonomy and service choices in social worker–client conversations in an outpatient clinic for people using Drugs, British Journal of Social Work, 51(1): 170–86. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcaa011.
-
Lonne, B., Harries, M., Featherstone, B. and Gray, M. (2016) Working Ethically in Child Protection, London: Routledge.
-
Lynch, C. and Boddy, J. (2017) Cooperation or coercion? Children coming into the care system under voluntary arrangements, https://frg.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Cooperation-or-coercion.pdf.
-
Mackenzie, C. and Stoljar, N. (2000) Relational Autonomy: Feminist Perspectives on Autonomy, Agency, and the Social Self, New York: Oxford University Press.
-
Mason, J. and Tipper, B. (2008) Being related. How children define and create kinship, Childhood, 15(4): 441–60. doi: 10.1177/0907568208097201
-
Masson, J. and Dickens, J. (2013) Partnership by law? The pre-proceedings process for families on the edge of care proceedings, https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/191632784/Report.pdf.
-
Munro, E. (2008) Effective Child Protection, London: Sage Publications.
-
Munro, E. and Turnell, A. (2018) Re-designing organizations to facilitate rights-based practice in child protection, in Human Rights in Child Protection. Implications for Professional Practice and Policy, A. Falch-Eriksen and E. Backe-Hansen (eds) pp 89–110, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
-
O’Leart Wiley, M. and Baden, A.L. (2005) Birth parents in adoption: research, practice, and counseling psychology, The Counseling Psychologist, 33(1): 13–50.
-
O’Sullivan, T. (2011) Decision-Making in Social Work, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
-
Pekkarinen, E. (2016) Toivottu, kiistelty ja torjuttu: lastensuojelun avohuolto huostaanottoasiakirjoissa [Wished, contested and rejected: child welfare support measures in care order documents], in R. Enroos, T. Heino and T. Pösö (eds) Huostaanotto – Lastensuojelun Vaativin Tehtävä [Care Order – The Most Challenging Task in Child Welfare], Tampere: Vastapaino, pp 103–25.
-
Pelton, L. (2016) Separating coercion from provision in child welfare, Child Abuse & Neglect, 51: 427–34. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.08.007
-
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 Child Welfare Systems, New York: Oxford University Press, pp 18–39.
-
Reamer, F. (1983) The concept of paternalism in social work, Social Service Review, 57(2): 254–71. doi: 10.1086/644516
-
Reamer, F.G. (2016) Evolving ethical standards in the digital age, Australian Social Work, 70(2): 148–59, doi: 10.1080/0312407X.2016.1146314.
-
Ribbens McCarthy, J. (2012) The powerful relational language of ‘family’: togetherness, belonging and personhood, The Sociological Review, 60(1): 68–90, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-954X.2011.02045.x.
-
Ribbens McCarthy, J. (2013) What is at stake in family troubles? Existential issues and value frameworks, in J. Ribbens McCarthy, C. Hooper and V. Gillies (eds) Family Troubles? Exploring Changes and Challenges in the Family Lives of Children and Young People, Bristol: Policy Press, pp 327–54.
-
Smart, C. (2007) Personal Life: New Directions in Sociological Thinking, Cambridge: Polity.
-
Stabler, L., Wilkins, D. and Carro, H. (2020) What do children think about their social workers? A Q-method study of children’s services, Child & Family Social Work, 25(1): 118–26.
-
Turney, D. (2012) A relationship-based approach to engaging involuntary clients: the contribution of recognition theory, Child & Family Social Work, 17(2): 149–59.
-
Välikoski, T.R., Pösö, T. and Huhtanen, R. (2020) Kuulemistilaisuus institutionaalisena vuorovaikutuksena lapsen huostaanoton valmisteluprosessissa [Administrative hearings as institutional communication as part of care order preparations], Janus, 28(4): 323–40.
-
Vetere, A. (2013) What supports resilient coping among family members? A systemic practitioner’s perspective, in J.R. McCarthy, C.A. Hooper and V. Gillies (eds) Family Troubles? Exploring Changes and Challenges in the Family Lives of Children and Young People, Bristol: Policy Press, pp 279–89.
-
Walter, J.K. and Ross, L.F. (2014) Relational autonomy: moving beyond the limits of isolated individualism, Pediatrics, 133(S1): 16–23. doi: 10.1542/peds.2013-3608D
-
Warner, J. (2015) The Emotional Politics of Social Work and Child Protection, Bristol: Policy Press.
-
Wehmeyer, M.L. (2014) Self-determination: a family affair, Family Relations, 63(1): 178–84, doi: 10.1111/fare.12052.
Search for other papers by Rosi Enroos in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Tarja Pösö in
Current site
Google Scholar
| May 2022 onwards | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 796 | 326 | 17 |
| Full Text Views | 1099 | 416 | 0 |
| PDF Downloads | 541 | 175 | 8 |
Institutional librarians can find more information about free trials here
We are a leading social science publisher
committed to making a difference.
Bristol University Press and
Policy Press
bristoluniversitypress.co.uk