Tina Gerdts-Andresen

Publikum/tilhørere som ønsker å opponere ex auditorio må melde sine spørsmål på e-post til leder av disputas veronica.h.bekkstrand@uit.no innen kl. 13:00 disputasdagen.

Lenke i Munin til denne avhandlingen  

Prøveforelesing (10.00-11.00) og disputasen (12.15-15.30).
Her kan du følge prøveforelesing og disputasen.

Første opponent: lektor cand.pæd.hist. Niels Rosendal Jensen, Aarhus universitet. 

Andre opponent: professor ph.d. Riina Kiik, Norges teknisk-naturvitenskapelige universitet (NTNU).

Leder av komiteen: førsteamanuensis ph.d. Bodil Olsvik. UiT Norges arktiske universitet.

Leder av disputas: instituttleder Veronica Haug Bekkstrand, Institutt for barnevern og sosialt arbeid

Populærvitenskapelig sammendrag:

This thesis explores how the child’s right to family life after a care order is issued safeguarded in care orders. How Norway safeguards the child's right to family life after a care order is issued has been the subject of criticism and public debate nationally and internationally several times in recent years and has also been the subject of several ECtHR judgments. This regards the value of contact between children and parents when a child is in public care and how a child's autonomy is understood in decision-making processes in child welfare law proceedings. Currently, there is minimal literature and limited research on the effectiveness of contact regulations. This includes alternative ways of securing a child's right to family life in cases requiring strict contact regulation. It is, therefore, a need for research on how regulation of contact between a child and his or her parents is justified, based on the interpretations of various risk factors in the assessment of what is in the best interest of the child. Of particular interest is how the child’s view is weighted in light of the child’s need for protection. As a contribution to the gap of knowledge, this thesis aims to increase knowledge and professional understanding of the elements that influence to what extent a child's right to family life after a care order is issued is safeguarded in the care orders. Contradictions and dilemmas between conventional rights and Norwegian practice are addressed. In order to explore how the child’s right is safeguarded, the analysis draws on a sociological approach to the value of family life.

The thesis consists of four studies: Three studies that analyze County Social Welfare Board decisions from period 1. July 2018 to 31. December 2019, and one study that provides an overview of research on how the child’s view is weighted in court proceedings, based on a database search performed in July 2020. The first study examines to what extent current Norwegian practice appears in contradiction to human rights. With an overall finding of no correlation between any of the forms of contact regulations and the child’s age, the child’s characteristics, the child or parent’s special needs, the child’s reactions related to contact, or the collaborative climate in the case, study result reinforces the suspicion that current Norwegian practice may be in contradiction to human rights. The second study explores how the County Social Welfare Board justifies the regulation of visitation rights when a care order is issued. The study provides an in-depth study of justifications for the necessity of visitation regulations when a care order is issued. The findings show that justifications appear standardized and where the necessity of visitation regulation does not appear to be clearly justified. The third study explores how the County Social Welfare Board justifies restricting telephone contact, and the use of digital communication platforms after a care order is issued. The study provides an in-depth study of justifications for the necessity of the restrictions. Although these rights were only regulated in a limited number of care orders, findings show that justifications appear standardized and where the need for regulation does not appear to be clearly justified. As the care orders are presented, it is unclear whether such regulations are feasible due to the child’s age. It is also unclear whether the child submits to the decision, as the child’s view on the matter is not included in most care orders. The fourth study is a scoping review of when and how a child’s view is weighted in decision-making processes in court proceedings. Based on a systematic literature search, 11 original publications met the study’s eligibility criteria. The findings show that children under the age of seven are generally not given the opportunity to express their views in child protection proceedings and only rarely in family law proceedings. Children above the age of seven were increasingly likely to be included as a factor in the decision. It is, however, unclear whether the child’s view is weighted or if the child’s view is simply noted. Although awareness of children’s rights has increased, there still appears to be a discrepancy between the child’s right to participate and how this right is implemented in law proceedings, both within family law and child protection proceedings.

This thesis expands our knowledge about how the value of family life is interpreted when a child is placed in public care. What value family life has for the individual child must be interpreted in close relation to the child's own experience and opinion. The thesis has, therefore, also included an analytical approach to how the child's view is generally emphasized in legal decision-making processes and contact regulation in particular. Through the thesis' discussion, it is argued that an increased visualization of the professional assessment may have a positive impact on the legal administration of the child's right to family life, as the written words in the care order affect how the child welfare services understand and facilitate for the child’s family life after a care order is issued.

Further, the thesis raises questions about children's participation and understanding of children's autonomy in decision-making processes. There is no doubt that children, by being children, are not fully autonomous in most decision-making processes. However, the thesis attempts to raise awareness of how the Social County Welfare Board, in particular, but other decision-makers within child protection law in general, legitimize their own decisions. It is entirely acceptable to make a paternalistic decision if the child is not believed to be autonomous in the situation, either in whole or in part. However, the thesis seeks to reflect on what influences whether we understand children as autonomous, and how our interpretation of children as generally vulnerable - and children in public care as particularly vulnerable - indirectly influences how children are interpreted in a larger context.