“We felt completely left to ourselves.” Foster parents' views on placement disruption

The purpose of this paper is to explore the reasons for unintended placement disruptions in foster care. Based on a semistructured survey, the paper presents the views of 132 Norwegian foster parents who have experienced placement disruption between 2013 and 2015. Foster parents rated several relevant causes of placement disruption: the child's behaviour, the need for care, concern for the well‐being of their biological children, and lack of support from the Child Welfare Service (CWS). Although the child's behaviour was the cause most frequently reported in the quantitative data, CWS‐related factors such as poor collaboration, not being valued and listened to, insufficient support and follow‐up, and a mismatch between the child's needs and the foster carers' capacity were reported most frequently in the qualitative data. Placement disruption appears to be caused by the sum and interaction of several coexisting causes. It may not be the child's behaviour per se but rather the combination of challenging behaviour, concern for one's biological children, and insufficient support from CWS that lead to disruption. Good collaboration with the CWS in the form of respect, recognition, support, and follow‐up appears to be of the utmost importance in reducing the risk of placement disruption.     

Improving decision‐making in care order proceedings: A multijurisdictional study of court decision‐makers' viewpoints

Child welfare removals of children are among the most invasive decisions a state can make toward its citizens, and typically it is the courts that make these decisions. These interventions are regularly exposed to criticism. In this paper, we examine if and how care order proceedings could be improved in England, Finland, Norway, and California, USA. We have asked the judiciary decision‐makers about their view on what should be improved. Our findings show that the organization of the proceedings, including time and staff, are identified as issues in all four systems. Furthermore, the preparations by the child welfare agency are also mentioned as an issue, for English, Finnish, and Californian decision‐makers. Very few decision‐makers indicate features related to the individual, situational, and contextual dimensions, which is interesting since this would be expected from organization theory. The strong call for change in the way proceedings are organized indicates a need for modernization as well as better use of available competency from child development experts. The respondents focus on the elements that a decision‐maker has direct experience with and knowledge about, and this is indeed worth noting for policymakers in the four systems.