Parents' involvement in care order decisions : a cross-country study of front-line practice

Pa en s’in ol emen in ca e o de decisions: a c oss-coun y s udy o on -line p ac ice Jill Be ick*, Jona han Dickens†,Ta ja Pösö‡and Ma i Ski enes§ *School o Social Wel a e, Uni e si y o Cali o nia, Be keley, CA, USA, †School o Social Wo k, Eas Anglia Uni e si y, No wich, UK, ‡School o Social Sciences and Humani ies, Uni e si y o Tampe e, Tampe e, Finland, and §Depa men o Adminis a ion and O ganiza ion Theo y, Uni e si y o Be gen, Be gen, No way Co espondence: Ma i Ski enes, Depa men o Adminis a ion and O ganiza ion Theo y, Uni e si y o Be gen, Ch is iesga e 17, Be gen 5020, No way Email: ma i .ski [email protected] Keywo ds: ca e o de s, child p o ec ion, compa a i e child wel a e, decision-making, igne es Accep ed o publica ion: Janua y 2016 ABSTRACT This a icle examines pa en s’in ol emen in ca e o de decision- making in ou coun ies a one pa icula poin in he ca e o de p ocess, namely, when he child p o ec ion wo ke discusses wi h he pa en s his o he conside a ions ega ding child emo al. The coun ies ep esen di e en child wel a e sys ems wi h No way and Finland ca - ego ized as ‘ amily se ice sys ems’and he USA as a ‘child p o ec ion sys em’, wi h England somewhe e in be ween. The ocus is on whe he he o ms and in ensi y o in ol emen a e di e en in hese ou coun- ies and whe he he sys em o ien a ion owa ds amily se ices o child p o ec ion influences p ac ice in he social wel a e agencies wi h pa en s. In ol emen is s udied in e ms o p o iding in o ma ion o pa - en s, collec ing in o ma ion om pa en s and ensu ing inclusion in he decision-making p ocesses. A igne e me hod is employed in a su ey wi h 768 esponses om child p o ec ion wo ke s in ou coun ies. The indings do no show a consis en pa e n o di e ence ega ding pa en al in ol emen in ca e o de p epa a ions ha align wi h he ype o child wel a e sys em in which s a wo k. The goal in each child wel a e sys em is o include pa en s, bu he p ecise ways in which i is ca ied ou (o no ) a y. Me hodological sugges ions a e gi en o u he s udies. INTRODUCTION Ca e o de s a e s a e in e en ions in he p i a e ela- ions o child en and hei pa en s. They a e based on he assump ion ha in some si ua ions, pa en al ca e o a child should be eplaced by public ca e; he e o e, pa en s’ igh s o aise a child a e es ic ed o e en e - mina ed, and he child is (usually) emo ed om he home. The final decisions abou compulso y ‘ca e o - de s’, which may be e med di e en ly ac oss he coun- ies, a e made by cou s o cou -like ins i u ions in mos coun ies (Bu ns e al., o hcoming). Howe e , i is he child p o ec ion wo ke ’s judgemen ha ini ia es he decision-making p ocess o emo e he child, and in his a icle, we explo e ca e o de decision-making om he poin o iew o on -line p ac ice. We a e es- pecially in e es ed in how pa en s may be in ol ed in social wo k decision-making abou ca e o de s. We o- cus on one pa icula poin in he ca e o de p ocess: when he child p o ec ion wo ke discusses wi h he pa - en s his o he conside a ions ega ding child emo al. Ou analysis is in o med by he poli ical discou se o Habe mas (1996; E iksen & Weigå d, 2004) and his amewo k o unde s anding he legi imacy o s a e- le el decision-making is-à- is he ci izen y (c . Ro hs ein 2011). In his pe spec i e, legi imacy is made mo e obus when decisions a e delibe a ed wi h he in- clusion o hose whose li es a e di ec ly a ec ed by s a e in e en ion. In he con ex o child wel a e, his means child en and pa en s should be in ol ed in decision- making o he ex en ha hey a e hea d, ha hei pe - spec i es and in e es s a e included and conside ed and ha hey a e gi en adequa e in o ma ion (Au ho s’ own a). To s udy his empi ically and o be able o Child and Family Social Wo k 2017, 22, pp 626–637 © 2016 The Au ho s. Child and Family Social Wo k published by John Wiley & Sons L d.626 doi:10.1111/c s.12277 This is an open access a icle unde he e ms o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion License, which pe mi s use, dis ibu ion and ep oduc ion in any me- dium, p o ided he o iginal wo k is p ope ly ci ed. The copy igh line o his a icle was changed on 31 Ma ch 2016 a e o iginal online publica ion bs_bs_banne compa e findings ac oss na ional con ex s, we ha e used a igne e me hod so ha when wo ke s a e asked abou pa en ’s pa icipa ion, hey depa om he same scena io. In he ollowing, we explo e pa en s’in ol emen in ca e o de decision-making in ou coun ies: Finland, No way, England and he USA (Cali o nia). The coun- ies ep esen di e en child wel a e sys ems wi h No - way and Finland ca ego ized as ‘ amily se ice sys ems’ and he USA as a ‘child p o ec ion sys em’,wi hEn- gland somewhe e in be ween, a hyb id sys em, whe e amily se ices may be p o ided as pa o a highly egu- la ed child p o ec ion sys em (Gilbe e al. 2011). The o mal egula ions, h esholds and p ac ices o ca e o - de decision-making di e in hese coun ies (Au ho s’ own a). We look he e a he in ol emen o pa en s om he poin o iew o he ep esen a i es o he child wel- a e sys em –child p o ec ion wo ke s –in he social wel a e agencies. We e e o child p o ec ion wo ke s as a common e m ac oss coun ies, e en hough each coun y may use di e en e ms o desc ibe on -line wo ke s in hei child wel a e sys em. The e m ca e o de p epa a ions is used o e e o he agency-based policies and p ac ices ha help de e mine whe he and when o make an applica ion o he cou . We a e in e es ed in whe he he o ms and in ensi y o in ol emen a e di - e en in hese ou coun ies and whe he he sys em o ien a ion owa ds amily se ices o child p o ec ion influences p ac ice wi h pa en s. PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION-MAKING: SKILLS, ATTITUDES AND ORGANIZATIONAL FACTORS When ca e o de decisions a e p oposed and made, pa - en s a e indeed in a di ficul posi ion. Thei pa en al skills and cus oms o look a e hei child en a e con es ed, and he es ic ion o hei pa en al igh s may ake place agains hei own iew o he quali y o hei pa en ing. Fu he , he e y examina ion o he amily ela ions may h ea en he igh s o p i acy in he amily. The Eu opean Con en ion on Human Righ s, o example, s a es ha e e yone has he igh o espec o p i a e and amily li e and his igh should be in e e ed wi h only when necessa y, such as o p o- ec he igh s and eedoms o o he s (A icle 8). This s a emen unde lines he p i a e and specific na u e o amily ela ions ha ca e o de p epa a ions may h ea en. The igh s o p i acy in a amily mus , how- e e , be balanced agains he igh s o he child o p o- ec ion om neglec and abuse. Despi e he highly complex and sensi i e na u e o ca e o de decisions, exis ing esea ch, in gene al, sugges s ha pa en s’inpu in decision-making is no a common componen o child wel a e se ices (e.g. Dumb ill 2006; F eymond 2007; Klease 2008; C ea and Be zin 2009; Hall and Slemb ouck 2011; Höje 2011; Lie z 2011; Vi okannas 2011; Glads one e al. 2014). When pa en s ha e been in e iewed abou hei expe iences and sen imen s abou he child wel a e sys em, hey o en epo us a- ion and dissa is ac ion a being excluded om he decision-making p ocess. The in ol emen o a he s is a pa icula challenge o child wel a e p ac ice as, o en, ei he hey a e absen om p ac ice o p ac i ione s do no in ol e hem in he same way as mo he s (e.g. Max- well 2013; Sk ams ad and Ski enes 2015). Resea ch sugges s, howe e , ha bi h pa en s who a e engaged in he decision-making p ocess a e mo e likely o pa ic- ipa e in se ices (Li ell 2001; Dawson and Be y 2002; Kemp e al.2009,McLendone al., 2012). Höje (2011) ound ha pa en s who had posi i e expe iences wi h child wel a e had been in i ed o pa icipa e in decision-making, while many o hose wi h nega i e ex- pe iences had no . The easons o poo in ol emen o pa en s a e, in sho , h ee old. Fi s , i may be a consequence o he skills, alues, echniques and a i udes o he p ac i- ione s in ol ed (e.g. Glads one e al.2014).E eni o - mal egula ions equi e pa en al in ol emen , on -line wo ke s and manage s will o en ha e he au ho i y o exe cise disc e ion in hei day- o-day wo k and hus de- e mine whe he and how pa en s a e in ol ed, o wo ke s use unau ho ized disc e ion in hei handling o pa en s. Resea ch on p ac ice finds a ia ion in he way ha child wel a e wo ke s engage pa en s in decision-making (Kapp and P opp 2002; Es e an e al., 2012; Glads one e al. 2014). When casewo ke s in ol e pa en s in decision-making, hey do so o a ying de- g ees; acco ding o pa en s’ epo s, he a ia ion is by casewo ke a he han by agency o by s a e (Lie z 2011; Fa ell e al., 2012). Acco ding o Smi h and Dono an (2003), casewo ke s oo a e conscious o his dynamic. Secondly, some pa en s a e unable o unwilling o en- gage cons uc i ely wi h child wel a e se ices. They may ha e been badly damaged by hei own expe iences o ha e limi ed social and cogni i e abili ies; he e o e, i is no a ques ion o blaming hem o a oiding o esis ing, bu being ealis ic abou hei capaci y and in- e es s. In e iewing in es iga ions in o cases in England whe e child en ha e been se iously abused o neglec ed, B andon e al. (2009) no e equen lack o pa en al co- ope a ion wi h agencies and lis he o ms his can ake: Pa en s in ou coun ies M. Ski enes e al. Child and Family Social Wo k 2017, 22, pp 626–637 © 2016 The Au ho s. Child and Family Social Wo k published by John Wiley & Sons L d.627 ‘delibe a e decep ion, disguised compliance and “ elling wo ke s wha hey wan o hea ”, selec i e engagemen , and spo adic, passi e o desul o y compliance’(B an- don e al. 2009: 3, 76). They conclude ha wo ke s ha e o be ca e ul in case ‘e o s no o be judgemen al be- come a ailu e o exe cise p o essional judgemen ’ (B andon e al.2009:27). Thi dly, he li e a u e sugges s ha he e a e s uc- u al easons o he poo in ol emen o pa en s. This could be due o he o ganiza ional ou ines and assump- ions ha emphasise he p o essional iew o e he pa - en s’ iew. Resea ch shows he ambigui ies and limi a ions o pa en al in ol emen and ep esen a ion in he mee ings in which decisions should be made. Fo example, s udying in ol emen o pa en s in child p o ec ion case con e ences in England in he 1990s, Co by e al. (1996) concluded ha pa en al a endance was no mean o b ing di e en decisions o di e en ou comes, bu o b ing abou pa en al compliance wi h he p ede e mined iews o he p o essionals. Dickens e al. (2015) obse ed he same endency in ‘edge o ca e’mee ings in England in 2010–2011. As ega ds he USA, Alpe (2005) sugges s ha ba ie s o pa en- al in ol emen de i e om he in insically puni i e s uc u e o child wel a e unde which casewo ke s a e ained o iew child en as hei p ima y clien s and child p o ec ion (usually p o ec ion om pa en s) as hei p ima y goal, c ea ing ins i u ional bias agains bi h pa en s i he isk h eshold o he child is eached. Gi en ha he isk h eshold o emo al is a guably high in he USA, we migh find ha hese ins i u ional a gumen s hold mo e fi mly in ‘edge o ca e’o ‘in ca e’ cases han hey migh be ue o lowe - isk cases. And whe he his a gumen emains ue in all ju isdic ions ha a e inc easingly adop ing amily-cen ed ap- p oaches o p ac ice is also unclea (Na ional Resou ce Cen e o Family-Cen e ed P ac ice .) Acco ding o Co by e al. (1996), i is impo an o ecognize he conflic s o in e es and mo i a ion be- ween pa en s, child en and p ac i ione s and o be eal- is ic abou he ex en o which all pa en s can and wan o be ac i ely in ol ed in making decisions abou he ca e o hei child. Pa en al pa icipa ion may easily u n in o he o ic i he conflic o in e es s is no ecognized in his pa icula ly sensi i e and powe - ich decision- making a ena. E en when he pa en s a e genuinely, e hically and e ec i ely in ol ed in he decision-making p ocess, he decision may be agains hei iew. In addi ion, pa en al in ol emen in ca e o de decision-making is influenced by he legisla ion, egula- ions and a ionales o he child wel a e sys ems. Those ac o s se ce ain pa ame e s o child p o ec ion p ac i ione s abou how and when o in ol e pa en s, and hey define he igh s o he pa en s in ques ion. The o ganiza ional and ins i u ional con ex s o ca e o de decision-making a y ac oss coun ies. This a ia- ion will be nex explo ed in he ou coun ies unde s udy as i is a gued ha mac o elemen s such as he coun ies’policies should be explo ed in o de o make sense o on -line decision-making (Smi h and Dono- an 2003; Du y and Collins 2010). THE INSTITUTIONAL FRAMES FOR PARENTS’ INVOLVEMENT IN CARE ORDER DECISION-MAKING IN CALIFORNIA, ENGLAND, FINLAND AND NORWAY The common p inciple sha ed by he coun ies s udied he e is ha i is he pa en s’ igh and du y o look a e hei child en and ha he accomplishmen o hese du ies and igh s is ul ima ely egula ed by he s a e (A cha d 2003; Gillies 2008). They also sha e he p in- ciple ha when conce ns a ise abou he pa en s’ca e o hei child en and he child wel a e sys em becomes in- ol ed, he child’s si ua ion should be ca e ully exam- ined, and he pa en s should be in ol ed in he p ocess (Au ho s’own a). The e a e, howe e , di e ences in de- fining who ‘ he pa en ’is and how and when o in ol e he o him o hem. In Cali o nia, he bi h mo he is ypically conside ed he child’s pa en (al hough a p esumed mo he o adop i e mo he may be in ol ed in some ci cum- s ances). The pa e nal pa en is ei he a biological a- he , an alleged a he , an adop i e a he o a p esumed a he (Can il-Sakauye e al.2011).InEn- gland, pa en s a e biological (o adop i e) pa en s. Alongside he no ion o pa en age, he e is he legally impo an no ion o ‘pa en al esponsibili y’.InEnglish law, a bi h a he will no necessa ily ha e pa en al e- sponsibili y, and i is possible o o he s o acqui e pa- en al esponsibili y and sha e i wi h he pa en s. People wi h pa en al esponsibili y (no only pa en s) will be pa ies o ca e o de p oceedings. In No way, usually, pa en s a e he biological pa en s, i hey a e ma ied, a e cohabi ing o ha e made an ag eemen abou join esponsibili ies. I no , he biological mo he alone has pa en al esponsibili y. Cus odians a e hose who ha e he daily esponsibili y o he child, and a ca e o de will only es ic he cus odian’s esponsibili ies. As o in ol emen in ca e o de p oceedings, he No - wegian legisla ion uses he e m ‘pa y in a case’who is a‘pe son o whom a decision is di ec ed o he case o h- e wise di ec ly conce ns’. This means ha in a child Pa en s in ou coun ies M. Ski enes e al. Child and Family Social Wo k 2017, 22, pp 626–637 © 2016 The Au ho s. Child and Family Social Wo k published by John Wiley & Sons L d.628 p o ec ion case, i is p ima ily he pa en s wi h cus ody igh s and he child himsel o he sel when 15+ yea s who a e pa ies. In Finland, ‘pa en s’and ‘cus odians’ ha e a di e en posi ion in he p ocess. Pa en s a e no - mally cus odians, bu pa en s may also lose cus odial igh s, and hey can be gi en o o he pe sons. The cus- odians should be in ol ed in e e y pa o he p ocess, and hei iews ha e an impac on ca e o de p epa a- ions (e.g. hey may con es he ca e o de ). Those pa - en s wi hou cus odial igh s ha e ewe legal igh s han he cus odians, bu hey ha e, o example, he igh o make an appeal agains he ca e o de (Pösö and Huh anen, o hcoming). In all coun ies unde s udy, he ca e o de decision es ic s pa en s’cus odial igh s. Pa en al igh s may be also e mina ed in England, Cali o nia and No way (al hough i happens in a ela i ely small p opo ion o cases in No way). In Finland, adop ion is no a place- men op ion g an ed by he Child Wel a e Ac , 2007. Legisla ion and o he s a u o y egula ions in he coun ies s udied he e include s a emen s abou he in- ol emen o pa en s. In Cali o nia, he pa en s ha e igh s o no ifica ion, counsel and eunifica ion se ices. The pa en s mus be in e iewed du ing he in es iga- ion. Some Cali o nia coun ies use Team Decision Making mee ings o Family G oup Con e ences o in- clude pa en s, o he significan adul s and olde you h o de ise a sa e y plan o he amily. Pa en s also ha e igh s o a legal ep esen a i e o ensu e hei igh s h oughou he child wel a e p ocess (Can il-Sakauye e al., 2011) In England, in ol ing pa en s h oughou ca e p oceedings is equi ed by p ima y legisla ion, o - mal egula ions and s a u o y guidance (Child en Ac 1989; D E (Depa men o Educa ion) 2014). The pa - en s a e en i led o ha e hei own lawye , paid o ou o go e nmen unds (legal aid), and she o he will ad ise and ep esen hem in p e-p oceedings p ocesses and he cou p oceedings. Social wo ke s a e equi ed o con inue o wo k wi h he pa en s h oughou . The e a e legal obliga ions ha pa en s’wishes and eelings a e asce ained and aken in o conside a ion a all s ages o he p ocess (e en i , ul ima ely, hey a e no ollowed). In No way, he agency has an independen obliga ion o in o m pa en s abou all legal egula ions and abou pa en al igh s and obliga ions, acco ding o he Adminis a ion Ac and he Child Wel a e Ac , 1992. I is unde sco ed ha pa en s mus be in o med abou he oppo uni y o ha e a ep esen a i e o a lawye ; in p ac ice, pa en s a e en i led o ha e a lawye , paid o ou o go e nmen unds om he day hey a e in o med ha he agency has decided o is se iously conside ing p esen ing he case o he coun y boa d. Simila o No way, he Finnish legisla ion emphasizes in o ma ion: pa en s should be in o med, and hey should ha e access o all he ma e ial in he ca e o de p epa a ions. In addi ion, he Finnish legisla ion unde - lines ha he pa en s’and cus odians’ iews on he ca e o de should be ca e ully conside ed. The e is a special occasion called a ‘hea ing’in he social wel a e agency, including a leas he cus odians, he child and social wo ke s, in which he cus odians’and child’s iews a e conside ed. Legal ep esen a i es may a end he hea - ing as well, bu hei p esence is no equi ed. The iews o he cus odians and child en p esen ed in he hea ing ha e a undamen al impac on he u he decision- making p ocess: i he cus odians o a child who is 12 yea s old o olde disag ees wi h he ca e o de p o- posal, he decision will be made by he adminis a i e cou (in olun a y ca e o de ); i hey ag ee wi h i , he decision will be made by a local au ho i y ( olun a y ca e o de ). The cus odians as well as non-cus odial pa en s should be in ol ed in he ca e o de p oceedings also be o e and a e he hea ing. The e is no egula ion ha legal assis ance should be p o ided in he ca e o de p epa a ions in he social wel a e agency. In sum, pa en s’in ol emen in ca e o de p epa a- ions is a sha ed ea u e o he s a u o y egula ions o he child wel a e sys ems s udied, despi e he wide so- ciopoli ical di e ences be ween he coun ies. The de- ailed a angemen s a y, no ably ega ding he in ol emen o lawye s, bu on he ace o i , he gen- e al p inciples a e simila : ha pa en s should, as a as possible, be in o med,consul ed and in ol ed in he decision-making p ocess. Gi en hese sha ed p inci- ples, we an icipa e ha child p o ec ion wo ke s will gene ally a e he in ol emen o pa en s as high, bu ou s udy was designed o in es iga e whe he he e we e c oss-na ional di e ences wi hin ha o e all, o - mal commi men and, i so, how hese could be unde s ood. METHOD AND DATA The analysis o he in ol emen o pa en s in decision- making abou ca e o de p oceedings in Cali o nia, En- gland, Finland and No way is based on child p o ec ion wo ke s’ esponses o he ollowing igne e p esen ed in an on-line su ey: You a e wo king wi h a boy –Alex –who is 5 yea s old and whose amily has ecei ed in-home se ices o e a pe iod o ime. The case includes pa en al subs ance abuse, p e ious domes ic io- lence, and gene al neglec . The ci cums ances o he case ha e de e io a ed ecen ly o such an ex en ha you a e conce ned Pa en s in ou coun ies M. Ski enes e al. Child and Family Social Wo k 2017, 22, pp 626–637 © 2016 The Au ho s. Child and Family Social Wo k published by John Wiley & Sons L d.629 ha he boy’s isk o ha m is high. You a e s a ing p epa a ions o ca e o de p oceedings wi h a iew o emo ing Alex om his pa en s, and you ha e an in e iew wi h he pa en s o in o m hem abou his. The pa en s a e opposing a emo al o Alex. Responden s we e asked o espond o he igne e based upon he in o ma ion p o ided. This hypo he ical case desc ip ion was designed o p esen s a wi h a si - ua ion ha migh be amilia in child p o ec ion p ac ice in each coun y. Al hough he na u e o child wel a e agencies’ esponses o neglec and subs ance abuse may a y ac oss he coun ies because o di e en h esholds o in e en ion (Au ho s’own a), he i- gne e sugges s ha he ci cums ances may now equi e an in ensi e in e en ion. We also acknowledged ha his in e ac ion may be he fi s o among he fi s en- coun e s be ween a wo ke and a pa en in Cali o nia, whe eas such a mee ing would, by design, ypically ol- low a long-s anding engagemen in he o he h ee coun ies. We emphasise, howe e , ha he child p o- ec ion wo ke would usually in e ac di ec ly wi h he pa en (s), and hus, he ocus on his in e ac ion ad- d esses c oss-cul u al compa abili y (e.g. Soydan 1996) in ou design. We asked child p o ec ion wo ke s abou hei aims in he mee ing wi h pa en s. They we e asked o use a scale be ween 1 and 5 o ma k how impo an he aims we e unde he hemes o (1) p o iding in o ma ion o he pa - en s abou ca e o de p epa a ions, (2) collec ing in o - ma ion ega ding ca e o de - ela ed asks and (3) ensu ing he inclusion o pa en s in he decision-making p ocess. On he heme o p o iding in o ma ion o he pa en s, specified aims o he con e sa ion we e ‘In o m he pa en s abou why you a e s a ing ca e o de p epa- a ions’,‘Confi m ha he pa en s unde s and ha ca e o de p epa a ions a e in p ocess’and ‘Ad ise he pa en s o seek independen ad ice om a lawye ’.Unde he heme o collec ing in o ma ion om pa en s, he de- ailed aims we e ‘Es ablish he ac s and ci cums ances o he case –wha eally happened’,‘Find ou i he pa - en s ha e any needs ha you can help wi h’,‘Ask o pa- en al p e e ences abou po en ial u u e placemen o he child’and ‘Make su e pa en al iews abou he needs o he child a e hea d’. The hi d heme was cap u ed in he aim ‘Make su e he pa en s a e included as pa ici- pan s in ele an decision-making p ocesses’. The igne e was included in an on-line su ey as pa o a esea ch p ojec abou decision-making in child wel- a e. I was add essed o on -line child p o ec ion wo ke s ia con ac s in ele an agencies and social wo k associa ions. The su ey was answe ed om Feb ua y o June 2014. The da a ga he ing p ocess, including esea ch e hics, is desc ibed in de ail a he websi e h p://www.uib.no/admo g/85747/su ey-ma e ial#so- cial-wo ke -su ey. A o al o 768 eligible esponses we e ecei ed om child p o ec ion wo ke s who a e in- ol ed in ca e o de decision-making. The o al num- be s o esponden s om each coun y we e 370 om No way, 206 om Finland, 103 om England and 89 om he USA. The ypical esponden had wo ked in child p o ec- ion o 5.9 yea s. Responden s om England we e, on a e age, younge (be ween 25 and35 yea s) han hei colleagues in Finland, No way and he USA (be ween 36 and 45 yea s). Responden s om Cali o nia we e mo e highly educa ed han he o he wo ke s; 91% pos- sessed an Mas e o Social Wo k deg ee. In Finland, 65% had an MA deg ee (sugges ing ha upwa ds o 35% o esponden s in Finland we e unqualified empo- a y wo ke s because hey lacked he MA deg ee), in England, 57% had a Mas e ’s deg ee and in No way, 9% had a MA deg ee. In all ou coun ies, he as ma- jo i y o wo ke s sampled we e emale. We used he s a is ical p og amme STATA and con- duc ed simple co ela ion analyses, chi-squa ed es s and mean compa ison - es s. The sco es we e added o- ge he and di ided by he numbe o esponden s o gi e a mean sco e o each aim in each coun y and he o e - all (in e -coun y) means. Table A in he Appendix p e- sen s he mean compa ison be ween coun ies, one-way analysis o a iance es s, wi h epo ed mean di e ence. Significance is displayed as ollows: ***P<0.01, ** = P<0.05, * = P<0.1, wi h he awa eness ha he P<0.05 and P<0.1 a e on he ma gin o wha is ele- an o epo as s a is ically significan . The main e- sul s in he findings sec ion a e p esen ed in g aphs, using ba s displaying he mean sco e o each coun y on he a iable in ques ion, wi h he confidence in e al o 95% indica ed on he b acke s on each mean sco e. We fi s an an analysis o a iance es in STATA, ollowed by a ma gins es , se ing a confidence le el o 95% and he ‘coun y’ a iable as iden i ying he ma - gins. We we e hus p o ided wi h a g aph displaying he mean sco e and confidence le els o each coun y on he a iables. RESULTS The in ol emen o pa en s as an impo an aim o con e sa ions The o e all finding is ha pa en al in ol emen is an im- po an aim o child p o ec ion wo ke s in all ou coun ies when hey a e con on ed wi h a si ua ion in Pa en s in ou coun ies M. Ski enes e al. Child and Family Social Wo k 2017, 22, pp 626–637 © 2016 The Au ho s. Child and Family Social Wo k published by John Wiley & Sons L d.630 which hey a e s a ing ca e o de p epa a ions. Child p o ec ion wo ke s in he ou coun ies ega d he a i- ous aims o in ol emen as being ei he impo an o e y impo an (mean alues be ween 4.1. and 4.8 on all dimensions). In pa icula , he aims o in o ming he pa en s why he ca e o de p epa a ions a e being aken, and ensu ing ha hey unde s and his, a e em- phasized as impo an in he su ey esponses. Re iewing he o e all sco es, he aims o ad ising he pa en s abou seeking legal ad ice, collec ing in o ma- ion abou he pa en s’needs, p e e ences abou he child’s possible placemen and wha eally happened we e among he leas impo an , bu as Table 1 shows, he e was conside able a ia ion be ween he coun ies on hese issues, which we explo e u he la e . Types o con e sa ions wi h he pa en s: he di e ences among he coun ies In all o he coun ies, child p o ec ion wo ke s s ongly aim o in o m he pa en s abou he easons o he ca e o de p oceedings and o ensu e ha he pa en s unde - s and ha he ca e o de p epa a ions a e in p ocess (Fig. 1a–c). These aims a e seen as being e en mo e im- po an by he No wegian and Finnish child p o ec ion wo ke s han hei colleagues in England and Cali o nia (P<0.01). In he Appendix, Table A, an o e iew o calcula ions o significance di e ences is p esen ed. The pa e n is, howe e , di e en as ega ds in o ming he pa en s abou seeking legal ad ice: now, he No we- gian and English child p o ec ion wo ke s a e simila , and hey iew his as an impo an o e y impo an aim mo e o en han hei Finnish and Cali o nia col- leagues (P<0.01); Cali o nia esponses a e he lowes (P<0.05). As ega ds he heme o collec ing in o ma ion om he pa en s (Fig. 2a–d), he child p o ec ion wo ke s in Cal- i o nia sco e he highes in e e y s udied dimension. In pa icula , hey ega d he aim o finding ou wha eally happened as being mo e impo an han hei colleagues in o he coun ies (P<0.01). In his dimension, he Finnish and No wegian esponses a e simila , and hey di e om he English esponses (P<0.05). When aiming o collec in o ma ion abou he pa en s’needs, he English, Finnish and No wegian esponses a e sim- ila and lowe han he esponses om Cali o nia (P<0.05). When aiming o lea n abou he pa en s’ p e e ences abou he po en ial u u e placemen o he child, again, he Cali o nia child p o ec ion wo ke s pu his as a mo e impo an aim han hei colleagues. The di e ence wi h he No wegian esponses is la ges (P<0.01). When aiming o hea he pa en s’ iews abou he child’s needs, he English child p o ec ion wo ke s sco e he lowes . The di e ence be ween he Cali o nia and English esponses is significan (P<0.01), whe eas he e a e no significan di e ences be ween he Finnish and No wegian esponses. The aim o ensu e ha he pa en s a e included as pa ic- ipan s in he ca e o de p epa a ions is ega ded highes (and simila ly) by he Cali o nia and Finnish child p o- ec ion wo ke s and lowes (and simila ly) by he English and No wegian esponden s (P<0.01) (Fig. 3). DISCUSSION The da a clea ly indica e ha in ol emen o pa en s is impo an in all ou coun ies, sugges ing ha his is a highly ega ded no m in child wel a e p ac ice –o a common o m o he o ic, as sugges ed by Co by e al. Table 1 Mean alues o he impo ance o child p o ec ion wo ke s a ibu e o each s a emen (nin he pa en hesis) and he in e -coun y means o he o al Finland No way England CA To al In o ming he pa en s Why s a ing ca e o de 4.93 (195) 4.93 (101) 4.45 (363) 4.71 (90) 4.84 (749) Unde s and ca e o de in p ocess 4.91 (196) 4.86 (101) 4.59 (359) 4.6 (88) 4.81 (744) Ad ise o seek independen ad ice 3.82 (202) 4.62 (100) 4.59 (362) 3.42 (74) 4.28 (738) Collec ing in o ma ion om he pa en s Wha eally happened 4.33 (195) 4.28 (101) 3.97 (366) 4.73 (89) 4.3 (751) Needs 4.23 (202) 4.17 (100) 4.12 (366) 4.51 (88) 4.22 (756) P e e ence 4.28 (202) 3.91 (102) 4.25 (359) 4.65 (89) 4.14 (752) Pa en al iews abou he needs o he child a e hea d 4.54 (202) 4.42 (101) 4.24 (365) 4.66 (87) 4.46 (755) Pa icipa ion Make su e he pa en s a e included as pa icipan s 4.56 (202) 4.2 (102) 4.16 (359) 4.56 (89) 4.33 (753) Values: 1 = no impo an and 5 = e y impo an . Pa en s in ou coun ies M. Ski enes e al. Child and Family Social Wo k 2017, 22, pp 626–637 © 2016 The Au ho s. Child and Family Social Wo k published by John Wiley & Sons L d.631 (1996) – ega dless o he coun y’s s a u o y ames. The c oss-coun y di e ences p esen ed in his a icle eflec he ela i e impo ance be ween coun ies o in- ol ing pa en s. In he scena io p esen ed in he su ey, child p o ec ion wo ke s p io i ized he aims o in o ming he pa en s abou he p oceedings, whe eas he o he aims we e ega ded as impo an , bu ela i ely less so. The su ey esponses echo he legisla i e and policy ames in hese coun ies, as well as he o ien a- ions o he child wel a e sys ems. As discussed ea lie , he Cali o nia legisla i e ame p o ides pa en s wi h in- di ec access o equi ed in o ma ion ia lawye s, a p ac- ice ha esembles police in es iga ions (Dumb ill 2006). F on -line p ac i ione s’ esponses may eflec his policy ame as wo ke s he e we e less inclined – compa ed wi h hei in e na ional pee s – o indica e he high impo ance o gi ing in o ma ion o pa en s. This does no , o cou se, mean ha child p o ec ion wo ke s in Cali o nia find he p o ision o in o ma ion an unimpo an ask, bu hey may see ha his ac i i y is delega ed la gely o a o neys. Ano he in e p e a ion is ha in a si ua ion such as ha p esen ed in he igne e, he wo ke ’s main ocus is o ex ac in o ma ion om he pa en s in o de o assess he child’s sa e y and isk o ha m; o he con e sa ions wi h he pa en may no se e as cen ally impo an . The in e ac ion desc ibed in he igne e would also ypically ake place du ing he ‘in es iga ion’, a e m ha deno es in o ma ion and e idence ga he ing. The No dic coun ies in pa icula we e s ong in aiming o gi e in o ma ion o he pa en s abou hei jus ifica ion o a ca e o de and ensu ing he pa en s’unde s anding. These esponses may eflec hei amily se ice sys em o ien a ion, in which a he a- peu ic app oach equi es ha pa en s a e in o med so ha hey can make changes in hei pa e ns and beha - iou s. Ha ing enough in o ma ion abou he p oceedings is a undamen al p econdi ion o he pa en s o exe cise hei igh s, whe he o no hey choose o wo k in pa - ne ship wi h he child wel a e agency (c . I e, 2012). The alues p ac i ione s place on in o ming pa en s abou seeking legal ad ice speak o he complexi ies o s udying child p o ec ion amewo ks ha a e suppo o ien ed s. p o ec ion based. Finland and Cali o nia, o example, bo h sco e ela i ely low on his dimension, bu he easons a e e y di e en . In Cali o nia, wo ke s’ esponses a e mos likely due o he p esc ibed p oce- du es o ca e o de p oceedings: all pa en s a e ou inely assigned a lawye (i hey do no secu e one hemsel es), as such, i is no a p io i y o ad ise pa en s o do so. Legal ad ocacy o pa en s is he no m in ca e p oceedings in No way and England as well, bu child p o ec ion wo ke s aimed o in o m he pa en s abou his in any case. In England, al hough he lawye is paid ou o go - e nmen unds, pa en s mus seek ou he lawye ’sse - ices ( hey will no be assigned one unless hey do – he as majo i y do). In No way, a shi o ca e o de p o- ceedings is a significan change and ma ks he ansi ion om olun a y o in olun a y in e en ion. Thus, in o ming pa en s abou hei legal igh s is i al. All his is in ma ked con as o Finland, whe e ca e o de Figu e 1 (a–c) In o ming he pa en s: child p o ec ion wo ke s’aims on h ee dimensions in Cali o nia, England, Finland and No way. Mean alues wi h confidence in e al (CI) a 95%. [Colou figu e can be iewed a wileyonlinelib a y.com] Pa en s in ou coun ies M. Ski enes e al. Child and Family Social Wo k 2017, 22, pp 626–637 © 2016 The Au ho s. Child and Family Social Wo k published by John Wiley & Sons L d.632 p epa a ions in he social wel a e agency a e no com- monly seen in e ms o ju idical p ocesses –mos o hem do no end up in cou as hey a e decided as ‘ olun a y ca e o de s’by he local au ho i y –and he e o e, ad ice on legal ad ocacy is pe haps no seen as especially impo - an . This iew has ecen ly been challenged as p ocesses esul ing in any ype o ca e o de decisions indeed ha e legal consequences o he amily. Some ha e a gued ha he ju idical elemen should be conside ed a his s age ega dless o he ype o he decision ( olun a y o in ol- un a y; e.g. Huh anen 2001; De Godzinsky 2012). In sho , he mixed findings ega ding p ac i ione s’ iews abou di ec ing pa en s o legal ad ice do no neces- sa ily ollow he p o ec ion-based s. amily suppo -based child wel a e s a es in which hese esponden s a e nes ed. No way has de eloped a ich amily suppo sys em, ye he ole o lawye s is ne e heless impo an ; in Finland, his is no he case. In he English sys em, pa en s may be ad an aged when ep esen ed by a compe en lawye who can cla i y whe e and how amily suppo se ices could be imp o ed, wi hou he need o hei child o be emo ed (e.g. Pea ce e al. 2011). And in Cali o nia, lawye s a e appoin ed as a ma e o cou se, elie ing child p o ec ion wo ke s om he ask o ecommending his. TheCali o niachild p o ec ion wo ke s, ins ead, place a highe p io i y han colleagues in o he coun ies on Figu e 2 (a–d) Collec ing in o ma ion om he pa en s: child p o ec ion wo ke s’aims on ou dimensions in Cali o nia, England, Finland and No way. Mean alues wi h confidence in e al (CI) a 95%. [Colou figu ecanbe ieweda wileyonlinelib a y.com] Figu e 3 Including pa en s as pa icipan s as he aim o child p o ec ion wo ke s in Cali o nia, England, Finland and No way. Mean alues wi h confidence in e al (CI) a 95%. [Colou figu e can be iewed a wileyonlinelib a y.com] Pa en s in ou coun ies M. Ski enes e al. Child and Family Social Wo k 2017, 22, pp 626–637 © 2016 The Au ho s. Child and Family Social Wo k published by John Wiley & Sons L d.633 collec ing in o ma ion om pa en s. This is likely be- cause in he o he h ee coun ies, his in o ma ion was ob ained a an ea lie s age in he wo ke ’s in e ac ions wi h he amily. Well be o e a ca e o de applica ion is conside ed, pa en s would ha e ecei ed significan child wel a e se ices. In Cali o nia, wo ke s may no ha e been in ol ed wi h he amily p e iously o o any g ea du a ion. This esul s in he same p inciple being ollowed ac oss all ou coun ies: ha pa en s should be hea d du ing he ca e o de p oceedings, bu i also e- flec s he dis inc i e o ganiza ional app oaches in each o hese ou sys ems. In Cali o nia, p epa a ions o ca e o - de p oceedings a e much mo e ime limi ed han in he o he h ee coun ies (Au ho s’own a). The e o e, in o - ma ion ga he ing is in ense a his s age o he p ocess. The di e ences among he child p o ec ion wo ke s’ iews abou including pa en s as pa icipan s in decision-making a e in iguing: again, he Finnish and Cali o nia p ac i ione s gi e simila sco es, bo h appa - en ly aluing pa en al in ol emen mo e han hei col- leagues in No way and England. The esponses om Cali o nia a e p obably bes explained by he s ong em- phasis on p ac ice imp o emen in ha s a e in ecen yea s. Inno a ions in adop ing amily-cen ed p ac ice pa adigms ha e aken hold in many Cali o nia ju isdic- ions, wi h many child p o ec ion s a wo king diligen ly o adop a philosophy o p ac ice ha is inclusi e o pa - en s (Child Wel a e In o ma ion Ga eway, n.d). Tha s a e has de eloped a se ies o ‘co e p ac ice models’ o which child wel a e wo ke s and s uden s o social wo k a e being ained and suppo ed h ough a ious s a e and egional aining academies (CalSWEC (Cali o nia Social Wo k Educa ion Cen e ) 2015). These models p o ide beha iou al illus a ions o s a sugges ing ex- empla y s a egies o wo king wi h child en and pa - en s. I is impo an o no e ha he la ge majo i y o s udy pa icipan s om Cali o nia possessed a Mas e ’s deg ee in Social Wo k (o a ela ed field), whe e hey would likely be exposed o ideal models o p ac ice; all o he coun ies pa icipa ing in his s udy also o e on- going in-se ice aining oppo uni ies o s a . In No - way and England, he leng hy engagemen wi h amilies along wi h he a ailabili y o legal ad ice may be he ea- son wo ke s do no s ess pa en pa icipa ion in his pa icula mee ing. The Finnish wo ke s’ esponses e- flec he s ong ole o he pa en s in he ca e o de p ep- a a ions, and he e o e, child p o ec ion wo ke s ake i o g an ed o include hem as pa icipan s. In summa y, he findings do no show a consis en pa e n o di e ence ega ding pa en al in ol emen along he lines o he well-known child p o ec ion o amily se ice o ien a ions. The ambi ion in each child wel a e sys em is o include pa en s, bu he p ecise ways in which i is ca ied ou (o no ) a y. The findings show ha he o e all ambi ion should no be aken o g an ed; i is impo an o look in de ail a he way ha legisla ion, p ocedu e and o ganiza ional con ex shape he way ha i is unde s ood and p ac iced. CONCLUSIONS Resul s om his s udy unde sco e he alue child p o- ec ion wo ke s asc ibe o pa en s in hei p ac ice. Al- hough hei iews do no align cleanly wi h he child wel a e sys em con ex s in which hey a e embedded, he in es iga o y unc ions o child wel a e agencies in Cali o nia highligh he impo ance o collec ing in o - ma ion om pa en s, whe eas he amily suppo sys- ems o child wel a e in he No dic coun ies emphasize he alue o p o iding in o ma ion o pa en s. The o e all consensus abou he in ol emen o pa en s among child p o ec ion s a ac oss he coun ies can be con as ed wi h o he da a om he same su ey abou he in ol emen o child en (Au ho s’own b). He e, he e was much g ea e a ia ion in he wo ke s’ e- sponses ega ding child en’s in ol emen in ca e o de p epa a ions. This suppo s a ecen c oss-coun y anal- ysis o child wel a e sys ems by Gilbe e al. (2011), which no ed ha a child-cen ic o ien a ion is an eme g- ing end, al hough no ye well es ablished. The decision-making sys ems ake adul s –pa en s in his case –as he s anda d pa ne s, and child en a e gi en a mo e con es ed and he o ical posi ion in child wel a e decision-making (e.g. Meye 2007; Thomas 2007). The adi ions o iewing he pa en s as he key ac o s ha e a much longe his o y in child wel a e ideology, policy and p ac ice (Fox Ha ding 1997), which is eflec ed in hese esul s. Whe he and how pa en s pe cei e wo ke s’e o s on hei behal canno be asce ained om his s udy, bu g ea e e o s o align good child p o ec ion in en ions wi h good ou comes o pa en s, is an a ea ipe o u he in es iga ion. The cen al conund um a he hea o his discussion is ha al hough he legisla i e equi emen s and he am- bi ions o on -line p ac i ione s hold pa en s’in ol e- men o be cen ally impo an , he exis ing esea ch, p esen ed ea lie in his a icle, highligh s many sho - comings in achie ing his. In his espec , i is impo an o acknowledge he na u e o ou da a: he esponses o he case o Alex gi e he wo ke s’ iews o on -line p ac ice ha is seen as ‘good’i no e en ‘ideal’.Thisis he s eng h o a hypo he ical igne e as i c ys allizes he no ma i e co e o he p ac ice in each coun y. Pa en s in ou coun ies M. Ski enes e al. Child and Family Social Wo k 2017, 22, pp 626–637 © 2016 The Au ho s. Child and Family Social Wo k published by John Wiley & Sons L d.634