{"title":"Errors and Mistakes in the Norwegian Child Protection System","authors":"Marit Skivenes, Ø. Tefre","doi":"10.2307/j.ctvz0h8bh.13","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The aim of this chapter is to examine the Norwegian approach to review and revise errors in the child protection system. Through the last three decades of public discourse, children in Norway have increasingly become identified as independent subjects, and in September 2017, the Norwegian government introduced legislation that gave children the legal right to protection through an amendment of the existing Child Welfare Act of 1992 (Prop. 169 L (2016–2017). Despite being ranked highly in international comparisons, the Norwegian child protection system is harshly criticized. In recent years (2015 and 2016), outrages have been highlighted through both social and traditional media, and internationally. The Norwegian term for child protection – barnevernet has become a synonym for a draconian system that steals children from their parents. The uproar and the critique came from citizens and civil society organizations, various public agencies, private persons and organizations. Auditing and oversight agencies are used to scrutinize the practices, and to follow up on errors and mistakes but there is little research on how this oversight operates, how agencies and local authorities respond to feedback, and how the day-to-day practices on correcting errors and improving practice are attended to in agencies and organizations. Based on policy documents, audit and oversight reports, legislation and key informant interviews, this chapter examines the overarching Norwegian approach to review and revise errors and mistakes through audit and oversight bodies, and discusses the strengths and weaknesses with this approach.","PeriodicalId":147277,"journal":{"name":"Errors and Mistakes in Child Protection","volume":"55 7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Errors and Mistakes in Child Protection","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvz0h8bh.13","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
The aim of this chapter is to examine the Norwegian approach to review and revise errors in the child protection system. Through the last three decades of public discourse, children in Norway have increasingly become identified as independent subjects, and in September 2017, the Norwegian government introduced legislation that gave children the legal right to protection through an amendment of the existing Child Welfare Act of 1992 (Prop. 169 L (2016–2017). Despite being ranked highly in international comparisons, the Norwegian child protection system is harshly criticized. In recent years (2015 and 2016), outrages have been highlighted through both social and traditional media, and internationally. The Norwegian term for child protection – barnevernet has become a synonym for a draconian system that steals children from their parents. The uproar and the critique came from citizens and civil society organizations, various public agencies, private persons and organizations. Auditing and oversight agencies are used to scrutinize the practices, and to follow up on errors and mistakes but there is little research on how this oversight operates, how agencies and local authorities respond to feedback, and how the day-to-day practices on correcting errors and improving practice are attended to in agencies and organizations. Based on policy documents, audit and oversight reports, legislation and key informant interviews, this chapter examines the overarching Norwegian approach to review and revise errors and mistakes through audit and oversight bodies, and discusses the strengths and weaknesses with this approach.