– It is unthinkable that this would have happened to ethnically Norwegian parents, says lawyer Olav Sylte. He works for “Sara”, a mother news recently told about, who has been fighting for four years to get her sons back after the child protection agency picked them up and placed them in a foster home. The lawyer believes that the parents’ background from the Middle East has had a negative impact on the Norwegian child welfare system. The local child protection agency did not want to comment on this. “Sara” and her husband are not alone in thinking that the family’s background has something to say when dealing with child welfare. At the same time, there are no official figures documenting such differences. NRKs has therefore investigated 2,578 cases from the child protection boards in the last eight years. 386 of these concern return to the family. The review shows that “Norwegian” parents get the children back in more than half of the cases (53%) where return is considered. In cases where one of the parents has a different cultural affiliation, they get the children back significantly less often (31%). When the children are first taken out of the home, there are no such differences: in nine out of ten cases, the child protection agency succeeds in taking over the care of the children, regardless of the parents’ background. This is how we examined the boards’ decisions Using artificial intelligence, news has reviewed 2,578 cases from Norwegian child welfare boards from the period January 2016 to April 2024. This is a randomized selection of anonymized decisions that the child welfare boards send to Lovdata, and makes up approximately 20 percent of the total scope in Norway. The aim has been to investigate whether there are differences in how people with a different cultural affiliation meet in child protection compared to people with a Norwegian family background. The process has taken place in two stages: First, GPT-4 has classified which cases are takeovers (1256 cases) and restitution cases (386 cases). Subsequently, GPT-4 has helped us determine the background of the parents in the case. The decisions are anonymised, so news does not know the names, country of birth or citizenship of the parents. But with the help of the KI tool, we have found cases where the tribunal, by referring to moving from another country, language, culture or the like, has stated that one of the parents has a different affiliation than the majority in Norway. Here are three examples of matches (the anonymisation has been done by the child welfare boards): “Mother has immigrated from [LAND] in 2011.” “Father is originally from another country and speaks another mother tongue.” “Father lived in Å (country in Europe) for the last four years before he met A’s mother. Mother was born and raised in Y (capital of country Z). Her mother is from Æ (country in the Middle East).” We came to the following results: There is approximately the same chance that the tribunal will decide to take over care if the parents have a Norwegian or another cultural background (approximately 9 out of 10 cases in both groups). However, there is not the same chance of regaining custody of the child in the 386 return cases in the sample: In cases where one of the parents has a different cultural background, they regain custody of the child in 44 out of 140 cases (31%) Parents with Norwegian cultural background regains custody of the child in 132 out of 246 cases (53%) We only know whether parents have a different cultural background in cases where this is mentioned in the decision in the tribunal. We have used the GPT-4 model of OpenAI in the work. We have ensured the quality of the results through a manual check of 165 cases. It shows that KI hits very well (close to 100 per cent) in classifying the cases. When assessing whether any of the parents have a different cultural affiliation, the manual review shows that KI has assessed correctly in 146 out of 165 cases, incorrectly in 6 cases and uncertain in 13 cases. According to the Central Unit for the Child Welfare and Health Boards, there must be a representative selection of their cases that are available to the public (anonymized) through Lovdata, and which news has thus had the opportunity to investigate. Minorities have additional barriers – It is very interesting to make this connection, and reason to question whether we should know more about these numbers. This is an unexplored field, with insufficient statistics, says associate professor Ellen Syrstad at VID university of science. As a researcher, she must take the caveat that she does not know the method used – and what limitations there may be in a review using artificial intelligence. – But no one has made such a connection with how restitution turns out for minority parents before, as far as I know, says Syrstad. She believes the differences may relate to things the researchers have also seen: That minorities have some additional barriers when dealing with child protection. – Language is one barrier. Adapting to the expectations of a “Norwegian” child-rearing can also be complicated for families with a different background. It can also be more difficult for child protection to follow up families with a different language and background, says Syrstad. Researcher Ellen Syrstad believes that it is a misunderstanding that moving a child away from the parents is always the best solution. The break can be difficult to repair. – You have to work on the things that are actually the reason why the parents were deprived of care, and not “let go” of the children when they are back at home. Photo: VID Vitenskapelige høgskole) In addition, there is an important point that repeats itself in many studies: Whether the parents have low education and income. – The connection between socio-economic conditions and return is repeated in several studies. This could be about the fact that many minority families are in the group with a low socio-economic status, says Syrstad. Difficult returns At the University of South-Eastern Norway, a group of researchers has taken a closer look at relocations under the auspices of the child protection service on behalf of Bufdir. In their report, it emerged that little work is being done on return in child protection. Few plans for return Do not plan return: Both children, parents, emergency parents, foster parents and cooperation agencies report an absence of planned returns. Documentation of targets for placement is missing in 71 per cent of the cases studied, according to the report Moves under the auspices of child welfare. Documentation on the return plan is missing in 84 per cent of the cases studied where the child lives in foster care. Cooperation can be difficult: the relationship between the child welfare service and parents is often characterized by conflict and long periods of ongoing cases in the legal system. This can make cooperation on planning return difficult. Lack of continuity and constant replacement of contact persons contributes to unpredictability. Child welfare staff emphasize that the parents’ participation depends on whether they work in the right direction towards getting a return, including whether they have accepted that the children are placed in care, or whether they primarily pursue the case further in the legal system. Few returns in tribunals: The tribunals decided in 2021 to return 216 children to their original parents. This is 2.9 per cent of all children under the care of the child protection agency, according to NOU 2023:7. There are no official statistics in Norway on the total number of returns, because there are various reasons why children move home. Not all relocations are subject to consideration by the tribunal, and the researchers behind the report Movings under the auspices of child protection have called for better statistics on this in Norway. The children really have to go home: It is a fundamental principle of the European Court of Human Rights that taking over care should normally be regarded as temporary, with the aim that parents and children should be able to be reunited. This goal must be balanced against consideration of the child’s best interests. In several of the cases against Norway, the ECtHR has criticized the fact that at an early stage the objective of reunification has been implicitly given up, and without a thorough enough assessment. Source: Moves under the auspices of child welfare, 2024, University of Southeast Norway, NOU 2023: 7: Safe childhood, secure future— Review of legal security for children and parents in child welfare, Norwegian Institution for Human Rights: Report | Why is Norway judged in the ECtHR? Associate professor Vibeke Krane says that return is not necessarily justified by the fact that the situation at home has improved. More often it is about those who look after the children – usually a foster home – resigning. Or that the children refuse to go back to foster care after visiting their parents. The researchers are calling for more systematic and tailored offers for families. – It is easy to think that they need guidance and therapy, and that can be part of it. But often practical help is also needed. We know from statistics that many of the families in question have poorer conditions and are more vulnerable, Krane points out. – Demand more from child protection The family from the Middle East is still waiting for their youngest son after years of battles in the courtrooms. The parents have won each time, but after more than four years it is difficult for the child to move back home. Because the taking over of care was never approved in the district court, it is the court, not the child welfare board, that has decided that her son should return home. She still hasn’t been able to reunite the family four years after the child protection agency intervened, because the process has taken so long. Photo: Håkon Benjaminsen / news The process has been characterized by a lack of interpreters and a ban on speaking the mother tongue with the children during visits. Child protection in the home municipality did not want to comment on details of the case to news. Janne R. Fjelnseth, the father’s lawyer, says it is not the first time she has experienced that parents with an immigrant background face extra challenges. Her experience is that you sometimes form an image of family and children early on. Photo: Kjersti Nipen – Then you simply cannot adjust when you receive other information that points in a different direction. I think, regrettably, that you are more at risk if you have an immigrant background than if you are ethnically Norwegian. – What is it about? – Lack of competence. Sometimes people lack formal competence for the job in childcare. Many times they lack cultural competence and understanding. We have seen many examples of that. Bufdir: – The child’s best interests apply Bufdir is the state’s specialist body in the field of child protection. They have not asked for an interview, but say in an e-mail that they have been working for several years with continuing and continuing education to increase diversity competence and are still improving this offer. – Minority parents are just as diverse as majority parents and there is no reason in itself why they should be granted restitution to a lesser extent than others. Each case must be assessed individually, says divisional director Tove Bruusgaard. – It is always the child’s best interests that must prevail and in many cases it is in the child’s best interest that they be returned, says divisional director Tove Brusgaard in Bufdir. But that is not always the case, she emphasizes. She believes that there are significant uncertainties associated with the figures presented by news. Among other things, it is about the fact that there are few cases and that Bufdir believes that these are not necessarily representative. The Central Unit for Child Welfare Affairs has informed news that their system picks every fifth decision at random, and that it should initially provide a representative selection of decisions. But it is possible for the chairman of the committee to override the selection manually. Bufdir also points out that a number of changes have taken place in recent years, and are unsure whether this is reflected in the survey news has carried out. – We do not know whether the results reflect current practice and whether there are corresponding differences in restitution cases that occur today, writes Bruusgaard. Bufdir believes that looking for other language and cultural background using AI is not good enough. They themselves have no system to register information about whether parents have a different language or cultural background, and say more knowledge is needed. Bufdir has just published a report on chargebacks. – But for now we have no good research on restitution that can shed light on any differences in practice in cases with minority and majority parents respectively, writes Bruusgaard. Having said that, the director believes there could be many reasons why the figures show significant differences in return cases in news’s investigation. – It is conceivable that barriers in terms of language and culture come into play and it cannot be ruled out that a lack of diversity competence in the services is a factor, according to Bruusgaard. Published 14.10.2024, at 16.49
ttn-69
Where you come from can affect the chance of getting a child back after taking over care – news Østfold – Local news, TV and radio
