The Hidden Proceedings – An Analysis of Accountability of Child Protection Adoption Proceedings in Eight European Jurisdictions

Author:

Burns Kenneth1,Križ Katrin2,Krutzinna Jenny3,Luhamaa Katre4,Meysen Thomas5,Pösö Tarja67,Segado Sagrario8,Skivenes Marit9,Thoburn June10

Affiliation:

1. Senior Lecturer, School of Applied Social Studies, University College Cork, Ireland, k.burns@ucc.ie

2. Professor, Department of Sociology, Emmanuel College Boston, USA, krizka@emmanuel.edu

3. Postdoctoral Researcher, Centre for Research on Discretion and Paternalism, University of Bergen, Norway, jenny.krutzinna@uib.no

4. Researcher, Centre for Research on Discretion and Paternalism, University of Bergen, Norway, katre.luhamaa@uib.no

5. Managing Director, International Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, Germany, meysen@socles.de

6. Professor, Tampere University, Finland;

7. Professor, Centre for Research on Discretion and Paternalism, University of Bergen, Norway, tarja.poso@tuni.fi

8. Associate Professor, National Distance Education University, Spain, ssegado@der.uned.es

9. Professor, Centre for Research on Discretion and Paternalism, University of Bergen, Norway, marit.skivenes@uib.no

10. Emeritus Professor, School of Social Work, University of East Anglia, UK, j.thoburn@uea.ac.uk

Abstract

How accountable are decisions about terminating parental rights to ensure an adoption from care? In this paper we examine if the proceedings in eight European jurisdictions are accountable to: a) the private parties, i.e. individuals that are concerned – such as parents, child; b) the general public that authorized the politicians and the government to make legislation; and c) the elected government, i.e. the legislators and the system that have granted the court, court-like or administrative body the authority to make these decisions. Our data material consists of national legislation, organizational guidelines (courts, child protection, or supervisory agencies), statistics and expert knowledge. The conclusions of our analysis are discouraging. There is only limited accountability for one of the most intrusive interventions by a state into the private lives of individuals. There is a lack of information about the proceedings as well as a lack of transparency. We identify systems that, with few exceptions, operate in isolation, with only a few outsiders having access or knowledge about what is going on. We cannot in this study say anything about the decision-making quality in these proceedings, they may be excellent, but the problem is that very few external actors are in a position to examine the quality of the decisions. This missing connection between the wider democratic society and this part of the legal systems in the eight democracies we studied is of huge concern, and we have indications that the situation is equally concerning in other European states.

Publisher

Brill

Subject

Law,Public Administration,Sociology and Political Science

Cited by 10 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3