IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jscscx/v11y2022i8p329-d873641.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ambivalence in Child Protection Proceedings: Parents’ Views on Their Interactions with Child Protection Authorities

Author

Listed:
  • Aline Schoch

    (Institute for Studies in Children and Youth Services, School of Social Work, University of Applied Sciences Northwestern Switzerland FHNW, 4132 Muttenz, Switzerland)

  • Gaëlle Aeby

    (Centre for Evaluation and Legislative Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Geneva, 1211 Genève, Switzerland)

Abstract

Child protection is a field characterized by intrinsic tensions and ambivalence, related to the state’s intervention in the family sphere and to a double mandate of care and control. This article focuses on the participation of parents in statutory child protection proceedings and the ambivalence they experience in their interactions with the Child and Adult Protection Authority in Switzerland (CAPA). The aim is to explore parents’ views on what they consider as hindering or enabling in their interactions with the CAPA in order to be able to fully participate in child protection proceedings. The article is based on a large interdisciplinary research project including multi-perspective cases collected in four cantons of Switzerland and puts the focus on in-depth interviews with ten birth parents. Results show that ambivalence is inherent to the interactions between parents and the CAPA, as the mere opening of child protection proceedings is experienced as a threat to the parents’ integrity. Establishing trust, recognizing parents’ expertise and acknowledging their needs are key to re-establishing parental integrity, which seems to be a fundamental pre-requisite for reducing ambivalence and enhancing participation in child protection proceedings.

Suggested Citation

  • Aline Schoch & Gaëlle Aeby, 2022. "Ambivalence in Child Protection Proceedings: Parents’ Views on Their Interactions with Child Protection Authorities," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-14, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:11:y:2022:i:8:p:329-:d:873641
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/11/8/329/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/11/8/329/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Arbeiter, Ere & Toros, Karmen, 2017. "Participatory discourse: Engagement in the context of child protection assessment practices from the perspectives of child protection workers, parents and children," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 17-27.
    2. Nigel Ashmore Parton, 2022. "Comparative Research and Critical Child Protection Studies," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-15, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Berit Skauge & Anita Skårstad Storhaug & Edgar Marthinsen, 2021. "The What, Why and How of Child Participation—A Review of the Conceptualization of “Child Participation” in Child Welfare," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-15, February.
    2. Lehtme, Rafaela & Toros, Karmen, 2020. "Parental engagement in child protection assessment practice: Voices from parents," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    3. Saar-Heiman, Yuval, 2023. "Power with and power over: Social workers’ reflections on their use of power when talking with parents about child welfare concerns," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    4. Diana N. Teixeira & Isabel Narciso & Margarida R. Henriques, 2022. "Driving for Success in Family Reunification—Professionals’ Views on Intervention," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(24), pages 1-20, December.
    5. Hatlelid Føleide, Marie, 2021. "Three conversation practices illuminating how children’s views and wishes are explored in care proceedings: An analysis of 22 children’s spokespersons’ accounts," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    6. Charest-Belzile, Dorothée & Drapeau, Sylvie & Ivers, Hans, 2020. "Parental engagement in child protection services: A multidimensional, longitudinal and interactive framework," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    7. Bekaert, S. & Paavilainen, E. & Schecke, H. & Baldacchino, A. & Jouet, E. & Zabłocka – Żytka, L. & Bachi, B. & Bartoli, F. & Carrà, G. & Cioni, R.M. & Crocamo, C. & Appleton, J.V., 2021. "Family members’ perspectives of child protection services, a metasynthesis of the literature," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    8. Keddell, Emily, 2023. "Recognising the embedded child in child protection: Children’s participation, inequalities and cultural capital," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    9. Witte, Susanne, 2020. "Case file analyses in child protection research: Review of methodological challenges and development of a framework," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    10. Shamrova, Daria P. & Cummings, Cristy E., 2017. "Participatory action research (PAR) with children and youth: An integrative review of methodology and PAR outcomes for participants, organizations, and communities," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 400-412.
    11. Wilson, Samita & Hean, Sarah & Abebe, Tatek & Heaslip, Vanessa, 2020. "Children’s experiences with Child Protection Services: A synthesis of qualitative evidence," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:11:y:2022:i:8:p:329-:d:873641. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.