Regulating Phone Contact and Digital Communication Between Children in Public Care and Their Parents

Abstract

This study examines how the Norwegian Child Welfare Tribunal justifies regulating telephone and digital communication between children in public care and their parents. The regulation of such contact represents a distinct form of state interference in family life and must adhere to principles of necessity, proportionality, and respect for children’s rights. Using a thematic analysis of 34 Tribunal decisions involving 44 children, the study identifies four central themes: ensuring stability and emotional security, addressing parental behavior, balancing proportionality and necessity, and considering the child’s view. The Tribunal’s reasoning often reflects a cautious, preventive approach, prioritizing emotional stability. However, the lack of transparent assessments of necessity and inconsistent inclusion of children’s perspectives raises concerns about proportionality and children’s autonomy. Additionally, the limited involvement of children in these decisions risks making restrictions difficult to implement in practice, as children may not understand or agree with them and instead seek unregulated contact. The findings underline the need for clearer justifications and more consistent consideration of a child’s view to ensure that decisions align with their best interests and remain feasible in practice.

1. Introduction

This study examines how the Child Welfare Tribunal (hereafter, the Tribunal) justifies the necessity of regulating phone and digital communication between children and their parents when children are placed in public care, within a Norwegian context. In Norway, approximately 8500 children live in public care, and around 8 out of 10 of these placements follow a formal care order. The Norwegian child welfare system is classified as a family-service-oriented and child-centric model (Skivenes 2011), where care orders are issued by the Tribunal, a court-like administrative body (Magnussen and Skivenes 2015). When a care order is issued, the Tribunal is also mandated to determine the extent of contact between the child and their parents, including both time-based and qualitative restrictions. These decisions must be justified as necessary and in the child’s best interest. In line with ECtHR case law, strict limitations require documentation of exceptional circumstances and must consider the cause and duration of the placement, the child’s development, and other contextual factors (Efjestad et al. 2023).

Both Norwegian and international law, as a general rule, uphold the principle that children have the right to grow up with their parents. This principle establishes Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It is reinforced by Articles 7, 8, 9, and 16 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Under these provisions, parents are granted the right to care for their children and are obligated to provide the necessary care and protection, as Section 30 of the Norwegian Children Act stipulates. The primary responsibility for the child’s upbringing and development lies with the parents. At the same time, the state assumes a subsidiary role only activated when parental failure is identified and the basic needs and rights of the child are not met. According to ECHR Article 8(2), this subsidiary state intervention must satisfy three essential conditions: it must be ‘in accordance with the law’, ‘necessary in a democratic society’, and serve a legitimate aim, such as ‘protecting the rights and freedoms of others’. The Norwegian Child Welfare Act mirrors these principles and sets the legal framework for the state’s responsibilities and authority. When a child is taken into public care, it constitutes a significant form of state interference in family life. Therefore, the necessity requirement, clearly articulated in both ECHR Article 8 and Section 5-1(1) of the Norwegian Child Welfare Act, demands that such restrictions respond to a pressing social need. Their primary purpose should be protecting the child’s rights and freedoms, and the restrictions imposed must be proportionate to the need they address. Importantly, any restriction should not be more intrusive than necessary to achieve its intended purpose.

In Norwegian child welfare legislation, the general rule is that children and parents are entitled to maintain contact following a care order. Thus, a clear distinction is made between physical contact regulation, referred to as visitation rights, and the regulation of other types of contact, such as phone and digital communication. These are separate forms of contact that may exist alongside each other. While physical contact concerns the opportunity for parents and children to meet in person, regulating other forms of contact pertains to modes of communication without physical presence, such as phone calls, text messages, and contact on digital platforms. Physical contact is usually determined as part of the care order, whereas phone and digital communication is generally unrestricted unless the Tribunal considers it necessary to regulate it for the child’s protection. In such cases, regulation of digital contact requires a specific justification (Efjestad et al. 2023; Stang 2024).

Regulating Phone and Digital Contact in Public Care

For children in public care, the right to maintain contact with their parents is protected by Articles 9 and 16 of the CRC, which closely align with ECHR Article 8. Article 16 of the CRC parallels ECHR Article 8(1) by safeguarding children from arbitrary or unlawful interference in their relationship with their parents. Similarly, CRC Article 9(1) corresponds to ECHR Article 8(2), stipulating that children may only be separated from their parents when it is necessary, such as in cases of abuse or neglect. These provisions not only set legal limits for state intervention but are also grounded in the recognition that family relationships are fundamental to the well-being of both children and parents. Close and stable parent–child relationships are central to children’s development, and preserving family ties, when not contrary to the child’s best interests, can support emotional continuity and identity (European Court of Human Rights 2024). Research has shown that the loss of daily contact may contribute to experiences of grief, marginalization, and psychosocial strain among parents (Eriksen 2024; Lalayants and Saitadze 2025), with a higher rate of mental health challenges (Suomi et al. 2023). For children, particularly younger ones, disruptions in familiar relationships can affect emotional security and the experience of belonging (Briggs-Gowan et al. 2019; Engelien et al. 2023). Maintaining some form of contact may therefore support continuity, identity, and developmental stability (Engelien et al. 2023). At the same time, contact may also be a source of emotional strain, reactivation of stress, or instability, especially when experienced as confusing, unpredictable, or insufficiently supported (Engelien et al. 2023; Kenny and Barrington 2018; Schofield et al. 2011).

While these legal frameworks emphasize protection and family life, the rapid development of digital technology has significantly changed the contact landscape between children and parents (Adams 2012; Björktomta and Hansen 2021; Fursland 2011; Hansen et al. 2017; Hansen and Gerdts-Andresen 2023; Livingstone and Smith 2014; Macdonald et al. 2017; Schofield et al. 2011). Earlier studies have examined children’s internet and social media use, focusing on associated risks (Livingstone and Smith 2014) and implications for social work settings (Hansen et al. 2017; Hansen and Gerdts-Andresen 2023; Henze-Pedersen and Kirkegaard 2024; Macdonald et al. 2017). Digital contact often bypasses formal supervision, making it challenging for child welfare services to monitor or support children effectively (Adams 2012; Hansen and Gerdts-Andresen 2023). Research shows that strict regulation of physical contact can push children and parents toward unregulated digital communication, which may undermine the stability of placements (Björktomta and Hansen 2021; Fursland 2011). This unregulated contact is particularly prevalent when parents have limited visitation rights (Schofield et al. 2011), raising concerns about its impact on the child’s well-being and placement stability (Björktomta and Hansen 2021; Schofield et al. 2011).

However, the Norwegian Child Welfare Act does not specify the content or nature of the child’s right to digital contact, leaving it to the Tribunal’s discretion to determine its extent (Efjestad et al. 2023; Kvakic et al. 2021). In this decision-making process, the Tribunal must balance the child’s need for protection with their developmental needs and the ability to maintain attachment to their parents (Efjestad et al. 2023). Article 9(3) of the CRC reinforces that children separated from one or both parents have the right to maintain personal relations and direct contact regularly, except if it is contrary to the child’s best interests. The Norwegian Supreme Court emphasized in 2020 (Norwegian Supreme Court 2020) that contact between children living in public care and their parents, as the general rule, should be considered in the child’s best interest. Nevertheless, there are circumstances where restrictions are justified, such as when contact poses a risk to the child’s health and development (European Court of Human Rights 2018; Norwegian Supreme Court 2020, 2021). While physical visitation is often prioritized in professional assessments (Björktomta and Hansen 2021), digital contact remains less regulated and inconsistently addressed despite its growing significance in children’s everyday lives. This creates contradictions between the right to family life and the child’s right to protection, raising questions about the necessity of contact regulation forms. According to the European Court of Human Rights (European Court of Human Rights 2024), decisions to severely restrict or completely sever contact require ‘strong and exceptional circumstances’, given the significant impact such measures may have on the parent–child relationship in cases where the child needs stability of care due to experiences of neglect, previous exposure to violence, sexual abuse, or profound neglect, the child’s emotional response to contact, where the parents are temporarily unfit due to acute illness, or where there is an immediate and current risk of abduction (European Court of Human Rights 2018). Thus, the overall impact on the child’s development may also represent strong and exceptional circumstances (Stang and Baugerud 2018).

Given this legal and practical context, phone and digital communication between children in public care and their parents is generally open, and any restriction must be treated as an interference with family life. According to ECHR Article 8(2), such interference requires a legal basis and must be necessary and proportionate. Unlike physical visitation, which is usually determined in the care order, digital contact is not automatically regulated. Any restriction must therefore be assessed explicitly and supported by clear reasoning. Such limitations may significantly affect the child’s ability to maintain spontaneous and ongoing contact and must therefore be clearly justified in line with the child’s best interests (European Court of Human Rights 2019, 2024; Efjestad et al. 2023; Stang 2024). However, the absence of clear guidelines means that decisions often reflect individual discretion rather than a standardized approach (Kvakic et al. 2021). Discretionary practice underscores the importance of transparent and well-documented justifications for restrictions, particularly given the potential impact on the child’s emotional well-being and family connections. Despite the increasing relevance of digital communication in children’s lives (Kvakic et al. 2021; Hansen and Gerdts-Andresen 2023; Henze-Pedersen and Kirkegaard 2024), there is limited knowledge about how the Tribunal evaluates and justifies the necessity of regulating this form of contact. The lack of clear guidelines leaves room for interpretation and prejudice, highlighting uncertainties regarding consistency and proportionality and whether these decisions align with the strict necessity requirement set by national and international law (European Court of Human Rights 2024; Kvakic et al. 2021). This study addresses this knowledge gap by examining how the Tribunal justifies phone and digital contact restrictions between children and their parents when children are placed in public care.

2. Materials and Methods

This study is part of a larger qualitative research project based on text data, with the dataset consisting of decisions made by the Child Welfare Tribunal from 2019 to 2023, downloaded from the public register Lovdata. Lovdata is an independent, non-profit foundation that operates a publicly accessible legal database, providing access to legislation, anonymized court decisions, and selected administrative rulings, including decisions from the Tribunal. While there is an option to appeal the Tribunal’s decisions to higher courts, only a few of these decisions are brought before the courts for review, and an even smaller proportion reaches the Norwegian Supreme Court (Haugli 2000; Stang and Baugerud 2018). Haugli (2000) distinguishes between ‘current law’ and ‘functioning law’, arguing that the practices of the Tribunals reflect functioning law. Based on the study’s objective, this suggests that Tribunal decisions are particularly well suited for analyzing practices and justifications related to contact regulation.

This study examines how the Tribunal justifies regulating phone or other digital communication between children and their parents when placed in public care.

2.1. Selection Procedure

The basis for this study is first-instance decisions where the Tribunal addresses whether the criteria for a care order are met and simultaneously assesses contact regulations, such as visitation rights and the regulation of phone and digital communication. Only decisions that address both care orders and contact regulations were included in the dataset. According to information from Lovdata, one out of every five cases from each Tribunal is anonymized and selected for public disclosure. As these documents are publicly available and fully anonymized, no ethical approval was required for their use. The decisions included in the dataset were issued between 1 July 2018, and 31 December 2023. This time frame is tied to the amendments to the Child Welfare Act of 1 July 2018, and the Child Welfare Act of 18 June 2021. A new version of the Child Welfare Act took effect on 1 January 2023. Although this represents a legislative update, the contact regulation provisions remain unchanged in substance compared to the 1992 Act. While the wording of some provisions has been adjusted, their legal content and the relevant case law remain consistent (Stang 2024).

A search conducted in Lovdata on 1 January 2024, using the keywords ‘lov-1992-07-17-100-§4-12’ and ‘lov-2021-06-18-97-§5-1’ in the legal reference field identified 981 potential Tribunal decisions related to care orders. A closer review revealed that 437 of the 981 decisions included care orders with determinations regarding visitation in the first instance. Of these 437 decisions, 34 addressed regulating phone or other electronic contact issues. All instances where the Tribunal imposed conditions on phone or digital communication, such as limitations on frequency, supervision requirements, or prohibitions, were included. The selection did not differentiate between degrees of severity, as the focus was on how the Tribunal justified the regulation of contact. A total of 34 decisions were therefore included for further analysis.

2.2. Data Processing

As this study examines how the Tribunal justifies the regulation of phone and digital contact between children in public care and their parents, a thematic analysis inspired by Braun and Clarke (2021) was applied. The analysis followed their six-phase framework: familiarization with the data, generating initial codes, theme construction, theme review, theme definition, and final write-up. Thematic analysis offers a structured approach to identify and organize patterns within the Tribunal’s decisions. The process began with a thorough review of the 34 Tribunal decisions, focusing on repeated readings to understand the content and identify recurring patterns. Notes were taken to capture preliminary impressions, particularly regarding how the Tribunal justified its decisions on contact regulation. The next step systematically coded relevant excerpts from decisions that addressed phone or digital contact. This digital coding process aimed to capture how the Tribunal explained its reasoning, with attention to central concepts such as risk assessment, parental capacity, and the child’s best interests.

The coded material was then grouped into broader categories to identify emerging themes. Individual Tribunal decisions could contain elements relevant to multiple themes, depending on how the justification for contact regulation was presented. The thematic structure was refined and reviewed through an iterative process to ensure internal coherence and consistency. This involved revisiting the coded excerpts and cross-checking them with the full decisions. Throughout the process, care was taken to remain open to alternative interpretations and to critically reflect on how thematic patterns emerged in relation to the research aim. The final analysis resulted in four overarching themes that frame the study’s findings: (1) ensuring stability and emotional security, (2) addressing parental behavior, (3) balancing proportionality and necessity, and (4) considering the child’s view.

2.3. Ethical Considerations

The study followed the National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities (NESH) ethical guidelines. These guidelines were applied throughout the research process, ensuring that the analysis accurately reflected the content and context of the Tribunal decisions. Emphasis was placed on conducting a consistent and transparent analysis grounded in the material.

3. Results

This study found that the Tribunal discussed the regulation of phone contact or the use of other communication platforms in 8% (34 out of 437) of the reviewed care orders. These 34 decisions affected 44 children, 21 girls and 23 boys, aged newborn to 17, with an average age of 9. Of these, 31 children were of school age (6–17 years). The data show a wide range of reasons in care orders where the necessity of regulating phone or digital contact was assessed. The most common reasons included either domestic violence, parental mental health issues, or substance abuse. In some cases, violence between parents were the primary concern, while in others, the focus was on emotional neglect or instability of care. Several decisions highlight the mother’s mental health challenges, and a few involved violence directed towards the child. Less frequent reasons included forced marriage and abduction, each of the causes only mentioned once. The thematic analysis identified four main themes for understanding the Tribunal’s justifications when regulating phone contact or the use of other communication platforms between children and parents: (1) ensuring stability and emotional security, (2) addressing parental behavior, (3) balancing proportionality and necessity, and (4) considering the child’s view.

3.1. Ensuring Stability and Emotional Security

A key theme that emerged from the Tribunal’s justifications for regulating phone and digital contact was the need to ensure stability and emotional security for the child. Several decisions argued this as a protective measure, focusing on shielding children from contact perceived as disruptive to their emotional well-being or their adjustment to new living environments when in public placement. A stable, emotional, secure, and predictable daily life was crucial for transitional periods or in cases involving young children with increased vulnerabilities.

In several cases, the Tribunal emphasized the need for calm and predictability in the child’s daily life as the rationale for imposing restrictions. For example, in one decision concerning a 14-year-old girl, the Tribunal stated

During the adjustment phase, the mother and father should not be allowed to contact [Girl 14 years] via phone or electronic communication.

Similarly, in the case of an 11-year-old boy, the Tribunal justified a complete ban on contact with the father:

The Tribunal believes it is in [Boy 11 years]’ best interest that he is not influenced daily by his father.

These decisions reflect a pattern where emotional security was prioritized over maintaining open communication channels. Often, the reasoning was not detailed, relying on general references to the child’s need for calm without specifying the risks involved in such contact. This raises questions about whether the measures taken were proportionate to the actual risk or more preventive, prognostic, or linear.

Due to developmental limitations, the Tribunal also framed contact regulation as a protective measure for younger children. In the case of two sisters, aged 3 and 6, all phone contact was prohibited, described simply as ‘a direct consequence of the visitation prohibition’. A similar justification was given for two boys aged 3 and 5:

Electronic contact between the mother and the children must be limited for the same reasons that visitation is restricted. The children need calm when they move into their foster homes.

In these cases, the Tribunal did not elaborate on how phone contact might disrupt the children’s stability of care or whether supportive interventions could have mitigated potential risks. This lack of detail highlights a recurring gap in the reasoning, particularly regarding the proportionality of these restrictions.

Another recurring justification focused on the parent’s inability to respect boundaries or recognize the child’s need for space. For instance, in the case of a 9-year-old boy, the Tribunal found it necessary to regulate the father’s contact because he repeatedly brought up stressful topics:

The father has not sufficiently respected [Boy 9 years] ’s need for calm daily, frequently bringing up topics such as diet, training, and moving to live with him.

In a similar decision, the Tribunal limited a father’s contact with his 7-year-old daughter, noting that

The frequency and length of the calls are on the father’s terms. The girl struggles to end the calls because she fears disappointing her father.

These decisions illustrate how frequent, unregulated contact was perceived as a risk to the child’s emotional well-being. The emphasis on shielding children from parental pressure or emotionally taxing conversations reflects a broader concern about the power dynamics in parent–child communication. In some cases, the Tribunal’s reasoning suggested that the child’s inability to set boundaries justified imposing external limits to protect their emotional stability. Similarly, another decision framed the regulation as necessary to reduce emotional strain, particularly when communication patterns disrupted the child’s daily stability and sense of security. As reported by an emergency foster mother,

The emergency foster mother reported extensive phone contact between [Girl 10 years] and her mother, which negatively impacted the girl. The Tribunal prioritizes ensuring that [girl] is calm and shielded from negative influence.

In such cases, the Tribunal prioritized stability of care rather than preserving spontaneous communication, emphasizing the need to protect the child from the unintended consequences of emotionally charged contact.

Finally, several decisions linked emotional stability to the child’s long-term developmental needs, especially when interacting with persistent parents. One decision involving a 13-year-old boy stated

He needs peace to focus on his development and attachment to the foster home rather than spending energy keeping his father at a distance.

While this emphasis on stability is understandable, it raises important questions about whether less intrusive alternatives were explored before resorting to such measures. Research on child welfare practices highlights the importance of balancing protection with maintaining family ties, as overly restrictive measures can inadvertently affect a child’s identity and sense of belonging.

Focusing on ensuring stability of care and emotional security, the Tribunal adopted a cautious approach that sought to address the child’s immediate needs. However, the reasoning often relied on broad assumptions about what constituted emotional security without sufficient evidence or documentation. This tension between protecting the child and ensuring minimal interference with their family life is a recurring theme that requires further exploration in the discussion.

3.2. Addressing Parental Behavior

Another significant justification for regulating phone and digital contact was parental behavior that the Tribunal perceived as disruptive or emotionally harmful to the child. Persistent or intrusive communication patterns, especially when parents failed to respect boundaries or recognize the child’s need for space, were often cited as grounds for restrictions. Unlike the previous theme, which focused on promoting calm and stability, this set of decisions emphasized the risk posed by parental actions during contact. The Tribunal framed these regulations as necessary to shield the child from overwhelming interactions and emotional strain.

In several decisions, the Tribunal viewed parental intensity and lack of self-regulation as threats to the child’s well-being. For example,

The father has behaved intensely and without boundaries towards [Girl 9 years and Boy 7 years] outside of scheduled visitations.

The Tribunal agrees that this is necessary and refers to [name]’s statement from [service] that there has been a great deal of phone contact between the mother and [Girl 8 years].

These cases illustrate how intrusive parental behavior, particularly excessive or unregulated communication, was framed as overwhelming for the child. The Tribunal’s reasoning centered on how the frequency and content of these interactions caused stress, justifying the need for more structure and limited contact.

Parental pressure and emotional manipulation were recurring concerns in cases involving older children. In two decisions involving 14-year-old boys, the Tribunal restricted contact with their mothers due to persistent, boundary-crossing behavior:

[Boy 14 years] has been subjected to significant pressure from his mother […] The mother has posted extensive information about the family in several online posts.

Like visitation, contact must occur on his terms. [Boy 14 years] must decide whether he wants contact with her.

In another case involving a 13-year-old boy, the Tribunal justified restrictions based on the mother’s frequent, unregulated contact:

He is currently in a very vulnerable situation, and the Tribunal refers to what has been pointed out as [NN]’s challenges. Frequent contact with the mother would be very harmful to [NN] at this time.

These examples reflect a concern about boundary-crossing behavior and the risk of placing emotional responsibility on the child. While framed as empowering the child, the burden of managing contact could ultimately lead to additional stress and confusion.

In some cases, the Tribunal focused on the parents’ inability to regulate conversations and avoid emotionally charged topics. For instance, in a decision concerning a 9-year-old boy,

The father has not sufficiently respected [Boy 9 years]’s need for calm daily, frequently bringing up topics such as diet, training, and moving to live with him […] The father must refrain from glorifying the farm and activities there, as this creates unnecessary challenges for the child.

In another decision regarding a 10-year-old boy, the Tribunal emphasized the necessity of supervision:

It is necessary that the father not burden [Boy 10 years] with concerns about his life and health […] A supervisor must be present during conversations to ensure that the father adheres to boundaries.

Supervised phone contact was often framed as a middle ground, offering protection while maintaining communication. Supervision was presented as a corrective measure to manage parental behavior rather than a punitive action, although it also served as a preventive strategy.

Preventive reasoning was another recurring element in these decisions. Rather than responding to immediate threats, the Tribunal sought to reduce potential risks before they escalated:

The child welfare service considers it necessary to limit phone and digital contact with the mother. Although there have been few incidents, the risk remains that she could involve the children in her resistance against public institutions.

The Tribunal finds it necessary to shield [Girl 10 years] from her mother’s ongoing phone and social media contact, particularly given that she has reached out all day and night.

These examples reveal how the Tribunal prioritized prevention over reaction. However, such preventive measures also raise concerns about whether the threshold for intervention was proportionate in every case.

Several decisions further emphasized the emotional toll of persistent parental contact, focusing on how it disrupted the child’s emotional security and developmental progress, e.g.,

The boy needs peace to focus on his development and attachment to the foster home rather than spending energy keeping his father at a distance.

These decisions consistently highlight how parental behavior requires regulation to protect the child from emotional strain or inappropriate expectations. Building on this, the Tribunal’s reasoning often extends to the content and tone of parental communication, particularly when it becomes emotionally harmful or developmentally inappropriate for the child. In several decisions, the Tribunal emphasized how exposure to adult concerns or emotionally charged topics could confuse or distress the child. For instance, in a case involving an 11-year-old boy, the Tribunal observed

She repeatedly asked him whether he had told the child welfare service about her alcohol use. She also discussed other aspects of the child welfare case with him.

Similarly, the Tribunal noted in another case how the mother had shared inappropriate content for the child’s developmental stage:

[Boy 10 years] received a picture of a bra, debt collection notices, and a lawyer’s email with the time and date of her visitation.

These examples illustrate how the Tribunal viewed parental communication as a potential emotional burden for the child, justifying regulation to protect the child from unnecessary exposure to adult issues.

In some cases, the Tribunal focused on preventing the child from becoming entangled in ongoing parental conflicts through phone or digital communication. For example, in a decision concerning a 10-year-old boy and an 11-year-old girl, the Tribunal reasoned

To prevent [the children] from being involved in their parents’ conflicts, the Tribunal considered it necessary to prohibit the parents from contacting them via phone or social media.

In another decision, concerns about emotional instability and unpredictability in the parent’s behavior shaped the Tribunal’s rationale, e.g.,

The child welfare service pointed out that it is difficult to control whether the mother is in an appropriate state to have contact [with Girl 2 years] outside visitation. Although she has refrained from contact when not in good shape, it is unclear whether she will maintain such self-control.

These decisions reflect how preventive logic often guided the Tribunal’s reasoning. Rather than addressing immediate threats, the focus shifted toward minimizing future risks, emphasizing the need to shield children from potential emotional harm.

Finally, several decisions revealed concerns about the emotional toll of persistent parental pressure and how it could place undue stress on the child. In one decision concerning a 9-year-old girl and a 7-year-old boy, the Tribunal stated

The father has not been sensitive to the children’s signals. He has not considered their needs but has prioritized his need for contact.

In such cases, structure and limited contact were framed as essential to ensure positive and supportive communication rather than becoming another source of distress for the child.

Overall, these decisions highlight how the Tribunal consistently framed restrictions as necessary to protect the child’s emotional well-being for various forms of parental behavior. While the rationale focused on shielding children from potential harm, the extent and nature of these measures often leaned toward preventive intervention rather than reactive responses.

3.3. Balancing Proportionality and Necessity

An essential dimension of the Tribunal’s reasoning involved balancing the child’s need for protection with the principles of proportionality and necessity. Several decisions reflected an effort to avoid imposing overly restrictive measures while maintaining flexibility based on evolving circumstances. Unlike previous themes, which focused on emotional stability or parental behavior, this theme explored whether the restrictions were proportionate to the risks and carefully calibrated to avoid unnecessary interference with family life.

In several cases, the Tribunal explicitly considered whether the imposed restrictions were necessary. For instance, in a decision regarding a 14-year-old girl, the Tribunal justified a broad restriction on her parents’ ability to contact her:

The Tribunal considers that the mother and father should not be allowed to contact [Girl 14 years] via telephone or electronic communication during the adjustment phase.

Although framed as a precaution to ensure the girl’s smooth transition into her new living situation, the decision did not explain why this restriction was required or whether less intrusive options had been explored.

In another case involving a 10-year-old boy, the Tribunal imposed a formal regulation on phone contact between him and his mother, despite both parties reaching an agreement beforehand:

The municipality requests that the mother’s phone contact be limited to once a week for 30 minutes per call. The mother does not oppose this.

However, instead of maintaining the voluntary agreement, the Tribunal transformed it into a legally binding restriction:

Despite the alignment between the municipality and the mother, the Tribunal still imposed formal regulation.

This decision raises concerns about whether formalizing the arrangement was necessary, especially since both parties were willing to adhere to the agreed-upon contract terms.

Proportionality was also addressed through decisions that adjusted the frequency and duration of phone contact to align with the child’s best interest. In a case involving a 10-year-old girl and a 12-year-old boy, the Tribunal reduced the proposed length of phone calls:

The Tribunal sets a minimum duration of 15 minutes for phone calls. The conversations must be something the children look forward to, and the child welfare service must continually assess what duration works best.

This adjustment reflected an effort to balance the children’s need for predictability and structured contact with the principle of minimal intervention. Notably, the Tribunal emphasized ongoing evaluation to ensure the measure remained appropriate.

In some instances, phone contact constitutes a way to preserve a meaningful connection between parent and child rather than as a restriction on the right:

Phone contact between [Boy 9 years] and his father can help maintain a bond between father and son and ensure that [the boy] knows who his father is.

This reasoning highlights how the Tribunal sometimes prioritized maintaining family ties while recognizing the importance of controlled and structured communication.

The Tribunal also preferred adaptive responses, allowing for flexibility when circumstances change. In a decision concerning a 2-year-old girl, the Tribunal acknowledged the importance of not imposing unnecessary restrictions:

Based on the current situation, nothing suggests that the mother cannot cooperate with the child welfare service. Therefore, limiting contact appears unnecessary at this stage. If it later becomes evident that the mother’s contact is not in [Girl 2,5 years]’ best interest, the Tribunal can consider restrictions.

This reflects a central principle of proportionality: interventions should be as limited and adaptable as possible, tailored to the specific circumstances. Measures were often framed as temporary solutions subject to revision based on changing conditions. However, the emphasis on temporality also signaled a preventive approach, where restrictions were imposed ‘just in case’, raising questions about whether the threshold for intervention was always justified. For instance, in a case concerning a 13-year-old girl, the Tribunal suggested that phone contact could be adjusted as her visitation schedule changed:

When visitation is granted, concerns about implementing such regulation will be reduced. Regular visitation will also somewhat lessen the need for electronic contact.

Such statements reveal the Tribunal’s effort to ensure that contact regulations were adaptable and responsive to the child’s evolving circumstances. While this flexibility reflects an awareness of changing family dynamics, it also exposes the complexity of balancing precaution with necessity. In several cases, the reasoning leaned more on anticipated risks than on concrete evidence of harm, raising questions about whether temporary restrictions risked becoming long-term limitations on the child’s right to family life.

3.4. Considering the Child’s View

While including the child’s perspective is fundamental in child welfare decisions, a review of the Tribunal’s reasoning revealed that explicit input from children regarding phone and digital communication regulation often was absent. Out of 44 children aged 0–17, only 14 had their views mentioned in connection with the regulation. Among these, only seven had been directly consulted about this specific aspect of the case. The remaining children’s opinions on phone or digital communication were either not sought or addressed explicitly in the decisions.

When the child’s perspective was highlighted, it often played a critical role in shaping the outcome. The Tribunal’s reasoning sometimes emphasized respecting the child’s autonomy and preferences, even when it resulted in restrictions. For example, in the case of a 13-year-old boy,

[The boy] has experiences that have led him to cease all phone contact with his father. He even considered blocking his father from the last remaining digital platforms. The father’s right to contact him by phone or digital media is entirely restricted regarding the boy’s right to participation and best interest.

Similarly, the Tribunal recognized the autonomy of a 14-year-old boy in managing contact with his mother:

The contact must, like visitation, occur on his terms […] He must be allowed to decide whether he wants contact with her.

These decisions reflect a growing recognition of children’s agency in communicating with their parents. However, empowering the child with this responsibility may also inadvertently place an emotional burden on them, especially when the decision to limit contact could create feelings of guilt or conflict.

In some cases, children expressed preferences for maintaining contact, and the Tribunal sought to balance these wishes with broader concerns. For example, in a case involving an 11-year-old boy, the Tribunal found a compromise:

[The boy] has the same right to protection as his brother. However, considering his wish for steady contact with his father, they are permitted two monthly supervised calls.

In another case involving a 7-year-old girl,

[The girl] said that daily calls are too much for her and that she would prefer to talk three times a week.

These cases illustrate how children’s participation can inform decisions that align better with their experiences and preferences. However, the limited instances of such inclusion underscore the selective nature of this approach, as most decisions did not reflect the child’s explicit input regarding telephone and digital communication regulation.

While some children’s perspectives were voiced directly, others expressed their needs more subtly through actions, such as distancing themselves from parental contact. One decision involved a 10-year-old girl who blocked her mother on social media after experiencing overwhelming pressure:

The Tribunal recognizes that [the girl] felt it was necessary to shield herself from contact with her mother due to the significant pressure she experienced.

This implicit expression of the child’s need for space was interpreted as a justification for imposing contact restrictions. Such examples show how children’s actions, rather than explicit statements, can be crucial indicators of their needs and boundaries. However, it remains unclear whether less intrusive measures, such as supporting the child’s existing strategy, could have been sufficient without formal regulation.

Finally, there were cases where the child expressed a strong desire to maintain regular communication, which the Tribunal considered in its reasoning. In one case involving a 12-year-old boy,

He stated that he spoke with his mother on the phone nearly daily and that it would be ‘bad for him’ if phone contact were reduced to twice a week.

In another decision, the child’s voice was emphasized as a vital factor in preserving family ties:

Although the conversations were sometimes uncomfortable, [girl 17 years] did not want her parents to be denied such contact. She feared they might break all contact if phone calls were restricted.

These cases illustrate the complexity of balancing the child’s best interest with their right to family life. The Tribunal’s decisions reveal a nuanced approach, sometimes prioritizing the child’s protection while, in other instances, upholding the child’s desire for continued communication despite potential challenges.

In summary, the child’s voice was inconsistently integrated into the Tribunal’s reasoning, with varying degrees of influence depending on the case. This inconsistency highlights broader questions about how children’s views are valued and incorporated into decision-making processes. While some decisions reflected genuine efforts to include the child’s perspective, others relied on assumptions or indirect expressions of the child’s needs.

4. Discussion

This study highlights the complexity of regulating phone and digital communication between children and parents in public care. The Tribunal’s reasoning often prioritizes immediate emotional security and stability of care, reflecting a protective approach. However, the findings also expose challenges related to transparency, proportionality, and the child’s right to participation. While some decisions recognized the child’s autonomy and wishes, these instances were inconsistent, leaving many children without a voice in matters that directly affected their daily lives and well-being. The reasoning is often rooted in protective concerns, reflecting the child welfare system’s dual responsibility to protect children while preserving family ties (Efjestad et al. 2023; Stang 2024). However, this balancing act raises important questions about proportionality, preventive intervention, and the extent to which the child’s voice is genuinely considered in these decisions.

First, the principle of proportionality requires that any restriction on family life must be necessary, suitable, and the least intrusive measure to achieve its purpose (European Court of Human Rights 2024). This principle ensures a balance between protecting the child and preserving family ties (CRC Article 9(3); ECHR Article 8). However, the findings suggest that the Tribunal’s reasoning often relies on preventive logic rather than documented harm. While this preventive approach may align with child welfare’s protective mandate (Efjestad et al. 2023; Stang 2024), it risks expanding the scope of intervention beyond what is strictly necessary. Importantly, such decisions occur in a context where children and parents may already be emotionally affected by the initial separation. For some families, maintaining contact may help preserve a sense of continuity, belonging, or parental engagement (Engelien et al. 2023; Suomi et al. 2023). For others, contact that is confusing, emotionally charged, or insufficiently supported may contribute to further stress or relational disruption (Kenny and Barrington 2018; Schofield et al. 2011). These contrasting possibilities highlight the need for nuanced assessments that take into account the individual child’s situation and the relational dynamics involved when contact restrictions are considered. Despite this complexity, the Tribunal’s reasoning often treated restrictions as precautionary measures, frequently framed as temporary solutions to reduce perceived future risks without fully substantiating the concerns with evidence. While digital contact was frequently restricted with reference to protection and emotional strain, the potential benefits of maintaining such contact, or the possible harm of limiting it, were rarely discussed in the decisions. The absence of this perspective may limit the overall assessment of the child’s best interests in cases where contact is regulated. For instance, several decisions indicated that restrictions could be eased once physical visitation resumed, reflecting flexibility but also a speculative element that complicates the assessment of proportionality (European Court of Human Rights 2024). This suggests that the Tribunal’s reasoning about digital contact may, in some cases, be influenced by the same assumptions that underlie decisions about physical visitation. In several decisions, the justifications appeared to replicate concerns typically associated with in-person contact, such as emotional strain or instability, without considering how these risks may differ in the context of phone or digital communication. As a result, digital contact was often treated as an extension of physical visitation, rather than being assessed as a distinct form of interaction with its characteristics and potential implications. The absence of clear justification for how risks were evaluated or why less intrusive alternatives were dismissed raises concerns about the transparency and necessity of these measures. This lack of clarity is especially problematic given the high threshold for state interference under ECHR Article 8(2) (European Court of Human Rights 2024). Although unregulated digital contact can present challenges, including potential impacts on placement stability (Björktomta and Hansen 2021; Schofield et al. 2011), the reliance on speculative reasoning rather than specific risks limits the sustainability of the Tribunal’s decisions. While central to child welfare practice (Hansen and Gerdts-Andresen 2023; Henze-Pedersen and Kirkegaard 2024), the focus on emotional security can become overly broad and challenging to evaluate when it lacks a clear connection to documented harm. As the European Court of Human Rights emphasizes, restrictions must be justified by strong and exceptional reasons, particularly when they risk severing family ties (European Court of Human Rights 2018, 2019). This tension between protection and proportionality underscores the importance of transparent, well-documented assessments of necessity, especially without clear guidelines for regulating digital contact (Kvakic et al. 2021). Preventive interventions may become normalized, risking inconsistent decision making and potentially significant consequences for both children and parents.

Second, the findings identify an important issue: the limited inclusion of children’s perspectives in decisions concerning contact regulations. Despite the legal emphasis on participation in national law and international conventions, most children affected by these decisions were not consulted about the necessity of or how phone or digital communication restrictions would impact them. This raises questions about the practical and sustainable aspects of such decisions without the child’s agreement or understanding. When children are excluded from these processes, there is an increased risk that the regulations may not reflect their needs and preferences. If children disagree with the restrictions or fail to understand their purpose, they may circumvent them through secret communication with their parents (Björktomta and Hansen 2021; Hansen and Gerdts-Andresen 2023). This can undermine the protective intent of the regulation and expose the child to unmonitored contact, potentially increasing their vulnerability (Adams 2012; Hansen and Gerdts-Andresen 2023; Kvakic et al. 2021; Livingstone and Smith 2014; Macdonald et al. 2017). Furthermore, excluding children from decisions concerning their contact arrangements may create confusion and emotional distress, as they are left without an explanation for why restrictions are imposed. If children do not understand the reasoning behind the restrictions, their willingness to comply may decrease, making enforcement more difficult and increasing the likelihood that they will seek alternative ways to maintain contact that bypass formal regulations (Björktomta and Hansen 2021; Hansen and Gerdts-Andresen 2023; Kvakic et al. 2021). Additionally, decisions restricting the parent’s ability to initiate contact while allowing the child complete freedom to reach out can inadvertently shift significant responsibility onto the child. Although proposed to promote the child’s autonomy, this approach can lead to confusion and emotional strain, especially for younger children, who may feel responsible for maintaining family relationships (Hansen and Gerdts-Andresen 2023). In such cases, it increases the risk that the child may experience feelings of guilt, pressure, and uncertainty about whether or how to initiate contact (Hansen and Gerdts-Andresen 2023; Macdonald et al. 2017). Moreover, when children’s perspectives are not sufficiently integrated, there is a risk that restrictions will be upheld longer than necessary because decisions lack mechanisms for reassessment based on the child’s evolving needs. This may contribute to a situation where regulations remain static, even when the child’s circumstances change, ultimately weakening the proportionality principle that governs state intervention (European Court of Human Rights 2024; Efjestad et al. 2023).

Third, while the Tribunal’s decisions often aimed to protect children, they frequently lacked detailed reasoning about the necessity of the restrictions and the specific risks they were meant to mitigate. This ambiguity increases the risk that child welfare services will uphold these restrictions longer than necessary because the decisions provide insufficient guidance on how and when to reassess them. Without clear criteria for what constitutes a risk reduction, there is a significant possibility that restrictions will remain in place by default rather than through a deliberate assessment of the child’s evolving situation (Efjestad et al. 2023; European Court of Human Rights 2024). In several decisions, the justification for restrictions was framed broadly, such as ‘ensuring stability’ or ‘preventing potential emotional harm’, but without specifying how these risks related to the child’s digital communication. Such lack of clarity leaves child welfare services responsible for interpreting and enforcing decisions without a clear framework, which can lead to overly cautious approaches. The absence of well-defined limits or review mechanisms means that restrictions may become prolonged interventions, even when they are no longer necessary to protect the child (Gerdts-Andresen 2023). The European Court of Human Rights (2018, 2024) emphasizes that any interference with family life must be proportionate, necessary, and based on strong, exceptional reasons. Decisions that fail to specify these conditions increase the likelihood that protective measures will evolve into restrictive routines, reducing opportunities for children to maintain meaningful relationships with their families (Hansen and Gerdts-Andresen 2023; Macdonald et al. 2017). In practice, this creates a situation where preventive logic dominates, and restrictions risk becoming static, even when the child’s circumstances change. The Tribunal’s initial decisions set the parameters for how child welfare services implement and monitor contact regulation (Efjestad et al. 2023). Without more transparent and well-documented assessments, these decisions may lack the flexibility to adapt to the child’s evolving needs, contextual changes, and increasing the likelihood of emotional detachment and limiting opportunities for identity development and family connection (Gerdts-Andresen 2023).

In conclusion, the findings in this study reveal significant tensions in how the Child Welfare Tribunal balances children’s rights to protection, participation, and family life when regulating phone and digital communication. Although proposed as protective and in the child’s best interest, many decisions reflect a cautious, preventive approach that risks limiting parents’ and children’s autonomy and undermining proportionality. These findings underscore the need for more transparent assessments of necessity and consistent inclusion of children’s perspectives in decision-making processes. Future research should explore how both children and parents experience these restrictions in practice and examine their long-term implications for well-being, relational continuity, and the extent to which such regulation may influence the possibility of reunification at a later stage.