Supervised Contact Between Children in Care and Their Parents—A Study of Professional Reflections

Abstract

Establishing good contact arrangements between children in public care and their parents is of great significance for those involved. To ensure the child’s protection and safety, supervised contact may be necessary. This can be a complex situation that necessitates high-quality social work and thorough reflection. Empirical data were derived from a vignette study and eight focus groups conducted by the Norwegian Child Welfare Services. Our research considers the following questions: How does supervised contact become a theme when assessing contact arrangements for children and parents after the child has been taken into care, and how is the concept of supervised contact understood by social workers? The findings show that supervised contact may be recommended for various reasons, such as control, support, and safety, to observe and gather more information. This study reveals a need for social workers to develop greater awareness in their assessments and decisions regarding the implementation of supervised contact. It is important to explore the various ways supervised contact is conceived and practiced. We also need to critically discuss the opportunities and challenges it represents, as well as the need to provide support and guidance to the child and parents and facilitate positive collaboration with child welfare services.

1. Introduction

When a child does not receive adequate care from their parents, public child welfare systems in most countries can enforce a care order with or without the parents’ consent. This is a very invasive measure. Laws and practices vary between countries, but many adhere to the overarching principle that assessments are linked to the child’s best interests, in accordance with Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN 1989). The right to family life, as outlined in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, is also a central consideration (1950).

Establishing good contact arrangements between children in public care and their parents is of great significance for those involved in terms of their relationships with each other (Boyle 2017; Bullen et al. 2015; Sen and Broadhurst 2011; Stang and Baugerud 2018). The main purpose of contact is to maintain and strengthen the relationship between the child and the parents. Other purposes include the child’s wellbeing and identity development, ensuring that the child’s parents are doing well, promoting emotional recovery, and the possible reunification of the child and their parents (Boyle 2017; Bufdir 2022; Bullen et al. 2015; Sen and Broadhurst 2011; Stang et al. 2023).

This is a situation that requires thorough analysis and professional assessment, and social workers must pay close attention to the complexities involved. According to Article 9 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN 1989), authorities must facilitate children’s contact with their parents when they are in placement as long as it does not conflict with the “the child’s best interest”. If the contact could harm the child’s health and development, no or limited contact could be recommended. Furthermore, to ensure the child’s protection and safety, supervised contact may be necessary.

This article addresses social workers’ assessments regarding supervised contact during visits based on child welfare practices in Norway. The study is part of a research project conducted in 2020 titled “Strengthening Professional Discretion in Complex Child Welfare Cases”, which aimed to explore how social workers from the Norwegian Child Welfare Services use discretion when assessing contact rights for children taken into care. Contact arrangements were chosen as the topic because they are a significant point of discussion in both research and practice, and a shift in practice has occurred since the Norwegian Child Welfare Services faced criticism from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR 1950; BFD 2020; NIM 2020; NIM 2024).

Social workers taking part in a focus group study were asked to discuss the contact arrangement for a child and stipulate the extent of visitation with the parents. Their discussions around supervised contact during visits captured our analytical interest and will be further explored in this article. Our research questions are as follows: How does supervised contact become a theme when assessing contact arrangements for children and parents after the child has been taken into care, and how is the concept of supervised contact understood by social workers?

1.1. Contact and Supervised Contact in a Norwegian Context—Different Concepts

After a care order has been implemented and a placement has been arranged for a child, the Norwegian Child Welfare Services (CWS) are responsible for following-up with the child and their parents and for assessing and facilitating contact arrangements (visits). The Norwegian CWS promotes proposals for care orders and contact arrangements to a specific committee (the Child Welfare Tribunal), which holds decision-making authority. This also applies if an existing contact arrangement is to be reduced or if conditions, such as supervised contact, are to be imposed (Child Welfare Act 2021, Sections 7 and 14).

When working on a contact arrangement, specific assessments related to the individual child must be made based on what is in the child’s best interests and the right to family life. The child has the right to participate, and the child’s views must be taken into account (Child Welfare Act 2021, § 1–4). If the interests of the child and parents do not align, the child’s interests take precedence. If contact may harm the child’s health and development or pose an unreasonable burden, the child should not have contact, or supervised contact (SC) may be instituted to protect and ensure the child’s safety. Such stipulations may be necessary if the parents have subjected the child to violence or abuse, in cases where there is a risk of the child being abducted, if parental challenges with substance abuse or mental health issues could hinder contact, or if the parents’ behavior might be distressing to the child (Bufdir 2022).

SC is considered a strict intervention that can affect the quality of the contact. It must be thoroughly assessed and have a clear aim. There must be a clear reason as to why less intrusive measures are insufficient. The child’s reactions after contact and their need for reassurance are central to the assessments (Alvik 2021; BFD 2020; Bufdir 2022; Haugli 2023).

When CWS assesses a contact arrangement and concludes there is a need for SC, a decision must be made by the Tribunal. CWS is responsible for following-up with the child and parents after the placement, which encompasses the contact arrangements. This includes support, supervision, guidance, and other forms of available help (Child Welfare Act 2021, § 8-3). This means that, from a legal perspective, a distinction must be made between SC and guided visitation. The decision to implement SC is a mandate of control, while guidance is support offered to the family (Haugli 2023, pp. 229–30).

In the event of SC, the CWS will appoint another person or the child’s current social worker to be present during the visit. This person will receive a mandate regarding the execution of SC, and they are allowed to stop the visit if doing so is necessary for the protection of the child. After the visit, this person submits a report to the CWS.

In recent years, Norway has been convicted several times by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) for violation of the right to family life (Article 8). Norway has been criticized for its child welfare services lacking sufficient focus on the temporary nature of a care order. According to critics, Norway’s contact arrangements have been too restrictive and standardized, making it difficult to maintain family relationships and achieve reunification. Following the ECtHR rulings, the individual needs of children and decisions concerning the child’s best interests have not been adequately mapped, assessed, or documented (BFD 2020; NIM 2020).

Following the ECtHR rulings against Norway, the Supreme Court’s recommendations for changes in practice, as well as the implementation of a new child welfare law in 2023, significant changes have occurred with regard to contact arrangements. A national guideline has also been developed to assist child welfare staff in working more systematically, ensuring thorough mappings and assessments (Bufdir 2022). This has changed the conditions for social workers and caused a shift in practice (Alvik 2021; BFD 2020; NIM 2024; Stang et al. 2023).

1.2. Research on Contact Between Children in Care and Their Parents and Supervised Contact

We first refer to international studies on contact in general, which is relevant to SC, and then the research on SC. It is challenging to maintain satisfactory contact arrangements after a care order, which is reflected in research conducted both in Norway and internationally. Several studies have shown the positive effects of children and parents staying in contact after a placement, as well as the ways in which contact can harm the child’s development (Boyle 2017; Bullen et al. 2015; Sen and Broadhurst 2011). This contradictory picture may stem from the inherent complexities of the issue; many parties are involved, with various forms of interaction and varied reactions from the child (Boyle 2017). Few studies provide a comprehensive view of the knowledge base or have concluded what is ideal in terms of contact frequency (Bullen et al. 2015).

Research indicates that how a contact arrangement works for children and parents depends on several factors, as such arrangements must be assessed on an individual basis according to the child’s best interests. The child should be well prepared beforehand, the contact arrangement must be continuously evaluated, and the child’s reactions during the visits should be assessed (Boyle 2017; Bullen et al. 2015; Sen and Broadhurst 2011; Stang et al. 2023).

Another central aspect highlighted in such research is the responsibility of child welfare services to facilitate contact and ensure cooperation among stakeholders. International studies have revealed that child welfare services focus on the needs of children, and their support for children and foster carers is a prerequisite for good contact (Boyle 2017; Bullen et al. 2015; Stang et al. 2023).

Little research has been conducted on the parents’ need for support (Boyle 2017). In Norway, research has explored the significance of providing parents with follow-up in the form of both support and guidance after the implementation of a care order, and this includes social workers’ understanding of parents’ importance following such a transfer. Research specifically shows that this type of follow-up is crucial (Aamodt and Sommerfeldt 2022, 2024; Olkowska and Aamodt 2022; Stang et al. 2023; Syrstad and Slettebø 2020). This is an important aspect when discussing whether SC is needed.

Some studies address the participation and involvement of children in contact matters. Several studies indicate that children do have a say regarding contact, and some children are not involved to a significant degree (Fitzgerald and Graham 2011; Huseby-Lie 2023; Nissen and Ravn 2024; Revheim et al. 2025; Stang et al. 2023).

Research also highlights a lack of knowledge about how children and parents are involved in the decision-making process and planning regarding SC. Parents and children have received little information regarding what SC entails or the rationale for its implementation (Bullen et al. 2015; Bullen et al. 2017; Sen and Broadhurst 2011; Nissen and Ravn 2024; Stang et al. 2023; Taplin et al. 2021).

International research shows that when contact is prepared well and adequate support is provided to both children and parents, it has a positive impact on the child’s life and reduces stress. Parents who have received guidance during contact (the visits) report positive results, and this is sometimes described as SC. This leads to parents being more likely to attend the visits and to participate in a better way (Bullen et al. 2015; Healy et al. 2023; Kiely et al. 2019; Nissen and Ravn 2024; Stang and Baugerud 2018; Taplin et al. 2021). Australian research on SC points out that there is a lack of evidence-based guidance programs for parents and that no one has studied the effects of the various forms of guidance (Bullen et al. 2015; Bullen et al. 2017; Taplin et al. 2021). Several studies show that where children have been exposed to violence or abuse prior to placement, there is an increased risk of this occurring if SC is not implemented (Bullen et al. 2015). Poorly planned and dysfunctional contact without SC may, in certain cases, be directly harmful to the child (Sen and Broadhurst 2011).

Authorities can implement SC, which involves having a person present to closely observe the conversations and interactions between children and parents (Bullen et al. 2015; Nissen and Ravn 2024; Stang et al. 2023; Stang and Baugerud 2018). The need for SC is discussed based on the risks that contact may pose to the child, depending on the degree of concern about the child’s physical and emotional safety (Boyle 2017; Stang and Baugerud 2018).

A literature review from Australia emphasizes the need for research focused on providing more knowledge for social workers and decision-makers (Bullen et al. 2015). There has been limited research specifically on SC and its impact on the quality of contact arrangements (Boyle 2017; Nissen and Ravn 2024; Stang et al. 2023; Stang and Baugerud 2018; Taplin et al. 2021).

How the concept of SC is defined and what purpose it should serve is addressed in the international literature, but there is no consensus among social workers (Bullen et al. 2015; Stang and Baugerud 2018; Nissen and Ravn 2024). From a research perspective, differences in the understanding and utilization of the term SC between countries present various challenges and may affect the intended purpose of SC (Bullen et al. 2015; Stang and Baugerud 2018). Consequently, it is essential to be precise when referring to research and to consider the concept of SC within the context of the country from which the research originates. When terminology related to child welfare is defined and understood in different ways, it may significantly impact research into child welfare workers’ evaluations and decisions (Aamodt and Sommerfeldt 2024).

Decisions about SC in Norway made by the board were justified by a need for either “control” or “safety”. The ECtHR requires that there are “special grounds” for implementing supervised contact, which were not noted in all decisions (Alvik 2021; Case of K.O. and V.M. v. Norway 2019). It is also crucial that SC involves individual assessments for each child and parent and that the SC is continually evaluated (Bullen et al. 2015; Bullen et al. 2017; Taplin et al. 2021; Kiely et al. 2019; Alvik 2021; Stang et al. 2023).

2. Materials and Methods

This study is part of a larger project about professional discretion in child welfare cases, which is a collaboration among three Norwegian universities. The aims of this project are to explore how social workers in Norwegian child welfare services use discretion when assessing contact rights for children taken into care. In one study, the project examines which factors social workers emphasize in their assessments (Gjedrem et al. 2024). Another study focuses on the ethical dilemmas related to these assessments (Revheim et al. 2025). The present study explores the role of SC in these assessments.

In this project, focus group interviews were conducted with social workers working in eight child welfare services (CWS) offices from four different districts in Norway. The focus groups contained 4 to 7 participants each, totaling 42 participants. All participants in each focus group worked in the same office for child welfare services. They were all educated as social workers with a range of experience, ranging from around two to over twenty years of experience working within CWS. The participants were recruited via an informative letter describing the research project, which was sent to the managers of CWS offices of various sizes to ensure sample diversity (Thagaard 2019). Only social workers whose daily work involved the assessment of contact rights were eligible for inclusion, and the office managers contact only those social workers with such tasks.

Consent was obtained from all participants. Meetings took place in the relevant service office and lasted approximately two hours. All focus group interviews were recorded, transcribed, and anonymized. The project was approved by the Norwegian ethical board (SIKT 2020, number 526815, 5 August 2020).

2.1. Vignette Study and Use of Focus Groups

In the focus groups, participants were presented with a constructed vignette presenting a child for whom child welfare services (CWS) were preparing a case for a care order and contact arrangement. The research group, several of whom had experience working in CWS, contributed to the construction of the vignette. It was a prerequisite that the vignette should closely align with reality (Wilks 2004). The aim was to construct a case featuring the challenges and complexities that social workers typically deal with when assessing contact arrangements. A summary of the vignette is presented in Box 1 below.

Box 1. Summary of the vignette. 

Part 1. Daniel is 9 years old. His parents are married. The father has periodically lived away from the family, and during these periods, the mother has had sole custody of Daniel. The mother has mental health challenges, and the father has a substance abuse problem. Approximately 4 years ago, Child Welfare Services (CWS) received reports of concern from the kindergarten and implemented various assistive measures for the family. The parents do not want contact with CWS. A family group conference was held, but the parents did not follow up. The school and the health visitor have expressed concern because Daniel appears lethargic and has stagnated in growth. When the father lives at home, Daniel is more social and says he wants to live with his father only if he stops drinking. He says little about his mother. CWS is preparing a care order.

Part 2. Daniel is 11 years old and has lived in a foster home with his aunt (his father’s sister) for two years. He has struggled to settle in, but he has now bonded more with his foster mother. The contact arrangement with his parents is for two hours, 12 times a year. Both parents have received treatment that has led to periods of improvement. However, they have repeatedly not shown up for contact or meetings with CWS. After spending time with his mother alone, the boy wets the bed at night. The father promises Daniel more contact and that he will get to move home. The foster mother wonders if she can continue with the foster care task if the father is always making these promises. Daniel says he enjoys living with his aunt and does not want to see his mother, saying, “she’s just stupid and doesn’t understand anything”. He says he wants to see his father and they have a good time together, but finds it “gross when dad is drunk and smells bad”. CWS is going to evaluate Daniel’s contact arrangement.

The use of vignettes as a method for data collection is particularly suitable for gaining insight into the factors that influence decisions (Taylor 2005) and provides an opportunity to compare reflections and discussions related to professional assessments in a situation that resembles reality (Andershed and Andershed 2015). The vignette was designed to elicit reasoning and capture the child welfare workers’ reasons for deciding upon the contact arrangement and stipulating the extent of visitation. The participants were asked to rate the information in the vignette as if it were a normal discussion in the office. Credibility when using vignettes depends on participants’ honesty and willingness to contradict each other, and the researcher must not have too much of an influence on this interaction (Eines and Thylèn 2012; Thagaard 2019; Wilks 2004; Taylor 2005; Andershed and Andershed 2015). The researchers who led the vignette discussions placed great emphasis on creating a sense of safety and consciously reducing their own influence on the participants’ discussions and reasoning. Our impression is that productive discussions occurred in all groups, with participants contributing various viewpoints, both in support of each other’s opinions and in counterarguments, which several researchers have highlighted as essential for obtaining credible material (Eines and Thylèn 2012; Thagaard 2019; Wilks 2004; Taylor 2005; Andershed and Andershed 2015).

Organizing the vignette discussions in the form of focus groups made it possible to compare the assessments among the various CWS offices. The strength of using qualitative focus groups as a methodological approach lies in their potential to reveal in-group variations with respect to attitudes and viewpoints (Tjora 2021). Group dynamics, where the participants respond to each other’s opinions, promote reflections and discussions about the issue at hand (Kitzinger 1995; Smithson 2000).

2.2. Facilitating the Discussions in the Focus Group

Each focus group was conducted by two members of the research group, based on a common instruction describing the implementation of the focus group interviews. First, part 1 of the vignette was presented to the participants. After reading it, they were then asked to decide on the choice of placement and suggest a contact arrangement for Daniel and his parents (stipulating the extent of visitation during a year). After a break, part 2 of the vignette was presented, and the participants were asked to review the contact arrangement that had been in place for two years. In both rounds, the participants were asked to justify which features of the case were decisive for their assessment and what changes in the case would have resulted in a different decision. In the last 10 min of the focus group discussion, the participants were asked to evaluate the vignette and the focus group setting and compare their discussions with how they usually discuss cases in their everyday practice. All participants expressed that the discussions mirrored those they have in their everyday work. However, one difference mentioned was the amount of information available about the family. The long-lasting relationship with and extensive knowledge about the child and their parents, which usually characterize real cases, were lacking, which could have influenced their assessments.

2.3. Analysis

To analyze the transcriptions for the focus group discussions, we used thematic analysis inspired by Braun and Clarke’s reflexive thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2019, 2020). This theoretically flexible approach aims to capture relevant themes and patterns within data. The analytical process consists of several intertwined and non-linear phases, in which the researcher’s continuous reflections during the analytical process are essential (Braun and Clarke 2019).

In the first phase, the two authors read through the material to gain familiarity with the data. In this phase, we became particularly conscious about the significance SC was given when the social workers assessed the extent of contact; thus, we chose to pay particularly close attention to this topic. Next, we coded the material in light of the following analytical questions regarding SC: What is the significance of SC for the assessment of contact? How is SC justified in the determination of contact? It appeared that the term SC was conceived in various ways and that several different reasons were given for using this measure. This led us to explore what social workers associate with the term, and we made a list of codes describing the social workers’ different understandings. Following this, we worked individually to identify possible themes that the codes could be sorted under before discussing them together critically. We constructed possible themes, and after several revisions, we decided on three themes describing the various understandings of SC, which are presented in the results below.

3. Results

In analyzing the context that triggers discussions on reasons for implementing SC, we saw significant variations in the use of the term. The main finding of our analysis is that SC is a multifaceted concept. By grouping the various social workers’ statements about their understanding of the purpose of SC according to the main themes, we identified three main categories for the use of SC:

• Supervised contact as control.
• Supervised contact as support.
• Supervised contact for safety’s sake, enabling the collection of more information and opportunities for observation.

These categories are not mutually exclusive. They are analytical categories, and the same focus group could describe the use of SC with reference to all three variants.

In some focus groups, several interpretations of SC and reasons for implementing it were mentioned and discussed interchangeably, while it was not as clear in other groups. Some participants made clear distinctions between SC, guidance, and support for parents and foster parents, while others did not. There were variations in the evaluations within the groups, leading to some disagreements regarding the emphasis on the child’s needs versus the parents’ challenges.

The starting point of all focus groups in their assessment was the existing objective that children and parents should have contact and that decisions had to be made in the child’s best interest. The quality of contact should be good both for children and the parents in order to strengthen the relationship between them. In addition, some groups mentioned the purpose of facilitating possible reunification, according to the law. The social workers based their discussions on the child’s needs, expressing concern for Daniel and the consequences of neglect. In their assessments for establishing a contact arrangement, they emphasized Daniel’s need for greater stability and calm in his life, ensuring that he would not be subjected to pressure, loyalty conflicts, or anything else that could harm his development. The focus groups considered the parents’ rights and their need for assistance in facilitating positive contact with their son. The CWS’s responsibility to follow-up with parents, children, and foster carers was highlighted, along with the importance of good collaboration among all parties.

3.1. Supervised Contact as Control

A couple of focus groups discussed that if a child had been exposed to violence or abuse, it would be more prudent to introduce SC as a means of control during the visit. In the case of Daniel, the parents’ alcohol abuse and mental health challenges were some of the reasons for the care order. All focus groups expressed concern about how those challenges might affect Daniel during their visits and that contact posed a risk to his health and development.

In this context, discussion arose as to whether SC should be implemented with a clear purpose of control. Emphasis was placed on ensuring that the visit was safe for Daniel and that when there are uncertainties, the child needs protection. In particular, the description of the father’s alcohol problem and Daniel’s statement that he wants to meet his father, “but find it gross when dad is drunk and smells bad”, triggered discussions about SC as control.

There are variations in how social workers believe SC should be managed. Given that Daniel expressed a desire to see his father, several groups argued that it was not strictly necessary to uphold SC during the entire visit but that one should ensure that the father was sober before the visit commenced. Instead of SC during the visit, there were talks of “a check beforehand” to ensure that the father was not under the influence of alcohol. This could be achieved by having the father meet with a dedicated supervisor or caseworker immediately prior to the visit to confirm his sobriety.

Daniel’s statements about not wanting to see his mother and the fact that he wet himself after visits triggered a discussion, and some focus groups described a need for control. Similar to the father, in the case of the mother, SC should be required just at the start of the visit so her mental state can be evaluated, and a social worker described this as follows:

“Yes, I thought that maybe SC should be beforehand, so that it doesn’t need to have people present during the visit. But a check on where he (the father) is, and the same with the mother, to find out more about how she functions when she is going through a difficult period.”

Another factor that triggered discussions about SC as control was the father’s continuous promises during visits that Daniel would have more visits with him and overnight stays and that he would soon be able to move back in with the parents. The social workers discussed how this led to many disappointments for Daniel and became very burdensome for him. In addition, Daniel experienced disappointments when his parents did not always show up for the agreed-upon visits; as such, the visits lacked stability for Daniel, as illustrated in the following quote:

“And it is terribly difficult for a child when parents constantly say that you will soon move home again; that is something we have experienced many times—that children become very insecure… it can also be SC, that there should be someone present who can help if that is the topic of conversation.”

This was a theme in several focus groups. There was a strong consensus that this lack of stability was not good for Daniel and that it would be better to have SC involving a person with the authority to either help avert this type of conversation or end the visit prematurely.

Most of the focus groups discussed SC as a control measure and clarified it as a serious intervention, which can affect the interaction and impact the quality of the visits. The social workers noted that they must be mindful of the use of SC; it should be instigated only when necessary. The natural interaction between the child and the parents should be disrupted as little as possible, but at the same time, the child should feel safe during the visit. The following quote shows an example of one of the social workers’ reflections:

“It is important to distinguish between SC as control function and SC as support… it is important to be conscious of how SC is used because it is a control measure and we should not use it more than we need. We need to have an awareness of what SC is and why it should be present, and it should be a minimum because it is important to maintain the natural interaction between the child and the parents-at the same time as it is safe for the child.”

In this quote, we see that the concept of SC is nuanced, and a distinction between support and control is made. Again, the emphasis is on how to protect Daniel and the benefits of a visit without another person present to maintain the natural interaction between Daniel and his parents.

3.2. Supervised Contact as Support

About half of the focus groups discussed the need to implement SC during visits based on a need for support for Daniel, his parents, and the foster mother. During the discussions, various terms were used interchangeably, such as support, guidance, and help, all of which were linked to the goal of achieving good-quality contact arrangements.

In the other half of the focus groups, a clear distinction was made that SC represents control, while guidance for parents during visits is part of the CWS’s responsibility to follow-up. These groups experienced a shift in practice after the ECtHR verdicts against Norway. There were variations in how the social workers talked about their responsibilities to follow-up and facilitate visits, but all groups were concerned about the role of the CWS. The groups also pointed out the lack of effort and support that this family (in the vignette) seemed to have received, as illustrated in the following quote:

“…we must remember that we are obligated to provide parents with both follow-up and guidance after a care order, … when we talked about SC and what function it should have, control might be one thing, but what we have discussed a lot is having someone present who can support and guide, which seems to be lacking here since we have not strengthened them (the parents)…”

When the focus groups that described SC as support discussed support for the child, unpredictability during visits was highlighted as a reason. The aim would be to support Daniel to prevent negative development, especially because he exhibited negative reactions, such as wetting himself, after previous visits.

In one focus group, in which the CWS had changed its practices regarding contact, the social workers they expressed the opinion that rather than a decision from the Tribunal on SC, the child should have a support person with them during visits, which they referred to as a “safety person”. Other focus groups also discussed “safety persons” for the child, although their presence is not always linked to a decision about SC, as the following quote illustrates:

“…if the visits are very stressful for him… a good safety persons should be around him (Daniel), because now it is important that he stabilizes and develops, because if it remains this way, then he will stagnate, and he needs peace…”

Some of the focus groups concluded that regardless of whether a formal supervisor or a safety person attends, Daniel needs to have someone present during the visit so that he knows he has someone to rely on, and this individual should provide Daniel with emotional support during the visit. Another focus group discussed what Daniel’s own statements might lead to, such as reduced contact or the need to leave foster care because the foster mother would not continue to provide care. They wondered that if a child’s statement results in a reduction in contact, would it be better to have “the contact in organized circumstances?”, which would mean taking care of Daniel during the visit and preventing issues with a decision of SC. This could also help Daniel process his experiences.

Most focus groups were concerned that the parents also need support during contact and guidance, whether that be formal SC or part of the follow-up process. One social worker expressed this concern as follows:

“What do the parents need to be the best version of themselves?”

Some focus groups discussed support and guidance both during the visit itself, beforehand, and afterward. They also explained that the difference between support and SC is that the latter grants the supervisors the authority to interrupt the visit if they determine it to be harmful to the child.

In groups discussing whether SC is necessary, various suggestions for support for the parents arose. One group believed that a trusted person should help the parents establish a good contact arrangement and step back if the interaction between the child and parents is positive. Support and guidance should focus on increasing the visitation competence of the parents, including providing guidance on understanding their child. Additionally, the CWS has an important responsibility to cooperate with the parents, as described in one group:

“And also discussing with the parents; how damaging it is that they keep promising Daniel that he will move back home… And I don’t know how much the parents are made aware of Daniel’s reactions, but I think it is important that they actually get to know this, to understand what all this unrest does to Daniel; the fact that they do not meet, the relationship he has with his mother.”

Some focus groups emphasized that there is a need for SC as a control measure for Daniel’s father, while for his mother, there is a need for support, as illustrated in the following quote:

“We have the possibility for SC if there is substance abuse. I don’t know the extent of the father’s substance use, but it may allow for SC. If the mother is limited in her caregiving ability, then there may be need for someone to be present to help and support.”

The idea that someone else should be present during visits to support the foster mother (the aunt) was linked by some focus groups to SC and by others to the CWS’s responsibility to provide guidance for foster parents. Most groups considered this issue when evaluating the contact arrangement; the aunt (foster mother) feels pressured by her brother and parents, and the contact arrangement is so burdensome that she is unsure about continuing to provide foster care. Both support and guidance were discussed to frame the contact arrangements and, specifically, to help the aunt cope with the pressure she feels from her brother (Daniel’s father). The following quote illustrates this:

“It is important with SC so she (the aunt) does not have to deal with that pressure all the time, especially considering that they talk to Daniel about moving home, which becomes a burden.”

3.3. Supervised Contact for Safety’s Sake, Enabling the Collection of More Information and Opportunities for Observation

The focus groups indicated the need for sufficient information about the child, the parents, and the extended family in the assessments. This is necessary to achieve a holistic view of the family and multiple perspectives on the complex evaluations that are required before a decision is made. Some focus groups suggested a decision of SC for “safety’s sake” because of a lack of information, as illustrated in the following quote:

“At the beginning, I think we should have SC to be able to assess the quality of the contact arrangement, and the contact competence of the parents.”

Some groups also noted that they did not know much about Daniel’s relationship with his mother, and they expressed concern about his situation during the visit. In one group, this was expressed as follows:

“I would have considered SC when Daniel doesn’t express why, but just that he doesn’t want to meet his mother.”

In this case, they discussed SC as an opportunity to observe Daniel’s reactions, the parents’ current state, and the interaction between Daniel and his parents. SC would provide social workers with more reliable information about how the contact arrangements work for Daniel and whether more protection might be needed.

Obtaining more information about how the visits work was a topic of discussion in several groups, and it was then suggested that this could be achieved through observation, without considering/defining it as SC, with one social worker describing it as follows:

“…in some cases, we need more information where we implement not SC, but observation during visits, but it is in a way (supervision); one could say it is the same or not, but for us it has been important to distinguish between the support person, being there to observe, and providing guidance.

3.4. Supervised Contact Viewed as Burdensome

Several focus groups discussed the balance between the emphasis on the child’s need for safety and protection during visit and the need for SC and how, on the other hand, SC and the presence of another person during the visit can affect the quality of the contact. They noted that this could be a burden for both the child and the parents, which should ideally be avoided. In three different focus groups, this was expressed as follows:

“We are always a burden; we cannot hide that. Our presence will be burdensome.”

“I think that if we can manage to have no SC, then it is for the contact that is supposed to be there, but we have to secure the child and be sure that it is advisable in that case.”

“We must be aware of the use of SC, as it is a control measure that we should not use more than necessary. We must be aware of the purpose because it is important to maintain the natural interaction between children and parents. We must have a focus on what it takes to make it safe, especially for the child.”

4. Discussion

Our findings shows that SC is a prominent assessment theme when social workers determine a contact arrangement for children and parents after the child has been taken into care. The social workers discussions were related to the purpose of SC in the legislation (Child Welfare Act 2021), the need to protect and ensure the child’s safety so the contact does not harm the child’s health or development, or that SC does not pose an unreasonable burden. Several studies show that contact can harm the child’s development (Boyle 2017; Bullen et al. 2015; Sen and Broadhurst 2011), especially without SC (Sen and Broadhurst 2011). The social workers in our study showed that in order to establish good contact arrangements, the assessments had to be related to personal contact and knowledge of the child and parents. Individual assessments and continual evaluations are also crucial, according to research (Alvik 2021; Boyle 2017; Bullen et al. 2015; Bullen et al. 2017; Kiely et al. 2019; Stang et al. 2023; Taplin et al. 2021). One prerequisite for these professional assessments, which the social workers in our study were concerned about, is having sufficient information on the case and, ideally, good relationships and familiarity with the children and parents involved. This emphasizes the importance of social workers’ relational practice and underlines again the need for good individual assessments for each child and their parents (Alvik 2021; Boyle 2017; Bullen et al. 2015; Bullen et al. 2017; Kiely et al. 2019; Nissen and Ravn 2024; Stang et al. 2023; Stang and Baugerud 2018; Taplin et al. 2021). Obtaining a holistic view of the family and multiple perspectives on the complex evaluations that are required before a decision is made is necessary.

A key finding in this study is that SC emerged as a concept with various interpretations and justifications for its implementation, and it showed different reasons for which a social worker may consider SC. Is the aim for SC to control the situation to protect the child, to help and support both the child and the parents during the visit, for safety’s sake, or to obtain more information and observation possibilities? Or all of the above? As demonstrated by the international literature, we know that there is no consensus among social workers on how SC is defined and what purpose it should have (Stang and Baugerud 2018; Bullen et al. 2015; Nissen and Ravn 2024). This may affect both social workers’ professional knowledge and practice in CWS according to the intended purpose of SC, as we can see in this study and others (Bullen et al. 2015; Stang and Baugerud 2018; Nissen and Ravn 2024).

Our findings were particularly related to safeguarding the child because of their parents’ struggles with alcohol abuse and mental health. Other main points of discussion were the fact that the child had lived in foster care for two years (in part 2 of the vignette) and the assessment for evaluating the child’s contact arrangement. The participants expressed concern about the child’s statements and reactions after the visits in relation to both the mother and the father, the father’s promises for more visits and moving home, and that the parents had “repeatedly not shown up for contact”. SC was discussed to avoid a reduction in the number of visits. In their discussions, they referred to the European Court of Human Rights’ stipulation that there should be a clear reason for SC based on “special grounds” (Alvik 2021; Case of K.O. and V.M. v. Norway 2019), and that unsupervised contact can sometimes harm a child’s development (Sen and Broadhurst 2011).

SC involves having another person present at visits to closely monitor the conversations and interactions between children and their parents. In Norway, this person has the authority to interrupt the visitation, and they usually write a report about the visit for the CWS. Our findings show that social workers are concerned about how this person’s role may affect the quality of contact, particularly the facilitation of natural interactions between children and parents. Some of the social workers described this “as a burden”. Preferably, it should be avoided, although not at the expense of the child’s safety. This underlines again the need for good individual assessments for each child and their parents, including cooperation with the parents around good solutions, like having a safety person, as described later.

Parents that no longer care for their child daily struggle with a lot of challenges and are vulnerable as a group, and that requires understanding and knowledge, as the social workers in our study pointed out as their responsibly (Aamodt and Sommerfeldt 2022; 2024; Bullen et al. 2015; Healy et al. 2023; Kiely et al. 2019; Olkowska and Aamodt 2022; Stang and Baugerud 2018; Stang et al. 2023; Syrstad and Slettebø 2020; Taplin et al. 2021). Our findings showed that all focus groups discussed their responsibility in monitoring the contact arrangements, with support and guidance provided to both children and parents. For example, one focus group discussed “what do the parents need to be the best version of themselves”. Some of the groups classified this as SC, while others described it as part of their responsibility according to the law and regulations on following-up with the child and parents after the implementation of a care order and placement (Child Welfare Act 2021, § 8-3).

When the social workers in our study highlighted support and guidance for parents, they discussed the advantages of offering it as a collaboration, preferably among social workers (CWS), children, and foster carers. They emphasized the necessity of presenting guidance for parents as a support service rather than a control measure. An important development in professional social work is to focus more on involving and collaborating with parents, which can lead to better cooperation and empowerment. One positive outcome is that it could enhance parents’ visitation competence and, ultimately, their chances of reunification with the child. These positive effects are supported by research, both on general follow-up after a care placement and specific support and guidance related to the goal of achieving good visitation (Aamodt and Sommerfeldt 2022; 2024; Bullen et al. 2015; Healy et al. 2023; Kiely et al. 2019; Olkowska and Aamodt 2022; Stang and Baugerud 2018; Stang et al. 2023; Syrstad and Slettebø 2020; Taplin et al. 2021). SC should be a form of protection for the child, and the extent to which additional support and guidance for parents can reduce the need for SC is unknown. There is a need for evidence-based guidance programs (Bullen et al. 2015; Bullen et al. 2017; Taplin et al. 2021) and for developing improved methods for supporting conversations (Stang et al. 2023). There is also a need for more programs for supporting parent’s to maintain and strengthen their relationships with their children (Healy et al. 2023).

The social workers in our study were focused on supporting the child because of the reactions and insecurity they displayed during visitation, and they discussed what is needed for the child to feel safe, as well as the parents. Instead of SC as a decision from the Child Welfare Tribunal, some groups suggest the use of a safety person, which can be an individual found in cooperation with the child and parents. The child’s participation is central to these assessments; just like the parents, the children need to be involved in decisions and arrangements regarding visitation, whether SC or a safety person should be implemented, what should the purpose be, and how SC should be conducted (Bullen et al. 2015; Fitzgerald and Graham 2011; Nissen and Ravn 2024; Revheim et al. 2025; Stang et al. 2023). Our study did not focus on the discussion about the boy’s participation, which is discussed in another article from the same project that this study is based on (Revheim et al. 2025).

Strengths and Limitations of the Study

We used focus group interviews linked to a constructed vignette. The strength of this qualitative method lies in its ability to provide insight into the field we are studying and to reveal variations in attitudes and viewpoints, especially since the participants responded to each other’s opinions. This deepens the meaning contained within the data and is expressed in our data, which uncovered both depth and breadth in the evaluations. Possible challenges related to focus groups can arise due to the danger of “groupthink”, in which some members become too dominant, and not all voices are heard. However, in our experience, everyone spoke up, and the participants showed confidence in each other.

Vignette studies may lead to possible methodological challenges; for example, a constructed case provides limited information about the family’s situation. The discussions can thus be less realistic than those pertaining to real issues. However, all the groups expressed that the case was realistic and that their discussions shared clear similarities with those that they experienced the normal course of their work. Overall, this method provided insights into aspects that can contribute to a better understanding of SC.

Another limitation could be that SC was not a presented topic in the vignette, nor was it specifically addressed in the vignette; this might have influenced the focus groups discussions. If we had explicitly asked the participants to justify their use of SC when regulating contact rights, we could have received more in-depth information about their different (professional) understandings. However, when the variation in the understanding of SC emerged, we found it in and of itself an interesting topic to explore, specifically with a focus on the dimension of SC as a burden (control) rather than a measure of support and safety for the child and their parents.

5. Conclusions

This study reveals a need for social workers to develop greater awareness in their assessments and decisions regarding the implementation of SC and that there is little knowledge about the effects of SC as a control measure. This study adds to the existing knowledge on assessments regarding SC; however, there is a need for further research on the topic, specifically how it is practiced, the effects of SC on children and parents, the social workers relational practice, and the significance of children’s and parents’ involvement and participation. Furthermore, it is important to explore the impact of various programs and methods for guiding and supporting parents, foster parents, and children, as well as strengthening cooperation among all stakeholders for the benefit of the child. More research on the possibilities of child participation in SC assessments, like the ongoing study in Denmark (Nissen and Ravn 2024), is required.

We hope that this article contributes to increasing awareness of supervised contact.