The Risk of Not Knowing—How Information Sharing Affects Parents’ Ability to Maintain and Develop Family Ties After a Child’s Removal from Parental Care

Abstract

The ability of parents to maintain and develop family ties after a child is placed in public care is a fundamental yet challenging aspect of child welfare. While legal frameworks emphasize the preservation of parent–child relationships, limited research has explored how access to information affects parental involvement over time. This study draws on qualitative semi-structured interviews with 31 parents whose children were placed in public care to explore how parents experience information-sharing structures within child welfare services and how these experiences influence their ability to maintain and develop family ties with their children. A thematic analysis identifies three key themes: (1) lack of information, (2) conflicting and inconsistent information, and (3) bureaucratic barriers and systemic obstacles to information. Findings indicate that restricted and unpredictable access to updates fosters uncertainty, emotional distress, and a weakening sense of parental identity. Moreover, discretionary decision-making and institutional constraints contribute to inconsistencies in communication, further reinforcing parental exclusion. These findings highlight the role of information sharing as more than an administrative function; it is a structuring mechanism that facilitates or hinders ongoing parent–child relationships. The study highlights the importance of establishing clearer and more consistent communication structures to ensure that parents remain informed and can maintain a relationship with their child in public care.

1. Introduction

This study explores how information-sharing structures within Norwegian child welfare services influence parents’ ability to maintain and develop family ties after a child is removed from parental care. Under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) (2024) has ruled that state authorities must take positive measures to preserve family ties after a care removal, ensuring that separation does not result in an unnecessary or permanent rupture in the parent–child relationship. This obligation reflects the broader principle that family life does not end when a child enters public care, and authorities must facilitate meaningful parental involvement, even when reunification is not an immediate option (European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) 2024). Maintaining these ties is essential for both parents’ and children’s emotional well-being, identity development, and parents’ continued sense of attachment and caregiving role (Balsells et al. 2014; Gerdts-Andresen et al. 2024; Haight et al. 2001; Stang et al. 2023).

While the legal framework underscores the importance of maintaining family ties, the practical mechanisms by which these relationships are sustained remain complex (Gerdts-Andresen et al. 2024). Previous research has primarily focused on visitation arrangements, placement stability, and reunification efforts (e.g., Bernedo and González-Pasarín 2024; Burtch et al. 2024; Revheim et al. 2025; Wissö et al. 2024). However, less attention has been given to how access to information shapes the parent–child relationship over time. Parental engagement is not solely dependent on physical contact but is deeply connected to parents’ ability to stay informed about their child’s well-being, development, and daily life (Kiraly and Humphreys 2013). Studies suggest that transparent and predictable information sharing can help parents sustain emotional connections and maintain their role even after separation (Morrison 2015). When parents experience restricted or inconsistent access to updates, they often report heightened emotional distress, uncertainty, and a diminished sense of parental identity (Eriksen 2024; Suomi et al. 2023; Tembo and Studsrød 2018; Aamodt and Olkowska 2023).

Despite the recognized importance of maintaining family ties in child welfare policies, there remains limited research on how information-sharing practices influence parent–child relationships. While some studies suggest that open and structured communication between parents and foster carers can enhance relational stability and support children’s emotional well-being (Memarnia et al. 2015; Syrstad and Slettebø 2020; Wissö et al. 2024), others indicate that barriers to information access contribute to parental disengagement, relational disconnection, and misaligned expectations during visitations (Balsells et al. 2014; Memarnia et al. 2015). Moreover, little is known about how bureaucratic structures and professional discretion influence the sharing of information with parents, particularly when updates are mediated through child welfare services and other institutions such as schools and healthcare providers (Berrick et al. 2016). Variations in information-sharing practices may result in inconsistencies in how and when parents receive updates about their children, contributing to uncertainty and emotional distress (Eriksen 2024; Otterlei and Engebretsen 2021; Aamodt and Olkowska 2023). The lack of clarity in policies and practices raises questions about how information access is regulated, to what extent parents receive consistent updates, and how these practices impact their ability to stay involved in their child’s life.

This study addresses this gap by exploring how parents experience information-sharing structures within Norwegian child welfare services and how these experiences shape their ability to maintain and develop family ties after a child’s removal from parental care. In this context, “information” refers to both formal updates about the child’s care situation, health, and education, as well as more personal knowledge about the child’s thoughts, emotional well-being, and everyday experiences. According to Gerdts-Andresen et al. (2024), these different forms of information are significant in different ways: while some relate to procedural transparency and parental rights, others are essential for enabling parents to preserve, strengthen, and develop emotional ties with their child in line with ECHR Article 8.

Professional Discretion and Information Sharing

Child welfare services operate within a system where frontline professionals hold significant discretion in their decision-making, particularly concerning what information is shared with parents after a care order is issued, how it is shared, and to what extent. To understand how child welfare communication practices and information-sharing structures may influence parents’ ability to maintain and develop family ties with children in public care, it is necessary to examine the role of professional discretion.

Professional discretion refers to the autonomy that frontline workers, such as child welfare professionals, have in interpreting policies and making case-specific decisions (Grimen and Molander 2008). Within child welfare, discretion is particularly relevant in decisions about information sharing, as professionals must assess what information parents should receive, when they should receive it, and in what form. While discretion allows for individualized decision-making, it also introduces significant variability, meaning that some parents may receive frequent updates while others are left with minimal or no information. Here, Lipsky’s (1980) theory of street-level bureaucracy provides a valuable lens for understanding how discretionary power functions in these settings. Lipsky argues that frontline professionals operate in high-demand environments with limited resources, forcing them to prioritize cases, set informal rules, and exercise personal judgment when applying policies. While Lipsky (1980) highlights how discretionary decision-making emerges in response to resource constraints, Brodkin (2011) expands on this by demonstrating that discretion is not only an individual-level phenomenon but is also shaped by institutional norms and organizational structures. Child welfare’s discretion in information sharing is influenced by caseworkers’ professional judgments and agency-wide communication practices. This suggests that parental access to information variations may be embedded in systemic practices rather than solely resulting from frontline workers’ subjective interpretations (Brodkin 2011). Consequently, access to updates about a child’s well-being is not solely determined by formal regulations but is significantly shaped by caseworkers’ interpretations of what is appropriate or necessary. As a result, parents’ ability to stay informed about their child’s life is not a guaranteed right but rather a negotiated outcome of discretionary decision-making.

Molander (2016) expands on this by highlighting the epistemic constraints of discretion, referring to how professionals must determine what information is relevant and permissible to share within institutional guidelines. These constraints create a discretionary space where information-sharing practices are not standardized but vary according to the caseworker’s interpretation. The absence of explicit policies regulating access to updates results in inconsistencies, reinforcing parental uncertainty. While discretion is necessary for adapting decisions to individual circumstances, it also introduces structural risks, particularly in cases where decision-making is inconsistent, opaque, or influenced by subjective biases. The variability in information-sharing practices highlights what Grimen and Molander (2008) call the “burden of discretion,” referring to the tension between allowing professionals to exercise judgment while ensuring fair, predictable, and transparent service provision. Zacka (2017) expands on this, emphasizing the moral dimensions of discretion and arguing that repeated exposure to discretionary power does not only affect decision-making at an individual level but may also shape organizational cultures over time. When discretion is used primarily as a regulatory mechanism rather than as a tool for engagement, exclusionary practices can become normalized, reinforcing parental detachment from their child’s life.

Goodin (1986) further critiques the risks of discretionary power by emphasizing how discretion can reinforce power hierarchies, create unpredictable decision-making, and contribute to service users’ uncertainty about their rights and entitlements. When professionals have significant autonomy in controlling access to information, previous studies have found that parents experience instability in staying informed about their child (Eriksen 2024; Gerdts-Andresen et al. 2024; Aamodt and Olkowska 2023). The unpredictability of discretionary decision-making fosters a sense of insecurity, as parents cannot anticipate when or if they will receive updates (Eriksen 2024; Suomi et al. 2023; Aamodt and Olkowska 2023). Moreover, without explicit accountability mechanisms, discretion may lead to unjustified restrictions on information access, thereby reinforcing parents’ exclusion from their child’s daily life (Gerdts-Andresen et al. 2024). In the context of child welfare, these risks underscore how discretionary practices in information sharing can contribute to parental exclusion rather than facilitating engagement (Balsells et al. 2014; Eriksen 2024; Memarnia et al. 2015; Aamodt and Olkowska 2023).

2. Methods

This article is based on a sub-study within a larger qualitative project exploring parents’ experiences following a care order in Norway. The current study focuses specifically on how parents experience information-sharing structures within child welfare services and how these experiences shape their ability to maintain and develop family ties after a child has been removed from parental care.

2.1. Data Collection

The study was conducted in Norway. Recruitment of participants was carried out through child welfare services and organizations that work with parents whose children are in public care. These services agreed to distribute study information and participation invitations to parents whose children were living in public care at the time of the study. Parents who had previously participated in similar studies were excluded. This was confirmed with each participant prior to the interview. Information was distributed via email and direct outreach. Of the 34 parents who expressed interest, 31 met the inclusion criteria, which required that they had at least one child placed in public care at the time of the interview. These parents collectively had 48 children placed in either kinship or nonrelative foster care.

The participating parents were located across different municipalities and received follow-ups from various child welfare services. The predominant reason for the care order was reported as “emotional neglect,” with parents clarifying that there were no concerns related to substance abuse, physical violence, or practical caregiving deficiencies. This predominance of emotional neglect is consistent with broader patterns in Norwegian child welfare (Gerdts-Andresen 2021). Some parents, however, identified domestic violence in their previous relationships as a contributing factor to their perceived lack of caregiving capacity. None of the parents had consented to the care order, and some had children placed by different child welfare services due to relocations, leading them to navigate multiple case management systems.

Semi-structured interviews explored how parents perceived their role and connection to their child after a care order was issued. The interviews invited parents to reflect on their experiences from the time of removal and discuss how access to information, or lack thereof, influences their ability to maintain and develop family ties after a child is removed from parental care. The semi-structured format enabled open-ended exploration while maintaining consistency across participants. Follow-up questions were adapted to capture themes introduced by parents, ensuring that the discussions remained grounded in their lived experiences. Interviews were conducted in Norwegian, either in person or digitally, based on each participant’s preference. The interviews were first transcribed and translated into English by a professional translator. The research team then reviewed and quality-checked the translations to ensure that the original meaning and tone of the participants’ statements were preserved, using a collaborative cross-checking process among the authors.

Interviews lasted between 35 min and 2.5 h, with an average duration of 1 h and 45 min. One interview was conducted in two sessions, as the participant wished to provide additional reflections after the initial conversation.

2.2. Data Analysis

This study applies thematic analysis, as outlined by Braun and Clarke (2021), to identify patterns in parents’ descriptions of their experiences with information sharing in child welfare. The analysis was inductive, meaning that themes were derived from the data. The analytical process began with repeated readings of the transcribed interviews to develop familiarity with the data. Initial reflections were noted during this phase, and preliminary ideas for patterns were documented. A line-by-line open coding process was then conducted, systematically identifying key aspects of how parents described their access to information, the perceived consistency of updates, and their ability to stay involved in their child’s life. The coding was iterative, allowing for the refinement of codes to ensure they accurately captured both explicit statements and implicit meanings in parents’ experiences.

As the analysis progressed, codes were grouped into broader categories that reflected shared patterns across participants. These categories were continuously reviewed and refined to ensure they accurately captured key aspects of parental experiences with information sharing. Through this process, the data revealed recurring patterns in how parents navigated access to information that led to three overreaching themes of how information-sharing structures within child welfare services influence parents’ ability to maintain and develop family ties after a child is removed from parental care: (1) lack of information, which captures parents’ experiences of uncertainty and emotional distress due to inadequate updates about their children; (2) conflicting and inconsistent information, highlighting how discrepancies in communication deepened distrust and created further obstacles to engagement; and (3) bureaucratic barriers and systemic obstacles to information, which illustrates how institutional structures actively shaped parents’ access to knowledge and reinforced their sense of exclusion. The findings are presented in a descriptive form, reflecting patterns in how the parents articulated their experiences.

2.3. Ethics

The study was conducted following ethical guidelines from the Norwegian National Research Ethics Committee for the Social Sciences and Humanities (NESH) and was pre-approved by the Norwegian Agency for Shared Services in Education and Research (SIKT; reference numbers 387879 and 454360). All participants were provided with detailed information about the study, including its purpose, their rights as participants, and assurances of confidentiality and voluntary participation. Informed consent was obtained before each interview.

3. Results

The following section presents the thematic analysis results, organized around three interconnected themes that capture recurring patterns across participants’ narratives. Each theme illustrates distinct, yet overlapping, aspects of how information-sharing practices influenced parents’ ability to maintain and develop family ties after a care order.

3.1. Lack of Information

The emotional and psychological strain experienced by parents following a care order is deeply connected to the uncertainty surrounding their role in their child’s life. Many parents described pervasive feelings of anxiety, grief, and distress related to their limited access to information about their child’s well-being and the unpredictability of visitation arrangements. The absence of regular updates about their child’s daily life, emotional state, and development created what was described as a profound sense of disconnection, reinforcing feelings of helplessness. This uncertainty was even more distressing for some than the care order itself, as it prolonged the emotional turmoil rather than allowing them to come to terms with their new reality.

Across the interviews, the lack of information appeared to affect parents’ involvement in three interrelated ways: first, by generating emotional strain and anxiety; second, by undermining their sense of parental identity; and third, by making it difficult to prepare for and maintain meaningful contact.

First, many parents described experiences of emotional strain and anxiety resulting from waiting for information that never came. A recurring theme among parents was the feeling of being trapped in a state of limbo, where the absence of communication fostered a constant sense of helplessness. Several explained how they waited anxiously for updates only to receive minimal or vague responses that provided little reassurance:

It’s the not knowing that’s the hardest. I could deal with it if I knew how she was doing and what she was thinking. But this silence leaves me imagining the worst.

I sit there thinking: Is she okay? Is she struggling? Is she asking for me? I don’t know anything, and it eats me up inside.

Some explained that even brief, consistent updates would have helped them stay grounded, but information was rarely volunteered and often vague when requested:

If I could just get a message now and then telling me she’s ‘fine,’ it would make all the difference. But they don’t tell me anything unless I ask; even then, it’s vague.

For some, this lack of communication created the impression that they were being deliberately distanced from their child, intensifying their distress. Without updates, many parents felt they were being erased from their child’s life, with no real insight into their development or experiences. This led to a profound sense of disconnection. As one of the parents said:

He’ll talk about his birthday, and I didn’t even know it had happened. That’s how disconnected I am.

Several parents described how the persistent uncertainty and silence made them feel as though they were slowly disappearing from their child’s life, a sense reinforced by the absence of even basic updates. The ongoing emotional strain they experienced was not limited to specific situations but became part of their everyday existence, reinforcing feelings of distance and disconnection.

Second, beyond the immediate emotional strain, the lack of information undermined parents’ sense of parental identity. Several parents described how being excluded from their child’s everyday life challenged their understanding of what it meant to be a mother or father:

I still feel like her mother, but at the same time, I don’t know what that means anymore. Am I just someone who visits occasionally? Do I even have the right to call myself a mother when I know so little about her life now?

The psychological consequences of this lack of information were far-reaching. Many parents described how the constant uncertainty translated into chronic stress, intrusive thoughts, and even physical symptoms. The absence of updates did not just affect their mental state; it manifested in sleeplessness, loss of appetite, and physical tension:

I wake up every morning with this crushing weight on my chest. I wonder if today is the day I’ll finally hear something. And when I don’t, it feels like I’m slowly disappearing from her life.

I can feel my body reacting to the stress. I start shaking, my stomach knots up, and I get headaches. It’s like my whole system is on alert all the time.

I used to sleep fine, but now I wake up every few hours, hoping for a message or a clue about how she’s doing. But there’s nothing.

For many, this growing uncertainty about their role as a parent made it increasingly difficult to relate to their child in a natural way. The sense of not knowing what the child was going through or needed often left them feeling unprepared and disconnected during contact.

Third, as several parents described, the lack of information made it difficult to prepare for and maintain meaningful contact. Parents described how they often entered visitation settings without any knowledge of how their child was doing emotionally or practically. This lack of preparation made visits feel unpredictable and strained, and left several parents unsure of how to relate to their child during the limited time they had together:

I go into visits blind. I don’t know if he’s had a good week, if something upset him, if he’s been asking about me. It’s like playing a guessing game, and I always feel like I’m failing.

The worst part is when I say something and she looks confused—like I should have known something I didn’t. But no one tells me what’s happening in her life.

This disconnect affected their ability to engage in a natural and responsive way. Instead of building on previous conversations or routines, visits often felt like starting over. Several parents expressed that their children seemed to expect them to know what had happened since the last visit, and when they didn’t, the interaction became awkward and emotionally distant:

In the beginning [after the care removal], I was desperate for any bit of information, but now I’ve stopped asking. It’s easier not to ask [for information] than to keep being ignored or told nothing.

Over time, this repeated experience of not knowing led some parents to question whether they were still seen as someone meaningful in their child’s life. The uncertainty surrounding the child’s emotional state, combined with the sense of being left out, made it harder to sustain a confident and coherent parental role:

Does he still think of me as his mom? Or am I just another adult he sees now and then?

I try to be present, to be someone she can rely on. But how can I do that when I don’t know what she needs from me?

For some parents, this identity crisis became a source of deep psychological distress. Some sought professional support to cope with the emotional burden, but many felt that therapy alone could not resolve the fundamental issue—which was their exclusion from their child’s life:

Talking to someone helps a little, but in the end, I still don’t know what’s happening with my child. That’s the real problem. How can I heal when I don’t even know if she’s okay?

Despite the emotional toll, many parents expressed a strong desire for greater transparency and inclusion in their child’s life, not just for their own sake but for the well-being of their child. Many felt that having access to consistent and relevant information was essential for maintaining and developing a meaningful relationship:

All I want is to be included. To know what’s happening in my child’s life. To not feel like I’m being erased from her world.

They talk about what’s best for the child, but how can it be best for him if I’m treated like a stranger? I need to know him, to be able to support him.

Overall, the parents’ accounts highlight how the absence of information shaped their everyday experiences after the care order. Across the interviews, emotional strain and anxiety, a weakened parental identity, and challenges in maintaining contact were closely tied to how information was withheld or inconsistently shared. This lack of knowledge also influenced how they approached contact with their children, often leaving them unprepared or unsure of how to relate. These aspects were described not as isolated episodes but as ongoing conditions that affected their ability to remain engaged in the child’s life.

3.2. Conflicting and Inconsistent Information

A central challenge parents within this study described was the inconsistency and contradictions in the information they received about their child’s well-being, care situation, and visitation arrangements. While some parents were given occasional updates, others described receiving unclear, incomplete, or conflicting information. These inconsistencies appeared in different ways: first, through contradictory or vague communication from professionals; second, through unpredictable changes and uneven information sharing between actors; and third, through a growing sense of exclusion from decisions and a breakdown in trust that made it harder to stay engaged.

First, a recurring issue was that different professionals provided varying accounts of the child’s situation, leading parents to question the reliability of the information they received. This inconsistency created confusion and emotional distress, making it difficult for parents to feel secure in their understanding of their child’s well-being. Some described how conflicting statements made them feel manipulated or misled, further deepening their distrust in the system:

One caseworker tells me my daughter is doing great, and then another tells me she’s struggling emotionally. Which is it? I don’t even know what to believe anymore.

One day they say he’s thriving, the next they say he’s having a hard time adjusting. It makes me wonder—are they just telling me what they think I want to hear?

I get these vague messages that don’t really say anything. If I ask too many questions, they act like I’m being difficult. But how am I supposed to understand what’s really going on?

These shifting and often unclear accounts left parents uncertain about what to believe and hesitant to rely on the information provided. This confusion was compounded by the unpredictable nature of contact arrangements and the manner in which information was communicated across professionals.

Second, beyond inconsistent updates, delayed or last-minute changes to visitation plans added to parents’ frustration. Many parents described how they would prepare emotionally for a visit only to have it canceled or altered with little explanation. This lack of stability in contact arrangements reinforced a feeling of instability in their parental role:

I show up for a visit, and they suddenly tell me she’s not coming. No warning, no explanation. Just ‘she’s not available today.’ Do they even think about what that does to me?

We had a set schedule, but they change things all the time. Sometimes I don’t even find out until the last minute. I feel like I have no control over when I get to see my child.

For many parents, this uncertainty affected how they approached visitation. Without reliable information about their child’s state of mind, they often felt unprepared, leading to awkward and emotionally difficult interactions. Several parents described how their child’s behavior during visits did not match the reports they had received, further eroding their confidence in the information provided:

They told me she was happy and doing well, but when I saw her, she was withdrawn and barely spoke to me. How am I supposed to trust anything they say?

He was so distant during our visit. I kept thinking—if everything is fine like they say, then why does he seem so sad? I don’t know what to believe anymore.

Some parents also highlighted discrepancies in how information was shared between foster families and caseworkers, leaving them feeling excluded from key aspects of their child’s life. Several expressed frustration that important events, health concerns, or emotional difficulties were not communicated in time for them to support their child properly:

I didn’t even know he had been sick until I asked. It’s like they don’t think I deserve to know basic things about my own child.

They told me she was ‘fine,’ but later, I found out she had been struggling in school. Why was I the last to know?

For several parents, these inconsistencies in practical arrangements and communication between professionals were not only frustrating in themselves but also contributed to a more profound feeling of being excluded from decision-making processes and ignored as caregivers.

Third, this experience of exclusion increasingly extended to decisions about their child’s care, with many parents feeling that their insights were disregarded. Some recounted how they had repeatedly expressed concerns about their child’s needs only to be ignored or dismissed:

I told them something was wrong, but they brushed me off. Months later, they finally admitted there was a problem. But by then, I had already been shut out.

I tried to give input about what would make visits better for my child, but they act like my opinions don’t matter. It’s like I’m invisible.

What several of the parents describe as lack of transparency and consistency had a significant impact on parents’ motivation to remain engaged in the process. Many described how their initial willingness to cooperate deteriorated over time as they encountered repeated contradictions, dismissals, and exclusions. Some began to withdraw emotionally, feeling that their efforts to stay involved were futile:

At first, I kept asking for more information. I wanted to be part of things. But after being ignored so many times, I just stopped. What’s the point?

I feel like they decide everything without me, and I’m just supposed to accept it. After a while, it’s easier to just stop trying.

Others described how the loss of trust made it difficult to maintain a positive relationship with child welfare services, creating a cycle of frustration and disengagement. Instead of working collaboratively, some parents felt that their questions and concerns were viewed as complaints rather than legitimate efforts to stay involved:

Whenever I ask too many questions, they say I’m being ‘difficult.’ But I’m just trying to understand what’s going on with my child.

They make me feel like I’m a problem for wanting to know things. But what kind of parent wouldn’t want to know how their child is doing?

This erosion of trust and exclusion from decision-making reinforced feelings of powerlessness and isolation, with long-term consequences for parents’ ability to engage meaningfully in their child’s life. Many expressed a desire to be seen as a resource and not just as an outsider; however, the inconsistencies in information sharing pushed them further away rather than fostering collaboration.

Despite this, some parents remained hopeful that better communication could improve their relationship with their child and with child welfare services. They emphasized the importance of transparency and consistency as a way to strengthen, not weaken, family ties:

I don’t want to be a problem. I just want to be a parent. If they could just keep me informed and let me be part of things, it would make all the difference.

It’s not about making things difficult—it’s about ensuring I can still be a part of my child’s life. They don’t have to agree with me, but at least they should include me.

Ultimately, the inconsistent and conflicting information parents received shaped their ability to remain actively engaged in their children’s lives. The communication breakdown led to mistrust, emotional disengagement, and a growing sense of exclusion, all of which hindered their ability to sustain meaningful contact with their child. While some parents persisted despite these challenges, others felt increasingly alienated, struggling to maintain a connection in a system that often left them feeling unseen and unheard.

3.3. Bureaucratic Barriers and Systemic Obstacles to Information

The parents in this study frequently described systemic and bureaucratic challenges that restricted their ability to access information about their child, making it difficult for them to maintain a sense of connection. These obstacles were reported in various forms: first, through inconsistently applied practices and unclear rules within child welfare services; second, through rigid procedural constraints on how and when updates were provided; third, through administrative delays and inadequate communication channels; fourth, through restricted access to information from other institutions; and fifth, through how these structural constraints shaped their opportunities to remain informed.

First, several parents described how unclear or inconsistently applied policies within child welfare services affected their ability to access information. One of the most cited frustrations was the lack of standardized communication practices within child welfare services. Parents described how access to information was not based on clear regulations but rather on the discretion of the caseworker, leading to varying experiences depending on who handled their case:

The first caseworker used to send me minor updates—just a text message about how he was doing. But then she left, and the new one told me they weren’t ‘allowed’ to do that. So now, I get nothing.

Others expressed confusion over what they were allowed to know, as caseworkers provided conflicting answers about information sharing:

I don’t even know what I’m allowed to know. Sometimes they tell me things; other times they say it’s confidential. But no one tells me where the line is. I feel like I have no control.

These accounts reflect how unclear or inconsistently applied rules left parents in a state of uncertainty, without predictable expectations. Instead of experiencing transparency and structure, they encountered a fragmented system where access depended more on individual judgment than on reliable procedures. This ambiguity reinforced a sense of exclusion and contributed to the stress they experienced in their parental role.

Second, through rigid procedural constraints on how and when updates were provided, parents pointed to formal structures that limited access to meaningful information. Many described how updates were restricted to formal case meetings held infrequently and structured in a way that left little room for questions or dialogue:

They say I can only get updates in meetings. But those meetings are every three months, and even then, I don’t get to ask much. If I have a question in between, I just have to wait. It’s exhausting.

Even when meetings did occur, the communication style was often experienced as overly clinical or detached. Parents reflected that the information provided rarely addressed what they cared most about:

They say things like ‘the placement is stable’ or ‘there are no concerns,’ but that doesn’t tell me if she’s happy, if she’s making friends, if she misses me.

Such procedural formality left parents feeling peripheral to their child’s everyday life. The inability to engage in an open or emotionally attuned dialogue during these meetings contributed to the perception that their role as caregivers was being diminished.

Third, through administrative delays and inadequate communication channels, several parents described long response times when they contacted child welfare services. Some explained that even when they followed the procedures, they received no reply for weeks:

I send emails, I make calls, I do everything they tell me to do. But still, weeks go by, and I hear nothing. It’s like they make it as difficult as possible on purpose.

Others expressed frustration over outdated communication methods that hindered timely updates:

They send letters in the mail. Who sends letters anymore? I don’t even get a text. By the time I receive something, it’s already old news.

For many parents, these delays made it impossible to feel present in their children’s lives. The emotional toll of waiting for information and receiving nothing left them feeling powerless.

Fourth, many parents encountered additional barriers in schools, daycare centers, and healthcare settings through restricted access to information from other institutions. Rather than broadening their access to their child’s life, these institutions were often experienced as extensions of child welfare control. Even basic inquiries were often denied or redirected:

I asked the school how my child was doing, and they just told me to contact child welfare. However, when I ask child welfare, they either don’t answer or they give me vague, meaningless responses. I want to know how my child is doing in class, but I’m treated like I have no right to ask.

Others highlighted how this redirection introduced delays and uncertainty:

I don’t know what subjects my son enjoys or struggles with. I asked for his school reports, and they told me I had to request them through child welfare. However, when I did, I never got a reply. It’s like I’m being blocked at every step.

These experiences led parents to describe how information that should have been routine or accessible instead became delayed, filtered, or lost. For many, this reinforced a sense of being sidelined in their child’s education and daily experiences. One parent reflected:

He told me about a school trip that had happened weeks ago; one I knew nothing about. Why didn’t they tell me? I could have contributed and sent him something for the trip, but no one even thought to inform me. It’s like I’m invisible.

Similar patterns emerged when parents sought health-related information. Some described how they were denied information about medical appointments, check-ups, or even emergencies unless child welfare authorities had explicitly granted access:

My daughter had to get tested for [illness], and I only found out afterward. No one told me in advance. What if she had been scared? What if she needed me?

I wasn’t even informed that my son had been taken to the doctor for a burn injury. A whole year passed before I learned about it. Can you imagine?

Others experienced that healthcare or daycare staff were reluctant to communicate with them directly despite their continued role as parents:

I asked the daycare for an update, and they said, ‘We have to check with child welfare first.’ Since when do I need permission to ask how my child is doing?

Several parents expressed confusion and frustration over these institutional responses, describing them as forms of silencing. They struggled to understand the rationale behind such restrictions and experienced them as unwarranted barriers to being included in their child’s life. For many, this suggested not merely fragmented communication but a broader institutional closure, where multiple actors sustained the same limitations parents had already encountered within child welfare services.

Fifth, through how these structural constraints shaped their opportunities to remain informed, parents described long-term consequences for their relationship with the child. The absence of timely and relevant information not only affected their practical involvement but also disrupted their emotional orientation toward the child. Several explained how they entered visits unsure of what had happened recently, what mattered to the child, or how to connect meaningfully:

I used to know everything about my child. Now, I have to fight to get basic updates. I feel like I’m disappearing from his life, and there’s nothing I can do about it.

I go into visits blind. I don’t know if he’s had a good week, if something upset him, or if he’s been asking about me. It’s like playing a guessing game, and I always feel like I’m failing.

The worst part is when I say something and she looks confused, like I should have known something I didn’t. However, no one tells me what’s happening in her life.

While these descriptions echo challenges discussed in earlier themes, they differ by pointing to an accumulation of emotional and institutional distance over time. Rather than being treated as caregivers with a continued presence in their child’s life, parents felt they were positioned as marginal figures in a system that offered little space for their involvement. The lack of information not only made it harder to prepare for visits but also challenged their very sense of parental legitimacy.

For many, this gradual erosion of participation contributed to what they experienced as a fading parental identity, where sustained engagement became increasingly complex not because of unwillingness but because of a structural and communicative landscape that gave little room to remain a meaningful part of their child’s everyday world.

4. Discussion

The findings of this study illustrate how child welfare information-sharing structures and practices significantly shape parents’ ability to maintain and develop family ties with their children in public care. Across the interviews, parents described inconsistent access to updates about their child’s well-being, with some receiving occasional information while others were left in prolonged uncertainty. The absence of standardized protocols created unpredictability and emotional distress, making it difficult for parents to sustain a meaningful connection with their child. Furthermore, bureaucratic inefficiencies and procedural constraints restricted parental access to information, with formal case meetings often serving as the only structured opportunity for updates despite their infrequency and limited scope. Parents also faced barriers in accessing information from external institutions, such as schools and healthcare providers, which frequently redirected inquiries to child welfare services. These barriers applied to both factual updates, such as educational progress or medical status, and more intimate knowledge, like the child’s emotional state or everyday experiences. This redirection reinforced what Meijer (2014) describes as information asymmetry in bureaucratic systems, where service users are structurally hindered from accessing direct communication. This practice contributed to a form of institutional gatekeeping rather than facilitating transparency, which also aligns with Brodkin’s (2011) argument that discretion is often embedded in systemic routines rather than solely shaped by individual judgment. In the present study, this asymmetry left parents without essential knowledge of their child’s education, health, and daily experiences, contributing to a sense of detachment and powerlessness. Rather than acting as facilitators of engagement, these institutions functioned as additional layers of control, reinforcing the existing structural barriers within child welfare services. These cumulative challenges obstructed parents’ ability to remain engaged in their children’s lives and contributed to emotional and relational detachment over time.

These findings are consistent with previous research highlighting how lack of information can weaken parental identity, create emotional strain, and disrupt contact (Balsells et al. 2014; Eriksen 2024; Suomi et al. 2023; Aamodt and Olkowska 2023). Other studies suggest that open communication and collaboration between parents and professionals are crucial for sustaining emotional connections and facilitating continued involvement (Memarnia et al. 2015; Wissö et al. 2024). The present study both supports and expands the aforementioned literature by showing that the barriers described by parents are not only interpersonal but also rooted in broader organizational and procedural structures that span child welfare and other public services. Underlying these findings is a broader question about what it means to “maintain and develop family ties” after a care order. While the term often denotes physical contact or legal entitlements, the parents’ descriptions suggest that emotional availability, familiarity with the child’s everyday life, and the ability to offer relational continuity are equally crucial. Access to timely and meaningful information appears to be a prerequisite for sustaining these aspects of parenthood, enabling contact and connection. Without this, the parent–child relationship risks becoming symbolic rather than lived, eroded by absence and exclusion from knowledge. Similar concerns have been raised in research on relational ruptures after placement (e.g., Tembo and Studsrød 2018; Gerdts-Andresen et al. 2024), suggesting that emotional detachment is not only a consequence of physical separation but also of limited communication and informational disconnection.

While child welfare services operate within legal and institutional frameworks, frontline professionals retain significant autonomy in determining what information is shared, with whom, and under what conditions. The findings suggest that discretionary decision-making played a significant role in shaping parental access to updates, as caseworkers interpreted policies differently. Lipsky’s (1980) theory of street-level bureaucracy helps explain this variation, as it highlights how frontline professionals develop informal rules and apply personal judgment in ways that significantly influence the experiences of service users. While Lipsky (1980) highlights how frontline professionals navigate constraints through discretionary decision-making, Zacka (2017) argues that prolonged exposure to such discretionary power not only shapes individual decisions but can also create entrenched institutional norms. Over time, caseworkers may develop habitual responses that reinforce exclusion rather than engagement, making it more difficult for parents to reclaim a role in their child’s life. The present findings show that parents’ access to information was often experienced as unpredictable and dependent on the individual caseworker. While some described receiving occasional updates, others were denied even basic information. Parents also reported receiving contradictory responses about what they were entitled to know, which contributed to confusion and reinforced a sense of arbitrariness and exclusion. This inconsistency reflects what Grimen and Molander (2008) describe as the “burden of discretion”, the tension between allowing professionals to exercise judgment and ensuring predictable and transparent decision-making. This aligns with Molander’s (2016) argument that discretion is shaped by epistemic constraints, requiring professionals to navigate what they perceive as relevant and permissible within institutional guidelines. However, without explicit policies regulating information sharing, professionals’ discretion often creates inconsistencies that leave parents unsure of their rights and dependent on caseworkers’ subjective assessments. Moreover, the capacity to share more nuanced forms of information, such as the child’s thoughts, preferences, and emotional state, was further limited by the structural division of roles, where day-to-day caregiving knowledge often remained with foster carers and was not systematically transmitted to social workers or onward to parents. While Brodkin (2011) emphasizes that discretionary practices are embedded in institutional structures, Zacka (2017) highlights how professionals, over time, can develop moral dispositions that influence their exercise of discretion. When information is perceived not as a means of support but as a mechanism of control, restrictive practices can become normalized, even in the absence of formal restrictions.

Beyond individual discretion, the findings indicate that institutional structures also played a crucial role in shaping information-sharing practices. Brodkin (2011) expands on Lipsky’s (1980) framework by emphasizing that discretion is not simply an individual-level phenomenon but is shaped by organizational norms and structural constraints. In this study, parents’ access to information varied not only due to individual caseworker judgment but also appeared to be embedded in agency-wide practices. For instance, the reliance on infrequent, highly structured case meetings as the primary source of updates functioned as an institutional constraint, reinforcing exclusion rather than engagement. Rather than facilitating open and ongoing communication, formalizing information sharing through rigid procedures created bureaucratic bottlenecks, reflecting what Brodkin (2011) identifies as embedded discretion, where frontline practices are influenced by systemic constraints rather than purely personal judgment. These bureaucratic inefficiencies extended beyond child welfare services themselves. In many cases, the information parents sought was already known to professionals working closely with the child, such as teachers, foster caregivers, or healthcare staff; however, the communication was filtered or blocked by procedural constraints or internal protocols. Many parents described how external institutions, such as schools and healthcare providers, systematically redirected their inquiries to child welfare, reinforcing institutional gatekeeping. As such, the challenge was not only whether information existed, but how inter-agency coordination and reporting routines shaped the actual accessibility of that information for parents. This aligns with Meijer’s (2014) findings on information asymmetry in bureaucratic systems, where service users face structural barriers to accessing direct communication. Other studies have similarly shown how institutional fragmentation and unclear responsibilities between child welfare and other services can contribute to parental exclusion and confusion (Otterlei and Engebretsen 2021; Berrick et al. 2016). In the present study, such asymmetry contributed to parental detachment, as parents were left without essential knowledge of their child’s education, health, and daily experiences. Rather than acting as facilitators of engagement, these institutions functioned as additional layers of control.

The emotional impact of these structural constraints was profound. Across the interviews, parents described how the lack of timely and meaningful information led to persistent emotional strain, uncertainty, and a weakening sense of parental identity. Goodin’s (1986) critique of unchecked discretionary power helps illuminate these consequences, highlighting how discretion, when unregulated, reinforces hierarchical power dynamics. In this study, the unpredictability of access to updates, shaped by individual discretion, reflected a broader imbalance in power, where parents’ involvement became dependent on professional judgments rather than shared expectations. These findings support earlier studies that have shown how the absence of communication not only undermines parents’ sense of competence but also contributes to emotional distance and disengagement from the caregiving role (Balsells et al. 2014; Eriksen 2024; Aamodt and Olkowska 2023). In this study, parents’ dependency on caseworkers to determine their level of access mirrored this power imbalance, as they were placed in a position where their right to information was negotiable rather than ensured. The unpredictable nature of decision-making created a persistent sense of insecurity, as parents could not anticipate when or if they would receive updates about their child. Rather than enabling engagement, these information-sharing structures actively reinforced exclusion, leaving parents uncertain. The findings also indicate that these limitations in information sharing shaped visitation dynamics. Many parents described struggling to prepare for visits due to a lack of context about their child’s recent experiences. Bowlby’s (1988) attachment theory emphasizes that stable and predictable communication is central to maintaining secure relationships. This resonates with Gerdts-Andresen et al. (2024), who underscore the importance of relational continuity in maintaining emotional bonds after placement, particularly through consistent and meaningful communication. In line with this, the absence of consistent updates in our material made visits more challenging and disrupted the emotional connection between parent and child. Some parents described entering visits “blind,” unsure of what their child had recently experienced or felt, and several expressed that this uncertainty left them feeling like outsiders in their own child’s life. Rather than reinforcing their role as caregivers, these dynamics contributed to what many parents described as a gradual erosion of relational closeness.

Ultimately, the findings of this study demonstrate how discretionary decision-making, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and institutional risk aversion converge to limit parental engagement rather than facilitate it. While discretion allows for case-by-case decision-making, the absence of standardized information-sharing protocols creates structural uncertainty, reinforcing dependence on individual caseworkers rather than ensuring predictable and equitable access to updates. Lipsky’s (1980) argument that street-level bureaucrats ultimately shape service users’ experiences more than formal policies is particularly relevant in this context. However, as Brodkin (2011) highlights, these variations in practice are not solely the result of individual discretion. Together, these findings highlight how everyday information-sharing practices influence the conditions for parental involvement and underscore the need to examine how such practices can be better aligned to support ongoing parent–child relationships.

5. Conclusions

With these dynamics in mind, access to information is not simply an administrative concern but a central factor of parents’ ability to sustain meaningful relationships with their children in public care. The interplay between discretionary decision-making, procedural constraints, and institutional inefficiencies illustrates how parents are included or excluded from their child’s life. The emotional and relational consequences of restricted information access highlight the need for structured, transparent, and equitable information-sharing practices. Ensuring that parents receive consistent updates, independent of individual caseworker discretion, would reduce uncertainty, alleviate distress, and provide a foundation for maintaining and developing family ties when the child is in public care. While it is essential to recognize that caregivers often possess detailed knowledge of the child’s daily life, these structural arrangements do not diminish the importance of parental access to meaningful updates. Understanding the types of information parents seek and how access to such information influences their ability to maintain and develop family ties after a care order is essential for informing child welfare practices that safeguard the right to family life.