Alignment or Earthquake? Municipal Child Welfare Managers’ Interpretations of Practice Changes Following ECtHR Rulings in Norway

Abstract

Norway has been found in violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in a number of child welfare cases, particularly concerning restrictions on family life and contact between children in care and their biological parents. This study employs a critical discursive psychological approach to analyse qualitative data from 12 interviews with municipal child welfare managers. It examines how managers interpret and negotiate the reported implications of the ECtHR rulings for contact assessments and the relationship between reunification, family life and stability. The analysis identified three interpretative repertoires. The first concerned managers’ understanding of the essence of the ECtHR rulings and the need to revise previously standardised practices. The second concerned professional capacity and organisational support as conditions for implementing legal and professional changes. The third concerned the negotiation of reunification, family life, stability, continuity and protection in individual contact assessments. The findings show how managers acknowledge the need for reform while defending professional judgement and responsibility for safeguarding children’s best interests. Relational competence, organisational support, professional networks and training are described as important conditions for responding to the rulings. The study does not independently measure the impact of the rulings but shows how they have become an important reference point for interpreting and justifying changes in Norwegian child welfare practice.

1. Introduction

Norway has been found in violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which protects the right to family life, in 24 child welfare cases (NIM 2024; VG 2026). When the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) challenges Norwegian Child Welfare Services (CWS), the balance between care, intervention and rights becomes increasingly complex. The ECtHR rulings concerning Norway have addressed several aspects of child welfare interventions, including contact restrictions, adoption and, in one case, care orders. In public and professional discussions, however, the criticism has often been associated with contact and adoption (NIM 2020). Accordingly, this study asks: How do municipal child welfare managers construct and negotiate the implications of ECtHR rulings for contact assessment and the relationship between reunification and stability?

1.1. Contact Assessments as a Point of Appeal in Rulings from the ECtHR

The ECtHR assesses whether states have violated the ECHR. The rulings provide guidance to prevent future violations in similar cases, thereby setting legal precedents (Haugli 2023). Article 8 protects the right to respect for private and family life. Public authorities may interfere only when the interference is prescribed by law, pursues a legitimate aim, and is necessary in a democratic society. Such interventions must also be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.

In Norway, the principle of reunification has been further clarified by ECtHR rulings and the Norwegian Supreme Court’s 2020 clarification (Sandberg 2020). While the principle itself is not new, these clarifications have significantly impacted the work of Norwegian CWS. They emphasise the CWSs’ responsibility to follow up with biological parents, particularly regarding contact assessments and evaluations of whether children should remain in foster care or return to their biological parents. In care order cases, CWS must immediately consider reunification, making contact assessments critical to safeguarding the rights of both children and parents.

Norway’s first key ECtHR case was Strand Lobben in 2019 (Strand Lobben and Others v Norway 2019). Along with the Abdi Ibrahim case (Abdi Ibrahim v. Norway 2021), this decision has influenced subsequent rulings and become a guideline for CWS practice in Norway. The ECtHR highlighted the need for Norway to revise its child welfare policies to align with the ECHR (Kvalø 2022; Strand Lobben and Others v Norway 2019; Søvig 2020; Søvig and Valvatne 2022). Specifically, the ECtHR emphasised that the objective of reunification must be clearly defined, and that care orders should be considered temporary. Where reunification remains a relevant and realistic aim, contact arrangements must be assessed in light of the possibility of future reunification. This does not entail that increased contact is required in every case; rather, the assessment must be individualised and adequately justified.

In 2020, the Supreme Court of Norway’s Grand Chamber issued three decisions to clarify the implications of ECtHR decisions for Norwegian law. The Court concluded that, although no direct conflict existed between ECtHR rulings and Norwegian law, changes were necessary, particularly in contact assessments (Köhler-Olsen 2019; Sandberg 2020; Søvig 2020, 2023). CWS assessments, when balancing the rights of children and parents, are central in cases brought before the Norwegian Child Welfare Tribunal, as the organisational legal unit for appeals in care orders.

In case HR-2020-662-S, the Supreme Court noted that Norwegian practice had come to treat three to six visits per year as a standard benchmark for long-term foster placements (Kvalø 2022). Although this was not a fixed legal norm, lower or higher levels of contact were often perceived as requiring stronger justification. This practice appears to have been influenced by the Supreme Court’s decision in HR-2012-2309-A-Rt-2012-1832. The resulting benchmark may have limited the scope for genuinely individualised assessments, even though other levels of contact were possible and did occur.

1.2. Consequences for Contact Assessments for Norwegian Child Welfare Practice

ECtHR rulings have implications for Norwegian CWS at both the transnational and national levels. While the ECtHR follows established practice, its rulings may be interpreted differently across national contexts (Skivenes and Stenberg 2015). In Norway, these rulings are communicated to the CWS through the Supreme Court, the Ministry of Children and Families, and the Norwegian Directorate for Children, Youth and Family Affairs (Bufdir) via information letters, circulars, and preparatory works for the new Child Welfare Act, which form the basis for practice in the CWS.

If uncritically adopted, signals emphasising the rights of biological parents can have unintended consequences for practice (Alvik 2021; Nordmoen and Kvalø 2023). Nordmoen and Kvalø (2023) warn against relying solely on the ECtHR rulings as a guideline for practice. Jørgensen and Heggen (2020) distinguish between stabilising and corrective discussion practices, illustrating how entire professional groups may take certain positions for granted. Complex issues can be simplified into unified understandings when presented from a single perspective, potentially excluding alternative viewpoints. This tension between reunification and the child’s need for stability is reflected in Norway’s child welfare knowledge base, which is guided by attachment theory (Bunkholdt 2015). She also discusses the biological principle as an ideology within the Norwegian child welfare system and cautions against treating attachment theory as a fixed or comprehensive explanation of children’s relationships. Drawing on Bowlby, she emphasises that theory should not be treated as the only legitimate way to understand children’s needs (Bowlby 1988). This illustrates how a critical approach to knowledge can make room for different understandings of the relationship between stability, foster-parent attachment and contact with biological parents. Before 2019, contact has traditionally been viewed as necessary, regardless of the length of placement (Barne- og familiedepartementet 2002). However, before the ECtHR rulings, tribunals, courts, and the CWS often handled contact in a standardised manner, limiting individualised and specific assessments (NIM 2020). While exceptions exist, the prevailing understanding of the child’s best interests in contact assessments in Norway emphasised the need for children to settle and bond with new caregivers.

ECtHR rulings and Supreme Court decisions have influenced how the Norwegian CWS assesses the extent of contact in care orders and subsequent follow-ups. Contact assessments require the CWS to prepare and present recommendations to the Child Welfare Tribunal on the extent of contact considered appropriate for children and families. Skau (2024) notes that legislation, regulations, guidelines, professional knowledge, and discretion all influence these assessments.

The CWS must adhere to national guidelines, which include tools and procedures for uniform and predictable case processing. With the implementation of the new Child Welfare Act on 1 January 2023, the rules governing CWS case processing were updated. Bufdir’s guidelines for contact assessments aim to improve the quality of these evaluations and address legal updates (Bufdir 2022).

In the CWS context, social processes operate on multiple levels. Discussions among colleagues, where CWS managers share experiences and interpretations, play a crucial role in implementing ECtHR principles in practice. Legislation evolves in response to new legal decisions and social changes, shaping the framework within which CWS managers operate. Internal guidelines provide a consistent approach to handling complex cases, while social processes ensure that knowledge is continuously developed and adapted to practice. This dynamic development requires considering multiple factors, often creating uncertainty about how to assess and balance them. Care orders and decisions regarding the extent of contact must follow a legal process in the Child Welfare Tribunal, where the CWS’s narrative, as presented in the case documentation, is assessed alongside input from children and parents. As Haugli (2000) notes, the way a child welfare case is documented and presented influences which aspects of the case receive attention in the decision-making process. Some considerations may therefore be emphasised, while others may receive less attention or be treated as less relevant. Langsrud et al. (2019) similarly show that the CWS’s collection and documentation of information may have unintended consequences, because it is shaped by how workers understand the situation and what they consider relevant to record. CWS workers may therefore have limited awareness of how their documentation contributes to the construction of the case.

1.3. Different Action Orientations for Child Welfare Work

Child welfare systems differ across countries. In the literature, they are often categorised as “child-centric”, “child protection” and “child welfare” oriented (Helland and Luhamaa 2020; Skivenes 2021). A “child-centric” orientation prioritises the child’s needs, wishes, and rights in decision-making processes (Pösö et al. 2014; Skivenes 2011). This approach prioritises the child’s best interests, ensuring that their voice and participation are tailored to their age and maturity. A “child protection” orientation is characterised by a high threshold for intervention, focusing primarily on protecting children from immediate danger. The right to family life is heavily weighted but is subordinated to the child’s best interests only when protection is necessary (Gilbert et al. 2011; Skivenes and Thoburn 2016). A “child welfare” orientation seeks to balance the child’s best interests with family-preserving measures. The right to contact is assessed in light of both the child’s protection and the support provided to the family (Lov om barnevern 2021; Skivenes and Thoburn 2016).

Skivenes and Thoburn (2016) compare the child welfare systems in Norway and England, noting that, while both countries have legislation mandating assistance to vulnerable children and their families, the implementation and practical solutions differ. In England, the threshold for intervention is higher, whereas the Norwegian CWS prioritises early intervention and family support. Despite these differences, both systems share common principles, including the emphasis on the best interests of the child, family preservation, stability, and security (Skivenes and Thoburn 2016).

Skivenes (2021) examined how citizens across countries perceive intervention thresholds and the causes of neglect. She argues that Norway places greater emphasis on community solidarity and early family support, while England’s child protection system adopts a more restrictive approach to state intervention. Skivenes and Thoburn (2016) also show that the two countries articulate permanence differently in child welfare policy. In England, legislation, statutory guidance, and advisory documents explicitly set out the components of permanence. In Norway, related concepts of stability and continuity appear in fewer policy documents and across a broader range of services for children and families. These differences provide distinct institutional and policy contexts for understanding and pursuing permanence in child welfare practice. Here, permanence is shorthand for the complex aims of stability and family membership for children receiving child welfare services and out-of-home care.

Pösö et al. (2014) note that a child-centred orientation challenges a traditional emphasis on family preservation by positioning children as individual rights-holders. This development creates a tension between family-oriented measures and the protection of children’s individual rights (Follesø and Mevik 2009). The tension is also reflected in the European human rights framework. In Johansen v. Norway, the ECtHR acknowledged that Member States may hold different views about when interference in family life is necessary and legitimate (Søvig 2023). Nevertheless, the Court must assess these differences within the framework of Article 8 of the ECHR, including the requirement to give the child’s best interests primary consideration. The case therefore illustrates how national approaches to family preservation and child protection are subject to a common human rights framework, while leaving the states some discretion in determining how competing interests should be balanced in individual cases.

2. Previous Research

Haugli (2000) conducted the first legal theoretical investigation of contact cases processed by Child Welfare Tribunals in Norway. The Tribunals’ reasoning was characterised by general rather than concrete assessments, with no apparent connection between their conclusions and prior argumentation. Limited documentation of justifications made it challenging to understand and verify whether “the intervention was necessary in a democratic society” (p. 422). Contact views have evolved. Haugli and Havik (2010) noted that the pendulum swings between prioritising the child’s need for protection and the biological principle, with family support at the core of contact assessments. While the CWS became more professionalised in the 1980s, with clarified responsibilities for the follow-up of foster children and foster parents, the follow-up of biological parents and the child’s contact with them gained renewed attention. This pendulum effect may create patterns where a strong focus on one aspect, such as extensive contact with biological parents, reveals negative consequences, like placing undue burdens on the child.

In Tribunal decisions from 2018 to December 2020, Gerdts-Andresen (2020, 2021) found that the child’s need for stability and attachment to foster parents was often prioritised over relationships with biological parents. Although restrictions on contact require a clear justification, Gerdts-Andresen (2021), like Haugli (2000), observed that such justifications were frequently absent. Standardised assessment norms often characterised decisions regarding contact between children and their biological parents. Taken together, the studies published before the ECtHR rulings provide historical context for earlier standardised practices and the tension between protection, family preservation, and contact. They do not, however, provide evidence of changes following the 2019–2020 judgments. More recent studies and surveys have examined how contact assessments and professional reasoning have developed after these legal developments.

Alvik (2021) and Stang et al. (2023) examined contact arrangements following care orders through a multi-method study, including court documents, child welfare workers and service users. Their findings indicated that Tribunal and Court of Appeal practices aligned with Grand Chamber decisions, emphasising thorough, individual assessments and the weighting of relevant considerations. While the reunification goal was generally maintained, they cautioned against an overly dominant focus on reunification.

A survey by SOS Children’s Villages (Sørvig and Nogalska 2021) revealed that 86% of CWS managers reported improved reasoning in Tribunal cases following the ECtHR rulings, while 24% noted a higher threshold for initiating care proceedings. Furthermore, 86% stated that the rulings led to more contact. Views differed regarding whether this increase was in the child’s best interests: 65% considered it beneficial, whereas 30% did not. The survey also found that 78% observed a stronger focus on the reunification goal, with increased emphasis on parental cooperation, mapping, assistance measures, and facilitation of good contact. Contact arrangements varied significantly, with 40.6% of children having 7 to 11 visits annually. In comparison, 6.3% had weekly or biweekly visits. This revealed a greater variation in the extent of contact than what the public debate following the ECtHR rulings suggested.

Aamodt and Sommerfeldt (2022) highlighted the complexity of contact assessments, noting that decision-making processes were context-dependent and influenced by both legal and child welfare perspectives. Professional expectations about the purpose and duration of the placement informed contact assessments. When a placement was viewed as long-term and intended to provide the child with a permanent upbringing outside the parental home, rather than as temporary and potentially leading to reunification, contact was often limited. This was justified by the child’s need for stability, attachment to foster carers, and knowledge of their family history. Although contact assessments were expected to be based on individual considerations, the results were often less specific and less adaptable than anticipated. Variations in how CWS workers interpreted and applied guidelines led to differing practices across services.

Olsvik and Saus (2022) examined the challenges CWS managers faced, highlighting the conflicting pressures they encountered from employees, professional leaders, superiors, and political groups. One challenge was the paradox between standardisation and individual adjustments, particularly given the expectation for service efficiency. Additionally, managers reported that conflicting considerations were often inherently contradictory. A lack of expertise and personnel further compounded the difficulty of fulfilling their responsibilities effectively.

In a study by Vestvik et al. (2024), CWS workers reported considering more frequent contact than before the ECtHR rulings. The authors interpreted this as evidence that contact is now evaluated within a new context. The reunification goal and the child’s need for stability were highlighted as opposing poles. The study concluded that ECtHR rulings provide an underlying framework for contact assessments. Attachment theory remains a central theoretical basis, and children’s need for stability continues to carry significant weight in the child welfare system.

Aadnanes and Syrstad (2021) emphasised that child protection is fundamental to the child-centered approach. They questioned whether the CWS has become risk- and child-focused to a level where relationships between children and biological parents are deprioritised. Following the ECtHR’s criticism, they stressed that a problematic relationship between children and parents was not necessarily a reason to discontinue contact. They advocated an analytical approach to CWS to balance resources and risks, grounded in the broader political and social landscape. This development is crucial for understanding contemporary child welfare practices. CWS employees must now engage in more individualised assessment processes, facilitating greater contact with biological parents. However, concerns have been raised about whether increased contact frequency aligns with the child’s best interests, and whether parental access requirements are being prioritised at the expense of the child’s needs (Anonyme-fosterforeldre 2023; Gjedrem et al. 2024; Sørvig and Nogalska 2021).

Professional confidence is critical for CWS workers who face complex decisions and dilemmas. Several studies indicate that some CWS workers perceive themselves as lacking the necessary competence to perform key tasks (Pedersen 2023; Røsdal et al. 2017). The competence of CWS employees varies, with surveys documenting that many feel overshadowed by professionals such as lawyers, psychologists, and teachers (Greve et al. 2024; Pedersen 2023; Vindegg and Stang 2016). At the same time, Bufdir has highlighted a lack of core child welfare competence in the CWS, contrasting this with the health sector, where core competencies are explicitly defined (Røsdal et al. 2017).

Professional networks are highlighted as valuable resources (Haug 2018; Huxham and Vangen 2005; Schwarz et al. 2020; Sørensen and Torfing 2017; Torfing 2016). They promote collective learning and collaboration across organisations, enhancing motivation and job performance (Schwarz et al. 2020). Additionally, Huxham and Vangen (2005) demonstrate that networks facilitate the resolution of complex societal challenges by enabling managers to integrate diverse knowledge and resources.

Taken together, previous research shows that contact assessments in Norway have developed from more standardised approaches towards stronger requirements for individualised assessments following the ECtHR rulings and the Norwegian Supreme Court’s 2020 decisions. The literature also shows that this development has created ongoing tensions between reunification, family life, stability, and the child’s best interests, while resources, professional competence, and organisational conditions shape how these tensions are managed. However, less is known about how municipal CWS managers interpret and negotiate these changes, and how they use arguments about legal requirements, professional knowledge, and organisational conditions to explain and justify practice. This is important because managers play a central role in translating legal and policy developments into local child welfare practice. This study addresses this gap by examining how CWS managers construct and negotiate the implications of ECtHR rulings for contact assessments and the relationship between reunification and stability.

3. Methodology

The study employs a social constructivist perspective, in which the understanding of the social world is regarded as socially and linguistically constructed rather than as an objective reflection of reality (Burr 2015, 2019; Gergen 2001, 2015). Social constructivism emphasises how knowledge is shaped through social processes and historical and cultural contexts. It also emphasises the closely intertwined nature of action and knowledge. In this study, social constructivism provides a basis for understanding how CWS managers construct meaning about the implications of the ECtHR rulings for balancing “the best interests of the child” and “the right to family life”.

Social constructivism encompasses various methodologies, among them critical discursive psychology (CDP), which emphasises how language is used to create meaning, how people position themselves and others in a discursive context, and how they balance ideological tensions (Jørgensen and Phillips 2002; Potter and Wetherell 1987, 2001; Tormis et al. 2025). In our analysis of the language CWS managers use to legitimise their practice, we draw on two key concepts from CDP (Wetherell 2007). Interpretive repertoires describe specific ways to construct reality flexibly and lead to action in different contexts (Wetherell and Potter 1988). The second concept, subject positions, refers to the dynamic positions individuals assume in various discourses, which shape how they perceive themselves and the social world (Davies and Harré 1990).

3.1. Sample and Data Collection

We conducted individual semi-structured interviews with 12 CWS managers from all 11 counties in Norway as of 2023. The interviews were conducted in May and June 2023, after the Supreme Court’s 2020 decisions, the new Child Welfare Acts’ entry into force on 1 January 2023, and the publication of Bufdir’s 2022 guidelines on contact assessments. The interviews therefore captured managers’ reflections after these legal and policy developments had been introduced, although the study does not isolate their effects from other ongoing developments in child welfare practice. We used a purposive, strategic sampling approach to capture variation in participants’ gender and in the size and organisational structure of the services they managed. Participants were also required to have worked in child welfare before 2019. Through the County Governors, we gained an overview of the service size, gender of CWS managers, the service organisation, and contact information for CWS managers. Participants were selected based on these characteristics and invited by phone. One manager declined the invitation because of time constraints; 12 managers participated. Interviews were conducted via MS Teams in May and June 2023, recorded, and transcribed verbatim. The interviews lasted between 45 and 90 min. Transcriptions were analysed in NVivo, version 15 (Lumivero, Denver, CO, USA). The interviews were conducted in Norwegian with Norwegian participants by a Norwegian researcher. The interviews were transcribed and analysed in Norwegian. We translated selected extracts into English during manuscript preparation. We paid close attention to preserving the meaning, metaphors, and tone of the original statements. We checked the translations against the Norwegian transcripts to ensure the participants’ intended meanings were retained.

Interviews were conducted using an interview guide that addressed participants’ understanding of the ECtHR rulings, the implementation of legal and professional guidance, changes in contact assessments and reunification practices, the relationship between legal and child welfare assessments, and organisational resources and support for parents following care orders. The interview guide allowed interesting side tracks to emerge (Kvale and Brinkmann 2015). This enabled a nuanced understanding of the managers’ experiences and assessments.

The sample included ten women and two men, with responsibilities for services of different sizes, employee counts ranging from 3 to over 100, and populations ranging from a few thousand to over 70,000. Participants had 1 to 20 years of experience as CWS managers, with a mean of 7.3 years. All had worked in child welfare for several years before becoming managers. Five services were inter-municipal, while seven were independent. The strategic sampling approach provided variation in gender, service size and organisational structure, thereby including perspectives from different types of CWS services. However, as a purposive sample, it is not statistically representative.

3.2. Analysis

CWS managers’ knowledge base is constantly changing and influenced by both national and international guidelines. The ECtHR rulings challenge previous assumptions about what is suitable for children who are placed in foster homes. CDP (Tormis et al. 2025) provides insight into how CWS managers construct meaning around the best interests of the child and the right to family life. Their accounts of practice reflect and challenge taken-for-granted knowledge and show how discursive practices continuously shape and renegotiate understanding of these frameworks (Burr 2015, 2019; Gergen 2015; Jørgensen and Phillips 2002; Tormis et al. 2025).

From a CDP perspective, the right to family life can be analysed as a concept that not only springs from legal texts (as, for instance, Article 8 of the ECHR) but is also constructed and legitimised through particular interpretative repertoires about what a family is, and which relationships are considered legitimate and valuable.

We have primarily followed Tormis et al.’s (2025) three-step approach to CDP analysis. The three steps are content, form, and function analysis. In the first stage, we carefully read all interviews to identify sections relevant to the study’s aim and coded them into categories. In stage two, we analysed how the CWS managers discussed the rulings, their implications, and how they assessed their impact on their practice and the work related to the child’s right to family life. Identifying rhetorical strategies and discursive resources revealed patterns in how CWS managers spoke and assessed their practice in relation to the rulings. In the third stage, we analysed the function of participants’ accounts by examining what their descriptions accomplished in the interview context. We asked how particular expressions and rhetorical resources enabled participants to acknowledge, limit or resist criticism, explain practical difficulties, and position themselves as responsible professionals. We identified interpretative repertoires as recurring ways of talking that performed similar functions across accounts. The three repertoires therefore represent recurring and functionally similar ways in which managers constructed the implications of the ECtHR rulings.

3.3. Ethical Considerations

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (WMA 1964). The project underwent a data-protection assessment by the Norwegian Agency for Shared Services in Education and Research (Sikt) (reference no. 619537). Sikt did not conduct a separate ethical review, and no additional ethics approval was required for this study.

We obtained informed consent from all participants in the study. The first author conducted all interviews. Thus, the first author’s experiences and preconceptions may have influenced the analysis. We used reflective notes and collegial discussions to challenge interpretations. Although we attempted to minimise potential biases, we acknowledge that our subjectivity may have created blind spots in our interpretation of the data. Furthermore, recruiting by directly contacting managers may have created a sense of obligation or pressure, particularly given the first author’s background as a former CWS worker and current employee at both the County Governor’s office and the University. To mitigate this, the first author explicitly clarified her role as a researcher and emphasised that participation was voluntary. When participants referred positively to support from the County Governor, we considered whether the interviewer’s employment there may have encouraged affirmative accounts or influenced how criticism was expressed. We used reflective notes and discussions to consider this possibility when interpreting such extracts.

During interviews, participants were assured that their responses would be anonymised. In the article, we use the pronouns “she” and “her” for all participants to maintain their anonymity. Nevertheless, the power dynamics inherent in the first author’s role may have led to more desirable responses or to a reluctance to share critical perspectives. At the same time, familiarity with the field can be regarded as a strength, as participants may have assumed that the interviewer and interviewee shared a common frame of reference and thus felt more comfortable discussing their practice.

4. Results

4.1. Interpretative Repertoire 1: The Essence of the ECtHR Rulings

In the interviews, participants consistently cited ECtHR criticism as shaping their understanding of contact assessments and the reunification goal. Most participants demonstrated detailed knowledge of the criticism, particularly regarding the need for documentation, individualised assessments, and a more precise approach to the reunification goal. This knowledge provided a basis for reflecting on previous practice, which several described as characterised by standardisation and a lack of focus on reunification as the ultimate goal. One participant said

It almost looks like it’s been processed in an “assembly line”. And then I have drawn out another thing, and that is the principle of reunification, with which we have not had such an active relationship. We have not reflected on it.

(Participant 1)

Using the metaphor of an “assembly line”, the participant frames previous practice as standardised and routine-based, with limited critical reflection on each case’s individual circumstances. The metaphor also functions to acknowledge and legitimise the ECtHR’s criticism. The participant presents the earlier practice as a problem that required correction, rather than defending it as professionally adequate. Her use of the past tense and the subsequent shift to the principle of reunification further construct a distinction between previous practice and a changed, more reflective approach.

The participant also positions herself as a reflective practitioner who can recognise limitations in the service’s earlier practice while demonstrating awareness of the changes required after the ECtHR rulings. In this way, the account both accepts the substance of the criticism and preserves professional authority by presenting the manager as someone who actively interprets and implements the new legal expectations. The participant acknowledges her previous passivity regarding the goal of reunification but now describes a more conscious reflective approach.

This account illustrates how this interpretative repertoire operates: managers acknowledge the core of the ECtHR criticism by describing earlier practice as standardised and insufficiently reflective, while constructing current practice as more individualised and attentive to reunification. The recurring contrast between “before” and “now” helps managers explain how the rulings have altered the meaning of appropriate professional practice.

The account suggests that when reunification is not actively considered, contact assessments may become disconnected from whether reunification remains possible. The ECtHR rulings therefore challenge a practice in which standardised assessments could overshadow individual evaluations of the child’s and family’s situation. This metaphor was not used in isolation. Similar accounts recurred across the interviews, although participants used different expressions to describe the same shift from routine-based to more individualised assessments. Some referred to previous practices as standardised, while others emphasised the need to document and justify contact arrangements more thoroughly. Across these accounts, the repertoire functioned to acknowledge the substance of the ECtHR criticism and to construct current practice as more reflective and individually adapted.

Another participant described how practices are changing:

The essence is that it has been absolutely right to issue the care orders, but you are not sufficiently nuanced. You do not work with reunification goals, and you are not specific enough in individual cases concerning contact.

(Participant 8)

The participant acknowledges that previous practice did not fully safeguard the rights of the child and the parents, as it was «not sufficiently nuanced» and «not specific enough». Still, the first assertion serves as a defence of the threshold for issuing care orders. ECtHR rulings have highlighted the importance of maintaining the principle of family reunification, thereby challenging the commonly accepted understanding in CWS practice that contact assessments tacitly follow a norm. However, the content of the rulings has been discussed in the public debate on partly erroneous premises, according to several participants, as in the following example:

I: If you have to say very briefly, what do you think are the headlines in those judgments? What do you think is the essence?

P: I can at least say what I think the essence is not, which may not come across so well. There is no rematch over the care orders. I believe the essence is the right to family life, particularly when children are placed under care orders. Then I have extracted the essence of contact with the biological family.

(Participant 1)

The participant uses “No rematch” to nuance her understanding of the ECtHR rulings’ criticism and to distance herself from what she perceives as misinterpretation. By asserting that the rulings do not concern “rematching” care orders, the participant constructs their primary relevance as relating to how family life and contact are considered after a care order has been issued. This formulation may also function to delimit institutional responsibility and defend the legitimacy of earlier care-order decisions. At the same time, the participant accepts that previous practice may not have given sufficient attention to the right to family life and contact. She adopts a reflexive position as a clarifying actor, seeking to clarify what she considers to be mistaken interpretations of the rulings, particularly the perception that they require care orders to be reconsidered.

Several participants reflected on how the ECtHR rulings’ requirement for individualised assessments has changed practice. One participant said:

We have two children who have 76 visits a year. I’ve never seen anything like this in 28 years: Children getting 76 visits, which is the logistics, right? It is difficult to know what is in the best interests of the children, but I do not think we would have received such a decision before the rulings.

(Participant 8)

The participant constructs a dilemma between facilitating extensive contact and safeguarding the children’s stability and wellbeing in their new care environment. This is not necessarily a conflict between children’s interests and parental rights, since children may also have an interest in maintaining family relationships. Rather, the account illustrates how the participant negotiates different understandings of what the child’s best interests require in a particular case. The rhetorical question “the logistics, right?” points to practical and organisational challenges, followed by the claim that professionally assessing what is in the children’s best interests is difficult. The account does not necessarily reject individualised assessments or increased contact. Rather, it expresses uncertainty about how to evaluate a very extensive contact arrangement in relation to the children’s everyday life, stability, and wellbeing. The example illustrates that moving away from standardised contact may produce more varied arrangements, including those some managers find difficult to assess. The criticism in the ECtHR rulings necessitates re-evaluation, and increased experience of contact raises doubts about whether it, in fact, serves the children’s best interests. The quote portrays the CWS manager as a learning actor who adapts to new requirements while maintaining a critical view of the consequences of shifting professional knowledge.

Both acceptance of the criticism and uncertainty about how the new requirements for contact assessments may impact future practice were expressed. One participant said:

I: Is there anything you’d like to add, or anything you think I should bear in mind in relation to the questions I’ve asked?

P: I think we have benefited from getting a bit of a look at ourselves as a nation. And then we will see whether we go from ditch to the other. I hope not. That we simply refrain from taking children into care, that we don’t dare, or that we think; It’s never enough to… I hope not.

(Participant 1)

The participant welcomes external scrutiny while expressing concern that a corrective response may become excessive. In particular, the participant appears concerned that the emphasis on family life and reunification could make child welfare services reluctant to take children into care, defend care orders, or argue for limited contact where this is considered necessary to safeguard the child. The metaphor “from ditch to ditch” constructs the implementation of the rulings as a risk of moving from one unbalanced position to another: from insufficient attention to family life and reunification to a situation in which child welfare professionals no longer dare to maintain or defend assessments involving care orders or more limited contact. The participant’s concern is thus not simply that contact arrangements may fail to safeguard the child’s stability, continuity and wellbeing, but that professional assessments of these needs may be given insufficient weight in legal and administrative decision-making. The metaphor therefore does not reject the need for reform. Rather, it enables the participant to support greater attention to family life and a more individualised approach, while also defending professional judgement about when taking a child into care and limiting contact may serve the child’s best interests. An observation, noted by several participants, highlighted the importance of discussing these challenges posed by ECtHR rulings with colleagues in similar positions to address them. CWS manager networks were highlighted as key social arenas for reflecting on the rulings, management signals and for adapting them to local needs. One participant put it this way:

I: Policy signals from the legislature and government departments and so on—how are they communicated to your service, and how do they reach you?

P: New guidelines and ways of thinking are being introduced for discussion in the CWS manager network, which means we can more easily incorporate them into our services. There is almost always 100% attendance at these meetings. We work to have as similar practices as possible. The County Governor invests considerable time and resources, and we are discussing how to work in accordance with the new Child Welfare Act and the childhood reform.

(Participant 7)

The account constructs the manager network as an arena for translating policy signals and legal changes into local practice. The reference to “as similar practices as possible” also presents the network as a means of promoting consistency across services. However, this extract documents the participant’s perception of the network’s function; it does not establish that the network produces more equitable assessments or outcomes. Because the interviewer worked for the County Governor’s office, the participant’s positive description of the County Governor’s contribution was interpreted reflexively. It may reflect the institution’s supportive role, but the institutional context may also have shaped how this support was presented. The first interpretative repertoire constructs the ECtHR rulings as exposing limitations in earlier, standardised approaches to contact assessment, particularly the insufficient consideration of reunification and family life. At the same time, the repertoire does not amount to an unqualified endorsement of increased contact. Participants described the need to correct previous practice while remaining concerned that an overly literal or uniform response could undermine children’s stability, continuity and wellbeing. Through this repertoire, managers position themselves as actors who acknowledge the need for legal and professional reform while retaining responsibility for judging what the child’s best interests require in individual cases. Peer networks appear in these accounts as arenas where managers interpret policy signals, develop shared understandings and negotiate how new requirements should be implemented locally. The accounts suggest that such networks may support more reflective implementation, although the study cannot establish whether they produce more equitable assessments or outcomes.

4.2. Interpretative Repertoire 2: Professional Capacity and Organisational Support

Participants’ reflections highlighted CWS managers’ role in managing expectations, addressing resource constraints, and implementing management signals.

One of these reflections was tied to staff recruitment. Several participants described staff stability and capacity as crucial to the service’s task performance. At the same time, CWS in Norway have faced challenges in recruiting sufficient professional CWS workers for several decades (Johansen 2014; Nilsen et al. 2023). Therefore, an increasing number of staff from other professional groups have been hired. These are considered a resource but also pose challenges for the CWS. One participant said:

A kindergarten teacher can have great competence in talking to children and having a relationship with the parents. It’s this administrative, this thing with documentation, the analyses, the justification in decisions, the thing about participation, right? So, it’s in the administrative stuff, and the professional stuff, that I think they need extra training.

(Participant 11)

Skills in communication and relational competence are essential for fostering trust when interacting with children and families in challenging life situations. Nevertheless, CWS work requires more. While ascribing “great competence” in CWS to professionals outside social work (such as kindergarten teachers in this example), the participant also highlights the need to train these staff members in other skills required for proper case management. The tag question “right?” invites agreement and presents the distinction between relational and administrative competence as self-evident. The participant constructs relational competence and administrative and analytical competence as distinct, though complementary, dimensions of child welfare work. The participant distinguishes relational competence from other competencies required in child welfare work, particularly documentation, analysis, justification, and participation. The participant’s account suggests that staff members enter child welfare services with different professional backgrounds and therefore may bring different areas of expertise to the work. In her view, some staff members may require additional support in documentation, analysis, justification and participation when undertaking child welfare tasks. Rather than dismissing professionals from other fields, the account frames additional training and support as necessary to enable them to carry out the full range of tasks associated with child welfare practice. The account therefore defines professional competence in child welfare more broadly than the ability to build relationships with children and parents. It also includes the ability to document, analyse and justify assessments in ways that support children’s and parents’ rights. The account constructs competence as an organisational condition for safeguarding children’s and parents’ rights. The manager is positioned as responsible for integrating new professional perspectives while ensuring that staff receive the support and training needed to perform the legal, analytical and child welfare tasks involved in contact assessments. The repertoire frames resource constraints not only as a question of staffing levels, but also as a question of how professional competence is defined, distributed and developed within the service. The account suggests that staff without a social work background may require additional training and support to undertake the documentation, analysis and justification involved in contact assessments.

Another example of the interpretative repertoire of professional capacity and organisational support was visible when participants described increasingly extensive management signals that shape practice and place growing demands on the services. One participant said:

It’s extremely complex and requires a high level of analytical and professional expertise, as well as the ability to bring it all together and relate it to what each individual child needs. As I said, we’ve changed our practice in some of these areas. We have changed our routines. We have created new guidelines for the follow-up of biological parents. We have prepared various templates for discussion and for child welfare assessments. A separate template has been created for assessing contact, incorporating key points from Supreme Court rulings.

(Participant 12)

The participant constructs the revised practice as both more demanding and more individualised. The reference to the need for “a high level of analytical and professional expertise” links the new requirements to the ability to bring together legal, professional and child-specific considerations. The new guidelines and templates are presented as organisational responses to these demands. In particular, the contact-assessment template incorporates points from Supreme Court rulings while also being intended to support assessments of what each individual child needs. The templates may therefore serve a dual function: they can structure and make the required considerations more visible, while also supporting managers and staff in exercising professional judgement. Rather than suggesting that standardised tools replace discretion, the account suggests they organise and document the discretion required by new legal and professional expectations. The extract thus illustrates how managers describe organisational tools, expertise and routines as conditions for implementing reform and safeguarding individualised contact assessments.

The second interpretative repertoire constructs resources as conditions for implementing the legal and professional changes associated with the ECtHR rulings. Participants’ accounts link staffing, professional competence, training, guidelines and organisational routines to the ability to conduct individualised and well-documented contact assessments. The repertoire constructs professional capacity and organisational support as conditions for implementing reform. These conditions include staffing, professional competence, training, guidelines, assessment tools and organisational routines, as well as how these elements are defined, supported and organised within the service. Through this repertoire, managers acknowledge the need for reform while defending professional judgement as necessary for translating general legal requirements into assessments of individual children and families.

4.3. Interpretative Repertoire 3: Balancing Reunification and Stability

The analysis revealed an underlying concern about whether increased contact in fact serves the child’s best interests in the long term. When discussing the wider development in child welfare practice, including declining numbers of care orders and emergency cases, increased contact in many cases, and instances of zero contact, the participant said:

There is a national debate about this very issue at the moment, and we can see that the number of care orders is falling. The number of emergency cases is falling. In many cases, the amount of contact is increasing significantly. We have changed our practice in the way we work with follow-up of biological parents, and work towards reunification. We have probably had more revocations of care orders in the previous years. But that’s because we follow up even better. We have had many contact cases where we have provided significantly more contact than before. But we also have instances where we have achieved zero contact. This suggests that it is entirely possible to go into that ditch, even if you build up the competence to make good individual assessments. And that’s because this is really hard. It’s very complex.

(Participant 12)

The reference to “that ditch” should be understood considering this variation. It may point to the risk of moving too far in one direction when determining contact arrangements, although the participant does not specify whether the metaphor refers primarily to excessive or insufficient contact. While practice has evolved, the inherent uncertainty in child welfare assessments remains inevitable, even with greater competence and thoroughness. From the participant’s perspective, case complexity inevitably leaves room for error, despite the emphasis on reunification. This captures the structural dilemma in child welfare work: decisions must be made based on probabilities rather than certainties. The participants’ reflections underline a tension between different understandings of the child’s best interests: the child’s interest in maintaining family relationships, the parents’ right to family life, and the child’s need for protection, stability and continuity in the current care arrangement. The analysis therefore concerns not a straightforward opposition between children’s interests and parental rights, but how managers construct and negotiate competing understandings of what family life and the child’s best interests require in a particular case. The participant’s reference to “that ditch” is not necessarily limited to excessive contact. In this context, it may refer more broadly to the risk of moving from one standardised position to another, including both insufficient contact and contact arrangements experienced as excessive or difficult to justify. The reference to “zero contact” also suggests that more individualised assessments may produce substantially different arrangements rather than a uniform increase in contact. The metaphor thus captures uncertainty about how to exercise professional judgement when individualised assessments may lead to very different outcomes. Because it is impossible to know with certainty what will be in the child’s best interests in the long term, decisions must be based on probabilities and assumptions guided by professional knowledge, which carries an inherent risk of misjudgment. The CWS manager constructs a tension between legal expectations and professional assessments, while also showing that both are presented as relevant to safeguarding the child’s best interests.

When balancing the child’s need for protection with the right to family life, several participants emphasised, under the new knowledge regime, the importance of cooperation with the municipal attorney as central to this process. Following the ECtHR rulings, some participants reported feeling pressure to consider a higher level of contact than they had initially thought. The quote from one participant illustrates the experienced tension between professional autonomy and legal requirements:

The [municipal] attorneys work with a lot of cases and, in a way, know a little where the threshold lies. But we must distinguish between what competence they have, and what competence we have. And then we must have faith in the expertise we possess.

(Participant 10)

This interaction among CWS workers is portrayed as a negotiation in which different views of knowledge compete. By distinguishing “between what competence they have, and what competence we have”, the participant insists on professional autonomy and trust in CWS workers’ expertise. From her perspective, she positions herself in a negotiation between different knowledge regimes—legal and social work—both of which hold legitimacy but approach the child’s best interests differently. A professional boundary is constructed between the competence associated with municipal attorneys and that associated with CWS managers. The participant presents the latter as particularly important for integrating legal requirements with broader, child-specific and relational considerations. The insistence on “we must distinguish” serves as a marker to establish a professional identity independent of legal actors, while still acknowledging the need for collaboration. By appealing to a “faith in the expertise that we have”, the participant legitimises CWS managers’ assessments in the face of pressure from legal requirements, thus balancing the need to maintain professional confidence while navigating a field of competing knowledge regimes. In arguing for faith in one’s own expertise while acknowledging competing legal knowledge regimes, the child’s best interests are constructed as something that must be negotiated between different forms of professional knowledge, rather than as a self-evident or predetermined conclusion.

Participants who described balancing the reunification goal with the child’s need for stability and security did so not only to highlight the complexity of the decision-making process. They also described concerns about the consequences of increased contact, as in the following example:

I: Is there anything you would like to add regarding the ECtHR rulings, Grand Chamber decisions or case law relating to contact assessments and the right to family life?

P: What I would like to add is that I am very curious, and somewhat concerned, to see how this will unfold over time. I am thinking about what it means for the child to live in a temporary situation, and for the foster home to live with that uncertainty, as well as the burden created by the substantially increased contact that many children and foster homes now experience. The child may have contact with two parents who do not live together, and perhaps with siblings who also wish to have contact. This can place a considerable burden on the child and the foster home as a whole.

(Participant 11)

While acknowledging the increased emphasis on the right to family life, this participant expresses uncertainty about its longer-term consequences. The phrase “how this will turn out in time” introduces a temporal dimension, suggesting that the effects of changed contact arrangements may not be immediately apparent. Her concern is not directed at contact in isolation, but at the cumulative burden created by several forms of contact and follow-up, including contact with parents and siblings, alongside the child’s and foster home’s need to live with an ongoing temporary situation. This burden may affect the foster home’s capacity to provide a stable everyday care environment and, consequently, the child’s experience of stability and continuity. As in this example, several participants positioned themselves as actors who critically assessed the practical and emotional consequences of changed legal and professional expectations concerning contact and family life. Their accounts did not reject reunification or the child’s right to family life, but emphasised that these considerations must be weighed alongside the child’s need for stability, continuity and protection. The analysis therefore draws attention to a potential tension between expanding opportunities for family contact and preserving a sufficiently stable and manageable care environment for the child. Through the interpretative repertoire of balancing reunification and stability, participants constructed the child’s best interests as requiring attention to both the child’s ongoing family relationships and the longer-term consequences of contact arrangements for the child’s current care environment.

5. Discussion

This study identified three interpretative repertoires. The first concerned managers’ acknowledgement of the essence of the ECtHR rulings and the need for a more balanced approach to assessing contact between children in care and their biological parents. Earlier studies by Haugli (2000) and Haugli and Havik (2010) provide historical evidence of generalised and insufficiently individualised reasoning in contact assessments. More recent studies, including Gerdts-Andresen (2020, 2021), Alvik (2021) and Stang et al. (2023), and Sørvig and Nogalska (2021), provide evidence concerning developments around and following the ECtHR rulings and the Supreme Court’s 2020 decisions. This distinction is important because the present study examines how managers interpret and describe reported changes, rather than independently measuring the effects of the rulings. The managers’ accounts construct individualisation as a central change in the understanding of the child’s best interests. This is consistent with research showing that contact assessments increasingly require attention to multiple, case-specific considerations. Aamodt and Sommerfeldt (2022) found that the intended purpose and duration of a placement influenced the assessed scope of contact, while also showing that contact may be understood both as a right and as a benefit for the child. In the present material, the move towards individualised assessments is not constructed as a simple shift towards more contact. Rather, it requires managers to consider the child’s right to family life, the parents’ right to family life, the possibility of reunification, and the child’s need for stability, continuity and protection.

The findings therefore suggest that the central issue is not whether contact should increase in general, but how contact should be assessed in relation to the circumstances of each child and family. The managers’ accounts present the ECtHR rulings as challenging earlier standardised practices while also leaving room for professional judgement. They acknowledge the need to correct insufficient attention to reunification and family life, but resist an interpretation in which the rulings prescribe increased contact in every case. In this sense, the reported changes are interpreted as an expansion of the need for individualised justification rather than as a uniform shift in the direction of more contact.

The interviews show how managers attribute reported changes in CWS practice and public debate to the rulings, while also relating these changes to research, guidelines and broader developments in the child welfare field. One indication of a change in the knowledge base for child welfare work is visible in the SOS Children’s Villages survey (Sørvig and Nogalska 2021). According to this survey, 86% of managers reported that the rulings had led to more contact. Following the rulings, tribunals are increasingly facilitating individualisation, thereby possibly indicating an expanded or differently structured space for professional discretion for CWS workers (Stang et al. 2023). Generally, contact between children and parents has been limited in the past. However, even before these rulings, the length and frequency of contact varied (Stang et al. 2023; Sørvig and Nogalska 2021). Participants in our study also confirmed this, describing the contact practices in their service compared with their understanding of the intention behind the rulings. Gerdts-Andresen (2020, 2021) noted that standardised assessment norms have limited the legal room for making individual assessments. The participants’ accounts similarly construct individualisation as a way of developing more nuanced assessments of each child’s situation. These assessments involve balancing the child’s and parents’ rights to family life with the child’s need for stability, continuity and protection. The material therefore suggests that the relevant change is not simply an increase in contact, but a greater expectation that the basis for contact arrangements is made explicit and justified in relation to the individual child.

Several participants discussed the challenges of individualising contact assessments and expressed uncertainty about how to prioritise the reunification goal. They perceived that increased contact was often driven by parents’ wishes and initiatives. This perception may partly reflect the fact that parents are often the actors who raise contact-related issues and seek changes in existing arrangements. At the same time, the material does not establish whether children’s views and wishes for more or less contact are given sufficient opportunity to emerge in these processes. The participants also acknowledged that maintaining family relationships may serve the child’s interests and that children themselves have a right to family life. Haugli and Havik (2010) describe a pendulum movement between the need to protect the child and biological parental considerations, which helps clarify the tension highlighted by the participants. Several have raised concerns about whether children’s needs are being deprioritised in favour of parents’ right to contact (Anonyme-fosterforeldre 2023; Gjedrem et al. 2024; Sørvig and Nogalska 2021). The SOS Children’s Villages survey (Sørvig and Nogalska 2021) found that 65% of managers considered increased contact beneficial for the child, whereas 30% disagreed. These figures indicate differing views among managers rather than providing straightforward support for the claim that children’s interests were being neglected. They nevertheless illustrate the contested character of assessments concerning contact and the child’s best interests. Alvik (2021) and Nordmoen and Kvalø (2023) warn against an excessive focus on the reunification goal. This may also be understood in relation to Jørgensen and Heggen’s (2020) distinction between stabilising and corrective discussion practices. The participants’ accounts suggest that the increased emphasis on reunification and contact may challenge established understandings of the child’s best interests. At the same time, their concern that contact may become driven primarily by parental wishes can be understood as an attempt to maintain or re-establish a child-centred, stability-oriented perspective. The accounts therefore reflect an ongoing negotiation between revising previous practices and maintaining attention to the child’s need for protection, stability and continuity, while recognising that family life may also form part of the child’s best interests.

The second repertoire concerned how managers constructed professional capacity and organisational support as conditions for implementing the changes associated with the ECtHR rulings in contact assessments. CWS managers described working under multiple organisational and staffing constraints, while also highlighting the importance of staffing, routine procedures, internal discussions and professional networks. Several participants described an active role in developing routines and practices within their services. Guidelines, routines, and templates were presented as ways to structure contact assessments and support staff, including employees without a background in child welfare or social work. The accounts also emphasised the need for training and support to enable staff to complete the documentation, analysis, and justification required for individual assessments. Rather than showing that organisational tools replace professional discretion, the participants’ accounts suggest that such tools are used to organise and document the discretion required by the new legal and professional expectations. Participation in regional networks involving the County Governor and other CWS managers was described as an important arena for constructing, reassessing, and maintaining shared knowledge, as well as for strengthening professional confidence. The importance of professional networks is supported by several studies (Haug 2018; Huxham and Vangen 2005; Schwarz et al. 2020; Sørensen and Torfing 2017; Torfing 2016). In the interviews, networks were described as providing opportunities for professional exchange, reducing feelings of pressure and isolation, and helping managers develop shared understandings of how legal requirements could be related to child welfare assessments. These accounts suggest that networks may support more reflective and coordinated implementation, although the study cannot establish whether they produce greater fairness or improved outcomes. The repertoire therefore positions professional judgement as dependent not only on individual expertise, but also on the organisational conditions that enable competence to be developed, shared and applied.

The third repertoire concerns the managers’ negotiation of reunification, family life, stability and continuity in contact assessments. The managers attributed reported changes in practice to both the rulings and broader general development in the child welfare field. In our study, several participants expressed uncertainty about whether the reunification focus comes at the expense of children’s right to stability. In collaboration with municipal attorneys in tribunals, several participants indicated feeling increasingly pressured to support or justify more extensive contact arrangements than they would previously have recommended. They described pressure from the attorneys to substantiate limited contact in tribunal proceedings, while also describing situations in which legal expectations and the CWS’s professional assessments did not appear to coincide. These accounts construct a tension between legal expectations and child welfare assessments, but do not establish that the balance has objectively shifted in favour of the legal framework. A possible explanation is that CWS managers and municipal attorneys may have experienced the requirements for justifying contact arrangements differently before and after the ECtHR rulings and the Supreme Court’s clarifications. The findings suggest that managers experienced a stronger need to justify limited contact, while also perceiving a need to retain professional responsibility for assessing what was appropriate in each case. This is partially consistent with Pedersen (2023), Greve et al. (2024) and Vindegg and Stang (2016), who argue that many CWS workers feel inferior when interacting with professionals with higher levels of education. In the present material, however, the distinction is better understood as a negotiation between different forms of professional expertise than as evidence that municipal attorneys necessarily possess greater competence.

The understanding of the child’s best interests is being reconstructed, with the relationship between stability, continuity and family life under negotiation. Participants expressed mixed views about long-term foster-home placements and how much stability in the foster home should be prioritised alongside the possibility of reunification. This is also highlighted in SOS Children’s Villages (Sørvig and Nogalska 2021), which found that 78% observed a stronger focus on the reunification goal, and 24% noted a higher threshold for initiating care orders. The Norwegian Ombudsperson (Barneombudet 2023) also emphasises the importance of awareness regarding whether children’s interests are adequately safeguarded in terms of stability and tranquility. In this context, stability should not be understood as necessarily opposed to family life. The child’s best interests may include protection, continuity and stability, as well as the child’s right to maintain family relationships where this is in the child’s interests.

The participants’ descriptions of changed contact practices illustrate how the understanding of the child’s best interests is reconstructed between different forms of knowledge. They negotiate between legal requirements, professional knowledge, children’s and parents’ rights to family life, and assessments of the child’s everyday care situation. Standardised assessments characterised previous practice, but the rulings have necessitated a new negotiation of the understanding of the child’s best interests and a reconstruction of what constitutes valid knowledge in assessing children’s needs. The findings therefore suggest that individualisation does not prescribe one particular outcome, such as increased contact. Rather, it requires managers to justify how different dimensions of the child’s best interests—including family life, reunification, stability, continuity and protection—are weighed in each case.

Conclusions

Our study aimed to explore how CWS managers construct meaning around the reported implications of the ECtHR rulings for their practice regarding contact and children’s right to family life. We identified three interpretative repertoires: the essence of the rulings, professional capacity and organisational support, and balancing reunification with stability. These repertoires offer insight into how CWS managers interpret and negotiate reported changes in Norwegian child welfare practice following the ECtHR rulings and related legal and policy developments. The qualitative approach has allowed an in-depth exploration of what participants consider essential to this discussion. The findings do not independently measure the rulings’ impact or establish a uniform change in practice. However, they show that the rulings have become an important reference point through which managers reflect on and justify changes in contact assessments. The “earthquake” is therefore not a complete transformation of practice, but an ongoing renegotiation of what constitutes appropriate and defensible professional judgement.

The managers’ accounts should not be understood as establishing a simple opposition between law and social work, or between parental rights and children’s interests. Instead, they construct and negotiate tensions among different dimensions of the child’s best interests, including the child’s right to family life, the parents’ right to family life, the possibility of reunification, and the child’s need for stability, continuity, and protection. Individualised assessments do not prescribe increased contact in every case; they require managers to justify how they weigh these considerations against the circumstances of each child and family.

Furthermore, our study has demonstrated that the best interests of the child are constructed as requiring ongoing professional and institutional negotiation. The findings also show how managers acknowledge the need to correct earlier standardised practices while defending their professional judgement through arguments about resources, expertise, organisational support and child protection. In this process, professional networks, guidelines and assessment templates are described as means of interpreting and implementing new requirements, although the study does not establish that these arrangements produce fairer outcomes.

Norway is commonly characterised as a child-welfare- and child-rights-oriented system, combining family support and preservation with an emphasis on children’s individual rights, protection and stability. This context is important for interpreting the findings. The managers’ accounts reflect the tensions within such a system: they must safeguard family life and reunification while also assessing the child’s need for continuity, security, and protection. The findings are therefore relevant to Norwegian child welfare practice because they show how broad legal and policy requirements are translated into local professional judgement. The managers perceived the position of biological parents and the importance of contact as having become more prominent following the ECtHR rulings. The study cannot, however, determine the extent to which this reflects the rulings themselves, the 2020 Supreme Court decisions, the new Child Welfare Act, professional developments or other reforms.

Future research is needed to follow reported and independently documented changes associated with new legal orientations, political signals and public opinion on CWS work in Norway. Further research should also examine how these assessments include children’s own views and experiences of contact, and how different contact arrangements affect children, parents, and foster families over time. Furthermore, while our study, with a specific focus on Norwegian CWS practice, has provided essential insights, a comparative perspective on how the best interests of the child are balanced with the right to family life in Norway and other countries would provide much-needed knowledge for the further development of CWS work.