Ph.d.-profil: Audun Gabriel Løvlie

The goal of my PhD-project is to understand how judicial decision-makers use research-based knowledge provided by experts to justify their decisions legitimately and acceptably. Empirically I am focusing on the County Social Welfare Board and care order cases forwarded by the child protection services where violence is a concern. In these cases, the question of state intervention into the family is considered, with the possible outcome of removing a child from her birth family. The justification of these decision centre around three main components: 1) whether the basic legal threshold has been met, meaning that there is proven harm or risk of harm (including neglect and violence), 2) whether all support measures and services have been tried and exhausted, and 3) whether a care order is in the child’s best interests.

Experts are key in determining the veracity of alleged harm and risks of harm in a family situation, to ascertain the cause for symptoms and characteristics of behaviour. Their expertise stems from research that provides the county boards with crucial information concerning symptoms and adverse outcomes due to different kinds of harms, determining the ability of parents and child, as well as characteristics of the care situations. The child protection services prepare the case before they apply for a care order, which relatively often includes the preparation of a report by appointed experts that make a separate assessment of the case. For this report to be admissible it must have been reviewed by the Commission on Child Welfare Experts.

This dependence on expert evidence is a central premise for determining the legal threshold, as well as providing guidance concerning the viability for continued support measures and to determine the child’s best interests. Herein lies considerations of what can be considered proven, as well as what can be expected and should be expected from caregivers. These considerations constitute the foundation for justifying the outcome of the proceedings, the care order decision. The project aims to shed light on the interplay between different professions, experts and expertise, how judicial decision-makers justify their decisions, and the “acceptability” of these decisions when experts, research-based knowledge, lay knowledge, and societal norms and values clash.