A tale of two cases - investigating reasoning in similar cases with different outcomes.

Why is it that some care order cases result in the child being removed from parental care, while in others she is not, despite the cases being similar? This paper investigates how decision-makers reason and justify different outcomes for similar cases, by an analysis of four pairs of judgments (from Norway, Estonia, and Finland) about care orders, using thematic analysis. The comparison is within the pairs and not across countries. I find that the variance in outcome and reasoning seems to be a result of discretionary evaluations: risk, cooperation of the parents, and the potential of services to alleviate the situation are interpreted differently in the cases and lead to different outcomes.

Analyzing decision-maker's justifications of care orders for newborn children: equal and individualized treatment.

Seeking insights into how decision-makers uphold obligations to equal and individualized treatment in decisions about state intervention, this study examines justifications by decision-makers in care orders for newborn children. Eighty-five care order judgments from eight European countries concerning children of mothers who misuse substances are analyzed to determine how decision-makers justify removing a newborn child from their mother's care. I find that the results display similarities in what risk factors they find relevant to these cases, but it differs which are deemed decisive.