Our purpose with this study was to understand how social welfare board perceive neglect and what they consider are unacceptable flaws in parental capacity. The central focus of the study is located in the assessment of the social welfare boards when they consider that the parental capacity is unacceptable. The study aims to answer the following questions:   How does social welfare board understand neglect? How perceive social welfare board unacceptable parental capacity?   Our study is based on a document analysis of fourteen cases from administrative rulings where social welfare board applied for LVU 1§ 2§ because of flaws in care. We have used hermeneutic interpretation to look at the empirical material. The theoretical framework of the study consists systems theory and Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model with focus on the family as the basic system.   The result we found was that the unacceptable parental capacity consisted of  parental individual problems. Problems we could identify at the parents were mental illness, disability, relationship conflicts, violence and abuse. Social welfare board had payed attention to several types of neglect. We identified moral care, emotional care, physical care and fysical violence.   Our conclusion is that it not only was just one specific problem in the family without that it were several parallel problems which led to that social welfare board consisted that the parental capacity is unacceptable. The study shows that the term neglect is difficult to define and is a interpretation question of the social welfare board to assess whether each boundary goes where the child is considered to fare badly.

There are hundreds of thousands of children living in foster care in the United States on any given day. Mental health professionals may be called upon to assist with evaluating the parental capacity of these children’s parents in order to inform reunification decisions. One of the key parental capacity domains to be evaluated is the relationship between parent and child (Schmidt et al., 2007). The Working Model of the Child Interview coding scheme (WMCI; Zeanah et al., 1996) is one tool for evaluating this relationship. There is a significant practice-to-research gap with this measure. To date, no peer-reviewed studies have established the WMCI coding scheme’s psychometric properties; the need for such research with this measure has been cited in the literature (Sprang, Clark, & Bass, 2005). In this dissertation, the literature was reviewed on attachment theory and internal working models of caregiving, the WMCI and other measures of similar constructs, the importance of establishing a measure’s construct and criterion-validity, and forensic standards for measures. Then, it outlined a series of research questions aimed at exploring the psychometric properties of the WMCI Coding Scheme with mothers who have maltreated. Next, the methodology was described. Based on the results of the 403 biological mothers who completed the WMCI as part of court-appointed evaluations following child maltreatment, the items of the WMCI Coding Scheme were best conceptualized using two-factors: Quality and Content. This finding was consistent with the manual. Significant differences in item-level scores existed for all three WMCI descriptive classifications and for overall factor scores. Due to the instability of the two-item Content factor, this dissertation explored the use of a WMCI Total Score (combining the two factors) and using only the WMCI Quality factor and items. No significant relationships existed between any demographic characteristics and WMCI factor scores. Weak, negative correlations with other measures provided some evidence of convergent validity. In conclusion, some potential clinical/research implications for the WMCI Coding Scheme were made and limitations and future directions were described.

This study is a discourse analysis of 15 child protection cases in Sweden, analysing a total of 30 verdicts from both the Court of Administrative Law and the Administrative Court of Appeal. The study’s first aim was to analyse the construction of parenthood and parental abilities in court verdicts concerning the removal of children due to environmental factors according to The Care of Young Persons Special Provisions Act. The second aim of the study was to analyse if a parent’s gender, class, or ethnicity affected the outcome of the courts’ verdict. The results were analysed using Michél Foucault’s theories on discourse and power and Tina Mattsson’s theories on categorization and intersectionality. The study found that parents were characterized by their conceived flaws in parenting in relation to what needs they were deemed as not fulfilling for their children. Those parents were also seen as deviating from the norm. One of the key aspects influencing the court’s verdict was if the parent displayed insight into their perceived problem and showed a willingness to change and cooperate with authorities. The results also showed that verdicts where children were placed into the custody of the social services tended to be based on a child protection paradigm, whereas verdicts where parents could keep custody were based on a child welfare paradigm. Another finding was that mothers were more likely to be seen as primary caregivers than fathers, and therefore more likely to be deemed as unfit parents. A mother’s mental illness was seen as a sign of unfit parenthood. Parents with substance abuse issues were often deemed unreliable as parents. Non-European parents who controlled their children were seen as the most deviant from the norm. Their children were seen as having to choose between either “freedom” or their family. An intersectional analysis showed how social injustices were maintained in the current discourse of child protection through marginalization. Finally, implications for social work were discussed based on the findings of the study.