The aim of this qualitative study is to understand the processes around the prevention of child endangerment in deportation processes in Germany focusing on street-level bureaucrats. Eight social welfare professionals directly working with refugee minors and having experiences with deportation processes where refugee minors are or were involved distributed along three Federal States participated in this study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted online and were analysed afterwards by using discourse analysis. Strong engagement, emotional involvement, frustration, and anger but also objective views and uncertainty when it comes to the prevention of child endangerment in deportation processes emerged. The deportation process is viewed as something very horrible and not compatible with the best interests of the child leading to cases of child endangerment. Responsibility for this was attributed to the system/state, street-level bureaucrats, as well as parents. Prevention of child endangerment in this context is seen as very difficult as there appear to be barriers at different levels where improvement is needed, containing a professional and personal level, the parental level, and a political and state level. The results were discussed then by using the concept of institutional logics and Lipsky’s theory of street-level bureaucracy. The street-level bureaucrats’ reasoning and practice are informed by several institutional logics which are interpreted and valued differently and raise conflicts which need to be solved. The human rights logics and national state logics, as well as logics of professionalism and logics of bureaucracy play an important role in this context.

Many studies on intimate partner violence often focus on men as perpetrators and women as victims, but this study shifts the focus to men's experiences of being victims of violence. Using the theories of stigma, masculinity, and script theory, the authors aimed to address the study's purpose, which was to investigate how men articulate their experiences of violence in close relationships. Additionally, the study explored the strategies employed by professionals working with abused men to effectively counteract the stigma associated with the challenges posed by ideals of masculinity. A qualitative approach was employed, involving the analysis of self-narratives from podcasts where abused men shared their experiences. Simultaneously, two interviews were conducted with welfare professionals specializing in assisting abused men, combining primary and secondary data. The authors concluded that the issue described by both men and welfare professionals is highly complex. Stigmatization and societal norms of masculinity present significant obstacles to men being open about their experiences of being victims of violence and seeking help. By fostering awareness of these norms among professionals and adapting support strategies accordingly, conditions are created for abused men to feel validated during the help-seeking and treatment processes.