BLOG: Our study uncovers a striking paradox: while Nordic citizens broadly support children’s participation, younger children are still often sidelined-despite the clear mandate of the CRC.
Blog post by Professor Marit Skivenes, Director of the Centre for Research on Discretion and Paternalism
The Nordic countries are widely recognised as global leaders in children’s rights. Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway and Sweden consistently rank among the top countries for child well-being and protection of child rights. Yet even these child-centric societies struggle with balancing protection and participation. [1] Could a reason for this be found in a Nordic paternalistic culture? Paternalism is often defined as an intervention towards an individual that is intended “to address a failure of judgment by that individual, and to further the individual’s own good.”[2]
Yet even these child-centric societies struggle with balancing protection and participation. Could a reason for this be found in a Nordic paternalistic culture?
MARIT SKIVENES
To examine if the Nordic “culture” can tell us something about the challenges in reconciling participation and participation, I conducted a study together with my colleagues, Ph.D. candidate Frøydis L. Haarberg, Prof. Katrin Kriz, and Post Doc Audun Løvlie, regarding population attitudes across the Nordic region on child participation in a child protection situation.
The Participation-Protection Dilemma
Child protection systems face a fundamental challenge. They must safeguard children from harm while simultaneously respecting their rights to participate in decisions affecting their lives. This creates what researchers call the “participation-protection dilemma”.
This creates what researchers call the “participation-protection dilemma”.
MARIT SKIVENES
Children have a clear and strong right to participate in matters that are of importance to them. This is stated in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) Article 12 and in the CRC’s General Comment (GC) 12 (2009). The participation right includes a wide array of conditions, as laid out in GC 12, and the Norwegian child protection act § 1-4 provides an exemplary regulation of the participatory rights:
“§ 1-4 The child’s right to participation
“A child who is capable of forming their own opinions has the right to participate in all matters concerning the child pursuant to this Act. Children have the right to speak to the Child Welfare Service regardless of the parents’ consent and without the parents being informed about the conversation in advance. The child must receive sufficient and suitable information and has the right to express their opinions freely. The child must be listened to, and due weight must be given to the child’s opinions in line with the child’s age and maturity.
Children must be informed about what information provided by the child can be used for and who can access this information. The child has the right to express their opinion before it is decided that the information is to be shared, and due weight must be given to the child’s views in line with their age and maturity.
In meetings with the Child Welfare Service, a child may be given the opportunity to be accompanied by a person in whom the child has particular trust. This person of trust may be subject to a duty of confidentiality.
The Ministry may issue regulations concerning the child’s right to participation and on the duties and functions of the person of trust.”[3]
Autonomy
Autonomy is an important part of, and justification for, providing children with participation rights. Simply put, autonomy means that an individual should be the author of their own life and be able to make their own choices. Autonomy is considered a criterion for human dignity and self-sufficiency. However, autonomy is based on the premise that an individual has the ability to make rational and sensible decisions that can be justified. A person can thus be more or less autonomous, depending on a range of factors. For example, cognitive capacities, mental well-being, sleep deprivation, and substance use are all factors that reduce rational actions. Children are, by definition, assumed to be developing, and, as such, only regarded as fully autonomous when they reach the age of maturity (at age 18 in the Nordic countries). The question, therefore, is how the Nordic population views children´s capacities. The results of our study show that the Nordic population is overall highly supportive of providing information to children and giving their views due weight in child protection investigations.
The results of our study show that the Nordic population is overall highly supportive of providing information to children and giving their views due weight in child protection investigations.
MARIT SKIVENES
We know that age is often used as a proxy for competency. Thus, in our study, we were curious to find out how age impacted people’s assessments. Does people’s willingness to provide information to children and give their views due weight in a situation of a child protection investigation vary if the child is 5 years old, 11 years old, or 16 years old?
Age matters, but should it?
Nordic citizens broadly support children’s participation in child protection decisions. Our findings reveal that age significantly influences attitudes. There is less support for younger children’s participation and stronger protective attitudes toward them. There are some country differences, with the Swedes being most supportive and the Danes least supportive.
Our findings reveal that age significantly influences attitudes. There is less support for younger children’s participation and stronger protective attitudes toward them.
MARIT SKIVENES
These findings reveal an important paradox. The CRC mandates participation for all children regardless of age. Yet, in practice, research shows that younger children, in particular, are routinely excluded from meaningful involvement in decisions that affect their lives. Our findings indicate that the Nordic culture may be a part of the explanation. Although there is a clear majority that is supportive, there is still a substantial part of the population that is less supportive, especially for younger children. The protective impulse is understandable. Adults want to shield children from traumatic experiences and difficult situations. This happens even in Nordic countries with strong child rights traditions. However, this protection can silence children’s voices and undermine their rights. An important part of being involved is the recognition it displays children as moral individuals.
Nordic differences despite shared values
Despite their reputation as a unified bloc on children’s rights, we found significant differences between the Nordic countries in public attitudes toward children’s participation. This suggests that even within relatively similar welfare state and child protective systems, cultural differences may shape how children’s rights are understood and implemented.
Of course, public attitudes are not the same as attitudes of the professionals, and we should also conduct the same study amongst professionals working in the child protection system. However, they are part of the culture in a society, and we do have a wealth of research showing that there is still a long way to go before children are sufficiently involved in child protection proceedings.
Our study shows that we must recognise children as rights-holders with valid perspectives on their own lives. Their participation is not just a legal requirement but also essential for effective protection and for safeguarding their best interest. Without children´s involvement, it is very difficult to make the right decisions.
The balance between paternalism and child-centrism remains delicate. Protection without participation risks silencing children’s voices. Participation without sensible protection risks abandoning children to harm and difficult decisions. Professionals have the training to find the right balance, but it is not an option to disregard children´s right to participate, to be informed, and to have a say in matters that concern them.
Child protection must ultimately serve children’s best interests. This means treating them as active participants in their own protection, not merely as passive recipients of adult decisions. The Nordic experience offers valuable lessons. Whether the Nordic views differ from the populations of, for example, France, England or the USA, is a matter yet to be examined.
Child protection must ultimately serve children’s best interests. This means treating them as active participants in their own protection, not merely as passive recipients of adult decisions.
MARIT SKIVENES
Source: Haarberg, Kriz, Løvlie, Skivenes. (2025). Balancing paternalism and child centrism: a Nordic population study on children’s rights in child protection. European Journal of Social Work. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13691457.2025.2485383
[1] Norwegian Ministry of Children and Families. (2023). NOU 2023:7: Trygg barndom, sikker fremtid – Beskyttelse av barn mot vold og overgrep [Safe childhood, secure future – Protection of children against violence and abuse]. Regjeringen.no. https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/nou-2023-7/id2966836/
[2] Le Grand, J., & New, B. (2015). Government paternalism: Nanny state or helpful friend? Princeton University Press.
[3] https://www.stortinget.no/no/Saker-og-publikasjoner/Vedtak/Beslutninger/Lovvedtak/2020-2021/vedtak-202021-173/