BLOG: Against a backdrop of legal battles over religion and children across the globe, the opinions of the public remain largely unknown. This gap in knowledge makes public views on faith and foster care placement choices important to examine: What should happen if parents’ religious views require a child to move from a foster home?
Blog post by Professor Marit Skivenes, Professor at the Department of Government, University of Bergen, and Director of the Centre for Research on Discretion and Paternalism
Every year, around the world, thousands of children enter foster care. The reasons vary. Some because of parental abuse. Others due to neglect or maltreatment. Some of these children settle into new homes and form family bonds with foster carers. They become part of the foster family and experience belonging and security for their care and upbringing. However, for foster children, difficult dilemmas may arise. What happens if the biological parents insist on something that conflicts with the child’s living arrangement? Should, for example, the child be moved from the foster home?
This question becomes particularly complex when religion is involved. There is a range of court cases involving religion and children in the US (e.g., school curriculum and opting out of classes)[1] and in Europe (e.g., Northern Ireland about an agnostic mother and a Pentecostal foster home[2]). For example, a recent judgment in the European Court of Human Rights, religion and child protection was one of the claims discussed: Is it a violation of parents’ family life and freedom of religion when a child from a Muslim family is placed in a Christian foster family (Abdi Ibrahim vs. Norway, GC 2021).[3]
Public views in 40 countries
A study I have conducted with my colleague, predoctoral fellow Zacky Dhaffa Pratama, shows surprising findings on how everyday people balance religion and stability in child protection across 40 wealthy democracies. Over 41,000 people, representative samples of the populations in 40 OECD countries, were asked about their views. They were presented with a straightforward scenario: A five-year-old child has been removed by the child protection system due to parental abuse. The child is now happy and settled with a foster family. The biological parents are deeply religious. They require the child to be moved to a home matching their faith.
The answer was overwhelming and clear: 88% of people said the child should stay in the foster home. Only 12% supported moving the child to match the parents’ religious preference. This agreement held across vastly different countries and cultures.
MARIT SKIVENES
The answer was overwhelming and clear: 88% of people said the child should stay in the foster home. Only 12% supported moving the child to match the parents’ religious preference. This agreement held across vastly different countries and cultures. Iceland is at the top, with 98% of respondents supporting stability. Wales followed at 97%. Even countries with lower support rates still showed strong majorities. Turkey had the lowest rate at 69%, which is still two-thirds of respondents choosing stability over religious matching.
Religion shapes views
Religious people themselves were more likely to support moving the child. This makes intuitive sense. People with faith commitments understand the importance of religious community. They value religious continuity.
Similarly, people who believed religious minorities don’t have enough rights were more supportive of moving the child. These respondents likely saw a move as a way to protect religious freedom. However, religious respondents also mostly sided with stability. The overall pattern held, just at different rates.
However, religious respondents also mostly sided with stability. The overall pattern held, just at different rates.
MARIT SKIVENES
A trust paradox?
The study contained a surprising finding. It was expected that people who trusted their child protection system would be more supportive of keeping the child stable in the foster home. The opposite happened. People with high confidence in the child protection system were actually more likely to support moving the child. This illustrates a possible trust paradox, and perhaps it is because confident citizens believe their systems are strong enough to successfully find a religiously appropriate home without harming the child. They trust the system’s competence.
The evasive best interest principle
When asked about their justifications for their choices, people on both sides pointed to the same principle to justify opposite conclusions. Nearly all people who wanted the child to stay in the foster home (97%) said it was in the child’s best interests. Remarkably, 87% of those who wanted the child moved also said it was in the child’s best interests.
This exemplifies a common problem with the principle of the best interests of the child – it can be used to justify any position and any viewpoint.
MARIT SKIVENES
This exemplifies a common problem with the principle of the best interests of the child—it can be used to justify any position and any viewpoint. Those favoring stability for the child in the foster home pointed to the child being happy and well-settled. This group emphasized the child’s view and conditions. Those favoring the child to move to a new foster home with the same religious affiliation as the parents pointed to something different. They saw the child’s religious identity and spiritual development as important. They valued belonging to a religious community as being in the best interest of the child.
The social workers’ status varies
Professional expertise matters, but differently across countries. When asked if the social worker’s recommendation that the child should stay in the foster home was important, 73% of those favoring stability agreed. In Turkey, 90% valued the social worker’s assessment. In the Czech Republic, only 40% did. This indicates that the child protection professionals have very different status, authority, and respect across societies.
I believe this is a marker for the trust people have in the welfare state and government, and it may also affect how people view difficult decisions, such as restricting parental freedom.
What may this mean for policy?
I wish to highlight three findings that may matter for policymakers in OECD countries. First, it is a clear and strong message that the public prefers stability for a child. When a child is thriving, most people want that situation secured. Even when this position is against parents’ wishes. Even when the justification for moving the child is based on religion, which is one of the fundamental human rights. Possibly, child rights have a stronger standing than religious rights, or at least in situations of child protection. Policymakers should take note of the public’s recognition of the child’s family life in a foster home as legitimate and important.
This is also in accord with the European Court of Human Rights Grand Chamber judgement Abdi Ibrahim vs. Norway of 2021, in which one conclusion that legal scholar Professor Stang points out is that parents do not have a right to have their child placed in a foster home with the same religious affiliation as themselves (see Stang, 2022[4]).
Second, it is a reminder that the concept of “best interests” is, without a precise definition, open to a wide array of interpretations. Different people understand it completely differently, and although much child protection legislation in OECD countries guides decision-makers in which factors they should consider (Luhamaa et al., 2022), some do not. Norway is one of the latter. I believe it is likely that social workers, tribunal members, and judges have, as the general public, different views on what is important for children, and that this will influence the decisions they make. When this happens, it threatens the rule of law.
For child protection, having the most complex and demanding challenges of the welfare state sector, my view is that 5 years education should be a requirement.
MARIT SKIVENES
Third, the role of professional expertise in a society may be up for discussion. The results show a wide variation in how much people trust social workers. It suggests that professional authority is fragile in some countries. Possibly, this is related to the quality and length of the social worker’s education. Some countries require 5 years and a master’s level, while others require only 3 years and a bachelor’s level. For child protection, having the most complex and demanding challenges of the welfare state sector, my view is that 5 years should be a requirement. Possibly also, policymakers should improve public communication about social workers and their important functions for individuals and families in difficult life situations.
This blog post reports research from an open-access peer-reviewed article titled “Religion and Continuity for Children in Care – An Examination of Public Views in 40 Countries” by Zacky Dhaffa Pratama and Marit Skivenes, published in Social Sciences (2026). Access the paper here: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/15/1/30
[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-297_4f14.pdf
[2] https://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIHC/Fam/2024/4.html
[3] https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-214433
[4] https://frifagbevegelse.no/fontene/tvangsadoptert-fra-muslimsk-til-kristent-hjem-dette-betyr-dommen-fra-strasbourg-for-barnevernet-6.158.846395.94339ac500