The use of Expert Reports as evidence in Child Protection Decision-Making

Duration: 01.09.2023–31.08.2027

Making decisions in child protection cases is a difficult task that can have significant consequences for those involved. Psychological knowledge plays an important role in these assessments. With this project, we aim to achieve consistent practices across expert mandates, approaches, and conclusions, for the benefit of children and their parents.

Contact

Annika Melinder PSI, UiO Principle Investigator
Camilla Bernt UiB Subproject Supervisor
Kirsten Sandberg JUS, UiO Subproject Supervisor

About the Project

Norway has been criticized by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in several decisions. The criticism primarily relates to the failure to demonstrate a balanced consideration of the parents' and child's interests in the decisions, and a lack of sufficient factual basis, including updated expert assessments.

This project addresses the criticism from the ECtHR. We have access to a unique database (The Commission for the Assessment of Child Welfare Cases), and our findings show significant variations in expert mandates, as well as the random nature of expert interviews with the child. An overarching goal of this project is therefore to develop consistent procedures for expert work. We also aim to contribute to the better utilization of expert reports in decisions made by boards and courts.

Our Objectives Are:

Compare the utilization of experts in Norway, Sweden, Germany, and England through the study of legal source material.
Develop and test an app-based interview for experts to use when speaking with children.
Compare Norwegian and Swedish legal decisions in child protection cases to identify how they justify the assessment of the child's best interests and the parents' rights, including the use of expert evaluations.

Organization and Goals

We are an interdisciplinary team of psychologists and lawyers with expertise in clinical, forensic, and developmental psychology, as well as procedural and child welfare law. Together with our reference group, we aim to address these questions. The interdisciplinary approach will enable an improvement in the training of experts and the practices of actors in the judicial system, while also fostering better understanding of these cases among future generations of psychology and law students. An important outcome of the study will be the achievement of more consistent practices across expert mandates, approaches, and conclusions, for the benefit of children and their parents.

See more about the project on the Norwegian website

Participants

Annika Maria Désirée Melinder University of Oslo
Kirsten Sandberg University of Oslo
Hedda Cathrine Jor L'Orange University of Oslo
Cathrine Bauthler Løkstad University of Oslo
Haagen Klundby Kierulf University of Oslo
Inger Skeimo University of Oslo
Hulda Rødder Fosse University of Oslo
Pål Ulleberg University of Oslo
Camilla Bernt University of Bergen
Mikaela Magnusson University of Gothenburg
Gail Goodman UC Davis
Anna Kaldal Stockholm University
Ray Bull University of Derby
Philipp Reuß Georg-August-Universität Göttingen
Volker Lipp Georg-August-Universität Göttingen

Rasiah, Midja; Larsen, Maria Å.; Bernhardt, Ida Stange & Melinder, Annika Maria Désirée (2026). Barnefaglig sakkyndiges opplevelser av å arbeide i skjæringspunktet mellom juss og psykologi. Tidsskrift for Norsk psykologforening (Psykologtidsskriftet). ISSN 0332-6470. doi: 10.52734/XQDA1314. Full text in Research Archive
Melinder, Annika Maria Désirée & Kierulf, Haagen Klundby (2026). Experts’ Approaches when Interviewing Children and Evaluating their Care Needs. Child Abuse & Neglect. ISSN 0145-2134. 177. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2026.108129. Full text in Research Archive Show summary
Abstract Background Experts are often hired by the courts in child protective system (CPS) cases to evaluate children's care needs and they may also provide information about the best interest of the child. Although experts' reports are quality-secured by the Expert Commission on Children (ECC), we lack insight into the evaluative approaches used by experts. Objectives This study examines (a) the type of child- interviews and observational methods used by experts, (b) the extent to which experts explicitly refer the concept of the best interest of the child, and (c) whether the content of experts´ assessments is associated with the quality of their evaluative justification. Method 299 expert reports, including information about the child and the family, were collected from the ECC. We employed observational design and correlational statistics. Reports are analyzed using a coding system based on references from the ECC covering interview- and observational practices (inter-rater reliability, α = 0.89). Results Experts interviewed 222 children. Of those not interviewed, 56 were younger than five years. Within these interviews, 94.5% were conducted with limited use of evidence-based techniques. Observations were conducted in 36% of cases. The child's best interest references appeared in 12%. The quality of experts' evaluative justification was positively associated with the depth of descriptions of the child's care needs. Conclusions Experts predominantly rely on non-standardized interview methods and infrequent observational assessments. Explicit articulation of the best interest of the child is uncommon. The findings highlight substantial variability in experts' methodological approaches and call for more transparency of experts' work.
Kierulf, Haagen Klundby & Melinder, Annika Maria Désirée (2026). Few and unstructured: observation count, observation methods and guideline-based evaluation quality in parent-child interaction observations in child protection cases. Children and Youth Services Review. ISSN 0190-7409. 190, p. 109230–109230. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2026.109230. Full text in Research Archive Show summary
Background: Parent–child interaction observations are frequently used as part of evidence within child protection proceedings, yet little is known about how expert witnesses conduct these observations or if observation count relate to the extent to which interplay and relationship evaluations reflect guideline-based quality criteria. Objective: To examine the number and methods of parent–child interaction observations in expert witness reports, identify predictors of observation count and assess whether the number of observations predicts scores on a guideline-based quality measure of parent–child interplay and relationship evaluations. Participants and Setting: A total of 271 expert witness reports produced between 2020 and 2023 in child protection cases were collected. Methods: Expert witness reports were coded for observation count, observation method, and scores on a guideline-based quality measure. Poisson regression was used to identify predictors of observation count, and ordinal regression was used to assess the relationship between observation count and scores on the guideline-based evaluation quality measure. Results: 58% of reports included only one or two observations, and 88.2% relied on unstructured observation methods. The number of children involved (p = 0.006) and report year (p = 0.011) significantly predicted observation count in Poisson regression. Ordinal regression indicated that each additional observation increased the odds of receiving a higher score on the guideline-based quality measure by 23% (OR = 1.23, p = 0.027). Conclusions: Parent–child interaction observations in expert witness reports are often few and predominantly unstructured. Furthermore, the findings suggest that the observational basis available to experts may be related to how extensively experts document, justify, and connect observations to their evaluations of parent–child interplay and relationship. Further research is needed to examine how different observational approaches influence the consistency and evidentiary basis of expert assessments.
Brodshaug, Maylén F.; Logendran, Abisha & Melinder, Annika Maria Désirée (2025). Ungdommers forståelse av mistenktes rettigheter og plikter i avhør. Tidsskrift for strafferett. ISSN 1502-685X. 25(3-2025), p. 298–324. Full text in Research Archive Show summary
Denne studien undersøkte hvordan tydeliggjøring og forenkling av informasjon kan forbedre ungdommers forståelse av egne rettigheter og plikter som mistenkte under politiavhør. Ungdommer (antall: 268, 15–17 år) ble randomisert til ett av tre ulike informasjonsnivåer med stigende tilpasningsnivå av avhørsrettigheter fra dagens nivå (1), til nivå med elaborert tekst og illustrasjon (3). Målinger av deltakernes gjenkallings- og gjenkjenningsforståelse viste statistisk signifikante forskjeller. Deltakerne fra nivå 1 viste den laveste forståelsen, mens deltakerne fra nivå 3 viste den høyeste forståelsen. Verken alder eller kjønn påvirket resultatene. Studien viste at forenkling av informasjon kan forbedre ungdommers forståelse av sine rettigheter og plikter i avhør.
Melinder, Annika Maria Désirée & Bernt, Agnes Camilla (2025). Samtaler med og forklaringer fra barn – psykologiske og juridiske perspektiver. Tidsskrift for familierett, arverett og barnevernrettslige spørsmål. ISSN 1503-2965. 2025(3), p. 213–235. doi: 10.18261/fab.23.3.3. Full text in Research Archive Show summary
I denne artikkelen drøfter forfatterne juridiske og psykologfaglige premisser og hensyn ved samtaler med barn i barnelovs- og barnevernssaker, både som ledd i å gjennomføre barnets rett til medvirkning og ved psykologfaglige utredninger. Forfatterne fremstiller utviklingen i synet på samtaler med barn, og på hvem som bør snakke med barn, og hvordan samtaler med barn bør foregå og dokumenteres. Avslutningsvis presenteres et prosjekt med utvikling og implementering av en samtalemetodikk for sakkyndiges barnesamtaler, som inngår i et større forskningsprosjekt om sakkyndighet i barnevernssaker.
Melinder, Annika Maria Désirée; Kierulf, Haagen Klundby & Ulleberg, Pål (2025). Towards Higher Quality in Expert Reports in Child Protection: Why Emphasizing Limitations and Alternative Explanations Matters. International Journal on Child Maltreatment: Research, Policy and Practice. ISSN 2524-5236. 8, p. 293–314. doi: 10.1007/s42448-025-00226-2. Full text in Research Archive Show summary
Admitting one’s limitations and providing alternative explanations for one’s own conclusions (i.e., justifying) in order to avoid prejudice and confirmation bias is important in most fields, especially when experts evaluate child protective cases. However, we lack knowledge about the relationship between these expressions and the quality of experts’ reports in such cases. In this study, we examined whether experts who are better at justifying their conclusions differ from those who are worse at justifying their conclusions in terms of the quality of their reports. We collected and coded, after reliability testing (Krippendorff’s α = .89), 306 expert reports regarding quality and justification-related variables. Spearman’s rho indicated that the overall quality ratings were positively related to the degree of justification (p < 0.001). Evaluation quality and methodological discussion were also associated with justification (p < 0.001) and differed among experts with low vs. middle vs. high levels of justification. Furthermore, rating scores of experts’ conduct and behavior increased with higher levels of justification (p < 0.001). Experts who discussed doubt and limitations in their work and who presented alternative hypotheses achieved higher scores on several of our quality measures. The higher scores on the judgement scale were further associated with a higher score on the experts’ code of conduct scale.
Melinder, Annika Maria Désirée; Lekva, Karine Bakke & Fosse, Hulda Rødder (2025). Deeply navigating among cross-cultural issues makes you a better expert. Children and Youth Services Review. ISSN 0190-7409. 177. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2025.108501. Full text in Research Archive Show summary
The European Court of Human Rights underscores the importance of cultural and ethnic aspects in experts’ evaluations of child protective services cases. However, little is known about whether the degree of justification of their conclusions and the quality of expert reports differ as a function of the case’s ethnicity. We explored whether experts who examine nonethnic Scandinavian (NES) vs. ethnic Scandinavian (ES) cases differ in terms of justifying their conclusions and producing high-quality reports. A total of 306 reports (n = 124 NES) were collected after reliability testing (α ≥ 0.81) and coded for ‘Justifying’ and ‘Quality’ variables. ANOVA did not show significant differences between the NES and ES groups in terms of justification (p = 0.84), but when the NES group was divided into yes/no regarding the discussion of ethnic issues, ANOVA showed that the discussed NES group was superior in terms of justification to the not discussed NES group (p = 0.01), but not compared to the ES group (p = 0.88). For the quality variables, no differences were detected between the NES and ES groups (p ≥ 0.08). When the discussed NES group was compared with the ES group, we found a difference in the ‘quality of evaluation’ between the discussed NES group and the not discussed NES group (p = 0.02). The rating scores of the experts’ conduct and behavior did not differ. Only experts who discussed ethnic issues in their work with NES cases had higher scores on the justification and quality measures. Examining NES cases without discussing issues of ethnicity might be a risk factor for worse justification and lower quality in experts’ reports in child protective services cases.
Bernt, Agnes Camilla (2025). Expert Evidence in Custody Disputes and Child Protection Cases. Much Debate and Limited Research. In Uzelac, Alan & Voet, Stefaan (Ed.), The Heroes of the Judicial Periphery. Bloomsbury Academic. ISSN 9781509980529. p. 231–248. doi: https:/www.bloomsbury.com/uk/heroes-of-the-judicial-periphery-9781509980536/. Full text in Research Archive
Bernt, Agnes Camilla (2025). Sakkyndigbevis i barnesaker. Mye diskutert og lite utforsket. In Lie, Markus Hoel; Steinsvik, Kine; Magnussen, Roger Stelander; Solheim, Stig H.; Eriksen, Gunnar Ketil; Pedersen, Jussi Erik; Ravna, Øyvind & Falkanger, Aage Thor (Ed.), Vidsyn og skjønn : festskrift til Jens Edvin A. Skoghøy på 70-årsdagen 16. februar 2025. Universitetsforlaget. ISSN 9788215067414. p. 303–319. doi: https:/www.universitetsforlaget.no/vidsyn-og-skjonn-1. Full text in Research Archive
Melinder, Annika Maria Désirée & Skyberg, Lisbeth (2024). Etiske aspekter ved fritaksretten ved vurderingen av barnets beste. In Jakobsen, Kristina Kepinska & Risan, Patrick (Ed.), Etikk i etterforskning. Gyldendal Akademisk. ISSN 9788205605602. p. 280–300. Full text in Research Archive
Melinder, Annika Maria Désirée; Jahren, Marie & Bernt, Agnes Camilla (2023). Hvordan arbeider sakkyndige psykologer med barnevernssaker? En gjennomgang av 1855 saker fra årene 2018–2020. Tidsskrift for familierett, arverett og barnevernrettslige spørsmål. ISSN 1503-2965. 21(3), p. 175–195. doi: 10.18261/fab.21.3.3. Full text in Research Archive
Melinder, Annika Maria D; Koch, Katrin & Bernt, Agnes Camilla (2021). Som du spør får du svar: En gjennomgang av mandater til sakkyndige i barnevernsaker. Tidsskrift for familierett, arverett og barnevernrettslige spørsmål. ISSN 1503-2965. 19(1), p. 52–77. doi: 10.18261/issn.0809-9553-2021-01-04. Full text in Research Archive Show summary
I dette arbeidet har vi, med både psykologisk og juridisk blikk, undersøkt hvilke mandater som blir gitt sakkyndige i barnevernssaker. Det finnes ikke noen tilsvarende gjennomgang fra tidligere, men på bakgrunn av erfaringer fra feltet hadde vi grunn til å anta at mandatene ble formulert med stor variasjon, og ofte uten referanse til den relevante lovmessige rammen. Vår gjennomgang av 201 mandater gitt av barneverntjenesten til sakkyndige bekreftet til dels våre antagelser og avdekket et behov for mer tematisk avgrensede og standardiserte mandater, samt et behov for å bevisstgjøre barns rett til å bli hørt gjennom sunne metodiske tilnærminger.
Melinder, Annika Maria D; Albrechtsen, Malin & Sandberg, Kirsten (2021). In the Best Interest of the Child: the Norwegian Approach to Child Protection. International Journal on Child Maltreatment: Research, Policy and Practice. ISSN 2524-5236. 4(3), p. 209–230. doi: 10.1007/s42448-021-00078-6. Full text in Research Archive Show summary
Abstract In the present paper, we discuss three challenges with the Norwegian Child Protective System (CPS) that might have contributed to the recent criticism from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). First, how to balance the rights of the child with those of the parents. Second, the psychological field’s influence on the interpretation of what constitutes the best interest of the child, and third we describe several missing links in the CPS work. Throughout the paper, we find indications of a well-developed Act, but a less optional CPS practice. Likewise, we find evidence for a narrow interpretation of the best interest of the child related to CPS and expert psychologists’ application of attachment theory, and several organizational and educational shortcomings in the area of CPS. We conclude that the child is not fully seen as a legal subject in the eyes of the ECtHR, and that more research into CPS measures and organization are needed to better deliver adequate assistance to vulnerable families.

View all works in NVA

Melinder, Annika Maria Désirée; Sandberg, Kirsten; Kierulf, Haagen Klundby & Skeimo, Inger (2026). Experts work in Child Protective Cases. Full text in Research Archive
Kierulf, Haagen Klundby; Skeimo, Inger & Melinder, Annika Maria Désirée (2026). Samvær i barneverns- og barnelovssaker. Full text in Research Archive
Melinder, Annika Maria Désirée (2025). Barns medvirkning ved sakkyndige utredninger. Full text in Research Archive
Kierulf, Haagen Klundby & Melinder, Annika Maria Désirée (2025). Barnefaglig sakkyndiges samspillsobservasjoner i barnevernssaker. Full text in Research Archive Show summary
Gjennomgangen av 271 norske barnefaglig sakkyndigrapporter fra 2020, 2022 og 2023 viser at foreldre–barn samspill som oftest blir observert bare én eller to ganger, og at 98.1% av observasjonene gjennomføres uten bruk av strukturerte observasjonsverktøy. Antall observasjoner øker når flere barn er involvert i saken, og var høyere i rapporter fra 2023 enn i 2020 og 2022. Ordinal regresjonsanalyse viser at hver ekstra samspillobservasjon øker oddsratioen med 23 % for at den sakkyndiges vurdering av relasjonen mellom barn og forelder plasseres i en høyere kvalitetskategori. Funnene peker på et behov for både flere og mer systematiske observasjoner i sakkyndigutredninger i barnevernssaker, for å styrke kvaliteten og rettssikkerheten i vurderingene.
Kierulf, Haagen Klundby & Melinder, Annika Maria Désirée (2025). Parent–Child Interaction Observations in Norwegian Child Protection Assessments: A Study of 271 Expert Witness Reports. Full text in Research Archive Show summary
Background Parent–child interaction observations are a key component of child protection assessments in Norway, yet little is known about how these observations are conducted by expert witnesses or how observation practices relate to quality of interplay and relationship evaluation. Objective To examine the number and types of parent–child interaction observations in Norwegian expert witness reports, identify predictors of observation count, and assess whether number of observations conducted predicts parent-child interplay and relationship evaluation quality . Participants and Setting A total of 271 expert witness reports produced between 2020 and 2023 in Norwegian child protection cases. Methods Expert witness reports were coded for observation count, observation method, and evaluation quality. Poisson regression was used to identify predictors of observation count, and ordinal regression was used to assess the relationship between observation count and evaluation quality. Results 58% of reports included only one or two observations, and 88.2% relied on unstructured observation methods. The number of children involved (p = .006) and report year (p = .011) significantly predicted observation count in Poisson regression. Ordinal regression indicated that each additional observation increased the odds of a higher-quality evaluation by 23% (OR = 1.23, p = .027). Conclusions Parent–child interaction observations in Norwegian expert witness reports are often few and predominantly unstructured. While observation quantity was positively associated with evaluation quality, current practices raise concerns about methodological rigor. Increasing both the number and structure of observations may strengthen the reliability of expert assessments in child protection cases.
Melinder, Annika Maria Désirée (2025). Nytt utdanningsprogram for barnefaglig sakkyndige. Tidsskrift for familierett, arverett og barnevernrettslige spørsmål. ISSN 1503-2965. 2025(3), p. 246–248. Full text in Research Archive
Melinder, Annika Maria Désirée (2025). Sakkyndige og metodebruk. Klassekampen. ISSN 0805-3839. doi: https:/klassekampen.no/utgave/2025-06-18/debatt-sakkyndige-og-metodebruk. Full text in Research Archive
Melinder, Annika Maria Désirée (2025). Nytt utdanningsprogram for barnefaglig sakkyndige. Tidsskrift for Norsk psykologforening (Psykologtidsskriftet). ISSN 0332-6470. 62(9), p. 541–543. doi: https:/www.psykologtidsskriftet.no/artikkel/2025as08ae-Nytt-utdanningsprogram-for-barnefaglig-sakkyndige. Full text in Research Archive
Melinder, Annika Maria Désirée (2025). Sakkyndiges Arbeid som Bevis i Barnevernssaker (SABB) - Hvor er vi nå? Full text in Research Archive
Melinder, Annika Maria Désirée (2025). Utvikling av en modell for sakkyndiges barnesamtale og videre implementering i utdanningsprogrammet for sakkyndige. Full text in Research Archive
Melinder, Annika Maria Désirée (2024). Bruk av sakkyndighets-rapporter i forskning. Full text in Research Archive
Melinder, Annika Maria Désirée; Bernt, Agnes Camilla; Kierulf, Haagen Klundby; Skeimo, Inger & Sandberg, Kirsten (2024). The use of Expert Reports as evidence in Child Protection Decision-Making. Full text in Research Archive

View all works in NVA

Funding

Project number: 334711

Research Project for Renewal

Collaborators

The project is conducted at the Department of Psychology in collaboration with the Department of Public Law at the University of Oslo, and the Faculty of Law at the University of Bergen.

Norwegian version of this page

Published Jan. 21, 2025 10:41 AM - Last modified Sep. 25, 2025 9:26 AM