‘I Think It’s So Complicated Knowing What to Make of What Children Show’: On Child Welfare Employees’ Assessments of Children’s Reactions to Visitation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article presents the results of an empirical qualitative study on how child welfare (CW) workers interpret children's reactions during assessments of supervised visits with their parents. The author employs Sara Ahmed's perspectives on emotions as a conceptual framework to categorize the perceptions of children's responses.

The introduction briefly situates the context of visitation assessments and the child's best interests, which are complex and multifaceted. The author notes a lack of knowledge regarding the impact of visitation on children and mentions that Norwegian Child Welfare Services were convicted by the ECHR for inadequate provision of visitation. It is then stated that children's reactions are one of the elements assessed by CW workers during visits, with strong reactions typically associated with negative contact, leading to a preference for reducing contact. The introduction should provide more details on the Norwegian context of visitation in child welfare and include a literature review on visitation in child welfare. The relevance of examining CW workers' assessments of children's reactions to visitation using Ahmed's perspectives on emotions remains unclear.

The theoretical section on Ahmed's perspectives on emotions is overly lengthy and covers many aspects, making it unclear how all of it is relevant to the article's purpose. Part of Ahmed's perspectives involves the interaction and influence between society and individuals, creating emotional discourses. Therefore, the author should provide more information on Norwegian society to contextualize how this cultural perspective can influence CW workers' understanding.

The methodology section provides most of the necessary information to appreciate how the study was conducted. However, the description of the empirical material is insufficient. For instance, it should be clearly indicated in section 3.1 whether CW workers were discussing real-life cases or fictional vignettes, the context of these discussions, whether they occurred during individual interviews or group discussions, the number of CW workers involved if in groups, and the length of the transcripts. When reading the results, it becomes clearer that these are group discussions on real-life cases where CW workers assess whether the frequency and modality of visitation need to be updated or revised. This information needs to be provided in the Methodology section.

In section 3.2, it appears strange that this secondary analysis of data did not require ethics approval. Were participants informed, and did they give consent for their data to be used in secondary analysis?

Section 3.3 is relatively clear on how the analytical strategies unfolded. Nonetheless, the author could clarify in the analytical strategies what was common, what repetitions allowed the identification of emotional reactions (lines 190-193 on page 4).

Section 3.4 on the assessment of the material represents relevant limitations of the study; these could be presented in the conclusion of the article, where the author could discuss them further.

Results are presented in three main categories. All categories are clearly presented, with sufficient explanations and relevant interview excerpts to support the analysis. However, in all three, the link with Ahmed's perspectives on emotions is unclear, as the interview excerpts focus on reactions without mentioning emotions. Another example is in the Discussion, where the author writes: "Reactions are seen as painful and hurtful feelings" (page 9, line 454). However, none of the interview excerpts explicitly mention pain or hurt when CW workers discuss children's reactions. Additionally, it is unclear how the third category (4.3) relates to the assessment of visitations; since the child's reaction is due to the foster mother's attitude towards the parents, there is no discussion on how this affects CW workers' understanding and assessment of the visitation.

In the discussion, the author links Ahmed's perspectives on emotions but also seems influenced by their own perceptions of CW workers' emotions. The author associates CW workers' understanding of children's reactions with the social perception of birth parents, which is likely one element to consider. However, the reality is probably more complex. Children may also react for other reasons, such as trauma being reenacted in the presence of their parents. It is certainly relevant to question CW workers' assessments, especially when they tend to maintain the status quo or reduce the number of visits. However, the author's analysis appears partial and limited. A more thorough literature review on the impact of visitation on children could help enrich the discussion.

In summary, the topic of this article is highly pertinent to the field of research on visitation between children in care and their parents. There is a clear need for further investigation into child welfare workers' perceptions of children's reactions to visitation, as this is a crucial aspect of assessing these interactions.  However, the manuscript, in its current form, presents significant issues that need to be addressed before publication, namely:

• The introduction should provide a detailed overview of the Norwegian context of child welfare practice, particularly regarding the management of visitations.
• The relevance of the conceptual framework is unclear and not well-integrated with the presented results.
• The methodology should be presented in greater details.
• The discussion is somewhat narrow in scope and would benefit from greater nuance.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The text will need to be revised; there are some issues with sentence structure throughout the text.

Author Response

Reply to reviewer 1

Comment 1: The introduction briefly situates the context of visitation assessments and the child's best interests, which are complex and multifaceted. The author notes a lack of knowledge regarding the impact of visitation on children and mentions that Norwegian Child Welfare Services were convicted by the ECHR for inadequate provision of visitation. It is then stated that children's reactions are one of the elements assessed by CW workers during visits, with strong reactions typically associated with negative contact, leading to a preference for reducing contact. The introduction should provide more details on the Norwegian context of visitation in child welfare and include a literature review on visitation in child welfare. The relevance of examining CW workers' assessments of children's reactions to visitation using Ahmed's perspectives on emotions remains unclear.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing out the need for more details about the Norwegian context. I have added more contextual information and given more information about research on children in public care and different aspects of visitation. I have also rewritten and clarified why Sara Ahmed's perspectives can be relevant in this article. See page 1-3.

Comment 2: The theoretical section on Ahmed's perspectives on emotions is overly lengthy and covers many aspects, making it unclear how all of it is relevant to the article's purpose. Part of Ahmed's perspectives involves the interaction and influence between society and individuals, creating emotional discourses. Therefore, the author should provide more information on Norwegian society to contextualize how this cultural perspective can influence CW workers' understanding.

Response 2: Thank you for your constructive feedback. I agree, I have edited it and shortened this chapter a lot. Furthermore, I have rewritten Ahmeds perspectives on emotions to make the text even more to the point for this article, so the relevance of it is more easier to grasp. There is also a definition in this chapter to help the reader to see the link between emotions and reactions.  As you will see in chapter 1, I have provided more information on Norwegian society to contextualize how this cultural perspective can influence CW workers' understanding.

Comment 3: The methodology section provides most of the necessary information to appreciate how the study was conducted. However, the description of the empirical material is insufficient. For instance, it should be clearly indicated in section 3.1 whether CW workers were discussing real-life cases or fictional vignettes, the context of these discussions, whether they occurred during individual interviews or group discussions, the number of CW workers involved if in groups, and the length of the transcripts. When reading the results, it becomes clearer that these are group discussions on real-life cases where CW workers assess whether the frequency and modality of visitation need to be updated or revised. This information needs to be provided in the Methodology section. In section 3.2, it appears strange that this secondary analysis of data did not require ethics approval. Were participants informed, and did they give consent for their data to be used in secondary analysis? Section 3.3 is relatively clear on how the analytical strategies unfolded. Nonetheless, the author could clarify in the analytical strategies what was common, what repetitions allowed the identification of emotional reactions (lines 190-193 on page 4). Section 3.4 on the assessment of the material represents relevant limitations of the study; these could be presented in the conclusion of the article, where the author could discuss them further.

Response 3: Thank you for noticing the insufficiency in the description. In 3.1. I have now more information about this in this section. I have clarified that the employees were discussing real cases, that the discussion took place in group meetings and that the number of participants varied. To give more information about the length of the transcribed discussions, I have given information on the variation on length of the recordings. See page 4, lines 156-172.

Response 3.2. Thank you for your comment on this ethical matter. I applied for ethical approval at the Norwegian Agency for Shared Services in Education and Research (Sikt), but they replied that this was not nessesary, because the data I have been given access to was fully anonymised. I do not know which child welfare service or who the emoloyees are. It was impossible for me to ask for consent. And since everything in the trancripts were anonymised, the evalution from Sikt was that I did not need to apply for ethical approval. I have therefore not made any changes in my text in this section.

Response 3.3. Thank you for your remark on how I have explained my analytical strategies. It is important to me that the readers of this article easily could follow my process and how the repetions and the commoness of reactions became into emotional and affective expressions. I have revised and hopefully made it more clearer the connection between reactions and emotions. See page 4-5 for changes.

Response 3.4. Assessment of the data material – Thank you for your comment on this section. I have expanded this part by writing about how my analysis of the data could be seen as limited. However, I have also made it clearer why this article may still be relevant to practice. My analytical approach is just one lens through which to look at this particular set of data. See page 6.

Comment 4: Results are presented in three main categories. All categories are clearly presented, with sufficient explanations and relevant interview excerpts to support the analysis. However, in all three, the link with Ahmed's perspectives on emotions is unclear, as the interview excerpts focus on reactions without mentioning emotions. Another example is in the Discussion, where the author writes: "Reactions are seen as painful and hurtful feelings" (page 9, line 454). However, none of the interview excerpts explicitly mention pain or hurt when CW workers discuss children's reactions. Additionally, it is unclear how the third category (4.3) relates to the assessment of visitations; since the child's reaction is due to the foster mother's attitude towards the parents, there is no discussion on how this affects CW workers' understanding and assessment of the visitation.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. I have made some changes in both the first and second chapter (page 1 and 2) to make the link more visible. However, there are examples in some of the excerpts that is linked to emotions as anxiety in page 7 and disappointed in page 9. Furthermore, I have made a definition in chapter 2, page 2, line 87,88. In many of the excerpts there are examples of reactions as both emotional, bodily and behavioural response, which all of them are closely linked together. In line 297-303, I have given information that links reaction to emotional responses and behaviour.

Regarding your comment on line 454, page 9, I have reread the text, and I see being sensitive and hurt (line 366, page 8) and being disruptive (line 416, page 9) and physical towards the foster parents (line 420, page 9) as emotional behaviour and a reaction to visitation. However, thank you for this. It has given me the opportunity to further develop the link between reactions and emotions.

To your last comment - so good of you to give me feedback on this. I've now added some new text emphasising why the third category is relevant in this article. See page 9, line 486-492.

Comment 5: In the discussion, the author links Ahmed's perspectives on emotions but also seems influenced by their own perceptions of CW workers' emotions. The author associates CW workers' understanding of children's reactions with the social perception of birth parents, which is likely one element to consider. However, the reality is probably more complex. Children may also react for other reasons, such as trauma being reenacted in the presence of their parents. It is certainly relevant to question CW workers' assessments, especially when they tend to maintain the status quo or reduce the number of visits. However, the author's analysis appears partial and limited. A more thorough literature review on the impact of visitation on children could help enrich the discussion.

Response 5: Thank you for your remark on this chapter. I agree with you; the reality is more complex than what my article shows. Nevertheless, the choice of theoretical and analytical approach led to this result. By using Ahmed's perspectives on emotions and affective economies, it was these findings that became the outcome. The discussion is directly linked to the three findings. Therefore, the discussion may seem limited and partial. As you point out, the reactions may be a trauma response, but that wasn't my theoretical ground and analytical lens. This article hopefully provides a perspective that may inspire child welfare workers to reflect on reactions as a cycle of emotions. I have provided further literature and research on visitation in chapter 1, see page 1-2. I hope this will enrich the discussion.

Comment 6: In summary, the topic of this article is highly pertinent to the field of research on visitation between children in care and their parents. There is a clear need for further investigation into child welfare workers' perceptions of children's reactions to visitation, as this is a crucial aspect of assessing these interactions.  However, the manuscript, in its current form, presents significant issues that need to be addressed before publication, namely:

• The introduction should provide a detailed overview of the Norwegian context of child welfare practice, particularly regarding the management of visitations.
• The relevance of the conceptual framework is unclear and not well-integrated with the presented results.
• The methodology should be presented in greater details.
• The discussion is somewhat narrow in scope and would benefit from greater nuance.

Response 6: Thank you for your summary. I appreciate that you think the article is relevant, and I agree with you that more research is needed on this topic. I have read your comments carefully and found them helpful in improving the article.

• I have made changes in the introduction by giving more details about the Norwegian context and more details about the management of visits.
• I have made the conceptual framework clearer so that the results are better integrated.
• I have given more details about the methodology and the analytical approach.
• Last but not least, I have clarified how the discussion is directly linked to the results and hence may seem narrow.

I am grateful that you have taken the time to read my article and give this review.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review

Undoubtedly, the best interests of the child require that he be raised by his biological parents, and if this is impossible, then he should have the opportunity for full contact with them.

The birth family is the best environment for the child /or at least in most cases/. This understanding is also enshrined in the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. A child growing up with his biological family has the chance to develop a healthy attachment, a healthy identity.

Worldwide, children are often placed in alternative social services - these can be foster families, small group homes, etc. Undoubtedly, these services are necessary for children who, for one reason or another, cannot be raised by their biological families. However, it is important for them to be ensured full contact with their parents. In recent years, it has been conclusively proven that the best solution for children is to return them to their biological parents rather than to adopt them.

It is no coincidence that Norway was condemned by the ECHR, because through the provision for meetings with the biological family within 4 to 6 times a year, it deprives the child of his basic right - to know and contact his parents.

The concept of the best interests of the child is important to consider in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. And the Convention clearly states that the family is the fundamental unit for the well-being of the child.

In the context presented above, the article examines an extremely complex, significant and current problem. In many places around the world, social workers working with children unfortunately do not have sufficient skills to recognize children's emotions or do not take them into account sufficiently.

Research question: “How can children's reactions be understood when assessing contact between parents and children in public care?” is extremely important, since in many aspects the child's future depends on the answer to this question by social workers.

In this article, reactions are understood as emotional, behavioural and bodily responses to sensations and experiences, which I agree.

The literature review is focused on the issue, which makes it purposeful.

Regarding the study, the author used a qualitative research method, which is a very good solution for the research question. Moreover, in order to understand the emotions of others, we need to study them in depth. The author explicitly noted that the study is anonymous - it does not reveal the identities of the individuals. It is a good impression that attention has been paid to assessment of the data material, the limitations of the study are indicated.

Child welfare staff's understandings of children's reactions to contact for the purposes of the study, they are divided into three categories: no reactions are understood as better than reactions, parents are seen as the cause of reactions, and children's reactions are understood as adaptation to a relationship or situation.

It is impressive that the author describes how social workers consider the children's lack of reactions to be a good thing. Based on this, the author focuses his analysis precisely on this issue.

I will allow myself an aside. I hope that social workers know that even so-called negative reactions can be from excitement about the upcoming or past meeting with the most precious thing for a child - his family.

The discussed cases of children are presented with citations, which avoids incorrect interpretations by the reader.

The author has made a detailed and comprehensive analysis of the cited cases.

The analysis focuses on how emotions can be defined which is of utmost importance when working with children. We need to be able to define their reactions and emotions so that we can work for them in the most efficient way.

Summarising reflections are made in a thorough manner.

The paper contains all the necessary components - Introduction, Theory, Methodology, Findings, Discussion, Summarising reflections.

The individual sections are developed in a logical sequence.

Up-to-date literature sources, including those of the last few years, are used.

Notes:

There are no disadvantages that I would like to comment.

Recommendations:

My recommendation to the author is to continue researching children's emotional reactions. To collect sufficient and comprehensive data. Then publish them and make them available for use by the Norwegian Social Services.

In my opinion, the paper can be accepted in this form, without further changes.

Author Response

Reply to Reviewer 2

Comment 1: Undoubtedly, the best interests of the child require that he be raised by his biological parents, and if this is impossible, then he should have the opportunity for full contact with them. The birth family is the best environment for the child /or at least in most cases/. This understanding is also enshrined in the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. A child growing up with his biological family has the chance to develop a healthy attachment, a healthy identity. Worldwide, children are often placed in alternative social services - these can be foster families, small group homes, etc. Undoubtedly, these services are necessary for children who, for one reason or another, cannot be raised by their biological families. However, it is important for them to be ensured full contact with their parents. In recent years, it has been conclusively proven that the best solution for children is to return them to their biological parents rather than to adopt them.

It is no coincidence that Norway was condemned by the ECHR, because through the provision for meetings with the biological family within 4 to 6 times a year, it deprives the child of his basic right - to know and contact his parents. The concept of the best interests of the child is important to consider in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. And the Convention clearly states that the family is the fundamental unit for the well-being of the child.

In the context presented above, the article examines an extremely complex, significant and current problem. In many places around the world, social workers working with children unfortunately do not have sufficient skills to recognize children's emotions or do not take them into account sufficiently.

Research question: “How can children's reactions be understood when assessing contact between parents and children in public care?” is extremely important, since in many aspects the child's future depends on the answer to this question by social workers.

In this article, reactions are understood as emotional, behavioural and bodily responses to sensations and experiences, which I agree. The literature review is focused on the issue, which makes it purposeful. Regarding the study, the author used a qualitative research method, which is a very good solution for the research question. Moreover, in order to understand the emotions of others, we need to study them in depth. The author explicitly noted that the study is anonymous - it does not reveal the identities of the individuals. It is a good impression that attention has been paid to assessment of the data material, the limitations of the study are indicated.

Child welfare staff's understandings of children's reactions to contact for the purposes of the study, they are divided into three categories: no reactions are understood as better than reactions, parents are seen as the cause of reactions, and children's reactions are understood as adaptation to a relationship or situation. It is impressive that the author describes how social workers consider the children's lack of reactions to be a good thing. Based on this, the author focuses his analysis precisely on this issue. I will allow myself an aside. I hope that social workers know that even so-called negative reactions can be from excitement about the upcoming or past meeting with the most precious thing for a child - his family.

The discussed cases of children are presented with citations, which avoids incorrect interpretations by the reader. The author has made a detailed and comprehensive analysis of the cited cases. The analysis focuses on how emotions can be defined which is of utmost importance when working with children. We need to be able to define their reactions and emotions so that we can work for them in the most efficient way.

Summarising reflections are made in a thorough manner. The paper contains all the necessary components - Introduction, Theory, Methodology, Findings, Discussion, Summarising reflections. The individual sections are developed in a logical sequence. Up-to-date literature sources, including those of the last few years, are used.

Notes: There are no disadvantages that I would like to comment.

Recommendations: My recommendation to the author is to continue researching children's emotional reactions. To collect sufficient and comprehensive data. Then publish them and make them available for use by the Norwegian Social Services. In my opinion, the paper can be accepted in this form, without further changes.

Response 1: Thank you for your comments on this article. I think you have a lot of good thoughts. There are many opinions about how the best interests of the child are managed and best assessed. I particularly appreciate how you understand that my article highlights some of the complex and significant dilemmas and challenges faced by children in public care. It seems to me that you have both insight and experience of the issues in my article. It is therefore satisfying that you share the perspectives that the analytical focus has provided - and especially the emotional discourse that has become clearer to me in the analytical process. I find it very interesting that you find the outcome of the analytical process important and see how the results can broaden the assessment of child welfare workers in relation to visitation.

I am so pleased and grateful that you have taken the time to do this review. Even more, I am so grateful that you consider this article to be both relevant and an asset as a perspective that the field needs. It motivates me as you encourage me to continue to focus on this issue. Thank you for your support and for finding my article relevant and important.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing my comments and making improvements to the article. I have a few additional suggestions for minor revisions that could further enhance the quality of your paper.

Introduction

Thank you for incorporating valuable information on the Norwegian context. On page 1, the fact that Norway is a child-centered society and that children are seen as vulnerable, especially when in public care, is relevant to the study's purpose. However, the remainder of the paragraph (lines 34-39) discussing the representation of parenting and its impact on perceptions of contact is less clear to me. My understanding is that you are suggesting child welfare workers expect parents to demonstrate competency in raising their children during contact (is that your intention?). Since the article focuses on workers' interpretations of children's reactions to contact and how this relates to their assessment of visitation, the relevance of mentioning workers' expectations towards parents is unclear. I believe the characteristics of the Norwegian context should be more focused on how they affect child welfare workers' perceptions of children's reactions during visitation.

Thank you for enriching the literature review on the impact of contact (page 2, lines 55+); this significantly enhances the quality of the article.

Theoretical Section

Thank you for condensing the section on Ahmed's perspectives on emotions.

It might be helpful to add a sentence at the end explaining how the various aspects of Ahmed's perspectives aid in analyzing child welfare workers' perceptions of children's reactions to visitation. Besides the sentence on page 3 (lines 110-111) stating that "In this article, reactions are understood as emotional, behavioural, and bodily responses to sensations and experiences," there is no other link in this section to the study's purpose. I noticed that relevant information has been added to the analytical strategies (3.3; page 4, lines 199+). The idea is not to repeat what is presented later but to more clearly link the theoretical aspects with the data being analyzed.

Methodology

Thank you for providing additional information on the original study, which is very helpful in understanding the materials your analysis is based on. The analytical strategies are also clearly explained.

Findings

The addition to section 4.3 satisfactorily addresses my previous comment.

Discussion

The modifications throughout the article help clarify the common thread and bring the necessary nuance, including in the discussion.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I believe that only minor revisions need to be made to improve the quality of English language.

Author Response

Cover Letter - Reply to reviewer – Round 2

I would like to express my gratitude for the time invested in the review and commentary on the enhancements I have made to the article. I have implemented several new additional changes, and it is my hope that these will enhance the quality of my paper even further.

Comment 1: Introduction

Thank you for incorporating valuable information on the Norwegian context. On page 1, the fact that Norway is a child-centered society and that children are seen as vulnerable, especially when in public care, is relevant to the study's purpose. However, the remainder of the paragraph (lines 34-39) discussing the representation of parenting and its impact on perceptions of contact is less clear to me. My understanding is that you are suggesting child welfare workers expect parents to demonstrate competency in raising their children during contact (is that your intention?). Since the article focuses on workers' interpretations of children's reactions to contact and how this relates to their assessment of visitation, the relevance of mentioning workers' expectations towards parents is unclear. I believe the characteristics of the Norwegian context should be more focused on how they affect child welfare workers' perceptions of children's reactions during visitation. Thank you for enriching the literature review on the impact of contact (page 2, lines 55+); this significantly enhances the quality of the article.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your reply. I am glad you now consider my article to be more set in the Norwegian context and with more satisfying literature review. I am also thankful for your feedback on what still seems unclear. I have filled in some more information (lines 38-50) and hope this will give the text more clarity on why expectations towards parents also is relevant due to assessments regarding contact visits.

Comment 2: Theoretical Section

Thank you for condensing the section on Ahmed's perspectives on emotions. It might be helpful to add a sentence at the end explaining how the various aspects of Ahmed's perspectives aid in analyzing child welfare workers' perceptions of children's reactions to visitation. Besides the sentence on page 3 (lines 110-111) stating that "In this article, reactions are understood as emotional, behavioural, and bodily responses to sensations and experiences," there is no other link in this section to the study's purpose. I noticed that relevant information has been added to the analytical strategies (3.3; page 4, lines 199+). The idea is not to repeat what is presented later but to more clearly link the theoretical aspects with the data being analyzed.

Response 2: I am so pleased to read that you consider my condensing as satisfactory. At the end of this chapter (lines 161-165), a sentence has been incorporated with the intention of elucidating the correlation between Ahmed´s perspectives and using it as an analytical approach can be one lens to see the child welfare workers' perceptions of children's reactions to visitation. I hope by including this, I have made the relevance clearer.

Comment 3: Methodology

Thank you for providing additional information on the original study, which is very helpful in understanding the materials your analysis is based on. The analytical strategies are also clearly explained.

Response 3: I was so pleased to read that you now consider this chapter to be more understandable after I provided more information.

Comment 4: Findings

The addition to section 4.3 satisfactorily addresses my previous comment.

Response 4: Thank you for your update on my changes. Again, I am grateful for your comment in round 1. You gave me an opportunity to clarify the link.

Comment 5: Discussion

The modifications throughout the article help clarify the common thread and bring the necessary nuance, including in the discussion.

Response 5: I am grateful for the time you have used to help me to improve my article. So again, thank you so much for your time and helpful eye and comments.

Comment 6: Comments on the Quality of English Language

I believe that only minor revisions need to be made to improve the quality of English language.

Response 6: I have highlighted with green throughout the article where I have changed the text to improve the quality of the English language.

Again, thank you for your constructive review. It has been very helpful, and I think that it has given my article a higher quality.