Ann-Margreth E. Olsson Professional Doctor in Systemic Practice Senior Lecturer in Social Work Kristianstad University Sweden

1. The Importance of Social worker’s Invitation
of Children in Children’s House, Barnahus,
into Partnership
BASPCAN CONGRESS 2015 Edinburgh

2. Here and Now…
• Background A Swedish Children’s House (CH)
and the legal proceedings concerning children
as victims of crime
• Ongoing study “Children in Children’s House –
an interdisciplinary study into the perspective of
children”
• The Voices of the participating Social
Workers in context of CH
- from the perspective of social work inviting
children into partnership
Ann-Margreth E. Olsson© 20152

3. The voice of a child: ‘Barnahus’
What does it mean?
Girl, 8 years old
(her drawing)
– A house where
you talk to a
police
– Where you are
allowed to say
whatever you
want
Photo: Ann-Margreth E. Olsson
Ann-Margreth E. Olsson © 2015

4. Establishment of Children’s House
(CH) – Barnahus – in Sweden
Inspired by the Children’s Advocacy Center
(CAC), USA, and ‘Barnahus’, Iceland
Sweden:
•National Guidelines – no legislation
•Local CH
•The local authorities decide whether to
establish CH or not
Ann-Margreth E. Olsson © 2015

5. Collaboration National/Local
• Prosecutor
• Police
• Forensic Medicine
• Health care
• Social Welfare Service
5 Ann-Margreth E. Olsson © 2015

6. Aims Barnahus/CH
• One place – one interview – the forensic
• Co-hearing: police, prosecutor, a lawyer
in the custodian’s place, social worker,
child psychiatry
• Improve the police investigation
• Improve the social and health
intervention
• Improve the professional collaboration
6 Ann-Margreth E. Olsson © 2015

7. In a child friendly environment
Ann-Margreth E. Olsson © 2015
Photo: Ann-Margreth E. Olsson

8. The Social Welfare Service
• Social authorities are by law responsible
for the support and the protection of
children
• The principle of the best interest of the
child
Ann-Margreth E. Olsson © 2015

9. ReportReport
For ex.
school,
health care,
parents
Social
Welfare
Service
Social
Welfare
Service
PolicePolice
and/or
Assessment: The best interest of
the child including need of
protection
Pre-
mee
ting
Pre-
mee
ting
Consulting Meeting:
Prosecutor
Police
Social worker
Somatic doctor
Child psychiatry counsellor
CH
Social workers: – How toinvolve the children?
Prosecutor
Police
Finish without
any further
measurements
Measuring
Preliminary
Investigation
Closes down
Take legal
measures
against the
suspect
Case Process
Preliminary
Investigation
starts
Forensic
interview
Forensic
interview
9

10. Ongoing study
“Children in Children’s House
– an interdisciplinary study into the
perspective of children”
A case study of Swedish Children’s House (CH)
1. from the perspective of children and children’s
perspective - make the children’s voices heard
2. from social worker’s perspective. The
commission of Swedish Social workers in CH
and the investigational work involving the
children
Ann-Margreth E. Olsson @ 2015

11. Research Aims
• to listen to the voices of the children
exploring their view of BH before, during
and after BH
• to contribute in developing professional
approaches and methods increasing
children’s involvement both as victims
and actors/subjects
Ann-Margreth E. Olsson © 2015

12. (2) from social worker’s perspective
Dialogical Participatory Action Research (DPAR) with
systemic and narrative ideas
Sample:
•1 Barnahus
•5 municipalities
•56 social workers
•32 individual dialogical interviews with social workers
•9 groups of delta-reflecting teams with social workers and
managers
•Written social investigations and pre-assessments
•Participating observations at BH
Ann-Margreth E. Olsson © 2015

13. Results
from social worker’s perspective
13

14. When a parent, or somebody close to the
parent, is under suspicion
• The child is brought from the school or day
care to CH without parental knowledge or
consent
• In the custodian’s place (court decision) a legal
guardian/lawyer decides
• For example a teacher is asked to summon to
and follow the child to CH – becomes the
child’s safety person
• The social worker is waiting and watching in
the co-hearing room
• The child is not always informed about who is
in the co-hearing room
14 Ann-Margreth E. Olsson © 2015

15. In CH – voices of social workers
• Priority of policing. The legal dimension
dominates.
• A dominating agreement: too many adults – the
child needs protection – the social worker backs
out “hiding” in the co-hearing room
• The social workers become positioned/position
themselves as outsiders assessing the child’s
need of protection watching the child in the
interrogation
• The social workers experience difficulties in
approaching the children without disturbing the
police proceedings (priority 1 in CH)
Ann-Margreth E. Olsson © 2015

16. Narrating an Outside position
– We sat in the co-hearing room and the children
were not allowed to meet us […] we became
locked up […] they were so strict in this, the
children should not even see or know we were
there – we were not at all allowed to meet or watch
the children besides by means of camera or
television. In my point of view this was not optimal,
not at all … (Social worker 11)
– Sometimes you are not given any opportunities
to talk with the children in CH … (Social worker 3)
Ann-Margreth E. Olsson © 2015

17. I am not approaching the child
Social workers talk about themselves as becoming
disorientated, not sure about what is permitted in
relation to the criminal legal proceedings
•finding no convenient moment for approaching the
child or
•concluding that there is already too many different
new persons for the child in CH
17 Ann-Margreth E. Olsson 2015

18. The whys
– Enough for today for the child…
– I will not be this child’s social worker – a
colleague will take over …
– First we always meet the parents .…
– Later we will invite the child…
– Tomorrow we will check if the child has
arrived to school, about reactions and
questions…
(in participating observations)
18

19. Leaving
and there is no immediate need of protection
The child leaves CH with the legal guardian
and safety person…
• returns to school or day care without any further
support.
• not knowing the parents’ responses and
reactions when informed.
• later goes home to the parents without further
support or information about what is going on,
• not given opportunities in relieving of feelings
after being summoned and brought to police
interrogation in CH
19

20. Aftermath of the forensic interview
– … most often the child is brought back to school
or kindergarten – the child day care. We have
found this is not the best for the child. The child
returns and does not know what attitude to take in
this, what to tell or not … (Social worker 6)
Ann-Margreth E. Olsson © 2015

21. Homecoming
– Probably the most difficult experience for the children is
when they arrive home. I don’t think it is the experience of
CH being traumatic, it is when they arrive home. Somebody
from the school or day care is there in CH with them. I mean,
they do other excursions and trips together, those which are
more fun and not so traumatic. That is why I believe another
excursion/trip is not so traumatic unless you make it
traumatic for the child […] It depends on how the parents can
deal with the experience that somebody has been to the
school or day care centre, and brought their child to the
police, listened to the child and then brought them back to
school. (Social worker 5)
21 Ann-Margreth E. Olsson © 2015

22. Exceptional stories
When the child already knows the social
worker and the Social Welfare Service assess it
is in the child’s best interest:
•The social worker brings the child to CH (by
direction of the legal guardian)
•The child then knows the social worker is listening
in the co-hearing-room
•The social worker continues to have contact with
the child involving the child in assessing what is in
best interest of the child both in CH and afterwards
22 Ann-Margreth E. Olsson © 2015

23. The dream: Involving the child
• firm and successful in the negotiation and
power game between criminal/legal domain &
social/legal domain
• living the idea of involving the child improving
assessment and support
• exploring the child’s point of view here and
now, needs, resources and future contacts
• giving the child the social worker’s visiting card
- telephone number, e-mail - how to come in
contact
• consulting the child afterwards – same day or
next day
23 Ann-Margreth E. Olsson 2015

24. Conclusions and suggestions
• Introduce professional considerations about the
involvement of the child before, during and after
the forensic interview
• Develop joint actions in inviting the child into a
dialogue with the social worker
• Introduce and develop special support to
children returning to school or day care or
create an alternative solution the rest of the day
24 Ann-Margreth E. Olsson 2015

25. Thank you and welcome to contact:
ann-margreth.olsson@hkr.se
25