Defending parenthood: A look at parents' legal argumentation in Norwegian care order appeal proceedings

5Citations
Citations of this article
7Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

This paper examines parents' legal argumentation in 15 appealed care order (child removal) cases in one Norwegian district court, asking on what grounds parents appeal their case. I investigate the pragmatic, ethical, and moral bases in arguments by applying a discourse ethics framework, viewing argumentation as either justifications or excuses of the parenting in question. The analysis reveals complex reasons for appealing, displaying parents both justifying and excusing both specific situations and the totality of their parenthood. Parents primarily apply pragmatic and ethical adversarialism, followed by pragmatic blaming and claims of change, moral justifications about due process, and ethical excuses about age and own life histories. Interestingly, normalization emerges as a third strategy, where parents explicitly aim to widen the scope of parental normality and adequacy, challenging the common defense dichotomy. The study provides new insight into an important and sensitive field, and indicates that parents engage in similar concrete strategies when, most often unsuccessfully, defending their parenthood.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Juhasz, I. B. (2018, August 1). Defending parenthood: A look at parents’ legal argumentation in Norwegian care order appeal proceedings. Child and Family Social Work. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12445

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free