Introduction

The relationship between parents and child welfare services (CWS) is a multifaceted, complex, and dynamic process. It takes place in the context of the accusatory and involuntary nature of the intervention, coupled with asymmetrical power relations and the vulnerability of parents, among others. Further, it occurs in the realm of the competing mandate of CWS to protect children by investigating child maltreatment referrals (the forensic aspect of the process), while supporting families through therapeutic measures (Falch-Eriksen & Skivenes, 2019; Gilbert et al., 2011).

A review of the extant literature examining the relationship between parents and CWS, both in Norway and internationally, shows that this relationship is often strained (Dumbrill, 2006; Erdal, 2015; Forrester et al., 2012; Fylkesnes et al., 2015; Gilbert et al., 2011; Healy et al., 2011; Križ & Skivenes, 2010; Merritt, 2020; Morris, 2012; Nissen & Engen, 2021; Paulsen & Berg, 2021; Skivenes, 2015; Vassenden & Vedøy, 2019). Studies show that the relationship is often characterized by a lack of trust (Eide et al., 2020; Fersch, 2016; Korzeniewska et al., 2019; the Norwegian Directorate for Children, Youth and Family Affairs, 2018; Skivenes & Benbenishty, 2022) and parents’ fears of CWS and vulnerability (Dumbrill, 2006; Erdal, 2015; Fylkesnes et al., 2015; Nissen & Engen, 2021). Yet, some studies reported power imbalances and power over by child welfare workers, and blamed CWS for being intrusive, controlling, unresponsive, and inconsiderate to parents’ needs (Dumbrill, 2006; Forrester et al., 2012; Healy et al., 2011; Kildedal et al., 2011; Willumsen & Skivenes, 2005). For example, a Nordic study involving parents’ experiences of child welfare assessment also found that many parents felt they were being objectified and exposed to the covert use of power by the social worker controlling the flow of information (Kildedal et al., 2011). Besides, analysis by Willumsen and Skivenes (2005) suggests the difficulty of establishing cooperative relations with parents emanates from knowledge and power imbalances between professionals and service users, among other things. In addition, the Norwegian CWS has been widely criticized by study reports, parents, interest groups, the media, and international bodies like the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child for taking unnecessary and intrusive measures, being biased, judgmental, and self-righteous (Haugevik & Neumann, 2020; Norwegian National Human Rights Institution, 2020). Furthermore, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has passed multiple decisions against Norway for violations of the right to family life on account of unjustified and invasive intervention, unnecessary restrictions on contact between parents and children, and failure to submit an updated report on the status of parents’ parenting capacity after child removal (Norwegian National Human Rights Institution, 2020). These decisions seem to also ground and justify some of the parents’ fear and their estranged relationship with CWS.

Nonetheless, the mainstream discourses portraying CWS as intrusive, biased, and having strained relations with parents are incomplete, as there are also parents who have had positive experiences with CWS and were satisfied with the interventions. For example, studies show that the Norwegian CWS has supported and improved the lives of many families, not only by protecting children from maltreatment but also by helping families through therapeutic intervention measures, such as financial support, counseling, guidance, recreational activities for children, respite care, afterschool programs (skolefritidsordning), and kindergartens for children in need (Dyrhaug & Sky, 2015; the Norwegian Directorate for Children, Youth and Family Affairs, 2018). Parents who participated in a study by Fylkesnes and Netland (2013) also expressed having positive experiences of the interventions, due to factors like CWS workers taking parents’ wishes and needs seriously, workers’ availability, transparency, and the provision of information in an open and understandable manner. Studies from other national contexts like Australia (Tregeagle & Mason, 2008) and the UK (Dumbrill, 2006) also illuminated positive relationships between parents and CWS owing to factors such as the provision of resources to parents, respectful and regular communication between staff and parents, and consideration of parents’ views.

Yet, despite a growing body of literature examining the relationship between parents and CWS, little is known about the dynamics of change in this relationship. Even the few studies that reported parents’ positive relations with CWS emphasized the interventions’ outcomes rather than systematically examining the characteristics of the process and the experiences, especially from the perspective of immigrant parents (hereafter, parents). Furthermore, even though there is a surging interest in the study of trust, trust as a sociological concept and its contextual understanding is understudied in child welfare and social work literature in general. In the few studies that have examined trust in the context of CWS, the concept is often used in its vernacular sense rather than as a sociological concept or analytical framework. The purpose of this article is to contribute to bridging these gaps by systematically examining the characteristics of changes in the quality of relationships between parents and the Norwegian CWS from fear and distrust to trust and collaboration and exploring what these transitions reveal about trust and collaboration in such contexts.

A Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

Based on overarching themes of the findings, the study draws on relational theory and the concept of trust. Relational theory comprises a framework of ideas emphasizing a “two-person” psychology and stresses the role of both parties in shaping the nature of the relationship in a complex and dynamic manner. This theory stresses the mutuality of relations and underscores the restorative power of the therapeutic relationship as a major contributor to change processes (Goldstein et al., 2009). Goldstein et al., (2009, p. 148) noted that “The relational model’s emphasis on the client’s and clinician’s subjectivities and the co-construction of new relational patterns based on a mutually created therapeutic space add new dimensions to clinical social work practice with vulnerable and oppressed populations.” In doing so, the theory provides a more nuanced and textured approach and a conceptual tool to examine the role of the quality of the relationship in inducing the transformation, the characteristics of the transitions, as well as mechanisms through which these transitions influence parents’ collaborative behavior. In this study, collaboration is understood as the parents’ willingness to work together and communicate openly (e.g., by volunteering information) with child welfare workers toward commonly accepted goals.

Further, as an analytical frame to examine how parents’ relations with the workers induced parents’ transitions from distrust to trust, and what these transitions demonstrate about trust within such contexts, the study adapted the conceptualization of trust as a relational, process-oriented, and multidimensional notion. Rousseau et al., (1998, p. 399) described relational trust as something that “derives from repeated interactions over time between trustor and trustee” and “information available to the trustor from within the relationship itself forms the basis of relational trust.” Similarly, Ring (1997) noted that trust can emerge from formal and informal processes of interaction, even if trust does not already exist between the parties initially. Yet, Schoorman et al. (2007) suggested that the foundations of trust may change within the relationship. Accordingly, trust is understood as an inherently embedded in relations (Frederiksen, 2014; Lewis & Weigert, 1985; Möllering, 2013; Rousseau et al., 1998). That is, it exists between individuals or individuals and institutions rather than resting within the individual, and it involves interaction and evolves within relationships (Lewicki & Bunker, 1996; Möllering, 2014).

With the aim of capturing and examining the main themes of the study findings showing the dynamic and fluid nature of trust in the contexts of these encounters, and also as a logical extension of the concept of relational trust noted above, the study conceptualized trust as a process rather than a fixed variable (e.g., as cause/antecedent, moderator, and effect, or as independent, mediating, or dependent variable). In other words, in this study, trust is viewed as a dynamic or temporary state rather than as a static notion that can be captured at a single point in time (Khodyakov, 2007; Lewicki et al., 2006, p. 991; Nooteboom, 2002). Furthermore, to examine the multifaceted nature of parents’ trusting relations with CWS, the analysis is also anchored in conceptualized trust as a multidimensional concept consisting of several dimensions and bases that add up to the phenomenon of trust (Luhmann, 1979). Accordingly, trust is understood to have cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions (Lewicki & Bunker, 1995; Lewis & Weigert, 1985; Shapiro et al., 1992). Such broad conceptualization provides a useful conceptual tool for studying how the nuances of the interactions between the two prompt various types of trust.

Finally, although various scholarly definitions of trust emphasize different aspects and functions of the concept, there is consistency and convergence around the notion of confident expectations and a willingness to be vulnerable as critical components of the concept (Oomsels & Bouckaert, 2014; Rousseau et al., 1998). For this article, trust can be understood as:

Parents’ willingness to be vulnerable by suspending fear or uncertainty, based on the positive expectations that their case will be favorably resolved by the child welfare services or specific professional/s within the organization.

Methods

The article adopts an exploratory qualitative design, leaning on a hermeneutic-phenomenological approach. This approach enables access to a systematic description of a phenomenon from the subjective perspective of people who have lived experiences (Berg & Lune, 2012; King, 2004; Ritchie, 2014). It thus helps to access and understand the nuances of what goes on in the actual process and the characteristics of changes in the relationships based on participants’ descriptions of their experiences and the meanings they ascribe to these experiences. In other words, this approach enables one to tap into the life world of the participants from their subjective experiences and narrations.

Participants’ Demographics and Recruitment

As the purpose of the study is to explore the characteristics of the transitions from fear and distrust to trust and collaboration in the relationships between immigrant parents and CWS, a purposive sampling method was used to identify and recruit participants with immigrant backgrounds. Neuman (2014) noted that purposive sampling is often used in qualitative research to “select members of a difficult to reach, specialized population” (p. 274). Purposive sampling enables the identification and selection of information-rich cases through the identification and selection of individuals or groups that have knowledge and experience of a phenomenon of interest (Bryman, 2016; Etikan et al., 2016; Ritchie, 2014). The inclusion criteria were first-generation immigrant parents who permanently resided in Norway at the time of the study and who had previous or ongoing contact with CWS due to allegations of child abuse and/or neglect. Accordingly, ten parents from Poland, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, and Iraq were recruited for this study. The sample consisted of three men and seven women, and only one parent from each family was interviewed. Most of the study participants encountered CWS more than twice. The participants were recruited using immigrant organizations in different municipalities and snowball sampling. In this regard, leaders and members of these organizations with whom contact had been established were used as entry points. These individuals assisted as gatekeepers and key informants in disseminating information about the research to the members, as well as in locating and contacting potential participants. With regard to sample mortality, it is not known whether any parents were unwilling to participate in the study when they were initially contacted by the leaders of these communities, but all parents located by the gatekeepers were willing to participate and were interviewed. However, two participants recruited through snowball sampling declined to participate for reasons unknown to the author.

Among the participants, four parents had lost custody of their children. Of these, two of them had recently been reunited with their children, while the other two parents currently had their children in out-of-home care. One of the participants had recently had her child removed and had an ongoing case with CWS to regain custody. In another participant case, the child had been taken away after reunification with the father and placed in a foster family with whom the child’s biological parent (who participated in this study) described as having a good relationship with. In the rest of the cases, participants had their children at home and were receiving home-based therapeutic support, such as counseling, parenting courses, and financial support.

Moreover, in three of the cases, the child maltreatment referrals originated from ex-partners and were related to conflicts within the families. In one of these cases, CWS was involved in court proceedings to support a parent to gain custody of the children. In the remaining seven cases, CWS had received direct alerts from the children themselves or from referrals sent by school or kindergarten workers, either because a child told the workers that they were being physically abused by their parents or because the workers suspected child abuse or neglect at home. The participants and their cases hence represented a variety of factors that may have had a bearing on their relationship with CWS, including culture, religion, reasons for and means of migrating to Norway, their reason for contact with CWS, and their experiences of the interventions.

Data Collection

Data were collected using semi-structured face-to-face and telephone interviews that lasted from one to two hours. There was no difference in length or detail between the face-to-face and telephone interviews.

The interviews were conducted using a flexible interview guide developed on the basis of a review of the literature on the experiences of parents involved with CWS. The interview guide was organized around four broad categories, with each category having sub-questions and probes: (1) what brought the participants in contact with CWS, (2) their knowledge and expectations of CWS before and during the initial contact, (3) parents’ experiences with CWS interactions, and (4) the role of trust in the process and how engagement with CWS influences parents’ trust in the services. In addition, the interviews covered trust and related topics beyond the scope of this article. However, to get a detailed description of the participants’ experience of transitions in their relationship with CWS, the author has also conducted follow-up interviews with some of the participants focusing on the main themes of this article. For example, participants were asked to name important events, both good and bad, in the intervention process and to describe how these events influenced their belief in and relationship with CWS.

Ethical Considerations

The study was approved by the Norwegian Center for Research Data (SIKT), and the participants’ informed consent was secured in advance of the interviews. Participants were informed that participation in the interviews was voluntary and that they could choose not to answer, stop the interview at any time, ask a question, comment, request that certain pieces of information were not included, or withdraw from participating entirely. They were also informed that their participation or withdrawal from the study would not have any consequences for their involvement with CWS. Doing so was essential, particularly in this type of research which involves sensitive information, often about parents’ stressful experiences of engagement with CWS and the resulting distress of sharing them.

They were also notified about the anonymity and confidentiality of their information, as well as the fact that the interview would be audio recorded initially, to be entirely deleted eventually. In addition, the participants were assured that personal identifiers would be removed or anonymized from the written data and presentation of the findings. As such, during data analysis, information that was deemed sensitive by the author because it could reveal the identity of the participants or CWS that had contacted them was either deleted or transcribed into broad categories, and numbers were assigned to each participant to ensure confidentiality and anonymity — key requirements in ethical research practice (Ritchie, 2014).

Data Analysis

The analysis unit for the study is parents’ experience of transitions from fear and distrust to collaboration and trust in their engagement with CWS. Participants’ interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim.

Narrative analysis was used as an analytical tool adopting an inductive, exploratory, and constructivist approach to the method. Narrative inquiry rests on the epistemological assumption that people sense or give meaning to their experiences through stories/narratives (Clandinin & Connelly, 2004; Polkinghorne, 1988; Riessman, 2008). It thus enables tapping into the meanings the participants give to their experience and constructed concepts like fear, distrust, trust, and collaboration based on their narration from the social location or the context of their identities.

With a view to eliciting rich data composed of layers of meaning in various aspects of the narratives, including the structure, content, and context of the participants’ stories/narratives, I adopted a pluralist analytical approach using Labov’s (1972) structural narrative analysis model and Lieblich et al.’s (1998) thematic narrative analysis model. Yet, the analysis focuses on the narratives of participants who experienced shifts in the nature of their relations from fear and distrust to trust and collaboration during the process, while also using narratives from participants with mixed experiences as deemed appropriate to nuance and expand the understanding of these transitions.

Analytical Procedure

The data were coded manually. During the first level of coding, an inductive approach was utilized to break the text into smaller units of content or narrative blocks by examining the contents of the narratives while, at the same time, focusing on how participants order the actual events in the stories of their encounters (i.e., the structure of the narratives), using both Lieblich et al.’s (1998) and Labov’s (1972) models.

Following this, the author marked sentences and paragraphs and identified narrative blocks containing different sections of the participants’ narratives, focusing on thematic similarities between the narratives as well as how the story was told (i.e. the structure of the narrative). As the participants’ narratives appeared to be told as progressive stories with some interruptions, the researcher placed individual stories relative to a sequenced or staged account. According to Labov and Waletzky (1967), placing stories in a relative sequence provides a practical tool for a “chronological structure,” which may help in understanding the wider impact of the story.

Consequently, the following narrative blocks were identified:

  1. 1.

    The participants’ narratives, consisting of explanations about participants’ initial feelings and/or behavior when contacted by CWS and during the initial meetings (narrative blocks comprising the orientation sections)

  2. 2.

    The participants’ stories containing defining moments or turning points that prompted their trusting attitude and collaborative action (complicating action blocks)

  3. 3.

    The participants’ narratives of interruptions to their trust and collaboration, as well as restoration of their confidence (the complicating action segment)

  4. 4.

    The participants’ overall evaluations of their experiences with CWS (i.e., evaluative and resolution narrative blocks)

The identification of themes related to these narrative blocks was carried out based on both the participants’ own descriptions clearly articulating the impact of particular phenomena during the process and by shifts in their narration of how they experienced the interventions.

The resulting narrative blocks were then considered as self-contained episodes in the telling of a story and thus constituted the micro units of analysis. According to Frost (2021), even in applications that aim to analyze the data as a whole instead of selecting parts of it, particular narratives can be put under close scrutiny for analytical purposes. The blocks were thus analyzed independently, focusing simultaneously on both the content of the narrative as well as the structure of the narrative. Although the selected subtexts or narrative blocks were treated independently from the total context of the narrative, contextual details were included in their interpretation by reviewing the entire narrative with a view to capturing, for instance, the similarities across the beginnings of participants’ narratives (e.g. similarities in the cause of the fear and how the fear is expressed, or how it influenced their interaction with CWS).

The final step in the analytical procedure was to draw a conclusion or tell the core narrative as a part of the study findings. Having carefully analyzed the narrative content collected under each thematic category, the researcher identified three core narratives presented in the following sections.

Findings

The overarching themes of the core narrative as to what characterizes parents’ transitions from fear and distrust to trust and collaborative relations, as well as what these characteristics demonstrate about trust and collaboration, are composed of the following: (1) the parents’ fear, distrust in CWS, and uncooperative behavior as a point of departure; (2) the parents’ positive interaction with and relational trust in the professionals, and defining moments during the subsequent intervention process as turning points in promoting parents’ trust and collaboration; and (3) the complex and cyclical nature of the transitions involving the disruption and restoration of parents’ trusting and collaborative behavior.

Parents’ Fear, Distrust, and Uncooperative Behavior as a Point of Departure

The beginning of almost all the participant narratives contains the narration that portrays “an innocent and well-functioning family” that is “unduly and unjustifiably interfered with” by “the most feared organization known for taking children away from their families.” This narrative of unexpected and unwarranted intervention is expressed differently by the participants.

Participant 1, who came into contact with CWS for alleged child abuse and later found the measures important and requested an extension of the intervention period, stated that.

I am very worried and afraid. In the beginning, when we were contacted by CWS, I thought the children would be removed immediately. What I knew is that if families are contacted by CWS, children will be removed from their families.

Further, this participant mentioned the allegedly unjustified nature of initiating the investigation during the second encounter, saying:

CWS wanted to investigate the case again for the second time… even if we did not abuse the child.

We are a normal family like anyone else, …they have to understand that we come from different cultural backgrounds.

As is typical for the participants’ narratives, the statements above seem to signal that the intervention is unnecessary and caused by a lack of cultural understanding. Initially, the parents appeared to position themselves as objects of others’ actions (e.g., people from whom the allegations were initiated) or as victims of CWS’s unjustified interventions that mitigated their agency.

Participants’ narratives depicting an innocent and well-functioning family that is unduly interfered with by CWS are often accompanied by fear of CWS, especially during the initial phase of the intervention. The most prevalent themes running through participants’ narratives that seem to induce fear and lack of trust revolved around participants’ prior knowledge and lack of trust in CWS, complemented by the involuntary nature of the intervention, as well as the ways in which the intervention was initiated and conducted.

Within and across settings, participants often problematized the way the intervention was initiated and undertaken, with recurring themes of children being interviewed without their parents’ knowledge, interrogation at the police station, as well as meetings with some case workers whom the participants described as unwelcoming, rigid, and uncooperative.

Participant 1 illustrated this by stating:

For me, the way they come into our life is wrong. They should have first informed us before talking to the children. Then we all, the family and the children, can sit together and start the case at the same time.

Participant 4 added:

If child welfare services are there to protect children, why are they so secretive? If child welfare services are interested in protecting my children, so am I. So there should not be anything to hide between me and them … they interviewed my daughter at school without my knowledge…

This participant’s logic as to why CWS was secretive if they wanted to help families instead of starting the case by engaging whole families together also corresponds with other participants’ narratives, including those who did not experience the transitions from fear and distrust to collaboration.

The overall data also show that although parents’ fear and distrust were more noticeable in the initial phases, they often seem to remain parents default position throughout CWS intervention process, even after the turning points that triggered the transition.

Relational Trust and the Subsequent Defining Moments as Turning Points

The findings suggest that the transitions from fear and distrust to collaborative relations during the encounters did not evolve in clearly defined phases but rather developed as a complex cyclical process. However, it also appears from the narratives that there were defining moments in the process that laid the foundation for the transition. These defining moments were elements in the intervention that induced parents’ trusting attitudes and actions, thus bringing a paradigm shift in the nature of the relationship.

The analysis of the study’s findings shows that these turning points pertain primarily to the parents’ positive experiences and relational trust in the professionals, due, for example, to the parents’ positive perception of the qualities of the caseworkers as supportive, understanding, open, flexible, and empathetic. In addition, the defining moments also include phenomena in the subsequent intervention that reinforced the change, notably: (a) the parents’ awareness that the intervention would not lead to child removal; (b) their experience of the positive impact of therapeutic measures like counseling, parenting courses, or financial support; and (c) their perception of CWS as supportive and fair, particularly in relation to third parties like ex-partners, kindergartens or schools from which the child maltreatment referrals originated.

In expressing their positive experience of interaction with the workers as a turning point, Participant 1 stated:

In the beginning, when we were contacted by CWS, I thought the children would be removed immediately. But after the initial contact, my thinking was completely changed. Our caseworker was very calm, respectful, full of empathy, and very good at listening. She understood our challenge … The way she talked to us comforted me a lot and took away my fear.

Participant 3 also described the perceived supportive nature of the workers as a turning point in developing trust, reiterating that:

They were very understanding and supportive. They told me that they just wanted to investigate the case and help us.

The parents who reported negative experiences with CWS also mainly cited the quality of their relationship with the workers and the adversarial nature of the intervention as the reason. For example, in describing the perceived lack of flexibility of the caseworker, participant 5 stated:

Whenever I told her my views, she [the caseworker], brought what the children said and used it against me…

Similarly, participant 6 mentioned that once caseworkers suspect that a parent is abusing their children, it is difficult to change their mind.

Along with the role of participants’ positive experience of interactions with and relational trust in the workers, the findings also revealed the significance of phenomena like parents’ awareness that the intervention would not lead to child removal, or the positive effect of the intervention measures in facilitating participants’ trusting and collaborative behavior. These defining moments were also identified based on either the participant’s own descriptions that clearly articulated the impact of a particular event, or from shifts in their narration about their experiences of the intervention.

In describing her awareness that the intervention would not lead to child removal, as well as the positive impact of therapeutic measures as a turning point, participant 3 said:

For me, as long as my child stays with me they can do whatever they want. But they helped me a lot with courses and financial assistance to cover the activities of the children.

Besides the participants’ own descriptions, the turning points were also identified based on the shifts in the participants’ narratives in how they described their experiences of the nature or the impact of the intervention.

These shifts in the narratives were signaled by changes in framing the parent’s narration from fear to confidence in the services, from the narration recounting the unjustified nature of the intervention to the necessity of the intervention, from the narrative of CWS as an agency that removes children from their families to the view of CWS as protective and supportive, as well as their overall positive perception of CWS.

For instance, in terms of the fear of CWS, the narration of participant 1 went from “I thought they would come and take away the children immediately” to “I am very satisfied with the service I have received,” or “It depends on the personality of CWS worker.”

The participant in this narrative indicated the relevance of the positive relationship with the workers in enabling her to move from being fearful to finding the intervention useful.

In the case of participant 2, who reported how important the intervention was in improving his child’s health condition, the narrative went from “I feared as to what they might do” to “if you are a normal family, there is no reason to fear them,” “they follow the law…” to “if you follow the case diligently and cooperate with the case workers they will help a lot.”

The turning points were also implied in the change in the narration from the depiction of CWS as an agency that intervened unnecessarily to CWS intervention being seen as improving the participants’ situation, as well as going from CWS wanting to remove their children to it being supportive and protective of the families.

For instance, in terms of the necessity of the intervention, the framing of participant 2 went from “I want them to be out of my life…” to “Had it not been for their intervention, the life of my child would have been problematic.” In the case of participant 1, it went from “we were a well-functioning family like any other family” to “I did not want them to terminate the intervention but rather an extension of the services period beyond the three months.”

In this narration, the participants went from the narration of being an object or a victim of an unjustified intervention to being a beneficiary of the service that brought positive change to their family’s situation.

The transitions are also evident from participants’ narratives containing noncooperation and avoidance to openness and collaboration. For instance, in the case of participant 2, the narrative went from “I gave up on my right to custody of the children on my own because I wanted them to get out of my life” to “I told them all of the challenges openly.” From a well-functioning family whose life was interfered with unnecessarily to narratives like had it not been for CWS intervention, our relations with the children, schools, or ex-partners, would have been different.

In general, participants’ narratives changed over time, from portraying themselves as helpless victims of unnecessary and unfounded interventions to perceiving themselves as someone in need of help to deal with their situation (e.g. relations with their children or parenting capacity), and finding that the intervention was helpful in improving their situation. Interestingly, even in circumstances where parents’ trust and collaborative behavior were brought about by measures like financial support that came from the system, they were attributed to the qualities of the caseworkers rather than CWS as an institution and the institutional distrust seemed to remain their default position. Finally, the findings also revealed that these defining moments came up in different settings and contexts, and could be one or a combination of several factors. Yet, while the transitions may have occurred during one encounter, they might also have taken multiple encounters in some cases.

The Complex and Cyclical Nature of the Transitions Involving Disruption and Restoration

The findings also indicated that the transitions precipitated by the aforementioned turning points involved disruption and restoration of the parents’ trusting and collaborative behavior. The analysis of the narrative showed that these interruptions were caused by factors like CWS’s decision to investigate the alleged same case for the second or third time, CWS’s decision to reverse their previous decision regarding the participants’ parenting capacity, the appointment of a different caseworker to the one the parents had developed a trusting relation to at an earlier point, as well as the parents’ perception of a lack of transparency during the process.

Having developed a trusting attitude due to CWS’s earlier decision to give him custody of the children, participant 2 described the disruption caused by CWS’s subsequent assessment and decision to place one of the children in alternative care during the second encounter thus:

…CWS told us that the youngest child needed special treatment and we did not have the capacity to take care of him. So they wanted to place him in foster care with a special facility because they said the child had so many problems. However, I did not agree with CWS assessment and decision.

I … wanted to take an appeal to the highest court but my lawyer advised me to drop the case …

CWS’s decision to place the child in alternative care at this point was made long after the participant had taken over the custody of his child through a court decision with the help of CWS. This incident seemed to undermine the participant’s trust that had been established at an earlier point.

The disruption caused by the assignment of a different caseworker to the one with whom Participant 1 had previously developed a positive relationship is illustrated in the excerpt below:

The worker told us that she wanted us to contact the “resource planner” in CWS… I was very worried about who the worker was going to be.

This seems to suggest that this participant had developed an emotional bond/trust with her previous caseworker. This may also imply that the relational trust developed vis-à-vis a specific professional in the context of such encounters may not necessarily be transferred to other workers or CWS as an organization.

In some instances, the disruption was caused by CWS’s repeated investigation of the alleged same case, as mentioned in statements like:

CWS wanted to investigate the case again for the second time … even if we were not abusing the child.

In the participants’ narratives, these interruptions seem to have negatively impacted their sense of confidence and the notion that CWS intervened to protect children and their families. Thus, contrary to turning points, these disruptions appear to have had debilitating effects on the parents’ trust and collaborative behavior, as they seemed to make the encounter unpredictable, exhausting, and meaningless for the parents.

Similarly, parents who reported a lack of trust in the CWS also cited the CWS’s alleged repeated investigations as a reason. Participant 7 stated in this regard that “we were investigated and monitored for over a year just because our child once told his teachers that his father abused him….” Participant 8 also expressed his lack of trust in CWS by questioning how repeatedly investigating parents and their children and stressing them be seen as protecting children or helping families.

Finally, the complexity of the transitions was also marked by elements of the parents’ narratives that conveyed the restoration of their confidence in the services in the aftermath of the interruption. These were evident in both participants’ explicit descriptions of regaining trust after the disruption, as well as the evaluation and resolution clauses of their narrative showing their overall positive attitude towards CWS.

For instance, participant 2’s narrative portraying a sense of injustice suffered due to CWS’s decision to place the child in alternative care appeared to be reversed later by his positive relationship with the foster family and the change he witnessed in the child’s life.

Yet, the restoration of the participants’ trust after the interruption of their relationship was also signified in the evaluation and resolution clauses of their narratives, signaling their overall positive attitude toward CWS indicated by statements like “CWS follows the law,” “if you cooperate with them they help,” the suggestion that the “CWS should intervene more in the immigrant communities so that they can help more families,” and elements in their narrative that defended CWS.

Taken together, the findings suggest that these parents’ distrust, fear, and uncooperative behavior are dynamic and can be transitioned into trust-based collaboration despite the adversities if they experience the encounter as meaningful. Yet, the trust and collaboration formed in this context appear to remain limited to a specific professional and also do not seem to restore parents’ institutional trust in CWS in its entirety.

Discussion

The aforementioned characteristics of the transitions provide valuable insights into several key aspects of the dynamics of the relationship, as well as trust and collaboration in the context of parents’ encounters with CWS, as discussed below.

Parents’ fear, distrust, and uncooperative behavior, especially during the initial phase of the intervention, are understandable given the involuntary and at times invasive nature of the intervention, the significant degree of vulnerability these encounters may entail, and the different backgrounds and experiences of these parents. The beginning of almost all the participant narratives of their encounters signifies the uninvited and unwarranted intervention, parents’ lack of trust, and fear of CWS primarily related to the potential child removal and its devastating consequences. This supports the findings of Fylkesnes et al., (2015) which demonstrated widespread fear of CWS among immigrants due to perceptions like “CWS just takes children,” “CWS does not enter into dialogue with parents,” and “CWS discriminates.” The widespread fears combined with the involuntary nature of the intervention make the formation of trust-based relations challenging, as trust primarily requires the trustor’s willingness to be vulnerable as a core component (Oomsels & Bouckaert, 2014; Rousseau et al., 1998). Moreover, trust needs to be established under normal circumstances (i.e., it requires a buffer zone), as it is difficult to build trust during crises. However, CWS does not have this opportunity as it is “the pointy end” of the continuum of interventions designed to respond to allegations of child maltreatment. These aspects, coupled with the reputation of CWS for “invasive intervention” and “hasty child removal,” exacerbate parents’ fear and distrust (Fylkesnes et al., 2018; Haugevik & Neumann, 2020; Paulsen & Berg, 2021). Furthermore, most of the participants come from countries like Somalia, Ethiopia, and Eritrea, where the state and its institutions are not known as sources of protection and support. Yet, encounters with powerful state institutions like CWS and the whole notion of child protection by a state against the parents are a new experience for most of these families (Earner, 2007). This is compounded by the parents’ lack of knowledge of how to respond to the situation, cultural differences, and the parents’ feelings of powerlessness, which deepen their fear, distrust, and vulnerability (Fylkesnes et al., 2015; Nissen & Engen, 2021; Paulsen & Berg, 2021; Rugkåsa et al., 2017). At the same time, parents’ lack of trust in the services can also induce feelings of anxiety, fear, and defensive behavior, as a lack of trust is linked to strong negative emotional experiences (Lewicki et al., 1998). Similarly, studies show that vulnerability negatively influences the formation of trusting and collaborative relationships. Misztal (2012, p. 213), noted that “vulnerability increases the probability of distrust as situations of high vulnerability increase the sensitivity of vulnerable parties to the trustor’s behavior and this higher level of sensitivity has the potential to erode their trust.”

Despite all these adversities, the findings revealed that parents can engage in trusting and collaborative relations if they experience the encounters as meaningful. One of the key factors in this regard was found to be the parents’ experiences of positive interactions with and relational trust in the professionals. In the context of these encounters, positive mutual interactions and communication were characterized by the participants as the ones in which the workers valued their views, provided them with regular information, understood and supported them, as well as being flexible in adapting the services to their situations. Accordingly, parents who met professionals whom they described as being open, empathetic, comforting, flexible, non-judgmental, and supportive tended to overcome their preconceived fears and form positive relationships. Similarly, parents who reported having negative experiences of the intervention and who thus distrusted the service also mentioned the quality of their relationship with the professionals as the main reason. Analysis by previous studies also revealed the significant role of workers who are transparent, value parents’ views, and involve them in decision-making by exercising “power with” rather than over them, in furthering parents’ positive experiences of the interventions (Bekaert et al., 2021; Fylkesnes & Netland, 2013; Hardy & Darlington, 2008; Maiter et al., 2006; Thorpe, 2007). Literature on organizational studies also indicated the substantial impact of frontline workers in public services, also called street-level bureaucrats, in shaping users’ attitudes and experiences of the services (Lipsky, 2010; Vike, 2018). Giddens (1990) pointed out that experts working in a given organization played a central role in the formation of trust in the organization, as they were representatives of the system at the “access points” where the trustor experienced the system.

Parents’ experience of the interactions with workers as meaningful seems to enhance the formation of the therapeutic relationship, which according to relational theory is a major contributor to change processes (Goldstein et al., 2009). Studies on trust have also shown that interactional sources are the most influential form of trust. Dietz (2011), for instance, asserted that people use multiple sources of evidence in assessing whether the other party is trustworthy, with direct personal experience or relational sources being the most influential sources of trust. The role of the parents’ positive interaction with the professionals is even more important in the context of these encounters given the prevalence of preconceived fear and distrust in CWS, leaving the interaction as a crucial venue to build collaboration and trust-based relations. Ring (1997) noted that trust can emerge from processes of interaction even if it does not already exist between the parties initially. For example, parent–worker interactions premised on the availability of information can contribute to the formation of trust by helping the parents acquire the partial understanding necessary to delimit the level of their dependency, vulnerability, and potential risks, thus taking a “leap of faith” into the unknown (Giddens, 1990; Luhmann, 1979; Simmel, 1950). In particular, informing parents that the case will not lead to child removal when this is clear from the very outset is crucial in changing the dynamics of the relationship, as this is the main cause of fear or distrust in CWS among these groups of parents. Fairbairn and Strega (2015), in this regard, suggested that caseworkers start the process not only by asking for information but also by providing information about their role, the intended intervention, and its goals. According to Rousseau et al., (1998, p. 399), “information available to the trustor from within the relationship itself can form the basis of relational trust.” In addition, the sense of security developed by the parents due to their positive relationships with the workers is a key element for the formation of emotional trust according to trust scholars (Lewicki & Bunker, 1995; Lewis & Weigert, 1985). However, interactions that foster the transitions toward trust and collaboration in the context of this study were found to require not only listening, informing, and involving parents in the decision-making but also professionals’ actions consistent with the mutually agreed or held expectations on a regular basis. Doing so seems to enhance the parents’ meaningful experience of the intervention by contributing to consonance with respect to their roles, expectations, and responsibilities. According to Mayer et al., (1995), at the interpersonal level, a trustor uses elements like ability, benevolence, and integrity (i.e., adherence to principles acceptable to both parties) to assess the trustworthiness of a trustee.

Further, the parents’ positive and meaningful experiences of interactions with the workers were also found to be associated with the flexibility of workers in ensuring the parents’ participation and tailoring the services to their unique context. Workers who are perceived as flexible and inclusive, according to the parents’ role conception, seem to have a major role in shifting the dynamics of the relationship toward trust-based collaboration. Flexibility, for example, in recognizing parents’ unique situations and personal strengths, seems to also contribute to their empowerment and collaboration by increasing their self-confidence and sense of competency. According to Goldstein et al., (2009, p. 107), “A collaborative approach communicates respect and validates clients’ own experience and goes a long way in preventing a nontherapeutic interaction in which clients are placed in a diminished position in relationship to clinician’s authority.” Conversely, the perceived lack of workers’ flexibility was also frequently mentioned by the participants who reported negative experiences with the interventions. Previous studies also found that workers who are “role competent” and prioritize adherence to bureaucratic imperatives, laws, and procedures in a strict and prescriptive manner can be perceived as uncaring, lacking empathy, or indifferent, potentially obstructing the formation of interpersonal trust (De Boer & Coady, 2007; Shapiro, 1987).

In addition to the role of parents’ positive interactions and relational trust in professionals, the findings also show the impact of particular phenomena during the intervention processes as turning points in triggering the transition. These include parents’ awareness that the intervention will not lead to child removal, and/or the positive effects of the intervention measures. The analysis of the participants’ narratives suggests that these turning points facilitated the transformation of the relations to varying degrees by evoking different levels and forms of trust. For instance, while the parents’ awareness that CWS was not going to remove their child(ren) appeared to help parents delineate the potential risk and thus instilled a sense of security and some degree of trust, it only proves/signals CWS’s intention not to harm, whereas other therapeutic measures, like parental training courses, counseling, or financial support seemed to denote not only the absence of CWS’s intention to harm but also CWS’s intention to support families. Finally, the parents’ realization of the positive effect of the intervention (e.g., positive effect of counseling or courses offered in improving the family’s situation) appeared to enhance a higher level of trust in the services. This can, for instance, be seen in a participant’s remark, “Had it not been for their intervention, the life of my child would have been problematic” or “CWS should intervene more in the immigrant communities so that they can help more families,” denoting a higher level of trust in the services. This finding supports Lewicki and Bunker’s (1995) assertion that relational trust entails not only a belief in the positive intentions of the trustee but also the absence of negative intentions, giving rise to the condition of high trust/low distrust. Similarly, the level of parents’ collaboration appears to be changed by the dynamics of trust escalation. That is, the higher the level of trust, the more the parents collaborate.

The turning points were also found to trigger different forms of parents’ trust. For instance, a relational trust formed due to the parents’ knowledge that the intervention would not lead to child removal seems to be induced by the contrast between what these parents expected initially and how they found the services. Yet, parents’ experiences of the interventions as helpful, and their perception of CWS as supportive and fair, induce trust based on positive experiences. This type of trust, developed after parents assessed the impact or outcome of the intervention, is also called experiential, calculus, or identification-based trust (Lewicki & Bunker, 1996). Parents’ attribution of positive meaning to their interactions with the workers also appears to have an emotional aspect, as signaled by the expression of their feelings of comfort and security as a result. Such parents’ feelings of security prompt emotional trust, which is non-calculative reliance based on the emotional bonds between trustor and trustee (Lewicki & Bunker, 1995; Lewis & Weigert, 1985). Moreover, while transparency and information to parents during the process are vital for the formation of cognitive trust, parents’ emotional comfort and security form the basis of emotional trust. The resulting relational trust leads to behavioral trust, i.e., trusting actions that flow from either cognitive or emotional trust, or a combination of both. This may further denote the multifaceted, interrelated, and dynamic nature of relational trust in the context of these encounters.

Finally, the findings also demonstrate that the transitions from fear and distrust to trust and collaboration do not evolve in clearly defined phases but rather unfold as a complex cyclical process involving disruption and restoration during the process. The analysis shows that parents’ trust and collaborative behavior brought about by the aforementioned turning points can be withdrawn due to disruption in the relations. Yet, parents who expressed their positive experiences and strong trust in the workers also seemed to be more tolerant of some disruptions during the process. The disruptions and restorations during the process may, in general, indicate that trust built within these contexts can be reinforced or withdrawn as a result of the exchanges that occur within the relationship. In some deviation from the perspective that relational trust results from repeated interactions over time (Rousseau et al., 1998), the present study indicated that repeated interactions do not necessarily lead to the formation or maintenance of relational trust but rather the parents’ experience of the interactions and interventions as meaningful on a continual basis. Hence, given the fluid and dynamic nature of the relations, parents’ trust not only has to be earned and constantly reinforced on an ongoing basis, but also has to be repaired in case of a breach caused by disruptions. In this regard, workers need to be aware of and respond to parents’ fear and psychological and emotional distress due to contact with CWS, their immediate practical needs, be pragmatic and embrace different perceptions of reality, tailor the services to parents’ situations, and provide culturally safe and appropriate services. This is important to enhance the contextual and relational factors that facilitate the transition into trust-based collaboration.

In addition to the role of therapeutic relationships between parents and CWS workers, the findings also suggest that enhancing parents’ trust and collaboration with CWS is a multifaceted process that requires organizational and institutional support at multiple levels of the services. These include the adoption of intervention approaches that validate and resonate with the parenting practices and experiences of these parents. For example, the adoption of more family-oriented intervention practices like family group conferencing (O’Shaughnessy et al., 2010) may help to curb parents’ fear or distrust associated with the services’ perceived lack of transparency, parents’ sense of exclusion, and/or objectification. Further, engaging with the wider immigrant communities by using their members from within and making child welfare services available in different languages to make the services understandable among these communities may help to reduce the prevailing fear and distrust associated with misconceptions.

Conclusion

This study examined the dynamics of transitions in the quality of relationships between parents and CWS from the perspective of immigrant parents. Analysis of the participants’ experiences suggests that parents can engage in trusting and collaborative relations even in the face of institutional distrust, fear, and vulnerability, if they experience the encounter and intervention as meaningful. The findings highlight to this end the crucial role of parents’ interactions or relational trust in workers in overcoming their fear and distrust and engaging in trust-based collaboration. The study also identified the importance of intervention measures that delimit parents’ fear, lack of trust, and emotional distress, as well as therapeutic measures that respond to their immediate practical needs in transforming the relation to one of trust and collaboration. The study also reveals that parents’ fear, lack of trust or trust, and collaborative behavior during the engagement with CWS are multifaceted, spatial, temporal, and dynamic, and the transitions in the relationship occur in a complex, cyclical manner.

Limitations of the Study and Future Directions

The author would like to acknowledge that the study has a number of limitations. First, the findings are based on a relatively small sample of participants who had positive experiences with CWS interventions. A more comprehensive study using a larger sample would yield more data to enable better and more robust conclusions. The author would also like to note that all the findings and presentation were based on subjective experiences described by the study’s participants, which limits the transferability of the interpretations and findings to other immigrant families’ experiences in different contexts and cases with different characteristics. Yet, certain aspects of the analysis and findings can provide insights into the dynamics of users’ relationships with CWS by this group of parents.

Secondly, the data coding was conducted by one person (the author), and the coding of data by several researchers could have added to the layers of richness and nuances of the findings by revealing other dimensions of changes in the relationship process.

A third limitation stems from the fact that the author only included interview data from service users without the corresponding perspectives of child welfare professionals. This was done because of the difficulty of recruiting immigrant parents and caseworkers involved in the same case. Future studies that incorporate the perspectives and experiences of both stakeholders might yield a more complete picture of the topic.

Finally, it is worth emphasizing that an understanding of the dynamics of transitions in the quality of the relationship between parents and CWS is foundational for contextual understanding of trust-based collaboration and parental participation in the process. It is also important to make necessary changes and tailor the services to the needs and situations of the users, thus enhancing the responsiveness of the services. However, this is a nascent area and there is very little empirical research exploring this topic, both in the context of Norway and internationally. Therefore, more research is needed to expand the body of knowledge on the characteristics of the relationships between parents and CWS, as well as factors that promote or undermine the qualities of the relationship. Particularly, future studies that explore the process of changes in these relationship dynamics, especially from the perspectives of culturally and linguistically diverse families like immigrants, are vital to bridge the existing knowledge gap. Moreover, further research is needed to expand the contextual understanding of sociological concepts such as trust and collaboration in child welfare services.