When do child protection workers think that children can, should or must not participate in a case? This is an important question given the prominent role that these professionals can play in fostering genuine participation for children by helping them develop and voice their own opinions and taking their views seriously. The aim of this chapter is to show child protection caseworkers’ views of the factors that lead to children's non-participation. I analyzed the interview responses of 67 child protection caseworkers (28 workers in Norway, ‘N’, and 39 in California, ‘C’) who were asked whether they thought there were situations when it would not be appropriate to involve children in child protection-related processes. The study participants were prompted to provide concrete examples based on their practice. Their views and experiences and the examples of situations they described constitute the evidence for this chapter.

Workers in both countries perceived several reasons why children can or should not participate, as Figure 3.1 shows.

These reasons, which I call ‘non-participation triggers’, included: children's young age (the non-participant thresholds most frequently mentioned were infancy, three and four years); children's severe disability or mental illness, such as speech problems or a severe mental health issue that incapacitated children; and the possibility of negative emotional impact of the involvement on children. Study participants also mentioned the possibility of retraumatizing the child if they faced an abuser in a meeting and any imminent risk to children's safety. A few workers in both countries mentioned the occurrence of a crime as a non-involvement trigger, a case focus on providing parenting support services, or the child's wish not to be involved.

When child protection caseworkers in Norway and California were asked whether there were situations when they would not involve children, most of them were adamant in replying that children should always be involved; however, many of them then continued to qualify their statements by saying that there are instances when children can, should or must not be involved. Only a few workers simply said that children should always be involved, without qualifying their statement. For example, C26 replied: “This is child welfare, so I would think the majority of the time the child is the key factor.