Children ’ s right to participation in Swedish child welfare – The extent, nature and determinants of child interviews during investigations

Background: Children ’ s right to participation in child welfare decision-making is highlighted in law and research. However, there is a lack of comprehensive empirical research on how such participation is actually fulfilled. Objective: This article aims to describe and analyse the extent, nature and determinants of children ’ s participation in child welfare investigations in Sweden as well as to discuss barriers to participation. Participants and setting: The dataset comprises a cohort of 2123 children investigated during 2022 across eight municipalities in Stockholm County, Sweden. Methods: The study is based on cross-sectional data where the responsible child welfare workers served as informant in a survey focusing child and case factors concerning 2123 children subject to child welfare investigations. The data is analysed by using descriptive and binary logistic regression analyses. Results: In approximately 75 % of the child welfare investigations, child welfare workers held interviews with the child (with or without parental presence) while individual child interviews were carried out in about 50 % of the cases. Multiple interviews ( ≥ 3) occurred in 14 % of the cases. Reasons for not interviewing children included finding interviews to be unnecessary, perceiving the child as too young, and reluctance by the child as to participation. Investigations involving older children and referrals related to abuse increased the odds for participation. Conclusions: The study suggests that more children are interviewed by child welfare authorities than found in previous studies, but that there still is a gap between the legislative intention to facilitate child participation and the actual state of child welfare practice


Introduction
The importance of respecting and fulfilling children's right to participation in child welfare decision-making is highlighted in both the law and research (Falch-Eriksen & Toros, 2023).Child welfare decision-making is an intricate process, requiring child welfare workers to navigate numerous steps before making decisions (Munro, 2019).There currently is a growing emphasis on promoting children's participation in this process.This trend is also evident in Sweden, where the legislation for many years has mandated that children be given the opportunity to have an impact on those child welfare decisions concerning them.Child participation has also been regulated more clearly in Sweden, particularly after the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) was incorporated into Swedish law in January 2020.Research shows that children's participation in investigations is connected to improved child wellbeing and the possibility of gaining a more accurate picture of the child's needs (Kosher & Ben-Arieh, 2020a, 2020b;Vis, Strandbu, Holtan, & Thomas, 2011), but previous Swedish studies indicate that child welfare authorities fall short in fulfilling children's right to participation (e.g., Heimer, Näsman, & Palme, 2018;van Ufford, Heimer, Schön, & Linell, 2022).However, there is a notable lack of comprehensive empirical research on the subject.This article aims to address this gap by conducting an analysis of an extensive number of child welfare investigations and explore whether and how participation is fulfilled in line with the UNCRC and the legislative reforms in the Swedish child welfare system.
From an international perspective, the Swedish child welfare system is usually described as a family service model, emphasizing low thresholds for interventions, a prioritization on voluntariness, and early support services (Höjer & Pösö, 2023).In essence, both children and their parents can be considered clients in practice.This is in contrast to child protection models, which traditionally exist, for example, in the UK.These models typically have higher thresholds for services, feature more authoritarian relations to parents whose children are under investigation, and coercive interventions are more common.However, different models have elements from one another and have been described as merging, and many models increasingly focus on children's rights (Berrick, Gilbert, & Skivenes, 2023).The emphasis on voluntariness in the Swedish system implies that child welfare investigations should be conducted in partnership with parents and children, and services should be adapted to their needs and preferences to the extent possible.While there is an increase in the regulations and recommendations concerning the frameworks for the investigative process, and a greater use of risk assessment instruments, the overall process is not necessarily conducted as structured information gathering (Lundström, Pålsson, Sallnäs, & Shanks, 2021).
In contrast to many other countries, the Swedish child welfare system is tasked with addressing a wide range of family and child needs (Lundström et al., 2021).This includes not only child maltreatment (e.g.abuse and neglect), but also various problematic behaviours among children and adolescents (e.g.substance abuse, school problems).Additionally, unlike many other countries, delinquent youth who have been convicted are also referred to the child welfare authorities.During the last decade, there has been elevated public discourse and also regulations regarding the child welfare authorities' responsibility for addressing violence and corporal punishment against children, such as filing police reports and initiating investigations (Leviner & Sardiello, 2018;van Ufford et al., 2022).As Swedish child welfare authorities investigate a varied group of child and family problems and needs, this study allows us to compare participation for children under investigation for maltreatment (abuse and neglect) with other groups of children and adolescents.
Child welfare investigations in Sweden are carried out at the local level by child welfare workers in the municipalities (n = 290), but their work is governed by two main national acts that encompass children's right to participation: the Social Services Act (socialtjänstlagen, 2001:453) and the Care of Young Persons Act (lag med särskilda bestämmelser om vård av unga, 1990:52).Both acts are based on the principle of voluntariness, with the primary rule emphasizing that parents are best suited to care for, make decisions about, and represent their children.However, when a situation is so serious that a child or young person cannot remain with his or her parents, but instead needs protection and/or specific care services, actions can be taken against the will of parents to place the child in out-of-home care.Prerequisites for involuntary actions are regulated in the Care of Young Persons Act and can only be taken as a result of serious issues in the home, for example violence, abuse and neglect, or as a result of the child's or adolescent's own destructive behaviour (sections 2-3).
Even though participation has become a central concept in the children's rights discourse and emphasized in relation to child welfare investigations, it remains largely an imprecise policy concept with varying definitions in both research and national and local practices (Križ & Skivenes, 2017;Quennerstedt, 2013;Skauge, Storhaug, & Marthinsen, 2021).Additionally, as indicated above and further discussed in this article, research shows a gap between policy and practice, indicating difficulties and challenges in implementing children's right to participation (Thorburn-Stern, 2017).In Sweden, there is a lack of specific national guidance or training on how to fulfil children's right to participation within the child welfare system.This article is part of an extensive, ongoing longitudinal research project.The dataset comprises a cohort of 2123 children investigated by child welfare authorities during 2022 across eight municipalities in Stockholm County, with child case workers serving as informants.The items covered, but not restricted to, include how and to what extent the case worker report that children were involved in the investigative process.We employ a basic definition of participation by viewing it as where children are interviewed (together with parents or alone) during the child welfare investigation process.We use the terms interviews, meetings and talks interchangeably here.Our argument behind the relevance of this definition is that without an elementary form of participation (interviews), more advanced participation cannot be achieved.This basic level of participation is the minimum expectation, in line with the Article 12 of the UNCRC and national Swedish legislation described further below.It is important to note that our data cannot provide insights into the content of these interviews, or whether they offer children substantial opportunities to influence and participate in child welfare decisions.
The structure of this article is that we begin with a research review focused on children's participation in child protection decisionmaking, and provide an overview of the Swedish legal framework concerning children's right to participation in the child welfare system.Then, we outline the study objectives.This is followed by a method section where we provide details on our data and analytical methods.The findings are presented and lastly discussed in light of the legal framework and contextualized in relation to previous research on children's participation in child welfare decision-making.This article contributes empirically to the ongoing research and discussion concerning how children's right to participation is managed in the context of child abuse and neglect, and raises central questions for further investigation.

Research on children's participation in child welfare decision-making
International research on children's participation in child welfare decision-making has become rather extensive in recent decades.These studies, originating from various contexts and often employing case files, vignettes, or interviews, reveal how child welfare workers approach participation and/or how children perceive participation.Overall, the studies indicate an increased awareness of children's right to participation, yet there remains a gap between policy and practice (Cashmore, Kong, & McLaine, 2023).A systematic literature study indicates that children's interactions with child welfare workers during investigations are limited, and that children are provided with few opportunities to influence decisions (Toros, 2021).The inclusion of children in decision-making is often deemed tokenistic, meaning it lacks traceable impact on the actual decisions (ibid.).This has been interpreted as children not being treated as social actors or as primary clients in the child protection system (Heimer et al., 2018;Toros, 2020;van Bijleveld, Dedding, & Bunders-Aelen, 2015).According to several studies, the degree of participation appears dependent on the age of the child, with older children more frequently consulted than younger ones (Berrick, Dickens, Pösö, & Skivenes, 2015;Gresdahl, Fauske, & Storhaug, 2023).Moreover, in cases of abuse or neglect, children are reported as being less often involved than in other types of cases (Kosher & Ben-Arieh, 2020a).However, overall, there are few broader empirical studies exploring variations of participation between different groups of children.
Many previous studies delve into barriers and facilitators to participation (van Bijleveld et al., 2015).Some explore whether system-and organizational factors impact children's participation.For example, Swedish studies have suggested that the family service system, with its emphasis on voluntariness and cooperation with parents, leads to less of a focus on children's voices (Heimer et al., 2018;van Ufford et al., 2022).On the other hand, a cross-country study concluded that system level differences (such as whether a country leans towards a family service or a child protection model) do not appear to matter significantly for professionals' attitudes to participation (Berrick et al., 2015).Studies also show that how child participation should be enacted is often unclear in national policy documents (Bouma, López, Knorth, & Grietens, 2018), and child welfare workers often lack training on what participation entails (Woodman, Roche, & McArthur, 2023).Some studies underscore organizational aspects as barriers to participation (see for example Seim & Slettebø, 2017;Vis & Fossum, 2015).Professionals may aspire to involve children, but frequent changes in staff and lack of child-friendly spaces for professional-child interactions can hinder this effort (ibid.).Factors such as high workloads and a perceived lack of skills, especially in communicating with children in various ages, are also mentioned as hindrances (Kosher & Ben-Arieh, 2020a, 2020b;Toros, 2021;Woodman et al., 2023).
A central finding in the previous research is the pivotal role of child welfare workers' attitudes in achieving participation for children.Many studies reveal that professionals generally express a positive attitude to participation, but that they lean towards accepting consultation rather than allowing children's voices to substantially influence decisions (Kosher & Ben Arieh, 2019;Woodman et al., 2023).Professionals may perceive that younger children are less capable of participating, fear that participation may lead to unrealistic requests from children, and have concerns that participation potentially causes harm rather than providing benefits (Toros, 2021;van Bijleveld, Bunders-Aelen, & Dedding, 2020).Consequently, the emphasis in practice is often placed on protecting children and determining their needs as the primary task of child protection rather than prioritizing participation (Kosher & Ben-Arieh 2019;van Bijleveld et al., 2020;Woodman et al., 2023).A consistent finding across studies is that strong relationships between child welfare workers and children are crucial for fostering participation (ibid.).
Finally, there are studies exploring the impacts of participation, commonly viewed as possessing both intrinsic and instrumental values (Skauge et al., 2021;Vis et al., 2011).These intrinsic values include the idea that participation allows children a deeper insight into the procedure and recognize children as legitimate stakeholders.However, the literature also highlights instrumental values of participation and it is hypothesized to be important for quality reasons (Vis et al., 2011).For instance, certain studies suggest that participation heightens children's sense of control over their situations and their self-esteem (Bruck, Ben-Arieh, & Kosher, 2022).There is also an argument that incorporating children's perspectives is paramount for obtaining an accurate picture of the child's wellbeing and needs, thereby improving the potential for child welfare services to positively impact children (Kosher & Ben-Arieh, 2020a, 2020b;Schofield, 2005).Some researchers argue that meaningful participation can only occur when children are informed, heard, and their views are considered throughout the investigation (Bouma et al., 2018).Additionally, one Swedish study suggests that interventions are better aligned with the child's needs if the child is consulted during the investigation (Heimer et al., 2018).
In summary, previous research indicates a gap between policy and practice in the implementation of participation.Overall, available studies show that child welfare authorities often overlook involving children in decision-making.Specifically, participation seems to be lacking when children are younger.There is still a lack of broader empirical studies exploring the determinants of child participation.Barriers to participation include imprecise definitions of what participation entails, attitudes of child welfare workers prioritizing the protection of children, and organizational constraints.Previous research has also pointed to the risk of tokenism, namely that children have "voice but no choice", which, in turn, may increase a sense of powerlessness for children.Despite the limited research on the long-term benefits of participation, the suggestion is that it results in more accurate investigations and more tailored services.

The Swedish legal framework for children's right to participation in the child welfare system
Children's right to participation is emphasized in Article 12 UNCRC as one of the Convention's basic principles, and is also reflected in Swedish legal regulations (see below).The importance of providing children with the opportunity to voice their opinions and impact D. Pålsson et al. decisions has been repeatedly highlighted by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (Committee), and pointed out as specifically crucial in child protection cases (see for example General Comment no. 12 on participation -CRC/C/GC/12, para 53).The Committee observes that children's right to be heard in such cases is not always considered by States parties.Consequently, the Committee recommends in its General Comment no. 12 the implementation of measures, through legislation, regulation, and policy directives, to ensure that the child's views are actively solicited and considered (CRC/C/GC/12, para 54).In the same General Comment, the Committee stresses that Article 12 UNCRC imposes no age limit on a child's right to express her or his views.Furthermore, the Committee discourages States parties from introducing age limits, either in law or practice, that would restrict the child's right to be heard in all matters affecting her or him (CRC/C/GC/12, para 21).
Swedish child welfare legislation has been reformed several times in recent decades to be aligned with Article 12 UNCRC (see for example the following legislative bills; Prop. 1994/95:224;Prop. 1996/97:124;Prop. 2002/03:53;Prop. 2006/7:129;Prop. 2009/ 10:192;Prop. 2012/13:10).According to the Social Services Act (Chapter 11, Section 10) and the Care of Young Persons Act (Section 36), child welfare authorities are now obligated to meet and talk to children to ensure their right to participation.Both of these regulations are clearly influenced by the UNCRC and highlight three aspects of participation: 1) the child's right to receive relevant information, 2) the child's right to express views and wishes in matters affecting the child, including efforts to clarify any wishes even if the child does not express them directly, and. 3) giving weight to the wishes and views of the child based on their age and maturity.
The Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare (NBHW) Guidelines emphasize the importance of child welfare workers meeting and talking with children involved in child welfare cases, alone or in the presence of parents, to assess the child's needs and best interests (SOSFS 2014:6).NBHW handbooks (NBHW, 2018, 2023) -providing non-binding guidancefurther emphasize that children have the right to relevant information and the opportunity to express their views, regardless of whether child welfare workers believe it to add relevant information or not.It is underscored that this right applies to all ages, and consequently young children also have the right to be heard.In line with both Article 12 UNCRC and the relevant Swedish acts (see above), the NBHW Handbooks underline that if a child does not express views, his or her wishes must be clarified in other ways.This may involve seeking input from someone close to the child about what the child's views and wishes might be, or finding previous information from or about the child as documented by child welfare authorities.It should be noted that the NBHW Handbooks state, with reference to the legislative preparatory works to the Social Services Act, that although the child has the right to participate, it is not an obligation.This emphasizes the importance of respecting children's wishes not to participate.It should be noted that the relevant acts and policy documents do not provide any other reasons for not meeting and talking to children.
As described above, child welfare investigations are typically conducted in close collaboration with the parents.However, in accordance with the Parental Code (Chapter 6, Section 11), meetings and interviews with older children can be held without parental consent.Since 2013, the Social Services Act (Chapter 11, Section 10) also allows child welfare workers, as an exception to the rule, to meet and talk to younger children without parental consent and without parents being present.There are no specific age limits connected to this possibility, and it is for the child welfare authorities to assess and decidewithout any further overall guidelines indicating more than that age, maturity and the question at hand are to be consideredwhen interviews can and should be held without parental consent.This possibility and mandate were introduced with the explicit aim of ensuring children the right to participation (Legislative Bill, Prop. 2009/10:192, p. 19).However, a lack of legal clarity has been observed regarding how the child welfare authorities are supposed to exercise this mandate and handle situations where parents oppose the child welfare authorities talking to their children (Leviner, 2018).
As described here, the regulations within the child welfare system establish a reasonably clear, yet broad and goal-oriented responsibility, for child welfare authorities to fulfil children's right to participation.However, these regulations are unclear in many aspects.The right to participation for childrenboth in terms of Article 12 UNCRC and its transformation and implementation in the Swedish legal child welfare regulationsis permeated with limitations and problems that have not been addressed by the Swedish legislator.A fundamental issue is a lack of clarity regarding what is to be achieved by involving and talking to children, particularly when it comes to how the child's own statements should be handled and assessed, and what weight should be given to children's wishes and views. 1 The Swedish legal sources provide limited guidance in these questions.
In conclusion, even though the right to be heard has been transformed into and increasingly emphasized in Swedish child welfare regulations, the legal guidance provided to child welfare workers remains unclear in many respects, leaving uncertainty regarding children's right to participation in the child welfare system.However, one aspect that is evident is that, despite the limited guidance on how to fulfil children's right to participation, child welfare investigations must incorporate children's voices or other information about the individual child, giving due weight to their statements, wishes and views.Without this incorporation, the basis for decisionmaking is insufficient in assessing the best interest of the child.In the concluding discussion, we will analyse our empirical findings in relation to child welfare regulations on participation.

Study objectives
The article aims to describe and analyse the extent, nature and determinants of children's rights to participation in the initial phase of child welfare investigations as well as to discuss barriers to such participation.We also clarify and problematize the legal framework for children's participation in Sweden and discuss our findings based on that.The following research questions are answered: -How common is it that children are interviewed (together with parents or individually) by child welfare workers during the investigative process?-What reasons are given by child welfare workers for not conducting individual interviews with children in the investigative process?-To what extent do different child (e.g.gender, age) and case (e.g., reasons for referral such as abuse or neglect) factors determine whether children are interviewed?

Sample
The sample consists of a cohort of 2123 children investigated between November 2021 and April 2022.Data was obtained through a survey in which the responsible case manager typically served as the informant on child factors and case characteristics.According to municipal records, a total of 2734 child welfare investigations were initiated in these municipalities during the period, resulting in an overall response rate of 77.7 %.

Procedure and data collection
Data was collected as part of a longitudinal project aiming to follow the trajectories of Swedish child welfare recipients subject to investigations in eight municipalities within Stockholm County (funded by Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, reference number 2019-01490).The municipalities are predominately suburban, with a larger proportion of non-native residents compared to the national average, and a fiscal capacity above the average.However, there is significant variation within the municipalities regarding the representation of semi-rural and socially exposed areas and districts (SCB; Kolada).
The overall project has three observation points: Baseline (data collected 2021-2022), Follow up 1 (data collected on year past the baseline) and Follow up 2 (data collection planned for 2026).Data used in this article emanates exclusively from the baseline measurement.
Data collection was guided by the ambition to reach a sample of 2000 cases to ensure sufficient statistical power and enable meaningful analyses of sub-groups.To reach this goal, we collected monthly records on every child welfare investigation initiated in each municipality.In these records, each child had a unique code number, and the responsible case manager was listed.We then approached the responsible case manager who filled in the survey (typically multiple choice) concerning the child.Thus, the analytical unit was the child, while the responsible case manager served as informant.Consequently, several case managers completed multiple surveys for each child they investigated during the period.
The survey was distributed to each case manager in every municipality by three research assistants based on the statistical case records described above.If the case manager was unavailable (e.g.due to staff turnover), a colleague with insight in the case (typically first line manager) was instructed to answer the survey.The research assistants had recurring meetings with the child welfare units to assist with queries and were also available by mail and phone.

Research tool and measurements
The survey covered a broad range of background factors of the child (e.g.age, gender and family composition), case specifics (e.g.reasons for referral, previous investigations and services) and outcomes of the investigation (e.g. if services were granted and what types of services).Data used in this article is exclusively obtained from the base line survey as mentioned above.The survey consisted of multiple-choice questions concerning child background factors (e.g.age, gender and family demographic factors) and case characteristics (e.g.referral reasons, post investigative service provision, the extent and format of child interviews).For additional information, see Tables 1 and 2.
The dependent variables used in the forthcoming logistic regression analyses were coded as follows: Child interview with parent or alone Yes = 1 Else = 0 Child interview alone Yes = 1 Else = 0 Multiple interviews ≥3 Child interviews with parent or alone = 1 0-2 Child interviews with parent or alone = 0 D. Pålsson et al.

Data analysis
The forthcoming results consist of descriptive analyses and binary logistic regression analyses executed in SPSS.Variables were selected based on previous findings as well as theoretical interest.Child municipality adherence served as a control variable, as previous studies have shown that local variations in Swedish child welfare administration and service provision are substantial (e.g.Wiklund, 2006).

Ethical considerations
Using the responsible case manager as informant on behalf of the child introduces certain ethical complexities to the study.As a result, neither parental nor child consent was obtained, which would have been ideal.However, such a design would likely have been difficult or impossible to implement without substantial attrition.Given the ethical complexity, precautionary measures were taken to handle sensitive data, in accordance with recommendations from relevant authorities.An overarching ethical argument for using data without informed consent in Sweden is that the societal benefits of a study are considered more important than the potential harm inflicted by the intrusion on the individual integrity of the participants.The project is approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (reference number 2021-01535).

Results
The results begin with a description of the sample of investigations.Subsequently, we provide details on the number of investigations reported to involve child interviews, either together with parents or individually, and the reasons that child welfare workers report for not involving children.Lastly, we conduct a regression analysis to identify factors that enhance the likelihood of child interviews.

Sample descriptives and occurrence of child interviews in investigations
Table 1 shows key variables of the sample.Less than half (45.9 %) of the investigations involve girls, and the median age is about 10 years old (SD = 5.06).Just over a third (35.2 %) has a mother born in Sweden, indicating that the majority of children have a parent with a non-native background.More than half of the sample (55.7 %) were referred from mandated reporters, while others were reported by private individuals or applied for services themselves.26 % were investigated for abuse reasons (sexual, physical, or psychological), while around 16 % were investigated for neglect reasons.The remaining majority of investigations thus concerns other referral reasons relevant in the Swedish context, such as school problems, delinquency, etc. 33 % of the investigations resulted in a child welfare service.Almost 3 % of the children investigated were placed in compulsory care.
In three-quarters of the investigations (75.4 %), child welfare workers reported engaging in interviews with children, with or without the presence of their parents.Individual interviews with the child occurred in slightly more than half of the investigations (51 %).In about 14 % of the investigations, the child welfare worker interviewed the child multiple times (≥3).

Reasons for not interviewing children individually in child welfare investigations
In 49 % of the investigations (n = 1006) where child welfare workers did not conduct individual interviews with the child, they were asked to report their reasons (Table 2).Child welfare workers were allowed to provide multiple reasons.In over a third of these investigations (33.5 %), an individual interview with the child was deemed unnecessary for the investigation.In slightly more than a quarter of cases (26.3 %), the child's young age was given as a reason.In around a quarter of the cases (24 %), the child welfare worker reported the child's reluctance to meet as a reason.Less frequently mentioned reasons were parental reluctance to child interviews (7.5 %), language difficulties (4.6 %), concerns that participation could be harmful to the child (2.8 %) and time constraints of the child welfare worker (1 %).In 15 % of the cases, respondents reported other reasons, and, in open answers, elaborated that these could include the child being abroad, parents withdrawing their applications, the child having diagnoses, or the recent completion of an investigation.

Factors associated with child interviews
Results from the regressions models are shown in Table 3. Controlling for municipality variations, a number of significant associations are established.Where the investigation concerns a girl, there is an increased probability that the child welfare worker conducts multiple interviews during the investigation.Consistent with previous studies on child participation, the analysis shows that age is positively associated to interviewing the child.This holds for parental presence (OR 1.18) as well as individual interviews (OR 1.22) and multiple interviews during the investigation (OR 1.17).The analysis also shows that children with a native Swedish mother have slightly less odds to be interviewed individually (OR 0.79).
Furthermore, if the investigation is initiated due to a referral from a mandated reporter, it is more likely that child welfare authorities interview the child together with parents (OR 1.83), individually (OR 1.38) as well as multiple times (OR 1.89).The analyses also shows that investigations involving abuse significantly increase the probability of child interviews in all dependent variables and in particular individual interviews (OR = 3.45).Investigations induced by neglect reason do not significantly increase the odds of any dependent variable.
The analyses also shows that if the investigation results in post-investigative services, there is an increased probability of child interviews in all dependent variables with the highest odds displayed with multiple interviews (OR 3.24).Lastly, investigations resulting in compulsory post-investigative services displays significant higher odds of individual interviews and multiple interviews.

Summary and discussion
This article has, within a Swedish context, aimed to describe and analyse the extent, nature and determinants of child participation in child welfare investigations as well as discuss barriers to such participation.Previous research shows that children's participation in investigations is connected to improved child wellbeing and more accurate investigations.In the article, we employ an elementary definition of participation (interviews during the investigation), arguing that without this form of participation, more advanced participation levels cannot be achieved.The article is part of an extensive, ongoing longitudinal research project, with data from a cohort of 2123 children.As described above, the Swedish child welfare system is designed to address a broad spectrum of family and child needs, and is usually defined as a family service model with low thresholds for state intervention and an emphasis on voluntariness (Höjer & Pösö, 2023).This allows for a comparison of participation in cases of child abuse and neglect with other types of cases handled by the Swedish child welfare system, such as adolescents exhibiting externalising problematic behaviour.The main findings are: • Child welfare workers meet and talk to children (with or without parental presence) in about 75 % of the investigations, while individual child interviews are carried out in about 50 % of cases.Multiple interviews (≥3) occur in about 14 % of cases.• Specific descriptive analyses on child welfare workers rationalities for not interviewing children show that the most common reasons (24-34 % of cases) include finding interviews unnecessary, perceiving the child as too young, and a child's reluctance to meet and talk to child welfare workers.• The regression analyses show that: a) investigations involving older children, mandated reporter-initiated referrals and referrals related to abuse (but not neglect) significantly increase the odds for child participation in all regards; b) investigations resulting in compulsory care orders significantly elevate the odds of individual and multiple interviews; c) investigations concerning girls significantly raise the odds of multiple interviews and d) investigation of children to a Swedish born mother significantly lower the odds of individual interviews.
These findings are now discussed in relation to the legal framework and also in the context of prior research on children's participation in child welfare investigations.
Firstly, on a fundamental level, the study shows that children's participationdefined as interviews or meetings where children have the opportunity to talk to child welfare workers and express their wishes, views and perspectivesappears more common than shown in previous, smaller Swedish studies (e.g.Heimer et al., 2018;van Ufford et al., 2022) and in international literature overall (Cashmore et al., 2023;Toros, 2020).The fact that many children meet and talk to child welfare workers may be interpreted as an indication that the increased emphasis on participation in Swedish regulations and policy directives have had an impact on practical child welfare decision-making.However, the occurrence of interviews, of course, does not provide insight into the quality of these meetings nor their impact on the investigation outcome (cf.Toros, 2020).In other words, based on our findings we cannot determine whether the interviews merely conveyed information to the child, if the child felt involved, or if the meetings provided opportunities for children to influence the assessment of the best interest of the child and/or, by extension, the actual decision.It is also noteworthy that only a small proportion of children had recurrent interviews with child welfare workers.Typically, when children meet child welfare workers, this occurs one or two times.The limited number of interviews arguably provides restricted conditions for establishing strong relations between the child welfare worker and the child, a factor considered crucial for substantial participation according to previous research (Bouma et al., 2018).
Secondly, it is important to emphasize that about half of the children did not have individual meetings with child welfare workers.In other words, even with our elementary definition of participation, many childrenwhose needs and problems are in focus for the referrals and investigationsare not offered the opportunity to give their perspectives in individual interviews (cf.Heimer et al., 2018;Toros, 2020;van Bijleveld et al., 2015).This contrasts with child welfare regulations, both in the relevant laws and policy directives mentioned above, all emphasizing the responsibility to involve children (see the Social Services Act, Chapter 11, Section 10; Care of Young Persons Act, Section 36; Prop. 2009/10:192;Prop. 2012/13:10;SOSFS 2014:6).The rationalities of child welfare workers in this study for not meeting and talking with children are important to reflect upon.For instance, several factors commonly mentioned in prior research are not commonly reported in this study.These include professionals wanting to protect children from participation, language difficulties of children, and child welfare workers being time pressed (see e.g.Kosher & Ben-Arieh, 2020a, 2020b;Toros, 2021;van Bijleveld et al., 2020;Woodman et al., 2023).Moreover, in Sweden, the debate often centres around the parents' rights to restrict children's participation (Heimer et al., 2018), but this does not emerge as a main reason in this study.According to the regulations, as described above, it is possible to meet and talk with children without parental consent (Social Services Act, Chapter 11, Section 10), and in principle, this is not something that should hinder child welfare authorities.Unfortunately, this study cannot say whether any of the interviews conducted were done without parental consent.How child welfare authorities handle the fact that they have the mandate to interview children without parental consent is something that should be researched in future studies (see Leviner, 2018).
The main reasons for not involving children as identified in this study warrant discussion, as these reasons appear rather vague and overall cannot be motivated by regulations.One primary reason is a perception among child welfare workers that child interviews are unnecessary.This may be the case, but nevertheless, the Social Services Act and the Care of Young Persons Act clearly state that children have the right to information, even though this may seem unnecessary for the decision (the Social Services Act, Chapter 11, Section 10; the Care of Young Persons Act, Section 36).Questions arise whether child welfare authorities have done enough to ensure that the child's wishes and views have been clarified, and if the child has been informed by the decision in the individual cases.Another commonly reported reason for not meeting and talking to children is their young age.This is something which is also highlighted in international research (Gresdahl et al., 2023).It may be challenging to collect information from toddlers.At the same time, as described above, both the UNCRC and statements by the Committee as well as Swedish national regulations are clear that a young age is not a sufficient reason for not involving children.There are multiple ways of clarifying children's wishes and views, such as observing them and collecting information from people in their network (see for example the General Comment by the Committee, CRC/C/GC/12, para 21).Lastly, child welfare workers often report the reason for non-participation as that the child is reluctant to talk with child welfare authorities.Here, it has been made clear in policy directives (NBHW, 2018(NBHW, , 2023) that children do not have an obligation to participate in decision-making, but one might still wonder whether the preconditions for participation in these cases have been optimal, and whether the child has been informed that they have the right to influence the decision and also to get relevant information about the investigation and the handling of their case.In sum, the rather vague reasons given by child welfare workers in this study raise questions about the rationalities among professionals not meeting and talking to children, something that should be studied further.
Thirdly, this study contributes with empirical research regarding how participation varies among subgroups of children investigated by child welfare authorities.Some findings from this study were rather expected.For example, several studies show that older children meet more frequently with child welfare workers than younger ones (Berrick et al., 2015;Gresdahl et al., 2023).This study corroborates the findings that older children more often participate than younger children, though the differences between them are more modest than might be expected.Furthermore, this study shows that participation is significantly more common in investigations that resulted in services and in compulsory care orders.This can be interpreted in several ways.One interpretation is that the perceived seriousness of the case prompts child welfare workers to meet more frequently with the child, in order to more thoroughly investigate the needs and identify potential services that may be appropriate.However, in certain cases, this association may also be attributed to the fact that more meetings with the child reveal a greater amount of information about children's needs and, by extension, the need for services.Here, previous research has described that when child welfare workers meet children more, the likelihood of child welfare authorities gaining a better and more accurate picture of the child's needs increases (Kosher & Ben-Arieh, 2020a, 2020b;Schofield, 2005), which, in turn, has been suggested to result in better-matched services (Heimer et al., 2018).Other findings were less expected and need to be studied further.This include that children with a native Swedish background are less frequently interviewed by child welfare authorities, and girls are interviewed more often than boys.
A major finding of the study is that children participate significantly more often in investigations related to child abuse compared to investigations related other problems handled by the Swedish child welfare system (for example, neglect, substance abuse, school problems, delinquency, etc.).To the best of our knowledge, this has not been clearly demonstrated in previous studies, which rather indicates children participate less in cases of abuse (Kosher & Ben-Arieh, 2020a, 2020b).This difference illustrates that there in Sweden appear to be different professional rationalities for child participation based on exposure to abuse compared to other child welfare problems.This is arguably a result of the immediacy required in responding to violence, but also that violence against children has been discussed more and that responses, for example the mandate to report to the police, has been increasingly emphasized in Sweden during the latest decades (Leviner & Sardiello, 2018;van Ufford et al., 2022).Hence, it can be viewed as a response from child welfare workers to meet the requirements for taking actions against violence and that more established routines have emerged for regularly interviewing children in cases in which there are suspicions of violence.

Strengths and limitations
An evident strength of this study is its substantial sample size.Additionally, the child welfare worker responsible for the specific investigations provided the information, arguably enhancing the accuracy of the data.Nevertheless, the study has certain limitations.It is based on data from eight Swedish municipalities, and it is likely that there are variations between municipalities in their approaches to child welfare investigations.Additionally, as the study relies on information provided by child welfare workers, there is a possibility, for instance, of social desirability bias in responses to questions about reasons for not interviewing children.Lastly, the study lacks information on the content of the child interviews and does not include the views of the children as to these meetings.Put differently, we do not have insight into whether the child interviews merely provided information to children or offered opportunities for them to influence the decisions.

Conclusions and implications for the field
According to research, children's participation in investigations is connected to improved child wellbeing and better-tailored services.The study reveals that during child welfare investigations, a majority of children are interviewed by child welfare workers, but that half of the children are not given the opportunity to express their perspective in individual interviews.Additionally, most children only meet with child welfare workers a limited number of times.In particular, children exposed to abuse are more often interviewed by child welfare workers, in comparison with other children investigated by Swedish child welfare authorities.Furthermore, the reasons provided by child welfare workers for not meeting children are often vague and not motivated by regulations.This shows that there is a gap between the legislators' intentions to facilitate child participation in the child welfare system and the actual state of the child welfare practice.By extension, this underscores a need for legislators to clarify why child welfare authorities should meet and talk to children, the relevant scope of participation, and further specify valid reasons for not interacting with children.As has been emphasized above, information from children and their wishes and views are an important aspect of assessing the best interest of the child in individual cases, and therefore, the lack of such information means that child welfare authorities do not have an adequate basis for their decisions.The regulations should also more strongly emphasize children's rights to information when they are not interviewed.Lastly, the study calls for more in-depth investigations into the professionals' reasons for not engaging individually with different groups of children investigated by child welfare authorities.
a Childrens' health center or Preschool or School or Police or Health Care.b Physical, psychological or sexual.c In home or out of home.d Child Interview with Parent or Alone/CIPA.e Child Interview Alone.f Three or more CIPAs during investigation.

Table 2
Child welfare workers reasons for not interviewing the child individually (n = 1006).Multiple reasons valid.
a Child interview with or without parent.b Child interview alone.c Three or more CIPAs.D. Pålsson et al.