1 Introduction

Child welfare services (CWS) operate within a multifaceted landscape shaped by legal mandates, institutional norms and societal expectations concerning child protection and parenting (Fauske et al. 2017; Ferguson et al. 2020). In Norway, CWS are regulated by the Child Welfare Act and organized at the municipal level, with workers operating under a dual mandate to support families while also exercising statutory authority to safeguard children's welfare, including initiating coercive measures when necessary (Fauske et al. 2017; Hansen et al. 2024). The primary mandate of CWS is to safeguard children's development and well-being, often through interventions in which parents are deemed unable to provide adequate care or protection (Fauske et al. 2017). Although collaboration with families is an ideal in child welfare practice, many interventions occur within involuntary relationships, in which parents are required to engage with services despite disagreement or reluctance (Ferguson et al. 2020). These interactions are frequently marked by relational tension, and parents may express resistance in forms ranging from withdrawal and avoidance to open hostility (Turney 2012).

The concept of resistance in child welfare is multifaceted and lacks a unified definition. Various studies describe families who contest child welfare interventions using terms such as ‘highly resistant’ (Fauth et al. 2010), ‘hostile’ (Robson et al. 2014), ‘high-conflict’ (Sudland 2019) or ‘involuntary clients’ (Turney 2012). In this study, ‘involuntary relationships’ describes the statutory context in which parents are required to engage with CWS despite disagreement, reluctance or resistance (Hansen et al. 2024; Smith et al. 2012; Turney 2012). This concept emphasizes the power asymmetries inherent in these relationships, in which child welfare workers hold both legal authority and discretionary power over decisions that significantly affect family life (Hansen et al. 2024; Smith et al. 2012). Although CWS interventions are formally grounded in the child's best interest, research shows that parents often experience their encounters with the service as emotionally distressing, marked by feelings of fear, anger and powerlessness, particularly when relational and procedural aspects are perceived as disrespectful or unclear (Tembo and Studsrød 2018).

Previous research has documented a range of expressions of resistance in child welfare encounters, shaped by relational, emotional and systemic factors (Ferguson et al. 2020; Hunt et al. 2016). Resistance may manifest through poor or ambivalent communication (Robson et al. 2014; Sudland 2019), threats or aggression (Littlechild 2005; Hunt et al. 2016), avoidance strategies (Turney 2012) or formal complaints (Littlechild 2005). Moreover, research suggests that professional behaviour and communication style can actively shape the resistance encountered, making the social worker–parent interaction itself a site of escalating or de-escalating dynamics (Forrester et al. 2012). Platt (2012) similarly argues that both internal factors and external conditions, including the nature of the intervention and the relational quality of social work practice, shape parental engagement. Norwegian research has described how conflict-filled child welfare encounters may become particularly complex and professionally challenging, marked by unclear definitions, emotional escalation and institutional uncertainty (Heggdalsvik et al. 2022). Heggdalsvik et al. (2022) argue that the indeterminate nature of such encounters can serve as a barrier to action, in which both children's needs and professional responsibilities risk being obscured by the conflict itself. Similar tensions are identified in research on family preservation services, where social workers describe struggling to balance procedural demands with the relational work required to engage families (Steens et al. 2018). Power asymmetries are central to these encounters, as child welfare workers are expected to provide help while also exercising statutory authority and control. Research on parent–worker relationships in child protection shows that power is not only embedded in formal decision-making authority but is also enacted and negotiated in everyday interactions between parents and professionals (Bundy-Fazioli et al. 2009; Saar-Heiman 2023). This literature demonstrates how collaborative and relationship-based ideals may be complicated by parents' experiences of being assessed, controlled or insufficiently involved in decisions affecting their family life (Maiter et al. 2006). Recent studies of parents' encounters with Norwegian CWS have similarly linked distrust and fear to assessment processes, relational uncertainty and the service's dual mandate as both helper and controller, including its authority to initiate coercive measures (Hansen et al. 2024; Page et al. 2025; Terrefe 2023, 2024). These observations underscore the need to examine how child welfare workers themselves make sense of parental resistance within involuntary child welfare relationships. Although previous research has addressed expressions of resistance and the relational and organizational conditions that shape professional responses (Ferguson et al. 2020; Hansen et al. 2024), limited attention has been given to the meaning-making processes through which frontline professionals understand why resistance emerges and how it is sustained. The aim of this study is therefore to explore how child welfare workers make sense of parental resistance in involuntary child welfare relationships.

1.1 Conceptual Framework: Relational Recognition and Structural Constraint

To explore how resistance is understood and experienced in professional child welfare encounters, the study draws on theoretical perspectives that address both relational dynamics and institutional conditions. Buber's (1970) distinction between I-Thou and I-It relationships provides a theoretical lens to explore how the nature of professional interactions in CWS may contribute to or alleviate parental resistance. His dialogical philosophy emphasizes that relationships are not merely functional exchanges but ethical encounters in which recognising the other as a subject is essential for meaningful engagement (Buber 1970; Friedman 2003). In I-Thou relationships, individuals engage in genuine dialogue, recognising the other as a subject with inherent dignity and agency. This interaction fosters trust, openness and recognition, creating conditions where resistance may be reduced (Buber 1970). In contrast, I-It relationships occur when the other is treated as an object to be assessed, managed or controlled within bureaucratic systems such as child welfare. This distinction is particularly relevant in statutory child welfare encounters, where parents are invited into collaboration while also being subjected to professional assessment, documentation and possible coercive intervention. In such contexts, the relational quality of the encounter may shape whether parents experience the child welfare worker as recognising their perspective or as primarily assessing and controlling them (Buber 1970; Ruch 2005; Turney 2012). Professional encounters risk becoming procedural rather than relational, potentially exacerbating parental resistance rather than mitigating it (Smith et al. 2012). Buber's (1970) philosophy has previously been applied in social work to examine how power asymmetries influence interactions between service providers and clients (Ruch 2005). Within relationship-based social work, transactional rather than dialogical interactions have similarly been associated with reduced agency and weakened possibilities for cooperation (Ruch 2005; Turney 2012). In the child welfare context, where families often already feel scrutinized or coerced, the presence or absence of mutual recognition can significantly influence their willingness to engage with services (Ferguson et al. 2020).

Although Buber's (1970) dialogical framework emphasizes the relational quality of professional encounters, Lipsky's (2010) street-level bureaucracy theory highlights the structural conditions that shape these interactions. Child welfare workers, operating under high caseloads and bureaucratic constraints, may struggle to engage in genuine I-Thou relationships due to time pressures and administrative demands. These structural challenges often lead to compliance-driven interactions, reinforcing transactional dynamics and further entrenching resistance (Hupe and Hill 2007). Read together, Buber's dialogical philosophy and Lipsky's theory of street-level bureaucracy make it possible to examine parental resistance as both relationally produced and institutionally conditioned. Buber directs attention to how parents may experience recognition or objectification in professional encounters (Buber 1970), whereas Lipsky helps explain how organizational constraints may limit the time and continuity required for dialogical practice (Lipsky 2010). Molander et al. (2012) further clarify how constrained professional discretion may reduce the scope for personalized and relational engagement. In this way, relational encounters in statutory child welfare practice can be understood as shaped by organizational demands. In contrast, organizational constraints are experienced through concrete interactions between parents and child welfare workers. This tension between relational ideals and bureaucratic realities is central to understanding parental resistance in child welfare settings, as limited professional discretion leaves little room for personalized, relational engagement that might build trust (Molander et al. 2012).

2 Method

This qualitative study is part of a broader research project examining involuntary relationships in child welfare practice. To address the specific aim of exploring how child welfare workers make sense of parental resistance in involuntary child welfare relationships, the study was conducted as a qualitative interview study. The study was designed to generate in-depth accounts of child welfare workers' professional experiences with parental resistance in involuntary practice contexts.

2.1 Participants and Recruitment

Participants were recruited from a purposive sample of child welfare offices in Norway. Invitations were sent to selected services based on their geographic diversity and size, and team leaders were asked to forward them to eligible staff. To participate, individuals had to have experience with cases involving parental resistance. A total of 11 child welfare workers, representing six different child welfare offices, volunteered to participate in individual semi-structured interviews. The sample included five women and six men aged between 28 and 63 years, with professional experience in CWS as case workers, ranging from 2 to over 20 years. In addition, several participants had prior experience in related fields, such as child welfare institutions, mental-health services or outreach work, before starting work in the child welfare service. All held bachelor's degrees in social work, and several had completed additional qualifications, including master's-level education. The participants represented a diverse sample in terms of age, gender, background and experience, offering varied insights into how professionals make sense of parental resistance in their work with families.

2.2 Data Collection

Data were collected through individual, semi-structured interviews conducted by members of the research team. An exploratory interview guide was developed, consisting of a few broad, open questions designed to elicit participants' reflections on their professional experiences. The guide invited the child welfare workers to describe situations in which they had encountered parental resistance, reflect on circumstances that influenced parental attitudes, discuss the professional approaches they employed and identify other factors that shaped collaboration with families. The interview format allowed for follow-up questions and thematic elaboration based on the participants' responses. All interviews were audio-recorded with informed consent and transcribed verbatim to ensure accuracy and preserve the richness of the material for subsequent analysis.

2.3 Data Analysis

The transcribed interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis, guided by Braun and Clarke's (2021) six-phase model. Initially, the researchers independently familiarized themselves with the data by carefully reading the transcripts several times. The systematic generation of preliminary codes followed this independent reading phase to capture child welfare workers' reflections and interpretations regarding the underlying reasons for parental resistance. After the independent coding process, the authors collectively reviewed, discussed and refined these initial codes. Similar codes were grouped and organized into preliminary categories through several rounds of iterative analysis. These preliminary categories were then compared across interviews and refined into broader themes by examining how they related to child welfare workers' overall meaning-making about parental resistance. This iterative approach facilitated the identification of recurring and meaningful patterns across the interviews. The researchers also engaged in reflexive dialogue to consider how their professional backgrounds might shape their interpretations. During the analytical process, codes concerning child welfare workers' descriptions of parents as feeling assessed, observed, evaluated, uncertain and powerless were brought together as they pointed to a shared pattern of insecurity. Codes concerning workers' descriptions of parents as feeling excluded, mistrustful, blamed, fearful or shaped by previous negative experiences were grouped as expressions of alienation. Finally, codes concerning lack of time, limited professional guidance and supervision, absence of structured reflection and the gap between competence and capacity were brought together, as they reflected organizational conditions that shape relational practice. The final themes were selected based on their recurrence, analytical relevance and ability to capture different aspects of how child welfare workers make sense of parental resistance in involuntary child welfare relationships. This process resulted in three main themes: (1) parents' experience of insecurity, (2) parents' experience of feeling alienated and (3) organizational conditions for relational practice. The themes are presented as empirically grounded findings before being discussed in light of the study's conceptual framework.

2.4 Ethical Considerations

This study adhered to the ethical guidelines of the National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities (NESH) and received formal approval (Sikt; reference no. 656471). Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to the interviews, and they were assured of confidentiality and their right to withdraw at any stage. Particular attention was paid to protecting sensitive third-party information during data collection, transcription and analysis. Given the potential for emotionally charged reflections, the interviewers were attentive to participants' comfort throughout the process and made efforts to ensure the interviews were conducted respectfully and non-intrusively.

3 Findings

This study provides insight into how child welfare workers make sense of parental resistance in involuntary child welfare relationships. Rather than viewing resistance as a single phenomenon, the findings reveal a range of underlying factors that shape how it is understood in child welfare workers' accounts. In this study, resistance emerges as a complex interplay of relational, emotional and structural characteristics. The following sections present the main themes identified in the analysis:

3.1 Parents' Experience of Insecurity

Through thematic analysis, parental insecurity emerged as a central theme in child welfare workers' understanding and interpretation of resistance in involuntary child welfare relationships. This theme captures how child welfare workers understood resistance in relation to parents' experiences of being assessed, observed and evaluated; uncertainty about how information might be used; feelings of powerlessness; and previous encounters with the child welfare system. In this theme, resistance is primarily described as an emotional and relational response to fear, unpredictability and perceived vulnerability in encounters with CWS. Across the interviews, child welfare workers described how fear and uncertainty were central to how parents reacted to contact with CWS. Many of the child welfare workers linked this to the power and control they themselves represent, and to how parents often viewed the child welfare service not as a helping agency, but as a controlling one. Although this reflects the child welfare service's dual mandate, child welfare workers described it here as a source of parental insecurity that shaped the interaction from the very beginning:

The balance between help and control can be challenging. You are supposed to provide support on one hand and exercise control on the other [...] This can hold back the person you are trying to help because they focus primarily on the control aspect.

Several child welfare workers reflected on how the dual mandate, offering help while also holding formal authority, creates tension in building relationships. They described how this tension could make parents more likely to respond sceptically, defensively or with distance in situations that are already emotionally charged.

The sense of insecurity was also described as linked to the experience of being assessed. Several of the child welfare workers emphasized how parents often felt observed and evaluated by strangers with decision-making authority, which was experienced as intrusive. One of the child welfare workers captured this experience as follows:

There is something about meeting people you do not know who will observe and assess you. They feel as if they are being examined [...] and make it clear that they are unhappy with our presence.

This perception of being scrutinized by strangers with decision-making authority was described as contributing to emotional withdrawal and reluctance to engage. The child welfare workers interpreted this as a form of self-protection, rooted in uncertainty about how information might be used and what consequences it could entail.

Insecurity was also understood by child welfare workers as closely linked to the unpredictability parents face during an investigation. Several child welfare workers described how parents often responded to the unpredictability of the situation and the uncertainty about what would happen or how they would be judged by becoming cautious or withdrawing from contact. As one of the child welfare workers explained:

They are fearful and reserved because saying too much could be used against them. Trust in the relationship isn't there [...] for many, fear of unfamiliar situations is inherent.

Several child welfare workers described this form of caution not as an isolated reaction but as part of a broader picture in which parents were already struggling with significant challenges in their everyday lives. These challenges, they suggested, could further amplify parents' sense of insecurity. One child welfare worker described how some families faced difficulties both within and outside the home:

Many poor relationships [...] things were complex at home, and things were difficult outside the house [...] there were no areas that were, how should I say, handled constructively [...] either they are afraid, or they are frustrated, or they are angry. Alternatively, they are very uncertain about what to say or what they should say […].

Other child welfare workers made similar observations, noting that parents' uncertainty is not solely about their interactions with CWS but also reflects a broader sense of powerlessness in their lives. They describe how, when parents feel overwhelmed by their circumstances and lack control over how they are perceived, this can reinforce their reluctance to engage with CWS. Some workers further explain that parents may adopt self-protective strategies in response to this insecurity, such as limiting professionals' insight into their lives.

Child welfare workers also highlighted how parents' previous experiences with the child welfare system could influence their sense of insecurity in current encounters. Several described how parents who had themselves been involved with CWS as children may carry emotional memories or unresolved experiences that shape their level of trust. These past experiences were said to contribute to a sceptical or defensive stance in new situations:

A family had moved here, and they had various experiences with child welfare services from where they came from, both good and bad. There was much resistance [...], and it completely broke down. Maybe our approach was the opposite of what they expected […] I believe fear was a factor; there is often fear and scepticism.

This quote illustrates a concern raised in multiple interviews: That prior contact with CWS, whether as children or in previous interventions, can create expectations of judgement, exclusion or harm. According to several child welfare workers, such experiences may shape how parents interpret the intentions behind current involvement, leading to mistrust even before any action is taken.

In some cases, child welfare workers also linked resistance to more deeply rooted trauma in parents' backgrounds. A few described how neglect, violence or substance abuse in the parents' own upbringing created lasting vulnerability, particularly in contact with authorities:

The mother had herself been placed in foster care when she was younger. She came from a family with a lot of alcohol use, substance abuse, and abuse, and had negative experiences with that. The father also had poor experiences with child welfare, where he was never placed but experienced neglect at home. So, there was undoubtedly fear, combined with an attempt to conceal substance use, and, yes, the fear that child welfare would uncover more than just the absolute minimum.

This account echoes other descriptions in which child welfare workers interpreted parental resistance as a learned protective response. Rather than rejecting support, parents were described as trying to avoid renewed exposure or painful memories. Across several interviews, child welfare workers noted that when parents have experienced prior system involvement as disempowering or harmful, current engagement may be shaped more by fear of repetition than by the nature of the present intervention.

Throughout their reflections, child welfare workers described parental resistance not as a refusal to engage but as a response to accumulated insecurity, rooted in both past experiences and current life circumstances. They emphasized that this sense of insecurity made trust-building particularly challenging and often required time and patience to overcome. As one child welfare worker put it:

I think parents' resistance is about fear.

This statement encapsulates a perspective expressed in multiple interviews: Parental resistance often stems not from unwillingness but from profound uncertainty and a lack of control in the face of a system that holds power over their lives.

3.2 Parents' Experience of Alienation

The thematic analysis identifies parental alienation as another factor contributing to resistance in child welfare cases. This theme captures how child welfare workers understood resistance in relation to parents' experiences of exclusion, misrecognition, distrust, blame and limited influence in decisions affecting their family life. In this theme, resistance was described as rooted in parents' experience of being denied recognition and participation, rather than in emotional uncertainty alone. Across the interviews, child welfare workers described how parents may feel marginalized and deprived of the opportunity to influence decisions affecting their families. Several pointed to situations in which parents felt they were overruled, with decisions made without their input or participation. This recurring experience of being excluded from meaningful involvement was described as eroding trust over time:

I worked with a couple who felt overruled for seven years and only now feel like they can finally express their views. It is about giving them confidence to be heard and supported […] and involving them in decision-making rather than overriding them.

Descriptions like this reflect a broader pattern in which child welfare workers observed that feelings of alienation often stemmed from parents' sense of having no voice in matters of great personal consequence. This sense of exclusion was described not only in relation to decision-making processes but also in how other professionals portrayed parents.

Several child welfare workers discussed cases in which parents felt their perspectives were overlooked or dismissed in written assessments. A recurring concern was that reports from other services could present a one-sided narrative, making parents feel blamed or misrepresented. One child welfare worker shared such an experience:

There was a very long report from mental health services for children and adolescents that assigned much blame. I felt they placed the responsibility entirely on the mother […]

Such concerns were echoed across multiple interviews. Child welfare workers emphasized that when parents did not recognize themselves in external assessments, it could reinforce feelings of alienation and mistrust. According to their accounts, this misrecognition often resulted in emotional distance or resistance to engage.

Another dimension of alienation described by several child welfare workers emerged in the context of parental conflict. In cases where parents disagreed, some workers noted that one party, often the mother, might feel the child welfare service was taking sides. This was described as particularly problematic when the parents' experience of psychological abuse was not acknowledged:

The mother was terrified of the father, worried he would take over too much of the care. She described having experienced psychological abuse […] The submitted report was very biased. It strongly sided with the father.

These experiences were not described as isolated incidents. Instead, child welfare workers noted that when parents perceived the service as aligning with the other party, it could reinforce a belief that their own concerns were not taken seriously. This, in turn, could lead to emotional distance, anger or withdrawal from cooperation.

In addition to perceived bias in conflicted family situations, several child welfare workers reflected on how the initiation of contact itself could generate a sense of alienation. Anonymous reports of concern, in particular, were described as difficult for parents to respond to, especially when the content of the report did not align with how they perceived their own situation:

There was an anonymous report that the family did not recognise as their own. They could relate to some aspects of it, but not how it was described, and it was a serious report.

Several child welfare workers noted that such situations could be especially difficult for parents who had previous negative experiences with CWS. In these cases, new reports, particularly when anonymous, were seen as reactivating old fears and reinforcing distrust:

The family had been involved with child welfare services during their childhood. They did not have a positive experience, and when we initiated an assessment, they were terrified of what child welfare services might do.

This combination of earlier negative experiences and new contact through an anonymous report was described as heightening parents' emotional reactions. Several child welfare workers reflected on how feelings of alienation could build over time, particularly when earlier negative experiences were reactivated in new and uncertain situations. Across interviews, child welfare workers described how such reactivations could lead to strong emotional responses. Although subtle forms of withdrawal were frequently described, child welfare workers also emphasized that alienation sometimes manifested through frustration, verbal aggression or emotional outbursts. Several child welfare workers described these reactions as expressions of frustration and mistrust that had built up over time, notably when parents felt excluded or misunderstood:

The mother struggled with anger and was very hostile toward child welfare services. It was challenging to establish a position of trust or meaningful dialogue […] no matter what I said, it was met with negativity. There was a lot of crying, shouting, and verbal aggression.

Alongside these emotionally charged responses, several child welfare workers highlighted that alienation could also result from the nature of the intervention itself. In particular, they cited cases in which a child was placed outside the home. When decisions led to a fundamental shift in family life, parents were described as experiencing exclusion in its most profound form:

I think her resistance stemmed from the fact that we took her child away (…). It was challenging for her to accept that the child would not live at home.

Several child welfare workers connected such experiences of alienation to whether parents experienced themselves as recognized and included in the process. In their accounts, resistance could be reinforced when parents felt overruled or when their perspectives had little influence on how decisions were made and communicated. Efforts to be supportive, validating and attuned to parents were therefore described not as general strategies for improving practice, but as part of child welfare workers' understanding of what could prevent parents from experiencing the process as overruling:

I do my best to be supportive, validating, and attuned to parents so they do not feel overruled.

Other child welfare workers linked alienation to the pace and continuity of the process. They described how parents' disagreement with interventions could become more entrenched when parents had not had sufficient time to understand the assessment, establish a relationship with the caseworker or recognize themselves in the concerns being raised:

We should consider what happens when parents disagree with interventions—perhaps because they do not fully recognise the assessment being made. Maybe they have not had enough time to establish a relationship with the caseworker. Perhaps things have moved too quickly in some cases.

Across the interviews, child welfare workers described such situations as part of the relational and procedural conditions through which alienation could develop. When parents were given limited time to understand the process, build trust with a caseworker or see their own perspectives reflected in the assessment, resistance was understood as connected to confusion, mistrust and disengagement. In this sense, alienation was described not only as a response to the outcomes of decisions but also as shaped by how concerns were interpreted, communicated and acted upon. Child welfare workers understood resistance as more likely to emerge when parents experienced limited recognition, insufficient involvement or too little time to make sense of the process affecting their family life.

3.3 Organizational Conditions for Relational Practice

A third theme identified in the analysis highlights how organizational conditions within the child welfare service shape child welfare workers' ability to build constructive relationships with parents. Whereas the preceding themes centred on how child welfare workers understood parents' insecurity and alienation, this theme turns to the service conditions that workers described as shaping the relational encounters in which such responses emerged. The theme centres on time pressure, limited professional guidance and supervision, absence of structured reflection and the gap between professional competence and organizational capacity. Across the interviews, child welfare workers reflected on how various systemic conditions limited their capacity to engage relationally in the ways they considered necessary. Several described how these limitations not only influenced their own practice but also shaped parents' experiences of the service, often reinforcing mistrust and resistance.

One of the most frequently raised concerns was the lack of time for building relationships. Several child welfare workers described how administrative tasks and documentation requirements often took precedence over direct engagement with families:

I do not think enough time is invested in getting into a position where we can help. It turns into case management rather than working with people.

This sentiment reflected a broader frustration with a system that prioritized formal processes over relational presence across interviews. Child welfare workers noted that when relational work was continually deprioritized, it became more challenging to establish trust, and parents were more likely to view the service as distant or inaccessible. Time pressure was therefore described not only as an internal organizational challenge but as a condition that shaped the interactional space between parents and child welfare workers.

Beyond time constraints, several child welfare workers emphasized the lack of professional guidance and supervision in municipal CWS. Some described how the absence of leadership and structured support limited their ability to reflect on complex cases and led to inconsistent practice:

I also think the municipal system lacks professional and leadership support. The lack of available leadership is a challenge, as is the absence of supervision and follow-up for employees […] This creates a risk of multiple private practices within a public system.

Child welfare workers reflected that limited access to supervision could lead to variations in practice, as caseworkers may develop individualized approaches, resulting in inconsistent service quality. They described how this affects parents' experiences, particularly when they perceive significant differences in how caseworkers interact with them. Several also linked supervision and leadership support to the possibility of reflecting on their own role in difficult interactions. Without such spaces for reflection, strained collaboration could more easily be understood as parental resistance alone, rather than as something developing within the relationship between parents and professionals.

The child welfare workers also highlight the challenges that arise in their interactions with families, especially when they lack the opportunity to reflect on their role in the relationship. Professional reflection was described as essential for understanding and responding to complex, often emotionally charged interactions with families. Several child welfare workers emphasized that without opportunities to reflect on their own role in the relationship, it became harder to maintain a constructive dialogue, especially in situations marked by tension or mistrust. In these accounts, resistance was not located solely in parents. The absence of structured reflection and leadership support was seen as placing disproportionate responsibility on parents when communication became strained:

It is easy to get stuck in interaction patterns with families that become difficult for both parties. That is when you need a leader who is present, someone who can reflect with you and take the time to discuss challenges […] If that does not happen, it becomes easy to shift all the responsibility onto the family, leading to unnecessary conflicts.

As the quote illustrates, some child welfare workers understood strained collaboration as developing within the relationship between parents and professionals. Resistance was therefore not positioned only as a parental reaction but as something that could be reinforced when professional responses, limited reflection and weak leadership support contributed to interactional patterns marked by mistrust or conflict.

These concerns were also reflected in descriptions of the gap between professional competence and organizational capacity. Although many felt well-equipped professionally, they often lacked the time to apply their skills in practice. Child welfare workers described this gap as a mismatch between the competence they were expected to develop and the organizational capacity available to use that competence in relational work. They connected this gap to workload, limited resources and the recurring experience of having too little time to work well with families:

It is great that we can get a master's degree and feel more professionally competent, but that does not change the fact that we are constantly short on time. I often have to make tough decisions about what to prioritise and cannot work with those who need the most support […] It is not about how we distribute cases in the office, but about the sheer workload and the lack of resources.

You are probably tired of hearing this because I bet you get the same answer every time, but it is time. We have too much to do to work well enough in all cases, especially when building good relationships with parents.

These descriptions reflect a broader pattern in the material, in which child welfare workers described time pressure as part of the gap between professional competence and organizational capacity. They described knowing what relational work required while lacking the time and resources to carry it out consistently. Having to decide what could and could not be prioritized was described as professionally frustrating and relationally risky, particularly because relationship-building was seen as necessary for reducing mistrust and resistance.

The consequences of time constraints were also apparent in how child welfare workers responded to families. When they lacked the capacity to engage proactively, several explained that they were often left ‘repairing’ trust after delays or unmet expectations:

We work on a schedule. We are supposed to spend time with people, but we do not often have enough time […] When parents reach out or need something, we should be there for them right then and there, but we are not. And then things get complicated, and we must spend time rebuilding trust.

Across the interviews, child welfare workers also described how limited capacity affected the timing and responsiveness of their contact with parents. Time pressure was described not only as limiting the amount of follow-up they could provide but also as making it difficult to respond when parents reached out. Delayed contact or unmet expectations could make relationships more fragile, requiring later efforts to rebuild trust rather than allowing trust to develop through continuity and availability.

Several child welfare workers described how the relational consequences of systemic limitations were particularly evident in cases involving out-of-home placements. Their attention was often divided between the child, the foster home and the biological parents, making it difficult to provide consistent follow-up to parents:

When children do not live at home, we spend most of our time with the child and the foster home. However, at the same time, we are supposed to support parents in regaining custody, and we do not have time for that […] it must be frustrating for parents to feel like they are not being adequately followed up on.

In such cases, child welfare workers described a discrepancy between the relational expectations placed on the service and the practical possibilities for sustained parental follow-up. This discrepancy was understood as significant because insufficient follow-up could confirm parents' sense of being marginalized or deprioritized, thereby reinforcing the insecurity and alienation described in the preceding themes.

In addition to internal capacity issues, some child welfare workers pointed to practical barriers in the way services were organized. Several noted that standard office hours did not always align with parents' needs, particularly those who worked full-time or had limited flexibility. To compensate, some described how they extended their availability beyond official working hours:

I think about working hours […] being available in the evenings, because I do not think it is easy for all parents to go to their employer and say they need two hours off to meet with child welfare services […] so many caseworkers make themselves available in the evenings, even though technically, they are not supposed to.

Throughout their reflections, child welfare workers consistently emphasized a core concern. They described how systemic conditions such as time pressure, limited resources, lack of continuity and insufficient supervision restricted their ability to build and maintain relationships with parents. These organizational conditions were seen as influencing both the quality of professional practice and parents' experiences of the service. Several child welfare workers expressed a strong desire for improved working conditions that would enable more proactive, reflective and relational approaches. In their view, such changes could strengthen trust and reduce parental resistance by supporting a more consistent and responsive form of collaboration. At the same time, their accounts show that resistance was understood to emerge within relational encounters in which child welfare workers themselves participated, through their authority, discretionary judgements and interactional practices.

4 Discussion

This study examines how child welfare workers make sense of parental resistance in involuntary child welfare relationships. The findings indicate that child welfare workers understand resistance as closely linked to parents' experiences of their position within the child welfare system. Across the interviews, resistance was associated with uncertainty, loss of control, alienation, broader life stressors and prior negative experiences with welfare institutions. At the same time, child welfare workers also described some forms of resistance as parents' attempts to retain influence when their family life was being assessed and defined by others. They consistently emphasized the importance of building trustful relationships while also describing how high caseloads, time pressure and administrative demands constrained their ability to engage relationally. These findings point to a persistent tension between relational ideals in child welfare practice and the institutional conditions in which such work takes place. Parental insecurity, alienation and organizational constraints were described as mutually reinforcing processes, with insecurity shaping how parents entered and interpreted encounters with the service, alienation emerging through experiences of exclusion or misrecognition and organizational constraints structuring the conditions under which both could persist over time. The discussion unpacks this tension by examining how resistance is made intelligible through child welfare workers' reflections on emotional responses, agency, relational positioning and structural constraints in practice.

First, the findings highlight how child welfare workers perceive parents' insecurity as a central factor in resistance, particularly in situations marked by uncertainty and fear of losing control. Resistance was described less as rejection and more as a defensive reaction to perceived power asymmetries and the unpredictability of professional encounters. Many parents were seen as approaching interventions with mistrust, shaped by experiences of being observed, judged and sanctioned by an authority perceived as more controlling than supportive. These accounts align with research showing how resistance in involuntary relationships may involve attempts to preserve agency within constrained professional relationships (Turney 2012; Ferguson et al. 2020). At the same time, resistance was not understood as produced by parents alone. In line with research showing how professional behaviour, communication style and the use of authority may shape resistance in parent–worker encounters, child welfare workers reflected on how their own assessments and interactional practices could influence whether parents experienced the encounter as supportive, controlling or mistrustful (Bundy-Fazioli et al. 2009; Forrester et al. 2012; Saar-Heiman 2023). Child welfare workers described how this defensiveness could emerge early, particularly when interactions felt formal or procedural. Several noted that documentation routines and meeting formats left little room for informal trust-building, making engagement feel transactional. Steens et al. (2018) observed a comparable tension in family preservation services, where professionals struggled to meet procedural demands while building trust with families. These institutional pressures can shape not only what professionals do but how relationships are structured and experienced. Smith et al. (2012) similarly emphasize the importance of the structure of professional relationships, not just what is offered. Buber's (1970) distinction between I-Thou and I-It relationships helps illuminate these dynamics. Although I-Thou encounters involve openness and recognition, several child welfare workers described how institutional routines pushed interactions into I-It modes, where parents became objects of observation, assessment and possible sanction rather than participants in a shared dialogue. Read through Buber's framework, resistance may therefore emerge when parents experience professional encounters as objectifying rather than recognitional (Buber 1970; Ruch 2005; Turney 2012). Parents with prior experience in the system were often described as entering new encounters with guardedness and low expectations of being heard. When procedures dominate, and discretion is limited, the relational quality of the encounter suffers. This tension was particularly evident for the child welfare workers who aspired to build trust but felt constrained by institutional expectations. Many expressed that risk management and compliance requirements often overshadowed relational work. As noted by Ferguson et al. (2020) and Forrester et al. (2012), relational engagement becomes fragile when systems prioritize control. This study supports that view by showing how workers experienced a misalignment between their relational intentions and the structural conditions of their practice. Lipsky's (2010) concept of street-level bureaucracy is helpful here, highlighting how under pressure, frontline workers often narrow the scope of their engagement. Workers described how rigid procedures created procedural inertia, in which adhering to steps outweighed adapting to families' needs. This reflects concerns raised by Hupe and Hill (2007) and Molander et al. (2012), who argue that growing standardization undermines discretion in public services. In this light, resistance emerges not only as a relational challenge but as a structural consequence of limited discretion and reduced space for trust-building.

Second, the findings indicate that child welfare workers perceive parental alienation as a significant driver of resistance, particularly when parents feel excluded from decision-making or misrepresented in case assessments. Although alienation is often framed as a relational phenomenon, child welfare workers in this study reflect on how it is also shaped by systemic conditions that limit their ability to facilitate meaningful involvement. Standardized assessments and procedural compliance contribute to professional practices where parents experience interventions as imposed rather than negotiated. These descriptions align with research showing that power asymmetries in child welfare may undermine participation, especially when parents perceive their views to be absent from case narratives (Smith et al. 2012; Robson et al. 2014; Sudland 2019). Child welfare workers described how parents' resistance could emerge when they felt reduced to case subjects or viewed as problematic. Such accounts also point to the role of professional practice in shaping alienation, as the framing of concerns, written assessments and handling of disagreement may either repair or deepen ruptures in parent–worker relationships (Hall et al. 2006; Maiter et al. 2006; Smith et al. 2012). This highlights a deeper tension between the system's reliance on written case narratives and the relational need for recognition and dialogue. Several workers described how this sense of alienation builds over time, particularly when prior experiences of exclusion are reactivated in new encounters. As Hunt et al. (2016) and Littlechild (2005) note, resistance in such contexts may be better understood as a means of reclaiming agency when voice is denied. Drawing on Buber's (1970) relational philosophy, child welfare workers described how a lack of mutual recognition risked shifting interactions into I-It dynamics, in which the parent is no longer encountered as a subject with a perspective. Such dynamics were particularly evident when parents did not recognize themselves in written assessments, felt overruled in decision-making processes or felt that their concerns had already been dismissed. In this sense, alienation reflects a movement away from dialogical recognition and toward professional forms of categorization and control that may reinforce resistance (Buber 1970; Ruch 2005; Smith et al. 2012). Although many workers aspired to work dialogically, they found that institutional routines left little room to support such relationships in practice. This tension is also evident in how child welfare workers navigate competing demands. Although policy promotes shared decision-making (Turney 2012; Hansen et al. 2024), informants described how time pressure, administrative demands and fixed procedural pathways often limit professional discretion. Lipsky's (2010) theory of street-level bureaucracy helps explain how relational ambitions may be overridden by institutional logic. In this light, alienation appears not only as a relational breakdown but also as a structural outcome shaped by how participation is operationalized within the system.

Third, the findings highlight how child welfare workers perceive structural constraints as significant obstacles to addressing parental resistance. High caseloads, bureaucratic procedures and limited flexibility shape how they can engage with families and restrict opportunities for relational approaches. Child welfare workers emphasized that trust-building is essential to reducing resistance, yet described how systemic pressures often forced them into reactive, task-oriented modes of practice. This tension was particularly evident when workers recognized the importance of investing time in dialogue but were constrained by administrative requirements that prioritized documentation and procedural compliance over direct interaction with families. These reflections point to a broader process of formalization within CWS, in which standardized procedures increasingly constrain professional judgement and limit the conditions under which genuine dialogue becomes possible. In Buber's (1970) terms, such pressures push professional encounters toward I-It modes of engagement, in which parents are primarily encountered as objects of assessment and documentation. When professional discretion is reduced, interventions risk becoming less responsive to individual needs (Molander et al. 2012). In the present study, child welfare workers described how this loss of discretion created a gap between their professional ideals and the organizational conditions of practice. Several expressed frustration at being unable to tailor their approach to families, even when they believed relational engagement was crucial to building trust. This dynamic is consistent with Lipsky's (2010) theory of street-level bureaucracy, which highlights how frontline professionals develop coping strategies under pressure. In child welfare, such strategies were described as prioritising procedural efficiency and risk management over relational engagement, a pattern also identified by Hupe and Hill (2007). Such strategies reflect adaptations to structural demands embedded in the service's organization. These adaptations also carried relational consequences. When child welfare workers lacked time, supervision or opportunities for structured reflection, they described becoming more reactive and less able to engage relationally with parents. These conditions also limited workers' capacity to examine how their own professional responses shaped interactional patterns marked by mistrust or conflict (Lipsky 2010; Hupe and Hill 2007; Molander et al. 2012). A central dilemma described by child welfare workers was the dual expectation of acting both as providers of support and as enforcers of state intervention. This dual role was seen as creating uncertainty in interactions with parents, as offers of support were closely intertwined with assessment, control and the possibility of coercive intervention. Risk management frameworks, intended to ensure consistency and accountability, were described as further limiting opportunities for dialogue and flexibility. Similar tensions have been identified in previous research on child welfare practice, where the emphasis on control and accountability may undermine relational work (Ferguson et al. 2020; Fauske et al. 2017).

5 Conclusion

This study contributes to understanding parental resistance in child welfare practice as a relational and institutional phenomenon, made intelligible through child welfare workers' professional interpretations at the intersection of relational vulnerability, statutory authority and organizational constraint. Drawing on theoretical perspectives on relational recognition and structural constraint in professional child welfare encounters, the analysis demonstrates how insecurity and alienation are produced and reinforced within professional encounters, with organizational constraints shaping the conditions under which such processes unfold. These dimensions are mutually constitutive in child welfare workers' accounts and together shape how resistance becomes intelligible in everyday practice. The findings carry implications for child welfare practice, particularly the need to support relational work within structurally constrained settings, including sustained attention to how organizational demands may limit opportunities for dialogue and trust-building in everyday casework. At a broader level, the findings raise questions for organizational development and policy, particularly regarding how procedural requirements, workload and standardization shape the conditions for professional discretion and relational engagement. Further research is needed to examine how resistance unfolds in real-time interactions between parents and child welfare workers and how professional practices shape the development or reduction of resistance over time. Studies including parents' perspectives and observational data would be particularly valuable for deepening understanding of how relational dynamics are experienced and negotiated across positions.

6 Limitations

The interpretation of the findings should be understood in light of the study's sample and retrospective interview design. The study is situated within the Norwegian child welfare system, and the findings should be interpreted in light of its specific legislative framework and organizational conditions. The analysis draws on child welfare workers' accounts of practice and therefore reflects professional interpretations of parental resistance rather than direct observation of interactional processes. Although retrospective accounts may be shaped by reflection over time, they show consistent patterns across participants and interviews.