Inclusive child welfare services, disabled children, and their families: insights from a European comparison of social policy and social (work) practice in Austria, Iceland, and Ireland

ABSTRACT

All children and their families have a right to CW services that ensure their equal opportunities. However, due to structural, social, and cultural barriers, CW services are not equally accessible for all families. This is particularly true for disabled children and their families. The aim of this paper is to highlight the potentials of a European comparison of inclusive CW services to disabled children and their families. For this purpose, CW is approached from a human rights perspective, theories on childhood dis/ability and intersectionality theory. Perspectives from Austria, Iceland and Ireland are introduced, analysed through an intersectional human rights lens, and then compared. An argument is made for a European analysis of social policy (and subsequently social work practice) regarding inclusive CW services. Three insights that can be gained from such research are discussed: (1) the inclusivity of CW services for disabled children and their families, (2) the relevance of intersecting social positions of disabled children and their families for the provision and receipt of CW services, and (3) the role of CW policy and practice in constructing abledness in terms of normatised childhoods as the basis for service provision.

KURZZUSAMMENFASSUNG

Alle Kinder und ihre Familien haben ein Recht auf Unterstützung durch die Kinder- und Jugendhilfe, um ihre Chancengleichheit zu gewährleisten. Aufgrund struktureller, sozialer und kultureller Barrieren sind diese Dienste jedoch nicht für alle Familien gleichermaßen zugänglich. Dies gilt insbesondere für behinderte Kinder und ihren Familien. Ziel dieses Papers ist es, die Potenziale eines europäischen Vergleichs inklusiver Kinder- und Jugendhilfen für behinderte Kinder und ihre Familien aufzuzeigen. Zu diesem Zweck werden diese Dienste aus einer Menschenrechtsperspektive kombiniert mit kritischen Theorien zu Behinderung, Kindheit und Intersektionalitätbetrachtet. Perspektiven aus Österreich, Island und Irland werden vorgestellt und miteinander verglichen. Es wird für eine vertiefende europäische Analyse der Policy (und in der Folge der Praxis Sozialer Arbeit) inklusiver Kinder- und Jugendhilfe plädiert. Drei Erkenntnisse, die aus einer solchen Forschung gewonnen werden können, werden diskutiert: (1) die Inklusion behinderter Kinder und ihrer Familien in der KJH, (2) die Relevanz sich überschneidender sozialer Positionen behinderter Kinder und ihrer Familien für die Bereitstellung und Inanspruchnahme von Kinder- und Jugendhilfen und (3) die Rolle von Kinder- und Jugendhilfe-Policy und -Praxis in der Konstruktion von Nichtbehinderung als Grundlage für die Bereitstellung von Diensten.

KEYWORDS:

• Child welfare
• disability
• family
• inclusion
• European comparison

SCHLÜSSELWÖRTER:

• Kinder- und Jugendhilfe
• Behinderung
• Familie
• Inklusion
• Europäischer Vergleich

Introduction

Child welfare (CW) services are a central component of the broader welfare system in European countries, with varying approaches, intensities, and impacts on families. National CW systems and specific services range from a stronger children’s rights framework focused on participation and prevention to more risk-oriented child protection interventions (Gilbert, 2012). CW generally covers a broad range of services and interventions, from various forms of universal family support and guidance to more invasive in-home child protection work, to child and youth residential services. From a human rights perspective, all children and their families have a right to CW services that ensure their equal opportunities, as stated in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) further elaborates on the right of disabled children to equality in family life, including support services for them and their families. However, research (e.g. La Placa & Corlyon, 2014) suggests that CW services are not equally accessible to all families due to structural, social, and cultural barriers. This is particularly true for supporting and safeguarding disabled children (Flynn, 2021).

The aim of this paper is to highlight the potential of a European comparison of inclusive CW services to disabled children and their families. CW is approached from a human rights perspective,theories on childhood dis/ability and intersectionality theory. Perspectives from Austria, Iceland and Ireland are introduced, analysed through an intersectional human rights lens, and then compared. An argument is made for a European analysis of social policy (and subsequently social work practice) regarding inclusive CW services. Three insights that can be gained from such research are discussed: (1) the inclusivity of CW services for disabled children and their families, (2) the relevance of intersecting social positions of disabled children and their families for the provision and receipt of CW services, and (3) the role of CW policy and practice in constructing abledness in terms of normatised childhoods as the basis for service provision.

The findings from the comparison of social policy and social work in CW practice with disabled children in Austria, Iceland and Ireland have implications for European policy aimed at implementing human rights cross-nationally. It is important to note that while Austria and Ireland are members of the European Union (EU), Iceland is not, but as a member of the European Economic Area it often positions itself in line with EU policy regarding human rights issues (Delegation of the European Union to Iceland, 2021). Recently, the Strategy for the rights of persons with disabilities 2021–2030 (European Commission, 2021a) and The EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child (European Commission, 2021b) were adopted. Both address issues of integrated services and better access to mainstream services for disabled children and their families, highlighting the urgency of inclusive CW services in Europe.

Child welfare services between family support and risk management

The different CW systems and services in European welfare states are influenced by the size of the state, the range of services provided and the socio-political character of the state (Gilbert et al., 2011). The increasing complexity of comparing CW systems internationally and identifying different types, requires consideration of various aspects of family support, child protection and children’s rights. For example, the way CW systems respond to child maltreatment is an indicator of how different systems balance rights and responsibilities within the child-family-state triangle. National CW systems may have different orientations in different areas of CW and thus have mixed orientations rather than representing fixed system types (Gilbert et al., 2011). Therefore, focusing on the orientations in different areas of CW in different states provides more meaningful insights than (re)creating a CW typology.

International trends such as an increasingly child-centric paradigm and the general expansion of CW systems thus have different consequences for CW policy and practice (Gilbert et al., 2011). CW policies in Northern European welfare states have been associated with universal services and a family orientation based on the least intrusive measure, but they nevertheless have high child removal rates. Along with a child-centric orientation that strengthens children’s rights and perspectives in CW decisions and services, this challenges the family-oriented universalism of Nordic CW systems (Pösö et al., 2014). The UK, particularly England, has often been viewed as risk- and protection-focused in contrast to a universal family welfare system. Nevertheless, CW services in the UK are by law similar to those in other Western European countries (Thoburn, 2023). Compared to England, the Netherlands and Germany, for example, have traditionally been considered to have a stronger family service orientation. Yet in recent decades England has invested in partnerships with parents, and in the Netherlands and Germany an increased child protection focus has resulted in stricter guidelines for investigations of maltreatment (Witte et al., 2022).

CW social work must always navigate tensions between support and control, especially with respect to the great variation in CW reporting, intervention and outcome for differently marginalised children and families across countries (Bywaters et al., 2015). Differences in intervention rates have been noted in relation to families’ socioeconomic status and aspects of identity, but whether the variation is due to structural bias or need/risk is controversial. However, bias and need are ‘two aspects of a single system, both framed, in part, by social structures’ (Bywaters et al., 2015, p. 98). Primary reasons for child protective interventions are neglect and different forms of violence, but less is known about lower-threshold family support services within the broader CW system, which may not meet the criteria that legitimise more invasive measures (Witte et al., 2022). Despite the stigmatising effects of even less invasive CW services, families sometimes turn to CW for support in raising their children (Løvgren, 2017).

There is scant research about disabled children in the CW system and the existing literature focuses primarily on the increased risk of maltreatment that disabled children face compared to their nondisabled peers (Stalker & McArthur, 2012). In the US, for example, disabled children are at higher risk of maltreatment, while maltreated children are more likely to acquire a disability (Corr & Santos, 2017). In Canada, (intellectually) disabled children are more frequently referred to CW, but there is little difference in the substantiation of maltreatment investigations compared to nondisabled children (De La Sablonniére-Griffin et al., 2021). A UK study of disabled children's views and retrospective views of disabled adults on child protection revealed that many had experienced difficulties in seeking and receiving help because of a lack of awareness and consensus about abuse of deaf and disabled children (Taylor et al., 2015). A small number of studies on disabled children in the CW system point to the challenges of implementing child-centric practice with disabled children. In Scotland, Taylor et al. (2016) found that CW professionals in families of disabled children sometimes over-empathised with parents rather than actively involved disabled children. In Sweden, Engwall et al. (2019) discovered that professionals did not prioritise the perspectives of disabled children in CW work. Their study (re)emphasises the systemic issues in service provision when disabled children are not seen as a target group of CW services.

The apparent challenge of implementing child-centric CW services with disabled children and their families poses questions on the status of disabled children as human rights subjects. Interestingly, debates about services for disabled children and their families outside of the CW system (e.g. early intervention) are primarily discussed under the paradigm of family-centred rather than child-centred policy and services (McCarthy & Guerin, 2022). Family-centred services acknowledge family diversity and the importance of the family in the child’s life, focus on family strengths and expertise, initiate service partnerships and family-controlled services (Egilson, 2015). Some of these characteristics stand in opposition to CW services’ strong focus on children’s rights, which are sometimes beyond the family’s control, especially when the child’s wellbeing is considered to be at risk.

To establish the extent to which CW services in different European countries are inclusive of disabled children and their families, social policy and social work practice must be compared. Hereafter, an intersectional human rights approach to childhood disability and ableism in CW is introduced as analytical lens for such a European comparison.

An intersectional human rights lens on disability and ableism in child welfare

A human rights approach to CW is based on the achievements of human rights treaties such as the UN CRC and CRPD. Both conventions refer specifically to the rights of disabled children, including their right to participation, (family) assistance and care (see art. 23 of the CRC and art. 7 of the CRPD). Disabled children’s right to express their view (art. 7) is an important indicator of the child-centric orientation of the CRPD, whilst their right to family and support services points to a strong family-orientation (art. 23). Welfare policy and social rights are an essential pathway to inclusion for disabled children if they are based on several principles, including the understanding that inclusion requires systemic change rather than individual integration and that inclusive policy and practice must acknowledge intersectionality (Degener & Mogge-Grotjahn, 2012). Social work as a human rights profession can contribute to implementing rights based CW with disabled children and their families, but professionals also face the challenges of navigating tensions between a systemic mandate (e.g. by the government or an agency), the addressees and their own profession (Staub-Bernasconi, 2016). Family support and CW with disabled children are specifically affected by these tensions, as the mandates by the system, the addressees and the profession may be conflicting due to struggles between help and control, but also due to differing interests within a family (e.g. child vs. parent) or challenges in multi-professional cooperation.

Multi-professional cooperation is essential to family support, particularly with disabled children and their families, as it involves different professions and agencies. Ideally, family support and child protection go hand in hand (Devaney & McGregor, 2017). When it is child- and family-centred at the same time, family support can avoid the artificial dichotomisation of parental rights and child’s best interests that is inherent to risk-oriented child protection practice (Bauer & Wiezorek, 2007). Ignoring the social and cultural context of (disabled) childhoods and treating risks and rights separately results in a hierarchisation of services as opposed to holistic family support structures (Curran & Runswick-Cole, 2014). Human rights based practice with disabled children is highly complex in its multi-mandate and multi-professional requirements, as well as in its normative underpinnings (Traustadóttir et al., 2015), but it is possible if services are inclusive in the sense of structurally integrating different service systems, as well as being socially and culturally sensitive to the characteristics and circumstances of children and families.

Critical Disability Studies offer relevant theoretical perspectives to address CW inequalities and implement anti-oppressive practice by recognising the cultural dimensions of childhood disability. Cultural aspects of childhood disability not only contribute to an increased risk of maltreatment, but also to inequalities within the CW system (Flynn, 2020; Flynn & McGregor, 2017). In particular the concept of ableism is an important analytical lens from Critical Disability Studies. In short, ableism forces as shift in perspective from disability as deviance to ableism as oppressive norm. At the same time, ableism is relational in that binary ideas of disability and abledness exist in relation to each other and their division is consistently enforced by systemic differentiation (e.g. through law and social policy) (Campbell, 2019). Ableism produces systemic entitlement and exclusion (Campbell, 2017) and is based on the (de)valorisation of specific abilities and ability expectations (Wolbring, 2012). A relational understanding of dis/ability can expose the (often implicit) ability expectations of CW systems and their underlying notions of abledness in relation to normatised childhoods. While some norms (including children’s human rights) have important functions, individualised expectations of norm conformity also make children vulnerable (Andresen, 2016). The challenge of anti-oppressive social work is to acknowledge this vulnerability without falling back into paternalistic and authoritative orders.

To avoid reducing ableism to disability as the only relevant dimension for analysing inequality in CW, and consequently to follow a human rights approach to CW, intersectionality must be considered. Constructions of dis/ability are always interwoven with social class, gender, race and sexuality, and their intersections can be addressed within an ableism framework (Wolbring, 2006). Intersectionality is rarely rigorously integrated into CW research in the context of disability (Thomas et al., 2023), but can contribute to understanding children’s vulnerability in the light of multidimensional inequalities. Intersectionality perspectives prevent the generalised victimisation of children and may instead locate resilience and agency (Nadan & Korbin, 2018).

As a Black feminist concept, intersectionality refers to interlocking forms of identity and oppression, particularly gender and race, and their manifestations at a structural, political, and representational level (Crenshaw, 1997). Given the complex intersectionality of CW inequality (Bywaters et al., 2016; Featherstone et al., 2019), the analysis of different levels of interlocking identity and oppression must be considered in its methodological consequences for international comparison. In CW and in welfare systems in general, the attribution of sometimes stigmatising social categorisations such as disabled, vulnerable, in need or at risk, which intersect on a structural level, serves as an access or eligibility criteria for services and interventions. At an identity (or political) and a representational level, structural intersectionality in the form of (cross-)categorisation intersects with other forms of disabled, gendered, classed, racialised and sexualised difference. In the following analysis of exemplary European perspectives on disabled children and CW, the focus is primarily on structures.

Exemplary European perspectives on disabled children and child welfare

Given the importance of national contextual factors for the orientation of CW systems (Gilbert et al., 2011), it is insightful for a comparison of European states to consider the character of their welfare system in addition to other criteria, such as their size. Hereafter, perspectives from Austria, Iceland and Ireland are introduced as examples of three European welfare states. These are relatively wealthy countries (compared to other European states) with small and medium size populations of 9 million, 350 thousand and 5 million inhabitants, respectively. Austria is still considered a rather conservative welfare state (Österle & Heitzmann, 2019), while Ireland's social policy is characterised by constant changes of direction (Daly, 2019) and Iceland – in contrast to its common association with the other four Nordic welfare states – has long relied on an economically oriented social policy aimed at full employment and has only slowly developed into a welfare state (Jónsson, 2019). Nevertheless, Iceland ranked first in the world on the Children’s Rights Index in 2022, while Austria ranked eighth and Ireland only 53rd, due to significant weaknesses in the areas of health and an enabling environment for children's rights (Kidsrights, 2022). The comparison of Austria, Iceland and Ireland is particularly interesting in the European context because all three have undergone structural and legal changes in the CW system over the last decade.

Perspectives from Austria

Austria maintains separate systems for CW and services to disabled children and their families, which has been criticised by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (2020). CW law and policy have undergone several changes since 2013, when a new national CW legislation took effect. The 2013 reform strengthened a human rights paradigm and a child- and family-centric service orientation, evident in a focus on child and parent participation at several levels of CW procedures. At the same time, human rights based CW is considered fragile due to limited cross-system cooperation and the reduction of some services to their governmental control function (Kapella et al., 2018). Low-threshold services such as family counselling are open to all children and their families, but more invasive interventions such as in-home support are tied to the criteria of child endangerment (Križ et al., 2023). In 2019, CW services were transferred from national into federal state law, despite the interdisciplinary protest of the professional community, which reinforces the already widely divergent quality standards in Austrian CW.

By law, regional CW authorities are responsible for the support and wellbeing of all children within their jurisdiction. However, for the support of disabled children and their families, including early intervention and the support of disabled children’s development, there is a separate service system regulated at the federal state level through so-called equal opportunity laws. The regulation of their upbringing and support in a separate law points to structural ableism in the form of the continuous binarisation of disabled/abled children through the specialisation of services for them and their families as a disability rather than a CW agenda. The segregating structures combined with difficulties in cross-service cooperation (Kapella et al., 2018) point to implicit ability expectations of children and families receiving CW services.

In practice, CW social workers face challenges in providing inclusive services to diverse families in the absence of inclusive policy. CW professionals in Austria strongly associate inclusion in relation to their work with one-dimensional structural categories, such as services to migrant children/youth or disabled children. As a result, professionals view the integration of disabled children into hegemonic CW services (e.g. in residential services or foster families) as successful inclusion. From their perspective, one of the main underpinnings of inclusion is the cooperation of different service systems, namely CW, disability, and migration offices. A lack of financial resources and unclear system competences are considered the main barriers to inclusive CW (Buchner & Leitner, 2016).

Research on intersectionality and inclusive CW services is much needed in Austria to reveal the structural ableism in the organisation and regulation of services to disabled children and their families in need of CW services, and to create and implement inclusive policy as well as social work practice.

Perspectives from Iceland

Iceland has an extensive social and CW system with child- and participation-centred policy that explicitly includes disabled children and their families (Ministry of justice, 2021). System cooperation between the somewhat separately structured disability and CW services is strongly enforced by a new law on integrated services for children that came into force in 2022. Simultaneously, the national child protection agency was renamed child and family agency, implying a strengthened focus on the family in CW matters whilst reemphasising a child-centric orientation. At its core, the new law confirms the previous logic of service provision, with various universal family and social services available to all children, and the most comprehensive services specialised and still tied to criteria defined in the child protection and disability acts. What is new, however, is the possibility to formally request integrated services at all levels of service intensity with the support of a designated contact person or case manager (Barna- og fjölskyldustofa, 2022).

Services to disabled children and their families are partly regulated by the Icelandic disability services act, but the law stipulates that general and integrated services are to be provided in the first instance. Only if the general services are not sufficient and the parents do not wish to request integrated services, the services to disabled children are transferred to the disability services of each municipality. Another important aspect of both the disability services law and the law on integrated services for children is the notion that a child’s support needs must be met even if there is no formal diagnosis. From an intersectional human rights perspective, this is important because disabled children’s right to services is not fully tied to formal diagnostics and is thus somewhat detached from structural ability expectations as an eligibility criteria. However, in the past, various studies on services to disabled children and their families have highlighted a gap between policy and practice, as evidenced by parents struggling to navigatie the service system due to a lack of structural transparency and formal pathways of collaboration (Egilson, 2015). This especially affects families facing intersectional disadvantages, such as migrant mothers of disabled children, whose differing social capital is highly relevant in navigating the service system for their children (Egilson et al., 2020). It remains to be seen whether the law on integrated services will reduce the gap between policy and practice and improves parents’ experience of services, as well as the experience of disabled children and youth. One of their worries is the transition into adult services at the age of eighteen (Ingólfsdóttir et al., 2021), which the law states should be supported by a service team.

Whilst Iceland’s social and CW policy is both inclusive and progressive compared to other states, the implementation is often not consistent with the relational and participatory approach intended by the policy (Ingólfsdóttir et al., 2018). An intersectional human rights lens on disability and ableism in CW therefore must consider both the structural and practice levels of CW social work with disabled children and their families. There is however a lack of research on disabled children within the CW system and the CW services provided to them and their families in Iceland.

Perspectives from Ireland

Ireland has general CW authorities with a strong focus on specialised services for disabled children, which have undergone comprehensive changes since a national child and family agency (Tusla) was established in 2012 and a new professional council began regulating social work alongside other professions (Department of children, equality, disability, integration and youth, 2022). Among the goals of the agency is a reorientation of service provision with a strong focus on prevention and early intervention (Burns & McGreogor, 2019). The state-led child and family agency is now responsible for providing family support services in partnership with community organisations, and for the first time CW services are delivered separately from a broader health and social service system. Nevertheless, overlaps and differences between the historically interwoven fields of child protection and family support in Ireland remain a challenge in maintaining a strong child protection system whilst also strengthening a family support perspective. In other words, the effective integration of child protection services into a broader family support service is one of the most pressing current issues of CW – in Ireland and beyond (Devaney & McGregor, 2017).

Integrated services, including disability services, are strongly pursued within a low prevention services support programme, implemented locally in partnership with families (Tusla, n.d.). Services for disabled children (and their families) are multidisciplinary and their organisation varies regionally. The Irish policy guide for the implementation of the children first act (Tusla, 2019) as well as the law itself from 2015 refer to specialised services for disabled children as relevant services for CW, yet they continue to fall under different laws. Disability services are generally provided by the health service system and subsidiary agencies (Ryan & Quinlan, 2018) and still seem to be dominated by medical professions and intervention (Flynn & McGregor, 2017). Parents of disabled children often experience a lack of child- and family-centeredness of disability services and difficulties in navigating a complex service system in Ireland (Ryan & Quinlan, 2018).

At the structural level, CW and disability services sometime fail to successfully cooperate and CW matters (such as domestic violence against disabled children) are treated as disability matters, within disability services and without statutory CW involvement. In turn, disabled children and their families are not approached from a human rights-perspective within the CW system. In instances where professionals from those different service systems cooperate, the specific roles and responsibilities of different services often remain unclear due to these structural and epistemological barriers (Flynn, 2021). Through an intersectional human rights perspective, the medically dominated provision of disability services as well as the sometimes problematic distinction of CW services and services to disabled children in Ireland (Flynn, 2021) indicates some dimensions of structural ableism in the Irish CW system. A multi-level analysis, including a study on how law and policy translate into practice, would further reveal how ability expectations affect CW social work with disabled children and their families.

Insights from a European comparison of social policy and social work practice

First insights into perspectives from Austria, Iceland and Ireland indicate both systemic differences and parallels regarding family support services and CW services (to disabled children). An overall parallel is that in all three countries CW is divided into more general family support services that are relatively accessible to all children and their families, and more invasive child protective services, which are bound by stricter legal criteria. CW services in Austria, Iceland and Ireland are thus composed of various elements of family support, child protection and children’s rights, or, in other words, they are both child- and family-centric. In Iceland, the child-centric perspective is particularly evident, as the relevance of the child’s point of view is emphasised in disability services law and child protection law. In Austria and Ireland, CW legislation recognises children’s rights to participation/expressing their view in the planning and provision of services. Another indicator of a child-centric orientation in all three countries is that CW legislation, following the UN CRC and CRPD, declares the child’s best interest (and/or child welfare, child wellbeing) to be paramount. Overall, CW seems to be more regulated and specified by law in Austria and Iceland than in Ireland, and both child- and family-centric orientations are more evident in their legislation.¹

The three countries have disability service systems that are responsible – at least in part – for supporting disabled children and their families, and are structured separately from the mainstream CW system. Specialised disability services are based on assessment and/or diagnostics, with Icelandic legislation emphasising that children’s needs must be met even if there is no formal diagnosis. Through an intersectional human rights lens on disability and ableism in CW at the structural level, Iceland seems most prepared to integrate services in a way that recognises intersectionality and is based on both a child- and family-centric human rights approach. The available research from Austria, Iceland, and Ireland, however, points to challenges in cooperation (or the lack thereof) between multiple agencies and services, including CW and disability services. Given the recent legal reforms in these European countries, their different overall welfare systems and CW orientation, they are an interesting starting point for the European comparison of inclusive CW social work practice.

The intersectional human rights lens on disability and ableism in CW discussed above provides a culturally sensitive and at the same time children’s rights based theoretical framework for the study of CW with disabled children. At least three important insights can be gained from a European comparison through such a lens. First, an international comparison that includes the structural level (law and social policy) and the practice level (social work) reveals the extent to which CW services are inclusive of disabled children and their families. From a human rights perspective, as called for in the CRC and the CRPD, all children and their families have a right to mainstream services that acknowledge the central role of the family in ensuring children’s human rights. However, legislation and social policy may, as in Austria, lead to disabled children and their families being referred to a separate disability services system (UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2020), even for common CW issues such as the need for guidance or family support. Thus, law and social policy are key determinators of how inclusive CW services are for disabled children, and more inclusive services must be based primarily on systemic change. At the social practice level, CW professionals operating within legal and social policy frameworks, mainly social workers, nevertheless have an important role in providing inclusive services on a day–to–day basis. Law and social policy in combination with social practice determine how professionals negotiate different mandates and whether social work with disabled children and their families meets the requirements of human rights based practice (Degener & Mogge-Grotjahn, 2012; Staub-Bernasconi, 2016).

Second, the intersectionality of the various social positions of disabled children and their families must be considered in the provision and receipt of CW services, or, in other words, in terms of CW inequality. CW law and policy in conjunction with other legislation, define the eligibility of children and families and include or exclude them from specific services. For adequate provision of human rights based services, structures for the provision of services to children and families must be merged to acknowledge intersectionality, as opposed to separate structures for disabled children, or also for refugee children and/or families (Dursun & Sauer, 2021). Socioeconomic aspects also impact on CW inequality, but are often underacknowledged (Featherstone et al., 2019). Poverty and disability, among many other family and child characteristics relevant to structural marginalisation or privileging, must be considered as intersectional (Bywaters et al., 2016) to enable the provision of inclusive CW services. A European comparison of social policy and social (work) practice can reveal intersectionality and its meanings for disabled children and their families within the CW context at a structural, political, and representational level (Crenshaw, 1997). Consequently, disabled children and their families with different social positioning must be at the centre of an analysis of social work practice to gather their experience and views together with those of the social (work) professionals working with them. To thoroughly address CW inequality from an intersectional perspective, families who are marginalised in multiple interlocking dimensions must be actively approached in future research.

Third, ableism theory (Campbell, 2009; Wolbring, 2008) provides an analytical lens to establish how CW services – at the levels of social policy and social work practice – differentiate between disabled and non-disabled children and thereby construct notions of abledness. Dominant accounts of normal/typical childhoods tend to ignore the social contexts that produce them, and ableism interwoven with adultism leads to the othering of disabled children (Curran & Runswick-Cole, 2014). By sustaining separate CW and disability systems for services to disabled children in many European states, rather than a universal low-threshold multi-professional CW system for all children and families, notions of abledness and normatised childhoods remain unchallenged. Individualised ability expectations (Wolbring, 2012) of children, families, and professionals contribute to their degradation and prevent human rights based family-centred CW services. An international comparison of social policy and practice that inevitably re/produce notions of abledness within the current structural logics of service provision makes the implicit explicit whilst paying attention to the geopolitical specifics of ableism in and around CW systems.

At the European level, the Strategy for the rights of persons with disabilities 2021–2030 and The EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child provide policy impulses for inclusive CW services. Bringing the two strategies together is defined by the European Commission (2021b) as key action to respond to disabled children’s needs and to improve their access to mainstream services, particularly CW services. The children’s rights strategy highlights that integrated child protection systems include prevention, early intervention, and family support. The disability rights strategy implies the importance of intersectionality in service provision by stating that mainstream services must be inclusive and accessible for disabled children, and gender and culturally sensitive (European commission, 2021a). By treating inclusive CW services as a European project as much as a national or even regional task, mutual learning and the exchange between high-income welfare states such as Austria, Iceland and Ireland, which have so far taken quite different approaches to CW policy and practice, is fostered.

Conclusion

The European comparison of social policy (and its underlying legal frameworks) and social (work) practice between Austria, Iceland and Ireland offers a wide range of perspectives both for policy development and for CW professionals working with disabled children and their families. In addition to the importance of outlining national legal and policy structures and comparing them internationally, case studies of specific inclusive CW measures or projects from the perspective of all involved, namely the children, their families and the professionals supporting them, can contribute to a growing body of knowledge about disabled children and CW services in Europe that ultimately will inform the provision of better services by social workers and other social service professionals.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Rahel More

Rahel More is a Senior Scientist at the department of Educational Science, University of Klagenfurt, Austria. Her expertise and research interests are in the fields of Dis/Ability Studies, Social Pedagogy/Social Work and Participatory Research. Rahel completed her PhD thesis with a qualitative study on the complex meaning of societal attributions and perceptions for the parental self-understanding of mothers and fathers with intellectual disabilities in Austria. She has worked on several other research projects critically exploring parenthood and intellectual disabilities. Currently, her research focuses on ableism and intersectionality and she is involved in a collaborative research project about de-institutionalisation with the local self-advocacy movement of people with intellectual disabilities.

Notes

1 For an international comparison of the child’s best interest principle in child protection that includes some legislation from Austria and Ireland but none from Iceland, see Skivenes and Sørsdal (2018).