Huostaanottopäätöksenteko lainvalmistelussa: ensisijaisesti juridiikkaa, asiantuntijuutta vai riitelyä?

The comprehensive reform of the Child Welfare Act in 2007 aimed, among other things, to reform the decision-making system for care orders to improve the legal protection of those involved. The practice of layperson decision-making connected to social welfare boards was not considered to comply with human rights treaties and other legislation. This study examines the views experts had on care-order decision-making, based on 28 statements given to committees during the legislative preparation process, and what kind of image of care order as a decision emerged from these expert views. Four perspectives based on thematic content analysis were identified in the data: a strong legal protection perspective, an alternative professional expertise perspective, a critical conflict perspective, and a diminishing layperson perspective. Although the law was ultimately enacted with an emphasis on legal protection and administrative courts as the decision-making bodies in involuntary care orders, the perspectives that were set aside are reflected in the law through new provisions and the use of expert members in administrative courts. There was no longer room for the layperson perspective in this compromise of interests.