Reasoning between Rules and Discretion: A Comparative Study of the Normative Platform for Best Interest Decision-Making on Adoption in England and Norway

Abstract This article examines discretionary reasoning in child’s best interest (CBI) assessments two jurisdictions, England and Norway, decision concerning adoption from care. The countries’ systems differ child protection orientations levels of autonomy but share the legal moral yardstick CBI. Judgments Family Court (n = 29) County Social Welfare Board Norway are analysed through a qualitative content analysis, following logics practical reasoning. analysis provided rich detailed testimony how CBI decisions were justified reveal that similar normative platform was guiding across countries. There were, however, differences within between countries terms application justifications norms, some which likely to be connected different interpretations others systemic constructions structures. Moreover, having more legislative guidance may have contributed explicit deliberative although it does not appear ensure consistent or predictable as inconsistencies variation found both contexts. However, while Norwegian judges’ deliberation less ‘balanced’, applied manner judgements. Although this contributes consistency predictability, use non-democratically constituted ‘rules’ decision-making poses challenge for legitimate decision-making.