| dc.description.abstract | This study examines the practice of care proceedings in Hong Kong through two critical care proceedings cases under social movements. I used qualitative content analysis with newspaper articles as data materials. With focusing on the care proceedings practice of the two cases, the study found that decision-making in care proceedings was heavily relied on the views of the professionals. The involvement of children and family was limited. There were multiple shortcomings in the accountability mechanisms of care proceedings. The public questioned the police's use of discretionary power and concerned violation of multiple child rights. To shed light on the findings and expand the knowledge on care proceedings practice and policy in Hong Kong, I used characteristics of street-level bureaucrats and concepts of discretion. Street-level bureaucracies explained that decision-making in care proceedings may be due to the rubber-stamping practice of the street-level professionals and the influences which organizational contexts have on them. With insights gained from the findings of the public’s comments to the care proceedings practice, I found that the wide discretionary space with no measure controlling the quality of discretionary reasoning may lead to misuse of discretion. To improve the care proceedings practice in Hong Kong, this study suggested that on one hand, professionals need to be aware of how street-level bureaucracies may have an impact on making any decision regarding care proceedings. On the other hand, the care proceedings structure should be reviewed and improved to ensure that discretion can be properly applied. | |
