Over the past 20 years, kinship care placement has been prioritised by governments in a number of Western countries, including Denmark, but unlike countries such as Australia and New Zealand, the Scandinavian countries, with the exception of Norway, have not significantly increased the number of such cases. The focus in this study is on field worker behaviour, placement discourses and the link to good examples of kinship care. Our assumption is that both the number and quality of kinship care placements depend on the social workers, their managers and organisations, because kinship care has been given high political priority, and with regard to most of the kinship care placements in our study, the families themselves have taken the initiative. This case study identifies and discusses the practice of social workers, their behaviour in the field, in order to address the challenges, values and discourses that may stand in the way of increasing the number of kinship care placements. We conclude that it is difficult for social workers to enter into the emotional space of families, and that special discourses—for example, children in need of therapeutic care, or that kinship care families must live up to the same standards as professional foster families—mean that family network placements are not selected. Secondly, the fact that family networks are not systematically involved in the decision-making processes concerning placements means that they are deselected, since the matching process leaves no time for such involvement.

在过去的20年中，亲属护理安置在许多西方国家（包括丹麦）中被政府列为优先事项，但是与澳大利亚和新西兰等国家不同，北欧国家（挪威除外）并没有显着增加该数目在这种情况下。这项研究的重点是野外工作人员的行为，安置方式以及与亲属照料的良好实例之间的联系。我们的假设是，亲属照料安排的数量和质量都取决于社会工作者，他们的经理和组织，因为亲属照料得到了高度的政治优先考虑，并且对于我们研究中的大多数亲属照料安排而言，家庭自己已经主动了。本案例研究确定并讨论了社会工作者的实践，他们在该领域的行为，为了应对可能会增加亲属照护场所数量的挑战，价值观念和话语。我们得出的结论是，社会工作者很难进入家庭的情感空间，而且特殊的话语（例如，需要治疗的儿童或亲属照顾的家庭必须达到与专业寄养家庭相同的标准）表示未选择家庭网络展示位置。其次，家庭网络没有系统地参与有关安置的决策过程这一事实意味着他们被取消了选择，因为匹配过程没有时间进行这种参与。我们得出的结论是，社会工作者很难进入家庭的情感空间，而且特殊的话语（例如，需要治疗的儿童，或者亲属照顾的家庭必须达到与专业寄养家庭相同的标准）表示未选择家庭网络展示位置。其次，家庭网络没有系统地参与有关安置的决策过程这一事实意味着他们被取消了选择，因为匹配过程没有时间进行这种参与。我们得出的结论是，社会工作者很难进入家庭的情感空间，而且特殊的话语（例如，需要治疗的儿童或亲属照顾的家庭必须达到与专业寄养家庭相同的标准）表示未选择家庭网络展示位置。其次，家庭网络没有系统地参与有关安置的决策过程这一事实意味着他们被取消了选择，因为匹配过程没有时间进行这种参与。