Wor(l)ds struggle against wor(l)ds: Public discourse around children's removal from families in Lithuania.

Objective: This article aims to identify the different truths perceived and experienced by the four main parties involved in the process of removing children from families. Furthermore, the article examines the potential implications of these individuals' "versions of the truth" on the public discourse. Background: This article offers a unique lens for analyzing situations when children are removed from their homes by employing the principles of the sociology of knowledge and the concept of the Rashomon effect. This combination reveals the different truths, reasons, and motives of all parties involved in situations of removing children from their homes in Lithuania. Method: Seventy‐one semistructured interviews were undertaken with the parties who have direct experience of the process of child removal from families: children, parents, child protection workers (CPWs), and the police. Results: The interviews with parents reveal the unexpectedness and unfairness of the removal situation, and lack of institutional support in their efforts to recover the child. Similarly, for children the removal experience was traumatizing, resulting in losing trust in their parents and CPWs. However, in some cases they were glad to be taken away from the neglecting and violent environment. Child protection workers experience strong emotions and face ethical dilemmas during the removal. Nevertheless, they perceive themselves as life‐saving professionals who meet children's best interests. Conclusions: The research revealed that all four involved parties have their own diverse and competing truths. These truths do not have equal chances to be told, listened to, or to shape the general discourse. They are limited by privacy, professionalism requirements, and feelings of shame and guilt. Implications: The research results have implications for further research, practice, and policy. They offer a methodological approach, combining competing truths, which can guide the daily work of child protection workers. On the policy level, the results of this study might be helpful for professionals in other countries developing or reforming their child protection systems. The ability to openly express one's truth can be seen as a crucial factor, serve as a means of parents' attempts to publicly prove one's suitability to care for children, or CPWs' professionalism in making appropriate decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]