Syftet med studien är att bidra med kunskap kring hur diskursen kring barns bästa definieras av professionella i förvaltningsrätten där det fattas beslut om att barn ska placeras i familjehem enligt LVU 2 § (1990:52). Det empiriska materialet utgick ifrån 15 stycken förvaltningsrättsliga domar där socialnämndens vårdplan angavs vara beredande av vård utanför föräldrahemmet. Barnen i domarna var mellan noll till sex år och det fanns ingen förekomst av syskonpar i materialet. Studien är kvalitativ och Norman Faircloughs diskursanalys används både teori och metod tillsammans med barndomssociologi som ytterligare en teori. Resultatet i studien visar att diskursen kring små barns bästa hos de professionella till största del handlar om barnets grundläggande behov. De ofta ses som en homogen grupp med behov som inte skiljer sig från varandra. Vidare visar studien att små barn ofta blir objekt i rättsprocessen medans föräldrarna blir subjekt utifrån deras tillkortakommanden.

The aim of the study is to contribute with knowledge about how the discourse about the term children's best interest is defined in administrative court when a decision is made that the child should be placed in foster care according to LVU 2 § (1990:52). The empirical material is made of 15 orders from the administrative court where the social welfare boards care plan is for the child to be placed out of the family home. The children in the study is between the ages of zero to six and there were no cases in which there were siblings involved. The study is qualitative and uses Norman Fairclough's discourse analysis both as a theory and method and is used together with childhood sociology as a additional theory. The results of the study indicates that the discourse about small children's best interest is mostly about the child's basic care needs. They are often seen as a homogeneous group whose needs did not differ from one another. Further the study's results shows that small children often become objectified in the legal process and that the parents failings in many cases are seen as primary and the child perspective is seen as secondary.