Social Work and algorithmic decision-making: The use of artificial intelligence in judicial promotion and protection proceedings
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v15i1.50555Keywords:
Social Work, Children and Youth, Decision Making, Justice, Artificial Intelligence.Abstract
In Portugal, the decision-making of judicial magistrates in legal proceedings for promotion and protection is based, in particular, on the work of social workers from the Multidisciplinary Court Advisory Teams (EMAT), who are responsible, for example, for preparing reports and social information and are subject to evident pressure to reach the best decisions regarding the situation of the child or young person. Artificial intelligence (AI) is presented as a resource to ensure greater efficiency in the decision-making process of social workers. However, using this technology to prepare reports or social information accepted as evidence in judicial proceedings for promotion and protection raises legitimate concerns about the impact of AI on judicial decisions. In this article, we aim to demonstrate that, although it is possible to use an AI platform to prepare a social report in the context of a promotion and protection case, the use of this type of technology calls into question the decision-making of judicial magistrates and, consequently, the administration of justice. We conclude that the inability to reconstruct the path taken by the judge to reach a decision, as well as the difficulty in explaining their reasoning, which may be compromised by evidence produced by AI, threatens the impartiality and independence of judicial decisions, in accordance with national and international legal instruments. We believe that the use of AI by judicial actors must necessarily preserve all mechanisms that allow for the control and scrutiny of the decision-making process by the judicial magistrate.
References
Aoki, N., Tatsumi, T., Naruse, G., & Maeda, K. (2024). Explainable AI for government: Does the type of explanation matter to the accuracy, fairness, and trustworthiness of an algorithmic decision as perceived by those who are affected? Government Information Quarterly, 41(4), Article 101965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2024.101965
Assembleia da República. (1976). Constituição da República Portuguesa (7.ª revisão constitucional). https://www.parlamento.pt/Legislacao/Paginas/ConstituicaoRepublicaPortuguesa.aspx
Assembleia da República. (1999). Lei de proteção de crianças e jovens em perigo (Lei n.º 147/99, de 1 de setembro, na redação em vigor). https://data.dre.pt/eli/lei/147/1999/09/01/p/dre/pt/html
Assembleia da República. (2012). Decreto-Lei n.º 83/2012, de 30 de março (Lei orgânica do Instituto da Segurança Social, I. P.). https://www.pgdlisboa.pt/leis/lei_mostra_articulado.php?nid=1663
Assembleia da República. (2013). Código de Processo Civil (Lei n.º 41/2013, na redação em vigor). https://www.pgdlisboa.pt/leis/lei_mostra_articulado.php?nid=1959
Bolieiro, H., & Guerra, P. (2014). A criança e a família – uma questão de direito(s): Visão prática dos principais institutos do direito da família e das crianças e jovens (2.ª ed.). Coimbra Editora.
Chaudhary, B., Covarrubia, P., & Ng, G. Y. (2024). The judge, the AI, and the Crown: A collusive network. Information & Communications Technology Law, 33(3), 330–367.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
Ester Sánchez, A. T. (2025). La inteligencia artificial en la justicia: Desafíos y oportunidades en la toma de decisiones judiciales. Anales de la Cátedra Francisco Suárez, 59. https://doi.org/10.30827/acfs.v59i.31404
Huang, H. (2024). Applications of generative artificial intelligence in the judiciary: The case of ChatGPT. International Journal of Multiphysics, 18(2).
Jacobi, C. B., & Christensen, M. (2022). Functions, utilities and limitations: A scoping study of decision support algorithms in social work. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 20(3), 323–341.
James, P., et al. (2023). Algorithmic decision-making in social work practice and pedagogy: Confronting the competency/critique dilemma. Social Work Education, 43(6), 1552–1569.
Kapur, I., Kennedy, R., & Hickman, C. (2025). Artificial intelligence algorithms, bias, and innovation: Implications for social work. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 1–23.
Machado, J. B. (2007). Introdução ao direito e ao discurso legitimador. Almedina.
Marreiros, G. (2001). A criança, o direito e os direitos. In Estudos em homenagem a Cunha Rodrigues (Vol. II, pp. 291–324). Coimbra Editora.
Montano, T. (2010). Promoção e proteção dos direitos das crianças: Guia de orientações para profissionais da ação social na abordagem de situações de maus-tratos ou outras situações de perigo. Generalitat Valenciana.
Mota, G. (2024). O exercício da discricionariedade dos magistrados judiciais na jurisdição de menores e a representação do papel dos assistentes sociais das equipas multidisciplinares de assessoria aos tribunais (Tese de doutoramento, Universidade de Coimbra).
OpenAI. (2025). ChatGPT (versão GPT-4 Turbo). https://chat.openai.com
Organização das Nações Unidas. (1948). Declaração Universal dos Direitos Humanos. https://www.un.org/pt/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
Organização das Nações Unidas. (1959). Declaração dos Direitos da Criança. https://www.unicef.org/portugal/o-que-fazemos/o-que-sao-os-direitos-da-crianca
Organização das Nações Unidas. (1989). Convenção sobre os Direitos da Criança. https://www.unicef.org/portugal/convenção-direitos-da-crianca
Sottomayor, M. C. (2002). Quem são os «verdadeiros» pais? Adoção plena de menor e oposição dos pais biológicos. Direito e Justiça, 16(1), 191–241. https://doi.org/10.34632/direitoejustica.2002.11218
Sottomayor, M. C. (2010). A autonomia do direito das crianças. In Estudos em homenagem a Rui Epifânio (pp. 79–88). Almedina.
Spratt, T., Devaney, J., & Hayes, D. (2015). In and out of home care decisions: The influence of confirmation bias in developing decision supportive reasoning. Child Abuse & Neglect, 49, 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.01.015
Whittaker, A. (2018). How do child-protection practitioners make decisions in real-life situations? Lessons from the psychology of decision making. The British Journal of Social Work, 48(7), 1967–1984. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcx145
Zhou, S. (2024). Analyzing the justification for using generative AI technology to generate judgments based on the virtue jurisprudence theory. Journal of Decision Systems, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/12460125.2024.2428999
Zhu, H., & Andersen, S. (2021). ICT-mediated social work practice and innovation: Professionals' experiences in the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration. Nordic Social Work Research, 11(4), 346–360.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Gonçalo Mota
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1) Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
2) Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
3) Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
