The main argument is that if the successful integration of child and family services is to be meaningfully achieved, children’s challenges cannot be divided up into “objects of organizational or profession expertise.” Instead, service organizations need to be adapted to allow for the particular problems of children and their caregivers to be fully communicated, heard, and responded to. The authors present three case studies to illustrate their argument. The first case involves the problem of securing schooling close to home, the second case involves the challenge of finding a safe place to stay, and the third case involves protecting the well-being of a pregnant teenager. The case analyses focus on: (1) the division of the service user’s problems into “objects of organizational relevance,” and (2) the impact of this division on outcomes for children. The authors identify the factors that interfered with the agency’s efforts to present integrated and holistic service delivery in these cases, including: (1) problems with inter-agency information sharing; (2) an absence of a lead professional; (3) poor management; and (4) inadequate staff training. The cases underscore that there is much work left to be done in terms of identifying a shared object of intervention between professionals, caregivers, and children. The primary objects of intervention among health, education, and social services are the child’s health, the child’s attendance and attainment at school, the child’s safety, and the child’s need for services. It has been assumed that integration initiatives will magically merge these diverse focuses to develop new services structures and roles. References