There may be situations that call for some sort of treatment, but for a vast number of parents with open child welfare cases, treatment is not the answer to the family's problems. This may be discerned by exploring three aspects of the situation. First, the nature of the maltreatment allegation. Second, the parents' thoughts and ideas about the allegation. And third, the parents' thoughts and ideas about their general life satisfaction; about their past and present access to educational, vocational and avocational endeavors ; and their hopes to have built the kinds of lives, for themselves and for their children, as they are well aware that the majority of Americans have successfully done.
The implications of a life lived in poverty can be far reaching and can strongly influence one's decisions and motivation. Rather than conceptualize the resulting hopelessness as depression, with clinical implications, usually, existential angst would be a more accurate portrayal. Hopelessness, together with a lack of resources, can lead one to not attend to some aspects of child care. Slow and attentive discussion between the parents and caseworker will yield a mutual understanding of the nature of the problematic behavior. And it is the nature of the problem that should determine the nature of the intervention. The wholesale demand that almost every parent participate in counseling is both illogical and counterproductive. It usually is not mental illness or disturbed behavior that leads most impoverished parents to fall short of the societal parenting standard, but rather a combination of hopelessness, day to day practical difficulties and unhelpful learned thought patterns.
Not only is it wrong to mandate treatment in these situations, but it usually is also very much out of sync with how positive behavioral change can occur. If the premise holds true that existential difficulties underlie much of the problematic situation, then that should be the area that needs to be addressed. This will no doubt be a much more involved task then merely sending one off to a counselor's office. In fact, there will be no sending off at all, but instead this will occur as a natural outcome of discussion between the parent and caseworker, and if the parent thinks that some life changes are in order they, together, will plan and locate the necessary resources. The caseworker's continued presence will allow for ongoing discussions about any possible obstacles and will also serve as a source of encouragement. If the parent, for whatever reason, is not interested in pursuing any such plan of action, their discussions will continue to focus on the problematic parenting. We can assume, however, that, prognostically, a more satisfied and hopeful parent will probably be more likely, over time, to continue to attend well to parenting issues.
This approach too can not assume that parents, impoverished or not, have been unsuccessful in building the kind of satisfying lives they have desired. This would need to be determined through patient and insightful discussion. Nothing in any situation can be assumed, even when initial evidence seems to point in a certain direction. Waiting for the most complete and accurate possible scenario to emerge is essential. This would seem to be a given in this and in most similar interventions, but the reality of child welfare practice is testament to just how blatantly absent such diligent and careful efforts have been. Otherwise, much of the well known dysfunction seen in child welfare practice would not occur.
This approach requires that families from impoverished backgrounds be seen as human beings with the same kind of potential and wished for lives as the rest of us, rather than passive guinea pig-like throw aways, in the service of the never ending stream of so-called social service providers, whose jobs and careers depend on their eternal presence. This approach also brings us back to the necessity that child welfare work must become elevated to the level of a prestigious and highly respected profession that will attract potential workers intellectually and ethically capable of doing the kind of work we have been discussing.
The implications of a life lived in poverty can be far reaching and can strongly influence one's decisions and motivation. Rather than conceptualize the resulting hopelessness as depression, with clinical implications, usually, existential angst would be a more accurate portrayal. Hopelessness, together with a lack of resources, can lead one to not attend to some aspects of child care. Slow and attentive discussion between the parents and caseworker will yield a mutual understanding of the nature of the problematic behavior. And it is the nature of the problem that should determine the nature of the intervention. The wholesale demand that almost every parent participate in counseling is both illogical and counterproductive. It usually is not mental illness or disturbed behavior that leads most impoverished parents to fall short of the societal parenting standard, but rather a combination of hopelessness, day to day practical difficulties and unhelpful learned thought patterns.
Not only is it wrong to mandate treatment in these situations, but it usually is also very much out of sync with how positive behavioral change can occur. If the premise holds true that existential difficulties underlie much of the problematic situation, then that should be the area that needs to be addressed. This will no doubt be a much more involved task then merely sending one off to a counselor's office. In fact, there will be no sending off at all, but instead this will occur as a natural outcome of discussion between the parent and caseworker, and if the parent thinks that some life changes are in order they, together, will plan and locate the necessary resources. The caseworker's continued presence will allow for ongoing discussions about any possible obstacles and will also serve as a source of encouragement. If the parent, for whatever reason, is not interested in pursuing any such plan of action, their discussions will continue to focus on the problematic parenting. We can assume, however, that, prognostically, a more satisfied and hopeful parent will probably be more likely, over time, to continue to attend well to parenting issues.
This approach too can not assume that parents, impoverished or not, have been unsuccessful in building the kind of satisfying lives they have desired. This would need to be determined through patient and insightful discussion. Nothing in any situation can be assumed, even when initial evidence seems to point in a certain direction. Waiting for the most complete and accurate possible scenario to emerge is essential. This would seem to be a given in this and in most similar interventions, but the reality of child welfare practice is testament to just how blatantly absent such diligent and careful efforts have been. Otherwise, much of the well known dysfunction seen in child welfare practice would not occur.
This approach requires that families from impoverished backgrounds be seen as human beings with the same kind of potential and wished for lives as the rest of us, rather than passive guinea pig-like throw aways, in the service of the never ending stream of so-called social service providers, whose jobs and careers depend on their eternal presence. This approach also brings us back to the necessity that child welfare work must become elevated to the level of a prestigious and highly respected profession that will attract potential workers intellectually and ethically capable of doing the kind of work we have been discussing.