Let's take a look at what happened in the situation described in the previous blog article, The Near Destruction of an American Family, and see what can be learned. While it is impossible now to know with certainty what thoughts motivated the various child welfare personnel as they interacted with the parents and put forth their recommendations, we can discuss possible ways of thinking and other factors based on the outcomes of their actions.
What possible thoughts may have motivated the caseworker to recommend the removal of the son from the parents' custody? Did she find evidence of abuse and or neglect on the part of both parents? If so, what was that evidence? Was it so severe that the son needed to be removed not only from the mother but also from the father's custody? Did she consider the fact that the father had called asking for help a sign that even if the mother's behavior posed some risk, the father showed responsible behavior? The father soon was living away from the mother which would have reduced or eliminated the possible risk she may have posed. What was the caseworker's evidence to support removal from the father? What was her attitude about the father's role as parent? Did she and the father develop an antagonistic interaction which then biased her view of him but still did not reflect on his parenting ability? Did she discuss this situation with her supervisor and if so what did she describe during their meetings? What input did the supervisor have? What evidence was presented to the court, which is the entity that sanctions the removal? What questions were posed by the court? Even if the caseworker and her supervisor believed that both parents posed a risk to the toddler, did they consider all sides of this scenario and then weigh the variables? Did they consider the seriousness of removal and its consequences for the child? For the parents? Did they somehow present a picture of the parents as just being plain bad and used this as justification to marginalize them to the extreme? If so, did the passage of time and their own previous behavior lead them to continue to justify what they had done by not changing course but rather digging in and strongly maintaining their viewpoint? How did they manage to ignore the father's positive attributes? How were they able to interpret the father's persistent and adamant demand that his sons be returned to him, expressed with passion and perhaps even anger during a case review, as a sign of his violent tendencies? How was such behavior instead seen as a sign of violence? Why was the context ignored?
Were underlying competency and/ or ethical issues factors in the caseworker's, supervisor's and original case reviewer's actions? Did the various parties act out of a sense of fear that something would possibly go wrong were the child allowed to remain with the father which could then threaten their employment?
How much influence did the younger son's foster parents exert in preventing the son's return to the father? How about the private agency's administration? If these were major factors in the trajectory of this situation, under what circumstances was this allowed to develop?
At some point one or several bonding or attachment assessments took place involving the younger son, the father and the foster parents. Was this an appropriate action for this kind of situation? Was this a contest between the father and the foster parents where the better parent wins custody of the boy? Or, did this situation entail a father who had lost custody of his son but whose behavior did not warrant the continuation of this custody order but rather the return of the son to his custody? If so, why should any attachment evaluation have been undertaken? And what possible implication would its results bear?
Additionally, what exactly can an attachment evaluation demonstrate, even if it had been an appropriate instrument for this kind of situation? Does it yield what it purports to? Can it yield what it purports to? The answer to this is probably no.
Because bonding or attachment assessments rely on the child's interaction with the parent and foster parent those behaviors usually are open to a variety of interpretations. Many variables can influence the nature of what the child does during the assessment. Simplistic conclusions can be very misleading and plain wrong.
Here, as in many other child welfare situations that do not include the most severe risk factors and where children nonetheless are removed from their parents' custody, we can wonder if the caseworker and the court have really grasped the magnitude of what they have put in place. Have they engaged in the in-depth level of thought and introspection such situations require before acting. We do need to wonder about this since it often seems that far more thought and deliberation goes into moving one's lawn furniture.