The purpose of the child welfare/protection system is to
keep children safe. In situations where children are not safe with their
family, the system is charged with discovering the reason that they aren’t safe
– and to help the family to fix it. If the unsafe situation is such that a
child has already been harmed or is in imminent threat of harm – it may be necessary
for the child to be removed from the home, placed in an alternate setting,
ideally with relatives, and if that’s not possible, with a foster family.
The alternate living arrangement for the child is intended
to be temporary while the unsafe situation at home is made safe. If the
situation cannot be made safe within a designated time frame, a permanent home
for the child must be secured.
That, essentially, is how the child welfare system is
supposed to function. There are myriad dynamics affecting which children are
removed from their families and which remain. Not all of the children removed
faced situations so unsafe that maintaining them at home was detrimental to
their well-being.
Consider that when the child welfare/protection system
becomes involved with a family, it is an especially difficult time in a
family’s life. Simply by virtue of the fact that an outside entity with the
legal authority to dismantle the family is involved makes it a scary encounter.
Emotions are running high and parents are feeling vulnerable and defensive –
normal human behavior. Add to the mix that this is very likely a neighborhood
that has seen its share of children removed for seemingly innocuous, culturally
accepted circumstances; (circumstances that a generation or two ago would not
have been labeled abusive) and a parent’s fear is even more probable.
Enter an investigator who does not understand that a
parent’s reaction regarding intervention has nothing to do with the
investigator; that the anger and defiance are not necessarily resistance, but
far more likely to be a mixture of fear, helplessness and distrust.
When the investigator responds to IT (the anger,
defensiveness, fear), that’s an indication that the investigator doesn’t
understand the importance of seeing beyond the behavior. When an investigator
takes the parent’s response personally, the investigator loses sight of human
behavior 101 and shifts his/her focus to addressing the reaction instead of
attempting to defuse it. Further, when an investigator expects this behavior from “those people,” he/she
could very well get caught up in the argument about the intervention –
instead of getting to the intervention itself.
This adversarial encounter has now become a barrier to the
investigator actually learning more about the reason that they’re there in the
first place. In some cases, a very fixable situation that posed no significant
safety risk to a child has been masked by an encounter that is now the focus of
child protection’s response and the basis for its subsequent decision.
A parent’s instinctual response to what they perceive as a
threat to their children is to protect their offspring with whatever response
is necessary to remove the threat (a practice that humans applaud in the animal
kingdom). It is a normal and healthy human response; however, when some parents
exhibit it, the normal, healthy response is held against them.
The investigator wields enormous power. How it is used can
determine a family’s future. Unfortunately, that power is sometimes misused in
order to achieve a quick resolution. Removing the child becomes the most expedient action because it allows the investigator to escape a “volatile” situation. Equally, if not more,
distressing is the investigator that misuses his/her power to punish a parent
for daring to express human emotions regarding the prospect of having their
child taken from them.
The unnecessary removal of a child who could’ve remained
safely with their family is a horrible outcome; however, it is an outcome that
has occurred many, many times. One of the reasons that caseloads are so high is
due to the number of children in the system that have no business there.
With an overloaded system, families that really are in dire
straits but whose external appearance looks/sounds “normal,” and “cooperative,”
are more likely to keep their children. Nice and cooperative do not equal safe
just as angry and defiant do not equal unsafe!
Ideally, the investigator uses their power to de-escalate
the situation by empathizing with the parent’s fear, helplessness, etc., and
clearly explaining that they’re here to help, not hurt. “If I were in your
situation, I think that I’d be angry/defensive/confused/fearful, too,” is one
of the most empathetic, calming and equalizing statements an investigator can
say to a parent.
Even if the investigation reveals that a removal is
warranted because of an unsafe environment, an investigator that takes the time
to empathize with a distraught parent establishes an atmosphere of humanity and
understanding that can become the foundation upon which the work to improve the
family is built.
Empathy and a solid assessment that gets to the family’s
real issues are the starting points to ensuring true safety for children.
Michelle Hollinger is
the founder of The Institute for Authentic Social Work and the author of ‘TheABCs of Authentic Work with Families’ and ‘7 Steps to Strengthen Your Family.’
Learn more about the Institute at www.authenticsocialwork.org.
No comments:
Post a Comment