This is DCS wanting me to condense a 220 page book into ~1500 words of a reflection piece. This is part of my homework in order to become a forensic interviewer.
Section 1:
In reading the history of child welfare in “Child Welfare Values,” it is not immediately obvious how this would impact my approach to forensic interviewing. The sins or ignorance of the past is either repeated, or an attempt is made to correct practice after more is learned about developmental needs and the horror stories have amassed.
It is mildly interesting to know that it was back in the thirteenth century we saw the evolving of case law to start the intervention of overlords, or perhaps stated today as “Big Government,” the authority to intervene on behalf of children. In the course of my work as an assessor, I am often scolded by parents about “their rights” as it pertains to their children. They, seemingly, are unaware of the precedents established that distinguish “contingent” verses “absolute” rights.
What gives me pause most often is the presumption on behalf of the authors of the social worker's inherent understanding and acceptance of the premise that they can always act within the best interest of the child. This presumption so jarring after citing the inability of humanity to center on a perpetually true or agreed upon set of moral values. In perhaps a fit of blind irony, it goes on to attempt to prescribe normative practice, and continues to rely on the safe vagaries of broad language. For example, the system “must protect children,” “must be culturally competent,” and children should be placed in the “least restrictive, most home-like environment.”
Practically, protecting children is as varied as each child and their social or physical environment. It is a problem that cannot be nailed down, and infinitely begs to be refuted. We can and should try to protect children, but I suspect the insisted imperative emboldens a kind of naivety to regard one's own opinion or directive offered in service to the presumption as paramount. In establishing rapport and goals, it would help to define what that protection looks like for them, so they can understand what it is they are a part of.
To be “culturally competent” is nearly impossible as well. We acknowledge we have not grown up in someone else's home. The culture we are born into changes quickly, and we may no longer feel like we have a grasp of it. We have incredibly misunderstood and ineffective means by which to address biases and internalized fears regarding the out-group. For every one person to acknowledge their ignorance and display a willingness to change, you have the vast majority working with people in ways that make sense to them, and if that results in disproportionate statistical aberrations, none the wiser are the families being impacted until the discrepancy makes the news. At least when it comes to interviewing, one might be able to probe the child's perspective of what is normal for them.
Finally, the “least restrictive” environment that is “most home like” is an explicitly practical question that almost never gets achieved. We certify, or allow other agencies to certify, wholly inadequate foster homes. That “foster care drift” was as bad a problem 30 or more years ago as it is today is an abdication of duty. Maybe we need an entirely different take on where kids should be going when they get removed, and maybe if we are not prepared to address the larger holistic poverty and mental health needs, we need to act more as managers than broadly caricatured social workers. As such, managing expectations might illicit better responses from kids not being led to believe the picture is nicer than it is.
Section 2:
A comprehensive list of physical and behavioral indicators can aid in identifying injuries and shaping questions for children. In interviewing, I would take pains to include informed, not motivated, questions related to the suspected trauma. The hardest part it seems in being an interviewer will be to not take the generalized knowledge or observed tendencies, and read them into every interaction or overplay the explanatory power. The further I read into the section of the behaviors of children who are neglected, I recognize from my own childhood behavior, and can still feel the impact of in my adult life. To the degree it is related to “neglect,” per se, or personality traits that accompany many other facets of my behavior is not precisely clear even to me. Finding ways to allow the conversation to be enabling the child to explain and understand the situation for themselves seems key, as we literally already have the story written for them on how we suspect or would like to believe their situation is operating.
Despite tools such as the risk assessment, people are dynamic. The operative word in any explanation or scenario presented is “may.” Even with the presence of several indicators of abuse or neglect, the child may not view their experience as such. Children might not remember or be able to define what has happened to them, and use it to protect themselves from tarnishing the image they have of their parents. It becomes incumbent upon the interviewer to not just listen carefully to how the child describes their experience, but to probe the parents. Keeping in mind that trauma can go back through generations, it can lend itself to a better case plan and setting of goals to know if the current situation was brought on by an acutely stressful event, or a series of negligent learned behaviors.
It will always be important to keep in mind that just because a child may have experienced neglect or abuse, it does not mean it was with the deliberate maliciousness of the parent. Whether it be developmental disabilities or the consequences of poor information or stress, the goal is to figure out the underlying truth to the situation, not impede or unduly malign the process that could lead to rehabilitation. The working assumption is that families are best together and need to be supported with more or less intensive services. Identifying supports and character traits of different family members during an interview could lend itself to preservation or the formulation of a healthier environment.
Section 3:
An ongoing, and telling, experience from reading this book is noticing when it explicitly states the error we continue to make as an organization. New workers are routinely assigned to sex abuse allegations, and it is not always clear they have the knowledge on how to approach the situation or interview appropriately. Even relatively seasoned case managers can find themselves at the mercy or whim of their supervisor on what or whether to speak to a child about, particularly when that child's parent will not allow them to be forensically interviewed. In my own work, I have immediately paused and probed for ways to address the allegations so as not to impede progress on the investigation later. That the process to become forensically interview certified, or even take the classes, is so diffuse seems to lend itself as to why these errors perpetuate.
The hallmark example of the ambiguity embedded in humanity is illustrated by the authors. They state that many children exhibit emotional and behavioral indicators from sexual abuse, and in the next line, state they also exhibit many of those indicators without sexual abuse, neither the absence or presence can be relied upon to determine definitively one way or another. What we do, and this is a daily occurrence, is allow our faulty inductive biases to dictate how far we are going to pursue a case. We have literally created case managers who create cases in service to their aggressive bias feeding. How would we address this more appropriately? Perhaps in bypassing the confirmation trap by being proactive and rehearsed in our skepticism we could allow the infinite sea of gray as it pertains to human behavior to coalesce around tendencies which beget safer environments. We pillory clients for their “thinking errors.”
A section on guilt makes me think of court. Judges want you to have remorse and can lighten sentences when they believe you. Here, we are told guilt is not enough to control or prevent re-offending. What comes after and how do you measure the potential? Surely society does not colloquially consider the child molester ever capable of rehabilitation, and then maybe this is why the section is so short.
The authors tell us about the factors that might help mitigate the fallout of sexual abuse. Being positive and supported by caregivers and receiving therapeutic or medical help at the time of the abuse or disclosure are direct tangible steps. Indiana seems in crisis to find therapists on it's best day, leave aside ones who can navigate sexual abuse. “CPS” or “DCS” have such dramatic and damming connotation in the minds of the population that the idea we might be supportive or positive is immediately squashed. That we react, often chaotically, all but assures we will never build the kind of supportive or therapeutic culture that intelligently deals with these issues. That we do not believe we should even try, or prepare those on the front line in a timely and deliberate manner, would be an unforgivable sin were it not so intimately human.
No comments:
Post a Comment