[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

collaboration be adversaries



<x-html>
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16809" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>State policy in child welfare makes much of the notion 
that solutions are found by means of collaboration between family and the agency 
and invokes the concept, widely stated (at least) in, say, systems involving 
children with special health care needs, special education, and so on that 
"parents are experts." Yet parallel to casework are the legal 
proceedings--deprivation adjudications, custody petitions, and so on. I'm sure 
different prosecutors (which, when you come down to it, is what they are) take 
different approaches to their work, but what certainly can happen is that as 
long as parents exercise their right to have their case heard in court they are 
subject to a difficult tearing-down process, in which the very person who most 
represents the agency in casework is also the person whose information is used 
as the weaponry (possibly with considerable sharpening efforts by the 
prosecutor). </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Any comments, study, papers, or anything else on this 
topic and how it impacts the concept of collaboration? Government publications 
do tend to focus on the fact that whatever the court outcome or other clear 
legal requirements for parents happens to be, those must be taken seriously--but 
shy away from the issue of how destructive that process can be, and what 
agencies can do to lessen the destructive impact. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>I was involved in a case in which the agency made the wise 
decision, after the parent prevailed in a TPR proceeding, to change caseworkers 
so the reunification ordered by the court could proceed without resentment. 
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Sheri McMahon</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

</x-html>