... include watching several selected television programs, mostly on Netflix. Right now it is Mad Men and Kids in the Hall ("I'm crushing your head!"). Earlier it was Dexter and Breaking Bad.
I love to read, mostly novels (it's about the escapism, of course), but also non-fiction, in the form of parenting books, cook books, books on social justice and environmentalism and mental health. I explore the internet, mostly facebook, but also the Oatmeal.
I'm loving everything to do with shame researcher Brene Brown these days, including her new book, Daring Greatly, her blog, the TED talk, and Oprah (part 1 and 2).
I go for walks. I am so happy it is spring. I used to garden (but now I'm in an apartment, so I have a window box). In the winter, I take a lot of baths.
I sit with my children and I am interested in what they are doing. Even if it is mine craft and video games and fart jokes. They are a delight and I am so grateful, even when they are cheeky (my stepson is quite funny, how can one get mad?) or sulky (my son reminds me, painfully, of myself at that hormonal age. How can one not become disregulated?!)
I try to laugh. I talk to my friends. I stay up too late, numbing my feelings of anxiety with tv and internet and chocolate and chips. I volunteer, at the crisis line and with a youth organization. I visit my parents.
I suffer from seasonal depressive symptoms, but not to the point that I've ever sought a diagnosis. I manage. It's hard, though, and I fight with my husband and I feel despair.
I am trying to learn to practice gratitude and love and hope. I am learning that these are not feelings, they are more than that. They are daily investments of intention.
I breathe with utmost attention and care. Deep, cleansing breaths. Yoga breaths.
I meditate.
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Saturday, April 6, 2013
Why child protection? (a two part post)
I read Ron Unruh's blog, GPS, a lot. Ron has taken on an advocacy role for two different families who have been involved with the Ministry of Children and Family Development, two families whose children were removed from their parent's care. Ron believes both these removals were unjustified. Ron's writing and criticism has always seemed very balanced to me. However, many of the community of commenters has been extremely negative about MCFD, often vilifying social workers, calling them evil, or monsters. Some feel that ALL child protection involvement is unwarranted.
I first discovered Ron's blog while completing the last academic semester of my Bachelor of Social Work. I had chosen a child protection specialization, rather than the generalist option. This meant that my last semester would be spend in a practicum with MCFD, vs. a practicum in a hospital setting, or with an advocacy group. At the time, I had very little direct knowledge about the work MCFD did with families, and I was horrified to read the comments on his posts. I agreed that child protection workers seemed to have too much authority over parents and children.
I began reading and commenting; many posts were by or about Ray Ferris, who was also an advocate for the family that Ron was writing about at that time. Ray resides in Victoria, and was a social worker in BC for many years. Ray also wrote a book about child protection, which I now own. Ray visited his family over Christmas, and invited me to meet him. Through my correspondence with Ray, I regained my confidence in my career choice as something that was both necessary and often in childrens' best interests. I again felt that this could be a meaningful job.
I did my 4 month practicum, applied for a job, and was hired to work on the same team. I did 3 weeks of training at the Justice Institute, and was given a caseload and 'partial delegation'. This means I had the authority to operate under certain sections of the Child, Family and Community Services Act (CFCSA), but I required the supervision of an experienced, 'fully delegated' social worker to conduct investigations of child protection concerns (as defined by section 13 of the CFCSA), to remove a child from his/her parent(s) care, or to apply for a supervision order without removal. It took me a year to become a fully delegated child protection worker. The longer I worked for MCFD, and the longer I operated under the CFCSA in Family Court, the more I realized how little authority I really have over children and families. The child protection concerns listed in S.13 are actually very narrow, when we compare them to the conditions for optimal child development.
For example, lack of school attendance is not a child protection concern, but schools make reports about this concern ongoingly. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states children have the right to go to school, but school attendance is an issue of the School Act, although it is very vaguely worded, and there is no longer truancy enforcement in BC. When I get reports like this, my role is to contact the child's guardian and offer support services. This is not compulsory, and the family is free to tell me "no thank you."
Another example is "emotional abuse". Although this IS a S.13 concern, child protection social workers almost never use this in court. This is because the courts' operational definition of emotional abuse requires a clinician to corroborate that there is a mental heath condition that is due to mom or dad's parenting. Child protection workers just don't have the qualifications to make that determination - we cannot diagnose a child as having an anxiety disorder, etc.
It's not good to yell at your kids all the time (although sometimes it IS good, according to the parenting book I'm currently reading). This, however, is not a child protection concern.
Poverty is also not a child protection concern - if a family doesn't have enough food or is homeless (either couch surfing or living in a shelter), I'm not going to go and remove those kids, it's not justified unless I also have the authority to provide the family with the financial means to address the concerns. One time, I was planning a gradual return of children to their parents' care. The foster parent was horrified that the family didn't have beds for the kids to sleep in during the visits. I asked my boss if this was required before I could authorize more overnight visits. She informed me that MCFD was not the "poverty police," and she could approve a return even if they were sleeping on the floor. So we creatively problem-solved to find community resources to help the family get what they needed, furniture-wise.
Without clear child protection concerns, social workers like me do not have the authority to insist a parent accept our interventions. However, our voluntary services also leave a lot to be desired. Most services have been farmed out to community services agencies for decades. If a parent wants to voluntarily place a child in Ministry care, there are many hoops to jump through, including first exhausting community resources and then exploring maintenance agreements.
Parenting programs also leave a lot to be desired. A friend of mine from university went on to complete her Master of Social Work; her major paper was an evaluation of various parenting programs available in North America and her conclusion was that the options were grim.
In considering all of the above, the title question is an ongoing issue for me. Why do I continue to choose this career? The immediate (flip) response is the pension, the Union, the benefits (I LOVE my flex days), the option of financial support to complete a Masters' degree. However, there are other great jobs out there for social workers that provide direct client contact as a voluntary service (clients aren't forced to accept services). My sister works for Covenant House, and keeps trying to get me to submit a resume; she says their benefits are just as great as working for the Public Service Agency.
There is something about this work that continues to inspire me, and keeps me from quitting, despite the workload, the angry clients, the long waitlists for services. One supervisor I know has likened working for the government to an abusive relationship; we feel mistreated, but we keep coming back for more. Why is this? What are we getting out of this job? Is there something more than the financial rewards (I certainly don't make as much money as I thought I would!) and the benefits?
The short answer is yes. There is more to child protection than a good job, a government job, a union job. This job is meaningful to me; it satisfies my desire to work for social justice.
The long answer will come later :)
I first discovered Ron's blog while completing the last academic semester of my Bachelor of Social Work. I had chosen a child protection specialization, rather than the generalist option. This meant that my last semester would be spend in a practicum with MCFD, vs. a practicum in a hospital setting, or with an advocacy group. At the time, I had very little direct knowledge about the work MCFD did with families, and I was horrified to read the comments on his posts. I agreed that child protection workers seemed to have too much authority over parents and children.
I began reading and commenting; many posts were by or about Ray Ferris, who was also an advocate for the family that Ron was writing about at that time. Ray resides in Victoria, and was a social worker in BC for many years. Ray also wrote a book about child protection, which I now own. Ray visited his family over Christmas, and invited me to meet him. Through my correspondence with Ray, I regained my confidence in my career choice as something that was both necessary and often in childrens' best interests. I again felt that this could be a meaningful job.
I did my 4 month practicum, applied for a job, and was hired to work on the same team. I did 3 weeks of training at the Justice Institute, and was given a caseload and 'partial delegation'. This means I had the authority to operate under certain sections of the Child, Family and Community Services Act (CFCSA), but I required the supervision of an experienced, 'fully delegated' social worker to conduct investigations of child protection concerns (as defined by section 13 of the CFCSA), to remove a child from his/her parent(s) care, or to apply for a supervision order without removal. It took me a year to become a fully delegated child protection worker. The longer I worked for MCFD, and the longer I operated under the CFCSA in Family Court, the more I realized how little authority I really have over children and families. The child protection concerns listed in S.13 are actually very narrow, when we compare them to the conditions for optimal child development.
For example, lack of school attendance is not a child protection concern, but schools make reports about this concern ongoingly. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states children have the right to go to school, but school attendance is an issue of the School Act, although it is very vaguely worded, and there is no longer truancy enforcement in BC. When I get reports like this, my role is to contact the child's guardian and offer support services. This is not compulsory, and the family is free to tell me "no thank you."
Another example is "emotional abuse". Although this IS a S.13 concern, child protection social workers almost never use this in court. This is because the courts' operational definition of emotional abuse requires a clinician to corroborate that there is a mental heath condition that is due to mom or dad's parenting. Child protection workers just don't have the qualifications to make that determination - we cannot diagnose a child as having an anxiety disorder, etc.
It's not good to yell at your kids all the time (although sometimes it IS good, according to the parenting book I'm currently reading). This, however, is not a child protection concern.
Poverty is also not a child protection concern - if a family doesn't have enough food or is homeless (either couch surfing or living in a shelter), I'm not going to go and remove those kids, it's not justified unless I also have the authority to provide the family with the financial means to address the concerns. One time, I was planning a gradual return of children to their parents' care. The foster parent was horrified that the family didn't have beds for the kids to sleep in during the visits. I asked my boss if this was required before I could authorize more overnight visits. She informed me that MCFD was not the "poverty police," and she could approve a return even if they were sleeping on the floor. So we creatively problem-solved to find community resources to help the family get what they needed, furniture-wise.
Without clear child protection concerns, social workers like me do not have the authority to insist a parent accept our interventions. However, our voluntary services also leave a lot to be desired. Most services have been farmed out to community services agencies for decades. If a parent wants to voluntarily place a child in Ministry care, there are many hoops to jump through, including first exhausting community resources and then exploring maintenance agreements.
Parenting programs also leave a lot to be desired. A friend of mine from university went on to complete her Master of Social Work; her major paper was an evaluation of various parenting programs available in North America and her conclusion was that the options were grim.
In considering all of the above, the title question is an ongoing issue for me. Why do I continue to choose this career? The immediate (flip) response is the pension, the Union, the benefits (I LOVE my flex days), the option of financial support to complete a Masters' degree. However, there are other great jobs out there for social workers that provide direct client contact as a voluntary service (clients aren't forced to accept services). My sister works for Covenant House, and keeps trying to get me to submit a resume; she says their benefits are just as great as working for the Public Service Agency.
There is something about this work that continues to inspire me, and keeps me from quitting, despite the workload, the angry clients, the long waitlists for services. One supervisor I know has likened working for the government to an abusive relationship; we feel mistreated, but we keep coming back for more. Why is this? What are we getting out of this job? Is there something more than the financial rewards (I certainly don't make as much money as I thought I would!) and the benefits?
The short answer is yes. There is more to child protection than a good job, a government job, a union job. This job is meaningful to me; it satisfies my desire to work for social justice.
The long answer will come later :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)