Challenging work with involuntary families in
Polish periphery of excellence.
by Dariusz Baran
Introduction to systemic practice by Nick Child
At the beginning of my professional carrier as a family therapist in 1992 I came from Polish peripheries in Rzeszow to Scottish periphery of excellence in Motherwell. My meeting with the Child and Family Clinic Team in Motherwell was presented in CONTEXT 16. Nick Child acquainted me with the basic ideas of family work and systemic practice, which he summed up and published later in CONTEXT August 2010. ”Systemic practice is what we call adapting family therapy ideas to work in other mainstream helping professions – health, education, voluntary and social agencies. In these services , a rather wider range of clients and motivations and problems come through the door, than those that look like “families”, and than those ready, willing and able for “therapy”… Ordinary good systemic practice is build on basics and qualities like the humanity and maturity of workers, appointed be effective staff appointment processes, within a functional service, comfortable office and interview rooms, effective preparation for the work each day, worthwhile committees, supervision and management that sustain standards and morale, useful case conferences, team working, ordinary assertiveness balanced with friendly thoughtfulness for colleagues and clients, liaison, phoning (persistently where necessary), letter writing, and organizing diaries.”
Doing involuntary therapy by Jay Haley
During my visit to Edinburgh in 1992 I bought the book “Problem Solving Therapy” by Jay Haley , very expensive for a young Polish psychologist. I could hardly imagine how useful it would be 20 years afterwards. All the time I have been working at a mental health clinic for children, youth and adults, dealing with individual, marital and family problems. I became a qualified psychotherapist in Polish standards. However, I always thought about my professional identity as a systemic practitioner.
Usually I met with voluntary individuals and families. They came for psychological support because of pain, harm, distress, worry and discomfort labeled as a problem in individual or relational context. It was a pleasure to meet with people who acknowledged my expertise position looking for a solution of their problems. They wanted and agreed to be listened and “explored” in a counseling room. It was easy and satisfying. Sometimes parents and couples claimed to be sent by a school or court officer to therapy. Their offsprings presented conduct disorders or parents themselves were put under family court control. They were involuntary families. Who are involuntary families? Do they voluntary families really exist? Only therapy addicted individuals are in need to visit therapist with pleasure. All individuals and families I meet at the clinic are pushed by consequences of not being in ”therapy”, not getting help. All of them have made a choice of being interviewed in a therapy room. Only part of them believe that this is good for them.
Jay Haley describes the situation in synthetic way. “When a judge tells someone to go to therapy or suffer something worse, like going to jail, the therapist faces the difficult task of doing therapy with people who do not wish to be there and often are reluctant even to concede they have a problem. Such clients can look upon the therapist as an agent of the state and not on their side. (…) Although involuntary therapy seems an extreme and special case, it is a factor in many therapy situations. Often a family member is brought in reluctantly by other family therapy members, and for the particular person the therapy is compulsory and not voluntary. Besides situations where family members bring in other family members reluctantly, there are compulsory therapy situations that are not clearly defined that way, but still the family enters therapy to avoid something worse. There are not in the interview because they choose to be there but because someone else requires it.”
According to Haley’s suggestions I always tried to “change the therapy to a voluntary one in the sense that the clients realized they could resolve their problems and get out of such situations”. I tried to be on their side by listening and allowing them to express their feelings and views. Then I realised that they expected me to be their agent against oppressive institutions, not as an agent for change in a family. They were in right to get a therapy in public mental health service according to their needs, but I refused to put down any written confirmation to other agencies. I wanted to be sure they were in therapy for themselves. It failed. At the end it was only a certificate of attendance to therapy what mattered.
Jay Haley said: “When faced with reluctant clients, the therapist should not assume they are resistant or difficult people. Rather, it should be assumed they have not fully understood the situation. The attitude of the therapist should be a positive one: if the family just understand the benefits the therapist has to offer, they will be pleased to be there.” So I asked my clients what they were being told to do and/or what conditions must be met to get out of such situation and end up a family court control. They were just told to be in therapy. Not to be felling into a trap of certificate I wrote letters to family court officers inviting them to tell about their expectations and conditions.
Jay Haley’s suggested: “ If one knows in advance that the case is court-ordered, and if one has cooperation from court personnel, the best way to begin is to have a representative of the court at the first interview to describe the court requirements and the rules of probation. The presentation can last about fifteen minutes, and then the probation officer can leave. Several things are accomplished with this collaboration. The family often learns for the first time what the rules of probation actually are and what will happen if they are broken. The therapist also learns the facts of the actual legal situation. It is clear in this arrangement that court and therapist are collaborating and not fighting with each other, because probation officer and therapist are working together.” It was easy to say in America. I was usually in confusion that court personnel didn’t answer to my letters at all or could hardly explain what must be happened or done by family to end the control. The therapist should have known by himself what was socially normal and demanded. I felt disappointed. The only solution was to give up the contract. As a mental health professional, I didn’t have to do a therapy ordered by a family court. There were others ready to do it.
Once I agreed to work with a family without a court officer’s answer to my invitation letter. A father begged me almost on his knees to help them to accomplish their obligation of being in therapy. I resisted because a family court officer should determined the criteria of family assessment. No statement. The father was in desperation. I said yes and asked them to speak about good things in their family life. I met with parents and twelve years old daughter monthly. Their needs were explored and good behaviours were acknowledged by themselves. They seemed to become happier together. The girl flourished. Her talent in music was discovered and supported by parents. Sixteen months later a family court control was over. I never knew what was the reason for therapy. What for? I assumed that they were good enough parents to take care for their child if the therapy was ordered.
Jay Haley said: “Several things are accomplished with this collaboration. The family often learns for the first time what the rules of probation actually are and what will happen if they are broken. The therapist also learns the facts of the actual legal situation. It is clear in this arrangement that court and therapist are collaborating and not fighting with each other, because probation officer and therapist are working together. However, when the probation officer leaves, the therapist can join the family by discussing what a difficult situation “all of us” are facing. In that way the agent of the court has left the room, and the therapist is defined as the agent of the family in this problem situation.” It was easy to say about collaboration, but not easy to put into practice. I tried to ask family court officers how they would know it was time to end the control. What kind of change would they expect from family to trust them for future? Usually it was no violence, no maltreatment, no abuse, no fighting, no delinquency, no bad behaviour. That was a question how long to keep or not to keep control over a family. There was only one positive statement, till coming of age by children. So it turned out that I dealt with a family-institutional system in therapy. Family court officers didn’t recognized themselves as part of problem or/and solution. They had family repaired and waited for results. My task was to solve their problem. Maybe it was my personal problem in work with involuntary families on periphery of Poland. Maybe it was an oversea challenge how to cooperate between family therapy and social control. I became skeptic. How to overcome the split? A family court officers should have worked with families by themselves. Assessing the readiness for termination of social control should be sort out in therapy, not outside. As a family court is in charge, so one should do a family therapy by itself.
Working with involuntary families by Insoo Kim Berg
Later I came across with Insoo Kim Berg’s book “Family-Based Services – A Solution-Focused Approach” (1994). She presented a problem-solving approach in work with involuntary families within child welfare context. The goal must be to protect children through strengthening their families. Insoo Kim Berg believed that it was possible to “treat” mandated cases successfully when the worker sets her sights on clients’ strengths rather than on weaknesses, searches for exceptions to the problem, helps construct a different future through “miracle questions”, and set small and achievable goals. Family-Based Services provided therapy to the family as a collective unit (often made up of case manager, worker/therapist, and such support staff as the parent educator, homemaker, and so on), with the goal of preserving family unit while insuring the safety of each family member. The team was in charge in setting goals and making assessment of termination. Insoo Kim Berg commented that the roles of social control agent and treatment provider (healing, soothing, nurturing) often seemed to clash and conflict with each other. Each case they worked with called for a continuous balancing act between what is legally and ethically responsible. The primary worker should be treatment oriented as the “good cop”, while the secondary worker might be “bad cop” who enforces the control element of the law. Whether one takes an investigative or a treatment role, both activities go on continuously throughout contact with a family. Insoo Kim Berg contended that it was possible to do an investigation in a therapeutic manner and that treatment can also be investigative when working without team. I was still skeptical about the solution. In what way was it possible to overcome split between therapy and social control in the team? Maybe by being open and honest to themselves and families.
Multi-family therapy programme by Eia Asen
Then in 2004 I visited the Marlborough Family Service in London for two weeks. Downstairs in the clinic I discovered the Family Day Unit. It was inspiring to join Eia Asen and his team at multi-family work. Derek Taylor, Sue Fyvel and Philippe Mandin presented a day unit for families and multi-disciplinary assessment process in CONTEXT 66, April 2003. The families represented the very serious end of the child protection continuum, usually with co-existing abuse and neglect of children, educational failure, mental health issues, drug and alcohol dependence, and domestic violence. Most families had already been subject to some form of local authority community assessment. The possible result of three months multi-family programme was an assessment of parents’ ability to change, reported usually to social service or family court. How did it work? Was it possible at all to set up therapeutic contract, to build trustful and therapeutic relationship within social control context? The MFS Team took the bull by the horns. Some parents, carefully selected from children needs perspective, got a chance to re-start a good family life together. It was proved by research afterwards that it was worth trying.
I was impressed by specially designed video feedback sessions. The emphasis was on the parents’ ability to view themselves and discuss their observations with staff and one another. A question put by staff, inviting reflection and change was: “What changes would you make to your video if you had to present it to other members of the family?”. In ninth week of multi-family programme there was a time for feedback from staff. The therapeutic team: Derek, Helen, and Richard met together to record their comments about families on video. The next day, Eia Asen as a systemic consultant and parents reviewed the therapists’ comments in a consultation room while therapists observed the session behind the screen. Each parent could comment what was said on video by therapists. In first place the parents who were talked about in one’s turn. Eia Asen, as a systemic consultant, stayed in a neutral position encouraging to give feedback. They all together seemed to be a reflective team. Then I started to believe that there must be the way to overcome the gap between therapeutic standards and social control demands. At the end of programme there was always a dramatic question what the truth was about the ability of change in a family. To be or not to be passed as good enough parents and families. Not everybody was approved to take care for children again. Everybody could express their thoughts and opinions. The truth was constructed together.
An institutional clash in Polish periphery of excellence
In 2005 the Polish bill against domestic violence was passed. Local multidisciplinary teams were formed to trace persecutors and to help their victims in families. Many help professions were involved in multidisciplinary teams and met with dilemma to be a helper or to be a prosecutor. After years it appeared that over eight hundred children were taken away from families to children homes because of poverty, not maltreatment. Then in 2011 a new bill to support families was enacted. A new profession – family assistant was set up to help family members to overcome their problems. A family assistant was supposed to rescue several families alone. The new law executory proceedings were postpone of public financial crisis.
Occasionally I was asked to do family therapy ordered by family court. Children were separated from parents and put into a residential care because of intensive family conflicts, domestic violence, alcoholism, and risk of sexual abuse. Then I met with institutional chaos, who was responsible for what? Family court officers and social workers were supposed to control and help family members simultaneously. In children homes psychologists and pedagogists were employed. What was the difference between a children home and a boarding house? I couldn’t find a significant one. It appeared that many children were kept in youth psychiatric hospitals because of conduct disorders. When I tried to work with families being under social control it was impossible to know and discuss openly officers monthly reports about current situation. My empathy and therapeutic attitude to family was for nothing when goals and assessment criteria were located outside undiscussable. Then I started to write letters and opinions. I was free to clear my therapeutic position in social control context. It was possible to write some good news about a change in family. Bad news were delivered to the family directly. I was not responsible for social control and family assessment. Sometimes social workers and family court officers were pleased, sometimes disappointed. Some of them expected a family therapist to ease their work and responsibility. Once a father put down three pages detailed description of family interactions ended with a scrimmage between parents and a flood of childrens’ tears. The description was a very good visualization, like a video film. It was easy to talk about viscous circle in family interactions and splitting narrations they created. I appreciated father’s description as a good therapeutic tool. Meanwhile a family court officer found it as a prove of domestic violence. Nobody was hurt seriously. However, my therapeutic perspective based on positive connotation and circular way of thinking was incompatible to judging and linear way of thinking from social control perspective.
Rethinking of upbringing, help, intervention all together
All the time I had the Marlborough Family Service model before my very eyes. I could see all elements were very important. The structured therapeutic programme limited in time. The initial family and institutions case conference. The free therapeutic contract procedure. Multidisciplinary team work. Multi-family therapy approach. Family day unit – six hours of time to collect interactional materials in working on small possible changes. Empowerment and mutual parents support. Alive supervision and systemic consultations. Assessment of ability to change.
Following the Marlborough Family Service model and my own experience of overcoming misunderstandings and obstacles in work with involuntary families I looked for logic explanation all of it. There must be clear deference of meaning between “upbringing”, “help”, and “intervention”. According to Longman dictionary, “upbringing” means the way that parents care for children and teach them to behave when they are growing up. Parents are in leadership position to support and demand. “Help” is to make a situation better, easier, or less painful or to make it possible or easier for someone to do something by doing part of their work or by giving them something they need. Usually people ask for help by themselves. “Intervention” is the act of becoming involved in an argument, fight, or other difficult situation in order to change what happens. In common sense this action is intrusive, usually taken without or against somebody’s will. Even for good. The "Helping Professions" employed in family court, social service, community centers, schools, treatment facilities, and other agencies are usually motivated to help other people make changes in their lives. Sometimes they have so significant power over someone’s live and fate that they should have been called the “Intervening Professions”. The “upbringing” includes helping and intervening in the same time. Parent are responsible for taking care for children and setting safe boundaries to them. It is all possible to be effective in safe attachment context. Only emotional ties make demands acceptable and helpful.
by Dariusz Baran
Introduction to systemic practice by Nick Child
At the beginning of my professional carrier as a family therapist in 1992 I came from Polish peripheries in Rzeszow to Scottish periphery of excellence in Motherwell. My meeting with the Child and Family Clinic Team in Motherwell was presented in CONTEXT 16. Nick Child acquainted me with the basic ideas of family work and systemic practice, which he summed up and published later in CONTEXT August 2010. ”Systemic practice is what we call adapting family therapy ideas to work in other mainstream helping professions – health, education, voluntary and social agencies. In these services , a rather wider range of clients and motivations and problems come through the door, than those that look like “families”, and than those ready, willing and able for “therapy”… Ordinary good systemic practice is build on basics and qualities like the humanity and maturity of workers, appointed be effective staff appointment processes, within a functional service, comfortable office and interview rooms, effective preparation for the work each day, worthwhile committees, supervision and management that sustain standards and morale, useful case conferences, team working, ordinary assertiveness balanced with friendly thoughtfulness for colleagues and clients, liaison, phoning (persistently where necessary), letter writing, and organizing diaries.”
Doing involuntary therapy by Jay Haley
During my visit to Edinburgh in 1992 I bought the book “Problem Solving Therapy” by Jay Haley , very expensive for a young Polish psychologist. I could hardly imagine how useful it would be 20 years afterwards. All the time I have been working at a mental health clinic for children, youth and adults, dealing with individual, marital and family problems. I became a qualified psychotherapist in Polish standards. However, I always thought about my professional identity as a systemic practitioner.
Usually I met with voluntary individuals and families. They came for psychological support because of pain, harm, distress, worry and discomfort labeled as a problem in individual or relational context. It was a pleasure to meet with people who acknowledged my expertise position looking for a solution of their problems. They wanted and agreed to be listened and “explored” in a counseling room. It was easy and satisfying. Sometimes parents and couples claimed to be sent by a school or court officer to therapy. Their offsprings presented conduct disorders or parents themselves were put under family court control. They were involuntary families. Who are involuntary families? Do they voluntary families really exist? Only therapy addicted individuals are in need to visit therapist with pleasure. All individuals and families I meet at the clinic are pushed by consequences of not being in ”therapy”, not getting help. All of them have made a choice of being interviewed in a therapy room. Only part of them believe that this is good for them.
Jay Haley describes the situation in synthetic way. “When a judge tells someone to go to therapy or suffer something worse, like going to jail, the therapist faces the difficult task of doing therapy with people who do not wish to be there and often are reluctant even to concede they have a problem. Such clients can look upon the therapist as an agent of the state and not on their side. (…) Although involuntary therapy seems an extreme and special case, it is a factor in many therapy situations. Often a family member is brought in reluctantly by other family therapy members, and for the particular person the therapy is compulsory and not voluntary. Besides situations where family members bring in other family members reluctantly, there are compulsory therapy situations that are not clearly defined that way, but still the family enters therapy to avoid something worse. There are not in the interview because they choose to be there but because someone else requires it.”
According to Haley’s suggestions I always tried to “change the therapy to a voluntary one in the sense that the clients realized they could resolve their problems and get out of such situations”. I tried to be on their side by listening and allowing them to express their feelings and views. Then I realised that they expected me to be their agent against oppressive institutions, not as an agent for change in a family. They were in right to get a therapy in public mental health service according to their needs, but I refused to put down any written confirmation to other agencies. I wanted to be sure they were in therapy for themselves. It failed. At the end it was only a certificate of attendance to therapy what mattered.
Jay Haley said: “When faced with reluctant clients, the therapist should not assume they are resistant or difficult people. Rather, it should be assumed they have not fully understood the situation. The attitude of the therapist should be a positive one: if the family just understand the benefits the therapist has to offer, they will be pleased to be there.” So I asked my clients what they were being told to do and/or what conditions must be met to get out of such situation and end up a family court control. They were just told to be in therapy. Not to be felling into a trap of certificate I wrote letters to family court officers inviting them to tell about their expectations and conditions.
Jay Haley’s suggested: “ If one knows in advance that the case is court-ordered, and if one has cooperation from court personnel, the best way to begin is to have a representative of the court at the first interview to describe the court requirements and the rules of probation. The presentation can last about fifteen minutes, and then the probation officer can leave. Several things are accomplished with this collaboration. The family often learns for the first time what the rules of probation actually are and what will happen if they are broken. The therapist also learns the facts of the actual legal situation. It is clear in this arrangement that court and therapist are collaborating and not fighting with each other, because probation officer and therapist are working together.” It was easy to say in America. I was usually in confusion that court personnel didn’t answer to my letters at all or could hardly explain what must be happened or done by family to end the control. The therapist should have known by himself what was socially normal and demanded. I felt disappointed. The only solution was to give up the contract. As a mental health professional, I didn’t have to do a therapy ordered by a family court. There were others ready to do it.
Once I agreed to work with a family without a court officer’s answer to my invitation letter. A father begged me almost on his knees to help them to accomplish their obligation of being in therapy. I resisted because a family court officer should determined the criteria of family assessment. No statement. The father was in desperation. I said yes and asked them to speak about good things in their family life. I met with parents and twelve years old daughter monthly. Their needs were explored and good behaviours were acknowledged by themselves. They seemed to become happier together. The girl flourished. Her talent in music was discovered and supported by parents. Sixteen months later a family court control was over. I never knew what was the reason for therapy. What for? I assumed that they were good enough parents to take care for their child if the therapy was ordered.
Jay Haley said: “Several things are accomplished with this collaboration. The family often learns for the first time what the rules of probation actually are and what will happen if they are broken. The therapist also learns the facts of the actual legal situation. It is clear in this arrangement that court and therapist are collaborating and not fighting with each other, because probation officer and therapist are working together. However, when the probation officer leaves, the therapist can join the family by discussing what a difficult situation “all of us” are facing. In that way the agent of the court has left the room, and the therapist is defined as the agent of the family in this problem situation.” It was easy to say about collaboration, but not easy to put into practice. I tried to ask family court officers how they would know it was time to end the control. What kind of change would they expect from family to trust them for future? Usually it was no violence, no maltreatment, no abuse, no fighting, no delinquency, no bad behaviour. That was a question how long to keep or not to keep control over a family. There was only one positive statement, till coming of age by children. So it turned out that I dealt with a family-institutional system in therapy. Family court officers didn’t recognized themselves as part of problem or/and solution. They had family repaired and waited for results. My task was to solve their problem. Maybe it was my personal problem in work with involuntary families on periphery of Poland. Maybe it was an oversea challenge how to cooperate between family therapy and social control. I became skeptic. How to overcome the split? A family court officers should have worked with families by themselves. Assessing the readiness for termination of social control should be sort out in therapy, not outside. As a family court is in charge, so one should do a family therapy by itself.
Working with involuntary families by Insoo Kim Berg
Later I came across with Insoo Kim Berg’s book “Family-Based Services – A Solution-Focused Approach” (1994). She presented a problem-solving approach in work with involuntary families within child welfare context. The goal must be to protect children through strengthening their families. Insoo Kim Berg believed that it was possible to “treat” mandated cases successfully when the worker sets her sights on clients’ strengths rather than on weaknesses, searches for exceptions to the problem, helps construct a different future through “miracle questions”, and set small and achievable goals. Family-Based Services provided therapy to the family as a collective unit (often made up of case manager, worker/therapist, and such support staff as the parent educator, homemaker, and so on), with the goal of preserving family unit while insuring the safety of each family member. The team was in charge in setting goals and making assessment of termination. Insoo Kim Berg commented that the roles of social control agent and treatment provider (healing, soothing, nurturing) often seemed to clash and conflict with each other. Each case they worked with called for a continuous balancing act between what is legally and ethically responsible. The primary worker should be treatment oriented as the “good cop”, while the secondary worker might be “bad cop” who enforces the control element of the law. Whether one takes an investigative or a treatment role, both activities go on continuously throughout contact with a family. Insoo Kim Berg contended that it was possible to do an investigation in a therapeutic manner and that treatment can also be investigative when working without team. I was still skeptical about the solution. In what way was it possible to overcome split between therapy and social control in the team? Maybe by being open and honest to themselves and families.
Multi-family therapy programme by Eia Asen
Then in 2004 I visited the Marlborough Family Service in London for two weeks. Downstairs in the clinic I discovered the Family Day Unit. It was inspiring to join Eia Asen and his team at multi-family work. Derek Taylor, Sue Fyvel and Philippe Mandin presented a day unit for families and multi-disciplinary assessment process in CONTEXT 66, April 2003. The families represented the very serious end of the child protection continuum, usually with co-existing abuse and neglect of children, educational failure, mental health issues, drug and alcohol dependence, and domestic violence. Most families had already been subject to some form of local authority community assessment. The possible result of three months multi-family programme was an assessment of parents’ ability to change, reported usually to social service or family court. How did it work? Was it possible at all to set up therapeutic contract, to build trustful and therapeutic relationship within social control context? The MFS Team took the bull by the horns. Some parents, carefully selected from children needs perspective, got a chance to re-start a good family life together. It was proved by research afterwards that it was worth trying.
I was impressed by specially designed video feedback sessions. The emphasis was on the parents’ ability to view themselves and discuss their observations with staff and one another. A question put by staff, inviting reflection and change was: “What changes would you make to your video if you had to present it to other members of the family?”. In ninth week of multi-family programme there was a time for feedback from staff. The therapeutic team: Derek, Helen, and Richard met together to record their comments about families on video. The next day, Eia Asen as a systemic consultant and parents reviewed the therapists’ comments in a consultation room while therapists observed the session behind the screen. Each parent could comment what was said on video by therapists. In first place the parents who were talked about in one’s turn. Eia Asen, as a systemic consultant, stayed in a neutral position encouraging to give feedback. They all together seemed to be a reflective team. Then I started to believe that there must be the way to overcome the gap between therapeutic standards and social control demands. At the end of programme there was always a dramatic question what the truth was about the ability of change in a family. To be or not to be passed as good enough parents and families. Not everybody was approved to take care for children again. Everybody could express their thoughts and opinions. The truth was constructed together.
An institutional clash in Polish periphery of excellence
In 2005 the Polish bill against domestic violence was passed. Local multidisciplinary teams were formed to trace persecutors and to help their victims in families. Many help professions were involved in multidisciplinary teams and met with dilemma to be a helper or to be a prosecutor. After years it appeared that over eight hundred children were taken away from families to children homes because of poverty, not maltreatment. Then in 2011 a new bill to support families was enacted. A new profession – family assistant was set up to help family members to overcome their problems. A family assistant was supposed to rescue several families alone. The new law executory proceedings were postpone of public financial crisis.
Occasionally I was asked to do family therapy ordered by family court. Children were separated from parents and put into a residential care because of intensive family conflicts, domestic violence, alcoholism, and risk of sexual abuse. Then I met with institutional chaos, who was responsible for what? Family court officers and social workers were supposed to control and help family members simultaneously. In children homes psychologists and pedagogists were employed. What was the difference between a children home and a boarding house? I couldn’t find a significant one. It appeared that many children were kept in youth psychiatric hospitals because of conduct disorders. When I tried to work with families being under social control it was impossible to know and discuss openly officers monthly reports about current situation. My empathy and therapeutic attitude to family was for nothing when goals and assessment criteria were located outside undiscussable. Then I started to write letters and opinions. I was free to clear my therapeutic position in social control context. It was possible to write some good news about a change in family. Bad news were delivered to the family directly. I was not responsible for social control and family assessment. Sometimes social workers and family court officers were pleased, sometimes disappointed. Some of them expected a family therapist to ease their work and responsibility. Once a father put down three pages detailed description of family interactions ended with a scrimmage between parents and a flood of childrens’ tears. The description was a very good visualization, like a video film. It was easy to talk about viscous circle in family interactions and splitting narrations they created. I appreciated father’s description as a good therapeutic tool. Meanwhile a family court officer found it as a prove of domestic violence. Nobody was hurt seriously. However, my therapeutic perspective based on positive connotation and circular way of thinking was incompatible to judging and linear way of thinking from social control perspective.
Rethinking of upbringing, help, intervention all together
All the time I had the Marlborough Family Service model before my very eyes. I could see all elements were very important. The structured therapeutic programme limited in time. The initial family and institutions case conference. The free therapeutic contract procedure. Multidisciplinary team work. Multi-family therapy approach. Family day unit – six hours of time to collect interactional materials in working on small possible changes. Empowerment and mutual parents support. Alive supervision and systemic consultations. Assessment of ability to change.
Following the Marlborough Family Service model and my own experience of overcoming misunderstandings and obstacles in work with involuntary families I looked for logic explanation all of it. There must be clear deference of meaning between “upbringing”, “help”, and “intervention”. According to Longman dictionary, “upbringing” means the way that parents care for children and teach them to behave when they are growing up. Parents are in leadership position to support and demand. “Help” is to make a situation better, easier, or less painful or to make it possible or easier for someone to do something by doing part of their work or by giving them something they need. Usually people ask for help by themselves. “Intervention” is the act of becoming involved in an argument, fight, or other difficult situation in order to change what happens. In common sense this action is intrusive, usually taken without or against somebody’s will. Even for good. The "Helping Professions" employed in family court, social service, community centers, schools, treatment facilities, and other agencies are usually motivated to help other people make changes in their lives. Sometimes they have so significant power over someone’s live and fate that they should have been called the “Intervening Professions”. The “upbringing” includes helping and intervening in the same time. Parent are responsible for taking care for children and setting safe boundaries to them. It is all possible to be effective in safe attachment context. Only emotional ties make demands acceptable and helpful.
So I developed a personalistic-systemic model
of family work. There is a upbringing system – the social system where children
are bringing up naturally. It includes parents, family, relatives, school,
foster-families etc. There is a help system including professionals asked by
parents and families to help. Helping workers are supposed to think in a
positive way about families and people to be helped. Other ways it would be a
manipulation. There is an intervention system created by professionals who
decide by their own to involve and change situation. Intervening workers are
supposed to detect all negative events and risks. They have to be distrustful
and investigative. The truth about children and family well-being is contracted
in conversation between three systems. They all need a neutral consultant in
systemic position to establish conditions for a family-institutional dialogue,
a multilog. A family court belongs to an intervention system, as a court order
is always arbitral. A systemic consultant is responsible for a
meta-communication in the whole process. Personalistic approach is related to
human being freedom and dignity. The category of self-determination and approval of being helped is crucial.
Bibliography
Eia Asen, Promoting change or collusion?, CONTEXT April 2003
Dariusz Baran, From Periphery to Peripheries of Excellence, CONTEXT Autumn 1993
Insoo Kim Berg, Family-Based Services – A Solution-Focused Approach”, 1994
Nick Child, The potential of systemic practice: A huge army of great workers, CONTEXT August 2010
Jay Haley , Problem Solving Therapy , San Francisco, Oxford 1991
Sue Fyvel & Philippe Mandin, The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, CONTEXT April 2003
Derek Taylor, In a day unit for families, CONTEXT April 2003
Bibliography
Eia Asen, Promoting change or collusion?, CONTEXT April 2003
Dariusz Baran, From Periphery to Peripheries of Excellence, CONTEXT Autumn 1993
Insoo Kim Berg, Family-Based Services – A Solution-Focused Approach”, 1994
Nick Child, The potential of systemic practice: A huge army of great workers, CONTEXT August 2010
Jay Haley , Problem Solving Therapy , San Francisco, Oxford 1991
Sue Fyvel & Philippe Mandin, The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, CONTEXT April 2003
Derek Taylor, In a day unit for families, CONTEXT April 2003