Answer

Ethical Decision Making

The decision concerning right and wrong infiltrate our daily lives. Ethics need to relate to all stages of life: behaving appropriately, building responsible societies and administrations, and making culture completely more moral. Ethical choices can best be defined as a procedure of sensible investigation geared on finding a solution of an ethical dilemma (Corey, Corey, Corey, & Callanan, 2019). There are diverse ethical decision frameworks that provide systematic directions for a confusing dilemma. This paper offers a scenario of the dilemma in Mary’s family on making ethical decisions on either self-determination or the safety of her children. It identifies that right choices or wrong ones can be challenging, and might be linked to distinct perspective. It first offers the family scenario and summary of the main bases for moral thinking and then give a context for decision-making.

The current event involves Mary (aged 30), who has three children. She is subjected to spousal violence. She contemplated divorce several times but it never happened. Mary has faced spousal violence and contemplated suicide several times from last year. She keeps telling her children that she wants to die with them because she does not want to leave them with their alcoholic, abusive father. Her firstborn child, Jane, shared this with the Full Time School Counsellor (FTSC). Mary has sought help from the Child Protection Service (CPS) and after she was discharged, she got back her children. CPS discussed with Mary their worries and researched safety strategies for the three children. Mary suggested that she wants to move out with her the children, as she wants to divorce her husband, Mr. Ken, who is a drug addict. She also decided to carry on with the treatment for depression. After three months, Jane reached FTSC, gave more evidence, and requested them not to share the information with the Child Protection Officer (CPO) or her mother (Mary). This is because Mary had warned Jane that in case CPO realize the information she shared, they would take them to foster care. FTSC shared the evidence with CPO to support Mary. When CPO approached Mary concerning the shared information, she denied it and did not want to meet the children. She wanted to know the source of the information. She concluded that someone wanted to destroy her family and CPO does not believe her, but they are only concerned about her children. Due to this, Mary decided that she wants to close the case and the CPO should stop investigating her situation.

In abiding by the responsibility of care to clients, more in the following case are categorized as susceptible family members such as children, individuals with psychological conditions (National Organization for Human Services (NOHS), n.d.). In my understanding, I do not see any breach of confidentiality amid FTSC and Jane because FTSC had shared justification with Jane. For the CPO, the kids’ well-being would continually be the main concern, even though in this situation, it was evident that the mother perhaps required more help and care. Jane’s involvement; nevertheless, not recognized, recommended actions of great threats (vulnerability to drug use and family violence). Concerning the information she shared, it was evident that Mary is not a protective mother. In such circumstances, the need for protection overshadows the demand to maintain helpful association with Mary. On the contrary, a main worry is Mary’s high suicide threat and the risk of killing her children. It would be meaningful to show how she replied when children were detached from her care earlier, for instance, how she overcame that process and how she handled the situation.

Jane reported that they do not socialize appropriately to foster care. She also showed help-seeking conducts such as reaching FTSC for assistance. Child safety is vital; nevertheless, constancy to home setting is also important. Possibly family separation is not essential at this time, but cooperating with Mary on control ideas and discovering the institution of more caring elements in the family structure to care for the children (Leung & Cohen, 2011). Even though the mother is under medication, CPO can involve her in a child-focused discussion with the purpose of increasing her caring nature as a mother, which was demonstrated in her intention of dying with the kids. 

Ethical Concern

Confidentiality verses Safety

The FTSC had clarified to Jane the necessity of breaching confidentiality as her life was in danger. Similarly, the CPO should talk to Jane and clarify why she required breaching confidentiality, which is to defend her life and guarantee Jane that her name was not mentioned. This will encourage a positive working association with grownups for Jane and assist her build self-confidence.

Human service specialists endorse and inspire the exclusive values and features of human services. In attaining this, human service specialists support the honesty and beliefs of the work, indorse client and public happiness, and improve their professional development (NOHS, (n.d.). The major standards of the human services occupation comprise valuing the self-respect and wellbeing of everyone; encouraging self-drive; honoring ethnic diversity; encouraging for social justice; and acting with honesty, authenticity and fairness. In practicing with honesty, CPO must be open with Mary and notify her that it is impossible to close the case.

To protect client’s self-determination, CPO can state that for the caregiver to close down the case immediately, she needs to cooperate with an FSC on her interpersonal-emotion problems (NOHS, n. d). CPO must show Mary that cooperating with the FSC; the CPO would not be contact with her and would be updated by the FSC instead. As a professional, I would advise Mary that attaining these objectives would be a healthier suggestion of the option of terminating her case. This would assist her distinguish what she is required to do to close down the case. In case she agrees to cooperate with FSC, I would get her informed agreement and establish a recommendation to the FSC of her decision.

Concurrently, understanding that the children had faced neglect, were abused and never got along in foster care, I will refer them to a Child Counsellor (CC) or specialists to cover the emotional influence of being child abuse targets. This manner, with an expert cooperating with the families, as the professional I will certify that in extents where I am not skillfully knowledgeable, somebody who is proficient in the field is competent to discourse the desires of the children (NOHS, n.d.). Desires of the children must not be overlooked since they are part of the family structure and have the honor to satisfying their wants as well.

When the interagency team are engaged in the matter, I would call for an interdepartmental support consultation to resolve the responsibilities of every member of the group. In this manner, members will be on the same page as to their responsibilities and their requirements of the household. It also permits associates to offer ideas on extents that every member can improve (Corey et al., 2019). Furthermore, a cooperative trust, for example, CC and FSC can collaborate to have a joint-child parental meeting; can be discoursed for future meetings. Mary’s circumstance can be closed down after every members of the team agrees and assured that the family can move on without caseworkers.

In interpretation of the case, there is no instant requirement for the kids to be isolated from Mary’s care. Nonetheless, thorough work must be done to assist Mary gain understanding into where my worry is coming from and to endow and intensify her capacity to operate in the best concern of the children. This care plan would require to be strictly supervised and constant valuation be directed to control if Jane and her siblings’ well-being and other care demands are being sufficiently handled by Mary. An elimination may be looked at should there be an increase of danger or anxieties on their safety.