Answer

1. Social Work Practice: Case of Eric

   1. What is value conflict? Who is the conflict between?

   Value conflict refers to differing beliefs about what is good and right as compared to that which is bad and wrong. Value conflict emerges because of variation in beliefs between different people existing within the same social set up (Horne, 2018). In the case study involving Eric, significant value conflict exists between the current principal of Eric’s school head teacher and the social worker from the school. Ideally, the two disagree about the possible cause of action that may be used to help resolve Eric’s current health problem and wellbeing. The principle embodies the values of the school where he feels that he is not obliged to participate in any activity that could amount to jurisdiction over a parent who does not live within the state and is not committed to participating in his child’s wellbeing. On the other hand, the social worker feels that it is wrong for the parent to depict some level of neglect to his son and would like to address this through a court.

   2.  State the Preferred Conceptions of People for each of the parties

   The people involved in the case scenario have different conceptions. Primarily, Eric’s father does not want anything to do with the two boys from his first marriage as he only sends them money for food and clothing without caring where they live or about their health. The feeling is demonstrated when he does not care about the health problem of Eric after being called by the social worker. The principal’s central conception is to be guided by the provisions of the school regarding its jurisdiction. Therefore, he does not involve himself in other matters outside the school’s jurisdiction. Lastly, the social worker feels the urge to help. For instance, she asks the principle for a proper cause of action, calls Eric’s father and is even considering taking court action against Eric’s father.

   3.  State the Preferred Outcomes for People for each of the parties

   The people in the case study tend to prefer different outcomes. Primarily, the social worker hopes for an outcome where Eric will be safe and happy. This is seen in her determined efforts to ensure that Eric receives help. On the other hand, Eric’s father wants an outcome where he is not bothered by the two boys from his first marriage as depicted in his refusal to let them visit him where lives now. Lastly, the principal wants outcomes where the school does not involve in matters that are not within its jurisdiction, irrespective of the causing factor. For instance, despite Eric’s health and wellbeing issues, the principle is not willing to pursue a court process that could help the boy.

   4.  State the Preferred Instrumentalities for each of the parties

   The instrumentalities used by each party to achieve its preferred outcome various. Primarily, the social worker sees the court as the best instrumentality to help obtain help for Eric, as other means seems to be infective. Eric’s school principal uses the defined laws of the school on jurisdiction as an instrumentality to help him avoid engaging in Eric’s case. Eric’s father uses his first wife’s depressive condition as an instrumentality to avoid engaging further in efforts to restore Eric’s wellbeing. On the other hand, Eric’s principal instrumentality is his father. He wishes to see him and get his help as this might change the way things have been for him. Thus, when his efforts to get help from his father fails, he falls into depression.

   5.  If the parties are somewhat aligned in their desired outcome for the client, where did the conflict arise?

   The parties in the case all want the best outcome for Eric. However, as per Webb (2018), conflict arises in selecting the best approach to attain the desired outcome. In this regard, the preferred and available instrumentals for each party differs. For instance, conflict occurs between the school principal and the social worker because the principle is not willing to use the court approach to acquire help for Eric. On the other, the social worker sees this as the only available outcome.

   6.  What would you do, if you could, to resolve this conflict?

   The conflict in the case scenario arises because of Eric’s father’s failure to offer help or be concerned about the welfare of his first two children. Therefore, a proper resolution will only occur by making him responsible for his sons. As such, I would organize a meeting with him in the absence of the boys and negotiate. The negation will be aimed at having him set aside time to interact with the boys even if it does not involve them mixing with the two kids from his second marriage. I will explain to him the consequences of not participating in any wellbeing programs for his young sons, which will include court action and significant financial losses. However, if he refuses, I will have to peruse the court approach.

   7.  What questions remain for you in this case?

   The remaining inquiries from this case comprise whether the social worker has the jurisdiction to take Eric’s father to court as she is employed by a school without the same jurisdiction (Parker, 2017). Moreover, it remains a concern determining what would be the best setting for Eric at the moment, as he is not settled at home while he remains isolated at school. Lastly, the decision by the school principal not to participate in any further processes that could help Eric elicits concerns of whether he could be held responsible for any adverse outcomes on Eric’s safety and wellbeing.