Reunification Therapy Case Study

Living with her mother; however her mother asked her to leave the premises. Case Manager asked client, why her mother asked her to leave. Client stated that they got into an argument. Client stated that they have been arguing on a daily basis. Client stated that she doesn’t want to raise her child in that environment. Client stated that she has being living with her mother all her life.

CPSW did a home visit to meet with Ms. Berner and to discuss about her safety plan since the children are moving with her on10/29/16 from the foster provider. Ms. Berner was late for her appointment and CPSW waited a 40 minutes for Ms. Berner. Ms. Berner apologized for being late. CPSW explained Ms. About safety plan. Ms. Berner understood and she signed them. Ms. Berner stated that she will be doing a house arrest for two weeks and the recommendation of her criminal court is to obey law and continue taking her medication on time and seeing her therapist. Also, cooperating with her PO and CPSW. CPSW consulted with the supervisor and she has approved both children to move back with Ms. Berner. Goal 1-2

He reports the patient’s roommate was subsequently evicted from his home after the landlord inquired about the ambulance visiting. He reports he contacted her father concerning the patient residing within the family home, but the father has said no. In addition, he reports he has attempted to contact her uncle but has been unable to make contact with him. He reports he has attempted to make contact with her said friend who is considering allowing her the opportunity to reside with her but she has not answered her phone and he has been unable to leave a voice message. He reports no one wants her in their home, and the patient has “burned her bridges” with family members. He reports her family would benefit from counseling. In addition, he reports her family has high expectations of CPS. He reports her current case was not going to close within 12 days of 06/30/2017. In addition, the case will not

The intervention that was implemented was the invitation for the father to participate in the therapeutic sessions with his son and ex-wife. I explained the client’s recent behavior and the subsequent admittance to my agency. I clarified that the client’s behavior worsens after their divorce which is evidenced by the increased disciplinary infractions he received at school. The client also became more combatant and argumentative with his mother and siblings as reported by them. I proposed the idea of meeting for a family therapy session to uncover the cognitive reasons behind the

The respondent is very unreasonable and combative. See EXHIBIT 4, text messages at 6:32 p.m. on 12/6/16, in a simply communication by respondent to petitioner and the children, she explains to petitioner "…you might have to get the kids…" the petitioner inquires as to "…why can't you…" pick up the kids, she begins with arguing by stating "Since your dad is making a big deal…". This is her common reaction to things. Our son Ryan replies with "No one is making a big deal" and "He was just asking a question". See EXHIBIT 5, a string of emails on 11/4/16, 11/17/16 and 11/30/16 to respondent's attorney asking for responses to requests for repsondent's Employee Plan Information, Joinder, Preliminary Declaration of Disclosures, proposed "Parenting

Social Service Meeting: On 10/25/2016 Ms. Williams met with assigned Case Manager for the family weekly ILP Document Review. Ms. Williams’ next ILP Document Review appointment is on 11/01/2016. Ms. Williams is in-compliance with the terms of her ILP. Case Manager asked Ms. Williams if she has any issues or concerns that she would like to discuss during meeting. Ms. Williams stated no. Children were present at the time of the meeting.

complaint with respect to their child’s IEP or FAPE, and 6) attend an impartial due process

The prognosis for the successful reunification of Mr. Matthew Harris and his daughter, Kiyanna Harris in the next 5-12 months is guarded. Mr. Harris is unable to provide his daughter with stable environment at this time, due not having a residence of his own nor employment. He has a long history of substance abuse and mental health issues. Mr. Harris has expressed desire to engage in services to be reunited with Kiyanna. However, he has not been consistent in participating in relevant services in the past. It is imperative that he fully engage in the recommended services in order to increase the probability of a successful reunification. Mr. Harris commitment in providing his daughter with a stable

A court battle is erupting over the fate of a 3-year old named Braelynn. Her adopted family claims that she is theirs since they legal adopted her when her biological mother gave away all here parental rights. However, the father was incarcerated at this time and did not have a say in the ordeal. But now that he is out, he wants his daughter back since his parental rights should have never been terminated due to his incarceration. The Dalsings had adopted her from three weeks old and Braelynn has never met her biological dad. Yet a judge agreed with the biological father’s argument and vacated the adoption. Braelynn is still living with the couple but have requested a re-hearing at the state court of appeals.

The client Suzanne is a seven year old girl placed in a treatment center for emotionally disturbed children. This center helps children ages six through twelve years old. Suzanne has been diagnosed with an attachment disorder and has been placed in a group home for two years. There are two types of attachment disorders, attachment and reactive attachment (Smith, 2014). She has been meeting with a facility caseworker weekly for the last eight months. Her three year old sister, Cindy, is also placed in the facility with her. Parental rights are currently being processed to be terminated. The caseworker is looking into alternative long-term placement for the sisters. Each sister has a

Your client Sue is a Social Work Assistant. In your last session she disclosed that she is concerned that on a recent home visit, herself and a senior colleague did not follow the necessary policies and procedures. They had visited a family with a history of neglect and domestic violence and did not ask to see the child or enter the home, both these actions are prescribed as appropriate as part of their work.

On the event date above, this writer conducted a visit at the Ms. Clearly resident. Present in the home were Trevaughn, Ms. Clearly, and Latrell. During the course of the visit, Ms. Clearly apologized for the missed home visit and provided her interpretation of her involvement with ACS. Ms. Clearly further provided a background about the children father’s and her struggle of obtaining child support for Trevaughn. Latrell father as Ms. Clearly provides some assistance for his son. Ms. Clearly then reports that she does know any information on Trevaughn father whereabouts and the only information she has on him is based on his Facebook page. Ms. Clearly does not communicate with Treavaughn father through Facebook due to ego and she feels that

Ms. Leavitt stated the reason for the evaluation is due to the divorce proceedings between the parents, where they were not able to come to an agreement regarding the custody of the children. She reported that the parents tried to mediate twice and was unsuccessful. She indicated that the parents did not discuss custody until the court appearance and Mr. Wilner indicated that he wanted full custody.

The appeals court ruled that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant’s behavior was willful and wanton conduct.

Client’s parents were never married and ended their relationship when her mother was still pregnant with her. The client has 6 siblings. She has not had contact with her father and does not know where he is located. Her mother has refused to discuss him with her. Her mother has had several different live-in boyfriends. Client and her siblings have been in foster care on