Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Internet Search
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Parent Support Forums
General Parenting
Cps
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Marguerite" data-source="post: 176064" data-attributes="member: 1991"><p>There are two ways to look at this. </p><p></p><p>First, dump the therapist because yes, she COULD have maybe said something or suggested something instead of just going away and calling CPS. I do get that it's not the call to CPS that is the problem per se, it is the therapist's failure to handle the situation any other way - even if the therapist had said to Danae earlier on, "I'm not here for you, honey, I'm here for your brother." A therapist being firmer in that situation could have perhaps headed the problem off. From Danae's point of view, here is this nice lady come to play. She is playing with her brother and being very nice and polite (unlike mean old mummy, who keeps trying to shoo me away and spoil my fun; the nice lady hasn't said no I can't play). So yes, I do think that a therapist who can't really help prevent that situation (which took time to build and which was clearly going to continue with the mixed messages Danae was getting, from the two adults present) should be sent somewhere else to learn some proactive skills.</p><p></p><p>Or the other way of looking at this - the steep learning curve. That therapist must have SOMETHING going for her or she wouldn't have that job. Even if she's a new graduate with no experience, she DOES have qualifications and training in areas that your children need. And she's had ONE session with your family now, she knows what Danae is like in terms of attention-seeking behaviour too. And allowing her to come back, even knowing she called CPS, tells the therapist a number of very useful things:</p><p></p><p>1) it tells her than you don't hold a grudge, that you accept the help from CPS and don't see them as a threat in any way (which means your conscience is rightly clear);</p><p></p><p>2) It tells her that you accept the help of anyone whose primary concern is the welfare of the children and who will be fearless about ensuring the children are safe;</p><p></p><p>3) It tells her that since the kids are still there, that HER concerns were obviously groundless because CPS have investigated and dismissed it all.</p><p></p><p>In short, she has been re-educated.</p><p></p><p>So in summary - if you give her the boot, you don't know that she would have worked out or not, once she got to know you all better and know your family dynamics and to also know that kids and families have days like this. But then again - if she's so sensitive to a 5 year old screaming in frustration (as well as unable to see what's coming and help avoid it) do you want her?</p><p></p><p>Or if you keep her - maybe she learnt a great deal in this interaction, from what can happen if you let a five year old continually interrupt when it's not her therapy session (and allow that five year old to misinterpret the therapist's politeness for "it's OK to interrupt, even if your mummy says it's not"). And a therapist who has already learned some of the ropes with your family is maybe worth keeping.</p><p></p><p>I'm not able to tell you which is the right path. Perhaps both are potentially right. By keeping her, you still might find yourself giving her the boot later on. You would always have that prerogative.</p><p></p><p>I do this with doctors, but again it has to be a judgement call. If I see a doctor who is sceptical, or negative, I do tend to give him a chance. I at least try to give him some degree of feedback. "Do you remember when I saw you and you told me that I didn't need antibiotics for that chest infection? And I told you that in the past whenever I get an infection like that, it almost always turns into pneumonia if I don't hit it fast with antibiotics? Well, it turned into pneumonia, I was in hospital on oxygen - and an antibiotic drip - three days later. I just thought you should know."</p><p></p><p>A doctor who accepts this sort of feedback (corroborated with paperwork form the hospital or equivalent documentation) is someone I will go back and see, even if they got it wrong to begin with. At least the next time I got a chest infection, that doctor would be more likely to listen to me.</p><p></p><p>But if that doctor is still dismissive or makes excuses, I am out of there and finding someone else.</p><p></p><p>If you constantly chop and change personnel without giving them a chance to find out what they did wrong and maybe fix it, then you can find yourself running out of personnel. Again, a medical analogy - a woman I knew would change doctors at the first, often slight, disagreement. She ran into real problems when she began to run out of good doctors and was finally seeing one of the few doctors in her area that she hadn't yet sent packing - a quack, by this stage. The woman became very ill as a result of a medical bungle. It wouldn't have happened if she hadn't walked away from every good doctor in the town, purely because they told her things she didn't want to hear.</p><p></p><p>I'm not saying that's what you're doing here, only that in making a decision like this, you need to consider the pros and cons carefully.</p><p></p><p>Barbiealonso, you were there. You have the "vibe" of this person, you know the other factors that have influenced your decision. Of the two options I have outlined, I believe both are right, depending on how YOU feel about it all.</p><p></p><p>Marg</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Marguerite, post: 176064, member: 1991"] There are two ways to look at this. First, dump the therapist because yes, she COULD have maybe said something or suggested something instead of just going away and calling CPS. I do get that it's not the call to CPS that is the problem per se, it is the therapist's failure to handle the situation any other way - even if the therapist had said to Danae earlier on, "I'm not here for you, honey, I'm here for your brother." A therapist being firmer in that situation could have perhaps headed the problem off. From Danae's point of view, here is this nice lady come to play. She is playing with her brother and being very nice and polite (unlike mean old mummy, who keeps trying to shoo me away and spoil my fun; the nice lady hasn't said no I can't play). So yes, I do think that a therapist who can't really help prevent that situation (which took time to build and which was clearly going to continue with the mixed messages Danae was getting, from the two adults present) should be sent somewhere else to learn some proactive skills. Or the other way of looking at this - the steep learning curve. That therapist must have SOMETHING going for her or she wouldn't have that job. Even if she's a new graduate with no experience, she DOES have qualifications and training in areas that your children need. And she's had ONE session with your family now, she knows what Danae is like in terms of attention-seeking behaviour too. And allowing her to come back, even knowing she called CPS, tells the therapist a number of very useful things: 1) it tells her than you don't hold a grudge, that you accept the help from CPS and don't see them as a threat in any way (which means your conscience is rightly clear); 2) It tells her that you accept the help of anyone whose primary concern is the welfare of the children and who will be fearless about ensuring the children are safe; 3) It tells her that since the kids are still there, that HER concerns were obviously groundless because CPS have investigated and dismissed it all. In short, she has been re-educated. So in summary - if you give her the boot, you don't know that she would have worked out or not, once she got to know you all better and know your family dynamics and to also know that kids and families have days like this. But then again - if she's so sensitive to a 5 year old screaming in frustration (as well as unable to see what's coming and help avoid it) do you want her? Or if you keep her - maybe she learnt a great deal in this interaction, from what can happen if you let a five year old continually interrupt when it's not her therapy session (and allow that five year old to misinterpret the therapist's politeness for "it's OK to interrupt, even if your mummy says it's not"). And a therapist who has already learned some of the ropes with your family is maybe worth keeping. I'm not able to tell you which is the right path. Perhaps both are potentially right. By keeping her, you still might find yourself giving her the boot later on. You would always have that prerogative. I do this with doctors, but again it has to be a judgement call. If I see a doctor who is sceptical, or negative, I do tend to give him a chance. I at least try to give him some degree of feedback. "Do you remember when I saw you and you told me that I didn't need antibiotics for that chest infection? And I told you that in the past whenever I get an infection like that, it almost always turns into pneumonia if I don't hit it fast with antibiotics? Well, it turned into pneumonia, I was in hospital on oxygen - and an antibiotic drip - three days later. I just thought you should know." A doctor who accepts this sort of feedback (corroborated with paperwork form the hospital or equivalent documentation) is someone I will go back and see, even if they got it wrong to begin with. At least the next time I got a chest infection, that doctor would be more likely to listen to me. But if that doctor is still dismissive or makes excuses, I am out of there and finding someone else. If you constantly chop and change personnel without giving them a chance to find out what they did wrong and maybe fix it, then you can find yourself running out of personnel. Again, a medical analogy - a woman I knew would change doctors at the first, often slight, disagreement. She ran into real problems when she began to run out of good doctors and was finally seeing one of the few doctors in her area that she hadn't yet sent packing - a quack, by this stage. The woman became very ill as a result of a medical bungle. It wouldn't have happened if she hadn't walked away from every good doctor in the town, purely because they told her things she didn't want to hear. I'm not saying that's what you're doing here, only that in making a decision like this, you need to consider the pros and cons carefully. Barbiealonso, you were there. You have the "vibe" of this person, you know the other factors that have influenced your decision. Of the two options I have outlined, I believe both are right, depending on how YOU feel about it all. Marg [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Parent Support Forums
General Parenting
Cps
Top