This article will recap article #5 for something let's call "unintended consequences".
In it's entirety, this is a series looking at a case noted in the Iowa Register. The citations on the case are social, and appear in the first article in this series. The article and that video are mostly self-explanatory showing a court process that has become more and more common.
One group calls these "outrageous child custody cases", lawyers probably call these complex child custody cases. http://www.examiner.com/article/us-department-of-justice-calls-for-examp... or another "a little lynched."
All referencing what appears to be severe child consequences possibly from the beginning of the case, but certainly the middle decisions in case #2 noted in the prior article. For the reporting party and for the children and the non-abusing parent by report cases like this effect the three 3 separate entities, that happen to represent the maternal side of this family.
Some might say the reported abusing parent was having some stir up in case #1 but that appears different than the "unintended consequences".
In industry, there is accountability to by-product.
In life in general causing injury or fatality is avoided in most social human interactions.
In mental health practices, as with medical practices, it is sort of an unwritten rule accepted that one will "first do no harm". That is called the Hippocratic Oath in medicine. http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=20909
One of my professional peers once told me that mental health has an equal number or more regulations to NUCLEAR processes. So rules of procedure are carefully mapped, based upon research and services are delivered by professional discipline according to the rules of that licensed profession, plus any specialized credential ( like child custody evaluations, alcohol treatment) and then the house rules of the state plus where ever the work is being done. That is a large number of rules before acting. There are pretty steep penalties for failure to comply in most circumstances.
One of my local elected reps, who happens to be a physician noted, his choices are not merely based in ethics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_ethics and the Hippocratic Oath, but that he as a person is principled. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/principled, a good measure to illustrate his well rounded consideration process before acting.
In Oklahoma, there is no state code of ethics for any staffer, beyond rules of campaign fundraising and said loyalty to this fine state.
In chaotic family systems, there is a theory that people are more reactive. Reactivity means things are done without thinking the situation and consequences through. Families who struggle with reactivity also often struggle with issues of domestic violence, child sexual assault, child abuse and neglect, addictions, mental health problems and too, often there is gaslighting.
Gaslighting. https://archive.org/details/AbuseInRelationshipsGaslightingambientOvertC... Take that where you will.
One or more known styles of dealing with problems perpetuates problems as a consequence. Sometimes this is preventable, sometimes it isn't. Deciphering this mix can be done, but it requires methodically collecting information and weighing it. Continuously. Over time. Seasoned, licensed professionals have agreed upon methods for this.
Care experts study patterns and teach preventative methods to pre-empt chaos. To avoid unintended consequences, like putting family members in harms way where known unsafe behaviors happen, or could reoccur given the chance. Safety is a priority,discernment processes and systems or methods to safely solve problems is a core teaching in dealing to end domestic violence or other listed reactive destructive acts above in families.
On the flip side, healthier families have strategies and methods of dealing with one another that prevent or rapidly eliminate any issues of harm. Healthier families, just as trained, seasoned mental health providers and medical providers quest for the best and most expedient way to get positive, safe, growth oriented results that can be sustained and do not require constant deflecting of a known risk. This keeps families balanced, and on paths of sustainable http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability growth according to their developmental patterns.
Most people like to conserve personal resources, and typically strategizing in advance increases the chances of success, stability and retention of resources plus growth.
Never does the identified risk go first, never is the risk knowingly provided with fodder to produce, perpetuate or exacerbate or increase harm. Care is taken to define and set clear boundaries on harm, to keep children out of harm's way.
See this diagram of human development in the life cycle, and see if you can match the column that notes the tasks to master to the identified girls in the Iowa case, even generally. http://www.businessballs.com/erik_erikson_psychosocial_theory.htm This writer is looking at the first column on the left, which is life tasks. And the fourth column moving right, which is achievements.
What people who talk about cases like this say, professionally or not, is that court actions like what happened in #2 cause stuff like the list in column #5. Those are regressions caused by external and internal chaos. Disintegration. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disintegrate to break apart, decompose, rot, decay. Those are the actions of death, BTW.
Unintended consequences are a by-product of a failure to strategize using available expert methods in a court process or cps are planned failure?
Failure to use professional training, knowledge and science along with live observation to plan a response over a variety of expected situations to gently support moving ahead. Unintended consequences cause regression or chaotic responses in the unhealthy, but also in the healthy young.
Oklahoma has some history of repelling planned, best practices responses used with success in other cities in the USA for cps, investigations and family or civil courts.
Most people subjected to gaffs in family court and civil court only endure what is before them, however many cases drag on for years in stalemates, flip-flops and some in brutality untended....... is it unintended when the same reactive actions retread, repeated again for years?
Dr. Gene Abel, sex offender evaluations and treatment expert known world wide, calls child sexual assault a "public health menace".
UK researchers recently noted that child sexual assault is a pre-meditated, predefined attack on a specific set of individuals, thereby meeting the criteria for a hate crime. "A HATE CRIME".
Enabling access to a child who has previously been noted to be in harm's way or at risk to be in harm's way, is therefore aiding and abetting 1.) a public health hazard and 2.) a hate crime. Kind of like Typhoid Mary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoid_Mary
Once adults understand how child sex assault,( in any degree rather sex talk, exposure to porn, molestation, sodomy or intercourse), child sex trafficking, child porn productions really works, this will stop?
Readers exposed to this information can email or tweet it to their electeds, Judges, CPS, friends..... so they too can be accountable.
To these awarenesses and emerging questions in child sex abuse and child human rights in court.
In the final article, this writer will roll a couple of things by in the final wrap. Here is the link for all 7 articles.