Free Paper Sample: Navigating Ethical Dilemmas in Child Protection

Introduction

Child protection systems are developed to prevent children from violence, desertion, abuse, and exploitation. They minimize child susceptibility to harm. Concerning Sylvia's case, Laney has been laced under Out-of-Home Care because her parent's conditions do not support co-existence. Since the parents reached a consensus that their child should be placed in Out-of-Home Care, there are many benefits associated with her stay within that environment. Both parents did a commendable job to seek a preservation service: There was a need to put Laney in the preservation service because the parents were facing a crisis. The period off direct parenting was essential so that Laney's parents would recover from the complex trauma while keeping their child safe. Hopefully, after a reunion, the family will stay safe together.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Out-of-home Care offers safety to Laney and a chance to recover from the gloomy expressions portrayed by her parents (Maclean, 2016). The stable foster carer ensures she does not experience neglect or abuse from her parents. OOHC improves the development process in children. Laney needs to catch up on recovery and develop in a stable environment. Despite Laney growing up under the watch of a foster carer, she lacks the presence and loving Care of her parents. Even with scheduled contact, there is a dilemma of whether to restore Laney's attention to her parents or follow the Permanency Support Program policy. Systemic under-resourcing put Sylvia's puzzling situation on whether to give Laney to her parents or not; the permanency support policy mandates a protection system to ensure Laney completes the two-year program.

Deontology Theory

Deontology theory states that practices are right or wrong based on the stipulated rules (Baron, 2017). Laney's parents are unethical because they are aware of the laws that govern the Permanency Support Program. Sylvia's reasoning and decision-making will define her personality. Sylvia's manager is committed to program obligations, thus depicting a measure of inherent dignity. Adherence to the set policies prevents Sylvia from acting in a certain way to please Laney's parents (Rachels & Rachels 2019). Despite the systemic under-resourcing, the systems represent perfect duties that must be obeyed. There is no room for a middle ground because Sylvia is unsure whether the parents are capable of raising the kid. If Sylvia follows the original plan, it is the ethical reason for action because the parents have not recovered from the trauma. The scheduled contact should continue because it is the right thing to do. In this case, the manager follows the deontologist perspective, whereby consequentialism is overlooked.

Nevertheless, there is room for threshold deontology if the problem gets out of hand (Baron, 2017). A consequentialist approach would mean looking for an alternative permanency option for Laney instead of restoring Care to her parents. Another OOHC will execute the same roles and obligations as those Sylvia was doing for the remaining period. Upholding the Permanency policies despite the change in the environment is ethically correct. The promise to offer Care for Laney will remain until the designated time ends. Even though the decisions conflict with Laney's parents’ expectations, Sylvia and the manager will choose an ethically correct decision (Rachels & Rachels, 2019). Parents' desires and welfare should come into play when laws ought to be obeyed.

Utilitarian Theory

The utilitarian theory argues that any decision or resolution should produce the most favorable outcome (Baron, 2017). Laney's situation is complicated because her parents want to have full custody of their child. On the other hand, there is a Permanency Support policy that Laney's parents are involved in. The OOHC is facing challenges that prompt the parent to seek out the Child protection commitment. One can relate that they want to be close to their child and build an intimate relationship. Laney's parents are in pursuit of happiness (Rachels & Rachels, 2019). Despite their traumatic troubles, they think that Laney is missing a link in the relationship. From their perspective, restoration is correct and desirable because the Sylvia organization is facing resourcing issues. Utilitarian ethics weigh immediate consequences (positive or negative) before acting. Since Laney did not complain about neglect and mistreatment in the out-of-home care, restoring Care to her parents is less beneficial. Laney's happiness will be affected by her parents' traumatic conditions. In this case, Sylvia should focus on consequentialism whereby the appropriate action will cause pleasure, and the wrong decision will cause pain (Fedyk et al., 2020). The most significant benefit is helping Laney recover and develop. Blocking restoration is ethically correct. Both act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism play a significant role in making ethical decisions (Cohen, & Ahn, 2016). Sylvia should overlook her personal feelings, and those of Laney's feelings Permanency Support Program policies are simulative other laws. Rules are focused on actualizing fairness (Kellogg, 2019). The impartial intervention is made to hold Laney in foster care until her parents are ready for restoration. Intangible gains such as growth, development, and happiness will achieve the maximum good (Kahane et al., 2020). The benefits that come with foster Care far outweigh what Laney will get from her parents.

Sylvia does not have a choice other than infringing Laney's freedom to be with her parents. Even though the OOHC has gaps, Laney and her parents will benefit from it in the long term. The preservation service buys time for parents to recover from the complex trauma. Although the variable conditions involved, it is imperative that all parties commit to the policies. When secondary conditions change an original decision, conflicts arise. Subsequently, it is ethically wrong to restore full custody to parents, yet Sylvia acknowledges the underlying reasons that influence settling on out-of-home care. If Sylvia acts contrary, she will be working, considering her personal feelings. The insurance of insufficient resources can be addressed through donations, outsourcing the service, or seeking funding/facilitation. Obeying the policy benefits the OOHC system and the entire society.

Principles of Service

The Ethical Principle of Autonomy

Principles of Service are connected to Sylvia's dilemma: They act as guiding ideologies that groom a person (social worker) to make the most appropriate decision (Page, 2012). The autonomy principle maintains that people should be independent when making decisions (Owonikoko, 2013). Sylvia should put herself in Laney's shoes to decide on what works in her life. Even though Laney is young, she would not wish to live in a traumatizing environment. Sylvia should acknowledge that Laney fears neglect. Albeit Laney's right to make her own decisions, there are limits to independence. Sylvia should make Laney understand that out-of-home care is the only guaranteed solution to her problems. It is ethical to respect parents' wishes, but it is not the desired action to restore Care. Laney needs motivation and emotional support as her parents address their problems at home.

The Ethical Principle of Beneficence

The ethical principle of autonomy is somewhat connected to the principle of beneficence (Owonikoko, 2013). Sylvia should stamp authority and make decisions well known to Laney's parents. She should be in control of her job to achieve the desired results. The principle of beneficence asks one to do the right thing (Owonikoko, 2013). Good deeds equate to an ethical perspective (Rachels & Rachels, 2019). An appropriate decision solves a moral dilemma. Maintaining the out-of-home care program or seeking alternative permanency options for Laney will produce the largest ratio of good over giving in to challenges and listening to parents. Sylvia should strive to achieve the best results because it will benefit the preservation service, Laney, and her parents.

Ethical Principle of Justice

The ethical principle of justice maintains that people should make decisions that will be impartial to those involved (Owonikoko, 2013). The person who needs justice in this situation is Laney. Her parents will not achieve anything if they get Laney back. Instead, they should seek psychological help before requesting Sylvia to release their kid. Based on the argument tabled that there is systemic under-resourcing, Sylvia can settle that it is not an extenuating reason to manipulate the OOHC to favor Laney's parents. If she went against her responsibilities, the actions could not be justified. Justice, fairness, and adherence to the set rules would lead to the most ethically correct decision (Keddell, 2016). Sylvia's decision will be driven by respect for human rights and virtues.

Ethical Principle of Non-Maleficence

Consistent with the principle of non-maleficence, risks should overwhelm the benefits of a course of action (Owonikoko, 2013). If Sylvia follows the set rules, it might spike a debate that she respects Laney's parent's autonomy. However, out-of-home care will not inflict harm on Laney, who is the primary victim of her parents' neglect and trauma. Sylvia should maintain non-noceremum (Page, 2012); this is essential since it will not offend anyone. Incapacitation, in her line of work, will be prevented. Although Laney's parents will be disappointed, none of them will experience pain or suffering. A professional must provide standard Care, which will produce a beneficial outcome. A case worker like Sylvia should be molded through competence. She should not neglect or emissary her duties in an unstable environment.

The Bottom-Line

An employee should behave professionally in the workplace; enduring influence and personal feelings should not alter the set policies (Collingridge et al., 2020). Desired objectives in out-of-home care can be achieved if Sylvia considers a professional workplace attitude. Despite the resourcing problems, perseverance and active participation will guarantee successful foster care. Restoring Care for parents is ethically wrong. Seeking an alternative permanency option should be the secondary decision if facilitation at the OOHC fails. Scheduled visits should continue as usual. Parents should be helpers rather than revolts, who will affect the stability of the child and organization. Traumatic parents will not offer emotional support and mentoring like a foster carer. The instability in permanency service will affect good outcomes (Maclean et al., 2016). The desire for home care will not provide security and emotional development, considering that Laney's parents are emotionally disturbed. Instead of Sylvia restoring Care to Laney's parents, she should request them to wait until the time scheduled for OOHC to elapse and seek trauma-specific interventions. For psychological safety and stability, Laney is comfortable in OOHC. All patrons should obey the Permanency Support Program policy and then make suggestions or requests after the period of OOHC elapses.

References

Baron, J. (2017). Utilitarian vs. Deontological Reasoning: Method, Results, and Theory. In Moral Inferences (pp. 145-160). Psychology Press. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Baron%2C+J.+%282017%29.+Utilitarian+vs.+deontological+reasoning%3A+method%2C+results%2C+and+theory.+In+Moral+inferences+%28pp.+145-160%29.+Psychology+Press.&btnG=