building bridges back home with parents in recovery: the right decisions at the right times...
Post on 28-Mar-2015
212 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Building Bridges Back Home with Parents in
Recovery: The Right Decisions at the Right Times
Presented by
Kim Sumner-Mayer, PhD, LMFT
Children of Alcoholics Foundation
and
Joan HajjarPhoenix HouseNew York, NY
2
Substance Abuse and Child Welfare:
Statistics
8.3 million children live with substance-abusing parents (HHS/ASPE, 1999)
CWLA: 40-80% of parents with children in CW system have substance abuse problems serious enough to affect parenting (Young, Gardner, & Dennis, 1998)
3
Substance Abuse and Child Welfare:
Statistics
SA likely a factor in ¾ of all out-of-home placements
CW-involved families with SA problems have more family problems than other CW-involved families
SA associated with significantly higher rates of RE-entry into CW system
4
Substance Abuse and Child Welfare:
Statistics
Children from SA families: More likely in out-of-
home care Longer foster care
stays Less likely to leave
foster care within 1 year
More likely to have case plan of adoption
5
Substance Abuse and Child Welfare:
Statistics
Problem use of alcohol MUCH more prevalent than use of illicit drugs (HHS/SAMHSA, 1998)
Parenting and custody issues are a major motivator for SA treatment
6
Substance Abuse Treatment and Child Welfare Systems: Disconnects & Misconnects
SA approach to treatment:
Multidimensional Tailored to individual needs
(intensity, duration) Acceptance of relapse as
part of recovery process in most models
Often does not consider family relationships/ parenting
7
Disconnects & Misconnects
Between Systems (cont’d)
SA approach to treatment: Lacks emphasis,
understanding of child safety issues and reunification process
May limit or prohibit contact with children until later in treatment
Perceived info-sharing problems
8
Disconnects & Misconnects Between Systems (cont’d)
CW approach to SA problems:
Negative worker attitudes toward parents
Negative worker attitudes toward SA treatment system as a whole
SA treatment as one-shot, one-strike-you’re out
9
Disconnects & Misconnects
Between Systems (cont’d)
CW approach to SA problems:
“One size fits all” treatment ASFA timelines do not allow
waiting for full recovery CW workers often hand
clients a list of treatment providers without reference to the type of treatment offered and waitlists
10
Recovery is a Family Process
Parent’s Recovery Process
A process, not an event. Redefinition of Self Partner support important Spirituality, social support,
relapse prevention Relapse usually part of
recovery. Aftercare very important! Parenting Education
11
Recovery is a Family Process
Family’s Recovery Process
Parents and children must relate without substances.
Reshuffling roles, boundaries, & authority
Denial at the family level Family members don’t
understand parent’s need for continued focus on sobriety
12
Reunification Begins with Separation:
Parent’s Experiences
Two losses:
Children, and
Status as an able parent
13
Reunification Begins with Separation:
Parent’s Experiences
Reactions: Anger, Grief, perhaps
Relief Hold on to maternal role Grief + Relief Drug
binge, deepening of addiction
“Replacement pregnancy”
14
Children’s Experiences of
Separation
Short-term reactions look different than longer-term adaptations
Age of child influences their presentation
More placements, more severe reactions
AD/HD overdiagnosed, PTSD overlooked
Behavior appears willful but is actually survival-oriented
15
Children’s Experiences of Separation (cont’d)
Implications for Practice Sibling contact extremely
important to sense of continuity
Contact and Continuity with Parent is important
Children’s support needs are great
Caregivers need help understanding children’s behavior
16
Reunification Continues with
Visitation: Parents
Awkwardness common
Not permitted normal parenting responsibilities
Parent viewed as
failure
17
Reunification Continues with Visitation: Parents
Hard to enjoy/play with/be with child
Guilt + Overcompensation Poor boundaries
AMBIVALENCE
18
Visitation: Children’s Issues
Conflicting feelings Loyalty splits Circumstances of visit
can influence child’s mood and response to parent
Children’s responses to visits can be very challenging to caregivers.
19
Other Visitation Dynamics
Visits may not be regular
Tx program may restrict contact
Pre- or post-visit upsets push for less visitation
Birthparent—caregiver dynamics
20
Other Visitation Dynamics
Parent concern re: child’s adjustment to carecut back on visiting
Longer in careless confident in parenting
Family develops new homeostatic balance around child’s absence
21
Working With Ambivalence
(cont’d)
3: Seek to understand its causes and refer to therapy & additional help
No bond use visits to build bond
Fear incompetence teach
Fear relapse add supports
22
Working With Ambivalence
(cont’d)
4: Explore options and proceed with concurrent planning that is grounded in parents’ participation in making the plan.
23
Case PracticeGuidelines
Develop relationships/referral agreements for parent education, family therapy, and aftercare services
Refer for family therapy—Don’t wait until reunification date is in sight
Encourage parent and kinship caregiver/foster parent collaboration. Expect CW agencies to do same. Set the bar high.
24
Case PracticeGuidelines
Encourage parents to be increasingly involved in day-to-day aspects of their children’s lives (school-related appointments, doctor visits, recreational events, clothes shopping and haircuts, etc.)
Convey to CW and SA treatment agencies that this is an important and expected part of parent’s service plan.
25
Case Practice Guidelines
Obtain information about the quality and context of visits.
Assure that a Relapse Plan has been developed once unsupervised visits are instated.
Refer for parent education that is evidence-based and effective
26
Quality Parent Education
Gold standard = both parents and children involved in the service. Examples: Strengthening Families (
http://www.strengtheningfamilies.org/html/programs_1999/06_SFP.html)
Celebrating Families (http://www.preventionpartnership.us/families.htm) (developed for a FDTC and replication studies currently underway)
www.samhsa.gov for more model programs
27
(Re)Unification: Parent—Child Interactions
Honeymoon period, then Testing & Acting Out Children hypervigilant re:
dishonesty, broken promises, etc.
Children’s grief & loss issues re: previous caregiver
Children’s anger & fear surface
28
(Re)Unification: Parent—Child Interactions
Parents trying to assert authority for perhaps first time
Parent’s high expectations of self, kids rigid or inappropriate rules
Role changes for kids are confusing and threatening
Children rebel, regress Parents surprised,
confused by kids’ behavior
29
(Re)Unification: Parent—Child Interactions
Parents may be reluctant to seek help—fear children will be removed again
At same time, parent has new people, places, & things in their life and kids have to adjust to all of these
There may be new children
30
(Re)Unification: The big picture
Parent simultaneously coping with relationships with substitute caregiver(s), partners, employment, housing, finances, any continuing legal issues, and maintaining sobriety.
Is it any wonder that relapse vulnerability is high right about now?
31
Relapse
A normal part of recovery for most people
A process, not an event, ending with substance use
Not all relapses are the same
Not all relapses involve a return to pre-treatment level of functioning
Family may react more negatively due to sense of disappointment and failure
32
Relapse Planning
Clean or dirty urine is not the only or even necessarily the most reliable indicator of child safety.
Sobriety is an important measure of safety, but it’s not the only measure!
33
Relapse Planning
Just because the parent loses their clean time, it doesn’t necessarily mean they lose all the actual progress they’ve made in altering their thoughts, feelings, behaviors, and relationships.
34
Relapse Planning (cont’d)
Can have clean urine while child is still in danger of being abused, neglected, or hurt.
A parent can have a dirty urine but be taking better care of their child than they were before.
35
Relapse Planning (cont’d)
Clean urine for the drug of choice does not preclude use of another drug (most commonly alcohol) in a way that might be dangerous for a child.
36
Relapse Planning (cont’d)
Let’s be smart about the place of urine testing in making visitation and reunification decisions! Parenting is multi-dimensional and so should our decisionmaking be.
Relapse Planning should be a part of parents’ treatment
37
Relapse Planning (cont’d)
Should include discussion of plan for child safety in case parent relapses
Requires involvement of parent’s support system to provide child safety and/or monitoring & reporting of parent behavior
38
Relapse Planning (cont’d)
Swift reporting of relapse should be looked upon with respect
Relapse should be viewed as indicating a need for additional support
39
Case Practice Guidelines
Recognize parents’ specialized aftercare needs. Develop referral agreements with family therapists and Aftercare programs that provide parenting-specific support.
Encourage the development of additional child, parent, & family services to meet reunification needs in your community—partner with funders and issue or answer RFPs for services
40
Case Practice Guidelines
Recognize children’s special support needs as children of substance abusers. Develop relationships with service providers who meet these needs via support groups, therapeutic recreation, psychotherapy, developmental services, etc. during FDTC Planning process.
41
Case Practice Guidelines
Assess parent’s readiness to reunify using multiple measures—abstinence or lack thereof is not an adequate measure
42
Case Practice Guidelines
Encourage parent and kinship caregiver/foster parent collaboration. Expect CW agencies to do same. Set the bar high.
Refer for family therapy if you have not already
Assure that Relapse Plan has been updated to reflect reunification realities.
43
Indicators of Readiness/ Safety:
North Carolina Family Assessment Scale—Reunification (Kirk, 2001)
Developed for Intensive Family Preservation Services programs serving reunification cases
Available at www.nfpn.org
44
North Carolina Family Assessment Scale for Reunification (NCFAS-R)
7 Main Areas of Focus: Environment Parental Capabilities Family Interactions Family Safety Child well-being Parent/ Child
Ambivalence Readiness for
Reunification
45
Indicators of Readiness/ Safety:
Parent/Child Ambivalence
Parent Ambivalence Responds appropriately to
child verbally & nonverbally Receptive & responsive to
services to bring parent and child closer
Parent acknowledges responsibility for role in family difficulties leading to removal
46
Indicators of Readiness/ Safety:
Parent/Child Ambivalence
Child Ambivalence Comfort with parent Child responds appropriately
to caregiver affect, expressions of love, limitsetting, etc.
Age-appropriately expressed desire to live with caregiver
Acknowledges any responsibility child had for family difficulties leading to removal
Responsive to services aimed at facilitating reunification
47
Indicators of Readiness/ Safety:
Parent/Child Ambivalence
Caregiver Ambivalence Supports reunification even
if they have some reservations
Will give parent a fair chance
Disrupted Attachment Eagerness to repair
relationship from both parent and child
48
Indicators of Readiness/ Safety:
Parent/Child Ambivalence (cont’d)
Visitation Positive anticipation of
visits Activities planned and
executed Increased duration &
frequency and decreased supervision needed
Incidents during visits are processed
Re-establishing roles and limits
49
For more information
Kim Sumner-Mayer, PhD, LMFTChildren of Alcoholics Foundation
164 West 74th StreetNew York, NY 10023
(646) 505-2063 tel. (212) 595-2553 fax
ksumner-mayer@phoenixhouse.org
Joan HajjarPhoenix House/ AmeriCorps Program
55 Flatbush Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11217
(718) 858-2462jhajjar@phoenixhouse.org
www.coaf.org www.acde.org www.phoenixhouse.org
top related