Running head: TYPICAL BEHAVIOR 1

Running head: TYPICAL BEHAVIOR 2

Phase 4 Individual Project 2 Memo

Colorado Technical University Online

CJHS300-1301A-03: Human Service Practice in the Criminal Justice Setting

Professor Karyn Goldmeier

Christopher B. Lane

02/08/2013

Running head: TYPICAL BEHAVIOR 3

To: Cindy Hart

From: Christopher B. Lane

Regards: Pre-trial diversion plan

Memo

Ms. Hart, in this memo, I will go over your plan on what we will be able to help you to be

rehabilitated back into society. This plan has to be followed out in accordance to the court order,

and to get you the help you need. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me from

the business card, I have given you. We will now begin.

Identify 2 disciplines involved with Cindy Hart.

The 2 disciplines involving with Cindy Hart, and the first one is actually more than two

disciplines involving Cindy Hart, and the first one is duty, and the author goes on to say that the

duty arises, and when the law recognizes of the relationship between the plaintiff, and the

defendant in this particular case (Find Law, 2013) (Commonwealth of Kentucky, 2010). The

next one is breach of duty, which is best described as where the defendant who may be liable for

negligence, and in fact, when the defendant breaches the duty of , in this case, the negligence of

the children of the medical health needs, which the defendant owes that to the plaintiff, and in

this case the children, and then, and only then it becomes a breach of their duties as a parent of

their duties to take care of their children, which is a violation of the law (Find Law, 2013)

(Commonwealth of Kentucky, 2010). The next one is the cause in fact, which in this particular

case, you have a single mother, that has mental health issues, with two prior occurrences of being

hospitalized for these type of conditions, and the neglecting her roles as a mother is clearly

Running head: TYPICAL BEHAVIOR 4

defined here (Find Law, 2013) (Commonwealth of Kentucky, 2010). The next one is the

Proximate Cause, and you may be asking yourself, how does this one have anything to do with

this case, and this what the author’s say about this one, these two author stated in their findings;

the proximate cause relates when the defendant’s responsibility is negligence towards her

responsibility, and her responsibility is the children’s needs (Find Law, 2013) (Commonwealth

of Kentucky, 2010). Those needs are as follows: the child’s regular routine checkups with a

license medical professional, preferably a doctor, which they will give the experience towards

these children, and help to treat the children as best as they can within the guidelines of the law

(Find Law, 2013) (Commonwealth of Kentucky, 2010). The last one is damages, and you may be

asking yourself again, how does a damage play a part in this? Damages plays a crucial part for

the simple fact, the child may be suffering, and the caregiver is not fulfilling that need for their

children (Find Law, 2013) (Commonwealth of Kentucky, 2010). After all, it is not like the

children are old enough to drive themselves to a doctor, so in return, they rely on one particular

person, the sole caregiver of the children, which in this case is the mother of the two children.

Discuss in detail 1 theory of each discipline that you identified in part (1) that applies to

this fact pattern.

The detail facts in this case, and they are as follows; we have a negligent that also has

problems with substance abuse, and not only that, she is neglecting a child the right to get a good

quality of education, which this is a truancy issue, by all means (Commonwealth of Kentucky,

2010). Although, the children may not have any bruises, or lacerations, but the children are being

neglected, and not necessarily the children are being abused, and the mother has a history of

mental illness issues, which they derive from her past experiences of an abusive father; who had

a problem with alcoholism, which, it ultimately took her father’s life. Truancy is also another

Running head: TYPICAL BEHAVIOR 5

important aspect of the client; the client has neglected her own child for going to school, because

of the mother’s problem with her mental health issues, and her negligent actions of the mother

seeking help of our own; in her role as the sole caregiver for these two children (Commonwealth

of Kentucky, 2010). Does it affect the children? To answer this question, I would have to say it

does affect the children, because a child does not understand why they cannot go to the doctor,

and the child does not understand what is happening, but I do think the child knows that they are

affected. It is now up to the law to step in and provide the appropriate plan for the mother, and

help the children as well.

Discuss how this scenario is distinguishable from a scenario that might take place in the

traditional mental health setting.

Now, we will discuss this scenario and how it is distinguishable from the scenario listed

above, which could take place in the traditional mental health setting. In the traditional mental

health setting; the client would get evaluated, and to see where the starting point would be, and

then the mental health professional would go from there. Without doing this the mental health

profession; the patient will not know what is expected, knowingly, the mental health profession

will accomplish this by evaluating, and assessing the patient upon entering some type of

program; to help rehabilitate the patient to where they need to be. In some ways, this is

somewhat the same as the human services setting; in the human service setting, the case

worker/manager will assess the client, and determine where the client needs to be in this

particular program; so in return, both professions have to work hand-in-hand to accomplish a

goal here. Of course, the client/patient can refuse, but why would they want to refuse, which they

have a right to do that, but the ideology of them doing that would not be the cultural norm.

Running head: TYPICAL BEHAVIOR 6

Identify 2 ethical obligations/core values at play in this scenario.

The first one of 2 is autonomy, and how the person(s), who may care capable of doing so,

which will make decisions for themselves, although, autonomy is not absolute factor, but it could

be one (Simmons, 2003). Secondly, there is one important thing to remember, and that is a

person’s behavior, and as far as the behavior of Ms. Hart, and even though, she has a mental

health issues, but still her behavior of not getting help is the key factor here (Simmons, 2003).

Ms. Hart exercised her right to react this way, because she neglected her own health, and in

return, she neglected her children (Simmons, 2003). This can also be looked at as a double-edge

sword, because she refused not only herself, but her children as well (Simmons, 2003). The next

question is: why would we need to have an intervention in this particular case? The reasoning, or

purpose for the intervention in this case; because the pre-trial diversion program is looking out

for the welfare of the children (Simmons, 2003) (Commonwealth of Kentucky, 2010).

Service plan for Ms. Hart

This will be checked and verified each week on your progress to be rehabilitated back

into society. Your cooperation and effort will be based upon your successful completion of the

following, which is listed below, and I, your case worker/manager will be checking on this as

well, and in compliance of the courts recommendation. This program was set up to help you

succeed in getting your children back in your possession, so, it is up to Ms. Hart to concur with

this program. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact from the business card,

which, you were given.

Running head: TYPICAL BEHAVIOR 7

Mental

Health

counseling

Substance

abuse

counseling

Support

groups

Mental

Health

Care

Parenting

Classes

Follow up

Visits with

Client and

Verification

Final

Evaluation

of the

Client and

Verification

Running head: TYPICAL BEHAVIOR 8

References

Commonwealth of Kentucky. (2010). Reporting Child Abuse and Neglect. Retrieved from

chfs.ky.gov: http://chfs.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/0984FD14-A494-4055-9C10-

98CDD433F8C9/0/ChildAbuseandNeglectBooklet.pdf

Find Law. (2013). Elements of a Negligence Case. Retrieved from injury.findlaw.com:

http://injury.findlaw.com/accident-injury-law/elements-of-a-negligence-case.html

Simmons, B., (2003). Child Welfare Ethics and Values. Retrieved from calswec.berkley.edu:

http://calswec.berkeley.edu/files/uploads/pdf/CalSWEC/Participant_Ethics_Values.pdf