Case Reflection Essay 3

docx

School

University of Arkansas *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

4013

Subject

Sociology

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by Taymeowie

1 A Case Reflection on How Not to Interview a Child Taylor M Edwards University of Arkansas SCWK 4013 – Child Advocacy Studies II Carly Franklin 09/26/2023

2 A Case Reflection on How Not to Interview a Child Before being allowed to interview a child, Forensic Interviewers must go through extensive training on how best to broach the topic of abuse. Without training, interviewers may make children feel uncomfortable, not know how to talk about the abuse, or even let the abuse allegation impact them in front of the child. In the vignette provided, I could not find a single thing that the investigator did correctly. By the end of the vignette, it seems as if the child just wants to go home and is reluctant to answer because they are confused by the questions or uncomfortable. For this case reflection, I will identify 5 points in which the investigator failed to interview the child properly. These points will be categorized within 2 phases of a forensic interview. I have chosen to leave the 3 rd phase, “Closure” out of this paper due to the vignette not providing any information as to if this phase occurred or not. The Rapport-Building Phase (1) One of the first mistakes I noticed in the vignette was the lack of any rapport building between the child and the investigator. Generally, before beginning any kind of interview it is proper to not only introduce yourself but also to allow room for the other person (in this case the child) to do so as well. There is something personal about sharing a name that helps build trust between two people, because at that point, they are one step closure to not being strangers to each other. Alongside not having a proper introduction, the investigator did not create a welcoming or friendly environment for the child. This includes not asking them questions about their life, who was in their life, or even things that the child liked. The investigator did not allow the child to give the names of body parts or representations that they use, did not provide instructions for how the interview would go, or even inform the child of truthfulness vs. lies.

3 Instead, the investigator motioned to a chair, thanked the child, and then inserted that bad things have happened to the child (Franklin, 2023). This statement inserts the fact that something DID in fact happen, therefore leading the investigator to ask suggestive and/or biased questions. This introduction was also not open ended, meaning it gave no room for the child to initiate the conversation as to “what” or “who” is considered “bad”. This might be more acceptable to say to an older child, but a 3-year-old can be unaware of what “good” or “bad” means to other people. The Substantive Phase In truth, I was appalled reading most of this vignette because of the way the investigator questioned the child. (2) The lack of open-ended questions bothered me because it did not allow the child to insert what truly might have happened and gave the investigator room to make their own assumptions based on “who” hurt the child and the gender of that who. Instead of asking the child “Did Joe touch your bottom”, the investigator could have asked “how” or even “where” Joe hurt him (Franklin, 2023). Asking these open-ended questions could allow the child to elaborate further on what really happened, but more importantly puts the metaphorical ball in the child’s court for the investigation. (3) Drawing back to the aforementioned quote about if Joe touched the child’s bottom, the child initially answered no. However, the investigator has already created their own assumption as to what happens and instead of asking other questions that might allude to Joe doing something else to the child, the investigator says, “ You don’t have to be embarrassed. You can tell me about what happened. You did not do anything wrong” (Franklin, 2023). The investigator follows this again with if Joe touched the child, to which the child responds this time with “yes”. Because there has been no rapport built, or even a truth vs. lies discussion, there is no way to know which answer is now the truth.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

4 (4) The last mistakes I want to call attention to revolve around the whole doll interaction. Based on our readings, the usage of an anatomically correct doll or diagram is still being debated on whether it is helpful or hindering to the investigation. In my opinion, I feel like if the doll had to be used by the investigator, it should have been introduced during the rapport-building stage so that the investigator could explain and go over it with the child before asking them questions with it. (5) Because the investigator hands the child the doll at this stage, the child does his best to show the investigator how Joe touched him. The investigator leans into this and starts asking suggestive questions such as “Did he put his finger in your bottom or his penis”? At this point, the child responds with “yes”, not noting which body part was used. The investigator then assumed that the penis was the body part used, despite the child not giving a clear answer (Franklin, 2023).

5 References Franklin, C. “Lesson 5 Case Study Reflection.” SCWK 4013: Child Advocacy Studies II, University of Arkansas, 2023.

Related Documents

Quiz 2.docx

The Hernandez Family Case Study Reflection.docx

Preliminary Review.docx

Trust the Process Dwaynna Moore Reflection Dr. Allen SW 686.docx

Comprehensive Case Study.docx

Case Reflection Essay 2.docx

Wk4Assgn_Julien_K. 6311.docx

WK4Assgn_Julien_K .docx

Wk3Assgn-Julien_K. 6103.docx

WK1Assgn_Julien_K.docx

Week 6 Discussion 1.docx

Week2Assignment, Sanford, J SOCW 6500-17.docx

Recommended textbooks for you

Social Psychology (10th Edition)

Sociology

ISBN:9780134641287

Author:Elliot Aronson, Timothy D. Wilson, Robin M. Akert, Samuel R. Sommers

Publisher:Pearson College Div

Introduction to Sociology (Eleventh Edition)

Sociology

ISBN:9780393639407

Author:Deborah Carr, Anthony Giddens, Mitchell Duneier, Richard P. Appelbaum

Publisher:W. W. Norton & Company

The Basics of Social Research (MindTap Course Lis...

Sociology

ISBN:9781305503076

Author:Earl R. Babbie

Publisher:Cengage Learning

Criminalistics: An Introduction to Forensic Scien...

Sociology

ISBN:9780134477596

Author:Saferstein, Richard

Publisher:PEARSON

Sociology: A Down-to-Earth Approach (13th Edition)

Sociology

ISBN:9780134205571

Author:James M. Henslin

Publisher:PEARSON

Society: The Basics (14th Edition)

Sociology

ISBN:9780134206325

Author:John J. Macionis

Publisher:PEARSON

SEE MORE TEXTBOOKS

Recommended textbooks for you

Social Psychology (10th Edition)
Sociology
ISBN:9780134641287
Author:Elliot Aronson, Timothy D. Wilson, Robin M. Akert, Samuel R. Sommers
Publisher:Pearson College Div
Introduction to Sociology (Eleventh Edition)
Sociology
ISBN:9780393639407
Author:Deborah Carr, Anthony Giddens, Mitchell Duneier, Richard P. Appelbaum
Publisher:W. W. Norton & Company
The Basics of Social Research (MindTap Course Lis...
Sociology
ISBN:9781305503076
Author:Earl R. Babbie
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Criminalistics: An Introduction to Forensic Scien...
Sociology
ISBN:9780134477596
Author:Saferstein, Richard
Publisher:PEARSON
Sociology: A Down-to-Earth Approach (13th Edition)
Sociology
ISBN:9780134205571
Author:James M. Henslin
Publisher:PEARSON
Society: The Basics (14th Edition)
Sociology
ISBN:9780134206325
Author:John J. Macionis
Publisher:PEARSON