by kiama on Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:01 pm
"as for social services telling someone they need therapy for three years is just ridiculous"
*****************************************************************
This issue comes up often in similar cases. The argument is made by social services, often backed by psychiatrists/psychologists, that 1/2/5 years of counselling/therapy is needed for parents to ‘address’ their problems – and that such a length of time is ‘beyond the timescale of the child’. Therefore the child must be adopted.
This is a fallacy. There is no scientific way in which any professional can predict with any accuracy how long a therapeutic process will take to resolve any particular combinations of problems. It all depends on the level of motivation of the ‘client’; the skill and experience of the therapist; the nature of the ‘alliance’ between the client and the therapist; and the theoretical orientation of the therapist.
I have seen in many cases psychodynamically inclined psychiatrists (although they are rare these days), psychologists (almost as rare) and psychotherapists (unfortunately still prevalent) opine that 1/2/5 years of 3/4/5 times per week psychotherapy is necessary for the client to ‘deal’ with his/her issues.
This is good for the business of such psychotherapists – although social services and the LSC will no longer pay such bills (and very few parents can afford to). Therapists with other orientations (e.g. person-centred, cognitive-behavioural, humanistic and solution-focused) will have very different views about the timescales required for positive change.
There is absolutely no evidence basis in counselling/psychotherapy outcomes research to justify specific opinions about the required timescales for required therapeutic progress. Any such expressed expert opinion needs to be challenged by experts with knowledge of counselling/psychotherapy outcomes research.