SOWK110_04 Case Study 1 Case Description Vanessa, Shauntay, Brandon, Dacey, Tiara, and Lawrence Vanessa is a 32-year-old, African-American mother with four living children: Shauntay (15 years), twins Dacey (4 years) and Tiara (4 years), and Lawrence (1 year). Vanessa dropped out of high school during her senior year but received her GED a few years later while pregnant with her first child, Shauntay. She took various “odds and ends jobs,” frequently relying on welfare when she was not engaged in work. When she was in her early twenties, she completed an eight-month course at a local business college and became employed with a government agency as a receptionist. Vanessa’s mother moved in with her and provided childcare for Shauntay while Vanessa went to work. About 6 months after starting her new job, Vanessa’s mother died unexpectedly from a heart attack, and Vanessa eventually quit her job due to stress. Her boyfriend at the time introduced her to opiates not long after her mother’s death and soon the drugs consumed Vanessa’s life. Shauntay went to live with her paternal grandparents and Vanessa lost her benefits because she no longer had a dependent child living with her. She eventually applied for General Assistance where she received about $125 a month. In 2006, Vanessa gave birth to a baby boy, Brandon, who was born addicted to opiates and was immediately removed from her care and placed into foster care. Unfortunately, soon after Brandon was placed in a resource home, he died of apparent Sudden Infant Death Syndrome while in the care of his resource parents. In 2013, Vanessa had two more children, twin daughters named Dacey and Tiara. When Dacey and Tiara were four months old, the girls were taken into child protective custody, after Vanessa left them in the care of a woman neighbor who was in the process of being evicted. The landlord stopped by regarding the eviction, saw the two unrelated and unsupervised children, and called the child protection agency, DCP&P. When Vanessa returned the next day after working overnight to pick up the children, she was charged with neglect and the girls were placed in foster care. When the twins were first removed they were placed with Vanessa’s aunt, but due to unexpected health issues, the aunt was unable to keep both girls long-term. The twins were eventually removed again and placed together with a non-kin resource family. In 2014, Vanessa was court ordered by Family Court to enter an inpatient drug treatment program, and by May 2015 she was reunited with her children. Vanessa’s recovery was strongly motivated by her guilt surrounding Brandon’s death. She visited him infrequently when he was in the hospital, and she believes this is one reason he was placed in foster care. In addition, if he had been in her care instead of with foster parents, she wonders, could his death have been avoided? Her remorse over Brandon’s death permeates her feelings about being a parent. These feelings impact h.

1. SOWK110_04 Case Study 1
Case Description
Vanessa, Shauntay, Brandon, Dacey, Tiara, and Lawrence
Vanessa is a 32-year-old, African-American mother with four
living children: Shauntay (15 years), twins Dacey (4 years) and
Tiara (4 years), and Lawrence (1 year).
Vanessa dropped out of high school during her senior year but
received her GED a few years later while pregnant with her first
child, Shauntay. She took various “odds and ends jobs,”
frequently relying on welfare when she was not engaged in
work. When she was in her early twenties, she completed an
eight-month course at a local business college and became
employed with a government agency as a receptionist.
Vanessa’s mother moved in with her and provided childcare for
Shauntay while Vanessa went to work. About 6 months after
starting her new job, Vanessa’s mother died unexpectedly from
a heart attack, and Vanessa eventually quit her job due to stress.
Her boyfriend at the time introduced her to opiates not long
after her mother’s death and soon the drugs consumed
Vanessa’s life. Shauntay went to live with her paternal
grandparents and Vanessa lost her benefits because she no
longer had a dependent child living with her. She eventually
applied for General Assistance where she received about $125 a
month.
In 2006, Vanessa gave birth to a baby boy, Brandon, who was
born addicted to opiates and was immediately removed from her
care and placed into foster care. Unfortunately, soon after
Brandon was placed in a resource home, he died of apparent
Sudden Infant Death Syndrome while in the care of his resource

2. parents. In 2013, Vanessa had two more children, twin
daughters named Dacey and Tiara. When Dacey and Tiara were
four months old, the girls were taken into child protective
custody, after Vanessa left them in the care of a woman
neighbor who was in the process of being evicted. The landlord
stopped by regarding the eviction, saw the two unrelated and
unsupervised children, and called the child protection agency,
DCP&P. When Vanessa returned the next day after working
overnight to pick up the children, she was charged with neglect
and the girls were placed in foster care. When the twins were
first removed they were placed with Vanessa’s aunt, but due to
unexpected health issues, the aunt was unable to keep both girls
long-term. The twins were eventually removed again and placed
together with a non-kin resource family.
In 2014, Vanessa was court ordered by Family Court to enter an
inpatient drug treatment program, and by May 2015 she was
reunited with her children. Vanessa’s recovery was strongly
motivated by her guilt surrounding Brandon’s death. She visited
him infrequently when he was in the hospital, and she believes
this is one reason he was placed in foster care. In addition, if he
had been in her care instead of with foster parents, she wonders,
could his death have been avoided? Her remorse over Brandon’s
death permeates her feelings about being a parent. These
feelings impact her sense of herself as a parent. She describes
herself as “forgiving” with her children, a parent who ought to
say “no” but cannot because of past mistakes that led to the
children’s foster placement.
Vanessa began collecting TANF at the time she regained
custody of the twins. Her children lived with her at the recovery
program until October 2015 when the family moved into the
program’s transitional housing apartments. Vanessa paid $280
per month in rent, which was equal to 30% of her income at the
time. She was allowed to remain there with her children for up
to 3 years. While living in the apartments, Vanessa was able to

3. continue to receive substance abuse services and supports, as
well as guidance on job training. Vanessa expressed feelings
about DCP&P, stating their involvement gave her a “wake-up
call.” However, she subsequently felt herself to be under
constant surveillance, in which her behavior could be critically
examined at any time.
That fall of 2015, Vanessa took a job with a new government
agency, with a starting salary of $8.60/hour. She gained this job
without any assistance from the WorkFirst NJ program. At this
hourly wage, she continued to receive assistance from TANF,
food stamps, and WIC. After roughly nine months at the job, her
salary increased to $12/hour and she was no longer eligible for
TANF. WorkFirst NJ continued to pay for her childcare costs,
and she also continued to receive NJ Family Care for the
family. Vanessa was aware of the time limits and the family cap
with welfare benefits. As a result, she felt increased pressure to
achieve stable employment, pressure that only intensified her
conflict between her need to work, and her desire to spend time
with her children.
Vanessa felt the stress of her job impacted her relationship with
her children. "A lot of times when I come home I’m tired and
stressing and trying to get them in here and get them situated
and ready to go back to daycare - it takes a lot out of me raising
them and spending time with them - having the patience and,
you know, being gentle with them." Thus, along with limiting
the time she has available for her children, work also impacted
Vanessa's parenting when they were together. Although Vanessa
regretted leaving welfare assistance for work, she also
recognizes rewards of working. "Working I feel independent
and, you know, like I’m doing what I should be doing."
However, with only a temporary job she was not sure if the
benefits of working outweighed the costs. Vanessa felt a full-
time, permanent position would be more stable, would offer
vacation time, and would provide better medical and dental

4. insurance for herself and her children.
Vanessa's involvement with child welfare services initially
damaged her feelings of control over her relationship with her
children, and weakened her already fragile self-esteem.
Although she had made major changes to her life, she felt that
the child welfare system continued to base its judgments of her,
on her past mistakes. She therefore believed that she would
never be free of monitoring from the child welfare system.
Vanessa continued to feel that DCP&P would reenter her life if
she made the smallest mistake. "They're just watching me from
afar, you know, waiting for me to pop." This perception of
constant surveillance added to the pressure Vanessa felt, to
maintain her employment status, and to care for her children
well. But over the course of the year, this generated some pride
in her accomplishments. "It just makes me feel proud now that
whoever is watching me can say, 'yeah, well, this chick, she's
pretty tough - so far so good. She's still all right.' I'm showing
whoever's looking at me that people can change."
In June 2016, Vanessa gave birth to her youngest child,
Lawrence, and took three months maternity leave from her job.
She did not receive any additional assistance upon the birth of
her son due to the family cap with WorkFirst NJ.
When Lawrence was born, the children’s father seemed to exist
in the background of the family, seldom providing direct
childcare and often gone for days, working as a mechanic at a
local auto body shop. With the addition of the new baby to the
household, the dual demands on Vanessa – as parent and worker
-- increased and she frequently seemed exhausted. These
demands were complicated by logistical (e.g., transportation)
and institutional challenges (e.g., lack of benefits through her
employer). Such competing demands, combined with limited
resources, made her tired and less available to her children, and
contributed to somewhat frayed nerves in the household. When

5. Vanessa was especially tired and emotionally unavailable, the
twins Dacey and Tiara tended to intensify their most defiant
behaviors. This had the effect of getting Vanessa’s attention and
involvement. Both Dacey and Tiara, Vanessa felt, were
“traumatized” by their separation from her while in foster
placement, therefore requiring especially attentive parenting.
But while chaos often reigned, there was also a high degree of
warmth and intensity of affection by Vanessa with her children.
The baby appeared to be developing well and was remarkably
adaptive to the high-energy environment he shared with his
sisters. Although Vanessa’s style was erratic and sometimes
ineffective with her twins, she had no major problems
responding to the children’s basic care and protection needs. In
fact, she was remarkably attentive to details of her infant’s
experience in the midst of a fairly chaotic home environment.
Vanessa also attempted on several occasions to reconnect with
her daughter Shauntay who still lived with relatives, but
Shauntay did not express the same interest. Vanessa continually
expressed tremendous guilt and sadness surrounding her
relationship with her eldest daughter.
Shortly after she returned to her job in September 2016 after
maternity leave, the government office hired Vanessa
permanently, and her wages increased to $14/hour. She
excitedly claimed that after 6 months, her salary would double
to $28/hour, and that the job provided both medical and dental
benefits for herself and her children. Vanessa felt that her
personal determination contributed to her achievement of this
high-paying job. In addition, she attributed her success to
supervisors who were sympathetic towards her, and respected
her efforts to transition off welfare, to employment. In May
2017, however, Vanessa was fired from her job because she
released, to a friend, a confidential document. Vanessa was told
this was a violation of the code of ethics, and although she
understood the decision, she felt had she needed to provide the
friend with a favor.

6. This unfortunate decision generated new stress. The next month
she found a temporary job at $9.00/hour, once again without
benefits; and during the month she was without employment,
she did not receive TANF assistance. She had recently bought a
used car and the value of the car was great enough to disqualify
her from welfare. She was also very late on her rent payment
that month. Losing the income from both her job and welfare for
just a few weeks created a precarious situation for Vanessa and
her three children. During the last contact with Vanessa, in June
2017, she talked about her worries, laughed nervously, and
dismissed the fact that she had begun occasionally drinking
alcohol.
Efforts to contact Vanessa again in August 2017, December
2017, and January 2018 were unsuccessful.
Please review Vanessa’s case and respond to the following
questions:
Use the person-in-environment and ecologicalmodels to conduct
an assessment of Vanessa’s situation. Describe the difficulties
she faced and reflect on their potential causes by identifying
specific risk factors present in her case. Address risks at
different levels of the system, i.e. individual, family,
neighborhood, etc. Please describe in detail how these risks
affected Vanessa and her situation.
no family support
mental health issues
financial strains
unstable home/house
prostitution
criminal record
drug addiction
domestic violence abuse
dropped out of school
lost her kids

7. unemployment
unhealthy relationship
single mom
behavioral issues with kids
The different systems that it applies to
How risks can impact each other
Use the strengths perspective to identify potential protective
factors/strengths present in Vanessa’s case. Identify strengths at
different levels of the system, such as individual capabilities,
family strengths, community strengths, etc.
parenting class
was in counseling
drug treatment
removed herself from toxic relationship
recognized her struggles
cares about her kids
Propose an intervention plan for Vanessa at the micro level.
What would be the overall goal of the intervention? Indicate
which theory would guide the intervention (e.g. psychodynamic,
problem-solving, task-centered, cognitive-behavioral, etc.) and
why. Please make sure to explain in detail why you chose a
particular theory. When designing an intervention, make sure it
addresses risk factors and incorporates protective factors (as
identified in questions 1 and 2).
Problem solving theory - (rehab, support group, counselor) how
to fix substance abuse
It is the best theory because …
(doesnt need to cover all risk factors, just main ones)
(good time to use the book, explain theories)
Propose an intervention plan for Vanessa at the macro level.
What are the goal(s) of the intervention, and how does it
complement micro-level work? When designing the

8. intervention, make sure it addresses risk factors and
incorporates protective factors (as identified in questions 1 and
2). Also, indicate if assigning a case manager would be
beneficial in this case, and if so, why.
macro intervention could be having programs that are closer ,
help transportation
start a program in the area she and others live in and with help
others in the area as well.
Develop a program that will help the community as a whole
*Program development
*Advocate
Guidelines for submission: The case study is due 10/11/18 by
4:00pm.The paper should use font size 12 and must be double-
spaced. The entire paper should not exceed 5 pages. Late
submissions will not be accepted, with the exception of
emergencies approved by the instructor.
The textbook must also be appropriately referenced and cited
within the assignment. References to outside articles and
readings are optional.