How would you have handled the situation differently?

Overview
Read and respond to an ethics case study. This assignment will help you internalize the ethical guidelines of the profession. Your instructor will grade your response using a rubric.
Instructions
You will work with an assigned partner to analyze and respond to an ethics case study.
For this assignment you will complete the Ethical Analysis worksheet download Ethical Analysis worksheet using the Case Study (below) and the CFLE Code of Professional EthicsLinks to an external site. document.
You will work on this assignment in pairs or small groups, which will be assigned by your instructor.
To find your partner(s), go to People.
You may use the optional W05 Discussion: Ethics Analysis Coordination to contact each other and work with your partner.
Only one person in each group will submit the paper. Include the names of contributing students on the paper.
Prepare
This assignment will help you to put the Code of Ethics into action. The purpose of this assignment is to help you internalize the ethical guidelines of the profession. Below is a case study of a Family Life Educator who meets with a family.
Case
Our Family Life Educator, Laus Sootz, has been asked to meet with a family from the school district that is in need of some parenting education. The Sycone family is part of a fundamentalist Christian sect (very, very conservative), and homeschools their children. The family is very authoritarian. The dad is obviously the head of the house and ensures that Laus knows that when he comes to the house to work with the family. The school district is concerned about the quality of the homeschooling the family is receiving (based on reports of the children not receiving any schooling whatsoever) and they are also worried about possible violence in the family.
In the first meeting, after scolding the family for showing up five minutes late to the appointment, Laus tries to help the parents change some of their parenting practices and using more open communication with their children, especially with their teenagers. The dad challenged Laus and told him he was young and ignorant (since Laus just graduated from college). To this, Laus got defensive and said, “Look, the school district, the state, and child protective services will base their decisions on what I tell them and if you don’t start cooperating, they’ll take your children away based on my report.”
Laus recently went to a one-hour seminar on using hypnosis to cure aggressive personalities. Laus thinks he’ll need about five different meetings with the dad to help him change using this new technique. Laus thinks he could probably charge $100/hour because “the family can afford it.” Laus thinks it’s probably better to not let the dad know up front about this arrangement but he’ll require them to do it if they want to keep their kids.
During the second meeting at the house, Laus met some of the younger kids (who were pretty unruly). One of the kids (a 6-year-old) took gum out of her mouth and smashed it into Laus’ hair when Laus wasn’t looking. Laus was pretty ticked and grabbed the kid’s arm and said, “Don’t ever touch me again, you little snot-nosed rug rat.” During this visit, the father also told Laus of a time last week when he got in a fight with his 17-year-old daughter and hit her in the face. The daughter landed a couple of punches in his face too.
Later that night, when Laus is at the store (buying some ice cream to help him forget the stresses of the day and the Sycone family), he runs into a neighbor of the Sycones who approaches Laus and says in a hushed voice, “Oh, how are the Sycones doing? I’m a good friend and neighbor of Mrs. Sycone. She tells me everything that’s going on with them.” Laus takes this time to vent a bit and tells the neighbor that the Sycones are about the most psycho family he’s ever met, mentions the gum in the hair, the dad and the daughter getting in a fight, etc.
Laus certainly felt better after getting that off his chest. He goes home, consumes his $5 pint of Ben and Jerry’s “Phish Food” ice cream and climbs comfortably into bed, ready to tackle another day in the morning.
Assignment
With your partner, identify a minimum of 10 ethical dilemmas in the case study. Once you have identified the dilemmas, go through an ethics analysis process for each violation. Think of a dilemma as a situation or incident in which the family life educator acted in a way that violated the ethical codes. In some situations/dilemmas, the educator may have violated more than one ethical code.
The basics of the assignment are: What did the family life educator do incorrectly and why is it a problem? What ethical codes and principles did he violate? How would you have handled the situation differently?
You may use the provided Group Tools to collaborate with your partner on this assignment. Complete the worksheet with your partner (one worksheet per pair) that addresses the ethical issues.
Here is the ethics analysis process for each violation:
What ethical guideline or principle was violated? Describe the situation and list the principle(s) from the CFLE Code of Ethics that were violated.
For each dilemma, describe why is it a potential problem in this case.
If you were the professional in this case, how would you proceed with helping this family in a way that maintains that specific ethical guideline?
Only one person in each pair needs to submit the worksheet. Include the names of both contributing students on the paper.
Here is an example on how to write up each ethical violation you notice in the case:
Principle A.1 – The part in the case regarding the family life educator yelling at the family and telling them that they will have to change or they’ll be charged double for their sessions, violates Ethical Principle A.1. “The Family Life Educator will be aware of the influence we have and avoid practices that harm or exploit.”
This is an issue because the family life educator is misusing the power s/he has over the family.
If I were the professional in this case and frustrated with the family, I would be careful not to give mandates that involved me using my power over the family to manipulate them (by threatening to charge them more, or threaten to give a negative report to their superiors, or tell others they are having problems). Instead, I would let the family know of my disappointment but then work with them to find a better solution.