What is Good Parenting? The Perspectives of Different Professionals

• Author: Mitchell K. Byrne,Cinzia R. Gagliardi,Philippa M. Eve
• Published date: 01 January 2014
• Date: 01 January 2014
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12074

WHAT IS GOOD PARENTING?

THE PERSPECTIVES OF DIFFERENT PROFESSIONALS

Philippa M. Eve, Mitchell K. Byrne, and Cinzia R. Gagliardi

Defining parenting, and good parenting in particular, is a complex task wrought with ambiguities. This creates problems in

agreeing on a standard parenting capacity assessment, particularly in relation to strengths as opposed to weaknesses.To address

this lack of consensus, the current study explored the convergence and divergenceof different professional groups’ opinions on

good parenting. A mixed-methods design was employed, with semi-structured interviews and rating scales administered to 19

professionals with experience in parenting capacity assessments. Data were analyzed using a constructivist grounded theory.

The findings suggest that, in general, professionals agree on main themes of good parenting, including (1) insight, (2)

willingness and ability,(3) day-to-day versus complex/long-term needs, (4) child’s needs before own, (5) fostering attachment,

and (6) consistency versus flexibility. Within these six categories, individual differences emerged. Theoretical and practical

implications are discussed.

Keypoints

• Describes the importance of parenting capacity Assessments and the variances in practitioner approaches

• Adopts a strengths based approach as an adjunct to the traditional deficits based approach to Parenting capacity

assessments

• Contextualises the key decision making issues affecting assessors and decision makers in the judicial system

• Provides a theoretical model on decision makers opinions regarding good parenting and outlines directions for the

development of strengths based assessments as a contribution to child placement decisions

Keywords: Child Protection;Family Law;Parenting Assessment;Parenting Capacity;Professionals;andStrengths.

The assessment of parenting capacity is a core task in child protection, and is often done in

combination with risk assessments (White, 2005). Parenting capacity assessments (PCAs) are mainly

used in the New South Wales (NSW) Children’s Court, however, they may also form part of an overall

assessment in Family Court proceedings. These assessments are done by social workers or psycholo-

gists who work for social services (White, 2005), mental health nurses (Rutherford & Keeley, 2009),

or independent assessors appointed by the court (Condie, 2003). All PCAs occur once a problem

has been identified (White, 2005), including cases of suspected child maltreatment; environments in

which parental fitness is questionable due to mental illness, alcoholism, or instability (Waller &

Daniel, 2005), family dissolution matters (Connell, 2008), or in rare cases, before birth (Hart, 2010).

They may also be conducted when problems of a child cannot be explained, in areas such as physical

injuries, developmental delays, unusual responses to parents, and non-organic failure-to-thrive(Budd,

Poindexter, Felix, & Naik-Polan, 2001).

While PCAs may initially be conducted for social service reasons (such as service planning for

struggling parents), they are often later utilized as forensic evidence in legal decisions regarding

family reunification, visitation rights, foster care decisions, and the termination of parental rights

(Azar, Lauretti, & Loding, 1998; Budd et al., 2001). PCAs have been found to hold considerable

impact over forensic decisions (Lennings, 2002), including child custody. For example, Jamieson,

Tranah, and Sheldrick (1999) found that, in 37 child care court cases in England, assessment

recommendations were wholly followed in 73 percent of cases. Fur thermore, Waller and Daniel

(2005) found that lawyers expect clear conclusions from parenting assessments, with 75 percent

expecting a clear recommendation on custody and visitation decisions.

Correspondence: pip.eve@hotmail.com; gagliardibyrne@bigpond.com; mbyrne@uow.edu.au

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 52 No. 1, January 2014 114–127

© 2014 Association of Familyand Conciliation Cour ts