Social Worker, Yvette Van Schalkwyk: A Question of Professional Ethics
*In case anyone missed it, M'Lady was a social worker for years before she went to law school.
** I apologize in advance for anything I say in the following opinion that someone may take personally.
*** While I'm not always right, I ALWAYS have an opinion. Ha!
I know and have worked professionally with a large number of social workers in health care, schools, courts, etc., over the past 20 years. I have great respect for them and the work they do, especially those who engage in continual personal counseling as a pre-requisite for their jobs. Those who don't often struggle with boundary and codependency issues which leak into their work.
People in direct helping professions care. It's what they do, it's who they are, which is both the good news and the bad news. It's a wonderful thing to be a truly caring person, it brings amazing things to a world that sorely needs amazing things. At the same time, in order to care "carers" have to have something/someone to "care" about. As a result, they often project a presumption of "need" onto almost everyone in almost every situation. Sometimes it fits, sometimes it doesn't.
I believe Mrs. Van Schalkwyk's personal caring is the foundation of her work as a social worker, as well as the filter through which she perceives and interprets people and situations, in all areas of her life. Through that filter she interacted professionally with OP. Personally, she felt strongly enough about her perceptions to come forward on his behalf, believing that what she perceived about him was, objectively speaking, true. In fact, perceptions and feelings are highly subjective and that's where the waters get muddy. It's one thing to bring personal biases to one's job. It's another to come forward and testify in court under false pretenses.
That Yvette Van Schalkwyk came forward was, no doubt, manna from heaven for Roux. Obviously, in order for her personal testimony to be heard, he had to cast her in her professional role. (Had she come forward and offered to testify as someone who briefly knew OP and had personal feelings to share, I imagine he would have thanked her and sent her away.) In agreeing to testify in her professional role, I believe that she had a responsibility to strictly adhere to the bounds of what was in her written reports. She admitted to Nel, however, that none of it was. Thus, from a professional ethical point-of-view, she had no business being there. Yet, she was. Her overwhelming sense of "care" and her blurred sense of professional responsibility drove her forward.
The difficulty that many involved in direct helping professions struggle with is distinguishing the principle of "care-centered ethics" from "caring" within the boundaries set in the Codes of Ethics of their professions. Many I have known have often crossed boundaries and they're proud of it. They willingly admit that their personal "caring" trumps all else. They believe doing so is a noble and admirable quality. IMHO it's not. A great deal of damage can be done in the name of compassion. That's why Codes of Ethics were created by professions in the first place.
While well-meaning, in my opinion, Yvette Van Schalkwyk inadvertently became a role model for the worst stereotypes of those in direct helping professions. My assessment begins with her being "well-meaning" and goes downhill from there.
If Mrs. Van Schalkwyk came forward to Roux with the approval of her superiors, I seriously question their judgement and think they should be fired. If Mrs. Van Schalkwyk didn't get their approval, she needs to be fired - with the parting recommendation that she engage in regular counseling if she plans to stay in the profession.
Again, my apologies to anyone who may be offended by my opinion and/or how I worded it.
