SPFH costs about twice as much as other aids, etc., which provide no less support, but may even provide more. But SPFHs provide…?
Only with the youth welfare office covering the costs and monitoring, there's usually more, or the help that's being offered actually becomes a further source of stress. What is the purpose of SPHS? Supporting the family, or actually monitoring and visiting the family in this way, or rather, or even almost exclusively, judging the family overly critically, etc.
Actual experiences are welcome.
(2 rating, 2 votes, rated)You need to be a registered member to rate this.
Loading...
My mother worked in the profession for many years. And she always had a good connection to the families.
They also didn't feel controlled by her, but worked actively with her and also actively asked for support when there were problems in the family because they knew that my mother didn't use it against her.
I think it's like in all social areas: it always depends on who you're wearing. And black sheep are everywhere.
The SPFH is an educational aid for parents and is intended to promote parental education. Indirectly, however, the guardianship of the Youth Office is also part of the assignment. In most cases, it is also about cases at the edge of a child's welfare risk. In accordance with §8a SGB VIII, the SPFH officials must report to the Youth Office any cases of child welfare. Therefore, control is also part of aid.
I don't know what alternative help you mean. For me, with similar orientation and intensity, at best the educational assistance (§30 SGB VIII) comes into question. Here are not the parents but the child recipients of help, but otherwise everything is very similar and the costs do not really differ.
Therefore, your statement regarding the cost of alternative aid is not understandable to me.
There are social workers. Qualified extended household aid, qualified family aid etc
ok – a family help would then have to do not only practical support but also guidance and training. Otherwise, the services mentioned only take you off work (relief) but are not training in the sense of help for self-help.
I would very strongly distinguish whether it is annoying (for you) or whether it is groundless. Obviously, however, there are valid reasons why the Youth Office wants to interfere or must. And there the SPFH is often effective and sufficient. But goal is a change – which may seem annoying to you, but serves the welfare of the child/children. Refusal and resistance can excalate and if the threat of children is assessed as massive, then this can lead to child care. I think it would be really annoying. There can be different views about right and wrong. The Youth Office is never an individual, but it is involved in a team with which it can consult. And the executing SPFH force is always someone else, also initiating a (other) team. And these forces also exchange and the educators participate in the help planning. If no agreement is possible, there are so-called independent ombudsmen in office and in all federal states that support you and communicate in conflict with the Office.
But educators are not allowed to do everything, and they are not allowed to encourage their children. The state intervenes with good reason – unfortunately not always early enough.
There the theory of practice bites in the back. This may be true in a single cell case in our case, someone poses childless and relatively strange his formulated opinion in our lives simply about ours. It's just annoying.
In addition, there are also people who have worked themselves as nurses and so on and so on.
It is also possible to change family support with the indication of good reasons, provided that enough capacity is still available, you must always pay attention, then of course you can also not change it.