You are always pointing att very important and interesting topics. The perspective here is thoughtful too. The difference here, as I see it, is that we should never claim need of action based on a risk estimation in child protection cases unless we already have harm to a child. The step to hypothesise future risk for the child is, at least to me, a move to engage parents to take steps to make efforts to change.
Yes, it's what I talk about utilizing a strengths based approach, (human-based knowledge type) in a risk oriented context (machine-based knowledge type).
You are always pointing att very important and interesting topics. The perspective here is thoughtful too. The difference here, as I see it, is that we should never claim need of action based on a risk estimation in child protection cases unless we already have harm to a child. The step to hypothesise future risk for the child is, at least to me, a move to engage parents to take steps to make efforts to change.
And thanks for the kind words and your comment :D
Yes, it's what I talk about utilizing a strengths based approach, (human-based knowledge type) in a risk oriented context (machine-based knowledge type).