|
home journals Relational Child & Youth Care Practice
ISSN 0840-982X VOLUME 20 NUMBER 2CONTENTS Editorial 3Rules of the Union Thom Garfat A researcher’s obligation 6 Petra Rovers Significant stress and real rewards:
The ecological and
9
An ordinary Sunday afternoon
21 Daniel, the party’s over here.
Reconciling the discipline of the 23
A piece of cake
29 Making the leap: One experience
bridging theory and practice
31
Good attachment: What is it?
36
Open me first
47
Book review: The South African context
57
Boys will be ...
65
The professional parent vs. the actual
parent 73 EDITORIAL Rules of the Union We went to the wedding of some friends, Jenny and Terry, the other day. Now, they have been together for a long time – 15 years actually – and they decided, as my mother might say ‘after all this time’, to get married. Why they made this decision isn’t really important and it is probably more fun for you to just speculate anyway. So we were at the ceremony – a lovely affair on the lawn overlooking the river – and the man marrying them was the local mayor – not a priest or anyone of obvious religious affiliation – just the local Mayor, who by the way, happens to own the construction company that dug the foundation for their house. Hey, that’s life in Canada. As the mayor began to speak, simple and clear, it was immediately obvious that this was a different type of ceremony. You see, instead of reading off the vows which, more traditionally, might pledge eternal and undying love in the face of all challenges, the mayor read off articles 392 to 396 of the law as he is apparently required by law to do, in the presence of witnesses. Assumedly, this is to ensure that everyone understands what the government thinks are the important rights and obligations one accepts when entering into a marriage here in Quebec. Here are articles of the Rights and Duties of Spouses according to the Civil Code of Quebec (2004). Read these slowly and think about the possible implications:
When we first read through these they may seem rather bureaucratic and ‘official’ and indeed they are. But I want to stop for a minute to consider what is actually said here in a few of these, and consider some of the possible implications for those of us who might work with families here in Quebec as Child and Youth Care Workers. Article 392 says ‘spouses have the same rights and obligations’. This is an interesting statement when you consider how we often treat the parents in families with whom we work. How often, for example, does a worker pay more attention or respect to one member of the parent couple than the other, for reasons often influenced by personal experience or learning — listening to fathers more, listening to mothers more, assuming that one parent has a more important perspective than the other. But the law is clear: both parents have the same rights. Does that not mean that we, as helpers, must respect the fact that they are always, under the law, equal? Are we not, then, violating the intent of the law, if we treat parents differently in our work. Because it does not say, for example, both are equal if I like you both equally. There is no Orwellian sense here of ‘some are more equal that others’ (Orwell, 1946). Article 394 says: ‘spouses together take in hand the moral and material direction of the family, exercise parental authority and assume the tasks resulting therefrom’. Notice that phrase ‘take together in hand’. I am remembering the number of times when it has seemed to me that there was just one of the parents ‘taking in hand’ and how I accepted that situation. Perhaps I was wrong to do that; perhaps I should have been more insistent that they ‘together take in hand’ — positioning myself on the side of their initial commitment? Well, I could go on through all of the regulations a the mayor was required to read but I am sure you get the point and that, if you are interested, you will look carefully at the others, and their implications for how we work, and what we do, with troubled children and their families.
Terry and Jenny made a decision, regardless of their years of living together: a decision to submit themselves to some legally defined obligations of the culture in which they live. They didn’t get married ‘because’ of the legal obligations, but in getting married they did choose to recognize them. And when you look at them closely, they are not bad obligations – in fact, one might argue, they are obligations which, if respected, could serve to strengthen a relationship of marriage and family. Many of the parents we work with have made, at some point, a choice: a choice to live together according to the regulations and customs of their land. Sometimes, I think, that when we are working with families, trying to be helpful, we forget these choices and obligations that the parents made originally. Why do we forget them? Perhaps it is because we, ourselves, were not aware; or perhaps because we value different things. Perhaps it is because of our own experiences. People make choices in their lives – different points, different choices. Maybe as Child and Youth Care Workers we forget this, or don’t recognize it. Perhaps, this is just a thought of course, when we work with families, especially parents, it would be helpful to go back to those original commitments (in accepting something, we do accept the implied commitment) and reflect with them on what has changed and why. I was talking with another friend at the wedding and we were discussing his relationship with his wife – hey, these things happen at a marriage. In the course of the discussion he mentioned that he didn’t understand his relationship with his spouse anymore; and while he knew that he had made a decision, he was wondering why he had made that decision – he seemed to have forgotten why he had decided to marry the woman he had chosen to be with. And I guess in some ways, that makes my point – people forget after a while, when the stresses of daily living pile up and things don’t feel as good as they once did – they forget that there was a reason why they chose to be with this person for, as the more traditional vows say, the rest of their life. It is not that they are bad, or struggling with a memory deficit, it is just that life has got in the way. Living in a relationship is hard work – we change with time, we develop new ways of being in the world, we each grow differently. This sometimes tentative thread which is our original commitment gets strained. With the accumulated fog of time we sometimes no longer see clearly. Or, simply put, we forget. So, I wonder, as a Child and Youth Care Worker when I meet with families, would there be a benefit to going back to the time when the commitments, explicit or implicit, were made? Would there be value in helping the parents to re-situate themselves in that moment? It is just a wondering. Later, after the ceremonies and a fine meal, we went as a group, back to Jenny and Terry’s home where, long before the marriage, they had lived together. As the gathering wore on with friends, new and old, connecting or re-connecting, Terry and Jenny were central to our thoughts. As we all enjoyed the company of each other occasioned by their marriage, I couldn’t help but reflect on the choice they had consciously made: to acknowledge the obligations embedded in law of their culture. And as the evening wore on, I also couldn’t help but think ‘nice decision’. I promised myself then that should their relationship ever ‘teeter fragilely on the brink’ I, as their friend, would feel obligated to go back to this evening of commitment and remember with them. Maybe, as Child and Youth Care Workers, it would also not be a bad thing to do. Terry, Jenny. Thanks for the memories. Thom 1. According to my favourite on-line dictionary the word succour has one meaning as a noun, "assistance in time of difficulty" References Justice Quebec (2004). The Civil Code of Quebec. Available here: http://www.justice.gouv.qc.ca/english/accueil.asp Orwell, G. (1946). Animal Farm. Orlando, Fl: Harcourt Brace. ______________
|
