Abstract
When contemplating the possibility of writing this book, I could not imagine it without a section written by professionals from around the world who supervise from a SF perspective. I took my inspiration from De Jong and Berg’s (2012) Applications chapter that has a format similar to this one, and I began contacting the best people I knew to solicit his/her participation. Every contributor to this chapter shared their knowledge and experience out of profound respect for Insoo Kim Berg, Steve de Shazer, and other founders of the SF approach. If I approached someone to write for this book, I was certain that person would freely credit those who blazed trails before him/her and write out of a sense of responsibility to our common SF heritage and community.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The therapist’s name and identifying details have been changed to protect her identity. She gave permission to use her story for this contribution; she also reviewed and commented on the case study prior to publication.
- 2.
It is important to note the distinction between parenting capacity assessments, conducted at the request of child protection authorities, and child custody evaluations, undertaken to decide postdivorce parenting arrangements. In the former, the parents’ capacity to care for children is questioned. In the latter, by and large, the competence of individual parents is not at issue (Pearce and Pezzot-Pearce 2004). For the purposes of this contribution, I refer to them collectively as “parenting evaluations.”
- 3.
The discourse on “attachment,” while widely accepted in North American family courts, is subject to much critique, discussion of which is outside the scope of this contribution. For one example, see Ross (2011).
- 4.
Of course, identities are blurred to protect the privacy of the therapist and the confidentiality of clients throughout this contribution.
- 5.
Later, Frank and I discussed this—I felt he should have commented, but he felt he was keeping with our conversational rules by not engaging Susan. This fruitful exchange led to my taking responsibility to address therapists’ attempts to engage Frank in this context, which worked out well for me and for my supervisory relationship with Susan.
- 6.
“Might could” is Texan for “could” (or “might”), a common phrase in this part of the USA.
- 7.
Carers is the term conventionally used in the UK as an inclusive wording to cover parents, grandparents, and so on.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Thomas, F.N. (2013). Applications. In: Solution-Focused Supervision. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6052-7_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6052-7_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-6051-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-6052-7
eBook Packages: Behavioral ScienceBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)