Rachel Pollard, formerly a court welfare officer with Greater Manchester Probation Service and now a Counsellor at the University of Manchester, argues that to ignore the admittedly unfashionable insights of psychoanalytic thinking serves to impoverish the theoretical base of court welfare practice in understanding the interaction between the welfare officer and family members.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
FroschS.The Politics of Psychoanalysis: An Introduction to Freudian and Post-Freudian Theory, Macmillan Education, 1987.
2.
RichardsB. ‘The Cultural Predicaments of Psychoanalysis’, Free Associations, 33 (2), 549-569, 1994.
3.
MattinsonJ.The Reflection Process in Casework Supervision, Tavistock Institute of Human Relations, 1975.
4.
KrechD.The Individual in Society, McGraw Hill, 1962.
5.
FreudS.The Future Prospects of Psychoanalytic Therapy, Standard Ed., Vol. XI, The Hogarth Press and the Institute of Psychoanalysis, republished 1957.
6.
SearlesH.‘Concerning Transference and Countertransference’,Journal of Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy,7,165-188, 1978-79.
7.
NoonanE.Counselling Young People, Routledge, 1983.
8.
WallersteinJ.‘Transference and Countertransference in Clinical Intervention with Divorcing Families’,American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,60 (3), 337-345, 1990.
9.
GarberB.‘Countertransference Reactions in Death and Divorce: Comparison and Contrast’,Residential Treatment for Children and Youth,9 (4), 43-59, 1992.
10.
ClulowC.‘Only Connect’,FamilyLaw, May1993, 306.
11.
SpringerC.‘Clinical Work with Adolescents and their Parents during Family Transitions: Transference and Countertransference Issues’,Clinical Social Work Journal,19 (4), 405-415, 1991.
12.
JamesA. & HayW.Court Welfare in Action, Practice and Theory, Harvestor Wheatsheaf, 1993.
13.
MorrisonT.‘The Emotional Effects of Child Protection on the Worker’, Practice, 4 (4), 67-89, 1991.
