Maria is a 30-year-old single mother living with her two children, ages 5 and 8 in a mid-sized country town. Maria has recently lost her job due to company downsizing and is struggling to meet basic needs such as food, rent, and utilities. She has been in counselling for the past six months after experiencing domestic violence in her previous relationship. Despite her challenges, Maria is motivated to improve her situation for her children’s well-being.
A social worker, Rachel, is assigned to Maria’s case to assist her with finding housing, connecting to financial aid programs, and providing emotional support. However, due to funding constraints, the agency limits contact to four months, meaning a lot has to be achieved in a short period of time.
During one of their sessions, Maria confides that her ex-partner has been contacting her again and threatening to harm her if she doesn’t return to him. Maria is scared but says she doesn’t want to involve the authorities because she fears retaliation. Rachel knows that Maria’s safety is at risk and must decide whether to break confidentiality, being aware that the agency places a lot of importance on confidentiality and duty of care in its Code of Ethics, to ensure her protection.
Rachel has a limited number of resources available to help Maria. There is a program that can assist with housing, but there are multiple families in need. Maria qualifies for the program, but so do other families with equally pressing needs. Rachel has to decide how to prioritize who receives assistance, and whether Maria should be given priority because of her history with domestic violence.
Maria expresses that she does not want to pursue further counselling or participate in job training programs, feeling overwhelmed by the demands of daily life and her children. Rachel believes that continuing therapy and exploring work opportunities would significantly improve Maria’s long-term well-being. However, Maria’s decision to not engage in these programs leaves Rachel questioning whether she should push for further interventions.
As the four-month deadline approaches, Maria, overwhelmed by her situation, asks Rachel if she can stay with her temporarily while she looks for permanent housing. Rachel empathizes with Maria’s situation but is aware of the ethical boundaries that must be maintained in a professional relationship. While Rachel wants to help, agreeing to her client’s staying with her could blur the professional boundary between social worker and client.
Task
Analyse and discuss two of the ethical dilemmas in this scenario.
Include in your discussion the following:
• the impact of the professional and organisational environment on this situation,
• identify which principles and sections from the AASW Code of Ethics are most relevant to the situation,
• discuss how you would approach this situation using your own values, the values of the organisation and the AASW Code of Ethics. How might the code of ethics be used to resolve the dilemmas in this situation?
• discuss how your personal values relate to the professional values expressed in the code in relation to this situation. What differences exist between your own values and those of the code? Which did you act on?
• having reflected on the situation, would you have acted differently before undertaking studies in ethics? Do you think the situation would have had a different outcome? Justify your answer with reference to the AASW Code of Ethics.

Grading outline:
Criterion 1: Demonstrate understanding of personal, organisational and social work values and the ethical dilemmas encountered in practice, showing that you know what each one means and what it refers to and includes
Criterion 2: Apply the principles contained in the AASW Code of Ethics to the case in a thoughtful, careful way, clearly showing how – in your view – the right balance is to be struck between the demands of the different values, and why this is the right balance; and showing how, therefore, the dilemma should be resolved.
Criterion 3: Presentation of the essay in a well-organised discussion, written in good clear English.

APA Referencing