CHCPRT001 - Caleb case study

[calbuque81]

Hi Lorina,

Can you please help me with the second part of below question?

a) Explain why Ronald should not include these thoughts in his report and how his work role obligations provide guidance about providing this information.

My answer so far: He should not include these thoughts as reports need to be impartial, factual and free of any possible interpretation or judgement.

I am not sure how to answer "how his work role obligations provide guidance about providing this information"

**QUOTE**
Case Study:
Ronald, an educator, has recently noticed some bruising and burns on Caleb. Ronald suspects that Caleb is being abused by his mother, so he decides to document his observations.

Ronald decides to make a report to his state child protection authority. As he sits down to collate his observations, the following thoughts are running through his mind:

· Caleb’s mum is the one who hurt Caleb.

· Caleb’s mum smokes cigarettes and the burn on Caleb’s back was caused by a cigarette.

· Caleb’s mum should never have had children.

**UNQUOTE**

Thanks,
Caroline

[Lorina]

Yes. you're on the right track!

As for the question on his work role providing guidance this should from the Child Protection Policy/Mandatory Reporting.

,
Lorina