Medical Legal Partnership 

While the term trauma informed care is important, it is incomplete. First, trauma informed care correctly highlights the specific needs for individual young people who have exposure to trauma. However, current formulations of trauma informed care presumes that the trauma is an individual experience, rather than a collective one. To illustrate this point, researchers have shown that children in high violence neighborhoods all display behavioral and psychological elements of trauma (Sinha & Rosenberg 2013). Similarly, populations that disproportionately suffer from disasters like Hurricane Katrina share a common experience that if viewed individually simply fails to capture how collective harm requires a different approach than an individual one.

Second, trauma-informed care requires that we treat trauma in people but provides very little insight into how we might address the root causes of trauma in neighborhoods, families, and schools. If trauma is collectively experienced, this means that we also have to consider the environmental context that caused the harm in the first place. By only treating the individual we only address part of the equation leaving the toxic systems, policies and practices neatly intact.

Third, the term trauma-informed care runs the risk of focusing on the treatment of pathology (trauma), rather than fostering the possibility (well-being). This is not an indictment on well-meaning therapists and social workers many of whom may have been trained in theories and techniques designed to simply reduce negative emotions and behavior (Seligman 2011). However, just like the absence of disease doesn’t constitute health, nor the absence of violence constitute peace, the reduction pathology (anxiety, anger, fear, sadness, distrust, triggers) doesn’t constitute well-being (hope, happiness, imagination, aspirations, trust). Everyone wants to be happy, not just have less misery. The emerging field of positive psychology offers insight into the limits of only “treating” symptoms and focuses on enhancing the conditions that contribute to well-being. Without more careful consideration, trauma informed approaches sometimes slip into rigid medical models of care that are steeped in treating the symptoms, rather than strengthening the roots of well-being.

Excerpt from The Future of Healing: Shifting From Trauma Informed Care to Healing Centered Engagement, May 31 2018, Shawn Ginwright Ph.D.

1. Intake of client by The Citizens Review Board of Cape May County

2. Register with the Fit for Life program to measure data during case

3. Consultation from participating legal partner

4. Evaluation from participating mental health partner

5. Follow-Up Evaluation @ 6months, 1 year and 3 years

6. Date inputted into management system for outcome results and statistics. 

7. Outreach to local, state and federal representatives to request policy and procedures changes.

8. Display Data to national and local platforms to educate public. 

1. All participants in a family court situation  that will have a substantial amount of contact with the child(ren) in question should have a mandatory A.C.E.s screening done prior to the hearing by a non-bias medical professional. 

2. All participants will have a group counseling session immediately  to receive feedback about the court proceedings and legal documents involved. 

3. All participants will have a group counseling session 6 months after close of order to see how the order is affecting lives.

4. Mental Health services are looked at more carefully to partner with legal changes in each participants life.

• due to new data from the recent pandemic we are now collecting data through virtual appointments. The use of home cameras now gives a unique look of the current home situation which may have be hard to establish with older home evaluation methods.