123 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12818614)
1. Why social workers do not implement decisions to remove children at risk from home.
Davidson-Arad B; Englechin-Segal D; Wozner Y; Gabriel R
Child Abuse Negl; 2003 Jun; 27(6):687-97. PubMed ID: 12818614
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Parental features and quality of life in the decision to remove children at risk from home.
Davidson Arad B
Child Abuse Negl; 2001 Jan; 25(1):47-64. PubMed ID: 11214812
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Short-term follow-up of children at risk: comparison of the quality of life of children removed from home and children remaining at home.
Davidson-Arad B; Englechin-Segal D; Wozner Y
Child Abuse Negl; 2003 Jul; 27(7):733-50. PubMed ID: 14627076
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Construction of court petitions in cases of alternative placement of children at risk: meaning-making strategies that social workers use to shape court decisions.
Leichtentritt R; Davidson-Arad B; Peled E
Am J Orthopsychiatry; 2011 Jul; 81(3):372-81. PubMed ID: 21729017
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Professionals' decision-making about out-of-home placements following instances of child abuse.
Britner PA; Mossler DG
Child Abuse Negl; 2002 Apr; 26(4):317-32. PubMed ID: 12092801
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. THE SAAF STUDY: evaluation of the Safeguarding Children Assessment and Analysis Framework (SAAF), compared with management as usual, for improving outcomes for children and young people who have experienced, or are at risk of, maltreatment: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.
Macdonald G; Lewis J; Macdonald K; Gardner E; Murphy L; Adams C; Ghate D; Cotmore R; Green J
Trials; 2014 Nov; 15():453. PubMed ID: 25413974
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The "no man's" land of home weekends for children in residential care.
Laufer Z
Child Abuse Negl; 1994 Nov; 18(11):913-21. PubMed ID: 7850600
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Advance care planning for children with special health care needs: a survey of parental attitudes.
Wharton RH; Levine KR; Buka S; Emanuel L
Pediatrics; 1996 May; 97(5):682-7. PubMed ID: 8628607
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The effect of parental intellectual disability status on child protection service worker decision making.
Proctor SN; Azar ST
J Intellect Disabil Res; 2013 Dec; 57(12):1104-16. PubMed ID: 22998373
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Reasons for placement decisions in a case of suspected child abuse: The role of reasoning, work experience and attitudes in decision-making.
Bartelink C; Knorth EJ; López López M; Koopmans C; Ten Berge IJ; Witteman CLM; van Yperen TA
Child Abuse Negl; 2018 Sep; 83():129-141. PubMed ID: 30025303
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A comparative study of risk assessments and recommended interventions in Canada and Israel.
Gold N; Benbenishty R; Osmo R
Child Abuse Negl; 2001 May; 25(5):607-22. PubMed ID: 11428424
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Understanding decisions about child maltreatment.
Rossi PH; Schuerman J; Budde S
Eval Rev; 1999 Dec; 23(6):579-98. PubMed ID: 10662070
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Family pediatrics: report of the Task Force on the Family.
Schor EL;
Pediatrics; 2003 Jun; 111(6 Pt 2):1541-71. PubMed ID: 12777595
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Protocol to investigate child abuse in foster care.
Cavara M; Ogren C
Child Abuse Negl; 1983; 7(3):287-95. PubMed ID: 6686474
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Predicting the decisions of hospital based child protection teams to report to child protective services, police and community welfare services.
Benbenishty R; Jedwab M; Chen W; Glasser S; Slutzky H; Siegal G; Lavi-Sahar Z; Lerner-Geva L
Child Abuse Negl; 2014 Jan; 38(1):11-24. PubMed ID: 23948314
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. [Participation of traumatized children and adolescents affected by provisional safeguards (removal and custody of children ace. to Para. 42 SGB VIII)_].
Rücker S; Büttner P; Fegert J; Petermann F
Z Kinder Jugendpsychiatr Psychother; 2015 Sep; 43(5):357-64. PubMed ID: 26373387
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Custody planning with HIV-affected families: considerations for child welfare workers.
Mason S
Child Welfare; 1998; 77(2):161-77. PubMed ID: 9513996
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Reunifying abused or neglected children: Decision-making and outcomes.
Biehal N; Sinclair I; Wade J
Child Abuse Negl; 2015 Nov; 49():107-18. PubMed ID: 25975846
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Decision making in child protection: An international comparative study on maltreatment substantiation, risk assessment and interventions recommendations, and the role of professionals' child welfare attitudes.
Benbenishty R; Davidson-Arad B; López M; Devaney J; Spratt T; Koopmans C; Knorth EJ; Witteman CL; Del Valle JF; Hayes D
Child Abuse Negl; 2015 Nov; 49():63-75. PubMed ID: 25935254
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Decisions on placement and family preservation. Agreement and targeting.
Schuerman J; Rossi PH; Budde S
Eval Rev; 1999 Dec; 23(6):599-618. PubMed ID: 10662071
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
