Jessica Chicco and Elaine p. Congress
Attorneys and social workers both act as advocates for their clients and share the common goal of ameliorating the lives of those they serve. Drawing on previously articulated models for interdisciplinary work, we delineate and reflect on two examples of how social workers and lawyers interact and collaborate in responding to challenges that arise frequently in work with immigrants. We explore the immense potential for gaining greater insight, developing integrated knowledge, and enriching the quality of the services provided to the clients. Specifically, we review how social workers and lawyers approach case assessments within each of our professions. Next, we examine a series of issues including ethical norms and some of the tensions arising from the differing professional responsibilities of social workers and attorneys and the systems in which they operate. We then explore two models for interdisciplinary work through the lens of two vignettes: one in which the lawyer and social worker each provide services to a shared client, and where they lean on each other to achieve their independent but overlapping goals; and one in which the social worker is understood to be a member of the legal team in a truly collaborative interdisciplinary setting. We conclude with some suggestions of how we can work to minimize existing barriers to interdisciplinary work toward better serving immigrant communities, and how internalizing values and skills from each other’s professions may shed new light on our professional roles.
More than 430,000 people were deported in 2013—a near-record number, and nearly double the number of individuals deported in the year 2000 (DHS 2014). This number does not account for the hundreds of thousands of “voluntary returns” of individuals turned back at the border, or the estimated thousands of de facto deportations of family members—including documented and undocumented immigrants as well as U.S. citizens—who accompany their loved one to the country of deportation (ibid.).
There is no doubt that such a massive deportation system creates extraordinary familial hardship. A Human Rights Watch report estimated that 1.6 million family members have suffered as a result of the deportation of a loved one between 1997 and 2007. An analysis of the data shows that of the nearly 1 million individuals—both lawfully and unlawfully present—who were deported based on criminal grounds between 1997 and 2007, nearly 400,000 had at least one U.S. citizen or legally present child or spouse (Human Rights Watch 2009). The Pew Research Center estimates that there are 4 million U.S. citizen children who live in “mixed-status” homes with one or both parents undocumented and therefore at risk of deportation (Passel and Cohn 2009). According to data released by Immigration & Customs Enforcement, more than 200,000 parents of U.S. citizens were removed in the two years ending in 2012. Further, a report by the Applied Research Center revealed that at least 5,100 children are in foster care at any given time as a result of a parent having been placed in immigration detention or having been deported (ARC 2011).
It is on this backdrop that immigration attorneys and social workers serve immigrants and their families and interact with immigrant communities through the course of their work. Settings in which a social worker may encounter immigrant clients include social services agencies, health facilities, schools, and legal offices wherein they counsel immigrant children and adults, provide information and referral services, advocate for the rights of immigrants, and collaborate with other professionals, including lawyers. Immigration attorneys, by the very nature of their work, are in constant interaction with immigrant communities, clients, and their families. Though doing so from the perspectives of their own professional fields and governed by their professions’ differing codes of ethics and responsibility, they are increasingly called upon to collaborate with each other in developing integrated responses to immigrants and their families. Given the intense specialization within a wide range of professions, it has remained challenging to develop interdisciplinary collaborations despite widespread recognition that such collaboration is in the best interest of the client.
In many instances, immigrant families may first come into contact with a social worker, for example through a school or a medical clinic, and that social worker may then make a referral for legal services. In other cases, an attorney may refer her client to a social worker or a social services agency for assistance with any number of matters, such as housing, benefits, or mental health counseling. Yet in other cases, an individual may separately seek out the assistance of either a social worker or an immigration lawyer, or both. In this section, we briefly examine how lawyers and social workers independently conduct assessments of their clients within the boundaries of their professions. Whereas lawyers are trained to focus “on analysis of statutory and case law,” social workers are trained to focus on “empowering disadvantaged populations in society,” and this difference in training and orientation can lead to “a profound difference in thinking” (Faller and Vandervort 2007). A better understanding of the professional approaches will contextualize the challenges that arise when social workers and lawyers work together.
Legal case assessments. Lawyers are often perceived as focused on the complex and highly technical aspects of the law, yielding a narrow view of obstacles faced by a client and corresponding solutions. In reality, few issues are purely legal, and this is particularly true in the immigration context, where an individual’s immigration status is intimately linked to his or her financial well-being, family unity, and ability to access services and justice, among myriad other things. Nonetheless, the primary task of an immigration attorney is to address the client’s immigration concerns, a task that becomes significantly more pressing when the client lacks lawful immigration status or is being threatened with deportation.
In exploring legal avenues of relief, basic information on the client’s manner of entry, the status if any he or she held after entry, and the acts or facts that may make the client deportable, are all relevant. Equally relevant to the inquiry, however, is gathering information on additional details, perhaps not thought to be as closely connected to potential immigration relief. This includes whether the client has been or is being abused or has ever been the victim of a crime, whether the client is fearful of returning to his or her country, how long he or she has been in the United States, the existence and immigration status of spouses, parents, and children in the United States, and the list goes on. Several of these factors—though many, including the authors, would argue not enough and not with sufficient weight—might become relevant in determining both whether the client will have an avenue to seek legal status, and whether he or she will be granted that status at the discretion of the decision-maker. They will also impact how a lawyer crafts a theory of the case that will in turn provide the framework for the relevant facts and law.
Social workers’ case assessments. An overarching theme in social work practice is “person in environment.” Using a systems approach, a social worker conducts an assessment that includes identification of the biological, psychological, and social issues affecting each family member, as well as the internal family interactions and the family’s interactions with outside resource systems. Specific attention is directed to resources in the community that are supportive or challenging to the well-being of clients, including but not limited to current immigration policies and laws that present particular challenges for noncitizen clients and their families.
Social workers are committed to identifying and promoting the strengths of their clients. This important theory in social work proposes that clients have much intrinsic capability within themselves to cope with problems in their environments (Saleeby 2012). This is very true of immigrants and refugees who often demonstrate an ability to cope and thrive despite very difficult past and present experiences. Many immigrants and refugees have endured traumatic events at every stage of immigration. Separation from home and familiar environment is every immigrant’s experience, but many immigrants, especially refugees, have endured violent loss of relatives and sudden dislocation from their homelands, and fears for their own safety and well-being. After immigration, many struggle with constant fear of deportation, as well as diminished ability to provide for basic needs and discrimination in education and employment. Mental health symptoms of anxiety and depression often are suggestive of post-traumatic stress disorder in which immigrants relive their traumatic pre-immigration experiences.
Further, social workers would find it helpful in understanding the immigrant’s experience to take a three-stage approach—pre-migration, transition, and current situation (Pine and Drachman 2004). Stage 1 refers to immigrants in their countries of origin. What push and pull factors contributed to their decisions to immigrate? What were the political, economic, social, and personal factors that influenced their migration? Stage 2 looks at their transition experience. For many it is a long plane ride; for others, a long, dangerous water or desert crossing. Finally, Stage 3 involves assessing immigrants in their current environments. What social economic issues do they encounter? How has the process of migrating and immigration enforcement policies affected their physical and emotional well-being?
Interdisciplinary collaboration between social workers and lawyers is not a novel concept. Mary Richmond (1917) spoke about connecting social casework with a legal framework as early as the beginning of the twentieth century. The National Association of Social Workers Code of Ethics (2008a) acknowledges both the benefits and challenges of interdisciplinary collaborations and provides some limited guidance. More recently, authors from the social work perspective, including Cole (2012) and Forgey and Colarossi (2003), have addressed advantages and challenges of collaborative work, especially in the areas of domestic violence and child abuse. (See also Aiken and Wizner 2003.) Helping clients by providing expertise from the two professions, as well as increased social support for both lawyers and social workers handling difficult cases (Cole 2012) have been easily identified as benefits of interdisciplinary collaborations. Legal scholars have also been evaluating the benefits and challenges of interdisciplinary work between lawyers and social workers, especially within the context of law school clinics (Aiken and Wizner 2003; Anderson, Barenberg, and Tremblay 2007).
Both social workers and lawyers are guided by a set of professional standards of ethics in their work with immigrants. Lawyers are bound by their states’ codes of professional responsibility. Although these vary by state, most are based on the Model Rules of Professional Conduct issued by the American Bar Association. The Model Rules explain that a lawyer acts in various capacities as a representative of clients—as an advisor, an advocate, a negotiator, and an evaluator. Specifically, the Rules state that as an advocate, “a lawyer zealously asserts the client’s position under the rules of the adversary system” and as a negotiator the lawyer “seeks a result advantageous to the client but consistent with requirements of honest dealings with others” (ABA 2014).
Social workers follow the International Federation of Social Workers Statement of Ethical Principles (IFSW 2012a) and the National Association of Social Workers Code of Ethics (NASW 2008a). The former stresses a human rights approach to protecting and advocating for individuals, especially those who are most vulnerable. Important principles include promoting the right to self-determination and participation, as well as identifying and developing strengths. Both IFSW and NASW have developed several policies and provisions that focus on protecting the rights of immigrants and refugees (IFSW 1998, 2012b; NASW 2008b, 2011). Social workers are expected to avoid discrimination based on immigration status, advocate to eliminate discrimination based on immigration status, and receive specific education to this end (NASW 2008a).
Taylor (2006) and Congress (2007), building on an early article (Stein 1991), identified three difficulties that arise in the context of interdisciplinary work: (1) definition of the client, (2) task delineations, and (3) confidentiality responsibilities. We will discuss them here as they are particularly challenging in interdisciplinary work between social workers and lawyers.
Lawyers and social workers are likely to identify the client served differently. Lawyers generally are understood to have a responsibility to serve one client or individual. The lawyer’s duty to the client may demand a narrow focus on the individual client’s interests, disregarding—and certainly not prioritizing—the broader impact of the law on the community or society at large. This in turn may lead to situations in which a lawyer’s duty to the client may come into conflict with a lawyer’s sense of what is in the best interests of the community or the advancement of justice, and the lawyer must weigh these in deciding whether and how to continue representing an individual client. In contrast, social workers have been trained to take a more comprehensive approach and take into account the needs and strengths of all family members or the relevant community without focusing on the legal rights of one individual above all else (Aiken and Wizner 2003). In the vignettes discussed below, for example, an immigration lawyer would see her role as primarily advocating for the cases of Maria and Dith. A social worker would instead define her client as including their families as well, or assess the case from a more comprehensive and multi-faceted perspective. Thus, a case in which clients may have disparate interests may be particularly challenging in interdisciplinary work.
Further, problems may emerge in task delineation when each profession strays from its area of competence. This may be difficult to avoid, however, especially when clients are seen separately by the lawyer and by the social worker rather than as part of a team. For example, a client may express suicidal feelings after learning that his immigration appeal has been denied and he is facing prolonged detention. The lawyer may, by necessity, be in a position of offering personal counseling. On the other hand, a social worker working with an immigrant navigating deportation proceedings may find herself explaining steps in the appeal process, information that is clearly within the legal arena. A model in which social workers and lawyers work together as part of one team will often be more effective at minimizing such blurring of roles than a side-by-side model where the two professionals are working independently with no or little communication (St. Joan 2001).
Despite some similarities, the two sets of professional codes of ethics diverge in the obligations of confidentiality and, in particular, a social worker’s duty to act as a mandatory reporter. For example, when there is risk of harm to others, such as suspicion of child abuse, social workers are typically expected to report this to protective services within their state (McLeod and Polowy 2013; Lau, Krase, and Morse 2009). In contrast, ABA Model Rule 1.6(b) allows—but does not mandate—disclosure of confidential information in very limited enumerated circumstances, including “to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm.” Rule 3.3(b), which is concerned with candor to the tribunal, states that a lawyer “who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal” (ABA 2014). But this mandated disclosure is significantly more narrow than a social worker’s ethical duty as a mandated reporter, which in 48 states includes the duty to report suspected child abuse (Child Welfare Information Gateway 2012).1
Having set forth some of the challenges to interdisciplinary collaborations stemming from different and at times divergent professional roles and responsibilities, we now turn to the application of two of the possible models of collaboration by reference to the two vignettes, including one presented in full in the introduction and excerpted below. The discussion that follows provides some practical insight into the many challenges that social workers and lawyers encounter in their work with immigrant clients. The examples raise questions on the setting and role in which the two professions collaborate as well as the needs of the individual client, family members, and the broader community. Both sets of professionals must grapple with weighing the influence of a wide range of contextual factors affecting the immigrants’ life options. As importantly, both face complex questions that challenge each to weigh the value of family unity and that of the best interests of the children involved. The discussion offers insight into the multiple and complex settings in which social workers, immigration lawyers, and immigrants encounter each other and how each may respond. Moreover, it explores opportunities for increased interdisciplinary collaboration and discusses some of the benefits that can result from such collaboration. Finally, we argue herein that the advantages to be gained—both in expanding professional horizons and in enriching the type and quality of services provided to immigrant clients—far outweigh the difficulties that may be encountered.
Maria and Felipe are Maya from the Quiché region of Guatemala. In 1998 Felipe entered the United States illegally from Guatemala, to rejoin Maria, his wife, who had gone to the United States in 1997 on a visitor visa in order to get heart surgery, a procedure donated by a major Boston hospital. After a long recovery, Maria “overstayed” and has been in the United States without documentation ever since. Felipe and Maria had to sell much of their land in Guatemala in order to pay for Maria’s medical care. After Felipe’s arrival in the United States in 1998 he found work as a laborer.
In 2001, while in the United States, Felipe and Maria had another child, Camila, who is a U.S. citizen. Three years later, in 2004, Maria was stopped by police for a traffic violation. Following an appearance in criminal court, Maria was turned over to immigration authorities. She posted a bond, however, and was released from their custody. She received a Notice to Appear in immigration court, but never followed up or heard anything further about her case. She and Felipe had changed their address soon after her criminal court appearance, and did not report the change to any governmental authority.
In late 2007 Felipe was picked up by ICE agents in a workplace raid and detained. Felipe was detained for several months and ultimately was deported in early 2008. Maria has been anxious ever since, worried that ICE agents will find her again and deport her. She is especially worried about Camila. In early 2009, Camila was diagnosed with leukemia. Felipe has been very distressed about Camila and Maria. He wanted to return to the United States to help care for his sick child and to comfort Maria, but he knew that he could not obtain a visa. Seeing no other options, Felipe decided to return to the United States by hiring a coyote and crossing over the Mexican border on foot. He has recently arrived in Massachusetts and been reunited with Maria and Camila. Felipe’s mother has just called to say that Sergio, the couple’s 15-year-old son, has also left their village to follow his father north.
Drawing on the story of Maria and Felipe’s family, this section will explore the setting in which individuals may be seeking the services of an immigration lawyer and a social worker independently of one another, but in which communication between the two may be mutually beneficial and in the best interests of the client. The story of Maria and Felipe’s family underscores the reality many mixed-status families face—in this case a family in which the parents are undocumented and both in precarious situations, and in which one of the two children is a U.S. citizen. Each member of the family has distinct legal challenges tied to their immigration status, or lack thereof, but they are inevitably interlinked (see Brabeck, Porterfield, and Loughry, this volume). Further, there are at least three settings in which Maria may have had interaction with social workers independent of seeking immigration legal advice—the hospitals/outpatient clinics where Maria and her U.S. citizen daughter Camila received and may still receive medical treatment, social service agencies, and the children’s school.
On a separate track—or perhaps as a result of a referral made by a social worker or other “helping professional”—members of this family may seek out the assistance of an immigration lawyer. Though each member of the family has a set of distinct legal questions when it comes to their immigration status, an immigration lawyer meeting with any member of the family would gather facts relevant not only to the individual’s status, but also to the immigration status of all members of the family, as relatives’ ability to obtain lawful status is often intertwined. Both Maria and Felipe could face deportation at any moment. Maria’s failure to attend her Immigration Court hearing likely resulted in an order of deportation being issued in her absence. Felipe’s illegal reentry following his deportation makes him subject to a fast-track deportation procedure which would lead to his deportation without the opportunity of seeing an Immigration Judge. The fact that Maria and Felipe have a U.S. citizen daughter who is seriously ill would not by itself stop their deportations, or even guarantee them a chance to present their equities to an Immigration Judge. If her parents are deported, Camila could be left behind or follow her parents to Guatemala. Both choices have implications for Camila’s health, family unity, and government intervention. Finally, Sergio, who is only about 15 years old as he makes the dangerous journey across the border, may become eligible for a special form of protection for minors who are deemed to have been abandoned, neglected, or abused by one or both parents.
In a scenario in which the social worker (or social workers) and the immigration lawyer are both providing services to the family but are doing so independently of one another, social workers and lawyers might benefit from connecting. For example, though Felipe may not have any path to lawful status, the unique circumstances related to his daughter’s medical condition could support a request that immigration enforcement exercise discretion not to deport him and to grant him “deferred action status” that would allow him to remain in the United States and obtain work authorization. In support of such a request, the lawyer would greatly benefit from the insight and supporting documentation the social worker could provide to document the numerous and severe hardships the family would face if Felipe were to be deported, such as Camila’s medical and school records. Or a social worker may be better connected in the immigrant community she serves and more familiar with services that may be available to the family despite their immigration status. For example, she may be able to help the family identify an interpreter who can also assist the family in their communications with the immigration lawyer. Or she can help the parents get set up for mental health counseling, evidence of which may again assist their requests for immigration relief.
In turn, a social worker providing services to the family may benefit from learning more about the possible implications of Maria and Felipe’s tenuous status and the limitations and risks that it poses. For example, a better understanding of the family’s immigration status may assist her in sorting through what social services or health benefits may be available. Knowing more about the family’s immigration situation may also help the social worker understand that the family may be living under constant fear of deportation and may not trust government officials. Such an understanding may in turn assist the social worker in contextualizing the clients’ reluctance to provide personal identifying information or to seek needed health care or social services.
Collaborations across disciplines in this sense—working together with a shared client and having an open line of communication (with the client’s consent)—will therefore inevitably enrich the quality of services that each professional can provide.
The case of Dith and his family, as summarized in the introduction to this volume, presents additional challenges for interdisciplinary teams. Briefly, Dith arrived in the United States in 1980 at the age of 4, became a lawful permanent resident but never naturalized. Arrested for drug-related gang activities, he served a prison sentence, then married a U.S. citizen, and had one child. He was re-arrested in 2004 following a repatriation agreement between the United States and Cambodia signed in 2002 and was deported. Melissa was killed by a drunk driver in 2009, but Dith was unable to return for the funeral nor to care for his child (see Introduction, this volume, for full details).
Let us now instead assume a setting in which a legal office also employs a social worker—a truly collaborative and integrated interdisciplinary setting. When Dith is placed in deportation proceedings, the family seeks legal advice and representation. The lawyer on the team is trained to immediately begin processing the “facts” as they are legally relevant. The social worker, on the other hand, will take a broader approach and assess the well-being of the client as well as the family members. In such a setting, the social worker is understood to be a member of the legal team, and thereby bound by the same duties of confidentiality and obligations as the legal professionals (Anderson, Barenberg, and Tremblay 2007). The social worker’s training and perspective would enable her to provide context for the clients’ priorities and decision-making and enrich the quality of services the team is able to provide to their clients.
As a long-term lawful permanent resident, Dith could have avoided the risk of deportation if he had naturalized promptly upon turning 18 and obtained U.S. citizenship years before the criminal conviction that led to his deportation. Dith’s story highlights the importance—too often overlooked in immigrant communities—of naturalizing to secure one’s status and eliminate the risk of deportation. Studies and surveys have explored the reasons why green card holders do not naturalize, and they range from practical difficulties—the cost of the application, the requirement of passing an English test—to more complex personal reasons (Gonzalez-Barrera, Lopez, Passel, and Taylor 2013). Though a moot point in Dith’s current predicament, a psychosocial evaluation by a social worker may provide insight into the reasons underlying Dith’s decision not to naturalize, which may in turn assist the lawyer and the social worker in counseling future clients who may be eligible for naturalization. Though a lawyer could provide clients information regarding the process of naturalization, a social worker on the same team may be better positioned to counsel clients about confronting the financial, emotional, and social barriers to applying for citizenship.
In conducting the legal assessment of Dith’s case, an immigration lawyer will examine the legal reasons for Dith’s deportation and look for any potential challenges. The tightening of immigration laws in 1996 significantly curtailed the availability of discretionary relief. For example, the laws repealed a form of discretionary relief that had been available to lawful permanent residents found to be deportable if they could show certain periods of residence and that a balancing of the equities weighed in their favor. The laws also drastically expanded the categories of individuals, including long-term lawful permanent residents, who are subject to mandatory detention and deportation for having been convicted of “aggravated felonies”—which, in spite of the name, need be neither aggravated nor felonies. In so doing, Congress effectively foreclosed even the possibility of favorable discretion to stop the deportation of such individuals. In Dith’s case, he was ordered removed based on an interpretation of “aggravated felony” that was overturned by the Supreme Court in a nearly unanimous decision just a year after Dith’s deportation (Lopez v. Gonzales 2006). Had the correct interpretation of the law been applied, Dith would have been eligible to apply for discretionary relief to avoid deportation, and an Immigration Judge would have been able to consider factors such as his long-term residence in the United States since childhood, his rehabilitation, and his family ties, including his young U.S. citizen son.
Having looked at the frameworks that allowed Dith’s deportation, the legal team would now ask: What happens next? Dith’s deportation, based on an interpretation of the law that was later deemed erroneous by the Supreme Court, squarely raises the issue of whether individuals should be able to seek review of their immigration cases after deportation. Because he has already been deported, under current law it will be extremely difficult for Dith to get an Immigration Court to revisit its finding. Currently, immigration regulations preclude the filing of “motions to reopen” after the individual’s deportation, though nearly all federal courts around the country have found this regulation to be invalid in certain circumstances. However, because more than a year has passed since Dith’s deportation, he would nonetheless face significant obstacles in seeking to have his case revisited. In requesting that the case be reopened, Dith would also have to present evidence that he would merit discretionary relief from deportation. A standard biopsychosocial assessment undertaken by a social worker, therefore, may provide crucial information that an immigration lawyer would want to have to more effectively represent the client, for example in the context of an application for relief that requires a showing of rehabilitation and community ties.
A social worker is trained and has special expertise in working with clients around emotional issues. Though immigration attorneys are often thrust into such conversations, having the support and guidance of a social worker with such expertise can be clearly beneficial. A social worker would be concerned about Dith’s welfare since his return to Cambodia, especially since his aunt was very fearful about his deportation to Cambodia and his wife Melissa and son Chris experienced much emotional and financial loss because of his departure. There may be resources such as the Returnee Integration Support Center (RISC in Phnom Penh) that could work with Dith to help him reintegrate in Cambodia. Such reintegration assistance organizations, however, are not always available. To add to the earlier stress in regard to the violent deaths of Dith’s parents when he was preschool age and his deportation, there were more recent stresses such as Melissa’s death in an accident.
Chris has lost both parents, one by deportation and the other by sudden death within a short period of time. It is not surprising if he manifests depressive symptoms or acting out behavior. He could definitely benefit from counseling, which a social worker experienced in working with children and adolescents after childhood traumas could provide. After a thorough diagnostic assessment, a psychiatric referral might be necessary to provide medication for acute symptoms. Chris is an adolescent, a time during which identity formation occurs. As with many immigrant adolescents there may be challenges in developing a bicultural identity. He has been raised in the United States, his mother is an American citizen, and as an adolescent he may be more comfortable in identifying with mainstream American adolescent culture. Yet he is keenly aware that his father is Cambodian and now he is being raised by a Cambodian aunt, Arunny, which certainly may have an effect on his cultural identity. The social worker might also be involved in making a referral to Big Brothers or a similar type of organization to provide Chris with additional male support after the forced departure of his father. Arunny herself may be experiencing post-traumatic symptoms from the trauma she experienced in Cambodia, the loss of her nephew Dith who was deported, and Melissa’s death. In terms of intervention, both Chris and Arunny could probably benefit from individual counseling to help them work through feelings of loss and subsequent depression. Since young children often act out their feelings through play rather than putting them into words, the social worker may want to use play therapy techniques to elicit details about the quality of the relationship between Chris and Dith. The social worker would share information learned with the lawyer —such as Dith’s positive work and education involvement since his incarceration as a youth, the quality of his relationship with Melissa and Chris, and finally the negative impact his departure would have on the family’s well-being—in an attempt to provide information that may assist in efforts to challenge Dith’s deportation.
A “conundrum of confidentiality,” as coined by Corbin (2007), occurs in terms of mandated reporting when a social worker works for a legal agency. As discussed above, social workers are generally bound by professional obligations and laws regarding mandated reporting of child abuse. As a member of the legal team, however, many commentators have concluded that the social worker would not be bound by mandated reporting obligations, but would instead be subject to the rules of professional conduct governing attorneys (Anderson et al. 2007; Tencer Block and Soprych 2011; Conti 2011). According to the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 5.3 (2013), as well as similar rules adopted by states, lawyers that employ nonlawyer professionals are required to “make reasonable efforts to ensure that the person’s conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer.” In addition, the social worker would be bound by a different set of confidentiality rules and would be able to share information gained through his assessment with the rest of the legal team.
Thus, while the immigration lawyer may be primarily occupied with analyzing whether Dith’s deportation can still be challenged and what the appropriate legal vehicle for such a challenge may be, a social worker might be more attuned to other complexities faced by Dith and his family. Among the most troubling consequences of the deportation is the seemingly permanent separation of Dith from his son, Chris. There is a significant lack of coordination between the immigration enforcement and deportation systems and the family court and child welfare systems, with at times devastating consequences for the families involved (Rabin 2011; Thronson 2008; Thronson, this volume). Whereas in some instances family and immigration law appear to work hand in hand—as is the case for special immigrant juvenile status available to children who have been neglected, abused, or abandoned and special relief for victims of domestic abuse—in other cases immigration law disregards or is even in conflict with the interests recognized by family law. For example, Immigration Judges are not encouraged—and in most instances not even permitted—to consider the best interests of the child, even when the child is a U.S. citizen, in deciding whether to order the deportation of a parent or family member of the child. The Inter-American Commission for Human Rights most recently reiterated that the American Declaration mandates that deportation proceedings “duly consider the best interests of the child,” and that a flexible balancing approach, specific to the facts of each individual case, should be employed in making deportation decisions (IACHR 2010). The U.S. government, however, does not consider itself bound by decisions of the Inter-American Commission, and has not altered its policies as a result. Further, when there is a question of custody, social workers and family court judges try to make a decision guided by the best interests of the child. This principle has been adopted by all states in their domestic relations law and is widely considered to be the gold standard for custody determinations. (See, for example, Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. Ch. 119, § 1.) However, as set forth above, this standard has not been adopted by the immigration and deportation system. Custody decisions are already often complicated by the varying capacities and desires of different family members to raise a child as well as the child’s own wishes. A parent’s deportation and at times opposing interests of immigration enforcement add yet another layer of complexity.
A social worker would be trained and well positioned to make a holistic assessment and arrive at a recommendation regarding the best interests of the child, and in this instance may well arrive at the conclusion that reunification of Chris with his father in the United States is in the best interests of the child. However, as we have seen, Dith’s permanent return to the United States is an unlikely outcome. Even Dith’s return for purposes of attending a custody hearing poses at times insurmountable challenges (Rabin 2011). Though legal avenues to return exist in theory—an individual needing to be present for a judicial proceeding could seek a temporary visitor’s visa or temporary entry on humanitarian parole—in practice obtaining the necessary documents can be difficult. In this scenario, a social worker would likely be more familiar with the child welfare system, as well as any relevant local policies or procedures, than an immigration lawyer. She may also be in contact with the child welfare worker. In an interdisciplinary collaborative setting, in addition to drawing on the existing knowledge and expertise of a social worker, the immigration lawyer can educate herself about the child welfare system or lean on the expertise of her colleague to more effectively represent her client’s interests.
Despite some significant differences in professional approaches, the benefits of interdisciplinary collaboration at any level are evident, with benefits generally increasing with closer and more integrated collaboration. Further, divisions among professional boundaries delineate somewhat of a false dichotomy. Though trained in different professional paths, both immigration lawyers and social workers relate to clients as individuals. It is nearly impossible—and indeed often detrimental—to compartmentalize a client’s problems as being purely legal and therefore only appropriate for a lawyer, or nonlegal and therefore only to be tackled by a social worker or other helping professional. In reality, an individual’s situation is more complex and questions of legal immigration status are often inextricably linked with a myriad other obstacles an individual may be facing. In other words, the interests of lawyers and social workers will—more often than not—converge.
Increasing interdisciplinary collaboration between lawyers and social workers could mean a gradual internalization of the values and skills of each other’s profession into one’s own, leading to a professional “re-acculturation.” It is not just in assisting one’s client that interdisciplinary collaboration can be valuable, but also in expanding the understanding of an individual’s and a profession’s role in effecting change, not only on the client’s behalf but for the community of which the client is a member. Much has been written about this in the context of “community lawyering,” in which lawyers look beyond the immediate scope of their work and engage more holistically and effectively with the systemic issues their clients face, thereby becoming better advocates. (See, e.g., Tokarz et al. 2008.) Community lawyering will, by definition, require interdisciplinary collaboration, and interdisciplinary collaborations as described above may in turn evolve into community lawyering settings in some cases.
The examples set forth above provide an opportunity to examine some of the benefits and challenges presented by interdisciplinary collaboration between immigration lawyers and social workers, both from a theoretical and a practical perspective. It is important that social workers arm themselves with basic knowledge on immigration in order to understand the added complexities created by immigration status or lack thereof. In turn, the perspective of social workers, with their understanding of psychosocial theory and environmental impacts, should inform not only the work of individual lawyers but also the legal framework, and whenever feasible social workers and attorneys should work together in a variety of collaborative settings to more effectively address the multi-layered problems their clients face. In this chapter, we have set forth two potential models for varying levels of interdisciplinary collaboration between lawyers and social workers. Though increased and intense collaboration is generally positive and advantageous, one model of collaboration may be better suited than another to a particular situation or client. Therefore, it is important for lawyers and social workers to consider the goals of the collaboration, the potential obstacles that such collaboration is likely to pose, and the value added of working together in varying capacities.
1 As an example, Rhode Island has a broad mandatory reporting law, mandating that “[a]ny person who has reasonable cause to know or suspect that any child has been abused or neglected . . . shall, within twenty-four (24) hours, transfer that information to the department of children, youth and families.” R.I. Gen. Laws § 40-11-3. However, the attorney-client privilege is recognized as a ground for failure to report. R.I. Gen. Laws § 401-11-11.
Aiken, Jane and Stephen Wizner. 2003. “Promoting Justice Through Interdisciplinary Teaching, Practice, and Scholarship: Law as Social Work.” Washington University Journal of Law and Policy 11: 63–81.
American Bar Association (ABA). 2014. Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Chicago: American Bar Association Book Publishing.
Anderson, Alexis, Lynn Barenberg, and Paul R. Tremblay. 2007. “Professional Ethics in Interdisciplinary Collaboratives: Zeal, Paternalism and Mandated Reporting.” Clinical Law Review 13: 659–718.
Applied Research Center (ARC). 2011. Shattered Families: The Perilous Intersection of Immigration Enforcement and the Child Welfare System. Accessed on October 21, 2014. Available at https://www.raceforward.org/research/reports/shattered-families.
Child Welfare Information Gateway. 2012. Mandatory Reporters of Child Abuse and Neglect. Accessed on September 26, 2014. Available at https://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/manda.pdf.
Cole, Portia L. 2012. “You Want Me to Do What?: Ethical Practice Within Interdisciplinary Collaborations.” Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics 9(1): 26–39.
Congress, Elaine. 2007. “Ethical Practice in Forensic Social Work.” In Albert R. Roberts and David W. Springer, eds., 75–86. Social Work in Juvenile and Criminal Justice Settings. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Conti, Stephanie. 2011. “Lawyers and Mental Health Professionals Working Together: Reconciling the Duties of Confidentiality and Mandatory Child Abuse Reporting.” Family Court Review 49: 388–396.
Corbin, James R. 2007. “Confidentiality and the Duty to Warn: Ethical and Legal Implications for the Therapeutic Relationship.” The New Social Worker 14(4). Retrieved May 13, 2015 from http://www.socialworker.com.
Faller, Kathleen Coulborn, and Frank E. Vandervort. 2007. “Interdisciplinary Clinical Teaching of Child Welfare Practice to Law and Social Work Students: When World Views Collide.” University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 41: 121–164.
Forgey, Mary Ann, and Lisa Colarossi. 2003. “Interdisciplinary Social Work and Law: A Model Domestic Violence Curriculum.” Journal of Social Work Education 39(3): 459–476.
Gonzalez-Barrera, Ana, Mark H. Lopez, Jeffrey S. Passel, and Paul Taylor. 2013. The Path Not Taken: Two-thirds of Legal Mexican Immigrants Are not U.S. Citizens. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Accessed October 21, 2014. http://www.pewhispanic.org/2013/02/04/the-path-not-taken/.
Human Rights Watch (HRW). 2009. “Forced Apart (By the Numbers): Noncitizens Deported for Mostly Nonviolent Offenses.” New York, NY: Author.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report No. 81/10. 2010. Wayne Smith, Hugo Amerndariz, et al. v. United States (July 12, 2010).
International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW). 1998. Policy on Refugees. Berne, Switzerland: IFSW.
International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW). 2012a. Social Work: Statement of Ethical Principles. Berne, Switzerland: IFSW.
International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW). 2012b. Policy on Migrants. Berne, Switzerland: IFSW.
Lau, Kenneth, Kathryn Krase, and Richard H. Morse. 2009. Mandated Reporting of Child Abuse and Neglect: A Practical Guide for Social Workers. New York: Springer.
McLeod, Peter and Carolyn I. Polowy. 2013. National Association of Social Workers (NASW) Law Note Social Workers and Child Abuse Reporting, A Review of State Mandatory Reporting Requirements. Washington, DC: NASW Press.
National Association of Social Workers (NASW). 2008a. Code of Ethics. Washington, DC: NASW Press.
National Association of Social Workers (NASW). 2008b. Immigration Policy Toolkit. Washington, DC: NASW Press.
National Association of Social Workers (NASW). 2011. Impact of Immigration Detention on Children and Families. Washington, DC: NASW Press.
Passel, Jeffrey S., and D’Vera Cohn. 2009. A Portrait of Unauthorized Immigrants in the United States. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Accessed October 21, 2014. http://www.pewhispanic.org/2009/04/14/a-portrait-of-unauthorized-immigrants-in-the-united-states/.
Pine, Barbara A., and Diane Drachman. 2004. “Effective Child Welfare Practice with Immigrant and Refugee Children and their Families.” Child Welfare 84(5): 537–562.
Rabin, Nina. 2011. “Disappearing Parents: Immigration Enforcement and the Child Welfare System.” Connecticut Law Review 44: 99–160.
Richmond, Mary. 1917. Social Diagnosis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Saleeby, Dennis. 2012. The Strengths Perspective in Social Work Practice, 6th ed. New York: Pearson.
St. Joan, Jacqueline. 2001. “Building Bridges, Building Walls: Collaboration Between Lawyers and Social Workers in a Domestic Violence Clinic and Issues of Client Confidentiality.” Clinical Law Review 7: 403–466.
Stein, Theodore J. 1991. Child Welfare and the Law. New York: Longman.
Taylor, Sarah. 2006. “Educating Future Practitioners of Social Work and Law: Exploring the Origins of Inter-Professional Misunderstanding.” Children and Youth Services Review 28(6): 638–653.
Tencer Block, Mara, and Andrya Soprych. 2011. “Beyond Advocacy Alone: Incorporating Social Work into Legal Aid Practice.” Clearinghouse Review Journal of Poverty Law and Policy Jan–Feb 2011: 465–470.
Thronson, David B. 2008. “Custody and Contradictions: Exploring Immigration Law as Federal Family Law in the Context of Child Custody.” Hastings Law Journal 49: 453–513.
Tokarz, Karen, Nancy L. Cook, Susan Brooks, and Brenda Bratton Blom. 2008. “Conversations on ‘Community Lawyering’: The Newest (Oldest) Wave in Clinical Legal Education.” Washington University Journal of Law and Policy 28: 359–402.
United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 2014. “2013 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics: Enforcement Actions.” Table 39. Accessed May 13, 2015. http://www.dhs.gov/yearbook-immigration-statistics-2013-enforcement-actions.
Lopez v. Gonzales, 549 U.S. 47 (2006).