Mother-daughter conflict is a common developmental challenge, but when it escalates into verbal aggression, threats of harm, or physical altercations, social workers must conduct a thorough intake and risk assessment to ensure safety while preserving family integrity. This case study follows a realistic scenario of a 42‑year‑old mother and her 15‑year‑old daughter, presenting with escalating conflict following the mother’s return from a humanitarian deployment. We will walk through the intake process, identify risk and protective factors, select appropriate assessment tools, and develop a collaborative safety plan.
Table of Contents
Case Presentation
Presenting problem: “We can’t be in the same room without screaming,” reports Maria (42), a nurse who recently returned from a six‑month deployment with an international medical corps in a conflict zone. Her daughter Leila (15) has become verbally aggressive, refusing to attend school, breaking household items, and threatening to run away. Maria’s husband David reports that arguments end with both mother and daughter in tears, and on two occasions, Leila pushed Maria, causing her to fall.
Family background: Maria and David have been married for 18 years. Leila is their only child. Maria’s deployment was her first extended absence from the family. Before deployment, mother-daughter relationship was described as “close but tense during adolescence.” No prior child protection involvement. No known history of intimate partner violence. Maria reports she was sexually abused as a teenager but never received counselling. Leila has no known trauma history prior to her mother’s absence.
Intake Process: Gathering Multidimensional Information
The intake interview is the first opportunity to establish rapport, gather relevant history, and identify immediate safety concerns. According to the British Association of Social Workers (BASW) Code of Ethics, social workers must “respect the rights of service users whilst also recognising the responsibilities of the state to protect vulnerable people.” The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) standards for family assessment emphasise a strengths‑based, culturally responsive approach.
Separate and Joint Interviews
Best practice dictates separate initial interviews with each family member before a joint session. Maria and Leila each reported different perspectives on the conflict.
- Maria’s perspective: “She’s out of control. She refuses to listen. I went away to help people in a war zone, and now my own daughter treats me like the enemy. I feel like I’m walking on eggshells in my own home. Sometimes I just want to leave again.”
- Leila’s perspective: “She abandoned us. She chose strangers over me. And now she comes back and wants to be my mom again? She yells at me for everything. I hate her. I don’t care if she leaves again.”
David corroborates that the conflict intensified about three weeks after Maria’s return. He reports that Maria has “mood swings, nightmares, and doesn’t want to talk about what she saw.”
Screening for Underlying Trauma
Given Maria’s deployment to a conflict zone and her history of childhood sexual abuse, the social worker screens for symptoms of post‑traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety. Using the Primary Care PTSD Screen for DSM‑5 (PC‑PTSD‑5), Maria endorses four of five items: re‑experiencing, avoidance, negative alterations in mood, and hyperarousal. She scores positive for probable PTSD.
The UCLA Child/Adolescent PTSD Reaction Index for DSM‑5 is not administered at intake due to time constraints, but Leila’s behavioural symptoms—anger outbursts, school refusal, sleep disturbance—are consistent with trauma‑related reactions to separation and perceived abandonment.
Risk Assessment: Identifying Danger and Protective Factors
Risk assessment in family conflict requires evaluating the likelihood of serious harm to self or others and the capacity of the family to ensure safety without child protection intervention. The social worker uses the Structured Decision Making (SDM) Family Risk Assessment framework, adapted for local context.
Risk Factors Identified
| Risk Domain | Present? | Details |
|---|---|---|
| Physical violence | Yes | Leila pushed Maria, causing fall; no weapons or serious injury to date |
| Verbal/emotional abuse | Yes | Frequent shouting, name‑calling (Leila to Maria), threats to run away |
| Substance use | No | Denied by both; no observable signs |
| Mental health | Yes | Maria probable PTSD; Leila possible adjustment disorder with disturbance of conduct |
| History of childhood maltreatment | Yes | Maria disclosed childhood sexual abuse (no active perpetrator) |
| Parental capacity | Moderate | Maria is engaged but struggling with trauma symptoms; David is supportive but under‑involved |
| Child vulnerability | High | Leila is 15, school refusal, threat of running away increases risk of exploitation |
| Protective factors | Moderate | Two‑parent home, no poverty, no prior child protection, family willingness to engage in counselling |
Imminent Risk Determination
Based on the Columbia‑Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C‑SSRS), Leila denies suicidal ideation or intent. She also denies homicidal ideation. Maria endorses passive suicidal ideation (“Sometimes I think my family would be better off without me”) but denies plan or intent. No immediate risk of serious harm. However, escalation risk is moderate to high due to deteriorating verbal aggression and the first physical push.
The social worker consults the Domestic Violence Risk Assessment (DVRA) guidelines, noting that mother-daughter conflict does not automatically meet statutory domestic violence definitions unless there is a pattern of control and fear. Here, the power dynamic is complicated by Leila’s age and Maria’s trauma‑related withdrawal—not a classic perpetrator‑victim dyad.
Safety Planning
Even without statutory child protection thresholds crossed, a voluntary safety plan is essential. The social worker facilitates a joint session to negotiate the plan. Key elements include:
- Cool‑down strategies: Each agrees to take “time‑outs” of 20 minutes when voices rise, using separate rooms.
- Communication ground rules: No shouting; use “I feel” statements; avoid past grievances.
- Emergency protocol: If physical conflict occurs, David will separate them immediately. If unavailable, Leila will go to neighbour’s house.
- Crisis contacts: Mobile numbers for crisis line, family therapist, and a trusted aunt.
- Leaving the home: Leila agrees not to run away without telling her father; family agrees to arrange a temporary stay with the aunt if needed.
The safety plan is documented and signed. The social worker reviews the National Child Protection Authority guidelines on family conflict (England/Wales) to ensure compliance with mandatory reporting duties. No report is made because there is no reasonable cause to suspect significant harm—only risk of harm.
Ethical Dilemmas and Decision‑Making
The case presents several ethical challenges. The NASW Code of Ethics standard 1.02 (Self‑Determination) conflicts with standard 1.07 (Privacy and Confidentiality) when Leila discloses that she has a secret boyfriend aged 19—a potential statutory rape concern in many jurisdictions. The social worker explains the limits of confidentiality and reports the relationship to child protective services as required by law. This damages rapport but upholds legal duty.
Another dilemma is balancing Maria’s need for trauma treatment with the urgency of family intervention. The social worker prioritises stabilising family safety before referring Maria to a trauma‑focused cognitive behavioural therapy (TF‑CBT) provider and Leila to adolescent individual counselling.
Referrals and Intervention Plan
Based on the intake and risk assessment, the social worker coordinates the following:
- Family therapy (weekly, 12 sessions) using Attachment‑Based Family Therapy (ABFT), which is evidence‑based for adolescent depression and family conflict.
- Individual therapy for Maria: TF‑CBT or EMDR for PTSD symptoms.
- Individual therapy for Leila: Cognitive‑behavioural therapy for anger and school refusal.
- School liaison: Academic accommodations and in‑school counselling.
- Parenting support: Referral to Incredible Years parenting programme, adapted for adolescents.
Follow‑Up and Monitoring
The social worker schedules a risk review after two weeks to ensure no further physical aggression. Ongoing monitoring will occur at four‑week intervals for three months. If violence escalates or Leila runs away, statutory child protection involvement will be reconsidered.
The Partners for Change Outcome Management System (PCOMS) is used to track progress from the client’s perspective at each session.
Conclusion
This case study illustrates the complexity of intake and risk assessment in mother‑daughter conflict where unaddressed trauma (Maria’s childhood abuse and deployment‑related PTSD) collides with adolescent developmental needs (Leila’s need for autonomy and connection). Social workers must balance safety, legal mandates, ethical principles, and the therapeutic relationship—all while recognising that the “client” is not an individual but a fractured family system. Effective risk assessment does not end with a checklist; it continues through ongoing monitoring, collaborative safety planning, and culturally sensitive engagement.
Explore more social work resources and case studies at Centre for Elites:
Family Conflict Resolution and Trauma‑Informed Practice — a deeper look at intervention models for high‑conflict families.
For further reading, consult the British Association of Social Work’s risk assessment guidance, the National Association of Social Workers’ practice standards, and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs PTSD screening tools. For child protection thresholds, refer to your local authority’s safeguarding board guidelines.
Explore videos related to this topic on: Decoly Psych – Mental Health & Mindset
Watch a full Playlist here: Counselling and Rehabilitation of Conflict Victims
