This paper presents a clinical case study of Lennox, an Afro-Caribbean boy referred for school-based counseling at age nine due to behavioral and academic concerns. Drawing on Adams-Langley's (2013) Place2Be model, the paper examines Lennox's complex home environment — including domestic violence, parental substance abuse, housing instability, and parentification — and analyzes how these risk factors manifested in his school behavior. The paper then outlines a structured risk assessment framework, including key questions for evaluating child neglect and abuse risk, and describes the clinical protocol for gathering multi-source information, confirming facts, and weighing risk factors. The case illustrates how school-embedded counseling can foster resilience, self-esteem, and emotional regulation in children facing pervasive disadvantage.
The paper demonstrates case-based clinical reasoning: the author uses the details of a single client's history to derive and justify each element of a risk assessment framework. Rather than stating general principles in the abstract, every recommendation — from gathering collateral information to weighting critical factors — is implicitly tethered to Lennox's specific circumstances, making the argument both concrete and transferable.
The paper opens with referral context and demographic background, then builds a detailed picture of the home environment. A brief risk-assessment summary follows, after which the Place2Be therapeutic model is introduced to frame the intervention rationale. The final two sections shift to applied clinical practice: a numbered list of risk-assessment questions and a prose-format protocol for acting on those answers. This movement from description → theory → practice gives the paper a coherent clinical logic.
Nine-year-old Afro-Caribbean boy Lennox was referred by professionals and his teacher to a therapist due to concerns about his conduct and behavior at school. When his previous therapist resigned during the summer term, Lennox was referred again — by this time he had turned ten. He was offered twelve months of one-on-one therapy. The problems cited in the original referral included lack of concentration in studies, attention-seeking behavior, persistent unpunctuality to class, and a generally washed-out appearance.
A subsequent referral by an educator in 2009 cited weak concentration in class, poor social skills in group settings, a defensive stance, a need to remain "in control," low self-esteem, and a failure to accept responsibility for his conduct. Both referring educators rated their level of concern about the boy as high. By the time the intervention was undertaken, Lennox had reached the age of eleven. He had recently completed group therapy — involving seven children in total — aimed at improving his social skills and teaching him to share with others (Adams-Langley, 2013).
Lennox's abnormal scores may be explained by his home life at the time of his first referral. He was the eldest child in a family of six, with one infant brother and four sisters — all six children under the age of eight. Lennox did not live with his biological father; his mother had separated from her husband, and her current partner was the biological father of all but the eldest two children. Due to domestic abuse and violence, Social Services became involved and all six children were placed under child protection. Adding to these concerns, both Lennox's stepfather and his mother abused drugs and alcohol. The entire household was eventually evicted from social housing due to debt and unpaid rent, and was subsequently placed in an overcrowded provisional living space (Adams-Langley, 2013).
Although Lennox was subsequently moved to his grandmother's home, that household included a cousin with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), which gave rise to further conflict. Lennox's grandmother was also a drug and alcohol user and served as a local drug dealer. Despite having remarried, Lennox's biological father maintained regular contact with the boy. He acknowledged that his former wife loved Lennox but lacked adequate parenting skills — a claim corroborated by the fact that Lennox frequently missed school either to care for his siblings or because he had no clean clothes to wear. While his stepfather and mother were preoccupied with alcohol and drugs, Lennox was responsible for changing his infant brother's diapers, feeding him, putting his siblings to bed, buying food for the family, and preparing meals (Adams-Langley, 2013).
His school's project manager and class teacher viewed Lennox as an insecure, "lost" boy living amid pervasive domestic chaos. He displayed aggression toward fellow students, got into frequent fights, behaved in a clingy and needy manner with adults, and was regularly detained because of his behavior. Despite being an intelligent child, Lennox was so consumed by caregiving responsibilities at home that he had no time for schoolwork; he was impulsive and lacked concentration. His exam scores were consistently below average. He also faced the additional burden of traveling to school alone, requiring two buses and approximately one hour each way (Adams-Langley, 2013).
Lennox clearly exhibited substantial distress by "acting out" — both in the classroom and on the playground — as a result of multiple risk factors within his home environment. Although he displayed superior intelligence, he was unable to engage with schoolwork. He was alternately withdrawn and needy, and displayed aggression toward peers in situations where he felt crowded. His school's project manager and his biological father noted that he could still be demanding and needy at times. However, a more stable home situation and a strengthened attachment with his father provided him with the consistent, reliable relationship and attention he had previously lacked — and as a result, he began to feel more secure (Adams-Langley, 2013).
Rather than viewing Lennox simply as a neglected or lost child, it was essential to recognize him as a unique individual experiencing a constellation of risk factors. A reparative bond was critical, and his role as a family carer needed to be understood in context — his aggression and neediness could be seen as a logical, frantic response to an overwhelming set of stressors. A significant contributing factor to his progress was the school's provision of firm yet non-judgmental encouragement to his father, supporting the father's confidence and facilitating his assumption of legal custody (Adams-Langley, 2013).
The Place2Be model offers primary clinical intervention to children exhibiting major risk factors, with the goal of promoting resilience (Masten, Best, & Gourmezy, 1990). A large proportion of such children face constellated disadvantage, which can be enduring, and schools often misunderstand the problematic conduct of "acting out" children. Research into children's emotional and social development has shown that being raised in homes with consistent, trustworthy caregivers is essential (Winnicott, 1971). When such attachment is lacking, the provision of a substitute support system — through accessible therapists, educators, and schools — can help children not only survive but, given the right conditions, genuinely thrive and flourish.
According to the case study, children who receive sufficient time and genuine respect from counselors, and who are helped to make meaning of their own lives through therapy, are able to develop the resilience and strength needed to manage their behavior and emotional states at school. The counseling delivered in Lennox's case achieved several objectives: it facilitated the development of internal control, positive regard for the counselor, and empathy for others. All of these gains can be understood and integrated through consistent attention and care. School-embedded counseling can foster the growth of self-confidence and resilience by drawing on both extraordinary and ordinary normative human resources within the therapeutic relationship (Adams-Langley, 2013).
The following questions were used to determine the client's level of risk:
1. What are the specifics of the child's prior neglect or physical abuse? How frequently and for how long did it occur, and what was its emotional and physical severity?
2. How do the risk variables currently stand?
3. Who is most likely to be affected by future occurrences of child neglect or abuse?
4. What conditions are capable of improving or worsening the child's risk of neglect or abuse?
5. Can any additional risk factors be identified that are relevant but not yet accounted for in the child's care plan?
6. Which risk variables appear to be responsive to intervention?
7. To what degree is the intervention expected to succeed?
8. Which factors should be identified as critical to managing risk?
9. What access does the individual have to at-risk children?
You’re 70% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.