This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent tension between supporting a candidate’s professional development and upholding the integrity of the examination process, particularly concerning retake policies designed to ensure competency. The candidate’s request, while stemming from a desire to improve, directly challenges the established blueprint weighting and scoring mechanisms, which are fundamental to the licensure examination’s validity and reliability. Careful judgment is required to balance empathy with adherence to regulatory frameworks. The best professional approach involves clearly communicating the established retake policies and the rationale behind the blueprint weighting and scoring. This approach prioritizes transparency and adherence to the examination’s governing regulations. By explaining that the blueprint reflects the essential knowledge and skills required for competent practice, and that the scoring is designed to objectively measure mastery of these areas, the professional upholds the integrity of the licensure process. This aligns with ethical principles of fairness and accountability, ensuring that all candidates are assessed against the same objective standards. The focus remains on the candidate’s preparation and performance relative to the established criteria, rather than altering the criteria to accommodate a specific candidate’s circumstances. An incorrect approach would be to consider modifying the scoring or weighting for this individual candidate. This action would undermine the standardized nature of the examination, creating an unfair advantage and compromising the validity of the licensure process. It violates the principle of equal treatment for all candidates and disregards the regulatory framework that mandates objective and consistent assessment. Such a deviation could lead to questions about the competence of licensed professionals and erode public trust in the examination’s rigor. Another incorrect approach would be to dismiss the candidate’s concerns outright without providing a clear explanation of the policies. While adhering to policy is crucial, a lack of empathetic communication can be perceived as unprofessional and unsupportive of a candidate’s commitment to professional growth. This failure to engage constructively, even within the confines of established rules, can negatively impact the candidate’s perception of the profession and the regulatory body. A further incorrect approach would be to suggest that the candidate focus solely on areas where they performed poorly without referencing the established blueprint. While self-improvement is important, the blueprint provides the definitive framework for what constitutes essential knowledge and skills. Failing to guide the candidate in relation to this official document, and instead offering generalized advice, risks misdirecting their study efforts and does not adequately address the examination’s specific requirements. The professional decision-making process in such situations should involve a clear understanding of the examination’s governing regulations, including blueprint weighting, scoring, and retake policies. Professionals must prioritize transparency, fairness, and adherence to these established standards. When faced with candidate inquiries that challenge these policies, the first step is to clearly and respectfully communicate the existing framework and its rationale. Empathy can be demonstrated through offering resources for preparation and reiterating the importance of the examination’s role in ensuring public safety and professional competence. The focus should always remain on objective assessment and equitable application of rules for all candidates.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the critical need for culturally sensitive and developmentally appropriate psychological assessment in a diverse youth population. The psychologist must navigate the complexities of selecting instruments that are valid and reliable across different cultural backgrounds and age groups, while also adhering to ethical guidelines regarding informed consent and the appropriate use of assessment tools. The pressure to provide timely feedback to stakeholders, such as parents and educational institutions, adds another layer of complexity, potentially tempting shortcuts that could compromise the integrity of the assessment process. The best approach involves a systematic and evidence-based selection of assessment tools. This includes prioritizing instruments that have undergone rigorous psychometric validation specifically within Pan-Asian populations or have demonstrated cross-cultural applicability through established adaptation and translation protocols. The psychologist should also consider the developmental stage of the youth, selecting tests designed for their age range and cognitive abilities. Furthermore, obtaining informed consent from both the youth (where appropriate based on age and maturity) and their guardians, clearly explaining the purpose, procedures, and limitations of the assessment, is paramount. This approach aligns with ethical principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, and respect for autonomy, ensuring that the assessment is both scientifically sound and ethically administered. An incorrect approach would be to rely solely on widely recognized Western-developed assessment tools without considering their cultural relevance or psychometric properties in the Pan-Asian context. This failure to adapt or select culturally appropriate measures can lead to misinterpretations of results, inaccurate diagnoses, and potentially harmful interventions. It violates the ethical principle of competence, as the psychologist is not adequately equipped to administer and interpret tests in a population for which they have not been validated. Another professionally unacceptable approach is to prioritize speed and ease of administration over psychometric rigor. This might involve using brief screening tools as definitive diagnostic instruments or administering tests without proper standardization or training. Such practices disregard the importance of psychometric properties like reliability and validity, leading to unreliable and invalid assessment outcomes. This undermines the scientific basis of psychological assessment and can result in misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment planning, contravening the ethical duty to provide competent and evidence-based services. Finally, neglecting to obtain comprehensive informed consent, particularly regarding the limitations of the assessment tools in a specific cultural context, is an ethical failure. This can occur if the psychologist does not adequately explain the potential for cultural bias in the instruments or the limitations of their applicability to the individual’s background. This breaches the principle of respect for autonomy and can lead to a lack of trust and engagement from the youth and their families. Professionals should adopt a decision-making process that begins with a thorough understanding of the referral question and the characteristics of the client population. This should be followed by a systematic review of available assessment instruments, prioritizing those with strong psychometric evidence for the target population and developmental stage. Ethical considerations, including informed consent and cultural sensitivity, must be integrated at every step of the process, from test selection to interpretation and reporting. Continuous professional development in cross-cultural psychology and psychometrics is essential to maintain competence.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the sensitive nature of adolescent substance use, the potential for dual relationships, and the ethical imperative to prioritize the client’s well-being and confidentiality within the specific framework of the Applied Pan-Asia Youth Substance Use Psychology Licensure Examination. Navigating the boundaries between providing therapeutic support and maintaining professional objectivity requires careful consideration of ethical guidelines and the specific regulatory environment governing youth substance use psychology in the Pan-Asian context. The most appropriate approach involves a direct, empathetic, and non-judgmental conversation with the adolescent, focusing on understanding their experiences and concerns regarding substance use. This approach prioritizes building rapport and trust, which are foundational for effective therapeutic intervention. It aligns with ethical principles of beneficence and non-maleficence by seeking to understand the client’s perspective before making assumptions or interventions. Furthermore, it respects the adolescent’s autonomy and right to self-determination while adhering to the professional duty of care. This method is consistent with the ethical guidelines of the Applied Pan-Asia Youth Substance Use Psychology Licensure Examination, which emphasize client-centered care and the importance of a therapeutic alliance in addressing substance use issues in young people. An approach that immediately involves parental notification without first engaging the adolescent directly risks alienating the young person, potentially damaging the therapeutic relationship, and violating principles of confidentiality. While parental involvement is often crucial in adolescent treatment, the timing and manner of such involvement must be carefully considered to ensure it supports, rather than hinders, the therapeutic process. This could be seen as a failure to adequately assess the situation from the adolescent’s perspective and a premature breach of trust. Another inappropriate approach would be to dismiss the adolescent’s concerns or minimize the perceived problem without a thorough assessment. This fails to acknowledge the potential severity of substance use and neglects the professional responsibility to provide appropriate support and intervention. Such an approach could lead to a missed opportunity for early intervention and potentially exacerbate the problem. Finally, an approach that focuses solely on the legal ramifications of adolescent substance use without addressing the underlying psychological and social factors would be incomplete and potentially harmful. While legal considerations are important, a comprehensive psychological approach must delve into the reasons for substance use, coping mechanisms, and the development of healthier alternatives. Professionals in this field should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a thorough assessment of the adolescent’s immediate situation and their expressed concerns. This should be followed by building a strong therapeutic alliance based on trust and empathy. Interventions should be tailored to the individual’s needs and developmental stage, with careful consideration given to confidentiality and the appropriate involvement of other stakeholders, such as parents or guardians, only after establishing a foundation of trust and understanding with the adolescent.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the complex interplay of biopsychosocial factors influencing adolescent substance use, compounded by the need to adhere to ethical guidelines for assessment and intervention within the context of youth psychology. The psychologist must navigate potential diagnostic biases, consider developmental stages, and ensure interventions are culturally sensitive and evidence-based, all while respecting the autonomy and confidentiality of the young person and their family. The best professional approach involves a comprehensive biopsychosocial assessment that integrates biological, psychological, and social factors. This approach is correct because it aligns with the foundational principles of developmental psychology and psychopathology, which emphasize understanding the multifaceted origins and maintenance of behavioral and mental health issues. Specifically, it acknowledges that substance use in adolescents is rarely attributable to a single cause but rather emerges from a dynamic interaction of genetic predispositions, neurobiological development, individual psychological vulnerabilities (e.g., trauma, mental health conditions), family dynamics, peer influences, and socio-cultural contexts. This holistic view allows for a more accurate diagnosis and the development of tailored, effective interventions that address the root causes rather than just the symptoms. Ethical guidelines for psychological practice universally advocate for comprehensive assessments that consider the whole person within their environment. An approach that focuses solely on the psychological aspects, such as attributing the substance use entirely to poor coping mechanisms without exploring biological vulnerabilities or environmental stressors, is professionally unacceptable. This failure neglects the significant impact of neurodevelopmental changes during adolescence and potential genetic predispositions, leading to an incomplete understanding and potentially ineffective treatment. It also risks pathologizing the individual without considering the systemic influences that may be contributing to the problem. Another professionally unacceptable approach would be to prioritize social factors, such as peer pressure, to the exclusion of individual psychological or biological considerations. While peer influence is a critical factor in adolescent substance use, an exclusive focus ignores potential underlying mental health conditions (e.g., anxiety, depression) that might drive the individual to seek solace or escape through substances, or biological vulnerabilities that increase susceptibility. This narrow perspective can lead to interventions that are superficial and fail to address the core issues. Finally, an approach that relies heavily on a single diagnostic label without considering the developmental trajectory or the interplay of biopsychosocial factors is also professionally flawed. Psychopathology in youth is often fluid and can manifest differently across developmental stages. A rigid diagnostic approach, without acknowledging the dynamic nature of adolescent development and the interconnectedness of biological, psychological, and social influences, can lead to misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment plans. Professionals should employ a systematic decision-making process that begins with a thorough, multi-dimensional assessment. This involves gathering information from multiple sources (e.g., the adolescent, parents/guardians, school records), utilizing standardized assessment tools where appropriate, and critically evaluating the data through the lens of biopsychosocial models and developmental psychology. Ethical considerations, including informed consent, confidentiality, and cultural competence, must be integrated throughout the assessment and intervention planning process.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the complex interplay of a young person’s substance use, potential co-occurring mental health issues, and the need for culturally sensitive and evidence-based interventions within the Pan-Asian context. The challenge lies in moving beyond a singular focus on substance use to a holistic understanding that acknowledges the individual’s developmental stage, cultural background, and the potential for integrated treatment to yield better long-term outcomes. Careful judgment is required to select interventions that are not only empirically supported but also adaptable to the specific cultural nuances and family dynamics prevalent in Pan-Asian communities, ensuring respect for individual autonomy and family involvement where appropriate. The best professional approach involves a comprehensive assessment that identifies both substance use patterns and any co-occurring mental health conditions, followed by the development of an integrated treatment plan. This plan should prioritize evidence-based psychotherapies tailored to adolescent substance use and mental health disorders, such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) adapted for substance use and Motivational Interviewing (MI), while also incorporating culturally sensitive elements. This approach is correct because it adheres to ethical principles of beneficence and non-maleficence by addressing all identified needs comprehensively. It aligns with best practices in adolescent mental health and substance use treatment, which advocate for integrated care to improve treatment engagement and outcomes. Furthermore, it respects the client’s right to receive care that is both effective and culturally appropriate, as emphasized in ethical guidelines for working with diverse populations. An approach that focuses solely on addressing the substance use without a thorough assessment for co-occurring mental health conditions is professionally unacceptable. This failure to conduct a comprehensive assessment violates the ethical principle of beneficence, as it may overlook significant underlying issues contributing to the substance use, thereby hindering effective treatment. It also risks misattributing symptoms of a mental health disorder solely to substance use, leading to an incomplete and potentially ineffective treatment plan. Another professionally unacceptable approach would be to implement a treatment plan based on generic, non-culturally adapted interventions without considering the specific Pan-Asian cultural context. This neglects the ethical imperative to provide culturally competent care. Without cultural adaptation, interventions may be perceived as irrelevant, stigmatizing, or ineffective by the adolescent and their family, leading to poor engagement and treatment adherence. This can also inadvertently reinforce cultural misunderstandings or biases. Finally, an approach that prioritizes a single, unproven therapeutic modality without considering the evidence base for adolescent substance use and co-occurring disorders is also professionally unsound. This disregards the ethical obligation to provide evidence-based care, which is crucial for maximizing treatment efficacy and ensuring client safety. Relying on unvalidated methods can lead to wasted resources, prolonged suffering, and potentially negative outcomes for the adolescent. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a thorough, multi-faceted assessment, including screening for substance use, mental health conditions, and cultural factors. This assessment should inform the selection of evidence-based interventions that have demonstrated efficacy for the identified issues. Crucially, these interventions must be adapted to be culturally relevant and sensitive to the adolescent’s background and family system. Ongoing evaluation of treatment progress and client feedback should guide adjustments to the treatment plan, ensuring a dynamic and responsive therapeutic process. Collaboration with the adolescent, their family (where appropriate and consented), and other relevant professionals is also a cornerstone of effective and ethical practice.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the nuanced eligibility criteria for the Applied Pan-Asia Youth Substance Use Psychology Licensure Examination. Applicants must demonstrate not only academic preparedness but also practical experience and adherence to ethical standards relevant to youth substance use psychology within the Pan-Asian context. Careful judgment is required to accurately assess whether an applicant’s background aligns with the examination’s purpose and eligibility requirements, ensuring only qualified individuals are licensed to practice. The best professional approach involves a thorough review of the applicant’s submitted documentation against the explicit eligibility criteria outlined by the Pan-Asia Youth Substance Use Psychology Licensing Board. This includes verifying the authenticity and relevance of their academic qualifications, the duration and nature of their supervised practical experience in youth substance use psychology, and any required professional development or ethical training. Adherence to these established criteria is paramount, as the examination’s purpose is to ensure a baseline competency and ethical standard for practitioners working with vulnerable youth populations across Pan-Asia. This meticulous verification process directly upholds the integrity of the licensing process and protects the public interest. An incorrect approach would be to grant eligibility based solely on the applicant’s self-declaration of experience without independent verification. This fails to meet the regulatory requirement for documented proof of experience and opens the door to unqualified individuals entering the profession, thereby compromising the examination’s purpose of ensuring competence and ethical practice. Another professionally unacceptable approach would be to overlook discrepancies in the applicant’s academic transcripts, such as a lack of specific coursework directly related to youth substance use psychology, assuming that general psychology degrees are sufficient. This disregards the specialized knowledge and skills the examination aims to assess and is contrary to the eligibility requirements designed to ensure practitioners have a focused understanding of this specific field. Finally, accepting an application without confirming the applicant has completed the mandatory supervised practice hours under a licensed professional would be a significant ethical and regulatory failure. The examination’s purpose is to license individuals who have not only theoretical knowledge but also practical, supervised experience, which is a cornerstone of ethical practice in psychology. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes adherence to established regulatory guidelines and ethical principles. This involves a systematic review of all application components, seeking clarification or additional documentation when necessary, and making decisions based on objective evidence that aligns with the stated purpose and eligibility criteria of the licensure examination.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent complexity of assessing youth substance use, particularly when a young person exhibits signs of distress and potential co-occurring mental health issues. The clinician must navigate the dual responsibilities of gathering accurate information for risk formulation while also ensuring the adolescent’s well-being and maintaining therapeutic rapport. The need for a comprehensive risk assessment is paramount, balancing the immediate safety concerns with the long-term developmental and psychological needs of the youth. The most appropriate approach involves a structured yet flexible clinical interview that prioritizes building trust and rapport with the adolescent. This method begins with open-ended questions to encourage the youth to share their experiences and feelings in their own words. The clinician should actively listen, validate their emotions, and gradually introduce more specific inquiries about substance use patterns, triggers, and consequences, while also exploring their mental state, social support, and coping mechanisms. This approach allows for a nuanced understanding of the interplay between substance use and psychological distress, facilitating an accurate risk formulation that considers all relevant factors. This aligns with ethical guidelines emphasizing client-centered care and the importance of a thorough biopsychosocial assessment in youth mental health and substance use services. An approach that immediately focuses on direct, confrontational questioning about substance use, without first establishing rapport or acknowledging the adolescent’s distress, is professionally unacceptable. This can lead to defensiveness, withdrawal, and an incomplete or inaccurate picture of the situation, potentially alienating the youth and hindering future engagement. It fails to acknowledge the developmental stage of the adolescent and the importance of trust in therapeutic relationships. Another inappropriate approach would be to solely focus on the substance use aspect and neglect the exploration of the adolescent’s emotional state and potential co-occurring mental health conditions. This narrow focus risks misinterpreting symptoms and formulating an incomplete risk assessment, potentially overlooking critical underlying issues that contribute to or are exacerbated by substance use. Ethical practice demands a holistic view. Finally, an approach that involves making assumptions about the adolescent’s motivations or the severity of their substance use without adequate information gathering is also professionally unsound. This can lead to premature judgments and inappropriate interventions, failing to meet the individual needs of the youth and potentially causing harm. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with establishing a safe and trusting environment. This is followed by a systematic yet adaptable assessment process that explores the presenting problem (substance use), its context, and any co-occurring issues (mental health, social factors). The clinician should continuously evaluate the information gathered, adapt their questioning based on the adolescent’s responses, and prioritize the youth’s safety and well-being throughout the interview.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the candidate to balance the desire for efficient preparation with the need for comprehensive understanding and adherence to the examination’s scope. Misjudging the timeline or relying on inadequate resources can lead to significant stress, potential failure, and a need for costly re-examination, impacting both the candidate’s career progression and the integrity of the licensure process. The pressure to pass quickly can tempt candidates towards shortcuts that compromise learning. Correct Approach Analysis: The best approach involves a structured, multi-faceted preparation strategy that allocates sufficient time for each component of the examination syllabus. This includes dedicating specific periods to reviewing foundational psychological theories relevant to youth substance use, understanding diagnostic criteria and assessment tools, and critically examining intervention and prevention strategies. Furthermore, it necessitates engaging with a variety of high-quality resources, such as peer-reviewed academic journals, reputable textbooks recommended by the examination board, and practice questions that simulate the exam’s difficulty and format. This method ensures a deep, integrated understanding rather than superficial memorization, aligning with the ethical imperative to be competent and well-prepared to serve vulnerable populations. The timeline should be realistic, typically spanning several months, allowing for iterative review and consolidation of knowledge. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Relying solely on a condensed review of practice questions without understanding the underlying principles is professionally unacceptable. This approach risks superficial learning and an inability to apply knowledge to novel scenarios, failing to meet the competency standards expected of a licensed professional. It also bypasses the ethical obligation to thoroughly understand the psychological underpinnings of youth substance use. Focusing exclusively on memorizing facts from a single, potentially outdated, study guide is also problematic. This limits exposure to diverse perspectives and the latest research, which is crucial in a dynamic field. It neglects the broader scope of the examination and the ethical requirement for continuous professional development. Lastly, attempting to prepare in the final weeks before the exam, without a structured plan and adequate time for absorption and practice, is a recipe for failure. This rushed approach demonstrates a lack of foresight and commitment to thorough preparation, potentially leading to inadequate knowledge and an inability to perform competently in practice, which is an ethical failing. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should approach licensure preparation with the same diligence and systematic planning they would apply to a complex clinical case. This involves understanding the examination’s objectives, identifying key knowledge domains, and creating a personalized study plan that incorporates diverse, credible resources. Regular self-assessment through practice questions is vital, but it should be used to identify knowledge gaps, not as a substitute for learning. A realistic timeline, allowing for deep engagement with the material and ample time for review and practice, is essential for building the confidence and competence required for licensure.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the need to select an appropriate standardized assessment tool for a diverse youth population experiencing substance use issues. The challenge lies in balancing the need for psychometric rigor with cultural sensitivity, developmental appropriateness, and the specific nuances of adolescent substance use within the Pan-Asian context. Misinterpreting or misapplying assessment tools can lead to inaccurate diagnoses, ineffective treatment plans, and potential harm to vulnerable young individuals. Careful judgment is required to ensure the chosen tool is valid, reliable, and ethically administered. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves selecting a standardized assessment tool that has demonstrated psychometric properties (validity and reliability) specifically within the target population or a closely related demographic, and has been culturally adapted or validated for use in Pan-Asian contexts. This approach prioritizes evidence-based practice and ethical considerations by ensuring the assessment is appropriate and meaningful for the individuals being evaluated. It acknowledges that direct translation without adaptation can lead to significant measurement error and misinterpretation. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach is to use a widely recognized Western-developed assessment tool without any consideration for cultural adaptation or validation in Pan-Asian settings. This fails to account for potential cultural differences in symptom expression, help-seeking behaviors, and understanding of concepts related to substance use, leading to inaccurate results and potentially stigmatizing interpretations. Another incorrect approach is to rely solely on clinical intuition and unstructured interviews without the support of a standardized tool. While clinical judgment is crucial, the absence of a standardized assessment can lead to subjective biases, inconsistent data collection, and difficulty in tracking progress or comparing outcomes across individuals or over time. This approach lacks the objectivity and systematic data that standardized tools provide. A third incorrect approach is to select a tool based on its ease of administration or availability, without verifying its psychometric properties or suitability for the specific age group and substance use issues being assessed. This prioritizes convenience over accuracy and ethical responsibility, potentially leading to the use of an unreliable or invalid measure. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with clearly defining the assessment objectives and the target population. This should be followed by a thorough review of available literature on assessment tools relevant to adolescent substance use, paying close attention to studies that have examined their psychometric properties and cultural adaptations. Consultation with experienced colleagues or cultural experts within the Pan-Asian region is also advisable. The final selection should be a tool that is demonstrably valid and reliable for the intended use, culturally sensitive, and developmentally appropriate, with a clear plan for its ethical and accurate administration and interpretation.

This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the psychologist to balance the immediate need for intervention with the ethical and legal obligations concerning client confidentiality and informed consent, particularly when dealing with a minor exhibiting concerning behaviors. The psychologist must navigate the complexities of parental rights, the minor’s developing autonomy, and the potential risks to the minor’s well-being. Careful judgment is required to ensure that any action taken is both therapeutically sound and legally compliant within the framework of youth substance use psychology in the Pan-Asia region. The best professional approach involves a multi-faceted strategy that prioritizes the minor’s safety while respecting their rights and involving appropriate stakeholders. This includes conducting a thorough risk assessment to determine the immediate danger posed by the substance use, engaging in open and honest communication with the minor about the concerns and potential next steps, and then, based on the assessment and the minor’s capacity, initiating a discussion about involving parents or guardians. This approach aligns with ethical guidelines that emphasize beneficence and non-maleficence, requiring the psychologist to act in the best interest of the client while also considering the legal framework surrounding minors and parental involvement. It also respects the principle of autonomy by attempting to involve the minor in the decision-making process as much as their developmental stage allows. An incorrect approach would be to immediately contact the parents without first assessing the risk or attempting to engage the minor in a discussion about their substance use and the potential need for parental involvement. This failure to conduct a proper risk assessment could lead to unnecessary escalation or a breakdown of trust with the minor. Ethically, this bypasses the principle of respecting the client’s autonomy and could be seen as a breach of confidentiality without sufficient justification. Another incorrect approach would be to solely focus on the minor’s wishes and refuse to involve parents, even if the risk assessment indicates a significant danger to the minor’s well-being. This would neglect the psychologist’s duty of care and potentially violate legal mandates regarding the protection of minors, especially in cases of substance abuse where parental support is often crucial for recovery. Finally, an approach that involves sharing detailed therapeutic information with parents without the minor’s explicit consent, beyond what is necessary for safety or legal reporting, would be ethically problematic. This would violate the principle of confidentiality and could undermine the therapeutic alliance, hindering future progress. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a comprehensive assessment of the situation, including the client’s developmental stage, the nature and severity of the substance use, and the potential risks. This should be followed by an ethical analysis, considering relevant professional codes of conduct and legal statutes. Open communication with the client, tailored to their understanding, is paramount. When parental involvement is deemed necessary, it should be approached collaboratively and transparently, with the goal of supporting the minor’s well-being and recovery.