It is evident that Vargas family is facing two principal challenges, which are resulting in so many issues in the family. Evidently, the first problem regards kids, especially Frank, who is held to be stubborn. His behavior is a concern to the mother, but his father seems to be comfortable. Although Elizabeth thinks that Frank might be suffering from ADHD, his father seems to be contended with him. Evidently, it is not right to assume that Frank’s behavior is desirable based on the fact that he was even suspended from school. It is surprising that his father is contented with his suspension and allows him to engage in leisure activities, yet, he had said that he will go with him to work as a punishment. The Vargas family is also faced with the problem of misunderstanding between the couples. In fact, there is no instance where the two couples seem to agree on even one thing. Children are divided, and while Frank supports his father, Heidi supports Elizabeth. The differences result in fights, particularly when the issue of Frank is brought in. There are many occasions when the couple disagrees and Elizabeth is ever irritated by Bob’s actions. The two challenges are what motivated them to seek to counsel.
According to structural family therapy point of view, there are various ways of containing problems in families. First, boundary strengthening can play a significant role. If Vargas family is carefully examined, it is evident that there is a considerable distance between Bob and Elizabeth, something that is extended to Frank. However, the therapist has attempted to restructure by making it close. Notably, the two couples have the goal of living happily, but the two challenges are hindering them. According to Carr (2014), provision of growth and encouragement plays a crucial role in maintaining problems in families. The delivery of new alternatives and dynamics is also critical to sustaining problems in structured family therapy. Based on the case study, it is evident that the therapist is trying to restructure and offer new alternatives to the couple as a way of helping them to contain the issues they are facing. It is evident that there is the isolation of the family in position, i.e., how they seated during a counseling session. The modification is the existing frame is also critical to maintaining problemsrg & Goldenberg, 2012). Here, the focus is given to subsystems, just as Goldenberg and Goldenberg (2012) say.

The next intervention I would like to plan during the next session is creativity, whereby I will take side with one of the subsystems as opposed to the other. In this intervention, my goal is to smash a stalemate in the family and alter the relationship between subsystems. Creativity is essential because it helps counselor to learn many issues regarding the party he or she is opposing (Fraser, Solovey, Grove, Lee & Greene, 2012). This plan should be followed a follow-up and support as a way of termination processes According to Gurman and Kniskern (2014), it is vital to ensure follow-up programs are in place to ensure that therapy is successful. For example, I should make sure that I visit the family weekly on the basis of the need. However, if the family will not be available, I would be making frequent calls to check the progress. Based on the fact that there is a change there is a positive change in the relationship, it is right to reinforce them by demonstrating the importance of understanding in the family and the strategies they can utilize to promote happiness in their relationship. In this view, I am sure that Vargas family will benefit from the therapy, just as Elizabeth believed.