1 / 15

Kimberly DeBoth Ball State University November 25, 2013

Tarasoff v . Regents of the University of California: Implications for School Psychologists . Kimberly DeBoth Ball State University November 25, 2013. Overview. Case Details Tarasoff I & II Threat Assessment State Law Duty to Warn Duty to Protect

aitana
Download Presentation

Kimberly DeBoth Ball State University November 25, 2013

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Tarasoffv. Regents of the University of California: Implications for School Psychologists Kimberly DeBoth Ball State University November 25, 2013

  2. Overview Case Details Tarasoff I & II Threat Assessment State Law Duty to Warn Duty to Protect Implications for School Psychology

  3. Case Details • Client: ProsenjitPoddar • Victim: Tatiana Tarasoff • Therapist: Dr. Lawrence Moore • Tarasoff Family filed suit: • University of California Regents • Staff of Student Health Center • Campus Police • California Supreme Court- Two Rulings (Jacob, Decker & Hartshorne, 2010; Pabian, Welfel & Beebe, 2009; Simone & Fulero, 2005)

  4. TARASOFF I • First Supreme Court Ruling- 1974 • Therapists have a duty to warn • “a warning is essential to avert danger from arising…” • Aftermath of TARASOFF I • Concern from mental health professionals • APA filed “amicus curiae” • Threatens freedom of speech • Concern from police (Jacob, Decker & Hartshorne, 2010; Weinstock, Vari, Leong & Silva, 2006)

  5. TARASOFF II • Second Supreme Court Ruling- 1976 • Therapists have a duty to protect • “an obligation to use reasonable care to protect the intended victim…” • Warning is one way of protecting • Aftermath of TARASOFF II • Confusion associated with the two rulings • Division in APA • 1981 Revision of Ethical Codes (Jacob, Decker & Hartshorne, 2010; Weinstock, Vari, Leong & Silva, 2006)

  6. What is a Threat? Multiple definitions “an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury or damage” “an indication of something impending” “the potential for possible harm” Risk Assessment (Felthous, 2006; Simone & Fulero, 2005)

  7. State Law • Duty to Protect is followed by most states • Mandatory • Permissive • Indiana Code 34-30-16-2 (1998) • Includes all mental health providers • Mandatory • Pabian, Welfel & Beebe Study (2009) • Surveyed 1,000 psychologists • 76.4% were misinformed on state law (Jacob, Decker & Hartshorne, 2010; National Conference of State Legislature, 2013; Pabian, Welfel & Beebe, 2009)

  8. State Law Continued… (National Conference of State Legislature, 2013)

  9. State Law Continued… • Language Differences • Mandatory Reporting Laws • Discourage patients from seeking help • Discourage therapists from working with high-risk clients • Soulier, Maislen & Beck Study (2010) • 70 Tarasoff related court cases • Permissive states increase liability for clinicians (National Conference of State Legislature, 2013;Soulier, Maislen & Beck, 2010)

  10. Warning the Victim • Knowledgeable of risk • Denial • Violence Prevention • How to Warn? • Clinical assessment • Simple vs. Specific • Release from hospitals and prisons • Need for further research (Felthous, 2006; Pabian, Welfel & Beebe, 2009)

  11. Duty to Protect • Law Enforcement Notification • Reaction • Inconsistency in victim notification • Inconsistency in documentation • Hospitalization • Maintain trust • Ewing v. Goldstein (2004) • Third party information • Failure to protect victim (Pabian, Welfel & Beebe, 2009; Soulier, Maislen, & Beck, 2010; Weinstock, Vari, Leong & Silva, 2006)

  12. Implications for School Psychologists NASP Code of Ethics Special obligation- minors Seek consultation Completed risk assessment Negligence = ignorance of state law Ensure safety of students When to breach confidentiality (Jacob, Decker & Hartshorne, 2010; Merrell, Ervin, & Peacock, 2011; Pabian, Welfel & Beebe, 2009; Pires,2012)

  13. Other Implications • Counselors • ACA Code of Ethics • “clear and imminent danger” • “serious and foreseeable harm” • Physicians, Clinicians & Therapists • Differences between states • Illinois (Marini & Stebnicki, 2009; National Conference of State Legislature, 2013)

  14. References Felthous, A. R. (2006). Warning a potential victim of a person's dangerousness: Clinician's duty or victim's right?. Journal Of The American Academy Of Psychiatry And The Law, 34(3), 338-348. Jacob, S., Decker, D., & Hartshorne, T. S. (2010). Ethics and the law for school psychologists (6th ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Marini, I., & Stebnicki, M.A. (Eds). (2009). The professional counselor’s desk reference. New York, NY: Springer. Merrell, K.W., Ervin, R.A., & Peacock, G.G. (2011). School psychology for the 21st century: Foundations and practices. New York, NY: Guilford. National Conference of State Legislature. (2013). Mental health professionals duty to protect/warn [Table, Graph]. Retrieved from the National Conference of State Legislature website: http://www.ncsl.org

  15. References Pabian, Y. L., Welfel, E., & Beebe, R. S. (2009). Psychologists' knowledge of their states' laws pertaining to Tarasoff-type situations. Professional Psychology: Research And Practice, 40(1), 8-14. Pires, M. (2012, July). Confidentiality in schools: Do you know what to do? From Science to Practice. Retrieved fromhttp://www.apadivisions.org/division-16/publications/newsletters/science/2012/07/confidentiality-in-schools.aspx Simone, S., & Fulero, S. M. (2005). Tarasoff and the Duty to Protect. Journal Of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 11(1-2), 145-168. Soulier, M. F., Maislen, A., & Beck, J. C. (2010). Status of the psychiatric duty to protect, circa 2006. Journal Of The American Academy Of Psychiatry And The Law, 38(4), 457-573. Weinstock, R., Vari, G., Leong, G. B., & Silva, J. (2006). Back to the past in California: A temporary retreat to a Tarasoff duty to warn. Journal Of The American Academy Of Psychiatry And The Law, 34(4), 523-528.

More Related