Clairvoyance vs. common sense: therapist's duty to warn and protect.
This article addresses the issue of a therapist's duty to warn and protect victims of domestic violence. In three different cases, California courts have found therapists liable for violent acts perpetrated by clients in their care. Based on the landmark Tarasoff case that mandated the therapist to report threats made by their clients regarding a specific victim, the courts have now extended the therapist's duty to include the reporting of those clients they assess as dangerous but who have not made specific threats, as well as the protection of unintended victims of violence, such as children. Therapists are concerned that the courts are expecting them to be clairvoyant and that psychologists may not be able to predict dangerousness. This article will discuss these concerns in light of the current state of the art regarding the prediction of dangerousness and its relationship to domestic violence. The author suggests specific clinical interventions for victims and perpetrators of domestic violence.
Sonkin
D J
DJ
D000328:Adult; D003219:Confidentiality / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D003617:Dangerous Behavior; D005260:Female; D006708:Homicide / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D006801:Humans; D008318:Malpractice / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D010268:Parapsychology; D011613:Psychotherapy; D011902:Rape / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D012307:Risk Factors; D013179:Spouse Abuse / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D014754:Violence