The Therapist’s Duty to Protect Victims of Domestic Violence: Where We Have Been and Where We Are Going

Abstract

After ten years of court decisions that have gradually broadened the scope of the psychotherapist’s duty to protect potential victims from violence, California has recently passed legislation that limits liability only to those cases where a patient has made a specific threat to an identifiable victim. Although this legislation has articulated the appropriate clinical response in such situations, it may have created a false sense of security for therapists treating patients who are perpetrators or victims of family violence. Though some perpetrators of violence do make a specific verbal threat, therapists are likely to encounter many more who do not verbalize a threat, but nevertheless pose a serious danger to their family members. This article briefly discusses the recent history of the duty-to-protect issue and the violence prediction literature as they relate to domestic violence. Specific interventions are suggested for clinicians in cases where the violence potential is great but no specific threat is made by the client.

Battering and Couples Therapy: Universal Screening and Selection of Treatment Modality

“…A lethality assessment often has ethical ramifications. There is the legal duty to warn potential victims and criminal justice personnel if a person states that he or she is going to commit an act of violence against another (Cervantes, 1993;Cervantes & Hansen, 1997;Hart, 1993;Sonkin & Ellison, 1986;Willbach, 1989). This is an "imminent danger" warning.…”

Intimate Partner Homicide

“…However, detection skills, lethality assessment, and possible protective action apply also to battered women who appear homicidal. Sonkin and Ellison (1986) reviewed duty to warn court cases as they evolved and noted that courts gradually broadened the scope of practitioners' duty. Some recent rulings take the definition of potential victim beyond an identifiable victim and include the potential for physical and mental harm to family members and the general public (Koocher, 1988).…”