Search results
20 lis 2018 · Contrary to the 1976 California Supreme Court decision in the renowned Tarasoff case, the Texas Supreme Court rendered a 1999 opinion (Thapar v. Zezulka) that mental health providers in Texas do not have a duty to warn and protect their clients’ known and intended victims.
1 kwi 2018 · The court's decision mandates that mental health professionals use "reasonable care" in informing authorities or warning potential victims, initially referred to as the "duty to warn," or by using whatever means deemed necessary, should they determine that a patient poses a threat to a third party . The duty to protect has proliferated widely ...
23 paź 2023 · The duty to warn gives counselors and therapists the right and obligation to breach confidentiality if they believe a client poses a risk to another person. It also protects clinicians from prosecution for breach of confidentiality if they have reasonable suspicion that the client might be a danger.
1 sty 2009 · The duty is to warn clearly identified victims and law enforcement and attempt to hospitalize the client when a client makes explicit and imminent threats to identified victims or...
[This duty] may call for [the therapist] to warn the intended victim or others likely to apprise the victim of the danger, to notify the police, or take whatever other steps are reasonably necessary under the circumstances.
Contrary to the 1976 California Supreme Court decision in the renowned Tarasoff case, the Texas Supreme Court rendered a 1999 opinion (Thapar v. Zezulka) that mental health providers in Texas do not have a duty to warn and protect their clients' known and intended victims.
In our Code of Ethics we have the following declaration: B3. Duty to Warn When counsellors become aware of their client's Intent or potential to place others in clear or imminent danger, they use reasonable care to give threatened persons such warnings as are essential to avert foreseeable dangers.
