Duty to Warn and Protect: Not in Texas

Barbee, Phillip W.; Combs, Don C.; Ekleberry, Fabiola; Villalobos, Susanna

doi:10.1080/15566382.2007.12033830

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Case Analysis1

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2012

2015

Publication Types

Select...

Article1

Other1

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent2

Authors

Journals

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This duty to warn others is also a common legal exception to confidentiality, in accordance with the Tarasoff doctrine (Remley & Herlihy, 2010;Wheeler & Bertram, 2008); however, the Good Counselor needs to be aware of the legal requirements in her state. Legal requirements vary from state to state; for example, in Texas, counselors are not required to disclose information when suspecting harm to a third party (Barbee, Combs, Ekleberry, & Villalobos, 2007). The Good Counselor should consult with colleagues and legal counsel as necessary to determine if disclosure is necessary to protect Snow White.…”

Section: Case Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethical Fairy Tales: Using Fairy Tales as Illustrative Ethical Dilemmas With Counseling Students

Henderson

Malone

2012

Journal of Creativity in Mental Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Case Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethical Fairy Tales: Using Fairy Tales as Illustrative Ethical Dilemmas With Counseling Students

Henderson

Malone

2012

Journal of Creativity in Mental Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tarasoff and the Duty to Warn

Foellmi

Rosenfeld

2015

The Encyclopedia of Clinical Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The case of Tarasoff v. California Board of Regents (1976) shocked the mental health community by imposing civil liability (i.e., damages and financial compensation) for a psychotherapist's failure to warn an individual of the risk posed by his patient. As a consequence of Tarasoff , many jurisdictions now require mental health professionals to take action if they determine that their patient presents a risk of danger to another person. This requirement has been operationalized in some jurisdictions as a “duty to warn” their patient's potential victim, whereas other jurisdictions have imposed a “duty to protect,” which requires the mental health professional take steps to protect the potential victim(s). Protecting the potential victim might involve warning him or her directly, alerting the authorities, or taking other actions to prevent the harm from occurring (e.g., initiating psychiatric hospitalization). The manner in which courts have applied these legal concepts has varied depending on the specific details of the case and the jurisdiction.

show abstract

Duty to Warn and Protect: Not in Texas

Cited by 2 publications

References 1 publication

Ethical Fairy Tales: Using Fairy Tales as Illustrative Ethical Dilemmas With Counseling Students

Ethical Fairy Tales: Using Fairy Tales as Illustrative Ethical Dilemmas With Counseling Students

Tarasoff and the Duty to Warn

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About