Tarasoff’s Duty to Warn and Protect with Interstate Therapy
Authors:
Sarah J. Leavitt, M.Acc.,& Kristine M. Jacquin, Ph.D.
Original Publication Site & Date: American College of Forensic Psychology 2022
Summary:
Tarasoff I and II were landmark legal cases resulting from a psychiatrist’s former patient killing a fellow university student after verbalizing threats in therapy months before (Simone & Fulero, 2005).
The resulting duty to warn and protect requirements can be difficult for mental health professionals (MHP) to navigate interstate, especially because there are no overarching federal regulations (Johnson et al., 2014).
Studies have shown that MHPs erroneously thought they were informed about their state’s duty to warn legislation and case law and used unstructured judgment to apply the rules (Conlon et al., 2019; Glueckaufet al., 2018; Henderson, 2015; Pabianet al., 2009).
Presented by
Sarah J. Leavitt, M.Acc.,& Kristine M. Jacquin, Ph.D.
Institution
School of Psychology
Fielding Graduate University