Duty To Warn/Confiden1ality Robin Kuebler Duty to warn: Responsibility of a counselor or therapist to inform third par1es or authori1es if a client poses a threat to himself or to another iden1fiable individual. Legal duty to warn was established in the case of Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (1976). Duty to warn gives counselors and therapists the right to breach confiden1ality if a client poses a risk to another person. Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California •  Historical case that established duty to warn •  1974 -­‐ Prosinjit Podder becomes obsessed with Ta1ana Tarasoff •  Podder informs a health center psychologist at the University of California of his intent to kill Tarasoff. •  Psychologist sends leNer to campus police •  Police conclude that Podder poses no threat to Tarasoff, but advises Podder to avoid her. •  Podder subsequently stabs Tarasoff to death. •  Tarasoff’s parents sue school for failure to warn of Podder’s murderous intent. •  1976 – California Supreme Court determines that mental health professionals have a duty to warn an intended vic1m. Jablonski v. United States Court of Appeals •  Upheld the Tarasoff decision establishing duty to warn. •  1978 – Ms. Kimball and Mr. Jablonski are in a rela1onship. •  Jablonski threatens Ms. Kimball and her mother, Ms. Pahls, and aNempts to kill them. •  July 10, 1978 – Ms. Kimball takes Jablonski to Loma Linda VA Hospital for behavioral evalua1on •  Jablonski refuses inpa1ent admission, receives treatment on an outpa1ent basis. •  Doctors at the VA Hospital fail to request prior medical records for Jablonski. •  Doctors conclude that Jablonski poses no current threat to Ms. Kimball, but suggest that she end the rela1onship. •  July 16, 1978 – Jablonski kills Ms. Kimball. •  Ms. Kimball’s estate sues the hospital for breach of duty to warn. •  Court finds that Ms. Kimball was a foreseeable vic1m of Jablonski’s violence, and determines that the hospital failed to duly warn her. Hedlund v. Superior Court of Orange County, California •  Established duty of mental health professionals to warn iden1fiable, foreseen vic1ms AND those in close rela1onships with the intended vic1m. •  1979 – During counseling sessions, Stephen Wilson informs his psychologist of his intent to commit serious bodily injury to his wife, LaNita. •  Psychologist failed to warn LaNita of his aggressive intent. •  April 9, 1979 – Stephen Wilson shoots LaNita. LaNita uses her body to shield her son Darryl from the shotgun blast, saving his life. •  Court finds children, family, bystanders of an intended vic1m are due a warning of poten1al harm. Thompson v. Alameda County, California •  Established that duty to warn is only present if poten1al vic1ms can be specifically iden1fied. •  James F. is a juvenile offender in the custody of Alameda County. He states that, upon release, he intends to kill a neighborhood child. •  County releases James F. to the custody of his mother without no1fying police or neighbors of his intent. •  Within 24 hours of his release, James F. sexually assaults and murders a 5-­‐year old boy in his mother’s garage. •  Parents of the 5-­‐year old bring a wrongful death ac1on against the county. •  Supreme Court of California rules that, in the absence of an iden1fiable target, Alameda County had no obliga1on to warn a poten1al popula1on of vic1ms. References Hedlund v. Superior Court, 34 Cal.3d 695, 194 Cal.Rptr. 805; 669 P.2d 41 (1983). Jablonski v. United States of America, 712 F.2d 391 (1983). Small, Leslie B. (1985). Psychotherapists’ Duty to Warn: Ten Years Ager Tarasoff. Golden Gate University Law Review, 15(2), 1-­‐16. Thompson v. County of Alameda, 404 U.S. 1026 92 S. Ct. 668 30 L. Ed. 2d 677 1972 U.S. (1980).