Child abuse and the limits of confidentiality: forewarning practices

Abstract

Confidentiality is widely considered to be of great importance in psychotherapy. With few exceptions, the breaching of confidentiality is an ethical violation and grounds for litigation. One such exception is the mandated reporting of known or suspected child abuse, representing a legally sanctioned limitation of confidentiality. Because clients generally expect unlimited confidentiality in therapeutic relationships, many therapists have begun to "forewarn" clients as a matter of informed consent. This research report: (a) briefly reviews issues surrounding mandatory reporting and confidentiality as they relate to forewarning, (b) defines and discusses forewarning as contrasted with "informing," (c) examines state statutes, case law and ethical guidelines relevant to forewarning, and (d) presents a survey of 428 mental health providers (MHPs) on their forewarning practices in which 36.9% forewarned all clients, 36.4% informed clients only upon suspicion of abuse, and 20.6% informed only after receiving a disclosure of abuse. The implications of these findings are discussed.