Case Study on Professional Psychology Mistakes

Introduction

A licensed therapist is a psychological expert tasked with the welfare of a client seeking therapy for their psychological problems (Sulz & Hagspiel, 2011). Clients are incredibly vulnerable, and they need cautious care when handling them. In some cases, clients lack the rational mind to execute some tasks in their life. In light of that, a therapist handling them should embrace these weaknesses and offer the best therapy to see the client restored to normalcy. In a bid to compel therapists to offer the necessary care to clients, several ethical rules and legal provisions are in place. This discourse, therefore, examines a Californian case study of a therapist-client relationship by pointing out mistakes made by a therapist while proposing the legitimate approach that ought to be taken in the circumstances of the case. In summary, the client is known as Cindy, who sought therapy in Jill's firm. However, the reception, the therapy initiation and execution, and the interaction between Jill and Cindy did not conform to the rules and regulations in both the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy (AAMFT) and the American Counseling and Association (ACA) code of ethics. Besides, Jill contravened the California Board of Psychology Laws and Regulations 2018 Edition.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Errors That Jill Made While Handling Cindy

For an effective highlighting and expounding of the errors that Jill made while handling Cindy, the following subtopics apply.

Initial Client Contact

Initial client contact is the first interaction between a client and a therapist. In this case, the contact refers to the first interaction between Jill and Cindy. From the case, there is evidence that Jill did not establish a required initial client contact since she directly went to the therapy process without subjecting the client to interviews and orientation (Schoenewolf, 2014). Jill did not ask the client to tell her mental health history, which could help Jill to formulate a proper plan for the patient. Besides, Jill did utilize the chance to lay down the therapy procedure for the client to understand what she was to undergo during the therapy. In essence, Jill violated Standard 1.2 of the AAMFT by not asking the client to consent to therapy during the initial client contact session (AAMFT, n.d.). Besides, Jill contravened sections A.2.a and A.2.b of the ACA for not seeking consent, and for not explaining to the client the nature of services respectively (ACA, n.d.).

Response to Transference by Countertransference

According to the narration, Cindy developed transference towards Jill, and in return, Jill developed countertransference. Cindy became so emotional towards Jill that she could not resist inviting Jill for lunch where she opened up to Jill some personal stories. Besides, Jill got entangled in the emotions of the client to the level of affecting his professional relationship with her. As a result, Jill contravened section A.6.e of ACA by engaging in informal interactions with the client (ACA, n.d.). Even though Jill was overwhelmed by emotions towards Cindy, Jill contravened Standard 1.10 of AAMFT by not referring the case to another therapist before the situation became worse (AAMFT, n.d.).

Poor Dual Relationships and Professional Boundaries

The relationship between Jill and Cindy became too close to distorting the professional interaction that the two had during their initial stages of interaction. They reached a level of going out and taking lunch together. This engagement was an illicit one since Jill contravened standard 1.3 of AAMFT, which prohibits multiple relationships between therapists and clients (AAMFT, n.d.). As a result of this relationship, his judgment got impaired. Jill also went against Standard 3.3 of the AAMFT by exploiting the client whereby he was always on lunch bills of the client (AAMFT, n.d.). Lastly, Jill was on the wrong side of the ACA under section A.6.b, which prohibits personal relationships with clients (ACA, n.d.).

Duty to Warn/Protect

Among the responsibilities of Jill towards Cindy was the duty to warn/protect her from getting into trouble. Unfortunately, Jill did not meet this demand as he saw Cindy leave the office without following up to her in a quest to protect her against harm or wrongdoing (Schoenewolf, 2014). Consequently, Jill broke the rule in the AAMFT as spelled out in Standard 1.11, which forbids abandonment of clients (AAMFT, n.d.). It is clear that when she left, Cindy was undergoing stress and emotional trauma, yet Jill was not very concerned when she left. This act further contravened section A.9.b, which requires a psychologist to protect clients against emotional trauma. The fact that Jill knew the intentions of Cindy to harm John accorded Jill the duty to notify him to take caution (ACA, n.d.).

Sexual Misconduct

When Cindy informed Jill about her sexual relationship with John, another therapist, Jill did not immediately report him to the AAMFT for immediate action. Instead, Jill got emotional over the sex act. By not reporting John to relevant authorities, Jill contravened Standard 1.4, which prohibits therapists from indulging in sexual activities with clients (AAMFT, n.d.). Besides, he went against Chapter 6.6 Article 1 of the California Board of Psychology Laws and Regulations 2018 Edition by not reporting the act to the police as a crime (California Board of Psychology, 2014).

The Rightful Approach

The above revelations exhibit the level of negligence that Jill exuded while dealing with his client. In consequence, there is a need to amend these mistakes by elaborating on how I could have acted if I were in the situation of Jill. If Cindy came to my office, I could introduce myself and then interview her on her condition (Houser & Thoma, 2012). This initial client contact could have probably made her open up on her primary problem, which was John's relationship with her. Such a revelation could have come early enough that I could have resolved it before it got to the worst scenario. After the interview, I could have elaborated to her the plan of her therapy, and ask her to give the consent for the go-ahead. These steps are essential for the client's welfare, and they are fully supported in the ACA and AAMFT. Section A.2.a of ACA provides for a therapist to seek client consent while section A.2.b advocates for a therapist to explain to the client the procedures of the therapy (ACA, n.d.). The AAMFT also requires therapists to seek clients' consent as spelled out in standard 1.2 (AAMFT, n.d.).

If faced with the issue of John having a sexual relationship with a client, I could not hesitate to report him to the AAMFT for further investigations. This move conforms to Chapter 6.6, Article 1 of the California Board of Psychology Laws and Regulations 2018 Edition Statute, which provides for the protection of the public against unauthorized, unprofessional and unqualified practice of psychology. Furthermore, I could have avoided getting emotional with the client when she narrated about her sexual encounter with John. Instead, I could have explained to Cindy about the wrongs committed by her therapist by sleeping with her. I could also inform her about Standard 1.4 of AAMFT and section A.5.a of ACA, which forbid therapists from sexually engaging clients (AAMFT, n.d.; ACA, n.d.). Since she looked dejected as a result of the encounter with John, I could have assured her that despite the mistake, she was still not to blame. I could have advised her to find someone else to replace John since John was not the only person who could offer love or sexual satisfaction on the globe.

If I realized that Cindy was exhibiting transference, I could treat her as a client that needs my assistance to recover. Therefore, I could resist any form of countertransference so that my judgment remains alert as I help her restore her mental status (Houser & Thoma, 2012). I could not have entertained her informal invitations, for instance, lunch. These decisions augur well with section A.6.e of the ACA as it prohibits intimate relationships that often trigger emotions between a client and a therapist (ACA, n.d.). In the case of the worst scenario where I plunged into countertransference, I could quickly refer the client and completely cut off the links with her. This move is in line with standard 1.10 of AAMFT, which advocates for referrals or assistance seeking when a therapist is caught in a situation that inhibits his ability to help a client (AAMFT, n.d.).

As a therapist, I have to warn the client whenever she contemplates illegality that could harm her or someone else. In this case, I could have warned Cindy against attempting to harm John notwithstanding his psychological harm to her. Besides, I could have pursued Cindy when she stormed out of the office so that I ensure that she is in safe hands. This move countenances with Standard 1.11, which requires a therapist not to abandon a client in whichever circumstance (AAMFT, n.d.). I could have also followed section A.9.b of ACA, which prohibits a psychotherapist from leaving a client in an emotionally traumatized condition (ACA, n.d.).

Finally, I could have tried my best to maintain my status as a professional by keeping a distance between Cindy and me. I could not have accepted her lunch invitation, and I could not have gotten so emotional with her to the level of sharing personal issues (Houser & Thoma, 2012). Dual relationships and boundaries play a critical role in offering better services to a client. Standard 1.3 of the AAMFT forbids multiple relationships between clients and therapists (AAMFT, n.d.). Section A.6.b of ACA equally forbids clients' close relationships with therapists (ACA, n.d.).

Conclusion

Jill made huge professional mistakes that cost Cindy her freedom. Jill got so close to the client, and also shared emotions with her. In the process, Jill contravened many AAMFT and ACA rules and regulations in addition to the California Board of Psychology Laws and Regulations 2018 Edition. However, there are several ways that Jill could have used to avert the worst situation to Cindy by conducting proper initial client contact; cautiously handling of transference and countertransference; avoiding dual relationships and boundaries; keeping off sexual misconduct; warning or protecting her against harm or offenses.

References

AAMFT. (n.d.). Code of Ethics. Retrieved April 30, 2019, from www.aamft.org/Legal_Ethics/Code_of_Ethics.aspx

ACA. (n.d.). Ethical & Professional Standards. Retrieved April 30, 2019, from www.counseling.org/knowledge-center/ethics

California Board of Psychology. (2014, February 12). Laws and Regulations. Retrieved April 30, 2019, from www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/

Houser, R. A., & Thoma, S. (2012). Ethics in Counseling and Therapy: Developing an Ethical Identity. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Schoenewolf, G. (2014). 76 Typical Therapy Mistakes: A Workbook for Psychotherapists. Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace.

Sulz, S. K., & Hagspiel, S. (2011). European Psychotherapy 2011. Norderstedt, Germany: BoD - Books on Demand.