Citation

Sonkin DJ, Ellison JE. Violence Vict. 1986; 1(3): 205-214.

Affiliation

University of New Hampshire, Durham.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1986, Springer Publishing)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

3154150

Abstract

After ten years of court decisions that have gradually broadened the scope of the psychotherapist's duty to protect potential victims from violence, California has recently passed legislation that limits liability only to those cases where a patient has made a specific threat to an identifiable victim. Although this legislation has articulated the appropriate clinical response in such situations, it may have created a false sense of security for therapists treating patients who are perpetrators or victims of family violence. Though some perpetrators of violence do make a specific verbal threat, therapists are likely to encounter many more who do not verbalize a threat, but nevertheless pose a serious danger to their family members. This article briefly discusses the recent history of the duty-to-protect issue and the violence prediction literature as they relate to domestic violence. Specific interventions are suggested for clinicians in cases where the violence potential is great but no specific threat is made by the client.

Language: en