Coun 510 Professional School Counselor Ethical Decision Making_ A Case Study
pdf
keyboard_arrow_up
School
City University of Seattle *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
FALL 2018
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
Pages
9
Uploaded by MinisterHeatWasp32
Professional School Counselor Ethical Decision Making: A Case Study
Written by
Brian K. Lee
Department of Counselor Education, City University of Seattle
COUN 510 Ethical Decision Making
Appointed by
Dr. Kimberly Walker
1/28/2023
Introduction
As a school counselor, I must develop a high level of confidence in being able to resolve ethical
dilemmas.. Furthermore it is equally important in being confident in resolving ethical dilemmas in the
best manner. This evaluation will include an assessment of a case study including a summary of the
ethical dilemma, references to the relevant American School Counseling Association (ASCA) ethical
standards, an implementation of the ASCA ethical codes and standards by by utilizing the STEPS Ethical
Decision-Making Model, endorsed by ASCA, as well as addressing any issues of mandated reporting per
Washington state standards.
Ethical Dilemma Summary
The subject is a female student aged 16 years old named Leanne. She was sent by the nursing
office and a teaching staff due to a suspected panic attack. Leanne discloses to me she’s experienced
sexual abuse from her father. The timeline of the abuse was when Leanne was eight to 12 years old. She
still lives with her father and stepmother. A desire to not disclose this information to other parties was
expressed. I must consider factoring in ethical, legal, and professional perspectives when coming to a
solution. The case of Leanne would be categorized as child abuse per the ASCA code A.12. (2022). The
nature of child abuse would constitute a school counselor to consider other ASCA codes pertaining to
confidentiality - code A.2. (2022). Due to the nature of the information, considerations of mandated
reporting will be taken into account due to ASCA Code A.12., Federal law per Child Abuse Prevention
and Treatment Act (CAPTA) of 1974, and Washington state RCW 26.44.020. (ASCA, 2022; United
States, 1994; Domestic Relations, 2018).
Relevant ASCA Standards
Professional school counselors base their protocol execution based on the ASCA ethical standards
(2022). “Responsibility to Students” relates to this case study (ASCA, 2022). The primary reason section
A relates to this scenario is in school counseling, the primary obligation is to protect the students. This
obligation in Leanne’s situation is hereby enforced by subsections of Section A.1, A.2., A.6, and A.12.
(ASCA, 2022). Within Section A.1., relevant subcodes to my dilemma regarding Leanne include A.1.a.,
A.1.b, A.1g., A.1.i, and A.1.k. (ASCA 2022). Relevant subcodes in Section A.2. include A.2.a, A.2.b.,
A.2.c., A.2.d., and A.2.e. (ASCA, 2022). Relevant subcodes in Section A.6. include A.6.a., and A.6.c.
(ASCA, 2022). Relevant subcodes under A.12. include A.12.a., A.12.b., A.12.c., A.12.d., A.12.e. (ASCA,
2022). In addition to school counselors having a primary obligation to maintain student welfare, we also
have a responsibility to guardians, school, and ourselves, highlighted in Section B. (ASCA, 2022 pg. 7-8).
These codes are relevant to the dilemma at hand regarding Leanne due to the fact the student’s parents,
and the school are parties that should be taken into consideration when deciding an optimal resolution.
Moral factors and legal factors are all supplementary reasons. The final ASCA code is Section F. (ASCA,
2022). This is largely relevant to the scenario as my goal when faced with ethical dilemmas is to ensure
that proper steps are taken to ensure that an optimal resolution is implemented to uphold ethical code
A.1.a. (ASCA, 2022).
ASCA Ethical Decision Making Model Application
Code F and its subsets lists out the procedure in which a counselor is to proceed when facing an
ethical dilemma of various kinds (ASCA, 2022). The model is derived from the Solutions to Ethical
Problems in Schools (STEPS) model by Carolyn Stone (2017). There are multiple factors that must be
highlighted to synthesize the ethical dilemma. Primarily, the ethical dilemma of breaking the student’s
right to confidentiality regarding the student’s desire to not have her sexual abuse experience being
disclosed to any other personnel is what must be handled. This goes hand in hand with the dilemma I face
as a mandated reporter. There are two standards in question with this student’s request. First is my
responsibility to my student outlined in standard A.1. as well as A.2. (ASCA, 2022). The second factor to
this ethical dilemma is the inherent nature of the disclosed information, which falls under A.12. (ASCA,
2022). Although currently she is 16, the abuse occurred during ages of 8-12. The nuance in this
information is the abuse is not currently occurring. According to the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, a report of abuse must still be made even if the abuse occurred in the past (2015).
School counselors are qualified as mandated reporters under the CAPTA act of 1974 (U.S. Department of
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children,
Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau, 2021b).
In this case study, I have no suspicion to believe there are cultural, religious, or political factors to
consider. However, power dynamics may be present. The first power dynamic that could be present is
between Leanne and her father, the suspected abuser. Leanne experienced this abuse for four consecutive
years. With an assumption that Leanne did not reach out to anyone during the abuse, I infer her silence is
driven by her fear of consequences of speaking out. Distrust to her father due to the sexual abuse could
also contribute to the lack of communication. An additional power dynamic that may be at play is
between myself as the school counselor, and Leanne. This is due to the nature of our counselor-student
relationship. Although this is my first direct conversation with Leanne, that does not discount any
authoritative atmosphere my role may bring. Her emotional state is also compromised, due to what
appeared to be a panic attack prior. As my investigation into discovering a resolution path continues, these
power dynamics must be taken into account.
The relevant ASCA standards in this dilemma are Responsibility to Students, Confidentiality, and
Child Abuse (2022). Due to the nature of the dilemma, the protocol as a mandated reporter must be
followed. In this case study, my responsibility to Leanne will result in the breaching of her confidentiality
for the greater interest of her protection. As quoted in the ASCA model, a “breach of confidentiality is
required to prevent serious and foreseeable harm to the student or others” (ASCA, 2022). When following
the protocol of mandated reporting, I may be advised to consult with other counselors (Remley & Fry,
1993). I am advised to inform my supervisors, including the school principal. The breach of
confidentiality is to take place after all consultation has taken place (ASCA, 2022). Once consultation
with school colleagues is complete, I will contact Child Protective Services (CPS) to make a report.
Leanne is described to be 16 years of age, which constitutes her as a legal minor. The age of when her
abuse occurred - eight to 12 years of age - should be taken into consideration when evaluating Leanne’s
developmental level. Outside of the panic attack, the case study does not outline any behavioral
limitations of Leanne or mental health illnesses. This may cause me to work with Leanne to explore any
potential behavioral limitations that have stemmed from her experiences of abuse. The difficulty in this
dilemma stems from the fact the alleged abuser of Leanne is her father. In standard procedure of reporting
abuse, school counselors are guided by ASCA to inform the guardians of the student (2022). According to
childwelfare.org, guardians accused as the abuser must not be contacted. Instead, the procedure of
reporting to CPS will necessitate the burden of contact to be on CPS (2003). The right to disclose this
information to the parents does not have to be honored. Due to the nature of the dilemma being child
abuse, Leanne’s privileged communication may not be upheld (Child Welfare Information Gateway,
2019). Although students have a general right to confidentiality, Leanne’s right to confidentiality must be
breached in order to ensure her safety (ASCA, 2022). The limits of confidentiality is outlined in the
ASCA model stating “the student poses a danger to self or others there is a court-ordered disclosure
consulting with other professionals, such as colleagues, supervisors, treatment teams and other support
personnel, in support of the student privileged communication is not granted by state laws and local
guidelines (e.g., school board policies) the student participates in group counseling” (ASCA, 2022). In
order to protect her from any future harm, her right to confidentiality and privileged communication must
be breached. The choice to do so results in a higher probability of protecting Leanne from future harm. In
order to ethically proceed with handling Leanne, it is important to implement all principles of
beneficence, autonomy, nonmaleficence, justice, fidelity, and veracity (ACA, 2014; ASCA, 2022).
Ensuring Leanne’s safety as an individual is in her best interest, and by informing the correct authorities
including CPS may promote beneficence. I do not believe respecting Leanne’s desire for confidentiality is
practicing nonmaleficence. I believe that my choice to not report the alleged abuse may not be practicing
nonmaleficence. The environment that was created for Leanne to share her experiences of abuse with me
as the school counselor provides autonomy. The responsibility to practice justice in resolving this
dilemma will express itself in ensuring the selected course of action may be applied to other students. In
this situation, the choice to execute my responsibility as a mandatory reporter will apply in every
circumstance. Fidelity may be difficult to navigate in the case study of Leanne, as she has expressed a
desire for me to keep the disclosed content of her experience of abuse only between me and her. My
responsibility as a counselor mandates me to report any situation of child abuse including sexual abuse
(ASCA, 2019; CAPTA, 1974). My decision to execute my practice as a mandatory reporter and breach
Leanne’s confidentiality would not be a violation of fidelity. Veracity will be upheld by ensuring that
telling the truth is practiced to all relevant parties. My duty to practice ethically as a school counselor may
not be upheld if I withheld the truth or practiced untruthfulness.
There are two potential courses of action. The first course of action would be appealing to
Leanne’s desire to keep the disclosed information of sexual abuse confidential. There can be large
consequences for me as the school counselor if I choose to keep the information confidential. As ASCA
and RCW 26.44.030. clarifies school counselors to be mandatory reporters, my lack of action to report the
disclosed information would be a failure to report. The consequences of this can include a termination of
my role. According to Child Welfare, my lack of action could be a gross misdemeanor and can include
being charged with a felony, facing prison time, and a punitive fine (Child Welfare Information Gateway,
2019). Morally, my lack of reporting would not sit well. Consequences on the relationship between
Leanne and myself could manifest in the form of an overall termination of our relationship. The second
potential course of action to take is to justifiably breach her right to confidentiality and follow proper
protocol as a mandated reporter. School counselors are mandatory reporters (CAPTA, 1974). Any
reasonable cause to believe a child has suffered abuse necessitates reporting. In the case of Leanne, there
has been explicit disclosure sexual abuse has occurred. The need to report to CPS is warranted. Once CPS
has been reported, any next steps taken would be guided by their direction. There is no need to speak with
Leanne’s guardians. Speaking with the guardians is highly discouraged (Crosson-Tower, 2003). Any
additional steps taken as the school counselor is to justify to Leanne the reason for my mandated report. I
would remind Leanne the limitations of student confidentiality. Consequences for this course of action
may result in acute distrust from Leanne. There may be consequences to the state of Leanne’s home
environment depending on what steps are taken by CPS in the possible removal of the father, or the
moving of Leanne to a new home environment. My decision is clear in this case study. The course of
action I select is to fulfill my duties as a mandated reporter and report to CPS the sexual abuse that
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Leanne experienced. The choice to practice my responsibility as a mandated reporter, fulfills the standard
of my responsibility to protect Leanne as one of my students in a greater manner than keeping
confidentiality. My first course of action is to remind Leanne of the limits of her confidentiality rights. I
may ask for further elaboration regarding her experiences of sexual abuse. I will inform her of my
responsibilities as a mandated reporter. I would then inform my principal of the nature of the dilemma,
and proceed to make the report to CPS. I would point out nuances of the abuse to CPS, that the victim is
currently 16, but experienced the abuse between ages eight to 12. I would add the perpetrator of the abuse
is alleged to be Leanne’s father. Once my report is made to CPS, my legal obligations have been
completed. It is important to maintain my counselor relationship with my student to salvage the trust that
may have been acutely broken due to the breach of confidentiality. Any potential consequences to the
change in home environment or the removal of the father is up to the discretion of CPS. The largest
potential inconsistency I see in the ASCA model in this case study is the standard of protecting
confidentiality and mandated reporting. When reading these two standards, an inconsistency appears to
exist. As all counselors understand, the area in which a school counselor operates in when facing ethical
dilemmas is much grayer than the black and white ASCA standards makes the professional work seem. In
my application of the relevant ASCA standards, the action of breaching the student’s confidentiality is
stated to have mandates in regards to abuse. This means the action of practicing mandatory reporting is
not officially inconsistent with the need to protect student confidentiality. The priority to protect students
physically and socio-emotionally is always the standard to uphold. If that means a school counselor takes
measures that prematurely looks to be in disinterest of the student, the context in which why the decision
was made is needed to better understand the situation. This means the student does not have to be
positively privy to the counselor’s course of action. An acute lack of trust may develop from the student
towards me due to my decision to report the case to CPS, however the action plan of any necessary follow
up with warm reminders of why I needed to report may take place.
References
American Counseling Association (2014). Code of Ethics. Alexandria, VA: Author.Forester-Miller, H., &
Davis, T. (2016). A practitioner’s Guide to Ethical Decision Making. Alexandria, VA: American
Counseling Association
American School Counselor Association. (2022). The ASCA National Model: A Framework for School
Counseling Programs, Fourth Edition, Alexandria, VA: Author.
Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2019). Mandatory reporters of child abuse and neglect. U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children’s
Bureau. https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/lawspolicies/statutes/manda/
Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2019). Penalties for failure to report and false reporting of child
abuse and neglect. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s
Bureau. https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/laws-policies/statutes/report/
Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2003). The role of educators in preventing and responding to child
abuse and neglect. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s
Bureau.
Crosson-Tower, C. (2003). The role of educators in preventing and responding to child abuse and neglect.
The Role of Educators in Preventing and Responding to Child Abuse and Neglect - Child Welfare
Information Gateway. Retrieved March 2, 2023, from
https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/educator/
Remley, T. P., Jr., & Fry, L. J. (1993). Reporting suspected child abuse: Conflicting roles for the
counselor. School Counselor, 40, 253-159.
Stone, C. B. (2017). Ethics and Law: School Counseling Principles (4th ed.). American School Counselor
Association.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families,
Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau (2021b). State statutes
search. Child Welfare Information
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2015, August). Mandatory Reporters of Child Abuse
and Neglect. Retrieved from https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubpdfs/manda.pdf
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help