Tarasoff Law: Does It Apply In North Carolina?

The Tarasoff ruling, resulting from the 1976 case of Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, established that mental health providers have a duty to warn and protect individuals who could be harmed by a patient. This duty mandates that mental health professionals use reasonable care to inform authorities or warn potential victims if they determine that a patient poses a threat. While the Tarasoff ruling has been adapted in some form throughout the United States, there is no federal mandate, and the duty to protect remains subjective with no clear clinical guidelines. As a result, different states have adopted varying approaches to implementing the duty to warn or protect, and the impact of the ruling has been heterogeneous across the country. North Carolina, for instance, does not have a mandated duty to warn or protect law but also does not prohibit professionals from taking action if they deem it necessary.

Does North Carolina have a mandated duty to warn/protect law?

North Carolina does not have a mandated duty to warn/protect law. However, there is no law prohibiting a mental health professional from doing so. In fact, they are encouraged to exercise ethical professional judgment regarding the "duty to warn/protect" and not unnecessarily expand dangerous patient exceptions.

The duty to warn/protect, also known as the Tarasoff standard, was established after the 1976 case of Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California. In this case, the California Supreme Court held that mental health providers have a duty to use reasonable care in warning authorities or potential victims if they determine that a patient poses a threat to a third party. This duty to protect has been adapted in some form throughout the United States, with 29 states having adopted a mandatory duty to warn/protect, 17 states having a "permissive" duty, and 4 states having no recognised duty.

In North Carolina, the Court of Appeals in Gregory v. Kilbride (2002) did not recognise a Tarasoff-like duty to warn after a psychiatrist discharged a man from an inpatient psychiatric unit who had repeatedly made threats to kill his wife and child. Shortly after being discharged, the man shot and killed his wife. The psychiatrist was sued for negligence but the judge dismissed the plaintiff's claim that the psychiatrist had a duty to warn the victim, with the appellate court holding that North Carolina law only recognised "a duty to exercise control over the patient 'with such reasonable care as to prevent harm to others at the hands of the patient,' and not a duty to warn."

What are the implications of interstate variation in the duty to warn or protect?

The implications of interstate variation in the duty to warn or protect are complex and multifaceted. This variation creates challenges for therapists in different states, impacting their legal obligations, ethical considerations, and clinical decision-making processes.

Legal and Ethical Challenges

Therapists in states with mandatory duty-to-warn or protect statutes face legal ambiguities when determining if a patient's threat level triggers their duty to act. This involves assessing factors such as the identifiability of the victim, the imminence of the threat, and the patient's capacity to carry it out. Therapists in states with permissive statutes, on the other hand, have more flexibility but may face greater legal risk if they choose not to act on a threat. In states with no statutory or common-law guidance, therapists are left in a precarious situation, vulnerable to lawsuits regardless of their actions.

Training and Knowledge Gaps

The variation in duty-to-warn or protect statutes and common-law interpretations also affects the training and knowledge of mental health professionals. Therapists may be unaware of the specific regulations in their state, particularly in states with dynamic case law. This lack of understanding can impede their ability to fulfil their legal and ethical obligations effectively.

Impact on Clinical Decision-Making

The interstate variation influences how therapists respond to violent threats. Therapists in mandatory statute states may take liberties with legal guidance, such as using involuntary civil commitment instead of warning potential victims. In permissive statute states, therapists face a dilemma, weighing the legal risk of not issuing a warning against the moral duty to protect potential victims.

Impact on Therapeutic Relationships

The duty to warn or protect can also affect the therapeutic relationship. Therapists who discuss potential warnings with patients and involve them in the decision-making process tend to maintain or improve the therapeutic alliance. In contrast, unilateral notifications to law enforcement or potential victims without prior discussion can negatively impact the relationship.

Need for Standardisation and Improved Training

The interstate variation in the duty to warn or protect highlights the need for standardised legislation or guidelines at the federal level. This would provide mental health professionals with clearer directives, reducing legal risks and improving consistency in clinical decision-making. Additionally, enhanced training programmes that focus on risk assessment, ethical considerations, and state-specific regulations could better equip therapists to navigate these complex situations.

What training do therapists receive and is it adequate?

The training therapists receive varies depending on the type of therapist and the state they are based in. In the US, therapists are usually trained in counselling, social work, marriage and family therapy, art therapy, or psychology. Each of these routes will typically include an internship or practicum lasting at least one year.

In the US, therapists must usually practice under supervision for a period of time (often two years) after graduating before they can become fully licensed. During this time, they can only bill certain insurance providers and tend to work with patients with a higher level of need.

Training for psychologists and psychiatrists often includes substantial ethics training, with the American Psychological Association requiring training in ethics as part of accredited PhD programs. However, there is evidence that this training may not always be adequate, with therapists reporting a lack of understanding of the specifics of their state's statutes and common law on the duty to warn or protect.

How do courts typically rule in cases surrounding the duty to warn or protect?

The duty to warn or protect is not a federal mandate in the US, and there is significant variability in how different states have adopted and applied the ruling. This variability has led to different approaches and interpretations of the duty to warn or protect.

Courts typically rule in favour of mental health professionals in cases surrounding the duty to warn or protect. A review of 70 appellate cases from 1985 to 2006 found that 46 were decided in favour of the mental health professional, 6 were decided in favour of the plaintiff, and 17 were returned to trial courts for further litigation. Mental health professionals were exonerated on the following bases:

• No imminent threat was communicated to a therapist about an identifiable victim
• The victim was already aware of the danger
• The therapist warned the victim, but the victim took actions that went against the warning

Courts appeared to rule in favour of the victims only in marked cases of negligence by the mental health professional or institution. For example, in Almonte v. New York Medical College, a psychiatrist/patient who was being seen by another psychiatrist admitted his sexual attraction to children but was recommended for a child psychiatry fellowship where he raped a child. In other cases, inpatient psychiatric treatment was terminated against medical advice or because the patient's insurance coverage had run out.

In cases where there is no identifiable victim, courts have ruled that therapists are not liable for violence that occurs well after the termination of therapy. This suggests that courts are reluctant to hold therapists liable for events that occur outside of the therapist-client relationship, especially when there is no identifiable victim or imminent threat.

Additionally, courts have recognised the difference between states with mandatory and permissive statutes regarding the duty to warn or protect. In states with permissive statutes, therapists have the option to continue therapy as planned without issuing any warning or to change the therapy to contain the threat and protect the potential victim. However, therapists who choose not to issue a warning may face legal risk if a victim is harmed.

Overall, courts tend to rule in favour of mental health professionals in cases surrounding the duty to warn or protect, unless there is clear evidence of negligence or failure to follow established protocols.

What is the impact of Tarasoff on the mental health field?

The Tarasoff case and the subsequent duty to protect laws have had a significant and lasting impact on the mental health field, changing the way mental health professionals practice and approach ethical duties and patient care. The case has shaped mental health practices and policies and continues to be a pivotal moment in the history of mental health law.

One of the key impacts of Tarasoff is the heightened awareness and emphasis on a therapist's duty of care. Mental health professionals are now keenly aware that they have a legal and ethical responsibility to protect potential victims of their patients. This has led to a shift in practice, with therapists taking a more proactive and cautious approach to risk assessment and management. Therapists are more likely to err on the side of caution and may be quicker to involve law enforcement or take other protective actions if they believe a patient poses a threat. This heightened awareness has also likely contributed to a greater focus on risk assessment and management in clinical training and education.

Additionally, the Tarasoff decision and subsequent laws have had a significant impact on the therapist-patient relationship and confidentiality. While confidentiality is a cornerstone of therapeutic relationships, the duty to protect has introduced a necessary exception. Mental health professionals must now balance their patient's privacy with their responsibility to protect potential victims. This can create ethical dilemmas and challenging clinical situations, particularly when patients do not consent to disclosure or when the risk is uncertain or difficult to assess. As a result, therapists may be more likely to discuss the limits of confidentiality with patients upfront and to carefully document any threats or risk factors that emerge during treatment.

The Tarasoff case has also had broader systemic impacts, leading to the development of new policies and procedures within mental health organizations and institutions. Many institutions have implemented specific protocols for assessing and managing risk, including procedures for documenting and responding to threats, and for communicating with law enforcement or potential victims. Institutions may also provide additional training and support to staff to help them navigate these complex issues and make informed decisions.

Furthermore, the Tarasoff decision has contributed to a growing body of case law and legislation that continues to shape mental health law and practice. The duty to protect has been further refined and defined through subsequent legal cases and legislative amendments. Mental health professionals must stay abreast of these developments to ensure they are practicing within the law and adhering to their ethical duties. The ongoing evolution of mental health law in this area underscores the complexity and importance of balancing patient care, public safety, and ethical obligations.

Frequently asked questions