Running Head: ETHICAL CASE ANALYSIS - JEFFERY

An Ethical Case Analysis of Jeffery

CAHC 500
Mindy Venners

ETHICAL CASE ANALYSIS JEFFERY

Jeffrey is a high school counselor who is well liked and respected by his student clients.
He has a reputation among them for being willing to go out of his way to help them. One
morning at 2 am, 16 year old Edmund, who is a member of one of the counseling groups that
Jeffrey conducts at school, shows up at Jeffreys home. Edmund claims he has been kicked out
of the house by his parents and that he has nowhere else to go. It is raining and Edmund is
soaking wet. He begs Jeffrey to let him stay there for just one night and promises that he will
call his parents in the morning.
Identify the Problem
There are a few issues that can be considered in the case analysis of Jeffery and his
student client Edmund. Counselors need to maintain healthy and strict boundaries with their
clients in order to follow ethical guidelines. By Edmund showing up at Jefferys house, their
counselor/client relationship at school can potentially change into a different type of relationship
causing boundaries to be violated. Also, Edmund is sixteen years old, so he has confidentiality
rights when it comes to his parents or anyone else being informed of the situation. Also, it is
important to gain further information from Edmund when it comes to his claims of being kicked
out of his place of residence, and to further investigate the actual situation with his parents at
home. The way that Edmund describes his situation at home can be very different depending on
the amount of time invested in counseling sessions and getting to the root of the issue.
Apply the ACA Code of Ethics
A couple of codes from the ACA Code of Ethics that apply to this case scenario are A.6.b
- Extending Counseling Boundaries, and A.6.c Documenting Boundary Extensions. When

ETHICAL CASE ANALYSIS JEFFERY

applying the code of extending counseling boundaries, counselors consider the risks and benefits
of extending current counseling relationships beyond conventional parameters. Examples include
attending a clients formal ceremony (e.g., a wedding/commitment ceremony or graduation),
purchasing a service or product provided by a client (excepting unrestricted bartering), and
visiting a clients ill family member in the hospital. In extending these boundaries, counselors
take appropriate professional precautions such as informed consent, consultation, supervision,
and documentation to ensure that judgment is not impaired. If the counselor extends any of the
boundaries described, they must officially document, prior to the interaction if possible, the
rationale for such an action, the potential benefit, and anticipated consequences for the client or
former client and other individuals significantly involved with the client or former client.
Counselors also avoid entering into non-professional relationships with their clients, whether
they are in-person or electronic interactions. Another code of ethics that is relevant to this case is
B.1.c, which states that counselors must protect the confidential information of prospective and
current clients. Counselors disclose information only with appropriate consent or with sound
legal or ethical justification. Only when a client shows a risk of harm to themselves or others do
counselors have a right to break the rule of confidentiality.
Determine the nature and dimensions of the dilemma
It is important to consider the moral principles of the case scenario and analyze where the main
issue lies. In the case of Jeffery and Edmund, the main focus should be on the potential harm to
Edmund if Jeffery allows him to stay at his house. Counselors should encourage autonomy in
their clients, as well as concentrate on non-maleficence which prevents any harm to their clients.
If Edmund is allowed to stay at Jefferys house, the boundaries of therapy can be crossed and

ETHICAL CASE ANALYSIS JEFFERY

potentially violated which may create harm for both parties. In an article by Ofer Zur, a
psychotherapist at the Zur Institute in California, he states that boundary violations and boundary
crossings in therapy refer to any deviation from traditional, strict, only in the office,
emotionally distant forms of therapy (Zur, 2015). These examples can be issues of selfdisclosure, length and place of sessions, physical touch, activities outside the office, gift
exchange, social and other non-therapeutic contact and various forms of dual relationships. It is
always important to keep the relationship at a professional level between client and counselor to
prevent the possibility of a social or sexual relationship. Effective therapy with any client
requires a clearly structured and well defined therapeutic environment.
While conducting further research, author Marie Hartwell-Walker talked about why
counselors and therapists should not be friends with their clients. She made an important point
that a boundary in counseling is much like a boundary on a piece of land. Its a line that both
people should recognize and honor. Its a line that says where the relationship begins and ends.
It sets the therapist apart from other people in the clients life. Responding to a clients requests,
even insistence, that they meet informally or socially is an important violation. It confuses the
relationship and makes it difficult for the client to trust or to do his or her therapeutic work.
Clients can mistake friendliness for friendship. They can also be vulnerable to repeated hurt
because they experience rejection when the other person doesnt see the relationship as they do.
(Hartwell-Walker, 2014)
Another key to this scenario is the idea of dual relationships. According to a Social Work
Today article, a dual relationship exists when a relationship other than a professional one
develops. These relationships are at the core of many ethical issues and boundary problems

ETHICAL CASE ANALYSIS JEFFERY

comprise most ethical violations. Most of these violations are not maliciously intended, but the
potential for these are high when blurring the boundary lines between counselor and client
(Dewane, 2007).
Generate potential courses of action
There are a few options to handle this case scenario. The first is to allow Edmund to stay
the night. The next option is to tell his parents. The next option is to call a supervisor or fellow
counselor to talk about possible alternatives. Another option would be to make suggestions to
Edmund about other places to stay. Another option would be to make a referral for Edmund
based on urgent necessities that he may need.
Consider potential consequences of all options and determine a course of action
The first option would be a bad decision in this case. After researching the problem,
allowing Edmund to stay the night at Jefferys house would clearly be a violation of boundaries
and would violate the ethical codes for counselor and client relationships. This would blur the
professional lines of conduct and would change their current counselor/student client relationship
to a dual relationship.
The next option would be to tell his parents which would not be a feasible option either,
due to the fact that he is sixteen, and any minor over the age of twelve has confidentiality rights
inside the counseling relationship. Telling his parents would break the confidentiality Code of
Ethics.
The suggestion to Edmund of other possible places to stay would be a good option in my
opinion. Jeffery as the counselor may ask if Edmund has a close friend or relative that he may
want to stay with. This offers alternatives for Edmund instead of Jeffery just pushing him away

ETHICAL CASE ANALYSIS JEFFERY

from his home. The other couple of options could go together by Jeffery consulting with his
fellow colleagues or supervisor to explore the best alternatives and then possibly making a
referral for Edmund if his needs were urgent.
Evaluate the selected course of action
I would suggest for this case scenario to talk to Edmund more about another place that he
would feel comfortable staying and nicely reminding him that the relationship between a
counselor and a student client should remain professional with set boundaries. If after consulting
with a supervisor, Jeffery may receive more guidance about the proper technique to use to
accomplish this goal. In applying Stadlers tests to determine if this suggestion is appropriate,
this seems to be a fair solution that I would use when relating to other clients, and I would feel
comfortable having my actions reported to the press. In the test of universality, I would
definitely suggest this scenario to other counselors who may be put in this situation.
Implement the course of action
When implementing my selected course of action, I think the most important part would
be finding Edmund a safe place to stay, documenting what occurred, and following up with
Edmund about the current situation with his parents. According to Claudia Dewane from Social
Work Today, the most important takeaway message from any model is the paramount importance
to consult and document. When deliberating a dilemma, consult with colleagues, counsel, and the
literature. It is unlikely that your particular dilemma has not been addressed before in some way.
Then document your consultations and decision. Regardless of the outcome of your decision, the
ability to justify your actions with sound principles and thinking reduces the likelihood of a
negative outcome for you

ETHICAL CASE ANALYSIS JEFFERY

or your agency. Sanctioning boards and courts look at the decision making that went into an
action, not necessarily the final outcome (Dewane, 2007).

REFERENCES
APA Code of Ethics. (2014). Retrieved November 3, 2015, from
https://www.counseling.org/resources/aca-code-of-ethics.pdf
Dewane, C. J. (2007). Supervisor, Beware: Ethical Dangers in Supervision. Social Work Today.
7(4), 34.
Hartwell-Walker, M. (2014). Why Your Therapist Cant Be Your Friend. PsychCentral.com.
Zur, O. (2015). Dual Relationships, Multiple Relationships & Boundaries In Psychotherapy,
Counseling & Mental Health Retrieved 11/05/2015 from
http://www.zurinstitute.com/dualrelationships.html.