Board Meeting Dates

In Remembrance

Frequently Asked Questions

Professional Drama: Rule 113

On June 23, 2001, the Louisiana State Board of Social Work Examiners (LABSWE) voted to, by administrative interpretation, change rule 113 to read:

Rules No. 113. Social work relationships

3. Burden of proof

Social workers shall be aware, even in those instances where other relationships are not specifically prohibited, that the social worker by promoting, encouraging, or participating in any relationship with a client or former client assumes the burden of proof. The social worker must fully demonstrate that the client or former client was neither exploited nor harmed by such relationships. This burden applies to all of the following subparts, regardless of the intent of the social worker.

3. Burden of proof

Social workers shall be aware, even in those instances where other relationships are not specifically prohibited, that the social worker by promoting, encouraging, or participating in any relationship with a client or former client runs the risk of exploitation.

The events and emotions which triggered this change are not widely known, but they constitute a professional drama which affects all Louisiana social workers. Not only are the issues involved important, but the process by which this drama unfolded is worthy of study and discussion.

Back to TOP

Rules are mechanisms to implement laws. Though no rule can alter or change a law, rules are significant elements of policy since they explain how a law will actually translate into action. The Louisiana Administrative Procedures Act, which was enacted in the 1940's, governs how state administrative bodies, such as public agencies or LABSWE, will create, review, and enact rules to implement the law. The law which regulates social work is the 1999 Louisiana Social Work Practice Act , LA RS 37:2701-2723.

Under the Administrative Procedures Act, a body such as LABSWE develops rules, which then must be subjected to a 90-day period of public review and comment.

If any public comments are forthcoming, the rule-making body (such as LABSWE) is required to schedule at least one public hearing in the state capital to receive face-to-face comments.

The rule-making body is then required to compile the comments made, explain why or why not it is appropriate to alter the proposed rules on the basis of those comments, and make a fiscal impact statement on the cost of the proposed rules to the state.

The proposed rules are then reviewed by a Legislative Oversight Committee.

If approved by that body, the rules are then promulgated and become operative.

The Lead Character: The Ethical Standards

Before the 1999 Social Work Practice Act was passed, LABSWE formed a task force to review the ethical standards for which social workers in this state are accountable. That body, composed of about 15 highly-experienced and reputable social workers who provided a cross- section of social work services, met for many months to study and develop Standards of Practice, which closely tracked the principles embodied in the 1996 NASW Code of Ethics. (Remember: The NASW Code of Ethics is a voluntary set of ideals, not a law for which professionals are accountable. The Rules, Standards, and Procedures constitute law.) These rules were publicized in writing to the mailing list which LABSWE had at that time (consisting of about 5,000 names), and was subjected to a 90-day period of public comment, including a public hearing at the NASW Conference that year. Public comments were studied and final changes were made and the Standards were held by the Board for inclusion in the Rules, Standards and Procedures after the 1999 Regular Session of the Louisiana Legislature.

When the 1999 Social Work Practice Act was signed into law in July 1999, another task force of well-qualified, reputable social workers convened to discuss rules to implement the new law. The Standards of Practice were incorporated as Chapter One of those Rules, Standards, and Procedures, and were subjected to another 90-day hearing period, as well as three public meetings. They were reviewed by several attorneys and were approved by the Legislative Health and Welfare Oversight Committee before being promulgated in January 2000.

Back to TOP

The Tension in the Plot: House Concurrent Resolution 199

On June 1, 2001, however, Rep. Chuck McMains (R-Baton Rouge) introduced House Concurrent Resolution 199, which proposed to suspend certain sections of Rule 113 of Chapter 1 (Standards of Practice) of the Rules, Standards, and Procedures which implement the 1999 Social Work Practice Act. The sections which this resolution addressed dealt with 1) social workers bearing the burden of proof to insure that their behaviors do not harm clients; 2) and the rules which caution against social workers having business and personal relationships with former clients because of the dangers of dual relationship. The rationale which appeared to motivate this resolution was that:

there were constitutional questions about social workers bearing the burden of proof rather than the state bearing that burden, and

injunctions against dual relationships might hinder some agencies who rely on consumer participation in service delivery.

LABSWE was not consulted about this resolution, nor were they informed of its existence. In fact, it appears that only a handful of social workers in the state knew about this resolution; its existence was not publicized, and thus professionals did not have any opportunity for input or action on this matter.

LABSWE members learned about the resolution accidentally when, on June 8, 2001, a representative of the Louisiana Association of Clinical Social Workers (a social work advocacy group) asked how LABSWE stood on this resolution.

The Clinical Association had been contacted by a representative of LA National Association of Social Workers (another advocacy group), asking the Clinical Society to support the resolution.

LABSWE members were stunned by this development. At no time throughout the open hearing processes governing these rules, or in the year-and-a-half since the rules were promulgated, has any citizen contacted this Board to express concern about these issues. LABSWE, along with the Clinical Association, adamantly opposed this resolution for these reasons:

The Administrative Procedures Act outlines a clear process, as explained above, to review and change rules. This is an orderly process which allows for input from all professionals and all potential and actual consumers of service.

The Board was in the middle of hearings on this very issue

Professional social workers can and should discuss the shape and implementation of ethical standards within the profession. Approaching the legislature to resolve our internal questions and squabbles without first making a valid attempt to resolve differences makes social workers look foolish and incompetent. Furthermore, it establishes a dangerous precedent whereby individuals–or other professions--approach the Legislature to resolve specific concerns, emasculating LABSWE and giving the Legislature a reason to take greater control of our profession.

The Attorney General, which prosecutes disciplinary cases for LABSWE, stated that the AG’s office would not go forward with any cases if any rules were suspended. Because many disciplinary cases in which LABSWE has found against the social worker go to the court system on appeal, the fact that the Legislature had summarily intervened in LABSWE’s rules would weaken the integrity of the process and make the profession more vulnerable on appeal.

Back to TOP

By the time LABSWE discovered the existence of this resolution, however, it had already passed the House Health and Welfare Committee and the House floor. On June 12, 2001, the Senate Health and Welfare Committee considered this resolution. Cathy Vilas, JD, LCSW, Martha Forbes, LCSW, Executive Director, Louisiana Chapter of NASW, Buzz Anding, JD, President of the Board of Directors, Baton Rouge Crisis Intervention Center, and Representative Chuck McMains testified in favor of sending the resolution to the Senate floor. Suzanne Pevey, Administrator for the LABSWE, and George Papale, JD, Counsel for LABSWE, testified against sending it forward. The committee voted not to send the resolution forward, so it was defeated.

LABSWE, however, to avoid any appearance of a rule which might be challenged as unconstitutional, took the action of altering the issue of “burden of proof” in Rule 113 (described above). At least nine disciplinary matters before the Board at this time involve the issue of “burden of proof”. It is unclear at the time of publication how this rule change will affect those cases.

The Reviews of the Drama

Some of the testimony provided before the Senate Committee indicated that some social workers are afraid that almost anything they do constitutes a dual relationship. It is critical for social workers in this state to know that:

LABSWE recognizes that sometimes dual relationships are unavoidable.

Dual relationships are not necessarily harmful.

Dual relationships, however, may be harmful, and the social worker who finds him/herself in a dual relationship must be careful to protect the client from any harm which might develop in that relationship.

If any social worker or citizen has questions about dual relationships or any other ethical standards, that individual is welcome to put the question in writing and submit it to LABSWE for consideration. A question does not result in any disciplinary action. It may be that some social workers are frightened to approach LABSWE with professional issues. Please remember, however, LABSWE is composed of ordinary volunteer professionals who grapple with the same issues that all professionals face. LABSWE members welcome the opportunity for social workers to reason together and improve the services offered to consumers.

Ethical standards are fluid, and change as public opinion alters and legal decisions highlight various elements of practice. Rules which reflect those ethical standards are also open to change and alteration. LABSWE is committed to devising and enforcing a set of rules which best serve the interests of the public.

The rules are not and never have been meant to imprison professionals or to constrain ethical theory-based practice innovations. The rules, however, are based on the best understanding of professional relationships and interactions as explained through practice wisdom, and professional literature and education. Mature professionals, 1) must know and consider the rationale behind the rules, 2) must understand how those rules can generally protect clients, and 3) must integrate that knowledge and understanding into their professional lives. Though this is a challenge, professionals who truly integrate the desire to have ethical relationships, as well as the processes that best and most often protect clients, will be rewarded with more satisfying, safe, and effective practices.

Back to TOP

The discussions (and probably the drama) around Rule 113 is not over. LABSWE is charged with protecting the public; that is the only charge given to LABSWE by the state. That is a different charge from professional associations. Individual social workers or social work organizations have the education, the networks, and the opportunities to advance their causes and protect themselves. The client, however, if he/she is harmed by a social worker’s behavior, turns to LABSWE as the first–and often only--line of defense.

2000 ASWB NATIONAL and LOUISIANA PASS RATES

LICENSE COUNT BY CREDENTIAL

(as of 6/8/01)

Board Meeting Dates for 2001:

Your completed renewal form and renewal fee must received in the Board’s office postmarked by November 30, 2001. Any renewal received after this date will be subject to double the renewal rates:

All licenses or registrations will lapse if renewals are not received by February 28, 2002 and will have to retake the licensing exam.

Pamela Anne Boudreaux-Weems, LCSW #2186, was sanctioned by the Board on March 16, 2001. Ms. Boudreaux-Weems’ LCSW license was revoked for violation of:

Eldred Charles Parvin, LCSW #2368, was publicly reprimanded by the Board on July 13, 2001 for violation of:

The Board shall have the power to deny, revoke, or suspend any license, certificate, provisional certificate, or registration issued by the board or applied for in accordance with this Chapter, or otherwise discipline a social worker for any of the following causes:

(4) willfully or repeatedly violating any of the provisions of this Chapter.

(5) violating any order, rule or regulation adopted by the board.

(7) practicing in a manner detrimental or potentially detrimental to the client by act or omission, which act or omission is either the result of deliberate or intentional conduct or negligent conduct.

(11) unprofessional or unethical conduct as defined in the rules and regulations adopted by the board.

A social worker’s duty requires the promotion and advancement of the best interests and welfare of clients, students, and supervisees with whom the social worker has a professional social work relationship. It is a breach of this duty for a social worker to use the professional relationship to promote or advance the social worker’s emotional, financial, sexual or personal needs. Examples of exploitative behavior may include, but are not limited to, the following:

(1) Inappropriately disclosing aspects of the social worker’s life or personal problems.

(7) Giving or exchanging inappropriate gifts, gratuitous services, or personal items between the social worker and the client, supervisee or student.

Frequently asked questions . . . .

Social workers are mandatory reporters of child abuse under the Children’s Code Article 603 (13) (b). Abuse is defined in Article 603 (1) as certain acts”. . . . . which seriously endanger the physical, mental or emotional health of the child and cites “. . . carnal knowledge of a juvenile . . . “ as one of those acts.

The Louisiana Legislature defines carnal knowledge of a juvenile in LSA-R.S. 14:80. This statute criminalizes the conduct of a person age seventeen (17) or more who engages in consensual sex with a person age twelve (12) or more but under the age of seventeen (17) if there is an age difference of greater than two (2) years between the two persons.

In our state, if the client were seventeen (17), the social worker would have no legal duty to report her sexual relationship with a thirty (30) year old man. At age sixteen (16), if the client is reporting “carnal knowledge of a juvenile, the social worker is obligated to report this crime to both the police and to the parents of this “minor child”.

 

No.

 

This practice is not a violation, but to eliminate any possible suspicion of wrong doing, the better practice might be to have the client make the check payable to the home health agency where the social worker is employed. The agency should then reimburse the social worker in a timely manner.

 

No. Rule No. 317 H., of the Board’s Rules, Standards and Procedures states, “In the case of extenuating circumstances, when the individual does not fulfill the continuing education requirements, the individual shall submit a written request for extension to the board for consideration.” This situation would certainly qualify as one of “extenuating circumstances”.

 

By obtaining a copy of the implementation order of the joint custody decree, before beginning assessment and treatment, the social worker can verify the lines of legal authority of the joint custody parents. While R.S. 9:336 obligates joint custody parents to exchange information concerning the health, education, and welfare of the child (children) and to confer with one another in exercising decision-making authority, mental health professionals cannot assume that such exchange is taking place. The joint custody or implementation order, which allocates the legal responsibilities and authorities of the joint custodial parents (R.S. 9:335), should identify the person who has health care decision-making authority. That order also will designate the domiciliary custodian (the parent with whom the child primarily resides). Unless the order specifies otherwise, the domiciliary custodian will be the person with authority to make all decisions affecting the child, however all major deci sions made by the domiciliary custodian can be subject to court-ordered review when formally requested by the other parent.

Where the social worker has confirmed that the person authorizing social work services on behalf of the child is either the domiciliary custodian or otherwise has been granted specific authority for health care decisions by the implementation order, the social worker may obtain a consent for assessment and treatment from that person. Where the joint custody parent “authorizing” social work services does not produce verification of authority from the custody decree or implementation order, the social worker should obtain a consent from both joint custody parents.

In those situations in which the implementation order does not designate a domiciliary custodian or a health care decision maker, either parent may exercise the same type of decision-making authority as when the parents were living together.

Social workers also should be aware that the information concerning medical, dental, school records and the like should not be denied a parent solely because he or she is not the child’s custodial or domiciliary parent. (R.S. 9:351).

The social worker who initiates assessment and treatment without verification of authority runs a risk of providing services without a valid consent. On the other hand, verifying authority in advance promotes the best interest of the child, may foster communications between the joint custody parents and also protects the social worker.

The social worker does not have to have permission of both parents to treat the child. The custodial parent is responsible for making decisions related to the health and well being of the child. The custodial parent is also obligated to advise the parent who shares joint custody of any decisions that are made on behalf of the minor child.

Social work records must comply with Rule N. 111. G., of the Board’s Rules, Standards and Procedures which states that “ A social worker shall make and maintain records of services provided to a client.” The record at a minimum must contain an assessment or diagnosis, a plan which includes goals for the client, any revision of the assessment or diagnosis or of the plan, fees charged, and copies of releases of information and other pertinent legal forms. This record must be maintained for six (6) years after the last date of service.

 

The social worker cannot tell her client that she previously treated his ex-wife without her former client’s written informed consent to release that information to her ex-husband. This would require the ex-husband’s written informed consent to be identified to his ex-wife as a current client, which would require the ex-wife’s written informed consent to be identified as a former client, etc., etc.

The social worker began with both clients in good faith. She has no previous or current personal or business relationship with either her client or her former client, so there is no dual relationship here. She should seek professional consultation if she suspects any bias in her thinking regarding her current client.

In LSA-R.S. 37:2718(B)(I), a social worker may not disclose any information they may have acquired from persons consulting him in his professional capacity that was necessary to enable them to render services to those persons except: (1) with the written consent of the client, or in the case of death or diability, with the written consent of his personal representative, other person authorized to sue, or the beneficiary of any insurance policy on his life, health or physical condition. The Practice Act does not define personal representative nor does it define other person authorized to sue. The Board’s Rules, Standards and Procedures relating to confidentiality in Rule 115 provide for a continuing privacy of information in subpart(G). That section provides that a social worker shall continue to maintain confidentiality of client information upon termination of the professional relationship including upon the death of the client, except as provided under applicable law. Likewise, Board Rule 115 (C)(1) authorizes the release of client records without the written consent of the client where the client’s authorized representative consents in writing to the release. Neither the Practice Act nor the Board’s Rules include the definition of this personal or authorized representative. General advices from Board’s counsel concluded that the surviving spouse of a deceased client should be able to execute a written consent or authorization in order to obtain the social work records of his or her deceased spouse.