NEWS
Louisiana Board of Social Work Examiners
Spring, 2002
|
Inside this Issue: |
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
Meet The Board
Taylor Aultman, Jr., LCSW is the current Chairperson for the LABSWE,. Mr. Aultman is in private practice in the New Orleans area with expertise in the areas of individual and family therapy, Critical Incident Stress Debriefing, pastoral counseling and hypnosis. Mr. Aultman has extensive experience in mental health, supervision, and family service agency settings.
Theresa Earthly, LCSW is the Vice-Chairperson of LABSWE. Ms. Earthly currently works at Crossroads Hospital, an in-patient facility, in Alexandria. Ms. Earthly has served the LABSWE is many capacities, and been president of NASW-LA. Ms. Earthly has extensive experience in family services, mental health settings, supervision and private practice.
Joseph J. Bodenmiller, LCSW, ACSW, is the newest member to the LABSWE Board. Mr. Bodenmiller received his M.S.W. from the University of Southern Mississippi in May 1985. Mr. Bodenmiller is the Director of Clinical Programs at Covenant House in New Orleans, LA. Mr. Bodenmiller has extensive clinical and administrative experience. Mr. Bodenmiller brings a wealth of experience. from the practice areas of psychiatric, play therapy and supervision.
Gretchen Goodrich, LCSW, has been in full-time private practice since 1982. She received her MSW from LSU in 1977 and worked in foster care for the Office of Human Development and the Office of Mental Health at Margaret Dumas Mental Health Center. She is a member of the National Association of Social Workers, the La. Association of Clinical Social Workers and the American and the Louisiana Group Psychotherapy Associations. She has extensive experience in private practice and supervision issues.
Robert Showers, RSW is the first Registered Social Worker to serve on the Louisiana Board of Social Work Examiners. Mr. Showers is employed by the Department of Health and Hospitals as a Program Manager with the Bureau of Protective Services. He graduated from Southeastern Louisiana University with a bachelors degree in Social Work and is a certified/licensed private investigator. He currently serves on the Louisiana Disciplinary Board for Attorneys, the Council on Licensure Enforcement and Regulation (CLEAR) and has served on the Board of the National Association of Social Workers in Washington, DC.
Kenna M. Franklin, GSW is the first Graduate Social Worker to serve on the Board. She is a native of Baton Rouge, who currently lives in Shreveport with her husband-attorney Carl Henry Franklin and their two daughters. She has been employed by LSU at Shreveport since January of 1990 as an Instructor of Sociology/Social Work. She serves on numerous boards and is quite active with many community organizations. She holds a Certificate of Advanced Study from Tulane University, Masters of Social Work from University of Michigan, and Bachelor of Science from Grambling State University. She is currently awaiting the publication of her first children’s book – Grandmother, Grandmother What Do You Dream?
Janet Cothern Zelden is the first public member to serve on the Louisiana Board of Social Work Examiners. Ms. Zelden is a distinguished educator who retired as an elementary school principal in May of 1999 after 33 years of service in Jefferson Parish Public Schools. She graduated from LSU in Baton Rouge and completed a Masters degree at Loyola University in New Orleans. Ms. Zelden has served on the board of the Louisiana Association of School Executives and was Treasurer for the Louisiana Association of Public School Administrators. She was a finalist for the Louisiana National Distinguished Principal and was the Jefferson Parish Principal of the Year in 1996.
|
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
Back to TOP
|
Social Workers Facing Complex Ethical Decisions: Legally Authorized/Required Disclosures By George Papale, JD, LABSWE Attorney The Situation: A social worker that provides social services to residents of a residential facility is notified that one of the residents has recently tested positive for HIV virus. The social worker also has knowledge that the infected resident has been sexually active with a female group home resident in the same facility. The social worker believes that this sexual relationship will continue. The infected resident stated he was not going to disclose this information to the female resident because he was using “protection”. The infected resident is concerned that he will be discharged from the facility, and refuses to authorize the social worker to disclose his positive HIV status. The female resident disclosed to the social worker that sexual intimacy had occurred on several occasions with the infected resident, but was unsure if condoms were used. The social worker provides social services to both residents. Both residents carry a diagnosis of schizophrenia and one with mild degree of mental retardation although neither has been interdicted. THE Assessment: The social worker exercising professional judgment assesses the situation as follows: 1) The risk of transmission of the HIV virus through repeated sexual contact, though significantly diminished with the correct use of condoms, is not completely eliminated. 2) The history of condom usage is not reliable. 3) The female client’s lack of awareness of her partner’s HIV infected status (or his denial of the same is the female resident should ask) may make the female resident less likely to insist on condom use in future sexual encounters. 4) There is reasonable likelihood that future sexual activity would occur, some of which could be unprotected. The female resident may have been unknowingly exposed to HIV virus from prior contacts, has not been tested from that exposure, and is subject to future unknowing exposures to HIV virus. The female resident’s exposure to a fatal illness, though hard to quantify, was considered a significant health risk. Questions to be Addressed: 1) What actions may the social worker take in order to protect the female client? 2) Is the social worker required to report? 3) Do the privacy interests of the infected resident prohibit or inhibit necessary disclosures or warnings? 4) What are the risks of disclosure and reporting versus non-disclosure and non-reporting? Back to TOP The Dilemma: The social worker clearly has to consider that they had the duty to warn the unsuspecting female resident, and also put into motion steps to have her tested for HIV. At the same time the social worker did not want to breach duty of confidentiality owed to a client who may have privacy interest in his HIV status. The social worker considered themselves at risk of disciplinary action as well as a breach of privacy suit if confidentiality was not maintained. On the other hand, the social worker reasoned that no action would continue to expose the female resident to the risk of infection and possible death and thus exposing the social worker and the agency to civil liability in a suit for failure to warn. La. R.S.37:2718(B) (3) of the Social Work Practice Act prohibits social workers from disclosing any information they may have acquired from persons consulting them in their professional capacity that was necessary to enable him to render services to those persons except: “(3) When communication reveals the intended commission of a crime or harmful act and such disclosure is determined to be necessary by the social worker to protect any individual or person from clear, imminent risk or serious mental or physical harm or injury, or to forestall a serious threat to public safety.” This provision does not require a “threat of physical violence” as a pre-condition of disclosure or warning. The fatal character of the illness, its transmission through sexual contact and the social worker’s assessment of the likelihood of past and future unprotected sex substantiates the social worker’s determination that disclosure is necessary to protect the unsuspecting female resident from imminent risk and serious harm. The Practice Act offers the social worker protection against a disciplinary complaint based on an unauthorized disclosure but does not extend a specific immunity from civil liability. La. R.S. 14:43.5 makes the act of intentionally exposing another to the AIDS virus through sexual contact without the knowing and lawful consent of the victim, a felony criminal offense. Because the insanity defense under La. R.S. 14:14 is not available unless the mental disease or mental defect of the offender renders him incapable of distinguishing right and wrong with reference to the conduct in question, the social worker cannot assume that the infected resident would be exempt from criminal responsibility in the event that the other elements of the offense could be proven. Louisiana’s First Circuit of Appeal in the case of State v. Gamberella (1993) discussed elements of the criminal offense: · Intentional in the statute requires that the State prove defendant was aware of his HIV status and that virus could be spread through “sexual contact”· That sexual contact occurred while the offender was infected with HIV· The victim’s lack of awareness that the offender was infected with the virus and that it could be spread through sexual contact· Case makes it clear that the statute criminalizes intentional exposure to the virus and thus the risk of transmission as opposed to the transmission of the virus itself is the element of the offense. (State does not have to prove that the virus was transmitted to the victim or that the offender specifically intended the transmission of the virus to the victim.)The court also addressed the offender’s concerns of invasion of privacy in the Gamberella case, addressed the offender’s concerns of invasion of privacy: · “No one can seriously doubt that the state has a compelling interest in discouraging the spread of the HIV virus. Forcing an infected person to inform all of his sexual partners so the partner can make an informed decision prior to engaging in sexual activity furthers the State’s interest in preventing the spread of the virus.”· The privacy interest of an HIV infected person who has donated blood may be outweighed under certain circumstances by the needs of a party who seeks disclosure. (Citing State Supreme Court in Most v. Tulane Medical Center (576 So, 2d 1387) (1991).· State’s interest in prosecuting defendant for his violation of La. R.S. 14:43.5 outweighed defendant’s interest in maintaining confidentiality of his test results.Without regard to the social worker’s assessment as to the mental capacity of either the infected resident to commit the criminal violation or the female residents’ ability to give her lawful and knowing consent, the social worker may determine that they should advise the HIV infected resident that having sexual intercourse without informing their partner(s) of his HIV status could expose him to criminal prosecution and that because his behavior posed a significant health risk that there were limits of confidentiality under social work Rule 115D where reporting of same is required. Back to TOP The social worker also must recognize their role as “mandatory reporter under adult abuse and neglect laws (the purpose of those laws which is to “protect adults who cannot physically or mentally protect themselves and who are harmed or threatened with harm through action or inaction by themselves or by the individuals responsible for their care or by other parties…and). He was aware that the law: Considering the likelihood of continued sexual contact with an HIV infected resident, the female resident’s lack of awareness of her partner’s infected status coupled with her existing mental impairment, (a disability), and the infected resident’s ongoing refusal to disclose his condition to her may lead the social worker to assess the past and the ongoing refusal to disclose his condition to her lead the social worker to assess that past and the ongoing sexual conduct to have risen to the level of abuse and neglect and the same would be true under the laws requiring the reporting of child abuse or neglect depending on the age of the contact (See La. R.S. 14:403.2 and Children’s Code Article 601-611.) (Both laws provide immunity for mandatory reporters who make “good faith reports.”) Recognizing that HIV test results are afforded statutory confidentiality under La. R.S. 40:1300.11-40, 40:1300.16, the social worker may determine that even where a medical authorization “contains a refusal to release HIV test results” they nevertheless may be released to a “federal, state, parish or local health officer when the disclosure is mandated by federal or state law” pursuant to La. R.S. 40:1300.14(B)(6). Since mandatory reports and case records of abuse and neglect of adults are themselves confidential, they are made to the Department of Health and Hospitals, and that same agency’s “Office of Public Health” promulgates rules and regulations relative to consent for HIV testing and disclosure of HIV test results, the social worker can be confident that any additional disclosures by that agency would be in conformity with law and regulation. If the social worker reasonably believes that there is a substantial likelihood of additional sexual encounters between the two residents before meaningful action on the mandatory report will occur, they can take two additional steps authorized by the HIV confidentiality statute. 1) To urge the public health officer at DHH to make and ex-parte application to a court of competent jurisdiction for an order authorizing a limited disclosure by showing “a clear and imminent danger to an individual whose life or health may unknowingly be at risk.” (La. R.S.40:1300.15(D)(2). Another step would involve an authorized disclosure by the social worker to the infected resident’s physician. That physician, or a designated public health officer, may personally communicate with a contact (partner) when the physician reasonably believes that there is a significant risk of infection to the contact by a patient who will not inform the contact. In this manner, the contact can get information relative to testing and counseling. (La. R.S. 40:1300.14(E). The person communicating with the contact may not disclose the identity of the infected patient or any other contact. (NOTE: The physician is not required to make this communication with the contact.) Back to TOP In the event the social worker determines that the above two steps authorized by the statute will not provide a meaningful warning to the contact, they may choose to notify the female resident themselves and provide her information concerning her exposure to the HIV virus and refer her to appropriate testing, counseling and treatment without disclosing the identity of the infected resident.· This step is not authorized by the HIV confidentiality statute, it accomplishes the same result as the notification by the physician and appears consistent with the intent of federal public health and welfare law relating to “grants for partner notification programs.” (42 U.S.C.A.300 ff-38)· This step may provide the contact with a more timely and meaningful warning.· This step recognizes that partner notification is not necessarily the equivalent act of disclosing the HIV test results of someone who has tested positive, who has interest in its confidentiality under the statute, and who does not consent to the disclosure of same.· The HIV confidentiality statute was not intended to “create any new right, right of action, or cause of action or eliminate any right, right of action, or cause of action existing under current law.” The statute also contains no sanctions or penalty provisions.· It is not logical that a meaningful (and potentially lifesaving) partner notification could be prohibited by the refusal of the HIV infected sex partner to give consent while the same infected person deliberately continues in the behavior which potentially exposes his partner to a lethal virus and which behavior may possibly be in violation of a criminal offense.· The contact notification would be authorized by the Social Work Practice Act (La. R.S. 37:2718(B)(3)) and is reasonably calculated to protect the social worker and the residential facility against a civil damage claim based on a failure to warn.· A strong argument could be made that this type of partner notification which does not specifically disclose the “HIV test results” nor the identity of the infected individual is not prescribed by R.S. 40:1300.14.As the above discussion illustrates, social workers continue to face new ethical challenges. It is imperative that practitioners continue to stay abreast of current information, statutes, case law and to consult with other professionals before making these decisions. |
|
Back toTOP
2000 ASWB NATIONAL and LOUISIANA PASS RATES
Exam Category and Group Type
NATIONAL Pass Rate
LOUISIANA Pass Rate
Total # of candidates
Number
Percentage
Total # of candidates
Number
Percentage
ASSOCIATE
First-Time
Repeat Group
Total Group
345
47
392
237
17
254
68.7
36.2
64.8
0
0
0
BASIC
First-Time
Repeat Group
Total Group
4257
541
4798
3478
213
3691
81.7
39.4
76.9
0
0
0
INTERMEDIATE
First-Time
Repeat Group
Total Group
7299
1206
8505
5951
484
6435
81.5
40.1
75.7
0
0
0
ADVANCED
First-Time
Repeat Group
Total Group
245
52
297
143
17
160
58.4
32.7
53.9
21
9
30
11
4
15
52.4
44.4
50.0
CLINICAL
First-Time
Repeat Group
Total Group
6671
1571
8242
4680
605
5285
70.2
38.5
64.1
316
116
432
178
31
209
56.3
26.7
48.4
Back to TOP
Back to TOP
LICENSE COUNT BY CREDENTIAL
(as of 12/01)
Registered Social Worker (RSW) 763 Provisional Graduate Social Worker 42 Graduate Social Worker (GSW) 1633
Licensed Clinical Social Worker (LCSW) 2115 Licensed Clinical Social Worker/Board Approved Clinical Supervisor (LCSW-BACS) 1334
SUPERVISION PLANS
Rule No. 503 K., of the Board’s Rules, Standards and Procedures states that supervisees and supervisors must submit on a timely basis all required forms as designated in the Board’s Supervision for Professional Development and Public Protection: A Guide. The Plan of Supervision clearly states on the bottom of the form that the original form must be submitted within 60 days of the first supervision session. Board members feel that 60 days is adequate time to write and submit the Plan. This allows the Board office sufficient time to review the plan and submit any comments regarding content at the beginning of the supervision period. It is the supervisee’s responsibility to make sure that the supervisor completes the plan and mails it to the Board office before the end of the 60 day period.
The LABSWE Board encourages all Board Approved Clinical Supervisors to obtain a copy of Supervision for Professional Development and Public Protection: A Guide. Cost is $15.00. Send payment and request to: LABSWE, 18550 Highland Road, Suite B, Baton Rouge, LA 70809.
Back to TOP BOARD VACANCIES
On July 26, 2002, there will be two vacancies on the Louisiana State Board of Social Work Examiners. LSA R.S. 37:2704, mandates the following qualifications for Board members:
Citizen of the United States, Resident of the State of Louisiana, Hold current, valid license, certification or registration At all times the Board shall consist of at least three members who are engaged primarily in rendering direct services in social work and at least one member who is engaged primarily in social work education or a practice specialty other than clinical. One vacancy must be filled by a social worker credentialed at the LCSW level and the other vacancy may be filled by a social worker credentialed at the RSW, GSW or LCSW levels. The remaining Board members and their areas of practice are as follows: Gretchen Goodrich, LCSW, direct practice, Joseph Bodenmiller, LCSW, direct practice, Robert Showers, RSW, agency practice, Kenna Franklin, GSW, educator, and Janet Zelden, public member.
If you are interested in serving on the Board, you should submit a letter stating your interest along with a current resume to the Board office or one of the following organizations by June 12, 2002:
Louisiana Association of Clinical Social Workers
5329 Dijon Drive, Suite 105
Baton Rouge, LA 70808
Louisiana Chapter of National Association of Social Workers
700 N. 10th Street, Suite 200
Baton Rouge, LA 70801
Louisiana Council on Social Work Education
311 Huey P. Long Fieldhouse, LSU
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Board members are appointed by the Governor to serve for three (3) consecutive years. You may contact Suzanne Pevey, Administrator, at the Board office (225-756-3470 or 800-521-1941) if you have questions concerning the Board’s activities and the time commitment required of Board members.
Back to TOP
Board Meeting Dates for 2002:
March 1 & 2 You may contact the board office concerning the times and places.
LABSWE falls under the Louisiana Open Meetings Act. This law specifies that every meeting shall be open to the public, unless the subject of the meeting relates the character and professional competence of a person, or to the investigation of a complaint or negotiation of litigation. The schedule for each LABSWE meeting is posted 24 hours ahead of the scheduled meeting. All votes are public, as are all minutes of the meetings.
April 19 & 20 May 24 & 25 July 5 & 6 August 16 & 17 September 27 & 28 November 15 & 16 December 13 & 14
Back to TOP 2000-2001 Complaints
received by the Louisiana State Board of Social Work ExaminersLABSWE received 35 complaints in Fiscal Year 2000-2001. The following is a breakdown of the categories based on the Social Work Practice Act and the Board’s Rules, Standards and Procedures. Five of the components were determined to be out of the Board’s jurisdiction and were not accepted for investigation.
VIOLATION NUMBER Records 1 Competency 4 Child Custody 3 Fee Issues 1 Practicing social work without the proper license 3 Misrepresentation of Credentials 2 Fraud 3 Supervision Issues 2 Sexual Abuse of Client 2 Renewal Issues 2 Gross Negligence/Unprofessional Conduct 12 TOTAL 35
Back to TOP DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS
Jerry E. LeBlanc, LCSW #1667, was sanctioned by the Board on October 31, 2001. Mr. LeBlanc’s LCSW license was revoked for violation of:
La. R.S. 37:2717 (A) (4), “willfully or repeatedly violating any of the provisions of this Chapter.”
La. R.S. 37:2717 (A) (7), relative to “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.”
La. R.S. 37:2717 (A) (10), by “deceiving or defrauding the public or making, submitting, or causing to be submitted any false or deceptive claims, reports, charges, assessments, or opinions regarding any client or service provided to any client, insurance company, health care provider, third party payor, company, individual, or any governmental agency for the purpose of obtaining payment or anything of economic value.”
La. R.S. 37:2717 (11), unprofessional or unethical conduct as defined in the rules and regulations adopted by the board.
LA. R.S. 37:2717 (12), by “conduct which demonstrates the social worker has failed to maintain the qualifications of good moral character as required by R.S. 37:2706(A) (1), 2707 (A) (1) and 2708 (A) (1) and as may be further defined by the Board.”
Rule No. 113 (A) of the Board’s Rules, Standards and Procedures which states: 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.
Rule No. 113 (B) of the Board’s Rules, Standards and Procedures which states: “Social workers have an affirmative duty to maintain the best interest of clients and former clients as the predominant consideration during the extence of the social worker/client relationship and thereafter. While clients and former clients with whom the social worker has or had a clinical/therapeutic relationship are at greater risk, any relationship with a client or a former client expernsies clients and former clients to the risk of exploitation. Such contact tends to change the focus of the social worker intent and impair professional judgment.
Rule No. 113 (C.1) of the Board’s Rules, Standards and Procedures which states: “A social worker shall not engage in a personal relationship with a clinical/therapeutic client. When a social worker may not avoid a personal relationship with a clinical/therapeutic client, the social worker shall take necessary protective measures consistent with the best interests of the clinical/therapeutic client.”
Rule No. 113 (C.3) of the Board’s Rules, Standards and Procedures which states: “A social worker shall not engage in or request sexual contact as defined in Rule 113.C.5., with a client, a client’s spouse or former spouse, any member of the client’s immediate family or with any person with whom the client has or has had a sexual relationship. The prohibition of this rule extends to supervisees and students during such times and under such circumstances where the social worker is in a supervisory or teaching relationship. This rule also expressly prohibits social workers from engaging in behavior which a reasonable person would find sexually stimulating, seductive or sexually demeaning when such behavior is either directed toward or exhibited in the presence of any person whom sexual conduct is otherwise prohibited by this Rule. Social workers shall not sexually harass a client, supervisee or student.”
Rule No. 113 (C.5) of the Board’s Rules, Standards and Procedures which states: “Sexual contact means sexual touching, sexual intercourse, either genital or anal, cunnilingus, fellatio, or the handling of the breasts, genital areas, buttocks, or thighs, whether clothed or unclothed, by either the social worker or the client.”
Rule No. 113 (C.9) of the Board’s Rules, Standards and Procedures which states: “A social worker shall be solely responsible for acting appropriately in regard to relationships with clients and former clients. A client or a former client’s initiation of a personal, sexual, or business relationship shall not be a defense by the social worker for a violation of Rules No. 113, C.1-8.
Emmett Marlin Mathis, LCSW, #3652, was sanctioned by the Board on January 25, 2002. Mr. Mathis’ LCSW licensed was placed on probation for three (3) years with conditions for violation of:
LSA R.S. 37:2717 (A)(4)(7)(11) and (12):
The board shall have the power to deny, revoke, or suspend any certificate issued by the board or applied for in accordance with this Chapter, or otherwise disciplinary a social worker for any of the following causes:
(4) Willfully or repeatedly violating any of the provisions of this Chapter.
(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.
(12) Conduct which demonstrates the social worker has failed to maintain the qualification of good moral character as required by R.S. 37:2706(A)(1), 2707(A)(1), and 2708(A)(1) and as may be further defined by the board.
Rule No. 113( A) (6) of the Board’s Rules, Standards and Procedures which states: : 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:
(6) Inappropriate touching, holding, kissing or physical contact between social worker and client, supervisee or student.
Rule No. 113( B) of the Board’s Rules, Standards and Procedures which states: Dual relationships. Social workers have an affirmative duty to maintain the best interest of clients and former clients as the predominant consideration during the existence of the social worker/client relationship and thereafter. While clients and former clients with whom the social worker has or had a clinical/therapeutic relationship are at a greater risk, any relationship with a client or a former client exposes clients and former clients to the risk of exploitation. Such contact tends to change the focus of the social worker’s intent and impair professional judgment.
Rule No. 113 (C) (3) of the Board’s Rules, Standards and Procedures which states: 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.
(3) Sexual contact with a client, supervisee or student. A social worker shall not engage in or request sexual contact as defined in Rule 113.C.5., with a client, a client’s spouse or former spouse, any member of the client’s immediate family or with any person with whom the client has or has had a sexual relationship. The prohibition of this rule extends to supervisees and students during such times and under such circumstances where the social worker is in a supervisory or teaching relationship. This rule also expressly prohibits social workers from engaging in behavior which a reasonable person would find sexually stimulating, seductive, or sexually demeaning when such behavior is either directed toward or exhibited in the presence of any person with whom sexual contact is otherwise prohibited by this Rule. Social workers shall not sexually harass a client, supervisee or student.
(5) Sexual contact defined. Sexual contact means sexual touching, sexual intercourse, either genital or anal, cunnilingus, fellatio, or the handling of the breasts, genital areas, buttocks, or thighs, whether clothed or unclothed, by either the social worker or the client.
Rule No. 117(C) of the Board’s Rules, Standards and Procedures which states: Investigation. All social workers shall cooperate with a social work Board investigation of any social worker.
Back to TOP About your address.....
The address and telephone number that you list on your application for license and subsequent renewal application is a matter of public record. We do honor written requests to delete addresses and telephone numbers in our annual Directory. However, if a member of the public calls and requests that information, we are required by law to give the most recent information that we have. LCSWs may want to consider listing only their office address and office telephone number on their renewal application.
In Remembrance:
Adrian M. Aycock, LCSW
Stephanie Singleton Hayes, GSW
The Louisiana State Board of Social Work Examiners will publish notification of a licensee’s death following submission of information by a current LCSW or family member
Back to TOP Frequently asked questions . . . .
by Brenda Trivette, LCSW
1.
Must the three hours of ethics required every two (2) years for continuing education be consecutive hours?
No. You may acquire an hour here and an hour there to complete the requirement.
2. Can an agency sell books to clients as a service? Can a social worker sell books to clients (at costs-not for profit) as a service?
Rule 113(c) (6) requires that “a social worker shall not engage in any type of business relationship other than the provision of social work services, including social work supervision.” The social worker may purchase from the client necessary goods which the client is providing for the general public but the Social Work Practice Act does not define the provision of social work services to include the sale of items such as books. Since we, as social workers try to encourage the client’s self determination and independence, it is difficult to imagine the “service” a waiting room full of books for sale provides. What happens when a client wants to return a book because he didn’t feel the content was helpful or maybe even found it offensive? Better to return it to Barnes and Nobles customer service than to the office where he is receiving social work services.
3. Is there a process whereby a social worker on active duty in the armed services overseas can complete the continuing education requirement and maintain their social work credential?
Yes. The social worker can develop a self study plan through NASW or the internet and submit it to the LABSWE Board office for pre-approval. The social worker can also ask the Board to grant an extension to obtain the continuing education hours.
4. A social worker has a 17 year old client at a social services agency. The social worker accepts another job at a different agency that does not serve teenagers. Is there some capacity (supportive and/or mentoring) in which the social worker can continue to work with the 17 year old client?
You did not specify the type of social services agency or your former service role with this young client. However, I can understand the client wanting to continue therapy and not start over. If that is not possible at your new agency, you should carefully consider your motivation here. What is the purpose of the continued “work” with this client and whose needs would such “work” actually serve. Would not the 17 year old be assigned a new social worker at the agency? Appropriate termination and transfer of service providers seems in order in this situation. A “supportive and/or mentoring” role with a former client sounds like a personal relationship. Rule No. 113(C) (2) states that “A social worker may engage in a personal relationship except as prohibited by Rule No. 113(C) (4) [sexual contact] with a former clinical/therapeutic client.” but “The social worker has a continuing duty to safeguard the best interests of the client.” Rule No. 113(B) states that “while clients and former clients with whom the social worker has or had a clinical/therapeutic relationship are at greater risk, any relationship with a client or a former client exposes clients and former clients to the risk of exploitation.” Rule No. 113 (A) states, “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.”
You should complete an appropriate termination process with this client. A continued role in this young person’s life should be carefully considered and discussed with agency supervisors and other professionals who know both you and the client. Such consultation should enable you to safeguard your former client’s best interests.
5. The daughter of a male client calls to tell a social worker that her father has been threatening to kill her mother. She asks that the social worker not tell her father that she has called but she asks the social worker to contact the police and advise them that her mother is in danger. When the social worker interviews her client, she gets no information that would make her think that he has been depressed, suicidal or that he is planning to harm his wife. He does tell her that he and his wife are having marital problems and that he thinks divorce is eminent. Does the social worker have a duty to contact the mother and the police based on the daughter’s telephone call?
No. Generally three criteria must be met for a duty to warn to exist: (1) there must be a serious threat of severe bodily harm, (2) the person making the threat must have the ability to carry it out and (3) there must be an identifiable victim. La R.S. 92800(2) (B) states that this duty is discharged if the social worker “makes a reasonable effort to communicate the threat to the potential victim or victims and to notify law enforcement authorities in the vicinity of the patient’s or potential victim’s residence”. In this situation, the social worker does not have any evidence of such a threat , except for the daughter’s report. We do not know the age of the daughter or whether she can be considered a reliable informant. If she is not the social worker’s client and the social worker has no reason to believe the father would harm his daughter for making this report, the social worker is not compelled to keep her confidence.
The social worker should, of course, explore the nature of the marital problems with her client, as well as the level of agreement on the solution of divorce and the level of violence or threats of violence inherent in the current marital discussions. If such exploration uncovers no suggestion of potential violence or homicidal intent, there is no duty to warn, but a family session with both mother and daughter present would seem indicated as soon as possible.
6. I am a school social worker who has been counseling a middle school student regarding behavior problems which affect her school performance. Recently I began tutoring in an after school program at my school for which I am financially reimbursed. I do not suggest or assign students to this after school program. It came to my attention that the aforementioned student was about to be thrown out of the after school tutoring program due to behavior problems. I asked that this student be assigned to my tutorial group rather than be expelled from the program. Does this constitute a dual relationship? Because of our counseling relationship, I do not anticipate behavioral problems in my tutorial group with this student.
You are attempting to salvage the tutoring experience for your client. Perhaps a better way to do so would be to work with her in the therapeutic relationship to assess the behaviors that earned her dismissal from tutoring. She could then be allowed a second chance in another tutoring group with you supporting her efforts in your therapeutic role.
To “rescue” her does not help her develop self control. To assume that you will not have to discipline her in your tutorial group is a setup for disappointment. You may not only end up getting involved in discipline but being forced to eventually put her out of your tutorial group which is sure to affect your therapeutic relationship with this student. Dual relationships blur boundaries and cloud good social work judgment. This may get into a role confusing situation, if not an outright role conflict. It is best to reevaluate this situation.
7. If I believe my former therapist involved me and other clients in an inappropriate relationship which troubles me to this day, is there a time limitation to report such boundary violations to the Board?
Yes. Act 1289 of the 1995 Regular Session of the Louisiana Legislature states that “if the nature of the complaint is based on negligence or gross negligence, no proceeding may be initiated after two years from discovery by the complainant. However, under no circumstances shall such proceeding be initiated more than five years from the date of the act or omission.”
Back to TOP
Welcome New LCSWs, GSWs, & RSWs
click on the links above to view the names
