Opinion ID: 2092596
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Board's Finding of Violation of Principles 5.02 and 5.03 is Supported by Facts and Law

Text: [¶ 12] The Board found that Seider's 51-page explanation disclosed much more information than was needed to comply with the [DHS] subpoena and that the information was disclosed without an explicit release and, at times, not based on adequate evaluation. Specifically, the Board found Seider's disclosure of such information constituted four violations of the confidentiality provisionsincluding Principle 5.02 of the APA Code, [5] which became effective on December 1, 1992, and Sections III(E)(1) & (12) of the 1991 AASPB Code [6] to the extent that any of the four confidentiality violations occurred prior to the effective date of the APA Code. [¶ 13] Seider contends that the Board's findings that she violated Principles 5.02 and 5.03 [7] are not supported by the facts or the law of this case. She argues that the Board's findings cannot stand because the APA Code does not define the circumstances that give rise to confidentiality rights. [¶ 14] Principle 5.02 compels psychologists to protect the confidentiality of those with whom they work or consult and provides that confidentiality may be established by law, institutional rules, or professional or scientific relationship. APA Code of Conduct, Principle 5.02 (1992). The duty of maintaining confidentiality is established at the very start of a relationship. Principle 5.03(b) further prescribes that [p]sychologists discuss confidential information obtained in clinical or consulting relationships, or evaluative data ... only for appropriate scientific or professional purposes and only with persons clearly concerned with such matters. APA Code of Conduct, Principle 5.03(b) (1992). By virtue of Principle 5.03(b), a psychologist should regard as confidential any information that he or she obtains in a professional relationship with another individual. [8] [¶ 15] Together, Principles 5.02 and 5.03 make clear that any information a psychologist obtains in the course of a professional relationship with another individual is confidential and is, therefore, subject to all the protections of confidentiality available within the bounds of the law. The determinative factor, then, becomes whether Seider entered into a professional relationship with the mother and the son. With respect to the son, there is no dispute. Seider readily admits that the son was her client. [¶ 16] Seider claims the mother was not her client but, rather, was merely an adjunct to her consultation with the son. The Board, on the other hand, asserts that Seider's relationship with the mother rose to the level of a professional relationship, entitling the mother to confidentiality privileges. The record demonstrates that Seider elicited personal information from the mother and spoke to the mother about the mother's personal history, her background, her own sexual abuse, and her treatment history. There is substantial, competent evidence in the record, therefore, that Seider established a professional relationship with the mother. The mother is entitled to confidentiality privileges.