Opinion ID: 2092596
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: The Record Evidence Supports Findings of Violations of Principle 7.03 and Section III(E)(3)

Text: [¶ 33] The Board found that Seider violated Principle 7.03 [16] because (1) she failed to clarify her roles at the commencement of the relationships or thereafter and (2) she failed to obtain releases from the mother and the son. Seider's failure to clarify her roles was also the basis of the Board's finding that she violated Section III(E)(3) of the 1991 AASPB Code. [¶ 34] Seider argues that the Board exceeded its authority by retroactively applying Principle 7.03 and Section III(E)(3) [17] because neither rule was in effect when the alleged conduct occurred. Seider further asserts that a violation of Section 7.03 could not have been found unless the Board determined that Seider had `multiple and potentially conflicting roles' in a forensic matter. She contends that there is no evidence to show that any such conflict existed. [¶ 35] Contrary to Seider's contentions, there is substantial, competent evidence that she failed to clarify her roles with the various parties subsequent to December 1, 1992, when the APA Code took effect. She aligned herself, for example, with the father in his parental rights dispute, preparing an affidavitdated December 9, 1992that disclosed confidential information about the mother and the son without obtaining appropriate releases. Seider also failed to clarify for the mother what Seider's role was in this multiple relationship with the mother and the father. In addition, she never clarified to the mother what the mother's confidentiality rights were. [¶ 36] From December 1992 to early 1993, Seider also performed evaluations on the daughter for sexual abuse and provided those evaluations to the District Court and to DHS for use in the determination of parental rights. In so doing, Seider was acting as the daughter's advocate while also serving as the child's therapist. Seider never clarified this role to the father, nor did she reveal to the father that his interests and those of the daughter may conflict. In addition, Seider continued to see the daughter without informing the mother of such contacts. Contrary to Seider's assertions, therefore, there is competent evidence in the record to support the Board's finding that she violated Principle 7.03 and Section III(E)(3).