School counselors face various ethical and legal issues. Many circumstances can arise where school counselors must make a judgment call based on best practice, ethics, law, standards, and the best interest of their students.
For example, as a school counselor I could be conducting a counseling group on divorce in which seven 8th grade students are participating. During a group session, I might learn for the first time that one of the students, Kayse, has started seeing an outside therapist. I find that she is doing this to deal with symptoms of anxiety and depression related to her father moving out of the family home and adjusting to the break up of the family.
In this situation, the ASCA code which directly relates to my obligation to Kayse is C.2.c. It explains that if a counselee is receiving services from another counselor or other mental health professional, the counselor, with client consent, will inform the other professional and develop clear agreements to avoid confusion and conflict for the counselee.
Additionally, the ASCA code which directly relates to my obligation to the group is A.6. It describes the importance of a professional school counselor screening prospective group members and maintaining an awareness of participants’ needs and goals in relation to the goals of the group. It also urges that the counselor take reasonable precautions to protect members from physical and psychological harm resulting from interaction within the group.
Keeping these two codes in mind I would first investigate the type of group I’m running. Students dealing with divorce may be at different stages, so more than one group may be needed. Let’s assume that the group I’m holding is for students who are displaying difficulty in coping with divorce and I have screened and interviewed Kayse to determine that she is a good fit for the group.
Therefore, I have every intention of keeping her in the group because I feel she is not only benefiting from the counseling but is also benefiting others. Additionally, a termination can be harmful to group cohesion because the members who remain may think that they caused a particular member’s departure. This can be especially true in divorce groups where the students are already concerned over the departure of a family member from their home.
In light of this information, I would certainly keep Kayse in the group. However, I would ask Kayse’s permission to contact her therapist. If given consent it would be my professional responsibility to inform her therapist that she is also participating in a group counseling experience at her middle school. Together the therapist and I could develop clear agreements to avoid confusion and conflict for Kayse.
In conclusion, my personal reaction to this scenario is that Kayse can use all the support she can get to help her through her parents’ divorce. Therefore, if she is able to benefit from both the counseling group and another therapist then I feel she should take advantage of both opportunities. However, I do see the importance of ensuring that both means of therapy are compatible. Otherwise, her already fragile psychological state could be further jeopardized. Ideally, Kayse will benefit from her therapist and from the counseling group-and the group will, in turn, benefit from her as well.
