HW 8

Professional Issues in Counseling and Mental Health Case Analysis #2

A. Select one of the three dilemmas below for the second and final case analysis assignment. For this case/dilemma analysis, be sure to:

· include three resources beyond your text (law websites, scholarly resources) as well as two to three references to your text (i.e., relevant chapters to your selected dilemma) as part of step 7

· utilize your belief self-analysis results (taken at the beginning of the semester) when completing step 8

· utilize the “How culture is an iceberg” when completing step 9

· include CMR 262 s

· include a note to your assigned professor on the changes you made in your approach to and completion of case/dilemma #2 compared to #1

B. See Grading Rubric in Canvas

Ethical Dilemma Choice #1

Kevin is a mental health counseling therapist at a large community mental health agency serving several communities. Kevin is also a site clinical supervisor with the Master’s level counseling internship program at the local university. During the process of supervision and mentoring, Kevin takes a special liking to one of the interns, Miguel, who shows tremendous potential as a group and family therapist. Kevin learns that Miguel also likes to play racquetball and invites Miguel to play racquetball with him.

As the semester progresses, Kevin comments to Miguel that they have developed a friendship that will extend beyond the internship. Kevin also informed Miguel that he had connections with a nearby mental health agency where there will be a therapist position open soon after the internship ends and that he is willing to help Miguel secure that position.

After a group supervision meeting, Kevin reveals to the other intern that he and Miguel play racquetball together and that he will provide support for Miguel’s pursuit of an opening at the nearby mental health agency. The interns suspect that Kevin is favoring Miguel based on case assignments, supervision availability and feedback to university faculty. Several interns are considering reporting the perceived favoritism to the university faculty and program coordinator as well as the director of the mental health agency where Kevin works.

Follow the assigned steps of the Pope et al. (2016) decision- making model to determine the optimal courses of action.

Ethical Dilemma Choice #2

Karina, a mental health counselor, specializing in child focused therapy, received a phone call from Ms. Callon regarding concerns about her 12 year old daughter, Serena. Karina conducts an intake interview with Ms. Callon and explains to Serena the nature of the services in a manner she understands, including limits of confidentiality. Ms. Callon agreed to receive general information about Serena. Ms. Callon reports that Serena is experiences bullying at school, in turn, she is hesitant to attend school, her grades are failing and she is depressed at home. At the intake interview, Ms. Callon expresses that she had never married Serena’s father; they permanently separated before Serena was born, and she does not know of his whereabouts since the separation. Therapy with Serena begins and over time, Serena seems to be doing better.

After four months of therapy, Karina is phone by Mr. Edwards who identifies himself as Serena’s father and insists that Karina stop treatment until he meets with Karina. He requests that Karina send copies of Serena’s assessment, treatment plans and progress notes and stop therapy until he reviews them. Karina informs Ms. Callon of the phone call and Ms. Callon pleads with Karina to continue therapy and added that Serena had never met her biological father.

Follow the assigned steps of the Pope et al. (2016) decision- making model to determine the optimal courses of action given Mr. Edwards (the self-identified biological father’s rights), Serena and Ms. Callon.

Ethical Dilemma Choice #3

Shauna is a mental health counselor who was asked to evaluate a child’s parents after hospital staff reported the parents to child welfare. The parents immigrated to the U.S. approximately one year ago. The parents are finding it difficult to communicate with hospital staff while the hospital staff note that the parents focus too much on “traditional healing methods” associated with their country of origin. According to hospital staff, the parents focus is undermining the medical care for their child who has a life threatening illness. Hospital staff declared this to be medical neglect and child welfare is contemplating taking custody of the child. Shauna will have to explain to the child welfare department that the parents refuse to give medical care at home adhering to hospital medical staff instructions is not medical neglect otherwise the child will be removed and placed in medical foster care pending the filing of a child abuse case in court. The child welfare department will give Shauna and the parents three weeks until rendering a decision and in the meantime they place the child in a relative’s home. Shauna acknowledges that several factors exist in the case that could hinder her accurate evaluation of the parents. Shauna routinely upholds the ethical obligation to become culturally competent and to pursue training and diversity when needed, hence, she feels confident in various practice areas. She does not feel confident, however, in this case due to lack of knowledge in nontraditional healing practices and the limited time factor involved.

Follow the assigned steps of the Pope et al. (2016) decision- making model to determine the optimal courses of action Shauna’s work with the child and parents.