ust be determined. If she is an academic counselor, then testimony regarding psychological adjustment, child development and homosexual patenting would be outside the her area of competency and clearly a violation of ethical standards. If Sandra is an academic counselor, she needs to remain within her level of expertise and adhere to academic issues (Rave & Larsen, 1995).
If Sandra is a school psychologist, her level of competency may include topics such as levels of psychological adjustment and child development issues. If this is the case Sandra will still be faced with the fact that she works within an institution which demands cooperation and loyalty to many people including the principle (Van Hoose & Kottler, 1985).
The counselor appears to be more involved in facilitating social change that protecting the interests of her client. It appears that the issue of homosexual patenting is clouding the decision making process. There is no mention of Sandra's expertise in this area, without which any pertinent testimony would be a violation of ethical conduct. If Sandra is a school psychologist and makes the decision to testify in her client's behalf, her testimony must reflect that which she has witnessed. If it is determined that she is an expert on child development, this information may be reported, however, it must be offered as separate from that which she has witnessed as Judy's counselor (Rave & Larsen, 1995). Sandra's first priority must be to her client, Judy. The Ethical Standards of the American Association for Counseling and Development states that "The member's primary obligation is to respect the integrity and promote the welfare of the client(s)" (Van Hoose & Kottler, 1985, p. 46).
Although the parents maintain rights regarding the treatment of a minor, rules vary within jurisdictions and the counselor needs to be clear regarding confidentiality issues; consideration of the age of the minor is a facto...