By Elaine P. Congress, DSW, Chair of the Ethics and Professional Standards Committee
(January 1997)
| Tom has been a professional social worker for 10 years and recently was promoted to Assistant Director of a child welfare agency. At a party last Saturday, he met a woman to whom he felt very attracted. He knew that this might be a very important relationship for him. She looked very familiar but at first he could not remember where he had met her before. Then he remembered that when he had been in social work school 12 years ago, she had been his client. He had seen her for brief treatment when, as a college student, she became depressed after the sudden death of her father. Tom knew that the NASW Code of Ethics prohibited sexual relationships with current clients, but he did not remember anything about previous clients. |
In this example, Tom correctly recalls that the Code of Ethics prohibits sexual relationships with current clients. Fortunately, most studies show that almost all social workers avoid sexual relationships with current clients. Yet one of the major reasons why malpractice charges are brought against social workers is because of sexual improprieties (Reamer, 1995).
The new Code of Ethics, which was approved by the Delegate Assembly in August, 1996 and went into effect January 1, 1997, not only prohibits sexual relationships with current clients, but also explicitly states that social workers should avoid sexual relationships with former clients. The reason for this new provision is that even though the therapeutic relationship has ended, the social worker still has the greater power and is in a position to exploit or harm the client. If asexual relationships does occur, the social worker has the responsibility to consider if the client will be harmed. Important factors are the nature and length of treatment, the length of time since treatment occurred, and reasons for termination. For example, becoming involved with a previous client who was seen in psychotherapy for three years may be a clearer ethical violation than developing an intimate relationship with a client a social worker has seen for a referral to a smoke-enders program. It is seen as unethical to commence a relationship when there is a recent termination, and the Code explicitly forbids termination in order to begin an intimate relationship. Using these criteria, one can ask if is acceptable for Tom to begin this relationship, since treatment was relatively brief and termination occurred over a decade ago. The guidelines presented at the end of this article may help Tom or others facing similar dilemmas "do the right thing."
The Code of Ethics does not explicitly forbid involvement with current clients of other therapists in the same agency, even though it is widely accepted that it is best to avoid personal involvement with clients seen in the agency where one works. As one social worker facetiously said, "an agency waiting room is not a singles bar." However, there is less concern about former clients, but again the therapist has the onus of proving that this is acceptable behavior and will not harm the client.
| Maureen, a professional social worker is seeing Susan, a single parent and her only child, 12 year old Derrick, about behavioral problems at home and in school. Maureen believes, given Derrick's developmental needs as a young adolescent boy, that a male role model might be helpful to Derrick. At a conference Maureen recently attended, she met Tim, an alcohol counselor at an agency across town. Immediately she felt attracted to him and sensed he was interested in her. When Tim learned she worked at ABC Multi service Center, he shared that about five years ago he had been seen there as a client for a brief period of time. And now this agency was really helping his sister Susan who was having major problems with his nephew Derrick! |
The new Code explicitly forbids social workers to become involved with relatives of clients. Maureen seems to be on very slippery ground here. One might argue that if the relative is a distant one by genealogy (as for example, a second cousin), by geography (lives in California, while client is in New York), and/or by choice (there has been no contact for a number of years), that perhaps the social worker can pursue a relationship with a relative of a client. This clearly is not the situation here. Tim seems to be very knowledgeable about what is happening with his sister and nephew. Also, given the nature of the problem, one might predict that Tim will increasingly become involved with Susan and Derrick, perhaps even providing the needed role mode for his nephew. Maureen is certainly headed toward blurring professional boundaries if she becomes involved with Tim. The long term effects on both her clients, Susan and Derrick may not be positive.
To help the social worker follow the new Code provisions in regard to sexual relationships we would like to propose the following guidelines: