NCJ Number
112052
Journal
Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law Volume: 15 Issue: 3 Dated: (1987) Pages: 283-300
Date Published
1987
Length
18 pages
Annotation
The rules covering disclosure of information generated by court-ordered forensic psychiatric evaluations in Massachusetts require that patients be warned that the patient-psychotherapist privilege does not apply to the evaluation interview.
Abstract
The nature of the warning of lack of confidentiality (the Lamb warning) is not perfectly clear and is especially uncertain when evaluating families and children because of the ambiguous rights and capacities of minors. A comparison of the Lamb and the Miranda warnings offers some insights on differences in the procedural protections required but is not conclusive. To reach conclusions regarding the type and degree of procedural protections for children required by the Lamb warning, the clinician must analyze the stakes, interests, and capacities (developmental, cognitive, psychological) of the child in juvenile court. Because the stakes in juvenile court matters are generally lower than in adult courts and because State and the juveniles' interest tend to converge, a relatively informal procedure will usually be sufficient to provide the required warning. However, there are some exceptional circumstances in which more formal and thorough warnings should be required. These include juvenile transfer hearings and some situations involving child abuse and neglect. 38 references. (Author abstract modified)