AVOIDING LIABILITY BLOG

Elder Abuse/Dependent Adult Abuse Reporting

March 2006

… Elder abuse reporting can be a tricky area for some and may at times be overlooked. Here are some questions to ponder. How is an “elder” defined in the law? Does there have to be a physical or mental impairment of the elder in order for a mandatory report to be made regarding physical abuse, financial abuse, neglect, abandonment or isolation? What types of elder abuse require a mandatory report vs. a permissive report? To whom is the report made? Within what period of time must the telephone and/or written report be made? How broadly is the term “dependent adult” or a similar term (“vulnerable adult”) defined? Is emotional abuse reportable, and if so, how broadly is it defined?

The answers to these questions are often illuminating.

I have found that while most practitioners are fairly knowledgeable regarding child abuse reporting, the same is not true for elder or dependent adult abuse reporting. In one state, an elder is defined as a person residing in the state who is 65 years of age or older. The phrase “residing in this state” is interesting, since a similar phrase does not appear in the same state’s child abuse reporting law. In some states, “elders” must suffer from some disability that prevents them from protecting themselves or their rights before reports are required. In other states, the mere fact of reaching a particular age is sufficient for one to be an elder for purposes of the mandatory reporting law. Additionally, the time frame within which reports must be made may differ from that applicable to reports of child abuse, so one must always be familiar with the particulars of the law.

Be careful. Seek the answers now and get illuminated!

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Richard Leslie: Avoiding Liability Bulletin

"At the Intersection of Law and Psychotherapy" Richard S. Leslie is an attorney who has practiced at the intersection of law and psychotherapy for the past twenty-five years. Most recently, he was a consultant to the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy (AAMFT), where he worked with their various state divisions to develop and implement their legislative agendas. He also provided telephone consultation services to AAMFT members regarding legal and ethical issues confronting practitioners of diverse licensure nationwide. Additionally, he wrote articles regarding legal and ethical issues for their Family Therapy Magazine and presented at workshops on a variety of legal issues. Prior to his work with AAMFT, Richard was Legal Counsel to the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists (CAMFT) for approximately twenty-two years. He was director of Government Relations for CAMFT, and as such was the architect of CAMFT’s widely regarded and successful legislative agenda. He represented CAMFT before the regulatory board (the Board of Behavioral Sciences) and was a tireless advocate for due process and fairness for licensees and applicants. He was a regular presenter at workshops and was consistently evaluated as CAMFT’s most highly rated presenter. He also sat with the CAMFT Ethics Committee and acted as their advisor on matters pertaining to the enforcement of ethical standards. Richard is an acknowledged expert on matters pertaining to the interrelationship between law and the practice of marriage and family therapy and psychotherapy. For many years, he taught Law and Ethics courses for a number of colleges and universities in their marriage and family therapy degree programs. While at CAMFT, he provided telephone consultation services with thousands of therapists in California and elsewhere for over twenty years. He is highly regarded for his judgment, his expertise, his direct style, and his clarity. Richard has been the driving force for many of the changes and additions to the laws of the State of California that affect MFTs. In 1980, he was primarily responsible for achieving passage of the "Freedom of Choice Law" that required insurance companies to pay for psychotherapy services performed by MFTs. Passage of that law allowed MFTs to earn a living, allowed them to better compete in the marketplace, and strengthened the profession in California by leading to a great increase in the number of licensees and CAMFT membership. Currently, about half of the licensed marriage and family therapists in the country are licensed in California. While at CAMFT, Richard was primarily responsible for, among other things, the successful effort to criminalize sex between a patient and a therapist. He was successful in extending the laws of psychotherapist-patient privilege to MFTs, thereby giving patients the same level of privacy protection as when seeing a psychiatrist or psychologist. He fought tirelessly and successfully for the right of MFTs to refer to themselves as "psychotherapists," to perform psychological testing services, to be appropriately reimbursed by California’s Victims of Crime Program, and to be employed in county mental health agencies throughout California. Richard was admitted to the Bar in New York (1969) and in California (1973). While practicing in New York, he served as a public defender, and later, as an Assistant District Attorney. Shortly after moving to California, he worked for the San Diego County Human Relations Commission as their Law and Justice Officer. While there, he worked successfully to achieve greater racial diversity in the criminal jury selection system and to expose and stop police abuse. For such work with that agency, he was the recipient of the Civil Libertarian of the Year Award by the San Diego Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Have Questions? click here, We’re happy to help!