The conflict between maintaining confidentiality in social work and protecting a minor from harm

ABSTRACT

Social workers often face dilemmas involving their duty of confidentiality when dealing with multiple members of a family, school or other system. These dilemmasare challenging for social workers worldwide given their need to overcome the tense relationship between representatives of the legal and social welfare systems and their lack of training in the relevant law. I illustrate this dilemma using the case study of an Israeli social worker who revealed confidential information shared by his client, a father whom the social worker determined might harm or be harming his child. Using this case study, I investigate the question of the court’s view regarding a social worker’s dual obligation to maintain client confidentiality and to protect the safety of minors. I first present the tensions between the law, the court system, and the social worker. Second, I discuss the legal framework for the duty of confidentiality in Israel. Third, I review a recent key ruling indicating the court’s view regarding a social worker’s dual obligation to maintain client confidentiality and to protect the safety of minors. Lastly, I suggest policy changes and actionable ways to help social workers worldwide make decisions related to the duty of confidentiality in daily practice.

KEYWORDS:

• Duty of confidentiality
• protecting a minor
• right to privacy
• social work law

Introduction

The patient opens his heart to the therapist, revealing his most intimate feelings and experiences. Relaxing the boundaries of privilege for every instance that the patient discloses to the therapist things that he experienced regarding the chain of events essentially impairs a patient’s ability or desire to speak freely with his therapist, as he will always carry the fear that his most veiled secrets will become the property of others (SH 8252/13 Israel State v. Shiner, Jan. 23, 2014, p. 28).

This quotation appears in a ruling of the Israeli Supreme Court, underscoring the court’s view of the fundamental importance of confidentiality to the social worker-client relationship. Social workers often face dilemmas involving their duty of confidentiality when dealing with multiple members of a family, school or other system. Such dilemma may arise in the unique context of treating parents who may pose a danger to their child. In such cases, social workers must weigh their obligation to protect client confidentiality and their obligation to prevent harm to their client’s child. Resolving this dilemma is important for social workers worldwide, who often face a tense relationship between representatives of the legal and welfare systems and may lack training in the relevant law (Loue, 2018; Meysen & Kelly, 2018; Millstein, 2000; Roche, 2008).

Thus, the purpose of this article is to examine tensions that exist between the law, the court system and the social worker in complex cases and how the court balances the tension between maintaining client confidentiality and privacy and the need to violate confidentiality in certain circumstances.

I illustrate this tension using a case study of an Israeli social worker who revealed confidential information shared by his client, a father whom the social worker determined might harm or be harming his child. I chose the case – Israel Magistrate Court and District Courts’ appellate decisions in Luzon v. Greenfeld (Brayne et al., 2001) from a database of legal decisions, as I will detail later in the section on the research method.

There are four parts to this article. First, I examine the literature on the tension that exists between the law, the court system and the social worker. The second section describes the legal framework in Israel relevant to social workers’ duty of confidentiality, and its exceptions when necessary to protect the best interests of the client’s child. In the third part, Ireview a recent key ruling indicating the court’s view regarding social workers’ dual obligation to maintain client confidentiality and to protect the safety of minors. Lastly, I suggest policy changes and actionable ways to help social workers specializing in the field of child and family treatment make decisions related to the duty of confidentiality in daily practice.

Inherent tensions between the law, the court system and the social worker

There is a misunderstanding between the professions of law and social work, and between lawyers and social workers, (Taylor, 2006). For example, there are cultural differences between the social work and legal professions that begin as early as the lecturer-student stage. In the legal profession, there is an emphasis on the knowledge and authority of the law professor (and later, in practice, of the judge). In contrast, in the social work classroom and later on in the profession, the emphasis is on a cooperative group process (Taylor, 2006).Research has shown that social workers view lawyers as analytical, inflexible, and overly indifferent, while lawyers tend to regard social workers as emotional and unprofessional (Brayne et al., Madden, 2003; Taylor, 2006).

However, the day-to-day practice of social work often involves contact with the legal system and the courts, and various laws define the authority of social workers in this context. For example, the Israel Youth Law (Judgment, Punishment and Ways of Treatment, 1971) grants social workers the authority to remove a minor from the home under specific conditions stipulated by law such as parental neglect. Therefore, social workers can be said to act as a competent authority on behalf of the legal system and the courts (Davis, 2015).

Even when not acting as competent authorities on behalf of the legal system, social workers still come into frequent, if not daily, contact with the legal system and the courts in a wide range of areas. Social workers advocate for and help their clients claim their rights from government agencies in various fields such as public housing, social security, education, healthcare, and the general exercise of their legal rights (Braye et al., 2005).

Although the law and justice system are an integral part of their work, many social workers regard the law as a burden (Fogelson, 1970).A 2005 study found that social workers have a negative view of the court and its attitude toward social workers (Karpel-Hans et al., 2008). This negative view is attributed, in part, to judges’ criticism of the quality of their work. For example, a study conducted in Ireland examining judges’ interactions with social workers in juvenile court abuse cases found that some interactions were negative and included the judges’ critical review of the quality of the social workers’ input (Lens et al., 2016). In a 2018 study of family social workers in England, most participants stated that working with the courts creates feelings of tension and anxiety (Reeve et al.,). In addition, social workers have asserted that they know very little about the legal system and expressed concern that when the law enters their field of activity, they will be forced to compromise on the values of social work (Brayne et al., 2001).

However, there are factors that influence individual social worker’s attitudes toward the law and the justice system. For example, Karpel-Hans et al. (2008) reported that the more social workers appeared in court, the more positive their attitude toward the law became. In this study, social workers whose place of work had a legal advisor tended to have a more positive opinion of, knowledge about and familiarity with the law.

The legal framework for the duty of confidentiality in Israel

Confidentiality is a cornerstone of the social worker-client relationship and the foundation of trust between them. Clients assume that the social worker is bound to secrecy at every stage of the service they receive; therefore, they feel safe to reveal their intimate secrets (Karatekin & Zengin, 2017). The Israel Social Workers Code of Ethics (2018) places great importance on maintaining confidentiality: “Social workers will honor the right of their clients to privacy and will maintain confidentiality of the information receivedin the course of professional treatment, including after the professional relationship with clientshas ended and even after their client’s death” (Social Workers Code of Ethics, Section 2, p. 14). In addition, the code addresses the limited professional circumstances under which a social worker may violate confidentiality: “Social workers will only disclose information about their clients to others when the law or professional circumstances so require, and only to the extent required to achieve the goal for which the exposure is made” (Social Workers Code of Ethics, Section 1(b), p. 14).

The Social Workers Act (1996) (SWA) is the primary law in Israel defining the limits of professional confidentiality in social work. SWA Section 8 (a) Professional Confidentiality defines the general legal obligation to maintain the confidentiality of all information provided by the client and several subsections delineate the exceptions to that obligation. Section 8 (a) set forth below details the circumstances in which this confidentiality may be violated:

Information about a person who came to a social worker as part of his profession must be kept secret and may not be disclosed except in one of the following occurrences:

(1) the person to whom the information pertains has agreed in writing to its disclosure after the meaning of that consent has been explained to him, unless the social worker is convinced that the disclosure may harm that person or his family member;

(2) the disclosure is of information provided to a social worker not by the person to whom the information pertains, provided that the social worker is convinced that the information is necessary for the care of that person or his family member;

(3) the disclosure is of information provided to a social worker by the person to whom the information pertains, provided that the social worker is convinced that the information is necessary for the care of that person’s minor children;

(4) the disclosure is necessary to prevent harm to the person to whom the information pertains or to another person;

(5) there is a legal obligation or authority to disclose such information or to collect such information;

(6) the disclosure is required by the Disciplinary Committee within the meaning of this Act;

(7) the disclosure is necessary for the purpose of professional supervision of the work of social workers or for their guidance, provided that the information is given only to officials and in accordance with rules established by the Minister after consultation with the Council;

(8) a court, before which the need arose for the disclosure of the information, has permitted the disclosure of the information, if it is found that there are special circumstances that justify it.

In this article, I discuss only the exceptions that are relevant to the situation in which“the disclosure is of information provided to the social worker by the person to whom the information pertains, and on condition that the social worker is convinced that the information is required for the care of that person’s minor children [emphasis added].” Section 8 permits disclosure when the law obligates or permits the disclosure or collection of the information. Section 8 (a) (8) permits disclosure when a court authorizes the disclosure of information if convinced of the existence of special circumstances justifying disclosure.

Beyond exceptions permitting disclosure, in some instances social workers have an actual duty to report, as outlined in the Platt (1992) (PCA). Until the late 1980s, Israeli society tended to ignore the social problem of domestic abuse. The turning point in the amendment to the law came from an abuse case that resulted in the death of a three-year-old girl and aroused much public interest. In October 1988, the girl was rushed to a hospital in an unconscious state. During her hospitalization, it became clear that the girl had been subjected to continuous, severe, shocking and cruel abuse at home by her uncle, abuse that had inflicted serious bodily injuries as well as burns and sexual assault. The girl died in February 1989, after five months of hospitalization during which she never regained consciousness. Apparently, everyone in the child’s immediate surroundings – her parents, neighbors, friends, and probably her pre-school teachers as well – knew about the horrific abuse but did not intervene or report it. In retrospect, family members attempted to justify their lack of response as due to their own fear of the abusive uncle and the unwillingness of relatives to interfere in the family’s internal affairs (Kadman, 2010). Within a few days, a special committee was established in the Israeli parliament. In 1989,it presented a report on the scope of the phenomenon in Israel and a recommendation to expand the reporting obligation and add section 368D to the Penal Code:

A doctor, nurse, education worker, social worker… who, as a result of acting in their professional capacity or role had a reasonable basis to think that a crime was perpetrated against a minor by the person responsible for the minor, must report this as soon as possible to a social worker appointed by law or to the police; the violator of this provision faces six months imprisonment.

The amendment sought to find the right legislative balance between maintaining client confidentiality and protecting the client’s children from parental harm (C. Adams & Lee‐jones, 2017; Roche, 2008). An impact of the law was a change in the reporting obligation, particularly for social workers, according to the report in 2017 of facts and data on child abuse. The report indicated that there were 345,000 children at risk in Israel. Seventy percent of the reports made under the Social Workers for Youth Act were about at-risk children harmed by a family member who was legally responsible for the child. In addition, data from the Ministry of Welfare showed that in 2016, social workers reported 8922 cases of suspected abuse and neglect that violated the Youth Law to the Israel police. (Haruv Institute, 2019).

In addition to the duty to report, social workers have obligations under Section 2 of Israel’s Basic J. Adams and Sheard (2017): “There shall be no violation of the life, body, or dignity of any person as such.” Section 8 of the same law provides general guidelines for when a limited violation is permissible: “There shall be no violation of rights under this Basic Law except by a law be fitting the values of the State of Israel, enacted for a proper purpose, and to an extent no greater than is required. “In other words, when a violation of rights is permitted by law, the alternative resulting in the least possible violation of a person’s privacy must be selected.

However, the SWA and Basic Law of Human Dignity and Liberty (1992)provide only general guidelines for social workers when making decisions about issues of confidentiality. The SWA does not define the kind of information revealed that would permit the social worker to violateclient confidentiality in order to protect the client’s minor children in cases that fall short of requiring a duty to disclose pursuant to the law. It also does not define the meaning of Section 8 (3) “ … reasonable basis for harming his client’s minor children.” In addition, the social worker must protect the client’s right to privacy pursuant to the Basic Law on Human Dignity and Liberty, which protects the clients’ fundamental right to their good name.

The criteria for judging whether a social worker has violated the duty of confidentiality or, conversely, is obligated or permitted to violate the duty of confidentiality to the client must be clear. Examining the courts’ interpretations of the relevant laws through their decisions in legal proceedings involving social workers’ duty of confidentiality can explain these criteria further (Strauss, 1987).

The research method

To explore the question of the court’s view regarding a social worker’s dual obligation to maintain client confidentiality and to protect the safety of minors, I used a case study (Platt, 1992; Yin, 2012). This approach is appropriate when investigating a phenomenon or seeking an explanation for it. It can also be used as a test for a broader general argument (Patton, 2002). The limitation of a case study is that its results refer to the case itself and cannot necessarily be generalized to other cases. However, its results can help us understand a phenomenon (Stake, 2000). Case studies can involve a single case or be made up of a small number of cases (Gerring, 2004).

In recent years there has been an understanding among researchers from the legal world that qualitative research methods can help them understand how legal processes are implemented. Thus, qualitative and socio-legal qualitative research methods have been developed (Webley, 2016). One of the methods is the investigation of a legal decision using a case study. Given that laws are not always clear, case studies allow researchers to examine how professionals, for example, interpret the laws that apply to them and how the courts interpret those laws through their decisions (Miller, 2018; Webley, 2016).

I located the relevant Israeli legal decisions using two online databases, (Nevo, n.d.), based on two criteria: the first, references to Section 8 of the Social Workers Act; the second, cases in which social workers violated the duty of confidentiality in order to protect a minor from harm. I found 43 decisions that met these criteria prior to the end of 2019. After removing duplicates and decisions that included the concepts defined in the search but in practice did not meet the criteria relevant to this study, 12 decisions remained.

Two decisions dealt with the duty of confidentiality of a social worker in the case of the adoption a minor. Two rulings concerned a defamation lawsuit against the content of a report filed by a social worker. Three decisions dealt with the duty of confidentiality of a social worker to prisoners in prison. One ruling dealt with a disciplinary lawsuit against a social worker who had revealed the hospital records of patients to an insurance company. One ruling concerned a plaintiff who had a juvenile record. The plaintiff wanted to review the juvenile probation officer’s briefs, which were filed in the criminal proceedings in which the plaintiff was involved. According to the petitioner, who was now an adult, he needed the information for a book he was writing about his life. The suit dealt with the refusal of the social worker to share all of the documents.

Out of 12 decisions, only 2 decisions dealt with the duty of confidentiality and protection of a minor: Luzon v. Greenfeld Magistrates’ Court and Luzon v. Greenfeld appeal to the District Court.

The case study: Luzon v. Greenfeld

Factual background and the parties’ arguments

The plaintiff and his wife were in the midst of a custody dispute over their four-year-old son in Israel’s Family Court. The plaintiff suffered from depression and took prescribed medication. When his wife complained that the medication was harming the couple’s relationship, the plaintiff agreed to meet with a social worker specializing in the treatment of addiction, including drug rehabilitation. The plaintiff was aware that the social worker was a friend of his father-in-law. The plaintiff met for one treatment session with the social worker, the defendant in the case.

The plaintiff claimed that the social worker damaged his good name by sending a letter to his father-in-law containing confidential details of the plaintiff’s drug use. The social worker’s letter states:

To whom it may concern

24.12.2014

Mr. Social Worker MSW

Addiction therapist and counselor

On 22-9-14, the client came to me for help and treatment for cocaine use. At the end of the first session, we decided to continue treatment and made another appointment. I would like to point out that the client stopped showing up for meetings and told me over the phone about having a family event and a lot of work even though we had set the meeting for the late evening.

Signed

Social Worker

The plaintiff’s wife presented the letter to the Family Court as evidence of the plaintiff’s parental in capacity. The plaintiff alleged that he was further harmed when he was fired from his workplace after the letter was also sent to his employer. The plaintiff filed a monetary claim seeking compensation for the aggravation he suffered as a result of the publication of the letter. Specifically, the plaintiff filed suit against the social worker in the Magistrates’ Court with a claim for compensation of NIS 250,000 for violating his right to confidentiality under the SWA and right to human dignity under the Basic Law of Human Dignity and Freedom (1992).

The plaintiff claimed that his meeting with the social worker lasted about 45 minutes. The plaintiff talked primarily about his acquaintance with his father-in-law and their previous joint stay in a rehabilitation center. The plaintiff alleged that he did not speak to the social worker about past or current drug problems. The plaintiff also claimed that the social worker and the plaintiff had a therapist-client relationship. Therefore, the social worker had a duty of confidentiality requiring that he request the plaintiff’s approval before forwarding the letter to his father-in-law (who gave it to the plaintiff’s employer, among others).

The social worker claimed that he acted pursuant to the exception provided for in Section 8 (a) (3) of the SWA, which permits a breach of the duty of confidentiality when “the social worker is convinced that the information is required for the care of that person’s minor children.“According to the social worker, he violated the duty of confidentiality in order to protect his client’s son from harm resulting from his client’s drug use. The social worker also claimed that his client’s father-in-law contacted the social worker, stating that his daughter was in the middle of divorce proceedings with the plaintiff, that the plaintiff was acting violently toward his daughter and that he was worried about the couple’s son. The social worker was convinced by the father-in-law that his client posed a threat. The social worker maintained that he was obligated as a social worker to provide the information outlined pursuant to SWA Sections 8 (3) and (5) dictating that a social worker is permitted to violate the duty of confidentiality in order to protect a client’s child.

Magistrate and district courts’ decisions

The Magistrates’ Court first made a finding of fact after examining the parties’conflicting versions of the content of their meeting. Contrary to the testimony of the social worker, the plaintiff claimed he did not tell the social worker that he was using drugs. The court accepted the social worker’s version.

The court then considered whether the social worker’s violation of confidentiality met the conditions enumerated in SWA Sections 8 (a) (3) and (5). The court noted that the SWA and the Social Worker Code of Ethics do not provide guidance as to what situations justify the disclosure of information. Therefore, each situation must be examined on a case-by-case basis. The court examined whether the disclosure was permissible and/or there was a duty to disclose to protect the client’s child. It ruled in the affirmative.

The court turned its attention next to the question of whether the method of disclosure employed, sending the letter to the client’s father-in-law, was lawful.The social worker, himself, admitted that only the Family Court had the right to the information. To assist in its ruling, the court turned to the Basic Law of Human Dignity and Freedom, which stated that lawful violations of a person’s privacy must be limited to the extent required. The court examined whether the letter constituted a violation of the plaintiff’s privacy. The court ruled that the social worker would have met the conditions laid down in Section 8 (a) (3) of the SWA allowing him to violate the duty of client confidentiality “ … for the care of that person’s minor children…” if he had addressed the letter directly to the social welfare agencies or to the Family Court, pursuant to Section 8 (a) (8) of the SWA.

In its ruling, the court explicitly indicated that sending a letter stating that the plaintiff contacted the social worker “for assistance and treatment of cocaine-type drugs” and sending the letter to any person other than the appropriate representative of the afore mentioned social welfare agencies or Family Court constitutes an injury beyond the required disclosure. It constitutes a violation of the plaintiff’s confidentiality and a breach of his dignity and privacy. The court also specified that the social worker should have reduced the scope of recipients to avoid revealing the contents of the letter to the plaintiff’s father-in-law. A social worker aware of his duty of client confidentiality and the sensitivity of disclosing information to a third party who is not a competent authority to deal with the minor’s case who sends a letter addressed “To whom it may concern,” implying permission to distribute the letter broadly, has engaged in a serious breach of his duty of confidentiality.

The court also noted that if the defendant (the social worker) believed that his client had committed an offense against the minor, he should have reported that information pursuant to his duty to report under the Penal Code. The social worker chose not to notify the social worker appointed by law or the police, the competent authorities according to the Penal Code (1977). Injury to the minor does not justify unrestricted publication of the information held by the social worker.

The Magistrates’ Court accepted the plaintiff’s claim and awarded him NIS 30,000 in compensation for the defendant’s violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and (5) of the Social Workers Act and the violation of his privacy. The Magistrates’ Court did not accept the plaintiff’s claim that the letter caused his workplace dismissal. The plaintiff appealed this latter ruling and the amount of compensation to the District Court.

In its rulingon the appeal, the District Court emphasized the aggravation caused to the appellant as a result of the letter being sent to his father-in-law, his employer, and other parties:

A man who, in a time of need, turned to a social worker, revealed his personal and intimate problems to him, and confided in him, discovered suddenly that that person wrote down the contents of the conversation (without consulting the appellant about the contents of the letter or what he planned to do with the letter), and as a result of the actions of the social worker following the conversation, the contents were circulated publicly and sent to places having significant and decisive impact on his life – to the court at that time deliberating on his divorce case and his and his wife’s child custody case; his workplace (where he had an honorable position from which he was making a good living), his army unit (where he served for many years in dedication) …

(p. 4).

In light of the gravity of the act, the court accepted the plaintiff’s appeal and awarded him compensation in the amount of NIS 42,000.

Conclusions and suggestions for policy changes

The Magistrate and District Courts viewed the social worker’s conduct as a serious breach of his duty to maintain client confidentiality. Moreover, both courts emphasized the importance of the social worker acting proportionately when permitted or obligated to violate the duty of client confidentiality, even to protect a minor from harm. From the social worker’s pointofview, the social worker gave the letter to his client’s father-in-law in order to protect the client’s child from the client.

From the courts’ perspective, the social worker could have taken steps pursuant to the conditions required for breach of confidentiality in accordance with the SWA and the Basic Law of Human Dignity and Liberty (1992) without compromising the values of his profession. Given the apparent clarity of the course of action, the question arises as to why the social worker acted contrary to the law, and why he did not consider the legal aspects of his breach of confidentiality. A number of reasons can be suggested. The first is the social worker’s lack of knowledge in two areas: the area of the relevant legislation regarding the Social Workers Act and the reporting obligation in the Penal Code; and a misinterpretation of the reporting obligation in light of a lack of knowledge of the relevant case law. The second reason is that the social worker’s fear of law suits may have led him to disproportionate reporting. The third reason is that the bonds of friendship between the social worker and the client’s father-in-law led to the breach of the therapeutic boundaries. An examination of the findings of important studies of social workers in Israel and other countries related to their knowledge of the law and perceptions of the legal system provides insights into these possibilities.

Legislation and case law

Social workers in Israel are not well-versed in the law related to their field (Karpel-xHans et al., 2008). Moreover, Israeli social workers do not necessarily consider the legal aspects of ethical dilemmas when making their decisions (Linzer et al., 2003). Hence, social workers need more formal training in both legislation and case law relevant to the potential breach of client confidentiality.

Specifically, social workers in Israel should be familiar with the relevant sections on client confidentiality in the SWA and with additional laws pertaining to professional secrecy. Similarly, social workers elsewhere should be taught the relevant laws in their home countries. For example, a social worker specializing in couples’ counseling runs the risk of violating the privacy rights of spouses receiving treatment when there is a dispute between them in Family Court. If during treatment one of the spouses asks the social worker to provide them with documents from the couple’s joint therapeutic file, the social worker should be aware that handing over the documents without the other spouse’s consent can violate laws such the Basic Law of Human Dignity and Liberty in Israel. Social workers in many countries have a duty to safeguard the rights of the client enshrined in constitutional laws, including the right to privacy and to one’s good name.

Given that the SWA leaves the social worker with broad professional discretion when it comes to decision-making with regard to maintaining confidentiality, social workers must stay current with court rulings on the duty of confidentiality in social work as well as with other legal aspects when resolving a dilemma involving confidentiality. As exemplified by the court decisions presented, when social workers wish to violate their duty of confidentiality and disclose information about their clients, they must consider alternatives to minimize harm to their clients’ privacy and good name. Social workers must also be aware of the limited scope of reporting allowed by law and of the competent authorities to whom they are allowed to report as defined in the law.

Social workers’ perceptions of the legal system

A second reason for the social worker’s unlawful breach of confidentiality may be related to social workers’ negative perceptions of the legal system and the courts (Brayne et al., 2001; Wormer, 1992). Studies have shown that some social workers believe that the law forces them to compromise on the values of their profession and see the law as irrelevant to their work (Fogelson, 1970). In addition, social workers find it difficult to function regularly within the legal system as a result of the criticism directed at them by the judges before whom they appear (Lens et al., 2016; Reeve et al.,).

Deepening the social workers’ understanding of the legal system and the courts can reduce their concerns about acquiring the legal knowledge they need in their field with regard to the duty of confidentiality and help social workers establish decision-making processesfor maintaining confidentiality that consider the legal dimensions. Social workers find the obligation to maintain confidentiality very stressful (Løvseth, 2011), and law suits and the fear of them only increase that stress. Therefore, acquiring legal knowledge, particularly in the area of confidentiality in family therapy, will also helpimprovesocial workers’ mental health. I also recommend trying to make court practices more family and social worker friendly. For example, social workers from the Ministry of Labor, Welfare and Social Services could help train Family Court judges and attorneys to understand the social workers’ perspectives on the duty to report, particularly with regard to the safety of minors.

A practical recommendation for educators and policy makers at the national level, in ministries of social affairs and social services, is to develop curricula about legal issues for both newly trained and veteran social workers specializing in the field of child and family treatment (J. Adams & Sheard, 2017; Millstein, 2000; Reamer, 2005).

Although there is no such program in Israel, the Ministry of Labor, Welfare and Social Services should develop a course for all social workers in Israel that can be conducted online to familiarize them with their legal requirements regarding their duty to report and maintain confidentiality. Such a course would also provide them with practical tools for dealing with dilemmas regarding this issue. The first part of the course should focus on basic knowledge about the reporting obligation (Social Workers Law, Penal Code, Director General Circulars of the Ministry, Social Work Regulations). The second part of the course should involve practical techniques such as role playing to help social workers determine how to behave in such situations. Finally, including lawyers in the course would give social workers the opportunity to discuss the issues involved and compare their perspectives on them.

The supplementary training can help social workers overcome their fear of the legal system and the courts (Bayer, 2005). It will also improve their understanding of legislation and case law on the duty of confidentiality in social work generally, and with regard to maintaining confidentiality in cases involving disclosure to prevent harm to a minor in particular. Specifically, in their training social workers should have a basic working knowledge about the laws regarding their reporting obligations and role play how to resolve dilemmas they may confront in their work.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.