In the case of Tarasoff v. Regents, what is the requirement when a client threatens violence?

In the case of Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, the legal precedent established a significant duty for mental health professionals regarding client confidentiality and the obligation to warn. The ruling indicated that when a client poses a credible threat of serious harm or violence to an identifiable victim, the mental health professional has a responsibility to take steps to prevent harm. This predominantly involves notifying the intended victim and law enforcement.

The importance of warning both the victim and police lies in the proactive measures that can be taken to prevent possible violent acts. This requirement underscores the balance between respecting a client's confidentiality and the duty to protect individuals from foreseeable harm, reflecting the ethical and legal obligations that counselors must navigate in practice.

Options such as notifying the family or contacting an attorney do not directly address the immediate threat to the intended victim, and filing a mental health hold does not necessarily guarantee immediate protection or intervention in cases of direct threats. Thus, the critical action delineated by the Tarasoff case focuses specifically on warning the potential victim and law enforcement as necessary steps to avert violence.