Waiting period for dating your therapist who are the girls next door dating
§§ 150B-1 to -52 (1995), is to determine whether the trial court committed any errors of law. Petitioner misconstrues the objectives of both the current code of ethical principles and the code in effect at the time of his misconduct. It is not intended, as petitioner appears to argue, to provide a ceiling for ethical conduct, above which any behavior short of illegal activity is acceptable. The code unequivocally states “sexual intimacies with clients are unethical.” Id.
The purpose of the Ethical Principles of Psychologists is to “protect the public from ․ unprofessional conduct by persons licensed to practice psychology.” N. Contrary to petitioner's permissive approach to dating former clients, the 1992 Ethical Code strongly discourages involvement between therapist and patient, even after the expiration of a two year waiting period. It never suggests that dual relationships of a sexual or social nature are permissible after therapy is terminated.See Ethical Code 1981, Principle 2(f) at 634 (When psychologists become aware that their personal problems may interfere with their professional effectiveness, “ they seek competent professional assistance.”). Petitioner next takes issue with the Board's finding that petitioner “is not yet fully aware of the consequences of dual relationships and expressed confused thinking regarding when or if dual relationships were justified or ethical.” There is sufficient evidence in the record to support this finding. The arbitrary and capricious standard is a difficult one to meet. Finally, petitioner contends that the disciplinary action imposed by the Board was arbitrary and capricious in violation of G. Administrative agency decisions may be reversed as arbitrary or capricious if they are patently in bad faith or whimsical in the sense that they indicate a lack of fair and careful consideration or fail to indicate any course of reasoning and the exercise of judgment․Lewis v. Psychologists make every effort to avoid dual relationships that could impair their professional judgment or increase the risk of exploitation. Petitioner asserts that he did not violate the above provision because it did not explicitly prohibit romantic involvement with former clients. They avoid exploiting the trust and dependency of such persons. Psychologist, 633, 636 (June 1981) [hereinafter Ethical Code 1981].
Our contemporary attitude toward such encounters is to label them, categorically, as "unprofessional conduct." Given that there is no surveillance of this behavior, physician-patient sex comes to the attention of regulatory agencies only when the patient complains. The nominal standard establishes a rule of "no overlap": a physician-patient relationship must not coexist with a romantic-sexual relationship.