MovieChat Forums > In Treatment (2008) Discussion > Isn't adult-minor sex a mandatory report...

Isn't adult-minor sex a mandatory reportable crime?

posted 13 years ago by jalisco555
13 replies | jump to latest

It struck me when Jesse turned 17 and had reached the age of consent that he had told Paul about his prior sexual escapades with adult men and all Paul did was discuss the meaning of this with Jesse. It's my understanding that any adult-minor sex is considered child abuse (it's at least statutory rape) and that doctors are mandated to report such to the authorities. Certainly if Jesse had told Paul his father was beating him Paul would have had to report it. Isn't adult-child sex treated similarly as far as the law is concerned?

Obviously reporting this would have totally changed the narrative but, still, I'm curious.

[–] Venus-25 13 years ago

Good call, but what is the standard of information the police need? If Jesse didn't tell Paul their real names (a serious possibility) the only end result would have been disruption of Jesse's therapy.

The Fabio Principle: Puffy shirts look best on men who look even better without them.

[–] jalisco555 13 years ago

IIRC, Jesse told Paul quite a bit about them, maybe enough to be able to identify them, something about them owning a bar. Even without specific knowledge though I think he would be required to report this and have the authorities investigate to determine the names of the adults.

[–] fidelio1980 13 years ago

Did Paul report anything to the authorities about Sophie's gymnastics coach in season 1?

If he didn't report that, then I'd say it's consistent for Paul to not care much about what kind of things he's expected to report.

If he wouldn't do it in Sophie's case, I don't see why he'd do it in Jesse's case. In Jesse's case, unlike Sophie's, it wasn't entirely clear who Jesse was talking about. (Sophie only had one gymnastics coach named Cy, whereas it would probably be a lot harder to track down the guys who Jesse mentioned.) Also, it often wasn't clear if Jesse was telling the truth about his exploits outside Paul's office.

Plus, it appeared that even if Jesse was sleeping with older men, he may have been lying to them about his age, and pretending to be an adult. (I know that it would be illegal for adults to sleep with Jesse if he was under the age of consent, regardless of whether he lied about his age....but I think Paul would be much more likely to turn in someone who knowingly slept with a minor, as opposed to someone who was fooled by a minor.)

[–] HubbzZ 13 years ago

The patient has to be in some sort of harm for the therapist to break confidentiality. Jesse was having sex with older men voluntarily. And like what someone else said, what information would Paul have given authorities? If Paul had told the cops and then the cops came to Jesse, he would have just denied ever having said it and left treatment, which would be bad for him. Paul, being an experienced therapist recognized all this and didn't say anything. I mean look at what it took for him to report Sunil, you think hes gonna do that cause his eccentric 17 year old patient is saying he had sex with guys? Its all about whats best for the patient.

[–] holdek01 12 years ago

There's no such legal thing as "voluntary" minor-adult sex.

[–] ginger-51 9 years ago

The patient has to be in some sort of harm for the therapist to break confidentiality.

actually, this is not true. Sex between an adult and a minor is by definition harmful to the minor. Even if they think they want it, minors haven't fully developed mentally, emotionally, and cognitively, and they are unable to anticipate and understand all the risks and possibilities involved. Because of this, it's up to the adult to say NO even if the minor seems to really want it. Paul SHOULD have reported Sophie's sexual relationship with Cy. I think he opted not to so he wouldn't damage his therapeutic relationship with her. But I think this is evidence of the pattern Paul has shown in his work in the past--remember the letter that he talked about Gina writing years ago, that said that his performance as a therapist was "seriously compromised" because he was always seeking his patients' approval rather than doing what is best for them?

[–] jmbwithcats 13 years ago

What about Sophie and her coach in season 1?

http://www.imdb.com/user/ur2533227/ratings
www.kittysafe.net

[–] bruce-129 12 years ago

I think the therapist is legally bound to report a crime, or if the patient threatens or seems to pose a danger to himself or someone else.

I think that is a good enough question that the writers should have explained the law or the response in the show.

I think it is was happening against Jesse's will Paul would be bound to say something, but since it is not, I expect he is bound not to by doctor-patient confidentiality.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mathmaniac 9 years ago

Read the responses above about the 'will' of the minor. It is not a question of voluntary or involuntary. People who seduce boys or girls are not engaging in a relationship that includes notions of 'voluntary' or 'involuntary.'

I think the issue here involves time that the crime was committed. It was a crime. It is a crime to engage in sex with a minor.

If Jesse said that this was happening, Paul would have no hesitation about reporting this crime. Even as you see Paul's problems with indecision in some cases, this would not be a case of indecision for him. No way, no how.

But Jesse said that this is what happened. Not what is happening. There's where the issue of needing to report a crime is not exactly clear to me because I don't know how the code of ethics in therapy works for that.

[–] SheHateMe (37) 6 years ago

There is a duty to report. I'm saying this being in California, but I sincerely don't believe laws could be that different on the east coast.
I disagree with the idea that the show should have explained the legal and ethical requirements of reporting statutory rape, because it can be researched if one isn't sure. Paul is effective at times, but is very often an unethical therapist. As you watch, you have to question his moves, and decide for yourself when he is making a mistake and when he is being helpful.

Paul should have called CPS (or whatever they're called in his neck of the woods) with both minors who reported sex with adults.
There's no reason to believe the claims are false.
He is only required to give the information he can provide about the adults (even if he doesn't know their names). It isn't his job to investigate. So whether the adults knew the boy was a minor or were misled wasn't for him to find out. He could also honestly say, "I'm really not sure if these claims are true or not, but I'm just reporting to be safe."
It's up to Child Welfare to decide whether to investigate or not.

With minors and the elderly, or people considered dependent adults (think gravely disabled), abuse is reported whether it's ongoing or happened in the past.

Check out the show Huff, which is about a therapist also, for an example of how not reporting past abuse can become a big deal.

[–] bigbadwolf666 (4707) 6 years ago

Thats not all they do. They dont help many times. They dont give medication. Many of them have become involved with patients both intimately and personally. I mean look at Paul how venerable can you get if your office is your house?

Also dont Doctors have patient/ doctor confidentially? So if you go around reporting things arent you both risking the patient and losing that trust?

[–] SheHateMe (37) 6 years ago

I'm not sure which post the above is a reply to, and don't have much to offer on the first paragraph, but regarding the second...

Yes, there is a risk of losing trust, but you have to do what you have to do. It would be difficult to predict if a client is now at risk following a therapist reporting harm for minors (or if the client poses an imminent threat to their self or others), but the therapist's responsibility is to report when mandated - and I haven't heard of a situation, that I can think of, where it led to harm coming to the client (although I'm sure it's happened before).

Imagine seeing a client who's on probation, and they tell you that they plan to kill their roommate in a "halfway house"... you want to have a good relationship with this client, in order to help them turn their life around. You opt not to report that the client disclosed intent to harm their roommate because it could ruin the relationship, and then they might stop coming - even if it meant they were violating a court order by not coming.

Then the client actually does seriously harm the roommate. Now you're under a microscope because people outside of the therapeutic relationship want to know if you were aware of this client posing a threat to someone.
Was it really worth not just reporting it?

A similar scenario would be a client tells you they're going to swallow a bunch of pills and won't back down from the threat. If they do follow through, the therapeutic relationship is the last thing that matters, pending their survival.

Also, the rules of breaking confidentiality are explained in the beginning of therapy, and clients sign a consent form to verify that they understand the requirements for reporting.