In Melendez vs Superior Court, what can a therapist use to warn a victim?

In the case of Melendez vs. Superior Court, the correct approach for a therapist when considering the duty to warn a potential victim involves the use of statements made by the client. This case established the importance of a therapist assessing threats of imminent harm based on direct disclosures from a client. When a client expresses a specific intent to harm themselves or another identifiable individual, these statements serve as a critical basis for the therapist to take appropriate action, including warning the intended victim.

Statements made by the client are privileged in most therapeutic contexts, but they can be overridden when there is a clear and present danger. The ethical guidelines and legal mandates surrounding this scenario emphasize that the therapist must prioritize the safety of individuals, using the client's own disclosures as a basis for determining the appropriate course of action.

The other options presented do not align with the legal and ethical standards established in this context. For instance, evidence from social media may not provide direct, immediate insight into a client's intent and could be considered speculative. Personal opinions about the client lack the concrete relevance needed in a duty to warn situation, while legal documents, unless they contain explicit threats made by the client, generally do not serve this purpose. Therefore, the reliance on direct statements made by the client is central to