Under Ewing vs Goldstein, from whom can information related to Tarasoff come?

The rationale behind selecting the option concerning credible third parties or family members as the source from whom information related to Tarasoff can come is rooted in the legal precedents established in Ewing vs. Goldstein. This case highlights the importance of considering multiple perspectives when assessing potential risks to third parties, particularly when it involves a client's expressed intentions to harm someone else.

Therapists are expected to evaluate various sources of information to assess the risk of harm effectively. This can include insights from credible third parties, such as family members or friends, who may provide relevant context or details about the client's behavior or mental state. These individuals often have direct observations or interactions with the client that can inform the therapist's understanding of any potential danger.

In contrast, information obtained only from the client might not always provide a complete picture due to factors like denial, fear, or manipulation. Similarly, relying solely on law enforcement or public records would not encompass the nuanced perspectives that family members or close associates might offer regarding the client’s state of mind or intentions. This comprehensive approach aligns with the ethical obligations of therapists to ensure the safety of individuals when there is a clear risk of harm, as established by the Tarasoff duty to warn and protect.