Stakeholders urge Board to withdraw proposal for psychotherapist–client privilege exception in investigative context
Loading...
Summary
During public comment at the April 17 meeting, multiple stakeholder organizations asked the California Board of Psychology to withdraw a proposed psychotherapist–client privilege exception for board investigations. Stakeholders said the exception is unnecessary given the rarity of such occurrences and could harm clients' confidentiality.
A contested item during the meeting was the proposal (raised in the sunset packet) to create an exception to psychotherapist–client privilege for board investigations.
Tyler Windy, speaking for the California Psychological Association (CPA), told the board he and several allied organizations had submitted letters of concern included in the hand‑carry materials. Windy said the data in the agenda show the board invoked any such exception only a small number of times (the speaker said about four times over several years among thousands of complaints) and argued the proposal was therefore unnecessary.
Windy told the board CPA and allied groups requested that the board withdraw the proposal before it reached the legislature. The hand‑carry list of organizations attached to the public comment included the California Behavioral Health Association, the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists, the National Association of Social Workers California chapter, and the California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. The speaker said these organizations had submitted letters of concern for the board’s review.
Board members acknowledged receipt of the stakeholder correspondence (staff had included the letters in the hand carry). There was no board motion to change course on the privilege question at the meeting; rather, the item remained in the body of material the board adopted in the sunset report following discussion. The board did not adopt statutory language at the meeting and took no final action specifically to enact or remove a privilege‑exception provision; any statutory change would require legislative action.
Why it matters: psychotherapist–client privilege is a core confidentiality protection. Any statutory carve‑out for regulatory investigations would raise questions about client privacy and could affect willingness to seek care.
Public comment highlights: CPA and allied associations urged withdrawal of the proposed exception, citing the low frequency of relevant cases and the potential harm to clients’ confidentiality.
