BA285 Unit 2 Ethical Decision-Making Paper Example

A Father Wants a Letter for Court: A BA285 Unit 2 Ethical Decision-Making Paper

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

BA285: Ethics in Behavior Analysis

Unit 2 Ethical Decision-Making Paper

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The writer, her supervisor and the family are composite; the codes and text cited are real.

The Situation

My caseload is a handful of families I visit at home in south central Kentucky. One of my clients is Jace, a six-year-old with autism who splits his week between his father's home, where I see him, and his mother's home in the next county. His parents divorced last year and are in a custody dispute.

At the end of a session in March, Jace's father, Mr. Hale, asked me for a favor. He had noticed that Jace's tantrums were worse on Mondays, after weekends with his mother, and he believed our data would prove it. He asked me to write a short letter for his lawyer saying that Jace's behavior was worse after time at his mother's house. He said I was the only professional who saw Jace every week and that the letter would help Jace.

I told him I would need to talk with my supervisor before answering. This paper describes how I worked through the decision.

Step One: Define the Issue

Bailey and Burch (2022) describe ethical decision-making as a sequence that begins by stating the problem clearly. The problem here was not simply whether to write a letter. It was whether a technician, whose role is to implement a treatment plan under supervision, should provide information or opinions about a family to a court, at the request of one parent, in a dispute between both parents who share legal responsibility for the client.

Step Two: Identify Who Is Affected

Jace was the person most affected. A court decision about where he lives would shape his life more than any treatment goal. Mr. Hale wanted to help his son and would be disappointed by a refusal. Jace's mother, who also consented to services and who has the same right to fair treatment, would be affected by a letter she did not know about. My supervisor and our agency were affected because anything I wrote would be read as coming from the agency. My own relationship with the family would be affected whatever I decided.

Step Three: Find the Relevant Standards

The RBT ethics code requires technicians to work within their role, to practice under the direction of their supervisor and to protect clients' confidential information (Behavior Analyst Certification Board, 2021). Interpreting data, drawing conclusions about causes and communicating findings to outside parties are tasks for the supervising behavior analyst, not the technician.

The behavior analyst ethics code adds standards on avoiding multiple relationships that could impair objectivity, on treating all stakeholders fairly and on providing only accurate, data-based statements (Behavior Analyst Certification Board, 2020). A letter supporting one parent in a custody dispute would place the agency in a second role, as a witness for one side, while it also serves both parents. It could also misrepresent the data, which show that Jace's tantrums rise on Mondays but say nothing about why.

The data showed when Jace's tantrums happened; they could not show that his mother's home caused them, and a letter would have implied that they did.

Step Four: Consider the Options

I considered four options. First, write the letter as asked. This would please Mr. Hale but exceed my role, take sides between parents with equal rights and overstate the data. Second, refuse without explanation. This would protect my role but damage trust and leave Mr. Hale without guidance. Third, share the raw data with Mr. Hale so his lawyer could use it. This would still disclose clinical information for a legal purpose without the mother's knowledge or proper process. Fourth, decline respectfully, explain why, and tell him how the court could request records or testimony through proper legal channels, which would involve the supervising behavior analyst and both parents.

Step Five: Consult

I called my supervisor that evening. She agreed with the fourth option and added two points I had missed. First, Monday increases are common in children who move between homes, regardless of the quality of either home, because transitions themselves are hard. Second, the agency has a policy for subpoenas and court requests, handled by the clinical director with legal counsel, and technicians should never provide statements directly. She also suggested that, instead of a letter, the team could offer both parents a meeting about making transitions easier for Jace.

Step Six: Act and Evaluate

At the next session, I told Mr. Hale that I could not write the letter because it is outside my role and because the agency serves both of Jace's parents. I explained that if the court wanted information, his lawyer could request records through the agency's legal process, and that our supervisor would like to meet with both parents about helping Jace with Monday transitions. He was frustrated but said he understood. Two weeks later, both parents attended a meeting where the supervisor proposed a transition routine, a familiar bedtime book that traveled with Jace and a visual schedule for Sundays and Mondays. Monday tantrums decreased over the following month.

What the Process Taught Me

Three lessons from this decision will stay with me. The first is that a request can be both sincere and inappropriate. Mr. Hale was not trying to misuse me; he loves his son and believed the data were on his side. Recognizing his good intentions made it easier to say no kindly. The second is that the middle option was the trickiest one to judge: sharing the data without a letter, because it felt like a compromise. Working through the stakeholders showed that it carried most of the same risks as the letter. The third is that consultation is not a sign of weakness in a technician. My supervisor knew things about transitions, agency policy and courts that I did not, and her knowledge produced a better outcome than any option I had listed on my own.

Conclusion

A structured decision process turned a request that sounded like advocacy into a clear ethical answer. Defining the issue revealed a question of role and fairness, identifying stakeholders brought in Jace's mother, the codes set the limits of a technician's role, the options exposed a tempting middle path, and consultation added knowledge about transitions and agency policy. The result protected Jace, treated both parents fairly and still answered the concern that started it.

References

Bailey, J. S., & Burch, M. R. (2022). Ethics for behavior analysts (4th ed.). Routledge.

Behavior Analyst Certification Board. (2020). Ethics code for behavior analysts. Author.

Behavior Analyst Certification Board. (2021). RBT ethics code (2.0). Author.