Specific Threat to an Identifiable Ex-Girlfriend
Dr. Alan Kim, a licensed psychologist in Colorado Springs, has been treating a 32-year-old man, R, for borderline personality disorder and alcohol use disorder. In a Tuesday afternoon session, R says his ex-girlfriend Sarah 'deserves to die' and that he has been 'watching her house' and has a handgun in his car. R names Sarah and gives her address: 123 Elm Street. R refuses to sign a safety plan, says he 'won't promise anything,' and leaves abruptly. Dr. Kim knows Sarah's name from prior sessions but has never contacted her. R has signed a release allowing emergency contact with his brother, but the brother does not answer. Dr. Kim is unsure whether Colorado law requires him to warn Sarah or whether he should call the police. He also worries about breaching confidentiality and about liability if he does nothing. He has no supervisor and must decide within the hour.
1. Does Colorado law impose a mandatory duty to warn or protect in this situation? Explain the statutory framework and how it applies.
Read the worked answer
Colorado does not have a statute that expressly mandates a duty to warn or protect. C.R.S. § 13-21-117 provides immunity to a mental health professional who discloses information to a potential victim or law enforcement when a client has communicated a serious threat of imminent physical violence against a specific person. The statute is permissive, not mandatory. That does not mean Dr. Kim can do nothing. The standard of care, Board expectations, and negligence principles may require reasonable protective action when a client makes a specific, credible threat with identified victim and means. The facts here-named victim, address, surveillance, handgun, refusal to safety plan-create a high-risk profile. A reasonable psychologist would act. Dr. Kim should not rely on the absence of a mandatory statute as a defense to inaction.
2. What specific actions should Dr. Kim take, and how should he document them?
Read the worked answer
Dr. Kim should act immediately and document. Options include: (1) call 911 or local police, report the threat and the handgun, and request a welfare check or emergency evaluation of R; (2) warn Sarah directly if he can do so safely, telling her to contact police; (3) contact R's brother again or leave a message; (4) consider whether R meets criteria for an emergency mental health hold for danger to others under Colorado law. HIPAA permits disclosure to prevent a serious and imminent threat to health or safety. He should document the threat verbatim, risk factors, his risk assessment, every call made (time, person, outcome), and the rationale for disclosure. He should not wait or minimize. If he warns Sarah, he should keep the content limited to the threat. He should also arrange follow-up for R and consider whether he can continue treating R. Immunity under C.R.S. § 13-21-117 supports warning Sarah or police, but good documentation is essential.