Intimate Partner Violence, Firearms, and Third-Party Protection
Mr. R, 41, is referred by a prosecutor before sentencing for assaulting his former partner. He has two prior domestic-violence convictions, a current protection order, and admits keeping a handgun in his truck despite that order. He denies stalking, but the victim reports 42 calls in one week and that he appeared twice at her workplace. He scores 29/40 on the HCR-20 V3, with high historical and risk-management domains, and 27 on the PCL-R. He has steady employment, a supportive brother, and no recent drug use, though he drinks occasionally. He states, 'If she keeps pushing me, something bad will happen.' The court requests a risk assessment and management plan. You have police and victim collateral but have not interviewed the victim; she declined. The jurisdiction recognizes a Tarasoff-type duty.
1. Formulate Mr. R's violence risk using the HCR-20 V3, going beyond the scores. What individual, situational, and protective factors drive the formulation, and what is your summary judgment?
Read the worked answer
The HCR-20 total is not a probability estimate and should not be presented as one. The formulation should identify a pattern of intimate partner violence, prior convictions, stalking-type behavior, a specific threat, and firearm access despite a protection order. Historical factors establish a chronic risk; clinical factors such as denial, anger, and threats elevate current risk; risk-management factors-accessible firearm, court-ordered no contact, relationship separation-create the conditions for serious violence. The PCL-R score supports a longstanding interpersonal-affective pattern, but it does not substitute for scenario-based reasoning.
My summary judgment would be that Mr. R poses an elevated risk of serious intimate partner violence, particularly if he encounters the victim, drinks, or perceives rejection or humiliation. The most concerning scenario is a confrontation involving the firearm. Protective factors-employment, a supportive brother, no recent drug use-reduce but do not offset the firearm and stalking behavior. Because the victim was not interviewed, I would state that limitation and rely on police and collateral evidence rather than assuming her account is complete. The report should specify the nature, severity, imminence, and likely targets of risk, not just 'high risk.'
2. What are your ethical and legal obligations regarding the victim and the firearm? Analyze duty to protect and the limits of confidentiality.
Read the worked answer
At the outset I would explain that this is a court-ordered evaluation, not therapy, and that confidentiality is limited. The jurisdiction recognizes a Tarasoff-type duty, so I must consider whether there is a specific foreseeable victim and a serious threat. The statement 'something bad will happen,' the stalking allegations, the prior violence, and the accessible handgun together create a sufficiently specific concern to justify protective action. I would not disclose more than is necessary.
Options include notifying the court, warning the identified victim where the law permits or requires it, and notifying law enforcement about the firearm and protection-order violation. I would document the threat assessment, the consultation, the disclosures made, and the reasons. I would avoid acting as the victim's therapist or promising her confidentiality. I would also clarify that my duty is not to predict violence perfectly but to exercise reasonable care with the information available. If the jurisdiction requires victim warning, I would follow its standard; if it permits warning, I would weigh the seriousness of the threat and the feasibility of protecting the victim. The firearm issue should be addressed explicitly in the management plan.
3. Draft management strategies that address dynamic risk and firearm access.
Read the worked answer
The plan should be proportionate to the formulation and should focus on the highest-risk scenarios. First, firearm access must be addressed: surrender or secure removal of the handgun, compliance checks, and a clear condition that possession violates the protection order. Second, no-contact and stalking behavior should be monitored through supervision, electronic or curfew conditions where available, and prompt reporting of violations. Third, alcohol use should be monitored because it is a disinhibitor in the formulation. Fourth, Mr. R should be referred to a batterer intervention program or other structured intervention, with the caveat that such programs are not a guarantee against violence. Fifth, a safety plan should be developed with the victim through a victim advocate, including change of routines, documentation, and emergency contacts.
Dynamic risk should be reassessed when circumstances change, such as a new relationship, job loss, alcohol use, or renewed contact. Protective factors-employment and his brother-can be enlisted in monitoring. The report should distinguish immediate containment from longer-term treatment and should specify who is responsible for each action. I would avoid recommending a single intervention as sufficient; the combination of firearm restriction, supervision, substance monitoring, and victim safety planning is more defensible.