Nadia's Text: Suicide Risk Screening With No District Protocol
Nadia is a 15-year-old ninth grader who has missed 11 of the last 30 school days. Her teachers report she sleeps in class, has stopped turning in work, and eats lunch alone. Last week a friend showed the school psychologist a screenshot of a text Nadia sent at 11:40 p.m. saying, “I don't want to be here anymore. I have a plan and I know how.” The friend made her promise not to tell. Nadia's parents are divorced; her mother is listed as the custodial contact and her father has weekend visitation. Nadia has no IEP, no prior mental health records at school, and has never been seen by the school psychologist. The principal asks the psychologist to “call her mother and send her home.” It is 1:15 p.m. on a Thursday; the school has a threat-assessment team but no written suicide-risk protocol.
1. What should the psychologist do in the next 60 minutes?
Read the worked answer
Do not send her home alone, and do not let the call to mother be the entire response. Sending a student with a specific plan home to an empty house is one of the most common and most dangerous errors in school crisis handling.
Sequence:
- Locate Nadia and keep her supervised by a calm, familiar adult in a private but visible space. Do not leave her alone, and do not let her leave campus.
- Ask directly. Use a structured screen (e.g., the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale or the ASQ) covering ideation, plan, intent, means, prior attempts, and protective factors. Asking does not increase risk. “I have a plan and I know how” is a red-flag statement that must be followed up, not managed by reassurance.
- Assess access to means and whether the plan is imminent; note intoxication, agitation, hopelessness, recent loss, and isolation. The 11 absences and sleeping in class are part of the risk picture.
- Notify the custodial parent/guardian immediately, using the emergency contacts on file and a script that is direct and non-blaming. Follow district policy for the non-custodial parent's rights, but do not delay safety notification to sort out custody.
- Arrange emergency evaluation - mobile crisis team, emergency department, or 911 if she cannot be safely transported. The psychologist does not discharge her to a bus or to her own car.
- Do not use a no-suicide contract. They have no evidence base and can reduce adult vigilance.
- Document times, statements verbatim, contacts made, and disposition.
Also break confidentiality with the friend only to the extent needed - the friend's identity should not be volunteered to Nadia or the parent unless required.
2. What should the psychologist say to the friend, and what are the confidentiality obligations?
Read the worked answer
The friend did the right thing and should be told so explicitly, because adolescents often fear betrayal and social fallout more than adult consequences. Say: “You were a good friend. Telling me was the right call. I'm not going to tell Nadia it was you unless I have to, and I'm going to get her help today.”
Then be honest about limits without disclosing Nadia's clinical details: the psychologist cannot promise total secrecy, cannot confirm what Nadia did or did not say, and cannot share the outcome of the screening. The friend should be told what will happen next at a general level (an adult will stay with Nadia, her mother is being contacted) and what to do if she sees or hears something alarming again - come immediately to a named adult, do not wait, do not keep the promise.
Confidentiality analysis: the duty to protect overrides the friend's promise and Nadia's privacy. The relevant disclosure is to the parent/guardian and to emergency services, limited to what is necessary for safety. The friend's identity should be protected where possible, but if Nadia's safety requires naming her, safety prevails and the psychologist documents why.
Also attend to the friend: she is a secondary exposure risk. Offer a brief check-in, monitor for distress or guilt, notify her parents only if warranted, and connect her to the counselor. Do not conscript her into monitoring Nadia - that shifts an adult responsibility onto a child.
3. Nadia returns to school after an emergency evaluation. What must the re-entry plan include, and what should the psychologist recommend to the principal, who wants stricter attendance consequences?
Read the worked answer
Re-entry is where schools most often lose the gains of the crisis response. The plan should be written, shared with a small circle of staff on a need-to-know basis, and reviewed within two weeks.
Elements:
- A re-entry meeting with Nadia, her mother, the counselor, and an administrator before or on the first day back; ask Nadia what she wants staff to know.
- A safety plan with warning signs, coping strategies, trusted adults, and crisis numbers, copied to home and to her outside provider with consent.
- A named adult check-in at the start and end of each day, and a low-key way to signal needing a break.
- Academic triage - a short grace period and a plan for the 11 missed days framed as make-up support, not punishment.
- Coordination with the treating provider, and a release to permit communication.
- Monitoring of attendance, mood, and sleep, with a referral back to crisis services if warning signs recur.
- Consider whether a 504 plan is warranted for the impact of a mental health condition; an IEP evaluation if the absences and symptoms suggest a need for specially designed instruction.
The principal's proposal for stricter attendance consequences should be resisted with reasoning, not confrontation: Nadia's absences are a symptom, not defiance, and punitive responses predictably increase avoidance and reduce help-seeking. Say that directly, offer the attendance-support alternative, and document the recommendation. Also flag the absence of a written suicide-risk protocol as an urgent systems gap and offer to help draft one.