A Reference to Constitutionally Protected Activity by an SVP in Treatment Not Enough to Show Retaliation
Author: Fred Cohen.
Source: Volume 19, Number 03, September/October 2017 , pp.42-42(1)
< previous article |next article > |return to table of contents
Abstract:
In Oliver v. Roquet, 858 F.3d 180 (3d Cir. 2017) Oliver claimed that psychologist Roquet of the STU unconstitutionally impeded his progress through the treatment program by referring in a progress report that Oliver was constantly writing for other people, that he is highly legalistic, and this focus may be counter-therapeutic for him. In a decision by the 3rd Circuit that should be quite useful to mental health practitioners working in correctional settings preparing a report for parole, transfer, or alteration in custody, the court ruled that a clinician may include a consideration of First Amendment activity so long as it is illustrative of diagnostically relevant material.Keywords: Oliver v. Roquet
Affiliations:
1: Editor.