The Tarasoff Decision

Tatiana Tarasoff and Prosenjit Poddar were both students at the University of California at Berkeley when they met for the first time at a folk dancing class in 1968.  He was a 26-year old graduate student in Naval Architecture who had grown up in India as part of the untouchable Dalit caste and had little experience with dating or American customs.  She was an undergraduate and, while they dated on several occasions, did not view the relationship as a serious one.  Poddar grew infuriated with her attempts at breaking off their relationship to be with other men and became obsessed with her.  In his attempts at rekindling their relationship, he became despondent, neglected his studies, was often seen weeping, and generally began acting in a bizarre fashion.  He spoke with a friend about blowing up her dormitory room and was advised to seek counseling at the University Health Service. 

While Tatiana went to Brazil to spend the summer with an aunt, Poddar attended therapy with a staff psychologist, Dr. Lawrence Moore.  Over the course of the treatment sessions, he indicated violent fantasies towards Tatiana including getting a gun and shooting her (while he never named her in the sessions, she was easily identified).  Due to concerns about Poddar, Dr. Moore notified campus police who picked him up but later released him after he promised to stay away from Tatiana.  Dr. Moore's supervisor, Dr. Harvey Powelson, instructed staff to refrain from making further attempts at hospitalizing Poddar.  Poddar never returned to therapy and neither Tatiana nor her parents received any warning that Poddar was a potential threat. 

In the weeks prior to Tatiana's return from Brazil, Poddar moved in with her brother who had no idea that he intended any harm to his sister.  On October 27, 1969, shortly after her return, Poddar went to her house and stabbed her to death with a kitchen knife.  He then called the police and asked to be handcuffed. 

Tatiana's parents filed lawsuits against the campus police, the health service, and the Regents of the University of California for failing to provide proper warning.  The first trial was dismissed on the grounds that there was no cause for action as the therapist's primary responsibility was to the patient rather than a third party.  After the Appeals Court supported this decision, the case was taken to the California Supreme Court. 

It was in 1974 that the Tarasoff Decision was first handed down.  In this landmark decision, the Court ruled that the therapist bears a duty of reasonable care to give threatened persons such warning as to avert foreseeable danger arising from the patient's mental state.  Since this decision now meant that police and mental health professionals were obligated to warn potential victims, the case was reheard by the California Supreme Court in 1976.  The revised decision held that, while police could not be held liable, health professionals were obliged to warn potential victims because of the "special relationship between a patient and his doctor or psychotherapist".  In an often-quoted statement by Justice Matthew Tobriner presenting the majority opinion:  ""... the confidential character of patient-psychotherapist communications must yield to the extent that disclosure is essential to avert danger to others. The protective privilege ends where the public peril begins." 

Since 1976, the Tarasoff decision has been challenged in numerous legal settings and has been upheld in at least 17 U.S. states (the states of Florida, Texas, South Carolina, and Virginia have rejected the decision).  Later decisions have limited the scope of the Tarasoff Decision to only provide a duty to warn identifiable victims, i.e., potential victims who could be readily identified based on information provided by the patient.   The Tarasoff has been highly influential in non-U.S. jurisdictions as well (here in Canada, psychotherapists are encouraged to follow the Tarasoff provisions even though it has no formal weight in Canadian law). 

As for Prosenjit Poddar, he served four years out of a five-year sentence for manslaughter which was subsequently overturned on a technicality relating to improper jury instructions on diminished capacity.  To avoid a new trial, Poddar agreed to return to India.  Based on available reports, he is now happily married. 

Comments

[Alison]

That's remarkable. Virginia has given thousands of names of people who have never committed a crime to the federal database and Virginia law allows prosecutors to access defendants mental health records for trial, and yet a therapistin Virginia doesn't have a duty to warn an identifiable possible victim?

Common sense would base confidentiality restrictions on behavior and actual threats rather than on broad categories such as having been involuntarily committed at some point in time. Unfortunately, prejudice and fear-mongering rule the day in regards to people with psychiatric labels in Virginia, not common sense.

[Romeo Vitelli]

My understanding is that Virginia doesn't have Tarasoff provisions in place but I'm sure that informal warning procedures probably exist as they do in most jurisdictions without mandatory warning provisions. In Ontario where I practice, it is mandatory to break confidentiality with respect to child abuse and professional misconduct but not with respect to threats to life. Still, no Ontario therapist who breaks confidentiality to warn a victim has ever been successfully penalized for it.

[Kyle Jacobs]

Not to quibble, but Tatiana Tarasoff was not a daughter of a UC faculty member. Her father was a auto mechanic -- a violent and alcoholic one to boot.

[Romeo Vitelli]

There's nothing wrong with quibbling, it's one of my favourite pastimes. There seems to be some confusion about the father's occupation in the source materials I used so I decided to remove all references to his line of work. I knew about the allegations about Tatiana's history of abuse but I decided not to include it since it wasn't really relevant to the case. Thsnks for posting.

[Kat]

It would be much appreciated if you included the references you used.

[Romeo Vitelli]

I added several links in the text to some of the sources that I used.

[eileen wenig]

Prosenjit Poddar is abusive to his current wife in India. She is living in hell with his controlling, domineering ways. Unfortunately, there is no help available for her and she will have to live with this situation. He will probably end up killing her too.

[AWilsch]

Eileen- how do you know this? I know Vito Tarasoff (the father, here in Berkeley).

[Eileen]

I live in India and they are my neighbors. She comes to my house in tears when he is abusive to her.

[nick kaplan]

does she know he is a murderer?