</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
alexandra_k said:
with respect to boundary violations... hindsight is a wonderful thing, huh. boundary crossings tend to be interpreted as boundary violations in hindsight once it is clear a boundary violation has occurred.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">
The article I read said the focus in court (in the U.S. system) is often on these smaller so-called boundary crossings (e.g. self disclosure) because insurance usually will not pay damages for a sexual violation (I can't remember why, maybe it is excluded). So when the defendant is accused of sexual relations with a client, there is an intense effort in court to show other boundary crossings (according to the traditional psychoanalytic model as standard of practice, even if the T is not a psychoanalyst), such as self-disclosure, extending the length of a session, frequently scheduling the client for the last session of the day, meeting more than once per week, having an encounter outside of the office, extended phone or email contact, etc. I wish I could dredge up this article--it was really interesting, but it was late night Internet surfing so I know I'll never find it again.