Barnum R, Silverberg J, Nied D
Boston Juvenile Court Clinic, MA 02108.
Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 1987;15(3):283-300.
The rules covering disclosure of information generated by court-ordered clinical evaluations in Massachusetts require that patients be warned that the patient-psychotherapist privilege does not apply to the evaluation interview. The nature of the warning required ("the Lamb warning") is not perfectly clear and is especially uncertain when those being warned are children and families. Comparing the Lamb warning to the Miranda warning offers some insight but is not conclusive. To reach conclusions regarding the type and degree of procedural protections for children required by the Lamb warning, it is necessary to analyze the stakes, interests, and capacities involved for children in juvenile court. This analysis suggests that in most situations a relatively informal procedure is sufficient to provide the required warning. However, there are some exceptional circumstances in which more formal and thorough warnings should be required. These include juvenile transfer hearings and some situations involving child abuse and neglect.
马萨诸塞州关于法院命令的临床评估所产生信息披露的规定要求，患者应被警告患者与心理治疗师之间的特权不适用于评估面谈。所需警告（“兰姆警告”）的性质并不十分明确，当被警告者是儿童和家庭时尤其不确定。将兰姆警告与米兰达警告进行比较能提供一些见解，但并不具有决定性。为了得出关于兰姆警告要求为儿童提供的程序保护的类型和程度的结论，有必要分析少年法庭中儿童所涉及的利害关系、利益和能力。这种分析表明，在大多数情况下，相对非正式的程序足以提供所需的警告。然而，在一些特殊情况下，应要求更正式和全面的警告。这些情况包括少年移送听证会以及一些涉及虐待和忽视儿童的情况。
