According to Standard A.5.c that clearly states counsellors to avoid any nonprofessional relations with clients and at the same time allowing such relationships to take place when an utmost need is felt, the case of Teresa in this regard can be clearly said of not complying fully with the standard A.5.c as mentioned above. This being said because, right from the start, the existence of non-professional relationship, that being when the client was her best friend’s son, the need to undertake the case was not fully assessed by the counsellor in a logical way. That is the need to undertake the case was felt only when her best friend asked her to do so, disregard of the fact that did the counsellor really felt the need to undertake this case, where she too used to interact with the client on non-professional terms, and, also had a number of options to receive equal feedbacks, from her son that too was her clients best friend.
Apart from just this, even though the case was undertaken by Teresa, she herself being a counsellor should had been strong enough to realize that playing dual roles that being as a counsellor and as his mother’s best friend, should had never affected the counselling sessions. Where at times Teresa was seen of being more what concerned with not breaking the friendship, whereby ignoring the client of how eagerly he needed all the counselling sessions.
The dangers of this non-professional relationship with the client that did took place could had further resulted in knowing more of the client’s parents relations, that then could had affected the counsellors friendship if different was told by client, that before was told in yet a different way by the clients mother with the counsellor, being as a friend. If not this then it could had affected the relation of client and the counsellor too, if she would had used more of the information to protect her friendship with client’s mother, or, would had shared some part of information with client’s mother, to assess the credibility of information, that later could had affected clients trust in telling counsellor about his problems openly and leaving the clients mother feel depressed of having told all the secrets of their family.
With such complications the best recommendations for Teresa would had been to not get into the contract of counselling with her best friends son because for her friendship was more important and if she really wanted counselling to take place then she should had left her friendship way behind and treated the client as a regular patient, as to how other counsellors would had normally done.
However, to resolve this case ethically both the counsellor and client should had been consistent in playing different roles right from the start till the end. Where after the sessions were over, they both should had avoided thinking of what took place in counselling sessions and later avoided using information in an indirect way to further improvise over their personal relations that being when counsellor at times learned a lot through the client in an indirect then had more concern to safeguard her friendship.
In conclusion it can be best said that if under the case of Teresa a non-professional relationship is unavoidable then the counsellor should be clear of what he/she would lose and what he/she would gain where every time he/she would learn of something that was never shared, thus being persistent in maintaining attitude that is neutral and prefers no biasness.