Discussion: View Thread

I'm not sure if there is a question in here or simply advising that some legislators are now requiring more specific VR services for particular family cases in FLA?

Speaking in general terms, when I am assigned to provide VR services I rarely am ever just retained to provide a basic evaluation.  Unless specifically outlined, I am always prepared to conduct both pre counseling VR services (such as Job Analysis or a TSA) actual counseling services (career counseling and ET recommendations) but also more involved VR services that may lead to direct job placement.  The more labor intensive the work becomes the more I would bill hours, however, I don't see any implications here that would impact the way a VE would approach such a case.  Again, outside of specific services outlined, this appears to me to be a good thing to ensure a more thorough service is received?

Thanks for the post.

Joe

Joseph Young, MS, CRC, LRC

Forensic Vocational Counselor

4209 Taylor Pond Lane

Bedford, MA 01730

Phone: 781-363-2689 / Fax: 508-445-8946

Email: Joseph.Young72@outlook.com

Web: www.JosephYoungConsulting.com

Confidentiality Notice:  The information in this email may be confidential. This email is intended to be reviewed only by the individual or organization named above. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, or copying of this email or the information contained herein and its attachments, if any, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately via return email and delete this email from your system.

Hello Jennifer,

I am not in FLA and your post may hit home with other VE's in your state or county. However, my suggestion would be to post the actual decision so a more broad audience can provide feedback.  I guess the issue here with this type of post is that other VE's or those providing VR services, would need to speculate that a job placement component actually exists based off interpretation of hearsay from a fourth party recollection of a third party potential ruling?  My original impression is that you interpreted this potential new requirement as a job placement initiative whereas it could just be a way to ensure a more thorough completion of a LMS or local job market?  If any PII is requested to be disclosed that is certainly an ethical issue but it's not clear if that is the case.  I am sure once the actual regulation you heard about is posted there would be room for more relevant feedback.

Generally speaking, if one is retained for specific services, such as providing for a forensic evaluation for a family case, then many LMS include speaking directly to employers.  Of course you know this, therefore, I cannot see a regulation that requires an evaluator to reveal PII in preparing a LMS as opposed to hypothetical limitations of the "potential employee".  If you are speaking about the client's employer then, outside of lack of consent or cooperation, it's not clear what the issue is here?  Again, unless I am misreading the post, it appears that you are taking this added requirement as a job placement , which certainly could be problematic if the context of the services for which you were retained are expanded by a state regulation? 

Best,

Joe

Joseph Young, MS, CRC, LRC

Forensic Vocational Counselor

4209 Taylor Pond Lane

Bedford, MA 01730

Phone: 781-363-2689 / Fax: 508-445-8946

Email: Joseph.Young72@outlook.com

Web: www.JosephYoungConsulting.com

Confidentiality Notice:  The information in this email may be confidential. This email is intended to be reviewed only by the individual or organization named above. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, or copying of this email or the information contained herein and its attachments, if any, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately via return email and delete this email from your system.

As a New Englander I am not familiar with nor have I researched a district ruling in Florida but it would be interesting to have the ruling provided, for the purposes of having others comment.  I assume this is why the post was made?  I would say that any rule that blanketly requires any disclosure of PII can be an ethical issue, unless the context is known.  I am unaware of any organization or evaluation tool named SCOPE so I assume we are just emphasizing the focus of this type of requirement not being within the services of which the FLA evaluator was hired to perform?  It's not completely clear as to what service was asked to be performed because doing a vocational evaluation is very comprehensive while an ECA is very specific.  While the ECA is typically the most common use for these types of situations one cannot assume why a VE was specifically retained without knowing more.  So to assume otherwise is to do a disservice to the topic.  While my experience in this area of family case law, and certainly in a southern state, is limited it does stand to reason that a ruling is often put in place to counteract some prior unjust process or a process that tends to favor one side of the litigating parties over another.  Therefore, and especially as a non-resident of FLA, I would not be quick to dismiss this type of ruling as a poor decision.  This is also why we have forums like this so others can provide feedback and discuss the implications of such rulings.  It's likely we benefit as a profession if someone presents a legal ruling that may have ethical implications but, again, we need more information and context to build from to truly dissect the topic presented.

Perhaps some Floridians that practice in this area and, more so, have encountered this issue would be able to chime in?  I am always interested in hearing others perspective that delves into the context of a topic that impacts those that hits home in their own states.

Happy Monday.

Joseph Young, MS, CRC, LRC

Forensic Vocational Counselor

4209 Taylor Pond Lane

Bedford, MA 01730

Phone: 781-363-2689 / Fax: 508-445-8946

Email: Joseph.Young72@outlook.com

Web: www.JosephYoungConsulting.com

Confidentiality Notice:  The information in this email may be confidential. This email is intended to be reviewed only by the individual or organization named above. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, or copying of this email or the information contained herein and its attachments, if any, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately via return email and delete this email from your system.