Editorial: Subpoenas for advocates raise concerns

Editorial Indiana Lawyer
January 19, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Editorial

In our culture, someone accused of a crime gets a vigorous defense to make certain all of the accused person’s constitutional rights are protected. This is as it should be. Those faced with the loss of their liberty or life deserve no less than the best defense that can be put forth.

That’s when the alleged perpetrator is actually accused.

In cases of domestic violence or sexual abuse, or both, not all victims come forward, leaving many perpetrators to go on with their lives while their victims suffer in silence.

Some people carry the impact of this kind of abuse with them their entire lives, never divulging to another human being the fact that it happened.

Programs in schools that teach children what such crimes are have resulted in many kids confiding in trusted adults about what has happened to them. Those adults have in turn gone to the authorities, resulting in child molesting prosecutions that may otherwise have gone unpursued. Again, this is as it should be.

People who have been a victim of this kind of crime not only deserve to see that the crime is punished, but also deserve and, in fact, need the help of competent counseling to successfully navigate the rest of their lives.

Anything that could potentially serve as a deterrent to a victim getting this kind of help should be given careful and dispassionate consideration.

In Crisis Connection, Inc. v. Ronald K. Fromme, Fromme has been charged with two counts of Class A felony child molesting. Fromme’s lawyer has subpoenaed the counseling records of the accusers and their mother, and he says his client needs a judge to review the counseling records in order for Fromme to have an adequate defense.

Attorneys for the counseling center argue that allowing even an in camera review could re-victimize those in treatment, especially those who live in small communities where everyone tends to know everyone else in town. Attorneys for the counseling center also point out should a victim admit he or she committed a crime, such as child abuse, the advocate already has a responsibility to report that to the proper authorities.

Subpoenas of records from counseling centers across the state have been issued by defendants hoping for in camera reviews in their cases, the lawyers also said.

In Fromme’s case, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that such records should be made available for an in camera review if defendants meet the three-step test outlined in Williams v. State. The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer and will hear arguments next month.

We fervently hope that the confidentiality of the relationship between advocate and victim will be allowed to remain intact. And we believe even allowing a judge to examine counseling records violates that relationship.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit