According to the California Evidence Code, which of the following does NOT constitute a situation where there is no psychotherapist-patient privilege?

• A. The psychotherapist has been appointed by the court to evaluate a defendant
• B. The patient is a minor who is being abused
• C. The patient reveals intent to commit suicide
• D. The psychotherapist has been consulted by the defendant's attorney

Answer: (D)

In the context of California Evidence Code, the situation pertaining to a psychotherapist consulting with a defendant's attorney does not create an exception to the psychotherapist-patient privilege. The privilege is designed to protect confidential communications between a patient and their psychotherapist, allowing patients to speak freely without fear of their statements being disclosed in legal situations.

When a psychotherapist is consulted by the defendant's attorney, the nature of the consultation does not inherently compromise the privilege because the patient is not necessarily revealing sensitive information directly to the attorney within a therapeutic context. Therefore, this situation does not fall into the established exceptions where privilege is often waived, such as in circumstances involving court-ordered evaluations, reported abuse of minors, or threats of self-harm, where there is an obligation to report or intervene for safety reasons.

Understanding this framework underscores the importance of confidentiality in therapeutic relationships, especially in legal situations, and helps clarify situations where privilege continues to apply despite various legal complexities.