If the person is 'acting as' an interpreter, this person may not be a 'registered' interpreter. If the person is not registered as an interpreter, then whose definition of interpreter are we using? If the person who is calling him/herself an interpreter and is a friend of the client, but is not registered, then I think it is up to the client as to how his/her friend helps him/her. If the person is registered, there is a conflict of interest in that one can't advocate for a friend and be impartial as a registered interpreter.

Clarification: the hypothetical (made-up) interpreter is a licensed interpreter in this state.

I believe there is a conflict.

I don't have a problem with someone being an interpreter in one sitiuation, and friend in another. But being an advocate is something very different from being a friend.

The person is described as "the primary interpreter" for the consumer, and this interpreter is now "actively participating in the therapy sessions." At a minimum, this indicates a blurring of boundaries, and this makes me very uncomfortable, particularly when the situation involves a person with MR/MI issues, who may be unable to distinguish between the two roles. Worse, it suggests that the interpreter may not be able to make that distinction, either.

I would recommend that the person in question be asked to choose one role: interpreter or advocate.

(Note: This is the first time I've posted to a JoeUser blog other than my own, and I'm not sure how I'll be identified. For the record, I'm John Dunleavy, I'm Deaf, and I work as an independent living specialist, primarily with Deaf adults, some of whom have MR and/or MI issues.)

I am a school psychologist (School Psychological Service Provider). The situation as presented is problematic in a number of ways considering that the client is Deaf, MR, and MI. I do not know the particulars of this specific client in terms of cognition, adaptive skills, communication skills, language skills, functional academic skills, etc. Is the client in the best position of deciding what he or she needs for the couseling session. How did this interpreter/advocate decide she/he should be an active participant and advovate. Was he or she invited to the session by the client? Was the therapist consulted in advance? There are some value on a case to case basis for a MR client to have a designated indidivdal who at best understands the client's communication and needs and can convey back to the client the response from the therapist that makes sense and accessibnle to the client. It is very troubling to me. Is there a conflict and blurring of roles? Of course!. One of the biggest challenges fior any evaluator or therapist is to insure that they are getting the authentic messges presented by the client and not filtered or altered by the "terp/advocate and vice versa. There seemed to be no planning. What was the dynamics between the deaf MH/MI client and the therapist? Since from what I recalled from the presenting statement, that there were no compliants made by the Deaf MR/MH client. There were no assessment to evaluate how effective communication was taking place between the client and therapist. I am very aware that just because a therapist is fluent in ASL or contact variety ASL or Nonverbal Gestures does not insure that the client in question is acessing fully the content /comments/insights provided by the therapist. Where was the case worker for this client? I would imagine he or she would have been in the position to make sure that quality therapy service was being provided. Some Deaf MR/MI clients do need a level of staff support to facilitate communication/interactions/followup. The bottom line for me for this particular case is that the terp/advocate was out of line for getting involved in the therapy session. The therapist should be called to task for allowing this tohappen without consultatio with supervisor and or therapy group o how best to address this that is less stressful to the client. I would be curious to know if the client himself decided to invite the terp/advocate to the session and for what reason. The client may need more "orientation" about therapy sessions and what is appropriate and not appropriate. Lastly, if there is need for additonal support for communication accessibility for the client and the therapist concurred then it would be more prudent for the therapist to choose the therapist that he/she knows are well knowledgeale about therapy and all of the elements related such as countertransference etc.... Interesting case. I have to admit that I am surprised at this case and can understand why it is a hot debate topic. Trust that all who read this have a nice and pleasant weekend