Julia Jensen

Scenario: Local “tough kids” have been picking on a young Deaf student on the playground and on the way home each day. The mother of the Deaf child tells you about the situation and is obviously upset about it but she does not want you to do anything about it. She is afraid of reprisals against her child.

 

 

The problems in this situation are that the mother of a Deaf child confides in you that their child is being bullied, and the mother doesn’t want you to do anything.

​

The interpreter could respect mothers decision and keep confidentiality, inform the teacher as part of the IEP/Educational Team, or direct the mother to an appropriate source at the school (ie: counselor, etc.).The interpreter did direct the mother to an appropriate source at the school (ie: counselor, etc.)

​

This decision is supported by the Code of Professional Conduct because CPC 1.1 “Share assignment-related information only on a confidential and “as-needed” basis (e.g.,supervisors, interpreter team members, members of the educational team, hiring entities).” The interpreter does not share any information with others, and instead directs the mother to an appropriate source where she can disclose at her own discretion. CPC 2.2 “Assess consumer needs and the interpreting situation before and during the assignment and make adjustments as needed.” The interpreter assessed that the mother needed a resource to talk to about her child. CPC 2.6 “Judiciously provide information or referral regarding available interpreting or community resources without infringing upon consumers’ rights.” The interpreter referred the mother to a school/community resource. CPC 3.3 “Avoid performing dual or conflicting roles in interdisciplinary (e.g. educational or mental health teams) or other settings.” The interpreter did not perform a dual role as an educational interpreter and a friend. CPC 3.8 “Avoid actual or perceived conflicts of interest that might cause harm or interfere with the effectiveness of interpreting services.” The interpreter avoided a conflict of interest by informing a teacher, or being the only one to have this knowledge in general. CPC 4.2 “Approach consumers with a professional demeanor at all times.” The interpreter was professional towards the mother. CPC 4.4 “Facilitate communication access and equality, and support the full interaction and independence of consumers.” The interpreter supported the full independence of the mother by providing her a point of contact, and allowing her to decide. CPC 6.3 “Promote conditions that are conducive to effective communication, inform the parties involved if such conditions do not exist, and seek appropriate remedies.” The interpreter avoided conflict, which will allow them to better effectively facilitate communication.

​

The short-term impacts and benefits include that the mother better understands the role of the interpreter. The hearing/non-signers can trust the interpreter. The interpreter is not involved with conflict of interest (as both a friend and educational interpreter). The standard is upheld and CPC is followed for the interpreting community.

​

The long-term impacts and benefits include that the mother understands the role of the interpreter as professional boundaries have been set, the hearing/non-signers can take appropriate actions if the mother reports, or it is not their responsibility if she does not. The interpreter has practice with professionalism, and setting boundaries with consumers and can use this in future situations. The standard is upheld and the CPC is followed for the interpreting community.

​

­­­­­­­­­­­­If I were the interpreter in this situation my answer may change if I were given new or different information but I will always uphold the tenets of the CPC.