'It Just Happened'

By Jake New
Inside Higher Ed
August 2, 2016

Either by choice or when required to do by state legislation, colleges in recent years have moved toward a policy of affirmative consent.

The change moves colleges away from the old “no means no” model of consent -- frequently criticized by victims’ advocates as being too permitting of sexual encounters involving coercion or intoxication -- to one described as “yes means yes.” If the student initiating a sexual encounter does not receive an “enthusiastic yes” from his or her partner, the policies generally state, there is no consent.

Research by two California scholars, however, suggests that students’ understanding of consent is not in line with the new policies and laws. Instead, students often obtain sexual permission through a variety of verbal and nonverbal cues, both nuanced and overt, that do not always meet a strict definition of affirmative consent.

The article is here.

Pa. Supreme Court rules general practitioners not held to sex prohibitions

Prohibitions stands for mental health care providers

By Zack Needles

The Legal Intelligencer

Originally published October 15, 2012

In a case of first impression, the state Supreme Court has ruled that general practitioner doctors are not barred from having consensual sex with a patient, even if they are also providing "incidental mental health treatment" to the patient.

In so doing, the court has refused to extend the prohibition that prevents mental health physicians from having consensual sex with their patients -- and makes those who do susceptible to medical malpractice suit -- to general practitioners and family doctors.

In Thierfelder v. Wolfert, the high court ruled 5-1 -- suspended Justice Joan Orie Melvin did not participate in the decision -- to reverse a divided May 2009 Superior Court ruling that both general practitioners and psychiatrists "need to maintain the same trust when rendering psychological care."

Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille, writing for the majority, said that even what might constitute an ethical violation does not necessarily amount to a legal violation.

"The question is not whether this court condones appellant's actions, nor even whether his actions amounted to a violation of medical ethics," Justice Castille said. "We hold here only that, as a general practitioner, appellant was under no specific or 'heightened' duty in tort to refrain from sexual relations with his patient under these circumstances."

The entire story is here.

Psychologist found guilty of sexual relationship with patient

By Bruce Vielmetti of the Journal Sentinel

Published September 2, 2011

An Oak Creek psychologist was found guilty Friday of starting a sexual relationship with a longtime patient in 2005.

Jeffrey Adamczak, 48, faces up to 71/2 years in prison for sexual exploitation by a therapist at his sentencing Oct. 13. Jurors deliberated about two hours before reaching the verdict after a weeklong trial.

Adamczak was charged in August 2010. The victim, with whom he carried on a yearlong affair before she broke it off in 2006, reported Adamczak to authorities in March 2010 after she became convinced that he was again having sexual contact with patients.

Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Rebecca Dallet directed that the woman not be named in news reports.

A second former patient also testified that Adamczak had sexual contact with her in 2004, and two other former patients described what they considered inappropriate sexual comments from him during therapy. Adamczak flatly denied those allegations.

His attorney, Gerald Boyle, told jurors in closing arguments that jealousy drove the woman to destroy Adamczak, and said his client's testimony and office records showed the affair didn't start until after he had closed the woman's file, ending the therapist relationship.

The woman, a 40-year-old physical therapist, had been in near weekly counseling with Adamczak for about three years when he initiated sexual contact with her at a session in February 2005, after she told him she had filed for divorce from her husband.

Timing questioned

At trial, both parties testified about a memorable tryst at a Milwaukee hotel suite, replete with candles, special music and rose petals scattered near the whirlpool tub.

But when she was interviewed earlier by police, the woman said she couldn't recall the exact date, or the hotel where she and Adamczak had the experience they referred to as "Paris."

And that, his attorney argued to jurors Friday, was a big red flag on her credibility.

"If she can't remember "Paris,' " Boyle said, jurors shouldn't believe her testimony about exactly when she first had sex with Adamczak.

The timing of the first encounters was a key question for jurors. The woman testified it was in February 2005, just after she had filed for divorce, and that her therapist initiated three sexual episodes before finally telling her she could no longer be his patient "on paper."

Adamczak testified she came on to him, in late March 2005, several weeks after he had determined she no longer needed counseling and closed her file.

The entire story can be found here.