Abstract
Keywords
Since its inception in 1993,
Ethics guides virtually all components of professional practice, including work with clients, collaboration with colleagues, and gatekeeping of supervisees and students. Therefore, professional counselors rely on professional standards, such as the American Counseling Association (ACA)
Ethical Considerations in Family Counseling
Ethical practice becomes significantly more complex in family counseling. Counselors must navigate various nuanced challenges, including dual relationships, confidentiality among family members, secret keeping between the counselor and system members, record keeping, and release of information. While the foundational ethical expectations remain pertinent when more people are included in the counseling process, the interpretation and application of those standards often grow more ambiguous. For example, dual relationships and confidentiality become more complicated when system members engage in the same therapeutic session but have differing needs, roles, and expectations.
Adding to this complexity is the inconsistency and limitation of existing ethical and regulatory guidance. Conflicts may emerge between professional codes, such as the ACA (2014)
Furthermore, the preference for an individual counseling orientation is reflected in the justice-oriented morality that pervades the ethical standards. A justice-oriented model of morality shapes professional counseling ethical codes by emphasizing autonomy, objectivity, and fairness from an individualistic lens. While historically foundational to professional counseling, a justice-oriented approach reflects a colonized view of ethics rooted in Western norms (Horton et al., 2024). Colonized ethics marginalize the ethical frameworks of diverse cultural communities. The ethical frameworks of diverse cultural communities often prioritize relational responsibility, communal values, and connection. As a result, the ethical guidance available to family counselors does not fully capture the lived experiences or moral reasoning of the families they serve, particularly those from diverse backgrounds.
The preference for justice-oriented morality within counseling ethics mirrors a similar preference in moral psychology. Grounded in Western philosophical traditions, early moral psychological theories prioritized individual reasoning, fairness, and abstract principles over relational and contextual factors. By exploring moral psychology, counselors can uncover how the focus on individualism and fairness has shaped ethical codes while revealing opportunities for integrating more relationally informed perspectives.
Moral Psychology
Moral psychology examines the intersection of psychology and philosophy, with a focus on how moral ideals and values are integrated into reasoning and cognitive processes (Malle & Robbins, 2025). Rather than focusing solely on external systems or rules, moral psychology emphasizes the internal processes that shape moral judgment, emotions, and behavior across different contexts. Moral psychologists developed theoretical frameworks to explain how people navigate moral dilemmas using behavior, communication, emotions, judgments, and sanctions (Malle & Robbins, 2025). The influence of moral psychologists shaped the foundational insights of moral reasoning and continues to inform ethical thinking in counseling.
Moral Psychologists
Within counselor education, moral development is most commonly taught through the foundational work of Lawrence Kohlberg (1966), who is widely regarded as a pioneer in moral psychology (Snarey & Samuelson, 2008). He formulated a three-level, six-stage model of moral development throughout the lifespan, adopting a justice-based approach to morality that emphasizes individual reasoning and fairness. The highest levels of moral maturity are marked by an individual's ability to reason logically about moral dilemmas with justice, equality, and impartiality. Kohlberg's theory assumes that moral development follows a universal sequence, minimizing the role of relationships, culture, emotion, and context in ethical decision-making. Gilligan (1977), a colleague of Kohlberg's, disagreed with Kohlberg's approach to the conceptualization of moral development and offered an alternative framework.
In direct response to Kohlberg's (1966) research, Gilligan (1977) studied ethics from a relational perspective. Gilligan's findings indicated that justice-focused morality insufficiently conceptualizes the moral development of individuals who adopt relational perspectives in moral reasoning. Notably, when applying Kohlberg's model to female students, Gilligan observed that women who employed a relational perspective in moral reasoning scored significantly lower on standardized measures of moral development and were categorized as morally less developed than their male counterparts. Gilligan asserted that for some people, moral development is rooted in care, responsibility, and connection rather than individualistic principles of justice. For these individuals, ethical decision-making encompasses more systemic and relational thinking, such as attending to the needs of others and fostering healthy relationships. Gilligan suggested that relationally based ethical decision-making secures relational connections by acknowledging the importance of context, emotion, and the complexities of human experience. Specifically, she emphasized that individuals’ moral reasoning is inextricably linked to specific relational situations. Gilligan challenged Kohlberg's justice model by highlighting that traditional theories often reflect a justice-focused view of morality to the detriment of those who utilize a relational-focused view of morality.
Moral Reasoning in Counseling Ethics
The connection between moral reasoning and counseling ethics is evident in how foundational ethical standards reflect dominant moral frameworks rooted in individualism and justice. For example, Kitchener's (1984) principle ethics (i.e., autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, justice, and fidelity) form the basis of the ACA (2014)
The pervasive nature of justice-focused ethics is also evident in how professional counselors approach the ethical decision-making process. As seen in Forester-Miller and Davis's (2016) ethical decision-making model, counselors are encouraged to incorporate Kitchener's principles of ethics when rendering a decision. However, the Forester-Miller and Davis model overlooks contextual factors such as culture, social norms, power dynamics, and the impact of the decision on the counseling relationship. By excluding contextual factors, ethical decision-making models are rendered ungermane for diverse populations. Levitt et al.'s (2020) study, which examines the ethical decision-making of supervisors of color, illustrates how justice-focused ethical decision-making models overlook the experiences of diverse populations. In their study, supervisors of color reported not seeing their own cultural identities represented in existing models of ethical decision-making and that existing models were geared toward dominant culture frameworks (Levitt et al., 2020). Furthermore, participants noted that they did not use existing models in their supervision due to their lack of relevance, instead opting to navigate ethical decision-making on their own. In contrast, a relationally focused approach to ethics that centers the context in which ethical decisions are made would be significantly relevant, practical, and functional for meeting the needs expressed by Levitt et al.'s participants.
Gilligan's (1977) work offered a relational approach to moral development that centrally positions context and connection. Particularly relevant in family counseling, a relationally focused approach to ethics emphasizes how decisions affect others in genuine relationships. Specific tenets of relational-focused ethics differentiate the approach from justice-focused ethics. For example, individuals who utilize relational-focused ethics account for the context (i.e., the influence of social and cultural contexts) and power (i.e., the influence of inherent power imbalances) when evaluating an ethical dilemma. Furthermore, they honor the relational connection through mutuality (i.e., awareness of and respect for potential impact on the relationship) and relational authenticity (i.e., genuineness, transparency, and emotional presence). This model invites counselors to engage ethically with clients, not from a position of detachment or neutrality but with responsiveness, humility, and shared humanity.
The shift toward contextual, relational ethics aligns closely with the core tenets of relational cultural therapy (RCT). Initially developed by Miller (1976) to understand women's psychological development, RCT has expanded to broader applications, offering a robust framework for ethical practice rooted in connection, mutuality, and relational authenticity. As family counselors navigate ethical dilemmas deeply embedded in relational systems and sociocultural realities, RCT offers an inclusive and responsive approach to moral reasoning that addresses the limitations of traditional justice-based models.
Relational Cultural Therapy
RCT emerged in the sociopolitical context of the 1960s and 1970s, in response to the prevailing theories in lifespan development and psychology that “neglected and misunderstood many aspects of women's experience” (Miller & Stiver, 1997, p. 1). At the time, formulations of health and wellbeing reflected the entrenched dominant cultural assumptions and were informed by culturally biased research practices that did not include representation of women or people of color (Walker, 2005). The aspirational goal of psychosocial development was conceptualized as self-sufficient individuality, and successful maturation depended on psychological and emotional individuation from one's parents to fulfill one's own needs and purpose. However, the scholars and mavens of The Stone Center and Wellesley Centers for Women pioneered a different approach to conceptualizing development and psychology that emerged out of discourse among colleagues, a learning community among peers, and clinical experience (Miller & Stiver, 1997). RCT is anchored in the premise that relationships form the foundation for growth and wellbeing, both individually and collectively (Jordan, 2024). Humans are wired for connection—neurobiologically, psychologically, and culturally. By centering the importance of relationship in formulations of health and wellbeing, RCT offers a significant counter-paradigm to the existing developmental and psychological theoretical frameworks that have prevailed in Westernized cultures.
Relationships as Central
Experiences in past relationships inform how individuals approach current relationships. Relationships characterized by mutual empathy, authenticity, and empowerment serve as a mechanism for development and growth (Jordan, 2024). Past relationships that were characterized by control, exploitation, or denial of voice led to disconnection from self, despair, shame, and guilt. Just as some relationships result in suffering, relationships can be a source of healing. People can re-formulate their relational images and patterns through experiences in mutually supportive relationships that nurture safety for vulnerability and authenticity (Miller, 1976). People can shift from disconnection and isolation by courageously confronting the paradox of risking vulnerability to gain meaningful and growth-fostering connections.
The RCT approach positions mutuality and mutual empathy as precursors to safety and engagement (Jordan, 2024). Mutuality is a way of being with others, a way of relating to others, that necessitates all parties approach the relationship with full, respectful openness to being impacted by others. This unencumbered nondefensiveness is the groundwork for vulnerability and growth. In therapeutic relationships, the counselor seeks to offer their clients the experience of a growth-fostering relationship that maintains full mutuality and abides by appropriate professional boundaries. The counselor is open to being impacted by the client as much as the client may be impacted by the counselor, all while continuing to adhere to the professional obligation of ensuring that the client remains the focus of the services. RCT counselors do not aspire to hold an objective distance from clients or to implement barriers that prevent them from being cognitively or emotionally affected by clients (Miller & Stiver, 1997). Instead, RCT counselors
In much the same way that growth-fostering social relationships are built upon a structure of mutuality, the counselor and client form a small therapeutic community girded by the belief that each member's vulnerability will be protected from exploitation by the other members (Jordan, 2024). Power, as a concept of interpersonal interactions, is intentionally wielded in growth-fostering relationships. Dominant culture is structured such that those ascribed authority tend to use power to subjugate others in an attempt to maintain control and status (Jordan et al., 2004). This
Signs of Disconnection in Relationships
Disconnection is built into our mainstream societal values and practices. Measures of achievement and success in Western societies are generally rooted in concepts of individuality, self-sufficiency, competition, mastery, and the superiority of logic (Jordan et al., 2004). All of these concepts position the individual in opposition to others for a place of prominence or status. These values are widely regarded as standards by which all should aspire despite evidence suggesting that such environments do not enhance performance, productivity, or societal advancement (Kohn, 1986). Competitive environments promote a hyperindividualistic indoctrination in which antagonism, insensitivity, and aggression thrive (Jordan, 2024). The separate-self agenda contributes to largely unrealistic goals for personal achievement, the amplification of the myth of meritocracy, and the proliferation of a zero-sum, scarcity economy in which success is defined as individual gain at the cost of others’ welfare. Those who successfully adopt this agenda have done so at the expense of connection and relationship with peers, friends, family, community, and culture. The price of success, independence, and autonomy is paid for with the opportunities to experience enduring fellowship that helps people make meaning of their experiences and lives.
Likewise, disconnection occurs at the interpersonal, individual-to-individual level. While connection is a primary motivating factor, it also carries the risk of being hurt (Jordan, 2024). People are inherently drawn to and desire meaningful and growth-fostering connections. However, the vulnerability required to grow through those relationships can elicit trepidation, especially when they have experienced emotional wounds from relational disconnections, violations, exploitation, or disempowerment. The dynamic of simultaneously desiring connection and fearing its risks is the central relational paradox (Miller & Stiver, 1997). The risks involved in meeting another person with full mutuality and authenticity may lead them to withhold the vulnerable parts of themselves as a means of protecting those parts from the potential of being handled insensitively. Thus, people may become entrenched in a cycle of approach–shield–frustration–disconnection that leads to further isolation (Jordan, 2024). The defensive, fear-based patterns used to shield and protect the tender parts of self are termed strategies of disconnection and are important to consider in the therapeutic process.
Strategies of disconnection serve a noble purpose: to safeguard and ensure survival. Relationships in which a member of the group is unwilling to participate in the relationship with mutuality and authenticity are growth-impeding (Jordan et al., 2004). The resistance or refusal to present with mutuality and authenticity is understood as a matter of degrees, from unaddressed misunderstandings to overt coercion and abuse. In circumstances where a person uses strategies of disconnection to endure growth-impeding relationships, they begin to experience chronic disconnection or condemned isolation—a sense of immobility, unworthiness, despair, and suffering (Jordan, 2024; Miller, 1976). As a person experiences these persistent disconnections from others, they may also begin to experience disconnection from their self—disconnection can exist intrapersonally as well.
Signs of Growth Fostering Relationships
Returning to the premise that relationships are central to a person's development and psychology, a person who has been affected by growth-impeding relationships can heal through experiences in growth-fostering relationships (Miller, 1976). Essentially, that which is impaired in a relationship can be renewed through a relationship. Although professional therapeutic relationships are developed with the expressed purpose of providing conditions that foster growth and connection, other relationships grounded in mutuality, authenticity, and consistency can also serve the purpose of recovery. All relationships have moments of connection and disconnection, and it is through the successful navigation of these disconnection incidents that growth occurs (Jordan, 2024). Those experiences where a rupture in the relationship occurs and is resolved through compassionate connections characterized by mutual empathy (Miller & Stiver, 1997). Relational images can be restructured, relational awareness can be deepened, emotional attunement can be honed, strategies of disconnection can be set aside, and there is a return to the growth-fostering connection (Jordan, 2024).
“Mutual empathy is the greatest unsung human gift” (Miller & Stiver, 1997, p. 29), from which begets mutual empowerment. Connections that are saturated with mutual empowerment allow all members of the connection to flourish—to experience “more aliveness, more clarity, and a greater sense of possibility and potential agency” (Jordan, 2024, p. 153). Growth-fostering relationships show the following characteristics, termed by Miller and Stiver (1997) as the five good things: (1) increase in energy—zest; (2) greater knowledge of self, other, the relationship, and the experience—clarity; (3) greater motivation and freedom to pursue growth and development—creativity; (4) greater feelings of being valued and understood—worth; and (5) stronger desire for expanding connection. These five hallmarks of growth-fostering relationships catalyze the person's capacity for stronger, deeper, more resilient relationships intrapersonally, interpersonally, and within communities and society.
RCT, as a relational model of development and psychology, sets a framework for understanding the praxis between therapeutic practice and ethical conduct. Foundationally, the centrality of the relationship between counselor and client is prioritized, contextualized, and legitimized as a factor for consideration in ethical dilemmas. Mutuality and authenticity are upheld as principles of ethical conduct and decision-making, as both the counselor and client are impacted by the dilemmas, decisions, and outcomes. The counselor is acutely aware of the influence of dominant culture and the potential for inadvertent shifts from power-with into power-over in situations that require swift and decisive action to ensure client welfare. RCT provides counselors with a strong grounding in relational theoretical models, and relational awareness and sensitivity skills to enact relational ethical decision-making in ways that are theoretically aligned with their conceptual approach.
Relational Ethics
Rooted in a relationally focused morality (Gilligan, 1977) and aligned with RCT (Jordan, 2024), relational ethics challenges the dominance of justice-oriented models traditionally emphasized in counseling ethics. This challenge is evident in the priorities each model upholds. Within relational ethics, mutuality, relational authenticity, and contextual responsiveness are prioritized. However, the prioritization of autonomy, independence, and rule-based reasoning is apparent in justice-focused models. Furthermore, relational ethics shifts ethical reasoning from individual outcomes to relational outcomes. Central to this approach is an ethical responsibility to attend to power, privilege, vulnerability, culture, and authenticity within the context of relationships. Ethical decisions, then, are not fixed rules applied universally but are coconstructed and sustained through authentic, growth-fostering relational processes. As such, relational ethics often runs counter to the justice-focused models that have historically shaped counselor training.
Relational ethics represents a deliberate shift away from traditional conceptions of counseling boundaries, favoring a relationally attuned and contextually grounded approach to the therapeutic relationship. In doing so, relational ethics challenges inherent power differentials between counselor and client by inviting the counselor to move away from the role of detached expert and toward a stance of relational presence and mutuality. This shift requires the counselor to embrace relational authenticity, fostering connection through mutual respect rather than hierarchical authority. The following section will examine family counselors’ engagement in mutuality, ethical relational authenticity, and the broader systemic benefits of a relational ethics approach to support a clearer understanding of relational ethics in practice.
Family Counselor Engagement in Mutuality
Family counselor engagement in mutuality requires a critical reconsideration of long-standing ethical norms within the profession. Within the justice-focused frameworks traditionally emphasized in counselor education and supervision, mutuality is perceived as counterintuitive. However, mutuality offers a powerful reimagining of the therapeutic relationship. To engage in mutuality, counselors must shift away from traditional views of counseling boundaries and contend with the inherent power dynamics between themselves and their clients. This shift may require the counselor to risk relational vulnerability, stepping out of the role of the all-knowing expert and into a stance of shared presence. Notably, mutuality is not about seeking client approval or adopting a “will they like me” posture. Rather, it reflects a deep commitment to bidirectional empathy, in which the counselor is open to being impacted by the client's experience while maintaining awareness of the boundaries of the therapeutic relationship. As culturally competent practitioners, family counselors should already work to mitigate the effects of power and privilege; mutuality extends this work by encouraging authentic engagement while still holding responsibility for the safety and integrity of the counseling relationship. Ultimately, mutuality asks what is required ethically and how counselors can accomplish it with the least relational harm. Closely connected to mutuality is the concept of ethical relational authenticity, which further deepens the counselor's responsibility to engage with clients in ways that are both genuine and ethically grounded.
Ethical Relational Authenticity
Ethical relational authenticity in family counseling refers to the counselor's ability to be genuine and transparent within the therapeutic relationship while simultaneously prioritizing the client's wellbeing and maintaining appropriate professional boundaries. It requires the counselor to engage authentically without compromising the structure or safety of the therapeutic space. Ethical authenticity does not equate to complete openness or unfiltered self-expression by the counselor. Instead, it involves genuine, thoughtful engagement within ethical limits. This form of engagement includes being attuned to one's own emotional responses, expressing empathy in a grounded manner, and sharing aspects of oneself only when it serves the client's therapeutic process. Importantly, ethical relational authenticity respects the boundary between counselor and client, ensuring that the counselor's presence does not blur roles, foster dependence, or shift the focus away from the client's experiences and growth. In family counseling, where relational dynamics are especially complex, this kind of authenticity supports trust, models healthy relational behavior, and reinforces the counselor's commitment to relational integrity. Moreover, relational ethics provide specific systemic benefits within family counseling.
Systemic Benefits of Relational Ethics
The systemic benefits of relational ethics in family counseling are vast. When counselors model honest communication, mutuality, and relational authenticity, they create a therapeutic environment in which family members experience and internalize new ways of relating. The new methods of relating begin through experiencing mutuality and relational authenticity with the counselor. In doing so, family members experience the five good things (i.e., increased zest, clarity, sense of worth, productivity, and a desire for more connection), fostering corrective relational experiences. These relational experiences within the counseling session can give way to more meaningful and desired connections with other family members. Furthermore, relational ethics can help address and improve power imbalances within the family system, enhance conflict resolution by fostering empathy and mutual understanding, and support permissible change by demonstrating that transformation is possible without coercion or harm. In this way, relational ethics guides counselor behavior and facilitates systemic growth and healing within the family. The following section will illustrate how these principles are applied in practice through a case study and examples that demonstrate relational ethics in the context of family counseling.
Practical Examples
There can be a disconnect between theory and practice. It is the authors’ desire for readers to not only consider the content within this article but also to make the content applicable. With the desire for applicability in mind, the fictitious case of the Martinez family is presented to demonstrate specific practical examples of relational ethics in family counseling. The practical examples include authentic apologies, acknowledging the impact of cultural differences, genuine self-disclosure, and attuning to counselor impact.
The Fictitious Case of the Martinez Family
The Martinez family consists of Maria (41), Jessica (39), and their 14-year-old daughter, Lucia. Maria, originally from Puerto Rico, works as a social worker, while Jessica, a graphic designer, is White and from a small Midwestern town. The couple settled in a diverse urban area, choosing this location to provide Lucia with an inclusive environment. Lucia, who identifies as bisexual, recently started high school. Over the past few months, Maria and Jessica have noticed changes in Lucia's behavior: she's become more withdrawn, her grades have dropped, and she spends long hours in her room. The couple also discovered that Lucia has been talking to an older girl, Emily (16), who has a history of mental health issues, including self-harm.
The family is at odds over how to address these concerns. Maria is concerned about Emily's influence on Lucia and desires a firmer stance on managing Lucia's social life. Maria admits that her own struggle growing up in a disaffirming environment where she witnessed peers struggle with acceptance and mental health issues influences her parenting approach. Jessica, who faced her own struggles coming out to a disaffirming family, empathizes with Lucia's need for autonomy and friendship within the LGBTQ+ community. This has led to tension, as Jessica worries Maria is being overly controlling and could drive Lucia away.
During a recent family discussion about school and social media usage, Lucia became visibly frustrated, yelling that her parents “don’t understand” and “never let her be herself.” She mentioned feeling pressured to manage both her identity and her parents’ expectations. Maria responded by imposing new rules on Lucia's internet access and social interactions, particularly limiting contact with Emily. Jessica reluctantly agreed but expressed to Maria privately that this approach feels restrictive and could strain their relationship with Lucia.
Maria and Jessica decide to seek family counseling to get support in helping Lucia. In the initial family counseling session, Maria and Jessica's contrasting views came to light. Maria emphasized the importance of protecting Lucia from negative influences, fearing that Emily's mental health struggles could become a burden on Lucia. Jessica expressed that while she shares similar concerns, she believes Lucia's autonomy and self-discovery are crucial at this stage. Lucia was quiet during much of the session but eventually disclosed feeling caught between her mothers’ expectations and her own desire to explore friendships and her identity.
Maria became visibly emotional, expressing that she is only trying to prevent Lucia from making potentially harmful choices. She described feeling isolated in her parenting concerns, suggesting that Jessica is not taking the risks seriously enough. Maria explained that Jessica cannot understand the experiences and fear a queer Latina faces and that she is simply trying to keep Lucia safe. Jessica countered that while safety is important, Maria's approach feels too rigid and risks alienating Lucia, potentially driving her to seek connection elsewhere without their guidance. Trying to diffuse the situation, the suddenly overwhelmed family counselor said, “Maria, I do not think it is fair to assume one parent has a greater understanding of Lucia's lived experience. Lucia's experience is her own.” Both parents were shocked into silence by the counselor's comment. After a period of awkward silence, Maria and Jessica acknowledged their love for Lucia but continued to struggle with finding common ground.
In a subsequent one-on-one session, Lucia confided to the counselor that she has increasing thoughts of self-harm, feeling trapped between her mothers’ conflicting expectations and her own need for independence and connection with friends like Emily. Lucia asked the counselor not to share this information with her parents, fearing it would intensify Maria's restrictions. She did, however, express a desire for her parents to “understand her better” and consider her feelings more seriously. The counselor was surprised by Lucia's disclosure and unsure how to proceed. The counselor was uncertain about how to balance Lucia's confidentiality and mental health needs with her parents’ right to be informed and involved. Maria and Jessica are both deeply invested in Lucia's wellbeing, yet their conflicting approaches risk creating a rift within the family.
Authentic Apologies
Offering a genuine apology is a vital practice within relational ethics, as it acknowledges harm and invites relational repair within the therapeutic relationship. In the Martinez family's case, the counselor's comment, “I do not think it is fair to assume one parent has a greater understanding of Lucia's lived experience,” had an unintended silencing effect, particularly on Maria, who had vulnerably shared her fears as a queer Latina mother. A justice-based ethical lens might focus on the counselor's intent to remain neutral and fair to both parents, prioritizing principles like impartiality and equality. However, a relationally ethical response recognizes that neutrality can sometimes reinforce power imbalances or diminish lived experiences. From this perspective, the counselor stepped outside their ethical duty by inadvertently upholding those imbalances and disrupting the therapeutic relationship. Therefore, the counselor should engage in relational repair with the family through a combination of relational authenticity and genuine apology. For example, the counselor might say, “Maria, I realize that my comment dismissed the unique perspective you bring as a queer Latina mother, and in doing so, I minimized your lived experience and concerns for Lucia. I apologize. Moving forward, I will be more intentional in honoring the cultural and emotional complexities each of you brings to this space.” This kind of authentic apology not only validates Maria's cultural and emotional reality but also models accountability, deepens trust, and opens space for a more compassionate and inclusive dialogue. Additionally, disconnection that moves into relational repair strengthens the therapeutic relationship and over time increases relational resiliency (Jordan, 2024).
Acknowledging the Impact of Culture Differences
Acknowledging cultural differences within relational ethics extends beyond simply recognizing diversity. It requires active, mutual engagement with how lived experiences shape each person's understanding of safety, connection, and parenting. In the Martinez family's case, both Maria and Jessica grew up in disaffirming environments as queer women. However, distinct cultural contexts shape their experiences: Maria as a queer Latina navigating racism and cultural expectations, and Jessica as a White woman from a small Midwestern town confronting family based rejection. A justice-based ethical approach might overlook these nuanced differences, aiming for a universal experience of queerness and parenthood. However, this can miss the relational weight and emotional meaning each parent brings to their fears and hopes for Lucia. From a relational ethics perspective, the counselor must also recognize how their lived experiences impact the therapeutic relationship. In the case of the Martinez family, the counselor missed an opportunity to engage in relational authenticity and utilize mutuality to enhance the therapeutic relationship by broaching the potential impact of cultural differences. Instead, the counselor could have broached the impact of the cultural differences by saying, “I want to acknowledge that both of you have faced painful experiences in disaffirming environments and those experiences have been shaped by different cultural realities. I also recognize that I come into this space with my own lived experience, which may differ from yours, and I want to be mindful of how that impacts our work together.” This kind of acknowledgment models mutuality, honors each parent's story without flattening it, and invites a more culturally attuned and emotionally safe therapeutic relationship.
Self-Disclosure of Genuine Concern
Self-disclosure of genuine concern is a cornerstone of relational ethics, particularly when navigating crises and other safety concerns with clients. In a justice-focused ethical framework, a counselor might approach Lucia's disclosure of self-harm ideation with a rigid application of ethical codes around confidentiality and duty to warn, focusing solely on policy adherence and legal liability. Such an approach may create disconnection between the counselor and client, negatively impacting the counseling relationship. While adherence to policy and law is a firm priority, relational ethics calls for a more humanizing and emotionally attuned response that centers on connection and mutuality, with safety as a priority. When Lucia shares that she feels trapped between her mothers’ conflicting expectations and is having thoughts of self-harm, a relationally ethical counselor might say, “Lucia, thank you for trusting me with something so personal and difficult. I want you to know that I genuinely care about what you're going through, and your safety is my top priority. You're not alone in this. We can work together to help you feel supported and safe.” Such a self-disclosure is not a departure from ethical standards; instead, it coexists with them. The counselor can and should still adhere to all legal and ethical obligations, including informing parents as appropriate. However, appropriate follow-through and genuine emotional concern are not mutually exclusive. Relational ethics affirm that by expressing authentic concern, the counselor not only upholds their duty of care but also models trust, presence, and relational integrity, all critical components in supporting youth who feel isolated or unseen.
Acknowledging Counselor Impact and Asking for Feedback
Acknowledging the counselor's impact and asking for feedback is a core practice in relational ethics, emphasizing transparency, humility, and mutuality in therapy. In the Martinez family's case, recent sessions have become increasingly tense, with Maria and Jessica leaving sessions feeling unheard and Lucia retreating further into silence. A justice-based ethical stance might focus on procedural fairness by ensuring equal speaking time or avoiding perceived bias while overlooking how the counselor's own positionality or interventions may have contributed to relational rupture. In contrast, a relationally ethical approach invites the counselor to take responsibility for their role in shaping the emotional climate of the sessions, including a willingness to broach relational rupture, seek understanding, and adapt in response to client feedback. For example, upon noticing a shift in the therapeutic relationship, the counselor might say, “I’ve noticed that our sessions have been feeling tense lately, and I wonder if something in my approach may be contributing to that. I’d really value your thoughts on how I can better support your family.” This invitation not only models accountability and respect but is an ethical necessity when the counselor's presence becomes a barrier to effective treatment.
Implications for Family Counseling
Reframing ethics through an RCT lens has significant implications for the counseling profession. First, ethical decision-making models must advance beyond rigid, justice-focused frameworks to incorporate contextual, relational, and cultural factors that shape decision-making. Approaching ethical decision-making from a holistic perspective enables counselors to navigate complex, real-world dilemmas that are not adequately addressed within current standards. Therefore, additional research that explores relational ethics as related to cultural context, counselor education, and counselor development is warranted. Furthermore, counselor education must include a critical analysis of the current justice-focused, dominant moral frameworks while introducing relational approaches that emphasize mutuality, power analysis, and cultural responsiveness. Counselors-in-training must recognize the historical context of current ethical standards and how to incorporate ethical reasoning that honors cultural responsiveness. Additionally, due to the emphasis on justice-focused training, clinicians are tasked with unlearning and relearning how to engage ethically with families. Clinicians must critically analyze how their ethical training may be creating relational barriers with clients. Moreover, clinicians should intentionally adopt a relationally focused approach to engage more authentically with families. Clinicians should seek training and consultation that helps ground ethical practice in connection, humility, and responsiveness, rather than detached neutrality.
Conclusion
Relational ethics offers family counselors a necessary paradigm shift. The shift moves family counseling ethics from a universalist, culturally silent framework toward an approach grounded in mutuality, authenticity, and contextual responsiveness. Relational ethics invites counselors to engage ethically not only through rules and principles but also through relationships, power analysis, and cultural humility. As illustrated through theory and case example, relational ethics fosters healing by emphasizing the transformative potential of growth-fostering relationships (Jordan, 2024). Family counselors who adopt this stance must be willing to confront their own assumptions, seek feedback, and remain emotionally present with clients. Integrating relational ethics into ethical decision-making models enhances relevance for diverse families whose lived experiences are marginalized by dominant frameworks. Relational ethics provides a compelling and inclusive framework for ethical practice in family counseling by encouraging clinicians to prioritize connection and presence over rigid prescriptions.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
Funding
ORCID iDs
