Sometimes an article hits so close to home, it feels like it was written about your own life.

That’s exactly what happened when I read Ethics Alive! Social Work With Client Friends and Family: Avoiding Collateral Damage, by Dr. Allan Barsky. His message is simple but powerful:

“When the system is designed to serve the client, who protects everyone else caught in the blast radius?”

In my ongoing civil case and professional ethics complaints, I’m living out the exact failures Barsky describes – and the damage is far from theoretical.

The Primary Obligation Trap

Social workers are trained to put their clients first. It’s an understandable principle – but when it’s twisted or abused, it becomes a weapon.

In my case, that’s exactly what happened. A professional, along with her employer, used the justification of “protecting” my child to engage in conduct that harmed me – a father, a victim of attempted murder, and the child’s legal parent.

At no point did these individuals appear to ask:

• Am I treating this parent ethically?
• Am I respecting court orders and legal obligations?
• Am I telling the full truth?
• Should I recuse myself?
• Can I truly me fair and neutral?

As Barsky notes, when those questions aren’t asked, people like me and more importantly, children caught in the middle – pay the price.

The “Family Friend” Note That Exposed the System

Barsky tells the story of a social worker inviting a client’s wife to a session, under false pretenses, and crossing ethical boundaries.

That scenario mirrored a key moment in my own case. A medical note was written, referencing an “investigation” that had never been disclosed and naming a so-called “family friend” who was actually the professional’s employer.

Meanwhile, my child was placed in this individual’s custody without my knowledge.

There was no transparency:

• No disclosure of purpose.
• No explanation of what information was being gathered.
• No clarity about how that information would be used — or misused.

This event is now a central issue in my civil litigation. I was sidelined. My legal rights as a parent were ignored. My child was used as a tool to build a damaging narrative.

Collateral damage? I am living proof.

When Late-Stage Allegations Become Courtroom Weapons

Barsky also describes a case where friends orchestrate an addiction intervention without the subject’s consent a scenario that can easily spiral out of control.

That’s exactly what happened in my case.

Late in the process, after my child had been placed outside my care, a sudden allegation emerged – one that conveniently derailed my ability to testify and cross-examine key witnesses.

I was not present. I had no ability to respond or prepare. The timing of this allegation, and its tactical use in court, was no accident.

I was, like Barsky’s “Ross,” an outsider to the “helping” process but one whose life was about to be publicly shattered. The professionals involved showed no regard for the ethical obligations they should have upheld toward me as a parent and as a victim.

Who Owns the Truth? The Fight Over Records

Barsky also highlights a key legal dilemma: who controls sensitive records when multiple parties are involved?

In my case, that question has become a legal battleground.

I personally handed over my child’s phone to law enforcement.
Later, the defense introduced a “version” of text messages, one that I know was altered or selectively edited.
There was no forensic chain of custody. No independent verification. No transparency.

Now I’m fighting in civil court to force a proper forensic review – because the truth matters, and so does accountability.

Once again, professionals blurred the boundaries of data ownership and ethical responsibility. The system, rather than protecting integrity, allowed this blurred process to unfold unchecked.

The Bigger Lesson: Contracts, Consent, and Respect

Barsky’s article offers a simple solution: when professionals engage with family members or friends — the “collaterals” they should use clear agreements:

• Who is involved?
• What information will be gathered?
• What are the limits of confidentiality?
• What rights do all parties have?

If such agreements had existed in my case:

• Misrepresentations about relationships and custody arrangements would have been prevented.
• My child’s records would have been protected.
• A false narrative would not have been allowed to gain courtroom momentum.

The professionals involved never followed these basic safeguards and the damage to me, and to my child, continues to unfold.

Why This Fight Matter

Reading Barsky’s article confirmed what I’ve seen first-hand:
The current system leaves enormous ethical gaps and bad actors exploit them.

In my civil case and my ethics complaints, here is what we now know:
✅ Professionals ignored their duties to family members.
✅ Informed consent was bypassed.
✅ Sensitive data was manipulated and used improperly.
✅ The spirit of the professional code of ethics was openly violated.

This is why my fight matters.
This is why my civil case is about more than me.

When licensed professionals can weaponize these gaps, families are destroyed — and children are used as tools. That must stop.

If you want to follow my ongoing fight for accountability, transparency, and justice and to support the story I’m telling in my upcoming book — stay tuned. The truth deserves to be told.