Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the Certified Recovery Peer Specialist (CRPS) to navigate differing philosophical underpinnings of care delivery. The individual seeking support is presenting with symptoms that could be interpreted through a medical lens, focusing on diagnosis and symptom management, while the CRPS’s training emphasizes a recovery-oriented approach centered on empowerment, self-determination, and hope. The CRPS must balance acknowledging the individual’s expressed needs with guiding them towards a framework that fosters long-term well-being and agency, without invalidating their current experience. This requires careful communication and a deep understanding of both models. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves the CRPS actively listening to the individual’s concerns and validating their experiences, while gently introducing and exploring the principles of the recovery model. This approach acknowledges the individual’s immediate distress and perceived needs, aligning with the ethical imperative to meet individuals where they are. Simultaneously, by framing discussions around the recovery model, the CRPS empowers the individual to identify their own strengths, set personal goals, and build a support network that extends beyond symptom reduction. This aligns with the core tenets of peer support, which emphasize hope, empowerment, and self-direction, as outlined in ethical guidelines for peer specialists that prioritize client autonomy and a strengths-based perspective. The CRPS acts as a guide and facilitator, not a diagnostician or prescriber, fostering a collaborative journey towards recovery. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach would be to solely focus on the medical model, attempting to diagnose or categorize the individual’s issues and prescribe solutions based on symptom management. This fails to recognize the unique value and effectiveness of the recovery model, which is central to the CRPS role. It risks disempowering the individual by positioning the CRPS as an authority figure rather than a peer, potentially leading to a dependency on external interventions rather than fostering internal resilience and self-advocacy. This approach can also overlook the social, environmental, and personal factors crucial to sustained recovery. Another incorrect approach would be to dismiss the individual’s expressed concerns as irrelevant to the recovery model, insisting that they must immediately adopt recovery-oriented language or goals. This invalidates the individual’s current lived experience and can create a barrier to trust and engagement. It fails to acknowledge that individuals may enter the recovery process with different understandings and needs, and that the journey towards embracing the recovery model is often gradual and personal. This approach can be perceived as judgmental and unsupportive, undermining the peer relationship. A third incorrect approach would be to adopt a passive stance, simply agreeing with whatever the individual expresses without any attempt to introduce or explore the recovery model’s principles. While empathy is crucial, a CRPS has a responsibility to leverage their training and experience to guide individuals towards a framework that promotes hope and self-efficacy. This passive approach fails to actively facilitate the recovery process and may leave the individual without the tools and perspectives that the recovery model offers for long-term well-being. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a person-centered, strengths-based approach. This involves active listening, empathy, and validation of the individual’s current experience. The decision-making process should then involve a gradual introduction of recovery-oriented principles, tailored to the individual’s readiness and expressed needs. The CRPS should continuously assess the individual’s engagement and understanding, adapting their communication and support strategies accordingly. The ultimate goal is to empower the individual to become the driver of their own recovery journey, utilizing the principles of the recovery model as a framework for hope, self-determination, and meaningful life engagement.

The evaluation methodology shows that understanding the multifaceted nature of recovery is paramount for a Certified Recovery Peer Specialist (CRPS). This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the CRPS to navigate the subjective and evolving definition of recovery while adhering to ethical guidelines and best practices that support individual autonomy and person-centered care. A CRPS must balance their own understanding of recovery with the individual’s lived experience and goals. The best professional practice involves a collaborative approach that centers the individual’s self-definition of recovery. This means actively listening to the individual’s narrative, acknowledging their unique journey, and supporting their personal goals and aspirations, even if they differ from a more traditional or externally defined model of recovery. This approach aligns with the core principles of peer support, which emphasize empowerment, hope, and self-determination. Regulatory frameworks and ethical guidelines for peer specialists consistently advocate for person-centered care, respecting individual autonomy, and fostering a supportive relationship where the individual’s voice is primary. This approach directly supports the individual’s agency in defining and pursuing their own recovery. An approach that focuses solely on the absence of substance use as the sole indicator of recovery fails to acknowledge the holistic nature of recovery, which encompasses mental, emotional, spiritual, and social well-being. This is ethically problematic as it imposes an external, potentially narrow definition of recovery onto the individual, undermining their autonomy and potentially leading to feelings of failure or discouragement if their journey doesn’t fit this mold. It neglects the lived experience and self-determination that are central to peer support. Another incorrect approach is to prioritize the CRPS’s personal definition of recovery, based on their own experiences or professional training, over the individual’s stated goals and aspirations. This is a significant ethical failure as it shifts the focus from the individual’s needs and self-definition to the peer specialist’s perspective. It can lead to a lack of trust and disengagement from the individual, hindering the recovery process. Finally, an approach that emphasizes external validation or professional judgment as the primary determinant of recovery overlooks the fundamental principle of recovery as a personal journey. While professional insight can be valuable, recovery is ultimately defined by the individual’s subjective experience of hope, healing, and living a meaningful life. Relying solely on external markers or professional opinions disregards the individual’s agency and the inherent value of their lived experience. The professional reasoning process for similar situations should involve a commitment to active listening, empathy, and unconditional positive regard. CRPS professionals should consistently ask themselves: “How can I best support this individual in defining and achieving *their* vision of recovery?” This requires a continuous process of self-reflection, seeking supervision when needed, and prioritizing the individual’s self-determination above all else, while remaining informed by ethical codes and best practices in peer support.

This scenario presents a common challenge for Certified Recovery Peer Specialists (CRPS) in navigating the complexities of a recovery-oriented system of care while respecting individual autonomy and the established treatment plan. The core difficulty lies in balancing the peer specialist’s lived experience and empathetic support with the clinical expertise and authority of the treatment team, particularly when a client expresses a desire to deviate from a prescribed course of action. Careful judgment is required to ensure the client’s voice is heard and validated, while also upholding the integrity of the recovery plan and the professional boundaries of the peer role. The best approach involves actively listening to the client’s concerns, validating their feelings, and then facilitating a conversation with the treatment team. This approach prioritizes the client’s agency within the recovery process by ensuring their perspective is considered by those responsible for their clinical care. It aligns with the principles of recovery-oriented systems of care, which emphasize collaboration, person-centered planning, and shared decision-making. By bringing the client’s expressed desire to the treatment team, the CRPS acts as a bridge, ensuring that the recovery plan remains responsive to the individual’s evolving needs and preferences, while still respecting the established clinical framework. This collaborative step is crucial for fostering trust and empowering the client in their recovery journey. An incorrect approach would be to unilaterally advise the client to disregard the treatment plan or to dismiss their concerns without involving the treatment team. This undermines the established clinical framework and the professional role of the CRPS, potentially leading to a breakdown in the client’s engagement with treatment and jeopardizing their progress. It fails to recognize the importance of a multidisciplinary approach to care and oversteps the boundaries of the peer specialist’s role. Another incorrect approach would be to immediately report the client’s desire to the treatment team without first engaging in a supportive conversation with the client. While involving the treatment team is important, bypassing the initial empathetic listening and validation phase can make the client feel unheard or like their concerns are being immediately escalated without understanding. This can erode trust and discourage open communication. Finally, an incorrect approach would be to ignore the client’s expressed desire and continue with the existing plan without any discussion. This disregards the client’s autonomy and the dynamic nature of recovery. A recovery-oriented system of care requires flexibility and responsiveness to the individual’s evolving needs and perspectives. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with active, empathetic listening to the client. This involves validating their feelings and concerns without judgment. Following this, the CRPS should assess the situation to determine if the client’s expressed desire poses an immediate risk. If no immediate risk is present, the next step is to facilitate communication between the client and the treatment team, acting as an advocate for the client’s voice while respecting the team’s clinical expertise. This ensures that any adjustments to the recovery plan are made collaboratively and in the best interest of the client’s overall well-being and recovery.

This scenario presents a professional challenge because the Certified Recovery Peer Specialist (CRPS) is witnessing potential signs of a mental health and substance use disorder in a client they are supporting, but these signs are not overtly stated by the client. The CRPS must balance their role of providing support and building rapport with the ethical and professional obligation to ensure the client receives appropriate care, which may involve escalating concerns without violating trust or confidentiality. Careful judgment is required to determine the most effective and ethical way to address the observed behaviors. The best professional approach involves the CRPS carefully documenting their observations of the client’s behavior and reported experiences, focusing on objective descriptions of the signs and symptoms. Following this, the CRPS should consult with their supervisor or a qualified clinical professional to discuss these observations and collaboratively determine the most appropriate next steps. This approach is correct because it adheres to ethical guidelines for peer specialists, which emphasize collaboration with clinical teams and supervisors for complex client needs. It respects the client’s autonomy by not making assumptions or direct accusations, while ensuring that the client’s well-being is prioritized through professional assessment and intervention planning. This aligns with the principles of responsible practice, ensuring that observed indicators of potential mental health or substance use issues are addressed through established professional channels. An incorrect approach would be for the CRPS to directly confront the client with their suspicions, stating, “I think you are experiencing a relapse or a mental health crisis.” This is professionally unacceptable because it bypasses the established supervisory and clinical consultation process. It could alienate the client, damage the therapeutic relationship, and potentially lead to the client withdrawing from support. Furthermore, it oversteps the CRPS’s scope of practice by making a direct diagnostic inference without clinical assessment. Another incorrect approach would be for the CRPS to ignore the observed signs and symptoms, believing it is not their place to intervene or that the client will self-disclose if ready. This is professionally unacceptable as it fails to uphold the CRPS’s duty of care. While respecting client autonomy is crucial, ignoring clear indicators of distress or potential relapse could lead to a worsening of the client’s condition and a failure to connect them with necessary support services. Ethical practice requires proactive, yet appropriate, engagement when signs of distress are observed. A further incorrect approach would be for the CRPS to share their concerns with other clients or individuals outside of the professional support team without the client’s explicit consent. This is professionally unacceptable as it constitutes a breach of confidentiality and violates ethical principles regarding client privacy. Information about a client’s potential mental health or substance use issues is sensitive and must only be discussed within the appropriate professional context for the purpose of client care. The professional reasoning process for similar situations should involve a tiered approach: first, meticulous and objective observation and documentation of client behavior and reported experiences. Second, internal reflection on the observed signs and symptoms, considering their potential implications within the context of the client’s known history and recovery goals. Third, consultation with a supervisor or clinical team member to gain professional perspective and guidance. Fourth, collaborative decision-making regarding the best course of action, which may include further assessment, referral, or adjustment of support strategies, always prioritizing the client’s safety and well-being while respecting their rights and dignity.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it pits the Certified Recovery Peer Specialist’s (CRPS) personal values and desire to help against the established boundaries of their professional role and the ethical imperative to respect client autonomy and confidentiality. The CRPS must navigate the complex emotional landscape of supporting someone in recovery while upholding professional standards that protect both the individual and the integrity of the recovery process. The desire to offer immediate, tangible support can be strong, but it must be balanced with an understanding of the potential negative consequences of overstepping professional boundaries. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves acknowledging the individual’s distress and offering support within the CRPS’s defined role. This approach involves validating the individual’s feelings, reinforcing their existing coping strategies, and connecting them with appropriate resources or their established support network, such as their therapist or sponsor. This aligns with the core recovery principle of empowering individuals to utilize their own strengths and resources. Ethically, this approach upholds confidentiality by not disclosing personal information and respects the individual’s autonomy by not making decisions for them or imposing personal solutions. It also adheres to professional guidelines that emphasize the CRPS’s role as a facilitator and supporter, not a rescuer or provider of personal financial assistance. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Offering to lend money directly, even with the intention of repayment, crosses a professional boundary. This action blurs the lines between peer support and a personal financial relationship, which can create an unhealthy dependency, compromise objectivity, and potentially lead to exploitation or resentment. It deviates from the principle of empowering individuals to manage their own challenges and can undermine their recovery journey by providing a shortcut that bypasses the development of essential coping skills. Suggesting the individual contact family members for financial help without first exploring the individual’s own resources or established support systems can be perceived as dismissive of their immediate distress and may not be appropriate if family relationships are strained or unavailable. While connecting with a support network is a valid strategy, it should be done in collaboration with the individual, respecting their comfort level and existing relationships. Ignoring the individual’s request and continuing with the scheduled peer support session without acknowledging their distress would be professionally negligent. This approach fails to demonstrate empathy and support, which are fundamental to the peer specialist role. It neglects the opportunity to address a significant barrier to the individual’s recovery and could lead to feelings of abandonment or a breakdown in the therapeutic alliance. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes ethical conduct and client well-being. This involves: 1) Identifying the core issue: The individual is experiencing distress and seeking immediate assistance. 2) Recognizing professional boundaries: Understand the scope of the CRPS role and avoid dual relationships. 3) Applying recovery principles: Focus on empowerment, self-determination, and utilizing existing support systems. 4) Consulting ethical guidelines: Refer to professional codes of conduct for guidance on appropriate actions. 5) Communicating empathetically: Validate feelings while offering support within professional limits. 6) Facilitating access to resources: Connect individuals with appropriate professional or community support.

This scenario presents a professional challenge because it requires balancing the Certified Recovery Peer Specialist’s (CRPS) role in supporting recovery with the ethical imperative to respect client autonomy and confidentiality, while also adhering to professional boundaries and the specific requirements of the recovery plan. The CRPS must navigate the client’s expressed desire for privacy against the potential need for broader support, all within the framework of established recovery goals. Careful judgment is required to ensure the client’s rights are upheld while promoting their well-being and progress. The best professional approach involves a collaborative discussion with the client about the recovery plan’s objectives and the benefits of involving their support network, while unequivocally respecting their decision if they choose not to share. This approach prioritizes client self-determination and empowerment, which are foundational to recovery. It involves clearly explaining how involving specific individuals might align with the recovery goals, such as building a stronger support system or addressing specific challenges identified in the plan. If the client declines, the CRPS must respect this boundary and continue to support the client within the agreed-upon parameters of the recovery plan, focusing on the client’s direct engagement and progress. This aligns with ethical principles of autonomy and non-maleficence, ensuring the CRPS does not overstep their role or violate trust. An approach that involves contacting the client’s family without explicit consent, even with the intention of improving support, is ethically problematic. This action violates the client’s right to confidentiality and autonomy, potentially damaging the therapeutic relationship and undermining the client’s trust in the CRPS and the recovery process. It also oversteps the CRPS’s defined role and responsibilities, moving into areas that may require different professional expertise or explicit client authorization. Another unacceptable approach would be to dismiss the client’s concerns about involving their family and proceed with contacting them anyway, citing the recovery plan’s general goal of support. This disregards the client’s expressed wishes and agency, demonstrating a lack of respect for their autonomy and potentially creating conflict within their personal relationships. It fails to recognize that recovery is a personal journey, and the client’s comfort and consent are paramount. Finally, an approach that involves documenting the client’s refusal to involve family in the recovery plan but then subtly attempting to gather information about the family through indirect means would also be professionally unsound. This is a breach of trust and potentially manipulative, undermining the integrity of the recovery process and the CRPS’s ethical obligations. It fails to uphold the principles of honesty and transparency in the professional relationship. Professionals should employ a decision-making process that begins with understanding the client’s stated goals and preferences. This involves active listening and empathetic communication to fully grasp the client’s perspective. Next, the professional should consider the ethical principles relevant to the situation, such as autonomy, confidentiality, beneficence, and non-maleficence. They should then consult the established recovery plan and any relevant professional guidelines or organizational policies. Finally, the professional should engage in a collaborative dialogue with the client to explore options that respect their autonomy while advancing their recovery goals, ensuring that any actions taken are consensual and aligned with the client’s expressed wishes and the recovery plan.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge because it requires balancing the Certified Recovery Peer Specialist’s (CRPS) commitment to supporting an individual’s recovery with the ethical imperative to avoid over-involvement and maintain professional boundaries. The CRPS must recognize the limits of their role and the potential for their actions to inadvertently hinder the individual’s development of their own recovery capital. The core tension lies in distinguishing between genuine support and enabling behaviors that might undermine the individual’s self-efficacy and resourcefulness. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves the CRPS actively facilitating the individual’s identification and mobilization of their existing recovery capital, while also guiding them toward resources that can help them build new capital. This approach aligns with the core principles of peer support, which emphasize empowerment and self-determination. Specifically, the CRPS should engage in collaborative conversations, asking open-ended questions that prompt the individual to reflect on their strengths, support networks, and available resources. They should then help the individual connect these insights to actionable steps for building further recovery capital, such as identifying community groups, educational opportunities, or vocational training. This method respects the individual’s autonomy and fosters their intrinsic motivation for recovery, directly addressing the development of personal, social, and community recovery capital as outlined in ethical guidelines for peer specialists. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves the CRPS taking on a direct, problem-solving role for the individual, such as personally intervening with landlords or employers. This fails to foster the individual’s development of personal and social recovery capital, as it bypasses opportunities for them to practice advocacy, communication, and problem-solving skills. Ethically, this can lead to over-dependence and blur professional boundaries, potentially creating a situation where the individual relies on the CRPS rather than their own developing resources. Another incorrect approach is for the CRPS to simply provide a list of resources without engaging in a discussion about how these resources align with the individual’s specific needs and recovery goals. This approach neglects the crucial element of social recovery capital, which is built through meaningful connections and shared experiences. It also fails to empower the individual to critically assess and choose resources that best suit their unique situation, potentially leading to disengagement or ineffective utilization of support. A third incorrect approach is to focus solely on the individual’s deficits and the lack of recovery capital, leading to a discouraging and disempowering interaction. This overlooks the fundamental principle of recovery that emphasizes strengths and resilience. Ethically, this can be detrimental to the individual’s self-esteem and motivation, hindering their ability to envision and pursue a positive future, and failing to leverage existing personal and social capital. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a strengths-based, collaborative approach. This involves active listening, empathetic inquiry, and a focus on empowering the individual to identify and utilize their own resources. The decision-making process should prioritize fostering self-efficacy and autonomy, ensuring that interventions are designed to build, rather than replace, the individual’s recovery capital. When faced with a situation like this, a CRPS should ask themselves: “How can I support this individual in discovering and utilizing their own strengths and resources to achieve their recovery goals, while maintaining appropriate professional boundaries?”

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent dual role of a peer support specialist: providing empathetic support while maintaining professional boundaries and safeguarding client confidentiality. The peer specialist must navigate the complex emotional landscape of a client’s disclosure of potentially harmful behavior without compromising their own ethical obligations or the client’s recovery process. Careful judgment is required to balance support with the responsibility to ensure safety and adherence to professional standards. The best professional approach involves acknowledging the client’s disclosure with empathy, validating their feelings, and then gently but firmly guiding the conversation towards the established boundaries of the peer support relationship and the importance of professional consultation. This approach respects the client’s trust and willingness to share while upholding the peer specialist’s ethical duty to seek guidance when faced with situations that extend beyond their scope of practice or raise concerns about safety. It prioritizes the client’s well-being by ensuring they receive appropriate support, which may involve referral to a licensed professional, and protects the integrity of the peer support role by adhering to ethical guidelines that mandate consultation and supervision when necessary. This aligns with the core principles of peer support, which emphasize empowerment, hope, and recovery, while also recognizing the limitations and responsibilities inherent in the role. An approach that involves immediately reporting the client’s disclosure to external authorities without first consulting with a supervisor or seeking professional guidance is ethically problematic. While the intention might be to ensure safety, it bypasses the established protocols for handling sensitive disclosures within a peer support framework. This can erode the trust built with the client and may not be the most effective first step, as peer support specialists are often trained to de-escalate and guide clients towards appropriate professional help through established channels, rather than acting as first responders for all disclosures. Another professionally unacceptable approach would be to ignore or minimize the client’s disclosure, dismissing it as irrelevant to their recovery. This fails to acknowledge the potential impact of the disclosed behavior on the client’s overall well-being and recovery journey. It also neglects the peer specialist’s ethical responsibility to be attentive to the client’s needs and to address any issues that may hinder their progress, even if those issues are complex or uncomfortable. Finally, an approach that involves sharing the client’s disclosure with other peers or colleagues in an informal setting, without proper authorization or a supervisory context, constitutes a breach of confidentiality. This undermines the trust that is fundamental to the peer support relationship and violates ethical principles that protect client privacy. Such actions can have serious repercussions for both the client and the peer specialist. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with active listening and empathetic engagement. When faced with disclosures that raise ethical concerns or extend beyond their scope of practice, the next critical step is to consult with their supervisor or a designated clinical professional. This consultation allows for a thorough assessment of the situation, consideration of relevant ethical guidelines and organizational policies, and the development of a plan that prioritizes client safety and well-being while adhering to professional standards.

This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the Certified Recovery Peer Specialist (CRPS) to navigate a complex ethical situation involving a client’s disclosure of a potentially serious mental health disorder while simultaneously respecting the client’s autonomy and the boundaries of their peer support role. The CRPS must balance the duty to support the client’s recovery journey with the responsibility to ensure their safety and well-being, without overstepping professional boundaries or acting as a clinician. Careful judgment is required to determine the most appropriate and ethical course of action. The best professional practice involves acknowledging the client’s disclosure with empathy and validating their feelings, while gently guiding them towards appropriate professional assessment and support. This approach respects the client’s disclosure and their right to self-determination. It involves actively listening, expressing support for their recovery process, and then collaboratively exploring options for further evaluation with mental health professionals. This aligns with the ethical principles of peer support, which emphasize empowerment, self-direction, and facilitating access to resources, rather than providing direct clinical diagnosis or treatment. The CRPS’s role is to support the client’s journey, not to diagnose or manage their mental health condition. An incorrect approach would be to dismiss the client’s concerns or minimize their experience. This fails to validate the client’s feelings and can lead to them feeling unheard and unsupported, potentially hindering their willingness to seek help. It also neglects the potential seriousness of the disclosed symptoms. Another incorrect approach would be for the CRPS to attempt to diagnose or provide therapeutic interventions for the suspected mental health disorder. This is outside the scope of practice for a CRPS and constitutes an ethical violation by practicing without appropriate licensure or training, potentially leading to harm to the client. Furthermore, it undermines the client’s autonomy by taking control of their recovery process in an inappropriate manner. Finally, an incorrect approach would be to immediately report the client’s disclosure to a supervisor or external agency without first engaging with the client about their concerns and exploring their willingness to seek professional help. While safety is paramount, this action could breach confidentiality and erode trust, unless there is an immediate and imminent risk of harm that necessitates such a report. Professional decision-making in similar situations requires a framework that prioritizes client-centered care, ethical boundaries, and resource navigation. This involves active listening and empathy, followed by an assessment of the client’s immediate safety and willingness to engage with further support. The CRPS should then collaboratively explore appropriate next steps, which may include encouraging the client to consult with their physician, a mental health professional, or other relevant service providers. The CRPS’s role is to be a bridge to these resources, not to replace them.

This scenario presents a professional challenge because it requires the Certified Recovery Peer Specialist (CRPS) to balance their commitment to supporting an individual’s recovery with the ethical imperative to maintain professional boundaries and ensure the safety and well-being of all involved. The CRPS must navigate the complexities of a dual relationship, where a personal connection could potentially compromise objectivity and the effectiveness of the peer support being provided. Careful judgment is required to uphold the integrity of the professional relationship while respecting the individual’s autonomy and progress. The best professional approach involves acknowledging the potential conflict of interest and prioritizing the individual’s recovery and the professional nature of the relationship. This means gently but clearly reiterating the boundaries of the peer support role, explaining that while the CRPS is committed to supporting their recovery journey, the nature of their relationship is professional, not personal. The CRPS should offer to help the individual explore other avenues for social connection or support that fall outside the professional scope, such as connecting them with community resources or support groups. This approach upholds the ethical principles of maintaining professional boundaries, avoiding dual relationships, and ensuring that the peer support provided remains objective and focused on the individual’s recovery goals, as mandated by the core competencies of peer support which emphasize professional conduct and the establishment of appropriate boundaries to foster trust and efficacy. An incorrect approach would be to accept the invitation to the family gathering. This would blur the lines between a professional and personal relationship, creating a dual relationship that can compromise the CRPS’s objectivity and potentially exploit the individual’s vulnerability. This action violates the ethical principle of avoiding dual relationships and could lead to a situation where the CRPS’s personal feelings or obligations interfere with their professional responsibilities, potentially hindering the individual’s recovery progress and creating an unhealthy dynamic. Another incorrect approach would be to immediately terminate all contact with the individual without further discussion or exploration of the situation. While maintaining boundaries is crucial, a complete and abrupt cessation of support without attempting to understand the individual’s intent or offering alternative solutions can be perceived as abandonment and may negatively impact the individual’s recovery journey. This approach fails to demonstrate empathy and a commitment to finding a resolution that respects both the individual’s needs and professional ethics. A further incorrect approach would be to agree to attend but to keep the interaction strictly professional and avoid any personal conversation. While the intention might be to maintain professionalism, attending a personal family event in a professional capacity can still create an uncomfortable and inappropriate situation. It can lead to misunderstandings, perceived favoritism, or the individual feeling scrutinized rather than supported in a genuine way, undermining the trust and rapport essential for effective peer support. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes ethical considerations and the well-being of the individual. This involves: 1) Identifying the ethical dilemma: recognizing the potential conflict of interest and the implications of a dual relationship. 2) Consulting ethical guidelines: reviewing the core competencies and ethical standards for Certified Recovery Peer Specialists. 3) Exploring options: considering various responses and their potential consequences. 4) Choosing the most ethical course of action: selecting the approach that best upholds professional boundaries, respects the individual, and supports their recovery. 5) Documenting the decision and actions taken.