Infidelity-related inquiries require more than matching two partners to an open couples slot. A practice should assess immediate safety, service fit, clinician competence, each person’s participation, urgent needs, relevant individual supports, referral options, and the limits of what can be decided during intake. The checklist should support careful routing—not predetermine reconciliation or separation.
Intake and referral checklist
Immediate safety and appropriateness
- Does the inquiry indicate current danger, coercion, stalking, violence, self-harm risk, or another urgent concern requiring a different response?
- Does the practice have a clinically reviewed process for speaking with partners separately when appropriate?
- Are urgent and emergency routes current and location-aware?
- Is conjoint work appropriate to consider, or is specialized assessment/referral needed first?
Clinician competence
- Does the assigned clinician have specific education, supervised experience, and consultation access for infidelity-related couples work?
- What presentations exceed the clinician’s or practice’s scope?
- Is specialty consultation available within a clinically appropriate time frame?
- Are marketing claims aligned with actual competence and capacity?
Early purpose and expectations
- What is each person seeking from the first contact: stabilization, information, decision support, relationship repair, separation support, or something else?
- Has the practice avoided promising forgiveness, trust restoration, reconciliation, or a fixed sequence?
- Are confidentiality, records, communication, cancellations, and partner participation explained clearly?
- Does the intake process avoid treating one partner’s account as the complete clinical assessment?
Referral network
- Which individual, psychiatric, medical, substance-use, legal, safety, or higher-level services may be relevant?
- Are referral details recent enough to be useful?
- Who follows up when a referral is central to safe participation?
- Can the practice explain the referral without framing it as rejection or blame?
Record the routing decision
The checklist should lead to a documented next step, not an informal impression that the inquiry “seems like a fit.”
| Routing option | Decision owner | Information still needed | Next action and date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Continue to the practice’s clinically reviewed assessment process | |||
| Consult before assigning a clinician | |||
| Refer to a more appropriate service or level of care | |||
| Use the practice’s urgent or safety route |
The table does not decide clinical appropriateness. It records who made the routing decision, what supported it, and what must happen next.
Clinical framing and evidence
Research reviews describe infidelity as a potentially highly distressing relational event associated with emotional and relationship consequences. The evidence does not justify applying a diagnosis, assuming every person responds the same way, or presenting one universal path to repair.
Practices should use evidence to support qualified assessment, not to turn a complex relationship history into a checklist score.
Sources
- Love and Infidelity: Causes and Consequences—a narrative review
- Affair recovery: injured and involved partners’ experiences
Completion state
The tool is complete when clinical leadership has documented the safety screen, competence criteria, consultation route, consent/communication process, current referral thresholds, and owner of the next action for the practice’s population and jurisdictions.
Completion ledger
Close the guide with an accountable record.
- Decision or next step
- Record the action selected through the practice’s reviewed process.
- Decision owner
- Name the person or role accountable for the next action.
- Review date
- Set the date when the record or policy must be checked again.
This guide does not collect or store practice information.
Ready for the practice record