CHILD ADVOCACY IS SEEN AS THE UNDERTAKING OF ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES WHICH THE PRACTITIONER MUST RECONCILE WITH THE DEMANDS OF HIS OR HER PRIMARY ASSIGNMENT WITH A CHILD. PSYCHOTHERAPISTS ARE CAUTIONED TO REVIEW CAREFULLY THEIR OWN MOTIVES BEFORE ENTERING INTO THE ROLE OF CHILD ADVOCATE. STUDIES HAVE REVEALED THAT PROFESSIONALS WHO DEAL WITH CHILDREN ARE SUSCEPTIBLE TO 'RESCUE FANTASIES' AND THE TEMPTATION TO 'SAVE' CHILDREN. A CASE IS RELATED IN WHICH A THERAPIST'S 'RESCUE' EFFORTS RESULT IN THE DEATH OF A CHILD, AND HE IS SUBSEQUENTLY SUED BY HER PARENTS. IT ILLUSTRATES THE FACT THAT THE ROLE OF CHILD ADVOCATE IS NOT ALWAYS REWARDING OR NECESSARILY EVEN IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD. AT TIMES, THERAPISTS ARE ACTUALLY FORCED INTO THE ROLE OF CHILD ADVOCATE, AS IS THE CASE IN STATES WHICH HAVE ENACTED LEGISLATION REQUIRING THAT THERAPISTS REPORT SUSPECTED CASES OF CHILD ABUSE TO PUBLIC AUTHORITIES. THIS CONFLICTS WITH THE NOTION OF PRIVILEGED INFORMATION AND PRESENTS SIGNIFICANT ETHICAL PROBLEMS FOR THE PSYCHOTHERAPIST. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT PSYCHOTHERAPISTS WHO PRACTICE WITHIN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM ACT DECISIVELY TO CORRECT 'CHILD-SAVING' LEGISLATION WHICH MIGHT HAVE ADVERSE EFFECTS ON THE TRADITIONAL THERAPIST-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP. IN ADDITION, THEY MUST REASSESS THEIR ROLES AS BOTH THERAPISTS AND ADVOCATES IF THEY ARE TO BE EFFECTIVE IN EITHER CAPACITY.