ETHICS+LEGAL

Nonmonogamous Therapists Practicing in Their Own Community: Connecting the Code of Ethics

 

Before we plan a second date, I need to ask you a few questions that might feel strange. Who are your partners, and who are their partners? I am a therapist, and I work with the nonmonogamous community in this city. I am not allowed to tell you who my clients are, so I need to know where you sit on the relationship map before this goes any further. If I learn that we are connected through my practice, I will step back, and I will not be able to tell you why. Does this boundary make sense, and are you comfortable with it?


Suppose you have ever had a similar conversation on a first date. In that case, you might be a nonmonogamous marriage and family therapist (MFT) who specializes in working with the nonmonogamous community in a smaller city. You might have learned through trial and error that your dating life requires the same ethical decision-making that your clinical practice does. You might have realized that no ethics course prepared you for it.

In the November/December 2021 issue of Family Therapy magazine, authors Thomas and Mary R. Nedela, PhD, offered proactive suggestions for queer therapists practicing in their own cultural community (Thomas & Nedela, 2021). This article extends that conversation to a related question: how do MFTs who practice nonmonogamy navigate their own romantic relationships while following the AAMFT Code of Ethics? The question is no longer only how we share community spaces with clients. It is how we date, partner, and build families inside those spaces.

A brief overview of nonmonogamous relationships

Nonmonogamy is a relational orientation, not a single relationship style. Table 1 lists the terms used in this article as defined in AAMFT’s Gender-Affirming Care Guidelines (Carrington, Iantaffi, Thomas, & Veldorale-Griffin, 2025).

Term Definition
Relational orientation An enduring pattern of romantic or sexual attraction in the form of monogamy, nonmonogamy, or some combination of both. People often identify on a continuum.
Consensual nonmonogamy (CNM) The consensual form of nonmonogamy on that continuum. This is the term used throughout this article.
Polyamorous Having romantic relationships with more than one partner at the same time, with the consent of all partners involved.
Swinging A type of open relationship in which partners primarily engage in casual, recreational sex with other couples, often at dedicated events or clubs.
Relationship anarchy A structure in which the people involved create their own rules and boundaries, rejecting norms such as monogamy and hierarchical labels in favor of autonomy, open communication, and a community of connections built on mutual consent.
Monogamish, open relationship Forms that combine monogamy and nonmonogamy, sitting between the two on the same continuum.
Monogamism The belief that the only legitimate relational orientation is monogamy and the only acceptable relationship form is monogamy.
Mononormativity The idea that monogamy is the ideal and natural way to be in a relationship, and that it is enforced by society.

Twist and Iantaffi (2025) report that nonmonogamy is more prevalent among gender and sexually diverse people, and that nonmonogamous relational structures are rarely included in systemic couple and family therapy training programs. Multi-partnered people and relational systems often encounter monogamism, and the discrimination that follows from mononormativity (Twist & Iantaffi, 2025). These relational webs are wide and discoverable. Two people who have never met may sit two or three connections apart on the same relational map.

Clients are looking for us

Clients in CNM relationships often struggle to find clinicians who understand them and will treat them without bias. In one large study, one in five reported that a therapist lacked basic knowledge about CNM, and nearly one in 10 said a therapist pressured them to end their relationship structure (Schechinger, Sakaluk, & Moors, 2018). A therapist who already speaks the language of metamors and relationship agreements spares clients the burden of providing CNM education (Kolmes & Witherspoon, 2017). Many of the MFTs best positioned to offer that care practice nonmonogamy themselves. A clinician’s lived experience can strengthen the therapeutic alliance and help clients learn to navigate CNM from a practical rather than theoretical standpoint. It also creates the conditions the Code of Ethics asks us to manage.

The Code follows us home

The AAMFT Code of Ethics does not mention nonmonogamy; however, its standards still apply to our relationships. Standard 1.3 does not require us to avoid all overlapping connections. It asks that we make every effort to avoid multiple relationships that could impair professional judgment or increase the risk of exploitation, and that we document our precautions when risk exists (AAMFT, 2026). The Code assumes overlap will occur, much as it does for MFTs in rural communities (Gonyea, Wright, & Earl-Kulkosky, 2014). It tells us what to do: anticipate, take precautions, and document them.

Standard 1.4 allows no exceptions. All forms of sexual behavior with current and former clients, or with known members of a client’s family system, are prohibited (AAMFT, 2026). For nonmonogamous therapists, this standard applies to more people than it might seem. We are systemic clinicians, and a CNM client’s family system may include partners, metamours, and co-parents across several households. Before pursuing a new connection, ask a systemic question: whose system does this person belong to? If the answer touches your caseload, the answer is no.

Standard II applies outside the office as well. We protect the confidences of everyone in the client system, so we cannot confirm a therapy relationship at a potluck, on a dating app, or to our own partners (AAMFT, 2026). Our partners may realize before we do that someone we both know is connected to our practice. Standards 3.3 and 3.4 direct us to seek consultation when anything might compromise our work and to avoid conflicts of interest. Standards 4.1 and 4.3 extend the same vigilance to our students and supervisees, who attend the same community events we do (AAMFT, 2026).

Suggestions for practice

Map before you date. Screen new romantic connections the way you screen new referrals. The narrative at the start of this article illustrates asking connection questions early, before attachment makes the answers harder to hear. You will not catch every overlap, but asking first is the effort Standard 1.3 requires.

Treat your dating profile as a professional document. Our field offers almost no formal guidance for clinicians on dating apps, even though therapists regularly report matching with current and former clients (Unhjem, Hoss, Roberts, & VanderTuin, 2021). The problem is even larger for nonmonogamous MFTs, who often meet partners on the same niche, geolocated platforms their clients use. Unhjem and colleagues suggest that clinicians give their profile photos and text the same consideration they give their self-presentation in the therapy room. They also recommend explicitly addressing dating platforms in an informed consent document and bringing any encounter to supervision rather than handling it alone (Unhjem et al., 2021). One clinician in their review denied using dating apps when a client raised the issue. Denying it protects the therapist. It also leaves the client without the information needed to decide whether to continue working with that MFT.

Additional paperwork that may prove useful is a dual-role relationship document that specifically outlines which communities the clinician is part of and details the proper ethical protocol if the clinician and client happen to cross paths in those community settings. Reviewing this document with clients and disclosing in session any community events the clinician might be attending as they arise can best prepare both the clinician and the client for any potential conflicts or overlaps.

Be open and honest with your partners about your limits. Partners deserve their own version of informed consent. A potential narrative could be: “I can never tell you who my clients are. That means you might realize before I do that someone in our network is connected to my practice. If I decline an event or step back from a person without an explanation, please trust that I have a reason I cannot share.” Having this conversation early keeps a partner from interpreting your ethical boundaries as secrecy.

Having a veto clause within partnerships can also be a useful tool for managing potential conflicts of interest that arise from relationships entering a clinician’s personal CNM network. In polyamory, a veto clause is a rule or agreement that gives one partner the power to require that their partner end a relationship with someone else. This function is most found in a subgenre of polyamory called hierarchical polyamory, but it can be used across CNM dynamics (Rickert & Zanin, 2024). Incorporating a veto clause into a clinician’s existing partnerships can allow clinicians to communicate potential conflicts of interest to their partner(s) without breaching confidentiality.

Decide which community spaces belong to your clients. Author Thomas chose not to attend the weekly queer night at his local coffee shop so clients could have that space (Thomas & Nedela, 2021). The nonmonogamous therapist can make the same kind of decision in advance, determining which discussion groups, potlucks, and apps belong to clients and which belong to their own community life. Building your personal community regionally rather than locally, including through telehealth practice across your state, shrinks the overlap considerably.

Document and consult. When overlap occurs, as it will, follow the ethical decision-making steps our field already teaches: name the dilemma, review the relevant standards, gather information, respect client autonomy, and seek consultation (Hecker & Murphy, 2016). Consult with a colleague who understands CNM, share no identifying details, and document the precautions you took as Standard 1.3 directs (AAMFT, 2026). Dr. Sheila Addison’s webinar on multiple relationships in small communities and subcultures addresses this topic (Addison, 2019).

A shared ethical language

The community named itself ethical before we arrived. The Ethical Slut argues that nonmonogamy only works when built on consent, honesty, and care for every person affected (Easton & Hardy, 2017). Our Code of Ethics asks for the same things in professional form: informed consent, truthfulness, and protection of those with less power. The nonmonogamous MFT is not caught between two competing value systems. The two traditions agree. Training programs need to bring these conversations into their ethics courses. Therapists who share their clients’ communities are an asset to the field, and the Code already tells us how to practice in them.

EvanThomas

M. Evan Thomas, PhD, LMFT-S (he/him), is an assistant professor, department chair, and program director of the Master’s in Marriage and Family Therapy Program at Converse University. He is an AAMFT Professional member and holds the Approved Supervisor designation. His research focuses on mental health in Appalachia and the opioid epidemic. He owns a private practice in Greenville, SC, where he specializes in working with queer clients. evan.thomas@converse.edu

ShaylinKing

Shaylin King, LMFT-S, ADC, is an adjunct professor in the Master’s in Marriage and Family Therapy Program at Converse University. She is a South Carolina State Approved Supervisor and co-owns a group sex therapy practice specializing in the queer, kink, and poly communities. shaylin.king@converse.edu

Other articles

Gray Divorce: Splitting Up Later in Life
Perspectives

Not That Kind of Doctor: What a Mass-Casualty Drill Taught Me About First Responders

I went into the training thinking the hard part would be the classroom. Three days of FEMA hospital emergency-responder protocols: decontamination sequences, triage categories, and the federal standard of four people per litter. I’m a family therapist. Sitting and listening is the whole job, so a binder of federal regulations looked like the worst I’d face. It wasn’t. What I wasn’t ready for was the field test, where the binder fell away, there were bodies on the ground, and the part of me I lean on in the therapy room was suddenly the wrong tool.
John Souza, Jr., DMFT

Meaning of Aging in a Time of Crisis
Perspectives

Dostoevsky’s The Adolescent: Wealth, Class, and the Cultivation of a Psychologically Healthy Self – A Systemic Approach to Treatment

In The Adolescent (1875), Fyodor Dostoevsky gives us Arkady Dolgoruky, a young man trying to locate his center of gravity while orbiting a family system organized around wealth, power, and the capricious authority of a charismatic father. Arkady’s psychic and relational life is distorted by a persistent conflation: his father is his father’s money, and to love or hate one is to love or hate the other. In this confusion, admiration sours into resentment, and longing for connection hardens into hostility toward both the man and the fortune that defines him.
Paul Hokemeyer, JD, PhD

Gray Divorce: Splitting Up Later in Life
A Message from the President

Expanding the Influence of Systemic Thinking Around the World

I am a huge fan of systemic thinking and the ability of systemic thinkers to make a difference around the world. One of the foci of AAMFT this year has been to prioritize Eminent Influence. This idea is that we continue to elevate our standing in the world of mental health, and to use our prominent status to expand our influence, both within the United States and globally. We are making progress towards these goals, and I will highlight a few examples below.
Adrian Blow, PhD