In the states I know about, IC sessions are basically confidential. A client can, however, sign releases that allow the IC to share what goes on in sessions with people/organizations of the client's choice.
My W had been in IC before she started her A, but she lied to her IC as well as to me. I insisted she sign a release allowing her IC to talk to me if I requested it. The release also directed her IC to call me if my W rescinded the release or revealed another A (that was her IC's suggestion).
W's IC became our MC, so the release also allows our C to bring anything from an IC session to an MC session.
The release provides a lot of protection against more lies from my W, since the C can confront my W if she says one thing in IC and another in MC.
(If we weren't in MC with W's IC, I'd meet with her IC periodically to make sure the IC was aware of any issues or disconnects between what W told me vs. what she told her IC.)
Your H's IC owes a duty to your H, not to you or your M. I firmly believe the BS needs some visibility into the WS's IC, especially WRT the WS's goals and progress. After all, the WS can tell you he wants R while using IC to prepare to separate. Worse, your WS can lie to his IC, never mentioning his A, for example.
Without a release, the C cannot legally or ethically tell you that your WS is lying, even if the C knows about the lies. With a release the C can tell you, if you ask or if the release tells the C to call you under specific conditions.
BS visibility into the WS's IC is obviously something I feel very strongly about. The visibility I recommend is at a high level though - again, goals and progress and basic information about M issues. A lot of the content of the WS's IC probably should be kept private, because it's a work in progress about doubts.
I know a lot of my W's IC is about her self-doubt about her worth as a human being, fear that she can't fix herself, etc. Really, that stuff depresses me, and it doesn't help heal either me or our M.
What does help is knowing she tells both me and our C that she's committed to R and knowing that the changes I see outside MC are related to things she's trying to change via IC.
If your WS isn't willing to sign a release allowing her IC to share at least very basic info with you, she's still essentially lying to you, not fully committed to R, IMO, and therefore not a good candidate for R.
[This message edited by sisoon at 10:25 AM, August 8th (Friday)]