It's an interesting discussion (I realize that it's about a year old). Certainly, the courts and sheriff's office are way more powerful than a single individual. That's why we have lawyers and I hope that she was adequately represented.

You say that she consented to counseling in this matter. I assume that she had a choice not to consent. Excercising that choice may have been upsetting to the authorities and they may have pressured her to make the right choice. The alternatives may have been criminal proceedings etc.

Still she made the choice, and the way I read it, that means she agrees that she has a problem that needs treatment. To then go to treatment and negate that she has a problem, is a problem.

To put it in a different context a criminal, given the option, may opt to receive treatment, but then goes to the therapist and argues that he only chose this as means of lightening his sentence.

I would suggest that the woman/girl may have been misinformed about what treatment would consist of. I would assume that she could have the option of going back to court and fighting it out there. It however strikes me as disenginuous to admit that you have a problem and then go to treatment only to deny it. Again, I would think that she was not in total understanding of this when she consented to this course.