July 2023: Duncan Hamilton, Reference No: 00954283 Registrant ID:385296
The Professional Conduct Panel, consisting of […] met on […] remotely to consider the complaint made by […], the Complainant, against Duncan Hamilton, who was at the time of the complaint a British Association of Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP) individual member, the Member.
Also in attendance were […] (Clerks’ Assistant) and […], Clerk to the Panel.
The Complainant was accompanied by […]. The Member was not present and not represented.
Summary
1. The Complainant complained about Duncan Hamilton, an individual Member of BACP (the Member). The Member has subsequently withdrawn their membership.
2. The Complainant received a postcard from the Member on […] 18 September Year 1. Prior to this their relationship had been solely professional and online, with weekly sessions taking place via Zoom and minimal email contact to arrange the sessions. There was no discussion in their sessions about the Member sending a postcard, and the postcard came without any warning or consent. The Complainant felt unsure whether the postcard was intended to be a part of the therapy, in which case it should have been fully discussed and agreed beforehand. Sending unsolicited of the therapy then it was allegedly a breach of professional boundaries and a misuse of the Complainant’s personal contact details, which the Member held for emergencies only and not for the purpose of sending unsolicited post.
3. The postcard itself was an open postcard, i.e. not contained within an envelope and arrived in a home that the Complainant shared with another person, and so the content of the card was available for them to read. It also left the Complainant with very little choice about whether or not they wanted to see this unsolicited contact from the Member– it was on the Complainant’s doorstep, in their home. The Complainant felt it was intrusive. Further, the Complainant found the choice of image very upsetting given the context of their professional relationship and information the Member knew about […] the Complainant is […]. The image was that of a male nude statue. It was extremely painful to the Complainant that, […], the Member would have chosen this image to send. The Complainant felt that this showed either insensitivity and a disregard […], or it was being deliberately provocative. Either way, the receipt of this image from the Member resulted in a resurgence of traumatic memories and nightmares which are still impacting the Complainant’s mental health many months later.
4. The Complainant contacted the Member immediately after receiving the postcard to confirm it was indeed from them and to cancel their forthcoming session as they did not feel safe. The Member confirmed the position the same day by email on 17 September Year 1. The Complainant sent a further email on 20 September Year 1 stating how upset they had been by receiving the postcard and asking the Member to explain their behaviour and their understanding of why the Complainant had been upset. The Member’s response on 4 October Year 1 addressed only one of the Complainant’s questions, regarding the intention in sending the postcard. The Member apologised, but only for the emotional response the Complainant had experienced and not for the breach of boundaries.
5. The Member allegedly demonstrated no acknowledgement that the postcard had been inappropriate, nor did they take responsibility for the harm caused. The Member then asked for the opportunity to discuss it further in their therapy sessions, which would be at the Complainant’s expense, further solidifying the Member’s stance that the problem was in the Complainant’s response and not with the postcard the Member had sent. Given the Member’s response to this email, the Complainant did not feel inclined to pay to discuss the matter further, nor did they feel safe to continue any contact. The Complainant ended the relationship by email on 18 October Year 1.
6. The Complainant stated that receiving the card felt violating and caused an […] which the Complainant had sought for support at a vulnerable time. Instead of receiving support, they were re-traumatised by the Member’s choice not to uphold professional boundaries, which resulted in an onslaught of memories and nightmares about the Complainant’s […]. Worst of all, the Complainant stated that they had felt too unsafe to seek out further support, either around this upsetting experience, or for the issues that had brought them to therapy in the first place.
7. The Member initially responded to the complaint by email to the Complainant on 4 October Year 1 stating:-
“Hi […],
Thank you for taking the time to share your response to receiving the birthday card I sent.
I am sorry for the fear, upset and anger which have been inspired by my action; it was intended to be an acknowledgement of your birthday and to convey my genuine acceptance and positive regard.
I would like the opportunity to discuss this in our therapy space, to talk over what has come up for you, to address your questions, as well as how and if we wish to move forward together.
There is a concern, professionally and personally, that there are too many layers of interpretation over email for it to prove conducive to the therapeutic process we are attempting to facilitate.
If you would like to discuss this matter further together, I can offer you your usual 10am slot on 25/10.
Wishing you well,
Duncan”
8. The Member further responded formally to the BACP by letter dated […] stating:
“I am writing to respond formally to the complaint which you have received against me, dated [..].
Firstly, I wish to accept responsibility for the actions detailed within the complaint, and the materials therein disclosed. Secondly, I wish to advise yourselves of the context surrounding the complaint, from my perspective. Finally, I will state how I have adapted and learned from this error.
This instance occurred within my first year of practice, as I was still refining my working procedures. Whilst working with the complainant, they made repeated references to their birthday and its importance to them, I thought that an active acknowledgement of their birthday might help to convey my unconditional positive regard and acceptance of the client,
serving to enhance our therapeutic alliance. At the time, I believed this would be welcomed, and within professional boundaries. I rationalised this at the time, noting that many businesses send acknowledgements of birthdays, and it seemed important to this client.
Furthermore, I felt if we were in person, I would pass a card along to a client without concern, and thought ‘why should this be different when working online?’ I sent a postcard that I had in my possession, thinking it innocuous, depicting a statue of Hermes; which I thought might be appreciated by the client due to their symbolic significance.
After receiving the email entailed within their complaint, I spoke with my supervisor, who checked the parameters of my contract, and procedures with me; she admonished me, as I did not have consent to use their address for this purpose. She also personally felt that this was not within professional boundaries, but appreciated that this action can be perceived very differently by different people. We agreed it was best that I respond briefly via email, as that was not our agreed therapeutic space, it wasn’t entirely clear what their grievance was, and already the client seemed to have interpreted this action far beyond its intention. We felt it best that I acknowledge what they had conveyed, and request to discuss the rupture within our agreed therapeutic space (over Zoom) to avoid further misunderstanding.
I was very disappointed and crestfallen when the client declined this offer, demanded to cease contact without attempting to remedy the situation, and requested that I provide them with my session notes and delete my records of them.
I sincerely regret the harm my actions have caused, and I am disheartened to read of the impact this has had upon this person, to whom I am very sorry. Although I acted with good intentions, and in good faith, I did so naively, and without appropriate consideration of the limits of our counselling agreement, or the potential implications or interpretations that could be made about that. With my supervisor’s assistance, we have since revised my practice, enhanced my consent- seeking practices, and considerations of professional boundaries and power dynamics. In
addition to contracting, I now also actively seek my clients’ consent when offering to engage them in a therapeutic task, or if offering an occasional card, or when offering psychoeducation, advice etc. To aid me in this endeavour, I have also investigated the work of Dr (Wheel of Consent) and consciously apply this to my day-to-day practice, and personal life.
In summary, I acknowledge that I acted without appropriate consideration of professional boundaries in this instance. Certainly, this is not an error which I would replicate, and although unfortunate, it has enhanced my appreciation for how differently people view these boundaries and why it is so important to ensure that all parties are consciously consenting to the boundaries and tasks of the therapy, and the intended function of them. I have learned a great deal from this mistake which will continue to foment my ethical practice with clients.
I shall remain open to this process, your guidance and suggestions, and trust that we will deliver an acceptable outcome for all parties, in due course. Please contact me should you require anything further”.
9. The Member responded further to the BACP by letter dated [...] advising that they wished to terminate their membership of BACP and included the following:-
“After consulting my supervisor, therapist, and budget, as well as reflecting deeply upon this process, I have decided upon a course of action. It is perhaps, not the most desirable outcome for any engaged in this process, but I feel that this is the best way for me to proceed with my integrity and to continue to grow and develop as a practitioner, as I see fit”…
I feel inappropriately ‘held accountable’ for someone’s past trauma being triggered by a birthday card, sure, a slight boundary violation perhaps (though would it have been an issue if in-person? Doubtful), certainly not grounds for such grave consequences.
What are you doing to actually put this right? Or any of these more pressing wider issues? Yet, ultimately, I am grateful for this experience, as I have been forced to remember why it is I became a therapist, who I am, and the depth of my integrity; how I can best serve the communities I perceive to have the greatest need. Also that not all of my well-intended actions will land as intended; and that I cannot help.”
10. […]
Allegations (as amended at the hearing)
Allegation 1
1.1The Member breached professional boundaries, in that they:
a. Sent a postcard to the client at their home address; and/or
b. The postcard bore an inappropriate image and/or handwritten message, which caused distress to the client.
1.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraph of ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018:
12 We will do everything we can to develop and protect our clients’ trust and/or
33 We will establish and maintain appropriate professional and personal boundaries in our relationships with clients by ensuring that: a) these boundaries are consistent with the aims of working together and beneficial to the client
Allegation 2
2.1 The Member failed to recognise the harm caused by their actions and/or respond appropriately to the client’s concerns regarding the postcard.
2.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraph of ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018:
52 We will ensure candour by being open and honest about anything going wrong and promptly inform our clients of anything in our work that places clients at risk of harm, or has caused them harm, whether or not the client(s) affected are aware of what has occurred by:
a) taking immediate action to prevent or limit any harm;
b) repairing any harm caused, so far as possible;
c)offering an apology when this is appropriate;
e) investigating and take action to avoid whatever has gone wrong being repeated.
Documents and evidence before the Panel
11. Prior to hearing the Panel amended the allegation to make the references to the parties gender neutral. This was agreed with the Complainant.
12. The Panel was provided with the following written materials:
• The decision of the Investigation and Assessment Committee, dated […], together with the papers provided to that Committee.
• The formal responses submitted by the Member.
• The relevant Ethical Framework.
• The Professional Conduct Procedure 2018.
13. At the outset of the hearing, the Clerk read out the allegations. The Panel had regard to all the written documentation and then heard verbal evidence from the Complainant.
14. The Panel considered the following:
• The allegations.
• All the written and verbal evidence.
• The credibility, reliability and the weight to be attached to the evidence.
• On the balance of probabilities, whether the complaints were proved.
The Complainant
15. The Complainant told the Panel about their complaint. They said that the Member’s actions and responses had caused them harm and had breached professional boundaries The complaint covered the content of the postcard and the response of the Member, which was unsatisfactory. They stated that the Member did not appear to understand the difference between sending and handing over a card. Sending the card was outside the bounds of their therapeutic relationship and had not been discussed. It had come “out of the blue,” was non-consensual and unsolicited.
16. The postcard was inappropriate and was signed “xo” by the Member. The Complainant said that this was particularly inappropriate as they are […] , had previously experienced […] and the Member was aware of this. The Complainant stated that they could not understand how the Member would possibly have chosen the particular postcard. Even if it was only a mistake, it had still been very hurtful and the Complainant said it had felt intentional, sexually motivated and traumatic.
17. The Complainant asked the Member for a full response and received a very unsatisfactory response. The Complainant felt angry and distressed and they felt unsafe to proceed further with the relationship and ended it.
18. During the complaint process further matters arose. The Member’s preliminary response to the complaint showed they were not taking responsibility for their actions. They stated that the Member’s explanation that it was an innocuous image on the card could not be so, given the Complainant’s sexual orientation and history known to the Member. The response was not compassionate or apologetic, and the Complainant felt that the Member had asked them to bring the violation of boundaries into the therapy space and that it was for the Complainant to remedy. The Complainant stated that the Member’s response felt disdainful and framed the problem as being the Complainant’s issue. Further, the absence of the Member at this hearing felt like a betrayal. The Complainant started that they felt violated, undermined and abandoned.
19. In closing, the Complainant stated that they ideally would like the former member to receive copies of the Complainant’s written statement, to acknowledge that they did something harmful and show that they understand that they did further harm by not admitting harm, and provide a full apology. The Complainant asked that the Member explain the violation of boundaries and show that they understand that when they are in a position of power their behaviour is more important that their intent. The Complainant stated that Members should accept responsibility, and apologise when mistakes happen.
20. The Complainant said they had, initially, wanted to speak to the former Member in a safe place but no longer felt that mediation would be safe or appropriate and now sought closure. […].
Findings
21. The Panel accepted the legal advice of the Clerk and applied the balance of probabilities to the evidence. The Panel considered the weight to attach to the evidence and the Panel assessed the reliability and credibility of the parties. On balance, the Panel made the following findings:
Allegation 1
1.1The Member breached professional boundaries, in that they:
a. Sent a postcard to the client at their home address; and/or
b. The postcard bore an inappropriate image and/or handwritten message, which caused distress to the client.
22. The Panel found that the Member breached professional boundaries. There is no dispute about the fact of sending the postcard, the image it bore and what was written on it by the Member. The postcard was not agreed to, it was not discussed between the parties in advance and it was sent to the Complainant at their home address, in a house they shared with others. The postcard was entirely unsolicited. The Member had no entitlement to send the postcard to the Complainant’s home address.
23. Sending the postcard to the Complainant was inappropriate. It was informal and not part of a professional therapeutic relationship. Sending an image of a naked statue of a man in the context of a professional, therapeutic relationship was inappropriate. Further, sending a “Happy Birthday” message and with “xo” (representative of a kiss and a hug), attached forms no part of a professional relationship. The Panel found that the sending of the postcard, the image on it and the message were all inappropriate and a breach of proper professional boundaries.
24. The Complainant said they were caused distress and the Panel found their evidence open, articulate, credible and reliable. The Panel accepted their evidence and concluded that distress was caused and it found this allegation proved.
1.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraph of ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018:
12 We will do everything we can to develop and protect our clients’ trust and/or
33 We will establish and maintain appropriate professional and personal boundaries in our relationships with clients by ensuring that: a) these boundaries are consistent with the aims of working together and beneficial to the client
25. The Panel found that the facts found proved amounted to a breach of both standards 12 and 33. The actions proved were a clear failure to develop and protect the Complainant’s trust. Far from doing so, the Member’s actions left the Complainant distressed and traumatised. The sending of the postcard was not professional or appropriate and the Panel found that the postcard, the image and the content of the postcard all breached professional boundaries. The postcard was unsolicited and failed to maintain proper professional boundaries and distressed and harmed the Complainant. This is proved.
Allegation 2
Allegation 2.1 The Member failed to recognise the harm caused by their actions and/or respond appropriately to the client’s concerns regarding the postcard.
26. The Complainant set out their position clearly in their email to the Member dated 20 September Year 1. The Member did not address the three points raised by the Complainant and the Member’s suggestion that the issue be discussed at therapy was inappropriate. The Member did not take proper responsibility for the incident and did not take the opportunity to repair the relationship. The Member apologised, but in referring to their intention they failed to properly recognise the impact of their actions on the Complainant, and the harm caused. In their later responses the Member appeared to move further away from taking responsibility for their actions and the harm caused. The Member persists in not properly addressing the points that the Complainant reasonably and understandably sought to be answered. The Panel therefore found that the Member did not respond appropriately to the concerns raised. This is found proved.
Allegation 2.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraph of ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018:
52 We will ensure candour by being open and honest about anything going wrong and promptly inform our clients of anything in our work that places clients at risk of harm, or has caused them harm, whether or not the client(s) affected are aware of what has occurred by:
a) taking immediate action to prevent or limit any harm;
b) repairing any harm caused, so far as possible;
c)offering an apology when this is appropriate;
e) investigating and take action to avoid whatever has gone wrong being repeated.
27. There is no evidence that the Member took any action to limit any harm. In their inadequate response to the Complainant the Panel found that the Member did not take steps to repair harm, so far as possible. The Panel found that the facts proved amount to a breach of 52 (a) and (b).
28. As regards apology, the Panel noted that the Member did apologise, but it was somewhat limited when they stated they were “sorry for the fear upset and anger”. The evidence was that an apology was made, albeit limited, and this is therefore found not proved in respect of 52 (c).
29. The Member described what they did as a “slight” boundary breach. The Panel found that was a failure to fully accept and acknowledge the breach and, significantly, the impact on and harm to the Complainant. The Panel found that demonstrated a serious lack of insight by the Member into their behaviour and its impact. In those circumstances, the Panel concluded that the Member failed to investigate and failed to take action to avoid repeating what had gone wrong. The Panel concluded that the Member therefore breached 52(e).
Decision
30. Accordingly, the Panel was unanimous in its decision that there had been a failure to comply with the Professional Standards in respect of the allegations and a breach of standards 12, 33, 52 (a), 52 (b), and 52 (e) of ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.
Sanction
31. The Panel reconvened on […] to consider sanction. The Panel reminded itself of its findings (above), the sanctions available under the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2018 and the guidance within the BACP Sanction Protocol (PR14).
32. The Panel noted that the Member had resigned their membership of the BACP with immediate effect on […] and had not provided any submissions in relation to sanction.
33. The Panel considered, if the Member had still been a member of the BACP, what sanction would have been appropriate. Having considered the guidance within PR14 and applied it to the breaches found proved, the Panel agreed that it would be disproportionate to suspend or withdraw the Member’s membership.
34. The Panel decided that, if the Member were still a member of the BACP, it would require the following:
1. Within 8 weeks the Member is to undertake at least 6 hours of specific training in respect of managing professional therapeutic boundaries. The Member should also undertake continuing professional development on the appropriate use of personal data as it relates to the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) and Data Protection Act, and provide evidence of the successful completion of all such activities.
2. Thereafter, within four weeks the Member is to provide a detailed, written reflective statement covering the following issues:-
a. the Member’s actions and why the sending of the postcard was in general terms inappropriate;
b. why sending the postcard to this specific Complainant was inappropriate;
c. the impact and harm caused to the Complainant;
d. what the Member has learned from this experience as well as the training and CPD activities undertaken;
e. the potential impact of the Member’s conduct on the reputation of the profession as a whole and on public confidence in the profession;
f. the changes they have made to their practice in order to reduce the risk of a recurrence in the future.
3. Thereafter, within 7 days, the Member to issue a full and sincere written apology to the Complainant demonstrating:
a. that the Member takes full responsibility for their actions;
b. that the Member acknowledges the impact on the Complainant;
c. the Member’s understanding of why their conduct was not appropriate;
d. what they have learned from the training/ CPD undertaken.
(Where ellipses [ . . . ] are displayed, they indicate an omission of text)