June 2023: Maria Lindholm-Ventola, Reference No: 00687883 Registrant ID: 0055325
A Professional Conduct Panel (the Panel) […] met on […] remotely via Microsoft Teams to consider a complaint by the Complainant, […], about the now former member, Maria Lindholm-Ventola (hereinafter referred to as the Member), that the Complainant, on the invitation of the Member, brought her X into a therapy session.
In attendance were […] (Case Processor and Clerk’s Assistant) and […] Clerk to the Panel). The Complainant attended and was supported by Professional Supporter […]. The Member did not attend. By its decision pursuant to paragraph 5.9 of the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2018 (PCP) of […] the Panel determined that this hearing should proceed in the Member’s absence.
The complaint concerned an alleged failure by the Member to comply with Professional Standards and resulted in the Investigation and Assessment Committee formulating the following Allegation:
Allegation 1
1.1 On 1 November Year 1, on the invitation of the Member, the Complainant brought her X into the session to discuss her […] ;
a) this was inappropriate and caused severe suffering to the Complainant and/or
b) this also meant that the Member was in a dual relationship with the Complainant in that she was both her individual therapist and also her couples therapist
1.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with paragraphs 12 and 33b of ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018 which state:
12: We will do everything we can to develop and protect our client’s trust.
33: We will establish and maintain appropriate professional and personal boundaries in our relationships with clients by ensuring that:
….
b. any dual or multiple relationships will be avoided where the risks of harm to the client outweigh any benefits to the client.
Documents and evidence before the Panel
The Panel was provided with the following written materials:
The Complainant’s Complaint
The Member’s Preliminary Response
The decision of the Investigation and Assessment Committee of […]
The Member’s additional evidence
The decision of the Panel of […] to proceed in the absence of the Member
The Professional Conduct Procedure 2018
The Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018
In coming to its decisions the Panel carefully considered the following:
The allegation made.
The written, verbal and documentary evidence
What weight to attach to the evidence
Whether the allegation should be upheld.
Summary of the evidence
The Complainant has complained about Maria Lindholm-Ventola, an individual member. The complaint is dated 7 April […]; she has attached copies of her payments for the sessions and screen shots from […] out the sessions she had.
In summary the Complainant states:
• She had sessions with the Member between June Year 1 and 1 November Year 1. There were 15 sessions in that time.
• She had grown up in […] in a family that offered her […]. The Member never really showed patience or curiosity about her past and often cut her off and said she was no longer a child anymore. The Complainant told the Member about her […].The Member cut her off to tell her that she was a grown woman, her Z was a grown man and it was normal for a grown man to […].
• When she started seeing […] in September Year 1 the Complainant started struggling with her feelings and […]. The Member recommended that the Complainant bring her X to the sessions. The Complainant did not feel comfortable with it but went forward with it because she trusted the Member. The Complainant felt so uncomfortable in the session that she was unable to speak and then asked her X to leave. At the end the Member said that her […] is getting worse.
• The experience crushed the Complainant’s remaining faith in psychotherapy. She stopped seeing the Member and tried for two years to deal with […] on her own. It was a very lonely and difficult journey. After the Complainant had had […] since May Year 3, she realised she had been condescended to and gaslighted by the Member.
The Member provided a Preliminary Response
The Member has set out a preliminary response dated 24 April […]. She states that she is sorry that the Complainant feels the way she does. She feels it is a pity that they did not speak about how the therapy process was progressing while the Complainant was having therapy as this might have allowed the Complainant to tell the Member that she was finding the therapy of little use.
The Member states that the Complainant presented with some challenges relating to the relationship she had at the time. The Complainant consented to her X attending the session and did not express any feelings of being uncomfortable with this idea.
Preliminary issue
The Member ceased to be a member of the BACP on […]
The Panel took into consideration paragraph 9.7 of the PCP which provides:
Failure to renew membership/registration by a Member during the course of a complaint will not terminate a complaint under this Procedure, including the enforcement of any sanctions outstanding.
A Member’s resignation from membership/registration of this Association will not terminate or invalidate the processing and/or hearing of a complaint by the Association.
The decision of the Panel is that it has jurisdiction to continue to hear the Complainant’s complaint about the Member.
The hearing
The Complainant gave oral evidence and was asked questions by the Panel.
Decision and Reasons for Findings
When making its decision the Panel bore in mind that the Complainant has the burden of proving the allegation on the balance of probabilities.
Having considered both the documentary, written and oral evidence, the Panel made the following finding.
The Complainant was asked probing questions by the Panel to assist it to assess her credibility and reliability. The Panel took into account that:
• due to the passage of time, the Complainant could not recollect all the detail of the session on 1 November Year 1;
• the Complainant provided some details in the hearing that she did not include in her written complaint;
• the Complainant did not seek to discredit the Member;
• where she was not sure of the answer to a question the Complainant said so.
The Panel found the Complainant to be both a credible and reliable witness.
Allegation 1.1
On 1 November Year 1, on the invitation of the Member, the Complainant brought her […]
There was no dispute between the parties that the Complainant’s then X attended the session with the Complainant on 1 November Year 1 and that […] did so at the suggestion of and on the invitation of the Member, and that he attended to discuss the Complainant’s […].
Allegation 1.1 a)
This was inappropriate and caused severe suffering to the Complainant.
Found proved on the balance of probabilities.
The decision of the Panel was that the attendance of the Complainant’s X was inappropriate for the following reasons:
• before the session on 1 November Year 1 the Member had previously suggested 2 to 3 times that the Complainant’s then X attend but the Complainant did not agree. When the Complainant did agree to her then X attending, the Member did not explore with the Complainant why she had changed her mind;
• the Complainant sought one to one, face to face in the first instance, therapy with the Member. Although subsequently the Member told the Complainant she also provided couples therapy, the Member did not provide any explanation to the Complainant prior to the session on 1 November Year 1 as to what the therapeutic value would be to the Complainant from including her then X in the session;
• prior to the session on 1 November Year 1 the Member did not provide to the Complainant’s then X an explanation of the purpose of his attendance and the questions she would ask him;
• the nature of any arrangement/relationship, therapeutic or otherwise, between the Member and the Complainant’s X was unclear.
The decision of the Panel was that the Complainant was caused severe suffering as a result of her then X attendance at that session. The Panel took care to identify the severe suffering attributable to the attendance of her then X at that session and to separate these from issues that caused the Complainant to seek therapy in the first instance. The Panel found this part of the allegation proved for the following reasons. The Complainant:
• blanked out during the session;
• curled up on her then X couch during the session;
• was unable to answer any questions during the session;
• had trusted the Member as her therapist but because of this session lost faith in therapy and for several years was not able to access help for her […] ;
• in order to cope with her […] while she did not have support for this, sometimes […].
Allegation 1.1 b)
this also meant that the Member was in a dual relationship with the Complainant in that she was both her individual therapist and also her couples therapist
Found not proved on the balance of probabilities.
The decision of the Panel is that this allegation is not found proved for the following reasons. Although the Complainant’s then X attended the session on 1 November Year 1, there was a lack of clarity as to what the objective of the session was and/or what was the identified therapeutic outcome for the Complainant. The Panel does not have sufficient evidence to conclude, on the balance of probabilities, that during the session on 1 November Year 1 the Member was acting as a couples therapist for the Complainant and was thereby in a dual relationship with her.
Allegation 1.2
The decision of the Panel is that by including the Complainant’s then X into the session on 1 November Year 1 the Member breached paragraph 12 of the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions which provides:
12: We will do everything we can to develop and protect our client’s trust.
The Member breached the Complainant’s trust by:
• failing to have a discussion with her before the session about why the Complainant had changed her mind about her X attending this session;
• failing to provide an explanation to the Complainant prior to the session as to what the therapeutic value would be to her of including her then X in the session.
The decision of the Panel was that paragraph 33 (b) of the Ethical Framework:
33: We will establish and maintain appropriate professional and personal boundaries in our relationships with clients by ensuring that:
….
b. any dual or multiple relationships will be avoided where the risks of harm to the client outweigh any benefits to the client.
only applies to Allegation 1.1 b). As the Panel did not find Allegation 1 1 b), proved it did not have to go on to consider whether this paragraph had been breached.
Decision
Accordingly, the decision of the Panel was that there had been a failure to comply with the Professional Standards but only in respect of the proven allegation 1.1 a) in that the Member acted contrary to paragraph 12 of the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.
Sanction
The Panel reconvened on […] to consider what, if any, sanction is appropriate.
The Member had provided an email dated […] in which she maintained her defence. The Panel took this into account and noted that the Member is no longer a member of the BACP and has previously advised she has not practised in the UK for a number of years.
The Panel reminded itself of its findings above, its powers of sanction under paragraph 5.12 of the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2018 and BACP Protocol 14 (Guidance on Sanctions).
The Panel decided that, if the Member were still a member of the BACP, it would have imposed the following sanction:
1. The Member must provide to the BACP:
a. a personal statement demonstrating specific changes to her practice in relation to building and maintaining clients’ trust. This statement should reflect on the events found proved and what she has learnt about building and maintaining clients’ trust from the experience that has led to the changes she has made.
b. confirmation that she has discussed these events and her personal statement with her supervisor.
2. The Member must provide the BACP with a genuine and sincere letter of apology addressed to the Complainant that demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for the failings found proved and insight into the impact on the Complainant.
The Panel decided not to set a time period within which the Member must comply with the sanction as she is no longer a member.
Publication
Subject to any submissions received and any appeal period, the full decision including sanction will be published in accordance with the BACPs Publication Policy.
(Where ellipses [ . . . ] are displayed, they indicate an omission of text)