|

Subscribe to the Professional Conduct Department RSS Feed

Hearing Findings, Decision & Sanction

June 2013: Nigel Summerton, Reference No: 542072, Plymouth PL2

The complaint against the above individual member was taken to Adjudication in line with the Professional Conduct Procedure.

The complaint was heard under BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2010 and the Panel considered the alleged breaches of the BACP Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy.

The focus of the complaint, as summarised by the Pre-Hearing Assessment Panel, was that Mr Summerton was contracted by organisation A to provide external supervision for its employee, Ms B, from 2008 to December 2010.  During this time he and Ms B allegedly began a sexual relationship which allegedly included sexual activity in his counselling room, at times when he was being paid by Organisation A to provide supervision.  In addition, Mr Summerton and Ms B allegedly went on holiday together in September/October 2010.

Mr Summerton allegedly continued to both supervise, and maintain a relationship with Ms B until late 2010/early 2011.  He then allegedly referred her on to a supervisor in his own agency.

These matters allegedly came to light during two social meetings between Ms B and Ms C on the 18 and 23 November 2011.  At this stage the relationship between Mr Summerton and Ms B was on-going.

Ms C talked the matter through with her supervisor, who with her permission then discussed it with his own reference group.  Ms C subsequently wrote to both Ms B and Mr Summerton, explaining that she intended to make a complaint to BACP and offering a chance of a face to face meeting first, in order to establish the facts of the matter.

The meeting was held on 26 April 2012 at Mr Summerton's premises.  It was attended by Mr Summerton and his colleague Mr D, and Ms C and her supervisor.  Mr Summerton allegedly agreed that he had started a relationship with Ms B whilst also receiving money to supervise her.  He read out a letter from Ms B in which she allegedly expressed her upset about a "betrayal of trust".  Ms C alleges that at the meeting she suggested that Mr Summerton might self-disclose his behaviour to BACP.

Following the meeting, Ms C decided to proceed with making a complaint to BACP and wrote to Mr Summerton informing him of this.

The Pre-Hearing Assessment Panel, in accepting this complaint, was concerned with the allegations made within the complaint suggesting contravention of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy 2010 and those in particular as follows:

• Mr Summerton allegedly failed to consider the implications of entering into a dual relationship by commencing a personal and sexual relationship with Ms B whilst he was contracted and paid to be her supervisor.
• Mr Summerton allegedly abused his client's trust by entering into a sexual relationship with her. By so doing he allegedly took financial, emotional and sexual advantage of his client
• Mr Summerton allegedly failed to exercise caution and also failed to be willing to be professionally accountable by beginning and continuing to have sexual and personal contact with Ms B.
• By entering into a sexual relationship with a supervisee, and allegedly allowing sexual activity during periods when he was receiving payment for supervision, Mr Summerton allegedly abused the trust placed in him in by his employers.
• Mr Summerton allegedly created a conflict of interest in that he was employed by organisation A to provide supervision services to an employee of the organisation, and with whom he commenced a personal relationship.
• Mr Summerton allegedly failed to ensure probity of practice by having a personal relationship with Ms B at a time when he was being paid to supervise her.
• Mr Summerton allegedly failed to monitor and maintain his fitness to practise by both starting a sexual relationship with Ms B at a time when he was being paid to supervise her, and not discussing the implications of this with, or seeking the advice of, his supervisor.
• Mr Summerton's alleged actions and behaviour, as alleged by Ms C, suggest a contravention in particular of paragraphs 4, 18, 32, 43, 54 and 55 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy 2007/2009. It also suggests a contravention of paragraphs 4, 17, 40, 51, 63 and 62 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy 2010, the ethical principles of Fidelity/Being Trustworthy, Beneficence, and Non-maleficence, and the personal moral qualities of integrity, humility, competence and wisdom to which counsellors and psychotherapists are strongly encouraged to aspire.

Findings

On balance, having fully considered the above, the Panel made the following findings:

I. Having questioned Mr Summerton thoroughly and considered the written statement of Ms B, the Panel was satisfied that he did consider the implications of entering into a dual relationship before commencing a personal and sexual relationship with Ms B whilst he was contracted and paid to be her supervisor for the following reasons: -

The Panel accepted his evidence and that of Ms B that: -

Mr Summerton acted as Ms B's supervisor from March 2007 to December 2010.  Their personal and intimate relationship commenced in about October 2010.  Their relationship was solely a professional one for about two and a half years.

They discussed the implications of having a dual relationship, both professional and personal, when their relationship developed into a personal and intimate one in Oct 2010.

Initially it was Mr Summerton's view that Ms B should immediately seek supervision from someone else.  However, he was persuaded by Ms B to carry on for a further two supervisory sessions in November and December 2010, against his better judgment because Ms B was reluctant to change supervisors.  However Ms B's intention was always that supervision with Mr Summerton would only continue for this limited period.  Ms B found a new supervisor in January 2011 and this arrangement continues.

His decision to carry on supervising Ms B was also influenced by his wish to achieve an ending in relation to Ms B's work with organisation A clients and the fact that Ms B's work with organisation A would terminate in any event at the end of 2010 as the organisation was closing down.

Mr Summerton did not have a contract with organisation A.  His supervisory contract was with Ms B.  The arrangement was that Ms B could choose her own supervisor and organisation A paid for her supervision.  However, the Panel accepted Mr Summerton's evidence that organisation A did not reimburse Mr Summerton for the last few months of supervision that he provided to Ms B.  This allegation is therefore, not upheld.

II. The Panel accepted Mr Summerton's written and oral evidence that his personal relationship with Ms B was consensual and on-going, which was confirmed by the written evidence of Ms B that she entered the relationship as a mature adult, she had not been manipulated and that she remains in a happy equal relationship with him. For these reasons the Panel was not satisfied that Mr Summerton had abused Ms B's trust by entering into a sexual relationship with her and that by doing so, he took financial, emotional or sexual advantage of her. The Panel therefore, did not uphold this allegation.

III. However, the Panel did find that Mr Summerton failed to exercise sufficient caution before entering into a personal relationship with Ms B when he was still her supervisor. Mr Summerton accepted that by doing so, his behaviour could be perceived as an abuse of power although he did not think it was abusive. Ms B made clear in her statement that her personal relationship with Mr Summerton had not been abusive or detrimental to her. However the Panel took note that sexual relations with clients are prohibited under the Ethical Framework and the word "client" includes supervisees. It also took into account that Mr Summerton's behaviour could be perceived as detrimental to the standing of the profession. For these reasons, the Panel upheld the allegation.

IV. Mr Summerton accepted that he made the wrong judgment in failing to take the issue of his sexual and personal contact with Ms B to supervision at the earliest opportunity. He admitted that he should have done so but did not because he knew that his supervisor would advise him to stop supervising Ms B. In failing to take the issue to supervision against his better judgment, the Panel found that Mr Summerton failed to exercise caution and also failed to be willing to be professionally accountable by beginning and continuing to have sexual and personal contact with Ms B. This allegation is therefore, upheld.

V. The Panel accepted the evidence of Mr Summerton that he did not engage in any sexual activity in the hour set aside each month for supervision with Ms B. However he conceded that by having an intimate relationship with a supervisee employed by organisation A, between October and December 2010, he did abuse the trust placed in him in by organisation A. Although Mr Summerton did not have a contract directly with organisation A and they were not his employers per se, organisation A paid for her supervision. However, the Panel accepted that he was not being paid by organisation A at all during the period October to December 2010 but he continued to supervise Ms B partly for her perceived benefit and also because organisation A, a charitable organisation, allegedly had serious financial difficulties and was about to close. This allegation is therefore, upheld in part.

VI. For the reasons set out in the preceding paragraph, organisation A did not employ Mr Summerton. However, Mr Summerton accepted that his judgment was compromised when he commenced a personal relationship with Ms B, who was an employee of organisation A at a time when he expected organisation A to pay him for providing supervision services to her, thereby creating a conflict of interest. This allegation is therefore, upheld.

VII. Mr Summerton accepted that he failed to ensure probity of practice by having a personal relationship with Ms B at a time when he expected organisation A to pay him for her supervision sessions. He stated that if he had been acting as supervisor for a supervisee who was in the same situation as he was in relation to Ms B, he would have advised that the supervisory relationship cease immediately. He accepted that he had avoided being given this advice by not taking the issue to his own supervisor. This allegation is therefore, upheld.

VIII. Mr Summerton accepted that he failed to monitor and maintain his fitness to practise by both starting a sexual relationship with Ms B at a time when he should have been paid to supervise her, and not discussing the implications of this with, or seeking the advice of, his supervisor. The Panel upheld the allegation but accepted that in so doing, he did not act dishonestly but rather lacked clear thinking at a time when his judgment was compromised by his emotional attachment to Ms B.

IX. The Panel accepted the evidence of Mr Summerton supported by the written statement of Ms B regarding the period of sexual contact and found as a fact that this took place between October 2010 and December 2010.

X. In light of the above findings, the Panel was satisfied that paragraphs 4, 17, 40 and 63 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy (2010) and the ethical principles of Fidelity/Being Trustworthy, Beneficence and Non-maleficence had been contravened. The Panel also found that Mr Summerton had lacked the personal moral qualities of humility, competence and wisdom but did not find that he lacked integrity. The Panel was not satisfied that paragraphs 51 and 62 had been contravened. The Panel found that the 2007/2009 edition of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy was not applicable to this code, given the finding of the Panel that the relationship did not begin until 2010. Therefore, any allegations referring to a contravention of this code are not upheld.

Decision

Having fully considered the above, the Panel makes a finding of professional malpractice in that Mr Summerton failed to provide an adequate professional service on the grounds that he entered into a personal and sexual relationship with Ms B at a time when he was her supervisor, avoided taking the issue to supervision and continued with this dual relationship for three months against his better judgment.

Mitigation

Mr Summerton gave honest answers and tried fully to assist the Panel.  He showed contrition in the way he presented himself and did not make excuses for his conduct. Over the two years that have elapsed since the events giving rise to this complaint, Mr Summerton has reflected on the issues, acknowledged his errors of judgment, cooperated in trying to resolve the issues locally with organisation A, increased his supervision sessions and made the decision not to take any new clients in the period when he was the subject of this complaint.  He provided a detailed report from his supervisor, which confirms he has used supervision to think deeply about and learn from the issues giving rise to this complaint.  His supervisor states that he is a thoughtful, experienced and competent practitioner who offers a compassionate and ethical counselling service to a wide range of clients.  The Panel was satisfied on the evidence of both Mr Summerton and the written evidence of Ms B that there was no abuse or exploitation and the relationship with Ms B was entered into by consenting adults and is continuing.  There was no evidence that damage has been caused to any of Ms B's clients or to organisation A as a result of Mr Summerton's dual relationship with her between October and December 2010.

Sanction

The Panel considered the full range of sanctions available to it and what would be fair and proportionate in the unique circumstances of this case, where it found that the personal and sexual relationship was consensual and non-predatory and Mr Summerton had made an isolated error of judgment.  After very careful consideration, the Professional Conduct Panel decided that Mr Summerton had shown sufficient learning and in the particular circumstances of this case, it was not appropriate to impose a sanction.       

February 2013: Susan Wilburn, Reference No: 622715, Doncaster DN4

The complaint against the above individual member was taken to Adjudication in line with the Professional Conduct Procedure.

The complaint was heard under BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2010 and the Panel considered the alleged breaches of the BACP Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy. 

The focus of this complaint, as summarised by the Pre-Hearing Assessment Panel, is that A, the client, commenced counselling with Ms Wilburn in January 2011.  The presenting issue was that A wished to control her drinking.  A and Ms Wilburn met some 15 times, for face- to- face counselling sessions.  After the third session of counselling, A ended her long-term relationship with her then-partner, allegedly as a result of input from Ms Wilburn.

In between these sessions, text messages were exchanged on, allegedly, a daily basis, as well as regular phone contact, which was allegedly initiated, and then encouraged, by Ms Wilburn.  Allegedly, some of the texts from Ms Wilburn ended with a kiss (x) and Ms Wilburn allegedly hugged A in at least one of their face- to -face meetings.

The complainants allege that the frequency, timing (from early morning to late at night) and wording of the texts, together with the frequent phone calls, were an indication that Ms Wilburn had not put professional boundaries in place regarding her relationship with A.  They further allege that the nature and frequency of contact, (which included a meeting in [ . . . ] town centre on 24 May, allegedly for purely social reasons) led to A becoming emotionally dependent on Ms Wilburn.

On 19 May, Ms Wilburn allegedly telephoned A's GP, at A's request, and requested a prescription for her, which she then allegedly collected and posted on to A.  The complainants allege that by this behaviour, as well as with the regular contact between sessions, Ms Wilburn was effectively befriending A and that this was a separate example of Ms Wilburn having crossed professional boundaries.

Between January and July, Ms Wilburn allegedly called the emergency services five times on A's behalf, including accompanying her to hospital on 27 May, after A had had palpitations during a counselling session.  It is alleged that Ms Wilburn neither informed the client's family herself of this event, nor advised the client to do so.  The complainants further allege that Ms Wilburn had no insight into the serious nature of the client's mental health and its deterioration.  The complainants also allege that Ms Wilburn believed she could help A back to normal health with only a one hour session a week, questioning Ms Wilburn's professional competency.

According to Ms Wilburn's notes, as alleged by the complainants, A terminated counselling by text on 3 July.  However, it appears that texting continued, and on 7 July, A overdosed and stabbed herself in the stomach.  Following texts from A that morning, Ms Wilburn rang the emergency services and A was taken to hospital.  The next day, 8 July, she allegedly sent Ms Wilburn a picture of herself with a penknife in her neck, which she had allegedly done to herself whilst in hospital.

On the same day, (8 July) A rang Ms Wilburn, who was in a car with a friend.  When the conversation was finished, Ms Wilburn failed to end the call properly, and A allegedly overheard her speaking disparagingly to her friend, telling her what a nightmare she (A) was as a client.  The complainants allege that A felt betrayed and "gutted" by this, as she had allegedly believed that Ms Wilburn was her friend as well as her counsellor.  She allegedly repeatedly texted Ms Wilburn, requesting an explanation from her, and when she did not receive one, contacted [ . . . ], who allegedly had also been told by Ms Wilburn that A was a demanding and difficult client.  Ms Wilburn responded to A's texts on 9 July, informing her, by text, that her supervisor had advised her to "pull back" from phone and text contact until she had a proper supervision session.  A was allegedly distressed and further destabilised by this change, and wished to contact the supervisor directly, to put her side, although Ms Wilburn allegedly refused her permission to do this.

On 13 July, A sent another text message, asking for explanations of the alleged breaches of confidentiality.  Ms Wilburn agreed to send her some dates and times when they could meet, although allegedly she never followed this up.

On 16 July, A sent Ms Wilburn three texts within three quarters of an hour, which were allegedly "concerning".  She also allegedly rang Ms Wilburn three times in a two hour period.  Ms Wilburn allegedly did not respond to any of these messages.  Allegedly, this added to A's distress.

On 17 July, Ms Wilburn sent A a letter formally ending their counselling relationship, apparently in response to A having terminated counselling herself sometime earlier in the month.

On the same day, A was discovered dead in her house.  The coroner allegedly declared death was due to the "toxic effects of prescribed medication - exact form and mechanism of which remains unclear".

The complainants allege that Ms Wilburn befriended then rejected A, and that she failed to keep adequate records of her contact with A.

In conclusion, the complainants allege that Ms Wilburn's conduct amounts to acting incompetently, unprofessionally and negligently and that she allegedly disregarded her duty of care to A.

GROUNDS IN FAVOUR OF ACCEPTING THIS COMPLAINT:

The Panel, in accepting this complaint, was concerned with the allegations made within the complaint suggesting contravention of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy 2010 and those in particular as follows:

• Ms Wilburn allegedly did not work in the client's best interest, nor demonstrate wisdom, in allowing the frequency and nature of contact that she had with this vulnerable client between sessions.
• Given the level of contact between sessions, Ms Wilburn did not provide a good quality of care in pulling back from contact so suddenly and without explanation.
• Ms Wilburn allegedly failed to consider the implications of entering into a dual relationship with A, by providing her with support and social interaction outside of the counselling relationship, which was allegedly to the detriment of the client.
• Ms Wilburn allegedly did not give enough consideration to the limits of her training and experience, failing to work within these limits, in not recognising the significant amount of hospitalisation the client required, and the frequent calls to the emergency services that she had to make.
• Ms Wilburn allegedly failed to be alert and consider the possibility of conflicting responsibilities between her client and to other people who may be affected, in that she did not inform A's mother when she was admitted to hospital.
• Ms Wilburn allegedly failed to respect her client's privacy and confidentiality, by discussing her with [ . . . ] and a friend, on different occasions. Ms Wilburn allegedly failed to agree and clarify the rights and responsibilities of both the practitioner and the client, in particular in not having a clear and unambiguous ending with the client.
• Ms Wilburn allegedly did not keep adequate and appropriate records with regard to the counselling she provided to A.
• Ms Wilburn did not maintain her competence in allegedly not having regular supervision in which she discussed this client, and in not doing so it is further alleged that she was not able to review her own need for professional and personal support.
• Ms Wilburn allegedly failed to clarify who held responsibility for the work with the client, by not seeking support from other professionals in managing a complex client.
• Ms Wilburn's alleged actions and behaviour, as alleged by [ . . . ] and [ . . . ], suggest a contravention in particular of paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 14, 20, 32, and 40 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Therapy 2010. It also suggests a contravention of the ethical principles of Being Trustworthy, Beneficence, and Self-Respect, and a lack of the personal moral qualities of humility, competence and wisdom to which counsellors and psychotherapists are strongly encouraged to aspire.

The Panel noted that this was a third party complaint but were satisfied that the complainants had both demonstrated sufficient interest and were also directly affected by the actions of the practitioner.

Findings

On balance, having fully considered the above, the Panel made the following findings:

I. Ms Wilburn began weekly counselling sessions with A in January 2011. By May 2011, Ms Wilburn was allowing A increasing access to her between sessions by permitting A to make numerous text and phone calls and further, telling her to keep in touch by this method of communication. Text evidence indicated significant contact out of hours and Ms Wilburn's immediate responses to these texts. It was also apparent from the texts that there were frequent out of hours telephone conversations. In her written and verbal evidence, Ms Wilburn agreed that in allowing and encouraging this contact with a vulnerable client, she had been unwise. The Panel found that in allowing this frequency and nature of contact, Ms Wilburn failed to recognise that this was not in the best interests of her client, and served to foster A's dependence upon her. The allegation is therefore upheld.

II. Ms Wilburn advised A, at the beginning of July 2011, that she did not wish to continue to respond to A's texting and withdrew from this established method of contact. On 9 July 2011, A texted Ms Wilburn, seeking an explanation for this sudden withdrawal. Ms Wilburn responded by text, informing A that she had been advised by her supervisor to "pull back" on phone and text contact. Ms Wilburn, in her written and verbal evidence, conceded that the contact had been withdrawn abruptly and without a proper explanation. The Panel found that Ms Wilburn failed to provide a good quality of care for A in that she did not consider the level of contact that she had allowed, and the need for a phased withdrawal from that contact given the effect that this withdrawal would have had on A. The allegation is therefore upheld.

III. Ms Wilburn, in her verbal evidence, accepted that she had met with A in a cafe and that this had been outside of the counselling relationship. In evidence, Ms Wilburn accepted that boundaries had been crossed and that she had, "taken on the role of support/crisis worker rather than psychotherapist." In meeting A in a café , and permitting the extensive out of hours text and telephone contact, the Panel found that Ms Wilburn had failed to consider the implications of entering into a dual relationship with A, which had been to A's detriment. This allegation is therefore upheld.

IV. Ms Wilburn, in her written and verbal evidence, agreed that she had failed to work within the boundaries of the counselling relationship in that she made five 999 calls to emergency services on behalf of A, was aware of the amount of hospitalisation her client experienced, and ordered and collected a prescription for her. The Panel was not satisfied that Ms Wilburn had recognised the significance and implications of such events as potential evidence of mental health issues in A, and did not consider her own behaviour and the limitations of her training in relation to these incidents. In verbal evidence, Ms Wilburn stated that she had limited training in mental health issues and conceded that she was not in the best position to meet the needs of A by working with her in private practice without intervention from the mental health team. Therefore, this allegation is upheld

V. The Panel found that Ms Wilburn acted appropriately in respect of not informing A's mother when A was admitted to hospital. The Panel accepted that Ms Wilburn did not have her client's permission to inform her mother, and consequently the allegation is not upheld.

VI. The Panel accepted, on the evidence presented, that Ms Wilburn did not discuss A with [ . . . ]. However, Ms Wilburn agreed that she had discussed A with a friend during a car journey. There was text evidence from A that she had overheard this conversation during a phone call to Ms Wilburn, which had not disconnected. The Panel found that this conversation in itself amounted to a failure to respect her client's privacy and confidentiality, and therefore this allegation is upheld.

VII. Ms Wilburn responded to a text from A on 9 July 2011, to offer her a face to face meeting to "discuss recent events", including the sudden withdrawal of contact and support via text and telephone and the alleged breach of confidentiality. A refused to meet, saying she would prefer phone or email contact. Further text messages from A to Ms Wilburn during the period 9 to 16 July 2011, suggested an increasingly distressed client seeking to understand the current state of the relationship and asking for a reply to her questions. There was text evidence from late June 2011 where A had suggested that they "should go their separate ways", however, Ms Wilburn's text response states that she would be willing to continue the counselling work. However, since this communication, there was no evidence that there had been any further discussion, or meeting, with regard to the ending of the counselling relationship. The Panel therefore found that, in failing to engage appropriately with A, there was no agreement about the rights and responsibilities of both parties, including the level of contact that could take place outside of the counselling session, or the ending of the counselling relationship. This led to an unclear and ambiguous ending with the client. Furthermore, the Panel was not satisfied that Ms Wilburn had carried out an adequate assessment of A either at the commencement of the counselling relationship or during the course of it. This allegation is therefore upheld.

VIII. Ms Wilburn's records and notes were incomplete and had significant gaps with regard to the dates of meetings and content of sessions. Ms Wilburn claimed that she had kept the text messages as a record of what had taken place in the counselling sessions. The Panel was not satisfied that keeping text messages represented appropriate record keeping and also found the records to be an inadequate and incomplete record of the counselling. This allegation is therefore upheld.

IX. Ms Wilburn had regular supervision, where she discussed her work with A. However, the Panel found that Ms Wilburn had failed to adequately inform her supervisor of the full extent of the contact which took place between her and A, or discuss the personal identification that she experienced with A. Further, the Panel was not satisfied that Ms Wilburn adequately discussed or reviewed the changes that had taken place in her normal practice, i.e. contacting others on her client's behalf, meeting the client outside the counselling room and acting more like a support worker than a counsellor. The Panel found that Ms Wilburn had not adequately reviewed her need for personal and professional support and, as a consequence, failed to maintain competence. The allegation is upheld.

X. Ms Wilburn called 999 after A had made a suicide attempt on 7 July 2011. A was taken into hospital and was referred to the Crisis Team. There was evidence that Ms Wilburn had made contact with the hospital to ensure that A was "in their care". The Panel was satisfied on the text evidence and verbal evidence provided by Ms Wilburn, that Ms Wilburn had adequately explained the circumstances in which she would seek the intervention of the emergency services. The Panel accepted that Ms Wilburn had sought support from other professionals and therefore this allegation is not upheld.

XI. In light of the above findings, the Panel was satisfied that paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 14, 20, 32 and 40 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy (2010) and the ethical principles of Being Trustworthy, Beneficence and Self Respect had been breached. It also found a lack of the personal moral qualities of humility, competence and wisdom.

Decision

Accordingly, the Panel was unanimous in its decision that these findings amounted to serious professional malpractice on the grounds of incompetence, recklessness and providing professional services which fell well below the standards that would reasonably be expected of a practitioner exercising reasonable care and skill.  The Panel found such malpractice required the suspension of Ms Wilburn's BACP Accreditation.

Mitigation

Ms Wilburn admitted in her formal response that she was responsible for the failure to maintain appropriate boundaries in the counselling relationship and that she had been unwise in allowing extensive outside of counselling contact with her client through texting and phone.  Ms Wilburn gave evidence of the following changes that she had made within her practice:

• She had reviewed her written client contract in light of this experience.

• She had improved her record keeping and case notes.

• She intended to put in place further training in mental health issues.

Sanction

Within one month from the date of imposition of this sanction, which will run from the expiration of the appeal deadline, Ms Wilburn is required to provide a written submission, which evidences her immediate reflection on, learning from and understanding of, the issues raised in this complaint.

Additionally, in no less than six months and no more than ten months from the date of imposition of this sanction, Ms Wilburn is required to provide a further written submission, counter signed by her supervisor, which evidences the following:

• The importance of boundary keeping in counselling and psychotherapy
• The avoidance of fostering dependence in a counselling relationship
• Keeping and recording case notes
• Impact of dual roles in counselling and psychotherapy
• Making risk assessments in work with clients
• Differences in working in an agency setting and in private practice.
• Proper use of Supervision as a means to monitoring professional competence.

Ms Wilburn will be required to appear for interview, before a Sanction Panel, within 12 months from the date of imposition of the sanction, to give further evidence of her sufficient learning from and understanding of, the issues raised in this complaint.

Prior to appearing at an interview, and within ten months from the date of imposition of the sanction, Ms Wilburn is required to provide written evidence from the training provider of enrolment and completion on formal training, of no less than 12 hours duration, in understanding mental health problems presenting in counselling and psychotherapy.

This evidence should be submitted to BACP and should include confirmation of Ms Wilburn's attendance/satisfactory completion from the training provider.

These written submissions must be sent to the Registrar by the given deadlines and will be independently considered by a Sanction Panel.

(Where ellipses [ . . . ]are displayed, they indicate an omission of text)

  

  

September 2012: Samantha Earnshaw, Reference No: 640875, Essex CM14

The complaint against the above individual member was taken to Adjudication in line with the Professional Conduct Procedure.

The complaint was heard under BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2010 and the Panel considered the alleged breaches of the BACP Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy.

The focus of the complaint, as summarised by the Pre-Hearing Assessment Panel, is that the complainant commenced therapy with Ms Earnshaw in June 2011 and continued until November 2011.  The complaint stems from when Ms Earnshaw visited the [ . . . ] Public House with two friends on Saturday 26 November 2011, which was communicated to the complainant by her daughter    [ . . . ], and [ . . . ], when certain events were alleged to have occurred.  The complainant alleged that from information she disclosed in the counselling sessions, Ms Earnshaw would have been aware that the complainant's daughter, [ . . . ] was residing and working in the public house and [ . . . ].

The complainant alleged that Ms Earnshaw attempted to inappropriately speak to, and ask personal questions of the complainant's daughter throughout the course of the evening, although her daughter would have been unaware of who Ms Earnshaw was.  The complainant alleged that later in the evening Ms Earnshaw was totally inebriated and was asked to leave the premises.  She allegedly turned on the complainant's daughter [ . . . ], and [ . . . ], hurling foul and abusive language at them and disclosing that she was the complainant's counsellor.  She also allegedly divulged personal information imparted to her in the counselling sessions by the complainant.  The complainant alleged that Ms Earnshaw shouted, in the proximity of the DJ microphone so that all present heard, that she was the complainant's counsellor, that she knew ‘everything' about [ . . . ] and [ . . . ] and that [ . . . ].  [ . . . ] then allegedly told Ms Earnshaw to leave immediately before he called the police.

Ms Earnshaw allegedly denied all knowledge of the incident when questioned on the telephone by the complainant the following day, claiming that she had been ill in bed.  The complainant subsequently viewed the pub's CCTV images recognising Ms Earnshaw in these images.  The complainant alleged that she again called Ms Earnshaw, when her friend answered the phone, allegedly telling her that Ms Earnshaw was distressed and embarrassed as she had been at the pub and that she would call her back.

The complainant alleged that when Ms Earnshaw returned her call, Ms Earnshaw claimed she had not breached confidentiality but had only informed the complainant's daughter that she was the complainant's counsellor, nor did she express any remorse.  The complainant alleged that at this point she informed Ms Earnshaw that she would be taking the matter further and requested her supervisor's contact details, which Ms Earnshaw did not provide.

The complainant alleged that this incident has caused terrible upset and devastation and damaged her relationship with her daughter.  She alleged the breach of confidentiality is a complete disregard for her privacy and questions Ms Earnshaw's professional competency.  She also alleged that Ms Earnshaw did not seek to remedy the harm that was caused.

The Pre-Hearing Assessment Panel, in accepting this complaint, was concerned with the allegations made within the complaint suggesting a contravention of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy, and those in particular are as follows:

• Ms Earnshaw allegedly breached confidentiality by; disclosing to the complainant's daughter and those present in the pub, that she was the complainant's counsellor, and further disclosing personal and sensitive information gained from the counselling sessions about the complainant and third parties, thereby failing to respect the complainant's privacy and confidentiality and honour her trust

• The alleged lack of professional competence and wisdom shown by Ms Earnshaw in going to a Public House where she allegedly knew that the complainant's daughter resided and worked and engaging in inappropriate communications.

• Ms Earnshaw allegedly further undermined the complainant's trust and showed a lack of respect and integrity in denying her presence and role in the alleged incident following the complainant's enquiries.
• The alleged failure by Ms Earnshaw to respond appropriately to the issues of grievance raised by the complainant in telephone conversations on the day following the incident.
• Ms Earnshaw allegedly failed to attempt to remedy any harm that may have been caused to the complainant subsequent to the events of 26 November 2011, in particular showing no remorse and failing to provide an apology.
• Ms Earnshaw's fitness to practise was allegedly impaired, in breaching confidentiality, abusing her client's trust and behaving in a manner which significantly compromised the counselling relationship, all while under the influence of alcohol.

• Ms Earnshaw's alleged behaviour, as experienced by the complainant, suggests a lack of the personal moral qualities of humility, integrity, respect, competence and wisdom to which practitioners are strongly encouraged to aspire as outlined by the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy 2010.  It also suggests a contravention of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy 2010 and in particular paragraphs 1, 10, 11, 13, 17, 20, 24, 40, 41 and, 42 and the ethical principles of being trustworthy, beneficence, autonomy, justice and non-maleficence.

Findings

On Balance, having fully considered the above, the Panel made the following findings:

I. Ms Earnshaw admitted that, whilst she was a customer in the [ . . . ] Public House, she had breached the complainant's confidentiality by disclosing to the complainant's daughter that she was her mother's counsellor.  The Panel found that Ms Earnshaw, in doing so, had failed to respect the complainant's privacy and confidentiality and honour her trust and therefore this aspect of the allegation is upheld.  The Panel was not satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to show that this disclosure was overheard by those present in the pub or that Ms Earnshaw had disclosed personal and sensitive information gained from the counselling sessions about the complainant and third parties.  Therefore these aspects of the allegation are not upheld.

II. Ms Earnshaw attended the [ . . . ] Public House, at the invitation and instigation of a friend, to celebrate her graduation.  The Panel was satisfied that Ms Earnshaw attended the pub in a private capacity.  The Panel was not satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to show that Ms Earnshaw knew that the complainant's daughter resided and worked at the [ . . . ] Public House before attending, nor that she engaged in inappropriate conversations with the complainant's daughter.  The Panel found that the allegation that Ms Earnshaw had shown a lack of competence and wisdom in attending the pub was not upheld.

III. On the evidence, the Panel was satisfied that Ms Earnshaw had received a text from the complainant enquiring about what had happened at the      [ . . . ] Pub on the evening of 26 November 2011.  This text had been sent at 00.37 hours on 27 November and was read by Ms Earnshaw on the morning of 27 November 2011.  When Ms Earnshaw responded to the complainant, she denied that she had been present at the pub, instead stating that she had been ill in bed.  In a subsequent telephone conversation with the complainant, Ms Earnshaw recanted and admitted that she had indeed been present at the pub and further had breached the complainant's confidentiality by disclosing to the complainant's daughter that she was her mother's counsellor.  The Panel found that Ms Earnshaw had lied to the complainant and had undermined the complainant's trust.  The Panel was concerned that this showed a serious lack of respect and integrity and therefore the allegation is upheld.

IV. On the morning of 27 November 2011, the complainant raised the issue with Ms Earnshaw about her alleged behaviour in the pub the previous night.  Ms Earnshaw's initial response was to mislead the complainant and deny that she had been present at the pub.  Only when the complainant rang Ms Earnshaw at a later stage, after checking the pub's CCTV footage, did Ms Earnshaw acknowledge some of the alleged behaviour.  When questioned, Ms Earnshaw was unable to give an account of her understanding of why she had behaved as she had in response to the complainant's text and telephone calls, in spite of having discussed the matter extensively since the events in supervision and personal therapy.  The Panel was not satisfied she dealt appropriately with the issues of grievance that had been raised by the complainant, and therefore this allegation is upheld.

V. There were conflicting accounts about whether Ms Earnshaw had made an apology or shown remorse to the complainant during a telephone conversation on 27 November 2011. The Panel found that whilst Ms Earnshaw had made some form of apology to the complainant during this telephone call, this was limited and insufficient to attempt to remedy harm. Ms Earnshaw stated that she closed down contact with the complainant after this phone call as the complainant had told her she would be taking legal advice.  The Panel was not satisfied that this was an appropriate response and found that Ms Earnshaw had failed to attempt to remedy any harm that may have been caused to the complainant and therefore the allegation is upheld.

VI. Ms Earnshaw admitted that alcohol may have played a part in her behaviour on the evening of 26 November 2011 and that she was "merry" having had 3 half pints of cider and 2 sambuca's during the course of the evening.  On questioning, Ms Earnshaw admitted that she had been unwise in breaching confidentiality.  The Panel found that Ms Earnshaw's fitness to practise was impaired and her client's trust abused and that this significantly compromised the counselling relationship, which ended as a consequence.  The allegation is therefore upheld.

VII. In the light of the above findings the Panel was satisfied that paragraphs 1, 11, 20, 24, 40, 41 and 42 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy 2010, the personal moral qualities of integrity, respect, competence and wisdom and the ethical principles of being trustworthy, beneficence, autonomy and non-maleficence had been breached.  The Panel was not satisfied that paragraphs 10, 13 and17 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy 2010 and the ethical principles of justice had been breached.

Decision

Accordingly the Panel was unanimous in its decision that these findings amounted to Professional Malpractice in that Ms Earnshaw acted recklessly and provided inadequate professional services which fell below the standards that would reasonably be expected of a practitioner exercising reasonable care and skill.

Mitigation

Ms Earnshaw emphasised to the complainant and to the Panel her sincere apologies and remorse for the breach in confidentiality and for her lack of wisdom.  She stated that it is her intention to seek further training on confidentiality issues.

Sanction

Within one month from the date of the imposition of this sanction, which will run from the expiration of the Appeal deadline, Ms Earnshaw is required to provide a written submission which evidences her immediate reflection on, learning from and understanding of, the issues raised in this complaint.

Ms Earnshaw will be required to appear for interview, before a Sanction Panel, within 12 months from the date of imposition of the sanction, to give verbal evidence of sufficient learning from and understanding of, the issues raised in this complaint.

Prior to appearing at an interview, and within six months from the date of imposition of the sanction, Ms Earnshaw is required to provide evidence of further formal training, of no less than 12 hours duration, covering the following issues associated with confidentiality and ethical behaviour in counselling practice;

• Trust as fundamental to understanding and resolving ethical issues.
• Counsellor dishonesty and its impact on the client/counsellor relationship.
• Appropriate responding and management of client complaints in private practice.

This evidence should be submitted to BACP and should include confirmation of Ms Earnshaw's attendance/satisfactory completion from the training provider.

Upon completion of this training, and prior to interview, Ms Earnshaw is required to provide a report evidencing her further in depth learning and understanding of the issues raised in this case, with her supervisor.  The report should also evidence that she has sufficiently addressed, in supervision, her dishonest behaviour and her understanding of her behaviour under stress.  This report should be countersigned by her supervisor.

These written submissions must be sent to the Deputy Registrar and Deputy Director of BACP Registers by the given deadlines, and will be independently considered by a Sanction Panel and at the interview.

(Where ellipses [ . . . ]are displayed, they indicate an omission of text)  

  

September 2012: Mo Kurimbokus, Reference No: 590267, London NW7

The complaint against the above individual member was taken to Adjudication in line with the Professional Conduct Procedure.

The complaint was heard under BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2010 and the Panel considered the alleged breaches of the BACP Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy.

The focus of the complaint, as summarised by the Pre-Hearing Assessment Panel was that the complainant and her husband [ . . . ] began weekly couples counselling with Mr Kurimbokus in August 2008.  At Mr Kurimbokus' suggestion, the complainant alleged that counselling was also extended to include weekly individual counselling for herself.  At a later stage, the therapeutic work also included PST.  The complainant further stated that couple counselling frequently followed immediately after her own individual session and this had an adverse effect on the dynamics of the couple counselling session.  For example she alleged that Mr Kurimbokus often took her side against her husband.

The complainant stated that there was no written contract and that, in response to questioning Mr Kurimbokus on how long the counselling process would take, he could not give any estimate.  In late 2008, individual sessions for the complainant were increased to twice weekly.

The complainant alleged that sessions, which were scheduled to last 50 minutes, frequently over-ran, resulting in abrupt endings and contact with Mr Kurimbokus' clients attending for counselling in following sessions.  The complainant further alleged that sometimes evening sessions were permitted to continue into the next hour, which were charged and would sometimes finish at 10.00pm or later and that at times, Mr Kurimbokus yawned during these sessions.

The complainant stated that in 2010, Mr Kurimbokus was also counselling her sister-in-law and on one occasion, her sister-in-law's session followed directly after the complainant and her husband's couple counselling session.  She alleged that this was unprofessional and embarrassing.  The complainant further stated that Mr Kurimbokus also volunteered to counsel her other friends and family members.

On one occasion when the complainant cried, she alleged that Mr Kurimbokus asked whether he should sit next to her and touch her, to which she said no.  The complainant alleged that she sensed that at some stage the counselling relationship changed in that Mr Kurimbokus stopped counselling her and said he enjoyed listening to her stories.  In another session the complainant stated Mr Kurimbokus complimented her on her appearance and subsequently began using sessions to disclose personal information about himself and his life.  On occasions, one of Mr Kurimbokus' daughters allegedly opened the door to them when arriving for a session.  On another occasion, when Mr Kurimbokus extended his holiday in the USA, the complainant alleged that her and her husband received a call from one of his daughters saying a session had been cancelled.  This call caused them to feel distressed, specifically in relation to confidentiality.

The complainant stated that Mr Kurimbokus allegedly suggested that she could attend a residential course that he was also attending and repeatedly raised the issue of whether she had a "soul mate".  Although the complainant stated she made clear the concept had no meaning for her, he persisted with the idea and she felt annoyed.  The complainant further stated that Mr Kurimbokus told her some personal information which he asked her to keep secret from her husband.

The complainant stated that when she expressed the wish to reduce the number of her sessions to work towards bringing counselling to an end, Mr Kurimbokus confused her by talking about his recent EMDR course and desire to try using EMDR on her.

The complainant alleged that Mr Kurimbokus told her he would like to be her friend and possibly more.  The complainant alleged that he disclosed to her that he thought she was sexy and that he fantasised about her.  In a session with the complainant and her husband to discuss these issues, Mr Kurimbokus admitted that he found the complainant attractive and had discussed the question of friendship but claimed that he was working with these issues for a beneficial therapeutic ending, as he believed that it was the complainant who wanted to be friends with him outside of the counselling relationship.

The complainant alleged that Mr Kurimbokus failed to inform her and her husband about the existence of the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure.

The complainant alleged that Mr Kurimbokus' therapeutic approach caused her to develop a harmful and dependant relationship on him.  She alleged that Mr Kurimbokus took away her autonomy to express her feelings as client in a professional counselling relationship and consequently betrayed her trust.

The Pre-Hearing Assessment Panel, in accepting this complaint was concerned with the allegations made within the complaint suggesting contravention of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy, and those in particular as follows:

• Mr Kurimbokus allegedly failed to maintain time boundaries, allowing sessions to over-run resulting in abrupt endings. This also led to the complainant and her husband passing other clients on their way out, potentially compromising their confidentiality.
• Mr Kurimbokus allegedly failed to maintain trust and have due regard for the complainant's privacy, in that on one occasion he scheduled a session with the complainant to immediately precede her sister-in-law's session, resulting in them meeting at the gate and causing the complainant to feel uncomfortable.
• Mr Kurimbokus allegedly failed to deliver a competent and professional counselling service, in that he allegedly arranged counselling sessions in the late evening which he allowed to overrun, indicated that he was tired and yawned during the session.
• Mr Kurimbokus allegedly demonstrated a lack of respect and insufficient attention to client confidentiality in that he permitted members of his family to open the door to the complainant and her husband and to communicate with them by telephone to cancel a session.
• Mr Kurimbokus allegedly did not either provide the complainant and her husband with a contract or with adequate information and clarification with regard to the services he offered.
• Mr Kurimbokus allegedly did not provide a periodic review of the work done, and the outcomes arising from that work.
• Mr Kurimbokus allegedly failed to provide a good quality of care in that he made unprofessional and inappropriate disclosures about his family to the complainant.
• In allegedly encouraging the complainant to attend a workshop that Mr Kurimbokus was also planning to attend, Mr Kurimbokus did not pay sufficient regard to the maintenance of professional boundaries
• Mr Kurimbokus allegedly encouraged the complainant to keep secret from her husband, personal information that he had disclosed to her, and in doing so the complainant's trust and confidence in his integrity was undermined.
• Mr Kurimbokus further undermined the complainant's trust by allegedly focusing persistently on his belief that the complainant needed a soul mate, that he would like to be her friend and possibly more, and that he thought she was sexy and fantasised about her.
• Mr Kurimbokus' alleged behaviour, as experienced by the complainant, lacked the personal moral qualities of empathy, respect, competence and wisdom to which practitioners are strongly encouraged to aspire, as outlined in the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy 2007/2009. It also suggests a contravention of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy 2007/2009 and in particular paragraphs 1, 3, 6, 11, 12, 16, 18, 38, 51 and 56 and the ethical principles of fidelity, autonomy, non-maleficence and self-respect.

Findings

On balance, having fully considered the above, the Panel made the following findings:

I. Mr Kurimbokus accepted when questioned that he did allow sessions to over-run, and as a consequence his clients, including the complainant and her husband, did sometimes pass other clients on their way out of counselling. The Panel found that this potentially compromised their confidentiality and therefore this allegation is upheld.

II. Mr Kurimbokus agreed that he had, on one occasion, scheduled a session with the complainant that immediately preceded her sister-in-law's session, and this resulted in them meeting at the gate of his house. The Panel accepted that this made the complainant uncomfortable and therefore Mr Kurimbokus had failed to maintain trust and to have due regard for the complainant's privacy. Therefore this allegation is upheld.

III. There was agreement that Mr Kurimbokus did see the complainant and her husband in the late evening, and that these sessions did sometimes over-run. However there was insufficient evidence brought to demonstrate that Mr Kurimbokus was tired and yawned during these sessions. Therefore this allegation is not upheld.

IV. Mr Kurimbokus did allow, on occasion, his family members to open the door to the complainant and her husband and to communicate with them by telephone in order to cancel a session. In failing to explain to the complainant in an open and transparent way the involvement of his family members in his practice, the Panel found that Mr Kurimbokus had demonstrated a lack of respect, and in this regard the allegation is upheld. However, the Panel did not find a lack of attention to confidentiality, given that contracts were in place, addressing issues of confidentiality, and thus this aspect of the allegation is not upheld.

V. Both parties agreed that Mr Kurimbokus did provide the complainant and her husband with a written contract and this part of this allegation is therefore not upheld. However the Panel also found that this contract did not provide adequate information and clarification about the services offered. In particular, Mr Kurimbokus did not provide reference to the BACP Ethical Framework, nor to the Complaints Procedure therein. Therefore this part of the allegation is upheld.

VI. In response to questions, both parties agreed that there had been some review of progress during the period of counselling. The Panel therefore found that there was insufficient evidence brought to uphold the allegation that there were not periodic reviews of the work done in counselling.

VII. Mr Kurimbokus agreed in his evidence that he had made some disclosures about his family to the complainant. However the Panel found that these disclosures were insignificant and neither unprofessional nor inappropriate. Therefore this allegation is not upheld.

VIII. The complainant gave evidence when questioned that she had made an "assumption" that Mr Kurimbokus would be attending the workshop he had encouraged her to attend. She accepted that he had not in fact said or suggested that he would be attending. The Panel therefore found this allegation is not upheld.

IX. There was insufficient evidence brought to demonstrate that Mr Kurimbokus had encouraged the complainant to keep secrets from her husband. Therefore the allegation that, by doing so he undermined her trust and confidence in his integrity, is not upheld.

X. Mr Kurimbokus agreed in his evidence that it was he who had brought up the issue of a "soul-mate", in a particular context. He further accepted that he had told the complainant that she was sexy and gorgeous, and stated that this was to build up her self-esteem. The Panel accepted the complainant's evidence that these remarks were unwelcome and therefore undermined her trust in Mr Kurimbokus. This part of the allegation is upheld. There were conflicting accounts as to whether Mr Kurimbokus had said he fantasised about the complainant and wanted to be her friend, and possibly more. Mr Kurimbokus denied saying any of this, and the Panel found on balance that there was insufficient evidence brought to uphold this part of the allegation.

XI. In his evidence, Mr Kurimbokus stated that he had told the complainant that she was sexy and gorgeous because he thought that it was "safe to take a risk". The Panel found that in doing so Mr Kurimbokus had not acted wisely and demonstrated a lack of empathy.

XII. In light of the above findings, the Panel was satisfied that paragraphs 1, 11, 12, 16, 38 and 51 of the Ethical Framework 2007/2009 had been breached, as well as the ethical principles of fidelity and autonomy and the personal moral qualities of empathy, respect and wisdom. Paragraphs 3, 6 18 and 56 had not been breached, and nor had the ethical principles of self-respect and non-maleficence.

Decision

Accordingly, the Panel was unanimous in its decision that these findings amounted to professional malpractice on the grounds that Mr Kurimbokus's behaviour was incompetent, negligent, reckless, and provided inadequate professional services and fell below the standards that would reasonably be expected of a practitioner exercising reasonable care and skill.

Mitigation

Mr Kurimbokus indicated that he would review his contract and terms of service and that he would also re-visit his time boundaries with regard to sessions.

Sanction

Within one month from the date of the imposition of this sanction, which will run from the expiration of the appeal deadline, Mr Kurimbokus is required to provide a written submission, which evidences his immediate reflections on, learning from and understanding of, the issues raised in this complaint.

Within the same timeframe, Mr Kurimbokus is also required to provide evidence of his re-written contract, and its publication on his website.  This should include, as a minimum:

• An indication of the way in which Mr Kurimbokus works.
• A link to the BACP's Ethical Framework (in case of complaint).
• Length of time of sessions and current fees.
• Whether or not contact outside of sessions is permitted and if so in what circumstances.
• The limits of confidentiality.
• Policy on lateness or non-attendance.
• Mr Kurimbokus's policy on note-taking, and availability of notes should clients wish to see them.

In not less than three months and not more than six months, Mr Kurimbokus should provide written evidence of a developed understanding of the theory and practice of erotic transference, with a particular understanding of how this may be played out in client work.  Mr Kurimbokus is also required to provide evidence that he has an improved and thorough understanding of the need for clear boundaries in his client work, specifically around the timings of sessions, and his own responsibility in keeping the time boundaries.  He should evidence a positive change in his practice resulting from his knowledge acquired through this process.  This work should be signed off by a supervisor who will be familiar with Mr Kurimbokus's practice, but who at the time of the Professional Conduct Hearing was outside of his current network.

Following completion of the last written report, Mr Kurimbokus will also be required to attend an interview with the Sanction Panel, demonstrating his positive learning and how his practice has changed and improved.

These written submissions must be sent to the Deputy Registrar and Deputy Director of BACP Registers by the given deadlines, and will be independently considered by a Sanction Panel and at the interview.

(Where ellipses [ . . . ]are displayed, they indicate an omission of text)  

  

August 2012: Darren Simpson, Reference No: 521894, Leicestershire LE10

The complaint against the above individual member was taken to Adjudication in line with the Professional Conduct Procedure.

The complaint was heard under BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2010 and the Panel considered the alleged breaches of the BACP Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy.

The focus of the complaint, as summarised by the Pre-Hearing Assessment Panel, is that the complainant saw Mr Simpson for counselling, provided by her employer, beginning in March 2010.  Following the six allocated sessions, the complainant then saw Mr Simpson for private counselling at his home from September to December 2010.  The complainant alleges that there was no contract provided for the private sessions.  The complainant alleges that Mr Simpson joked in one session about having an affair with her.  She alleges that during the penultimate session in December 2010, Mr Simpson stroked her hand and told her of his fantasy of kissing her, adding that he would not do that since he was her therapist.  The complainant alleges that at their final session, Mr Simpson kissed her, felt under her underwear, and exposed himself to her.  The complainant alleges that this caused her great distress, so much so that she went home and told her husband what had happened that day, and briefly contemplated suicide.  The complainant  alleges that despite having made an agreement with Mr Simpson that there would be no further contact between them, Mr Simpson texted her a few days later, and consequently there was an alleged exchange of texts and telephone calls which went on to the following February.  She alleges that some of the texts confirm that Mr Simpson acknowledged that something inappropriate had taken place. 

In the complainant's attempt to resolve the matter, she made a complaint to her employer and the authority that had employed Mr Simpson for her initial counselling.  In her complaint to her employer, the complainant alleged that Mr Simpson also failed to keep adequate notes of their sessions, that he falsified some of the written evidence that he submitted to the hearing, that he was disrespectful of her in some of his statements and that he stated that he had discussed with his supervisor the possibility of her having a borderline personality disorder.  Following her attempts at resolution through her employer, she was not satisfied that the issues had been resolved, and therefore submitted a complaint to BACP. 

GROUNDS IN FAVOUR OF ACCEPTING THIS COMPLAINT:

The Panel, in accepting this complaint, was concerned with the allegations made within the complaint suggesting contravention of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy, and those in particular as follows:

• Mr Simpson allegedly failed to re-contract and clarify the terms under which the counselling was to take place with the complainant, when the counselling changed from her workplace to his private practice.
• Mr Simpson allegedly made an inappropriate and ambiguous remark inviting an affair with the complainant.
• Mr Simpson allegedly abused the complainant's trust and engaged in sexual activity with her.
• Mr Simpson allegedly failed to deal appropriately with what he allegedly described as a ‘issues of transference' (erotic feelings towards the therapist) towards him on the complainant's part.
• Mr Simpson allegedly engaged in an exchange of texts and telephone calls for a further two months after the last session, having allegedly agreed to terminate the therapeutic relationship.
• Mr Simpson allegedly admitted to the investigating officer employed by the complainant's employer that he failed to keep notes after every counselling session with the complainant.
• Mr Simpson allegedly created fictitious notes about the private counselling with the complainant and then disclosed those notes to her employer without her consent and allegedly without giving her sight of them.
• Mr Simpson was allegedly dishonest in his account of the counselling when responding to the complainant's complaint to her employer.
• Mr Simpson allegedly made disrespectful remarks about the complainant in response to the complaint to her employer, and allegedly suggested a potentially disrespectful diagnosis of the complainant in his evidence.

• Mr Simpson's alleged behaviour, as experienced by the complainant , suggests a contravention in particular of paragraphs 3, 5, 11, 12, 17, 20, 41,and 42 of the principles of being trustworthy, autonomy, beneficence and non-maleficence, and the moral qualities of integrity and competence in the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling & Psychotherapy (2010).

Findings

On balance, having fully considered the above, the Panel made the following findings:

• I. There was a contract, signed by the complainant, which acknowledged her wish to enter private therapy with Mr Simpson following the end of her workplace counselling. However, the Panel found that this contract did not clarify the terms under which the counselling was to take place when the counselling changed from the workplace setting to Mr Simpson's private practice. Neither was the Panel satisfied that Mr Simpson had made the change from workplace to private counselling sufficiently clear to the complainant in a verbal contract. This allegation is therefore upheld in part.
• II. In evidence, there were conflicting accounts from both parties with regard to whether Mr Simpson had made an inappropriate remark and inviting an affair with the complainant. On balance, the Panel found that there was insufficient evidence to uphold the allegation.
• III. Again there were conflicting accounts from both parties, as to whether Mr Simpson had abused the complainant's trust and engaged in sexual activity with her. On balance, the Panel found that there was insufficient evidence to uphold this allegation.
• IV. Mr Simpson had submitted evidence that the issue of client transference had been discussed, at length, in supervision on 8 November 2010 in relation to the complainant. However, on questioning, Mr Simpson admitted that he had "not enough understanding" of the issue of transference and in this respect the Panel found that he was not adequately prepared for any issues of transference that transpired in the counselling session on 10 December 2010. The Panel was not satisfied that Mr Simpson dealt appropriately with the issues of transference in subsequent sessions, or in texts and telephone conversations following the last face to face session on 10 December 2010 and therefore this allegation is upheld.
• V. There was evidence that Mr Simpson and the complainant had engaged in an exchange of texts and telephone calls between 11 December 2010 and 3 February 2011. On questioning, Mr Simpson stated that he believed he was continuing to work psychotherapeutically in engaging in this exchange. However, there were conflicting accounts as to whether there had been an agreement to terminate the therapeutic relationship after the last session. Therefore, whilst there was an exchange of texts and telephone calls for a further two months after the last session, the Panel was not satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to prove that there had been agreement to terminate the counselling relationship. On balance, the Panel did not uphold this allegation.
• VI. The Panel found no evidence that Mr Simpson had admitted to the investigating Officer of the complainant's employer that he had failed to keep notes after every counselling session with the complainant. On questioning, it was acknowledged by both parties that Mr Simpson had consulted his case notes during the original investigation by the complainant's employer. This allegation is therefore not upheld.
• VII. The Panel found no evidence that Mr Simpson had created fictitious notes about the private counselling with the complainant and that he had disclosed these without her consent and without giving her sight of them. This allegation is therefore not upheld.
• VIII. The Panel found no evidence of dishonesty in Mr Simpson's account of the counselling when responding to the complainant's complaint to her employer and therefore did not uphold this allegation.
• IX. The Panel found no evidence that Mr Simpson had made disrespectful remarks about the complainant in his response to the complaint to her employer. Mr Simpson had discussed a possible diagnosis relating to the complainant with his supervisor. Following the complaint made to the complainant's employer, Mr Simpson conveyed information regarding the possible diagnosis to the investigators, to indicate the complexities of working with clients showing sudden and dramatic changes in their presentation of themselves. The Panel found that this was not intended to be disrespectful, but was submitted by him in defence of a complaint made against him. Therefore the Panel did not uphold this allegation.
• X. In light of the above findings, the Panel was satisfied that paragraphs 3 and 12 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy 2010, the ethical principles of Autonomy and Beneficence and the personal moral quality of competence had been breached. The Panel was not satisfied that paragraphs 5, 11, 17, 20, 41 & 42, the ethical principles of being trustworthy and non-maleficence nor the personal moral quality of integrity had been breached.

Decision

Accordingly, the Panel was unanimous in its decision that these findings amounted to professional malpractice in that Mr Simpson's practice fell below the standards expected of a practitioner exercising reasonable care and skill.  In particular, he provided the complainant with an inadequate professional service.

Sanction

Within one month from the date of imposition of this sanction, which will run from the expiration of the Appeal deadline, Mr Simpson is required to provide a written submission which evidences his immediate reflection on, learning from and understanding of, the issues raised in this complaint.

In addition, Mr Simpson is required to have monthly supervision for at least one year with a BACP psychodynamic supervisor, other than and in addition to his usual supervisor, to address the specific issues raised in this complaint.  In particular, Mr Simpson, in the light of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy, is required to address the issues of:

• transference and counter transference in psychotherapeutic relationships and especially the issue of erotic transference,
• the responsibilities of working in private practice,
• contracting,
• the use of supervision

Mr Simpson is required to begin this monthly supervision within 3 months from the date of imposition of this sanction, and both inform BACP when this starts and provide details of this supervisor. 

Within 3 months of completion of this year's supervision, Mr Simpson is to provide a comprehensive written submission, which demonstrates and evidences his detailed learning from the complaint.  This report should include evidence of having addressed the bullet pointed issues as above.  The report should also include all the dates of the monthly supervision sessions and should be countersigned by the supervisor.

Mr Simpson is also required to provide evidence of formal training, which must be no less than a minimum of 6 hours that addresses the responsibilities and requirements of a lone practitioner working in private practice.  This evidence should be submitted to BACP and should include confirmation of Mr Simpson's attendance from the training provider, within 18 months from the date of imposition of this sanction.

These written submissions must be sent to the Head of Professional Conduct, by the given deadlines, and will be independently considered by a Sanction Panel.

  

  

July 2012: Helen Castang, Reference No: 571780, Enfield EN3

The complaint against the above individual member was taken to Adjudication in line with the Professional Conduct Procedure.

The complaint was heard under BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2010 and the Panel considered the alleged breaches of the BACP Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy.

The focus of the complaint, as summarised by the Pre-Hearing Assessment Panel, is that the complainant commenced therapy with Ms Castang from March 2010 until June 2011.  In a counselling session on 25 November 2010, the complainant informed Ms Castang of a disturbing experience which she describes as something like a flashback.  The complainant alleged that, in response to describing this experience, Ms Castang asked her whether she had ever been sexually abused.  The complainant stated that she was shocked by this question and cried a lot during the rest of the session.  Towards the end of the session, the complainant asked Ms Castang whether she thought she (the complainant) had been sexually abused, and alleged that Ms Castang acted unprofessionally and unethically in responding to, and dealing with the matter.

The complainant alleged that Ms Castang failed to weigh up sufficiently whether telling the complainant in that session that she may have been sexually abused was likely to be beneficial or detrimental to her.  The complainant further criticised Ms Castang for failing to take the initiative to arrange to see her prior to her next weekly appointment, given the serious issues that arose in the session and the extent of her distress.

The complainant alleged that the session had a detrimental effect on her and that she lost trust in Ms Castang as a therapist.  The complainant also alleged that Ms Castang did not seek to remedy any alleged harm, by maintaining she had done nothing wrong and defending her actions.  The complainant further alleged that Ms Castang went so far as to deny saying that she asked if the complainant had been sexually abused or saying that it is likely that she was.

The complainant alleged that Ms Castang conflated what she had said in separate sessions and therefore does not have an accurate recollection of what occurred in the session of 25 November 2010.

The complainant alleged that when she informed Ms Castang that she was considering making a formal complaint, Ms Castang responded by asking the complainant if she would also be complaining about a previous therapist that she had discussed in the sessions with Ms Castang.  The complainant alleged that Ms Castang did not take her complaint seriously.

The Pre-Hearing Assessment Panel, in accepting this complaint, was concerned with the allegations made within the complaint suggesting a contravention of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy, and those in particular are as follows:

• The alleged way in which Ms Castang questioned the complainant about sexual abuse and the manner in which the issue was then dealt with by Ms Castang in the session, indicating a lack of sensitivity and causing the complainant confusion and distress, resulting in the breakdown of trust and confidence in the client / counsellor relationship.

• Ms Castang's alleged failure to take the initiative to arrange to see the complainant shortly after 25 November 2010, and before the next session, and to adequately and appropriately review the issues that were raised on 25 November 2010 in subsequent sessions.

• Ms Castang's alleged failure to keep appropriate and accurate records.

• The alleged way in which Ms Castang dealt with the complainant's complaints, indicating a lack of empathy and attentiveness to the quality of her listening and responses, thereby failing to meet the client's needs and undermining the complainant's trust.

• Ms Castang's alleged failure to respond appropriately to the complainant's complaints and to remedy any harm she may have caused by allegedly referring to the complainant's dissatisfaction with a previous therapist, defending her actions, and allegedly denying that she had asked the complainant whether she had been sexually abused.

• Ms Castang's alleged behaviour, as experienced by the complainant, suggests a lack of the personal moral qualities of empathy, humility, respect, competence and wisdom to which practitioners are strongly encouraged to aspire, as outlined by the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy 2010.  It also suggests a contravention of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy 2010 and in particular paragraphs 1, 3, 5, 6, 11, 41 and 42 and the ethical principles of being trustworthy, beneficence and non-maleficence.

Findings

On balance, having fully considered the above, the Panel made the following findings:

• The Panel was not satisfied that in the counselling session of 25 November 2010 Ms Castang said that the complainant had been sexually abused.  However, the Panel was satisfied that, in asking about the possibility of abuse and then making reference about sexual readiness soon afterwards, Ms Castang had conflated the issues of abuse and sexuality, and raised in the complainant's mind the question of possible sexual abuse.  The Panel found that Ms Castang, in questioning the complainant about abuse and then sexual readiness soon afterwards was insensitive and caused the complainant confusion and distress.  While Ms Castang showed some concern for the complainant in the remainder of the session, she assumed that the complainant's distress meant that she had been right in questioning her about abuse.  During the adjudication, Ms Castang recognised the ambiguity of the references she had made, and apologised for using the word ‘abuse' in the context that she had.  The Panel concluded that the allegation is therefore upheld.
• The Panel was satisfied that the initiative to arrange an emergency session, following the 25 November 2010 session, did not lie with Ms Castang, as historically, the complainant had requested and received emergency sessions when she needed them.  This is what had occurred on this occasion, and Ms Castang had responded to the request by arranging an additional emergency appointment within 24 hours.  The allegation that Ms Castang should have taken the initiative to arrange an emergency session unilaterally is not upheld.
• The Panel found that Ms Castang began to review the issues arising from the 25 November session in the emergency session, but did not follow up those issues in later sessions, until the complainant raised them in June 2011. Ms Castang also failed to take her counseling of the complainant to her supervisor until some months later, which was insufficient consultation given the gravity of the issues.  Further, since the complainant had needed an extra session so soon after the 25 November session, Ms Castang should have been alert to the need to go on reviewing the distress that her questioning about abuse could have caused.  Given that Ms Castang did not continue to review the matter, the Panel upheld the allegation that Ms Castang failed to adequately and appropriately review the effect of the 25 November session by not returning to the issue.
• There was a difference of opinion between Ms Castang and the complainant as to the accuracy, style and content of Ms Castang's records of the complainant's counselling.  However, the Panel was not satisfied, on the evidence provided, that there was a failure to keep appropriate and accurate records.
• In a June 2011 session, the complainant challenged and complained to Ms Castang about her reference to sexual abuse in the session of 25 November 2010.  Ms Castang denied referring to sexual abuse.  The Panel found that Ms Castang was defensive and unable to consider the complainant's complaint as pointing to a possible error on her part, assuming that the complaint was part of a pattern of the complainant's relationships to a previous therapist and others.  The Panel further found that it was inappropriate of Ms Castang to ask whether the complainant had complained about a previous therapist and only to interpret the complaint towards herself as ‘negative transference'.  The Panel was satisfied that this demonstrated a lack of empathy towards the anxieties that the complainant was describing, and a failure to respond appropriately to the complainant's complaints and to remedy any harm that had been caused in the 25 November session, and thereafter. 

• In light of the above findings, the Panel found a lack of the personal moral qualities of empathy, respect, competence and wisdom and a contravention of the ethical principles of being trustworthy, beneficence, non-maleficence and paragraphs 1, 3, 6, 11, 41 and 42 of the Ethical Framework 2010.  The Panel did not find a lack of humility and was not satisfied that paragraph 5 had been contravened.

Decision

Accordingly, the Panel was unanimous in its decision that these findings amounted to professional malpractice in that Ms Castang's practice with this client fell below the standards expected of a practitioner exercising reasonable care and skill.  In particular, she provided the complainant with an inadequate professional service.

Sanction

The Panel imposed the following Sanction:

Ms Castang's BACP Accredited status will be lapsed with immediate effect.  Once the sanction has been satisfactorily completed, Ms Castang may apply for reinstatement of her accreditation.

Within one month from the date of imposition of this sanction, which will run from the expiration of the appeal deadline, Ms Castang is required to provide a written submission, of not less than 1000 words, in which she demonstrates her immediate reflection on, learning and understanding of the issues raised in the complaint.

Ms Castang is required to work with a supervisor (other than and in addition to her usual supervisor) who practices the same psychodynamic model as Ms Castang's training, with whom she reflects on an anonymised version of the full notes of her work with the complainant.  This review should concentrate on the use of language, symbolic communication, the therapeutic relationship, handling client distress and handling negative reactions outside the transference.

Ms Castang is then required, in no less than six months and no more than twelve months, from the date of imposition of the sanction, to provide a further written report which evidences the following:

• Positive changes she has made to her counseling practice as a result of the complaint.
• Her effective use of supervision to address and improve her practice in respect of issues raised in the complaint.
• Number of hours of additional supervision.

This report must be countersigned by Ms Castang's second supervisor

All reports must be sent to the Head of Professional Ethics & Legal Services and will be considered by an independently constituted Sanction Panel.

  

July 2012: Althea Pearson, Reference No:507342, Somerset TA11

The complaint against the above individual member was taken to Adjudication in line with the Professional Conduct Procedure.

The complaint was heard under BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2010 and the Panel considered the alleged breaches of the BACP Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy.

The focus of the complaint, as summarised by the Pre-Hearing Assessment Panel, is that the complainant was in therapy with Dr Pearson for two years, during which time he alleged Dr Pearson breached professional boundaries.  The complainant alleged that Dr Pearson gave him some of her own supply of prescription-only drugs, allegedly swearing him to secrecy about her action.  The complainant further alleged that Dr Pearson privately revealed to him personal information about another member of a therapy group he attended.  He alleged that Dr Pearson diagnosed certain disorders in the complainant which later testing by other assessors revealed to be invalid.  He also alleged issues of inconsistency about Dr Pearson's record-keeping, and alleged that she had a close rather than professional relationship with her supervisor.

The Pre-Hearing Assessment Panel, in accepting this complaint was concerned with the allegations made within the complaint suggesting contravention of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy, and those in particular as follows:

• Dr Pearson was allegedly involved in the improper supply of prescription-only drugs to the complainant
• Dr Pearson allegedly did not show probity and honesty in allegedly swearing the complainant to silence about the alleged supply of drugs
• Dr Pearson allegedly broke confidentiality in revealing to the complainant personal details about another member of a therapy group which he attended, details which allegedly were otherwise unknown to him
• Dr Pearson allegedly demonstrated incompetence in misdiagnosing the complainant's issues, and allegedly made unjustifiable claims for her qualification to make such diagnoses
• Dr Pearson allegedly failed to show good enough quality of care, and allegedly failed to work within the limits of her training and experience in allegedly diagnosing the complainant as suffering from particular mental and behavioural disorders
• Dr Pearson allegedly made unjustifiable claims regarding her qualification and accreditation for diagnosing a range of classified psychiatric disorders
• Dr Pearson's alleged behaviour, as experienced by the complainant, suggests a contravention in particular of the ethical principle of beneficence, of the personal qualities of integrity and competence, and of paragraphs 1, 2 and 52 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling & Psychotherapy (2003/2007).

Findings

On balance, having fully considered the above, the Panel made the following findings

• I. Dr Pearson admitted when questioned, that she had herself first raised the issue of the drug Modafinil. She stated that this was mentioned because the complainant was suffering distressing symptoms and that she believed that the drug would ease them. Dr Pearson accepted both in her written submission and when questioned by the Panel, that she had provided the complainant with drugs on four separate occasions between February 2006 and March 2007. These were drugs that had been prescribed for her own personal use and she was not qualified nor entitled to prescribe them. Dr Pearson also accepted, when questioned, that she did not take into consideration the potential risks and dangers inherent in the complainant's taking unprescribed medication. Further, she was neither competent nor qualified to assess these risks and dangers. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence and of Dr Pearson's admissions, the allegation that she was involved in the improper supply of prescription-only drugs to the complainant is upheld.

• II. Both parties gave conflicting accounts of what had transpired in terms of secrecy about the supply of Modafinil. The complainant had removed the labels, which identified that the medication was intended for Dr Pearson's use, from the first box of drugs provided to him by Dr Pearson. Whilst the complainant contended that the supply of drugs had been "our little secret", Dr Pearson denied this. On balance, the Panel found that there was insufficient evidence to prove the allegation that Dr Pearson had sworn the complainant to silence about the supply of drugs.

• III. In March 2007 the complainant attended a therapy group led by Dr Pearson, of which all members were also in individual therapy with Dr Pearson. There were rules of confidentiality governing the group which meant that personal information could not be discussed outside the group except in individual therapy sessions. There was a sharp difference of recollection between the complainant and Dr Pearson about what had been stated both in the group session and in his individual session with Dr Pearson which followed the group session. The complainant stated that in his individual session, Dr Pearson gave him information relating to the profession, place of work and diagnosis of another group member, which he had not been aware of previously. Dr Pearson denied discussing the other group member with the complainant, and denied breaking confidentiality. On balance, the Panel found that there was insufficient evidence to prove the allegation that Dr Pearson had broken confidentiality.

• IV. Dr Pearson and the complainant discussed in therapy a series of conditions including Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Activity Disorder (ADHD), Autistic Spectrum, specifically Aspergers, depression requiring medication, Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome Disorder (PTSD) and Border-line Personality Disorder (BPD). Dr Pearson believed the complainant was, or may have been suffering from one or more of these conditions. On balance, the Panel found there was insufficient evidence to prove the allegation that Dr Pearson had formally mis-diagnosed the complainant's issues or been incompetent in so doing. In respect of the allegation that Dr Pearson made unjustifiable claims to make diagnoses please see the finding for allegation VI.

• V. Dr Pearson accepted, in her evidence, that she herself raised the subject of BPD with the complainant, and that she believed it was in his interests for her to do so. Whilst Dr Pearson claimed that she had not made any formal diagnosis, she had made a diagnosis which was recorded in her record of sessions dated 2 November 2005 as "diag BPD" and she admitted to making a diagnosis in her mind. In her evidence she further stated, "I believe that all of the diagnostic comments I made to [the complainant] were properly made by me". She further asserted that she had not conveyed her diagnosis to the complainant, however the Panel found that on the balance of probabilities, she did make a diagnosis, which she conveyed to the complainant. The complainant was caused great distress by this and increased the length and numbers of sessions with Dr Pearson in order to deal with that distress. However the focus on the issues increased rather than alleviated his distress, which is evidenced by the complainant's seeking alternative opinions from other professionals. In addition, whilst not making a formal diagnosis of ADD/ADHD, the Panel was satisfied that in her dealings with the complainant she had conveyed that he was likely to suffer from these disorders and she failed to work within the limits of her competence. Further weight was added to this by the fact that she supplied him with Modafinil. In inappropriately supplying the complainant with Modafinil, and in not discussing with her supervisor the inappropriate supply of drugs, Dr Pearson failed to offer a good quality of care or be accountable. The Panel found that Dr Pearson's actions in making the diagnosis were not consistent with offering a good quality of care and that she failed to work within the limits of her training and experience. Therefore on balance, the allegation that Dr Pearson failed to show a good enough quality of care and failed to work within the limits of her training and experience in allegedly diagnosing the complainant as suffering from particular mental and behavioural disorders is upheld.

• VI. The complainant stated when questioned that Dr Pearson had told him that she was not qualified to diagnose him. Therefore the Panel did not find that she had made unjustifiable claims regarding her qualification and accreditation for diagnosing a range of classified psychiatric disorders.

• VII. In light of the above findings, the Panel was satisfied that Dr Pearson had contravened the ethical principle of beneficence, and with reference to the work done with the complainant, she breached the personal moral qualities of integrity and competence, and breached paragraphs 1 and 2 but not 52 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling & Psychotherapy (2003/2007).

Decision

Accordingly, the Panel was unanimous in its decision that these findings amounted to serious professional misconduct in relation to the inappropriate supplying of drugs to the complainant and serious professional malpractice on the grounds that Dr Pearson contravened the ethical and behavioural standards that should be reasonably expected of a member of this profession, in that she was incompetent, reckless and negligent in her dealings with the complainant with regard to her diagnosis of his alleged conditions.

Mitigation

Dr Pearson apologised profusely both in writing and on the day, for supplying the complainant with the drugs.  She had believed that she was acting in the complainant's best interests and from a position of compassion when she supplied him with the Modafinil.  Dr Pearson stated that she had already completed training to address her shortcomings.

Sanction

Within one month from the date of imposition of this sanction, which will run from the expiration of the appeal deadline, Dr Pearson is required to

 provide a written report detailing her learning from the events leading to this complaint.

• In addition, Dr Pearson should supply evidence, including confirmation from the training provider, that she has completed formal training on BPD, on neuro-science, on the safe handling of medication and on "when therapy goes wrong".
• Dr Pearson is further required to write three reports over a twelve month period, at four monthly intervals.  Each report should detail an improvement in her development with particular reference to assessment, contracting, boundary issues and transference/counter transference issues.  Each report should be countersigned by Dr Pearson's supervisor.

• Dr Pearson's accreditation will be lapsed until the satisfactory completion of the above reports. 

Once the sanction has been satisfactorily completed, Dr Pearson may apply for reinstatement of her accreditation.

These written submissions must be sent to the Head of Professional Ethics & Legal Services, by the given deadlines, and will be independently considered by a Sanction Panel. 

April 2012: Paula Collins, Reference No: 564973, Maidstone, ME15  

The complaint against the above individual member was taken to Adjudication in line with the Professional Conduct Procedure.

The complaint was heard under BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2010 and the Panel considered the alleged breaches of the BACP Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy.

The focus of the complaint, as summarised by the Pre-Hearing Assessment Panel, is that the complainant has questioned Ms Collin's fitness to practise during the time she was on the management committee of organisation X, performing the role of Finance Officer within the organisation and working as a counsellor covering a period commencing September 2008.  Further, it is alleged that there were times when organisation X would not refer clients to Ms Collins because of concerns about her fitness to practice.

The complainant alleges that Ms Collins was distressed as a result of a complex relationship with her supervisor.  The complainant also states that Ms Collins had been in a supervisory relationship with the previous manager of organisation X, E, and that she claimed she was a counsellor to E's daughter and that E had supervised the work. 

It is also alleged that Ms Collins continued the counselling sessions with clients outside of the counselling room, where the conversation could be overheard and allowed children to play noisily outside of the counselling room, which disturbed other therapists.

The complainant states that without prior agreement, Ms Collins set up a website advertising a separate service, service B at support centre A, which allegedly involved the unauthorised use of rooms allocated to organisation X.

At the Christmas party 2010 held by organisation X, it is alleged that Ms Collins laughed about taking illegal drugs and allegedly commented to the effect that this was not a good idea when having to get up to see clients the next morning.

Ms Collins was allegedly asked to attend a meeting on 1 March 2011 to discuss her role.  The complainant alleges that on arrival, she found all the furniture in the room used by Ms Collins had been removed.  The complainant states that Support Centre A advised her that Ms Collins security fob had been used at the weekend.  It was found that there had been a withdrawal of £1400 from organisation X's bank account, referenced as "Paula Collins wages".  The complainant states that this sum was intended to cover the room rentals and that this caused the organisation considerable stress because organisation X was unable to meet its direct debits and financial commitments.

The Pre-Hearing Assessment Panel, in accepting this complaint was concerned with the allegations made within the complaint suggesting contravention of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy, and those in particular as follows:

• In allegedly having been in a supervisory relationship with E who was the previous manager of organisation X and also in counselling E's daughter and E having supervised that work, Ms Collins was part of a series of dual relationships which might have had unforeseen and detrimental consequences for all parties.
• Ms Collins allegedly failed at times to monitor and maintain her fitness to practise at a level that enabled organisation X to refer clients to her.
• In allegedly allowing the counselling sessions with clients to spill over into public spaces where they could be overheard or potentially overheard, Ms Collins allegedly risked compromising client confidentiality.
• In allegedly advertising a separate service without agreement and which involved the use of rooms reserved for organisation X, Ms Collins allegedly risked creating a conflict of interest with organisation X and for their clients about the services that were potentially on offer.
• In allegedly removing all furniture and other items from the room Ms Collins had used without agreement or prior notice, she allegedly undermined working relationships with organisation X and their services to clients and did not conduct her professional relationships with organisation X in a spirit of mutual respect.
• In allegedly taking the sum of £1400 from organisation X's bank, Ms Collins allegedly did not behave in an honest, straightforward and accountable way.
• Ms Collin's alleged behaviour, as experienced by the complainant, suggests a lack of the personal moral qualities of integrity, respect, competence and wisdom to which practitioners are strongly encouraged to aspire, as outlined in the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling & Psychotherapy 2007/2009 & 2010. It also suggests a contravention of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling & Psychotherapy 2007/2009 and in particular paragraphs 4, 7, 8, 16, 26, 32, 43 & 57 and the ethical principles of fidelity, non-maleficence and self-respect and the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling & Psychotherapy 2010 and in particular paragraphs 4, 7, 8, 20, 33, 35, 40, 51, 62 & 65 and the ethical principles of being trustworthy, non-maleficence and self-respect.

Findings

On balance, having fully considered the above, the Panel made the following findings

• There was no evidence brought to demonstrate that Ms Collins' work with E's daughter had been directly supervised by E.
• It was clear from Ms Collins' evidence before the Panel, that she had considered some aspects of dual relationships before she accepted E's daughter as a client. However the Panel found that it was unwise of Ms Collins not to have discussed the implications of dual relationships with an independent advisor.
• There was insufficient evidence brought to demonstrate that Ms Collins failed to monitor and maintain her fitness to practice at a level that made her unfit for organisation X to refer clients to her.
• There was insufficient evidence brought to show that Ms Collins had demonstrated a lack of the ethical principle of self-respect.
• The Panel found that Ms Collins was unwise to work with a child in a room that she had concluded was "not satisfactory" for the purpose of play therapy. Whilst the Panel accepted that she had taken some precautions to minimise the potential risk of compromising client confidentiality, these were not sufficient to justify her decision to work in the corridors with the child.
• The Panel found that in advertising a service for service B and intending to use a room reserved for organisation X, Ms Collins did create a conflict of interest with organisation X and its clients about the services being offered.
• Ms Collins fully admitted that she was wrong in removing the furniture from Room 104. She accepted that she had failed to realise the impact on other people's clients, and on her colleagues in organisation X.
• Ms Collins fully admitted that she was wrong to take money from the organisation X bank account and said, with hindsight, that this had been "a terrible mistake".
• In both removing the furniture, and in taking the money from the bank account, Ms Collins demonstrated a lack of the personal moral qualities of wisdom, respect and integrity. In addition her actions demonstrated a lack of the ethical principles of fidelity, non-maleficence and being trustworthy.
• There was insufficient evidence brought to demonstrate that Ms Collins had been incompetent.
• The Panel questioned both parties about the conversations at the Christmas party in which Ms Collins was alleged to have laughed about taking illegal drugs. However, there were conflicting accounts, and the Panel found that there was insufficient evidence brought to prove the allegations.
• In light of the above findings, the Panel was satisfied that paragraph 4, 16, 26, 43 & 57 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy 2007/2009 & paragraphs 4, 20, 33, 35, 51, 62 & 65 of the Ethical Framework 2010 had been breached.

Decision

Accordingly, the Panel was unanimous in its decision that these findings amounted to professional misconduct on the grounds that Ms Collins contravened the ethical and behavioural standards that should be reasonably expected of a member of this profession.

Mitigation

Ms Collins apologised profusely both for removing the furniture from a shared counselling room, and for taking money from the organisation X account without prior consultation.  She said that "there was no justification" for her actions and that she was "truly sorry".  The Panel noted that there was evidence given that there had been a breakdown in the relationship between Ms Collins and the complainant, and accepted that Ms Collins gave some evidence of having learned from these events when she said that with hindsight she would have sought mediation.

Sanction

Within one month from the date of imposition of this sanction, which will run from the expiration of the appeal deadline, Ms Collins is required to provide a written report detailing her learning from the events leading to this complaint.

In particular, Ms Collins should include written reflections on her increased understanding of the importance of seeking advice and guidance from independent sources before taking decisions that may involve potential boundary or ethical violations.

Within not less than 9 months and not more than18 months from the date of imposition of this sanction, Ms Collins should provide written evidence that she has read widely and discussed issues relating to dual relationships and client confidentiality.  She should provide evidence of an informed and in-depth understanding of these issues, linked to her client work.  This evidence should be countersigned by a supervisor outside of her current network, and who has supervised Ms Collins for at least 6 months.

These written submissions must be sent to the Head of Professional Ethics & Legal Services, by the given deadlines, and will be independently considered by a Sanction Panel.