Professional conduct notice / Sally Anne Jones

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

The focus of the complaint, as summarised by the Pre-Hearing Assessment Panel (PHAP), is as follows:

The Complainant attended weekly counselling sessions with Ms Jones from October Year 1 to February Year 3, through the Organisation X following referral from [ . . . ].

The counselling sessions took place in [ . . .] until January Year 2, and the Complainant felt that they were helping her address her past issues [ . . . ]. In January Year 2, the counselling sessions moved at Ms Jones’ suggestion to her private office in [ . . . ] to keep the Complainant ‘safe’. The office in [ . . . ] was private and contained a sofa.

The Complainant states that Ms Jones had been tactile from the beginning and always hugged and cuddled her and the Complainant felt that Ms Jones was helping her.

Regular weekly sessions were in place but Ms Jones then started to text the Complainant and state when she had time to see her for counselling sessions. The Complainant would follow this request. The sessions would last an hour or sometimes three hours.

Ms Jones began to confide in the Complainant and told her about her personal life [ . . . ]. When the Complainant asked about [ . . . ], Ms Jones touched the Complainant [ . . . ]. Ms Jones asked if the Complainant had done this to [ . . . ]. The Complainant felt uncomfortable.

In September Year 2, just after leaving the counselling session, the Complainant received a telephone call from [ . . . ]. As she was upset, she returned to Ms Jones’ office. [ . . . ].

[ . . . ].

The Complainant knew that this was not right but didn’t object.

Ms Jones asked the Complainant [ . . . ].

The Complainant felt that she had sorted out her past issues with the counselling and that the counselling could be used for someone else. When the Complainant discussed this with Ms Jones, Ms Jones stated that she could ‘keep her’ for two years but that she was having to ‘make stuff up’ to continue the counselling.

[ . . . ].

The counselling sessions were increasingly becoming more about Ms Jones’s [ . . . ].

Between September and November Year 2, the Complainant was [ . . . ]. By January Year 3, the Complainant had decided to stop the counselling and her final session took place on 1 February Year 3.

The Panel considered the complaint together with the further information that it had requested from both the Complainant and the Member Complained Against.

GROUNDS IN FAVOUR OF ACCEPTING THIS COMPLAINT

In considering this complaint, the Panel was concerned with the allegations and information set out within the complaint suggesting contraventions of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy (2013) for the period prior to and including 30 June Year 2, and the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in the Counselling Professions (2016) for the period from 1 July Year 2 onwards. In accepting the complaint, the Panel only put forward allegations for which it was satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to suggest there is a case to answer. The Panel determined those are as follows:

1. In contravention of paragraph 1 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy (2013), Ms Jones allegedly failed to ensure a good quality of care for the Complainant by competently delivering services that met the Complainant’s needs in that, on a date or dates between October Year 1 and 30 June Year 2, Ms Jones:

a. was inappropriately tactile, hugging and cuddling the Complainant;

b. changed the time and duration of the Complainant’s therapy sessions to suit herself without proper consultation with or consideration of the Complainant;

c. inappropriately disclosed personal information to the Complainant regarding [ . . . ];

d. inappropriately discussed other clients with the Complainant.

2. In contravention of paragraph 3 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy (2013), Ms Jones allegedly failed to clarify and agree the rights and responsibilities of her and the Complainant at appropriate points in their working relationship in that, on a date or dates between October Year 1 and 30 June Year 2, she did not agree the duration of the Complainant’s therapy sessions with the Complainant and varied the duration without appropriate consultation or consideration of the Complainant.

3. In contravention of paragraph 17 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy (2013), Ms Jones allegedly abused the Complainant’s trust in order to gain sexual or emotional advantage in that, on a date or dates between October Year 1 and 30 June Year 2, she engaged in inappropriate physical contact with the Complainant by knowingly touching the Complainant’s back in a similar way to [ . . . ], which made the Complainant uncomfortable.

4. In contravention of paragraph 7 of the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions (2016), Ms Jones allegedly failed to make the Complainant the primary focus of her attention and work during their sessions together in that, on a date or dates between 1 July Year 2 and February Year 3, Ms Jones:

a. changed the time and duration of the Complainant’s therapy sessions without proper consultation with and consideration of the Complainant;

b. when the Complainant told Ms Jones that she was considering ending therapy, Ms Jones said she could “keep her” for two years and that she (Ms Jones) was “making stuff up” to keep the counselling sessions going.

5. In contravention of paragraph 12 of the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions (2016), Ms Jones allegedly failed to do everything she could to develop and protect the Complainant’s trust in that, on a date or dates between 1 July Year 2 and February Year 3, when the Complainant told Ms Jones that she was considering ending therapy, Ms Jones said she could “keep her” for two years and that she (Ms Jones) was “making stuff up” to keep the counselling sessions going.

6. In contravention of paragraph 25 a) of the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions (2016), Ms Jones allegedly failed to actively protect information about other clients from unauthorised access or disclosure in that, on a date or dates between 1 July Year 2 and February Year 3, she inappropriately discussed other clients with the Complainant.

7. In contravention of paragraph 34 of the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions (2016), Ms Jones allegedly behaved sexually towards the Complainant in that, on a date or dates between 1 July Year 2 and February Year 3, she:

a. kissed the Complainant on the mouth;

b. undressed the Complainant;

c. said she loved the Complainant.

8. In contravention of paragraph 36 of the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions (2016), Ms Jones allegedly exploited or abused the Complainant emotionally, physically, and sexually in that, on a date or dates between 1 July Year 2 and February Year 3, she:

a. was inappropriately tactile, hugging and cuddling the Complainant;

b. brought her own personal issues into the Complainant’s therapy sessions;

c. changed the time and duration of the Complainant’s therapy sessions without proper consultation with and consideration of the Complainant;

d. said she could “keep her” (the Complainant) for two years and that she (Ms Jones) was “making stuff up” to keep the counselling sessions going.

In relation to the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling & Psychotherapy (2013), Ms Jones’ alleged behaviour between October Year 1 and 30 June Year 2, as experienced by the Complainant and as identified in the numbered paragraphs of the 2013 Ethical Framework referred to above, suggests a contravention in particular of paragraphs 1, 3 and 17 and the ethical principles of Being Trustworthy, Beneficence and Non-Maleficence and showed a lack of the personal moral qualities of Empathy, Sincerity, Integrity, Respect, Competence and Wisdom to which counsellors are strongly encouraged to aspire.

In relation to the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions (2016), Ms Jones’ alleged behaviour between 1 July Year 2 and February Year 3, as experienced by the Complainant and as identified in the numbered paragraphs of the 2016 2 Ethical Framework referred to above, suggests a contravention in particular of paragraphs 7, 12, 25 a), 34 and 36 and the ethical principles of Being Trustworthy, Autonomy, Beneficence and Non-Maleficence and showed a lack of the personal moral qualities of Care, Diligence, Empathy, Integrity, Respect, Sincerity and Wisdom to which counsellors are strongly encouraged to aspire.

Both the Complainant and Member had indicated that they would not attend the scheduled hearing. The Registrar decided, under paragraph 4.9 of the Professional Conduct Procedure 2010 (as amended), that the hearing should proceed in the absence of both the parties. The parties were notified of this decision prior to the hearing.

Preliminary Issues

i The Panel was mindful that in the absence of the Member and the Complainant, it did not have the benefit of being able to question the parties in relation to the allegations and was required therefore to make its decisions on the basis of the written submissions made by both parties.

ii The Panel also noted that allegation 3 above referred to the incorrect version of the Ethical Framework. It noted that the facts of the allegation correctly reflected the Complainant’s submission to BACP but that the time the alleged incident occurred, according to the Complainant, placed it after the currency of the 2013 Ethical Framework and during the currency of the 2016 Ethical Framework. It was satisfied that it was a genuine administrative error, and that the allegation should, in the interests of fairness, still be considered under paragraph 36 of the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2016. The Panel was satisfied, having considered the evidence before it, that the parties would not be prejudiced by amending the allegation to reflect the correct Ethical Framework. Therefore allegation 3 is amended as follows:

Allegation 3

In contravention of paragraph 36 of the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2016, the Member allegedly abused the Complainant’s trust in order to gain sexual or emotional advantage in that, on a date or dates between October Year 1 and 30 June Year 2, she engaged in inappropriate physical contact with the Complainant by knowingly touching the Complainant’s back in a similar way to [ . . . ], which made the Complainant uncomfortable.

Findings

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

1a The Panel noted the written evidence from both parties. The Panel, in particular, noted that the Member denied that there were hugs from the outset, however she did admit that she had hugged the Complainant at the end of a particularly upsetting session. The Member stated that this was at the Complainant's request. The Member also stated that she had taken the issue to supervision for discussion and worked with her supervisor, from whom she understood that a tactile response was appropriate at the time. The Member further stated that the Complainant would frequently ask for a hug at the end of sessions and with hindsight her obliging was a mistake. The Member stated that she had responded to the Complainant with compassion and understanding at times when the Complainant was distressed and upset. The Panel considered that responding to the Complainant in a tactile way was inappropriate given the presenting issues of the client and her history, and risked fostering a dependent relationship with the client. The Panel therefore found that the Member had failed to ensure a good quality of care for the Complainant by competently delivering services that met the Complainant’s needs. This part of the allegation is therefore upheld.

1b In considering the evidence relating to the change of time and duration of sessions, the Panel noted that the Complainant had stated that to begin with the sessions were fairly regular, the same time each week, but that gradually it moved to the Member texting the Complainant when she had time to see her. The Complainant also stated that sessions could be an hour or sometimes 3 hours. In her written evidence, the Member stated that when the sessions moved to her private office in another area with the full agreement of the Complainant, she had explained to the Complainant that sessions could not be offered on a Friday. Because the Complainant also attended [ . . . ], no set day was arranged. The Complainant had not raised any objection to this at the time, and sessions would take place on a weekly basis. The Member also stated that sessions may have overrun slightly on occasion, but not too long as she would have private clients to see afterwards. In her formal response she stated that, “..admittedly I on a few occasions slightly overrun with our meetings but not by hours! I have limited time in my office and always had other clients due to attend....". She stated that the last session did last approximately 90 minutes as the Complainant was not in a well state. The Panel found the Member's written response credible, given the agreed move to her private offices which meant the time of the Complainant's sessions could not be fixed. The Panel noted from the notes supplied that sessions took place on a weekly basis. The Panel was also satisfied with the Member's response, that whilst sessions may have run over a little longer than an hour on some occasions, it was to meet the Complainant's needs, and the Panel considered that this was professionally justified. The Panel therefore did not find that the Member changed the time and duration of the Complainant’s therapy sessions to suit herself without proper consultation with, or consideration of, the Complainant. This part of the allegation is therefore not upheld.

1c The Panel considered whether the Member had disclosed information regarding her personal relationship. It noted the Complainant had stated that the disclosures started at the beginning of the sessions and continued throughout. The Panel noted from the written evidence that the Complainant had made one general reference to such alleged disclosures. The Member, in her evidence, categorically denied ever having made any disclosures relating to her personal relationship with [ . . . ]. The Panel considered that there was insufficient detail, and was not convinced, on balance, that such disclosures had been made by the Member in the terms alleged. Therefore, this part of the allegation is not upheld.

1d The Complainant stated in her written evidence, that she felt that the Member was disrespectful of other clients and would talk about them. She described one occasion when the Member had allegedly said that a client of hers [ . . . ] and referred to a time when the Member was cleaning her sofa. The Member, in her written evidence, agreed that something had been spilt on her sofa and she was cleaning it when the Complainant arrived. However, she states that what she had said was that it was not her or anybody who had been in the room beforehand but something that had been spilt and left. The Member strongly refuted that she made the comment in the terms alleged and stated that she would never make a comment relating to a client of hers. The Panel found the Member's explanation credible and reasonable. The Panel considered that there was insufficient detail in the complaint, and was therefore not convinced, on balance, that the Member was disrespectful or would talk of her other clients. This part of the allegation is therefore not upheld.

In light of the above, allegation 1 is partially upheld in relation to part a).

2 The Panel referred to its findings in allegation 1b) above and as such found that between October Year 1 and 30 June Year 2, the Member did not fail to clarify and agree the rights and responsibilities of her and the Complainant, at appropriate points in their working relationship, with regard to the duration of sessions. This allegation is therefore not upheld.

3 In considering whether the Member had engaged in inappropriate physical contact with the Complainant the Panel noted the following written evidence;

• In her complaint to BACP the Complainant stated that on an occasion in a session, the Member asked the Complainant about [ . . . ] and tickled her back [ . . . ]. The Member followed this with a question as to whether the Complainant ever did this to [ . . . ].

• At the investigation meeting on 8 March Year 3 in which the Complainant was interviewed by representatives of the organisation under whose umbrella the Member had provided counselling to the Complainant (“the employing organisation”), the Complainant stated that she had told the Member that boundaries with [ . . . ] were difficult to manage, and that the Member had responded by stating that [ . . . ]. She stated that the Member was aware that tickling was [ . . . ].

• The Member, in her evidence, stated that boundaries with [ . . . ] was discussed, but that it was in the context of the work they were engaged in. She however, denied making any reference to her [ . . . ] in the terms alleged. She further stated that "....to have this suggested as a method of [ . . . ]".

• The Member states that the only time she may have touched the Complainant's back was during a hug where she may have rubbed her back.

The Panel noted that the Complainant was specific and detailed in her complaint to BACP however, her evidence was not consistent, in that in her interview with the Member's former employing organisation, she referred only to a conversation and not any physical contact. The Panel noted that the Member denied both the context of the conversation and the physical contact. Having carefully considered the evidence before it, the Panel did not find, on balance, that the Member had abused the Complainant’s trust in order to gain sexual or emotional advantage by engaging in inappropriate physical contact with the Complainant in the terms alleged. This allegation is therefore not upheld.

4a The Panel referred to its finding in allegation 1b) above and as such found that between 1 July Year 2 and February Year 3, the Member did not fail to make the Complainant the primary focus of her attention and work during their sessions together by changing the time and duration of therapy sessions without proper consultation with, or consideration of, the Complainant. This part of the allegation is therefore not upheld.

4b In considering whether the Member had told the Complainant that she could “keep her” for two years and that she (the Member) was “making stuff up” to keep the counselling sessions going, the Panel noted the following written evidence;

• In her complaint to BACP, the Complainant stated that when she felt her issues had been dealt with and that counselling sessions could be used by someone else in need, the Member had responded that she could 'keep her' for two years but that she would have 'to make stuff up' to keep the sessions going.

• At the investigation meeting on 8 March Year 3, when the Complainant was interviewed by the Member's former employing organisation, the Complainant gave a different account of the reason given by the Member for allegedly making things up.

• In an addendum to the above interview, the Complainant stated that, in around July Year 2, when she mentioned she wanted to end counselling as she felt she was in a good place, the Member had said it wasn't a good idea as people often relapse.

• The Member, in her written submission, stated that the Complainant would regularly ask how long they had left and that she had advised the Complainant that counselling could commence [sic] for two years. She stated that the Complainant was distressed at the prospect of the counselling ending and she advised her that they could address the ending nearer the time. The Member stated that this was within the first 12 months of them meeting.

In considering the written the evidence before it, the Panel considered that the Complainant's evidence was inconsistent, and was therefore not convinced, on the balance of probabilities, that the Member had made the statement in the terms alleged. This part of the allegation is not upheld.

Allegation 4 is therefore not upheld in its entirety.

5 The Panel referred to its finding in 4b) above and as such did not find that the Member had failed to develop and protect the Complainant’s trust. As in 4b) above, the Panel concluded that the Member had not made the statement in the terms alleged. This allegation is therefore not upheld.

6 The Panel referred to its finding in 1d) above and as such did not find that the Member failed to actively protect information about other clients from unauthorised access or disclosure by inappropriately discussing other clients with the Complainant. This allegation is therefore not upheld.

7 The Panel considered the written evidence of the Complainant in respect of the allegation that the Member behaved sexually towards the Complainant between 1 July Year 2 and February Year 3. The specific behaviours are that the Member: kissed the Complainant on the mouth; undressed the Complainant; and said she loved the Complainant. The Panel noted the following written evidence;

• In her written submission to BACP, the Complainant stated that the Member had kissed her in a session around September Year 2. The Complainant went on to state that after this the relationship became physical between them, and that at one session the Member had told her that she loved her.
• During the workplace investigation, the Complainant had said that things started to become sexual during sessions and that the Member would remove her (the Complainant's) clothing and would do sexual things to her. She stated that these interactions would occur at her private office when the door to the room was locked.
• The Member, in her written evidence, vehemently and categorically denied that any inappropriate or sexual contact occurred between them at all.
• The Panel noted that during the workplace investigation, the Member explained that she had cause to lock the door as on two occasions a man had walked into the counselling room. She stated that she did this with the client's permission, and that it was not locked by key but a latch which could quickly be opened.
• The Member explained the layout of her room. She stated that there was a large window with blinds on a tilt in the room, but that the office could be seen from outside as it was on the ground floor. The Member further stated that it was a busy building with people passing to the toilet and kitchen area.
• The Panel noted that as part of the workplace investigation, the Director of the Member's former workplace was invited to inspect the Member's office in which it was alleged the sexual activity took place.
• The Panel also noted that there had been two independent investigations into the allegations made and neither investigation made any finding of sexual misconduct.
The Panel was mindful of the serious nature of the allegations. It was clear that there was a definitive conflict of evidence between the parties. The Panel carefully considered the allegations and the evidence presented before it, however in the absence of corroborating evidence, the Panel found that there was insufficient evidence, on the balance of probabilities, that the Member: kissed the Complainant on the mouth; undressed the Complainant; and said she loved the Complainant. Therefore, the allegation is not upheld.
8a The Panel referred to its finding in 1a) above, where it found that the Member had inappropriately hugged the Complainant given the Complainant's presenting issues. However, in considering whether the contact amounted to exploitation or abuse of the Complainant in emotional, physical or sexual terms, the Panel found that the context in which the hugging had taken place, did not amount to a breach of paragraph 36 of the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2016. Therefore, this part of the allegation was not upheld.
8b The Panel referred to its finding in 1c) above and as such did not find that the Member had brought her own personal issues into the therapy sessions. Therefore, this part of the allegation is not upheld.
8c The Panel referred to its findings in allegation 1b) above and as such found that the Member did not change the time and duration of therapy sessions without proper consultation or consideration of the Complainant. This part of the allegation is therefore not upheld.
8d The Panel referred to its finding in allegation 4b) above and as such found that the Member had not made the statement in the terms alleged. This part of the allegation is therefore not upheld.
Allegation 8 is therefore not upheld in its entirety.

Having upheld allegation 1a (but not upheld the remaining allegations), the Panel, in relation to behaviour that took place between October Year 1 and June Year 2, was satisfied that paragraph 1 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling & Psychotherapy (2013) and the ethical principle of Non-Maleficence had been breached. It also found that the Member had demonstrated a lack of the Personal Moral Qualities of Competence and Wisdom, to which counsellors are strongly encouraged to aspire.

Decision

Accordingly, the Panel was unanimous in its decision that the finding upheld amounted to professional malpractice, in that the services for which the Member was responsible fell below the standards that would be reasonably expected of a practitioner exercising reasonable care and skill.
Mitigation
The Panel took into account that the Member had acknowledged that she had made a mistake in responding to the request for hugs. The Panel was satisfied that the Member had shown sufficient insight and had admitted her failing in this regard. The Panel also noted that the Member had taken the issue to supervision for discussion and work. The Panel acknowledged that, although it was poor judgement in the circumstances, the Member had acted with compassion for her client.

Sanction
One of the aims of the Professional Conduct Procedure is to protect members of the public. The Panel, in considering what sanction may be appropriate in the circumstances of this case, has taken into account the interests of public protection.

Having carefully considered the nature of the allegation upheld, the Panel did not consider that a sanction was required. The Panel considered that the Member had shown relevant and sufficient insight in her written submission; in particular it was evident that the Member had realised during the therapeutic relationship that a tactile response was an issue that she considered was appropriate to discuss in supervision and that in hindsight, had concluded that a tactile response could confuse the therapeutic relationship between client and counsellor. The Panel was satisfied that the Member would, in future, consider the issue of appropriate boundaries between herself and her clients.

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