August 2024: MF, Reference No: 00556021, Registrant ID: 18724

August 2024: Michelle Finder, Reference No:00556021 , Registrant ID:18724

Allegations

In the allegations below, ‘the Complainant’ refers to the witness […]. […].

Allegation 1

1.1 The Member failed to manage the ending of the supervision relationship appropriately in that:

a. She ended it abruptly by email; and/or

b. She gave the Complainant no prior notice of her intention to end the relationship; and/or

c. She did not provide any reasons for the decision to end the relationship.

1.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraph of ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018:

39 (We will endeavour to inform clients well in advance of approaching endings and be sensitive to our client’s expectations and concerns when we are approaching the end of our work together).

Allegation 2

2.1 The Member failed to respond adequately and/or in a timely fashion to emails from the Complainant dated 11 and/or 20 December.

2.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraph of ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018:

52 (We will ensure candour by being open and honest about anything going wrong and promptly inform our clients of anything in our work that places clients at risk of harm, or has caused them harm, whether or not the client(s) affected are aware of what has occurred by:

a) taking immediate action to prevent or limit any harm; and/or

b) repairing any harm caused, so far as possible; and/or

c) offering an apology when this is appropriate).

[…]

Allegation 4

4.1 The Member failed to keep adequate notes of supervision sessions with the Complainant.

4.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraph of ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018:

71 (Supervisors will keep accurate records of key points discussed in supervision).

Preliminary issues

BACP application to withdraw Allegation 3

At the commencement of the hearing, the Association’s Counsel, […], applied to amend the allegations in respect of Allegation 3. The Association submitted that it was not in the public interest to pursue the Allegation as, taken at its highest, the evidence was not capable of proving dishonesty.

The Member’s Counsel, […], supported the application.

The Panel accepted the Clerk’s advice that it had power under clause 4.12 of the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2018, which states:

‘At any stage before making its findings of fact and having considered any representations by the parties as to the appropriateness of doing so, the Panel may permit or direct the amendment of the allegations.’

The Clerk advised that the Panel had not yet made findings of fact and had received representations from both parties. The Clerk advised that the Panel should consider whether it was in the interests of justice and public interest to proceed with an allegation that the BACP conceded was not capable of proof.

The Panel concluded that it was in the interests of justice and granted the application to delete Allegation 3.

Reasonable adjustments

The Chair acknowledged that the witness had previously requested an arrangement whereby she would not be able to see the Member when the witness gave her evidence, and this had previously been granted. As the Member was co-located with […], it was agreed that she would move out of camera shot immediately prior to the witness being called and return into shot once the witness had been released.

Admissions

The Member admitted that she ended her supervisory relationship with the Complainant by email on 15 November Year 7 and that this was without warning. She denied, however, that this was inappropriate or an ethical breach in the circumstances.

Evidence before Panel

In coming to its decision, the Panel carefully considered the following:

• The BACP’s hearing bundle numbering pages 1-127 and including:

o The original complainant’s […] complaint.

o Email correspondence between […] and the Member.

o Copy of the supervision contract between […] and the Member.

o Google maps screenshots.

o WhatsApp messages between […] and the Member.

o Copy of […] notes when she chose to contract with the Member.

o Correspondence between […] and the BACP.

o […] witness statement and exhibits, which included further emails between […] and the Member, and the copy session notes the Member provided to […].

• The Member’s bundle numbering pages 1-19 and including:

o The Member’s preliminary response to the complaint dated 12 June Year 8.

o Letters from the Member’s supervisor dated 16 June Year 8 and 19 April Year 9.

o Testimonials from her previous supervisor and a former supervisee.

o Her statement addressing the allegations dated 19 April Year 9.

• The Investigation & Assessment Committee Summary Report of 4th September Year 8

• The Panel heard oral evidence from witness […] and the Member.

• Submissions from […] and […].

• The BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2018.

• The Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.

Decision and Reasons for Findings

On balance, having fully considered the above, the Panel made a number of findings of fact.

The Panel considered the documentary evidence of email correspondence between […] and the Member and noted that the following timeline was not disputed. It therefore found:

• Year 1, the Member contracted to provide clinical supervision to […].
• 1 November Year 7, […] and the Member engaged in a supervision session for about 1.5 hours remotely by video call.
• 2 November Year 7, the Member sent […] a WhatsApp message stating that she was unable to meet […] at the gym as arranged for work-related reasons.
• 2 November Year 7 , […] replied via WhatsApp stating ‘No worries’ and a smiley face emoji.
• 15 November Year 7 at 14.19, the Member sent an email ending the supervisory relationship.
• 15 November Year 7 at 16.36, […] replied agreeing a new supervisor would be advisable and wishing the Member all the best going forward.
• 11 December Year 7, […] emailed the Member listing criticisms of the Member, setting out a number of points she said she had tried to make in her final supervision session, signposting BACP guidance and Ethical Framework contents and requesting a response before […] considered a complaint to the BACP.
• 20 December Year 7, […] sent the Member a further email chasing for a response to the 11 December Year 7 email and asking for the Member’s notes of their sessions for the last three years and any information pertaining to herself that the Member held.
• 22 December Year 7 at 20.14, the Member emailed […] stating that she was unable to offer […] a further appointment and would be forwarding the notes as requested.
• 22 December Year 7 at 20.59, […] emailed the Member stating she did not want further supervision from the Member, that she had secured a new supervisor and that she still wanted an explanation for the ‘abrupt ending’ and the notes.
• 6 January Year 8, the Member emailed […] stating that the only notes ‘pertaining to’ […] that she held was a list of dates, times and fees for supervision, which she offered to provide.
• 26 January Year 8, the Member emailed […] providing her perspective of the session on 1 November Year 7 and her reasons for ending the supervisory relationship in the way she had.
• Around 26 January Year 8, the Member provided […] with two pages of times, dates and fees for supervision (pp93-94 BACP bundle) and 22 pages of session notes (pp95-116 BACP bundle).

In order to decide on the appropriateness of the Member’s actions, the Panel made findings about what happened during the session on 1 November Year 7.

The Panel found, on the basis of […] and the Member’s evidence, that the first approximately 15 minutes of the session was taken up with personal conversation, although […] and the Member disagreed about what this covered. After around 15 minutes, the Member asked to discuss session dates for Year 8. They agreed dates for January, February and March Year 8. When it came to April, the Member said that she was planning a holiday that month and would need to vary from […] usual four-weekly supervision.

The Member said […] became angry and criticised the Member for saying […] had to work around the Member’s holidays. The Member said […] accused her of having a four week rule and being too busy to fit her in. The Member said she was shocked and described it as relentless criticism that continued for about half an hour. The Member said around 45 minutes into the session, […] said she wanted to talk about her clients. The Member said she suggested they discuss what had just happened, but […] did not want to.

[…] evidence was that she stopped the Member and said it felt as if the dates were all on her terms. […] said the Member ‘blew up against me’, said that was how she worked and that she was very busy. […] said she asked the Member to show her where the BACP requires supervision to be four-weekly and suggested maybe the Member had too much work and the Member again said this was how she worked. […] stated that around 45 minutes into the session she asked to move on to discuss her clients. […] said at the end of the session she checked if the Member still wanted to meet at the gym the next day, as previously arranged, and the Member said she did. […] therefore felt the session ended in a good place.

The Panel found that both […] and the Member had experienced a heated conversation during this session that left each of them feeling uncomfortable and questioning the appropriateness of their professional relationship continuing. It also observed that the content of that discussion was, to some degree, agreed between the parties although with differing perspectives.

The Panel considered whether there was evidence to decide who initiated this.

• It found that the heated conversation started when the Member mentioned flexing […] sessions around the Member’s holiday in April.
• The Panel reviewed the email correspondence from […] and the Member. It found the WhatsApp messages on 2 November Year 7 to be friendly and the emails on 15 November Year 8 to be polite and professional and broadly in agreement that it was appropriate for […] to move on to a new supervisor. The Panel found no evidence in these correspondences of ongoing distress for either […] or the Member as there was no emotional content. However, it did find that, while generally in agreement with the ending, […] email was confrontational and critical of the Member for continuing to see […] as a supervisee once the Member had moved just half a mile from […] and for a lack of annual reviews.
• The Panel noted that […] email dated 11 December Year 7 came out of the blue almost three weeks after the ending and […] email accepting that it was time for a change of supervisor. The 11 December Year 7 email was written after she had discussed the ending with prospective new supervisors and was highly confrontational and critical of the Member; the Panel found some of these criticisms were unreasonable, such as asking to discuss dates at no notice, the number of clients the Member had and where she lived.

The Panel therefore concluded it was more likely than not that it was […] who objected to flexing around the Member’s holiday and initiated the heated conversation; this was also consistent with her statement of complaint which says […] was at a loss afterwards as to what had gone wrong in the session ‘other than beginning to rise up against the control I had been under’. The Panel further found that once instigated, it was more likely than not that both […] and the Member became heated in their demeanour, as this was consistent with their independent decisions that […] should move supervisor.

The Panel also noted the email evidence from April Year 7 of the Member offering […] options for supervision dates and the ultimate agreement that […] described was come to around […] trip to […]. It also noted that the list of dates of […] and the Member’s sessions included the following:

• 02/08/ Year 7—06/09/Year 7 - 5 weeks
• 31/05/ Year 7 —0/07/ Year 7 - 5 weeks
• 26/04/ Year 7 —31/05/ Year 7 - 5 weeks
• 22/02/ Year 7 —29/03/ Year 7 - 5 weeks
• 17/12/Year 6 —25/01/Year 7 - 5 weeks and 4 days
• 19/10/Year 6 —30/11/Year 6 - 6 weeks
• 01/06/Year 6—29/07/Year 6 – over 8 weeks

From the above, the Panel concluded that the Member was willing and able, within the limits of her other commitments, to be flexible and did not insist on immovable adherence to four-weekly supervision.

Allegation 1 – UPELD IN PART

The Panel first considered whether the facts alleged at subparagraphs 1.1(a), 1.1(b) and 1.1(c) were proved and then moved on to consider whether the stem of the allegation was proved.

Allegations 1.1(a) and 1.1(b) - Proved

From the documentary evidence, […] evidence and Member’s evidence the Panel found that the Member ended the supervisory relationship on 15 November Year 7 by email without giving any prior notice. It considered whether prior notice was impossible given the ending arose out of the events of 1 November Year 7. The Panel concluded that the Member could have advised that she intended to end the relationship by email and invited […] thoughts or informed her that she was ending the relationship but would see […] for an ending session. Giving notice was not, therefore, impossible.

The Panel found that Allegations 1.1(a) and 1.1(b) proved.

Allegation 1.1(c) – Not proved

The Panel accepted […] submissions in relation to the wording of Allegation 1.1(c), specifically that it alleged that the Member did not provide ‘any reasons’ for ending the relationship.

The Panel reviewed the Members email dated 15 November Year 9, and concluded that while inadequate, the email did contain some reasoning. Similarly, the Member’s email of 22 December Year 7 provided some, if limited, further explanation. It therefore concluded that, even if only those emails were considered, the Member had given some reasoning.

The Panel found that allegation 1.1(c) was not proved.

Allegation 1.1 stem

The Panel then applied the above findings to the stem. It concluded that the Member’s actions in deciding not to give […] notice and ending the relationship abruptly by email with no opportunity to comment or discuss was inappropriate. The Panel accepted that the nature of the rupture on 1 November Year 7 made an ending of the relationship inevitable. However, following that rupture, […] and the Member had had an exchange of WhatsApp messages that was normal and amiable; the Member had no evidence that […] had an ongoing issue after the session. The Member stated that she was not aware at the time she sent her email that […] was looking for another supervisor.

The Member did have an ongoing issue after the session and repeatedly said that she was in a dilemma but chose not to consult her supervisor or enquire about […] expectations. As a result, she failed to adequately consider all options available to her and opted for an option that put the Member’s concerns about seeing […] ahead of the best interests of the client.

The Panel found that the abrupt ending and lack of notice amounted to an inappropriate management of the ending of their relationship.

The stem of Allegation 1.1 was found proved on the basis of Allegations 1.1(a) and 1.1(b).

Allegation 1.2 – Proved in part

Having made the above findings, the Panel applied them to paragraph 39 of the Ethical Framework.

The Panel decided that the Member did not endeavour to inform […] in advance of the ending in that she did not consider managing the ending in a different way – the Member repeatedly said she didn’t think she had a choice, but the Panel found that she did. It also found she failed to consider […] expectations and concerns. It is a normal expectation for a supervisee to expect a planned ending. The Member had no evidence that […] had a different expectation and […] subsequent correspondence shows that she did.

Allegation was found proved in part.

Allegation 2 – UPHELD IN PART

Allegation 2.1 – Proved in part

The Panel went on to consider the Member's actions, in responding to […] that it had before it, with regard to written and oral evidence. The Panel considered both ‘adequately’ and ‘timely’ for each email individually.

• 20 December Year 7 email from […] requested three years of session notes and information pertaining to […] within 40 days. These were provided on or around 26 January Year 8, which is well within the 40 day timeframe. The Panel concluded that the Member had replied to this email adequately and in a timely fashion.

• 11 December Year 7 email from […] asked for a response to a number of points detailed in that email. The first time the Member sent an email addressing those points was on 26 January Year 8. The Panel reviewed that email against each of […] points and decided that it adequately addressed each of them albeit the Member stated she disagreed with all the points made. In terms of timeliness, the Member’s email was 46 days after […] request. While the Panel accepted that the Member would have needed to speak to her supervisor and insurer before responding, and taking Christmas and New Year into account, it nevertheless considered 46 days, over six weeks, was not a timely response to […] letter of complaint.

Allegation 2.1 was found proved in part.

Allegation 2.2

Having made the above findings, the Panel applied them to paragraphs 52a, b and c of the Ethical Framework.

The Panel agreed that, as her response to the 11 December Year 7 email from […] was not provided in a timely fashion, the Member’s response was in breach of paragraph 52(a) of the Ethical Framework as she had failed to take immediate action to prevent or limit any harm to […].

The Panel had decided that both responses were adequate in their content in that they addressed […] requests. It therefore concluded that the Member had not failed to repair any harm caused so far as possible and there was no breach of paragraph 52(b) of the Ethical Framework.
Finally, the Panel noted Allegation 2.1 was based solely on the adequacy and timeliness of the Member’s responses to […] emails, not her wider management of the complaint. The Panel concluded that as there was no request for an apology in […], it was not appropriate for the Member to offer one in response and there was no breach of paragraph 52(c) of the Ethical Framework.

Accordingly, Allegation 2.2 was found proved in part.

Allegation 3 – WITHDRAWN

Allegation 4 – NOT UPHELD

Allegation 4.1 – Not proved.

The Panel applied its experience to conclude that the Member’s supervision notes were for her use only and not for handing over her supervisees to other practitioners. It found the Member had demonstrated that she was able to understand and interpret her notes and therefore it concluded they were adequate for their purpose.

The Panel found that the BACP had not provided evidence that there were specific omissions from any of the notes the Member had provided, with the exception of the note of the final session on 1 November Year 7.

The Panel noted that there was no mention of the significant rupture that took place during this session in the note of the session. There was a later note of the Member’s decision to send […] an ending email, but the note of the session only referred to the clients discussed.

The Panel therefore found that the Member’s note of the 1 November Year 7 session was inadequate. Such a rupture required an enhanced note, not no note at all.

However, the Panel noted the wording of the allegation that she had failed to keep adequate notes of supervision sessions (plural). It therefore concluded that Allegation 4.1, as drafted, was not proved as there was only evidence that the notes were inadequate on one occasion.

Allegation 4.2

As the Panel found Allegation 4.1 not proven it did not proceed to consider Allegation 4.2.

Decision

The Panel was unanimous in its decision that the Member had failed to comply with the Professional Standards, specifically that the Member had acted contrary to paragraphs 39 and 52(a) of the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.

Sanction

The Panel reconvened on 16 July Year 9 to consider what, if any, sanction was appropriate in this case. It reminded itself of its findings above. It also considered the guidance within BACP Protocol on Sanctions (PR14) and reminded itself of its powers of sanction under Article 5.12 of the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2018. The Panel also reminded itself of and accepted the Clerk’s advice at hearing that, as the allegation that amounted to professional misconduct was withdrawn at hearing, it would be unfair to impose a sanction beyond the powers of a Practice Review Track hearing panel.

The Panel also considered carefully the Member’s submissions on sanction dated 26 June Year 9.

The Panel concluded that the failures to maintain professional standards that had been proved were towards the lower end of the spectrum of seriousness. The Panel agreed that the failings arose from the Member’s decision-making and application of professional judgement, and that they did not reflect a lack of professional knowledge requiring specific training.

The Panel also noted the Complainant’s submissions that necessitated special arrangements for her to give her evidence during the hearing. In these circumstances, the Panel concluded it would be inappropriate to require the Member to write a letter of apology to the Complainant as it may be triggering for the Complainant.

The Panel nevertheless decided that a sanction was necessary and appropriate to protect the public and to safeguard public interest by improving the Member’s practice and to remedy the identified shortcomings. The Panel therefore directed that the Member, within six weeks, provide the BACP with:

1. a personal statement demonstrating specific changes/improvements in the Member’s practice that;

a. reflects on what went wrong with the Complainant and shows acceptance of responsibility for what the Panel found went wrong, with particular emphasis of the importance of good communication in achieving effective endings;

b. demonstrates understanding of the harm that can be caused by failing to employ good communication when managing endings;

c. recognises the impact of her conduct on the Complainant;

d. details what she has learned and what she has changed to prevent repetition of what went wrong.

2. Confirmation that the Member has discussed her personal statement with her supervisor.

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