Professional Conduct notice / CK

December 2025: Christopher Kidd, Reference No 00800624 , Registrant ID 373975

The Professional Conduct Panel, consisting of […] met on 11 November Year 5 remotely via Microsoft Teams to consider the complaint made by […] (Complainant) against Christopher Kidd (Member), a British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP) individual member. In attendance were […] (Clerks’ Assistant), […](observer) and […] (Clerk to the Panel).

The Panel adjourned part way through the hearing due to insufficient time to hear all evidence. It reconvened on 21 February Year 6 to complete the hearing and on 1 April Year 6 for deliberations. Due to the Clerk being unavailable, the BACP Registrar appointed a replacement Clerk under paragraph 4.1 of the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2018. In attendance were […] and […] (Clerks’ Assistants) and […] (Clerk to the Panel).

At the first hearing the Complainant was accompanied by […] (Personal Supporter) and on both hearing dates by […] (Professional Supporter). The Member was represented by […] (Counsel) and […] (Instructing solicitors).

Summary

The Complainant has complained about Christopher Kidd an individual member. In summary, in relation to the allegation put forward, she stated:

• Between 7 February and 7 April Year 1, she attended family therapy with the Member as ordered by the […].
• When the Member drew up an agreement, she asked for one revision. She wanted the session with herself to run concurrently with her […] sessions so that […] her ex-partner’s […] could be dealt with at a similar time. When the Member responded to her request, he breached her confidentiality by copying in the ex-partner in his response. When it was pointed out the Member did not address it.

Allegations

Allegation 1

1.1 The Member misleadingly and/or inaccurately in his self-referral to BACP on 9 April Year 1:

a. minimised the significance of the contents of the Complainant’s email he disclosed to the ex-partner by describing it as containing no new information when the information provided in the Complainant’s email to him was new and/or highly sensitive, and/or

b. minimised his role in his disclosure in the way he described the Complainants correspondence to him.

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

43. We will maintain high standards of honesty and probity in all aspects of our work.

44. We will be as open and as communicative with our clients, colleagues and others as is consistent with the purpose, methods and confidentiality of the service.

Documents and evidence before the Panel

The Panel was provided with the following written materials:

• The papers of the Investigation and Assessment Committee.
• The Allegations being considered.
• The formal response submitted by the Member Complained Against.
• Further information provided by the parties.
• The relevant Ethical Frameworks.
• The Professional Conduct Procedure 2018.

The Panel read all of the above, then questioned, and listened to the verbal evidence provided by both parties.

The Panel had to consider the following:

• The allegations made.

• The written and verbal evidence.
• What weight should be attached to the evidence.
• On balance, whether the complaints should be upheld.

Preliminary matters

The Member’s representative, […], applied to the Panel to submit a witness statement with exhibits from the Member late.

The Complainant had no objections to the application.

The Panel took advice from the Clerk. Having done so and taking into account clause 4.9c of the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2018 (PCP) and the Protocol on Late/New Evidence (Protocol 4), the Panel decided that it was in the interests of justice to allow the application and admit the witness statement into evidence.

Findings

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

Allegation 1 - UPHELD

Allegation 1.1 – Proved in part

The Panel found:

i. The Complainant sent an email solely to the Member at 09.46 on 19 March Year 1 (pages 554-554 of the hearing bundle).
ii. The Member replied to that email at 10.17 on 19 March Year 1, sending his reply to the Complainant and copied to her ex-partner […] (page 555 of the hearing bundle), which disclosed the Complainant’s earlier email solely to the Member to […].

The Panel noted the Member’s consistent explanation that copying it to […] was accidental and unintentional. It decided not to accept this explanation because the email the Member sent started ‘Hi […]’. The Panel therefore concluded that the Member deliberately and knowingly copied his email to […].

The Panel found from the documentary evidence that the Complainant’s email raised her concerns about […].The Panel accepted the Member’s evidence that this was not new information to him, which was consistent with the Complainant’s evidence and the history of […] involvement. Notwithstanding this, the Panel decided that the fact that the Complainant had raised those concerns with him privately in a one-to-one email was highly sensitive given the circumstances in which the Member was providing family therapy.

The Panel found that the self-referral in Allegation 1.1 was evidenced at pages 205-207 of the hearing bundle. The self-referral included the statement ‘For information, no new information was contained within the email’. The Panel found that by describing the Complainant’s email in this way, the Member was minimising the significance of its contents to the BACP, which as misleading.

The Panel also noted the Member’s self-disclosure stated that it was a ‘minor and single breach of confidentiality’, that the breach was ‘accidental’, came about because ‘the gmail system did not clearly indicate that my response to the mother was also automatically being cc’d to the father’ and that he used language that unnecessarily reflected poorly on the Complainant. It found that this description of what happened, for the reasons above, was inaccurate and misleading and minimised the Member’s role in the breach.

Allegation 1.1 was, therefore, found proved in part.

Allegation 1.2 - Proved

The Panel then applied its findings in relation to allegation 1.2 to paragraphs 43 and 44 of the BACP Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy 2018.

The Panel dismissed the ‘honesty’ element of paragraph 43. It applied the common meaning of ‘probity’, using the Oxford English Dictionary definition: ‘the quality of having strong moral principles; honesty and decency’. The Panel concluded that the Member’s conduct, as found proved above, was a failure to maintain high standards of probity and that he acted in contravention of paragraph 43 of the BACP Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy 2018.

The Panel found that by being misleading and downplaying his role in the breach of confidentiality, the Member failed to be as open with his regulator as was consistent with his obligations and his role. Accordingly, it found that he acted in contravention of paragraph 44 of the BACP Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy 2018.

Allegation 1.2 was, therefore, found proved.

Decision

Accordingly, the Panel decided that there had been a failure to comply with the Professional Standards. Specifically, that the Member had acted contrary to paragraphs 43 and 44 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy 2018.

[…]

Sanction

The Panel reconvened on 9 October Year 6 to determine the appropriate sanction (if any) to impose on the Member. It reminded itself of its findings above and the provisions of the Professional Conduct Procedure 2018 and BACP Protocol 14 Guidance on Sanctions. The Member provided submissions on sanction, together with a number of references and a certificate confirming his completion of training on GDPR dated 2 February Year 5.
In considering sanction, the Panel was mindful of public protection and raising and maintaining standards of practice.

The Panel considered that the following sanction was fair and proportionate, given the allegation upheld in this case:

Within 6 months of the date of this letter, the Member is to submit to BACP:

1. Evidence of successful completion of at least 18 hours on a taught course (online, face to face or blended), addressing the importance of confidentiality in couples counselling.

2. A reflection on the changes he has made (including implementation of the Heidi system) or intends to make, and how he believes that these changes will prevent a repetition of the matter found proved in this case, particularly in the context of a coercive or abusive relationship.

3. A letter of apology addressed to the Complainant which accepts responsibility for the matter found proved and acknowledges the impact of disclosing sensitive information within an acrimonious relationship. The letter should also provide details of the steps the Member has taken or is taking to prevent a repetition of the matter found proved in this case.

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