Professional Conduct notice / KM

June 2026: Kate Milne, Membership Number 00959990, Registrant ID 386396

Attendees

1. The Member Kate Milne attended and was not represented.
2. The Complainant attended and was not represented.

Introduction

3. This is a Practice Review Process Hearing held under section 5 of BACP’s Professional Conduct Procedure (PCP).

Background

The Complainant has complained about Kate Milne, a BACP Individual Member whom she and her husband saw for one couple’s session on 15 February [year 1]. The couple was in the early stage of separation and the Complainant believed that they had sought counselling to discuss the next steps in the dissolution of their relationship and how to manage their children. The Complainant alleges that the Member’s behaviour in the session was biased and unprofessional.

Preliminary Issues

Amendment of Allegations

At the outset of the hearing, it was noted that allegations 1.2, 2.2 and 3.2 refer to Ms Milne as “the former member”, although it was confirmed that she is a current BACP member and has remained a member throughout this investigation. It appeared therefore that the reference to her as a “former member” was an administrative error. The Panel noted its power under Paragraph 4.12 of the Professional Conduct Procedure (PCP) to amend the allegations. Neither party objected to the amendments being made and the Panel therefore directed that the word “former” should be removed from allegations 1.2, 2.2 and 3.2 to reflect the correct position.

New Evidence

Prior to the hearing, Ms Milne made an application in writing to submit new evidence, consisting of a letter of support from her supervisor. The Complainant did not object to the letter being admitted. The Panel noted its power under Paragraph 4.9c of the PCP to admit late evidence. Having considered the relevant issues as set out in Protocol PR4, the Panel was satisfied that it was in the interests of justice to admit the late evidence and that no prejudice would be caused to the Complainant in doing so.

Allegations (as amended)

Allegation 1

1.1 In a joint session with the Complainant and her husband, the Member made a number of observations about the Complainant’s husband including words to the effect of […].

1.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with paragraph 7 of ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018 which states:

7: We will make each client the primary focus of our attention and our work during our sessions together.

Allegation 2

2.1 In a joint session with the Complainant and her husband, the Member made an inappropriate and/or unnecessarily detailed disclosure about herself when she talked about her divorce and the negative impact that it had on her son with words to the effect of ‘later down the line as he had drug abuse problems and mental health issues’.

2.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with paragraph 7 of ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018 which states:

7: We will make each client the primary focus of our attention and our work during our sessions together.

Allegation 3

3.1 In a joint session with the Complainant and her husband the Member referred to and provided information about another couple she had provided her professional services to who were known to the Complainant and her husband.

3.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with paragraph 55 a. and/or 55 g. of ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018 which state:

55: We will protect the confidentiality and privacy of clients by: a. actively protecting information about clients from unauthorised access or disclosure g. using thoroughly anonymised information about clients where this provides a practical alternative to sharing identifiable information

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.
• Late evidence from the Member consisting of a letter of support from her supervisor.
• The Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.
• The Professional Conduct Procedure 2018.

The Panel read all of the above then listened to the verbal evidence provided by both parties and had the opportunity to ask questions of the 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.

Evidence from the Complainant

In her evidence to the Panel, the Complainant said that she and her husband attended the session with the Member to seek help in navigating the next stage of their separation. During the session, she felt that the Member had an agenda to trap her in the marriage and to stop her from moving towards long term stability for herself and her children.

In relation to Allegation 1, she stated that she found the Member’s comment belittling as it diminished her own experience and made her feel that the Member was taking her husband’s side.

In relation to Allegation 2, she stated that she was already consumed with concern regarding her children’s future, and the Member sharing details of her son […] was shattering. She told the Panel that it felt like emotional blackmail as she believed that the Member was trying to persuade her to stay in the marriage against her will.

In relation to Allegation 3, she stated that the Member’s comments regarding the couple who had recommended her was unfair on the couple and was unsettling for her as she could not be assured of confidentiality from the Member.

The Complainant said that she did not believe that the Member understood the power her words could have, and the session worsened all the Complainant’s anxieties about the situation they were in. She stated that, in advancing her husband’s wish for the marriage to continue, the Member failed to consider the impact on the children in remaining in an unhappy home.

Evidence from the Member

In her evidence to the Panel, the Member said she deeply regretted the hurt caused to the Complainant and apologised for the impact of the session on her. She told the Panel that she had been approached by the Complainant’s husband, whom she considered to be her client, who wanted the relationship to continue and had told her the session was to explore the potential for reconciliation. She realised in the session that the Complainant, whom she did not consider to be her client, had already made the decision to end the marriage and therefore moved to a solution focussed approach, addressing the practical issues of separation such as finances and childcare.

In relation to Allegation 1, the Member said that her comment had been intended to diffuse the situation as it was clear to her that the Complainant’s husband was struggling with the negative comments being made about him. In that context, the comment was an attempt to make him feel worthwhile.

In relation to Allegation 2, the Member told the Panel that she had reflected on her comments regarding her son and accepted that these were inappropriate and unhelpful. She said that she had received a distressing telephone call from her son earlier that day and accepted that this had affected her judgement in this respect.

In relation to Allegation 3, the Member said that she had not disclosed any personal details of the couple but had simply referred to a successful collaboration with them. She said that she had never breached the confidentiality of a client, and the Complainant could be assured that she would not do so.

The Member said that she was devastated to receive this complaint which was the first in 30 years of practice. She told the Panel that it had had a huge impact on her health and wellbeing and that she had ceased practising for a year to address this. She said that she had undertaken CPD, personal counselling and extensive reflection in supervision to address the issues. She acknowledged that in accepting the husband’s point of view as her client, she had failed to demonstrate unconditional positive regard to the Complainant. She denied that she had ever used emotional blackmail but told the Panel that in future she would always assess the individual needs of each client.

Findings

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

Allegation 1 - PROVED

Allegation 1.1

The Panel noted that although the Member sought to explain the context in which she had made the comment, she accepted that she had used the words complained of in relation to the Complainant’s husband. It made no finding in relation to any other alleged observations. The Panel therefore found this allegation proved on the balance of probabilities.

Allegation 1.2

Having found Allegation 1.1 proved, the Panel went on to consider whether the conduct found proved amounted to a breach of Paragraph 7 of Good Practice in the Ethical Framework as alleged.

The Panel took into account the Member’s explanation that she had made the comment to “lighten the mood” and to diffuse criticism of the Complainant’s husband. However, it found that in the context of a couple’s session, the comment was inappropriate and unhelpful. The panel considered that, regardless of who made the initial contact, a therapist should consider both parties to be clients when engaged to provide a couple’s session. The Panel found that the Member’s belief that the husband was the only client caused her to overlook the needs of the Complainant, and that she had failed to make both clients the focus of her attention during their session. It found therefore that she had failed to comply with Paragraph 7.

Allegation 1 was therefore found proved.

Allegation 2 – PROVED

Allegation 2.1

The Panel noted that the Member accepted that she had disclosed details of her own divorce and on the effect of this on her son, and that this was an error of judgement.

The Panel therefore found this allegation proved on the balance of probabilities.

Allegation 2.2

Having found Allegation 2.1 proved, the Panel went on to consider whether the conduct found proved amounted to a breach of Paragraph 7 of Good Practice in the Ethical Framework as alleged.
The Panel found that, whilst personal disclosure can be therapeutically justified in some circumstances, it was not appropriate in the context of a discussion regarding the future of the Complainant’s children. It found that, in disclosing details of her son’s […] issues, she did not consider the impact of this on the Complainant and her husband and this demonstrated that she did not make the Complainant the primary focus of her attention and had therefore failed to comply with Paragraph 7.

Allegation 2 was therefore found proved

Allegation 3 – PROVED

Allegation 3.1

The Panel heard that the Member stated that she had not identified the couple to the Complainant, nor had she disclosed any information about them and had referred only to a successful collaboration. However, the Panel noted that the clients were known to the Complainant and her husband, having recommended the Member to them. It noted also that the Member in her written response stated that she had said told the Complainant and her husband that the couple were “working towards saving their marriage”. The Panel found that the Member had referred to and provided information about another couple and it therefore found this allegation proved on the balance of probabilities.

Allegation 3.2

Having found Allegation 3.1 proved, the Panel went on to consider whether the conduct found proved amounted to a breach of Paragraph 55 a and/or g of Good Practice in the Ethical Framework as alleged.

The Panel found that telling the Complainant and her husband that a couple who were known to them were “working towards saving their marriage” amounted to a breach of confidentiality. The Panel found therefore that the Member had failed to comply with Paragraph 55 a and g of Good Practice in the Ethical Framework as alleged.

Allegation 3 was therefore found proved.

Decision

Accordingly, the Panel found that there had been a failure to comply with the Professional Standards. Specifically, that the Member had acted contrary to paragraphs 7, 55a and g of Good Practice in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.

Sanction

The Panel reconvened on 17 November 2025 to consider what, if any, sanction is appropriate. The Panel noted the Member had made no submissions on sanction.

The Panel 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 considered whether the Member’s previous responses contained any mitigating or aggravating factors. The Panel agreed that the Member had not shown insight into the professional failings found proved.

Given this lack of insight and the absence of remediation, the Panel concluded that it was necessary and proportionate to impose a requirement for the Member to undergo specific training on contracting with clients, to demonstrate improvement in practice and to apologise to the Complainant.

The Panel decided that it was necessary, appropriate and proportionate to require the Member to provide the BACP with the following within 8 weeks of the date of this letter:

1. Evidence of the completion of 12 hours of continuous professional development (CPD) relating to:
a. Confidentiality, in particular in the context of couples counselling;
b. The maintenance of professional boundaries, including the appropriateness or otherwise of personal disclosures.

2. After completing the CPD, 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;
b. recognises the impact of her conduct on the Complainant;
c. details what she has learned and what she has changed to prevent repetition of what went wrong, with particular reference to practising within one’s experience and qualifications and maintaining boundaries.

3. A letter of apology addressed to the Complainant.

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