October 2016: Gillian Collins, Reference no 521688

The complaint was heard under the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 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 in October [year 1], the Complainant had two counselling sessions with Ms Collins, an independent counsellor at organisation Z.  At the time of the counselling, the Complainant was 16 years old.  Allegedly, there was no agreed contract, nor was the Complainant given any information regarding the parameters of the counselling or information regarding complaints procedures.

During the first counselling session the Complainant discussed [ . . . ] and also disclosed inappropriate touching from X in August [year 1]. 

Ms Collins allegedly inquired whether X had touched her prior to this; said "once a paedophile always a paedophile" and asked whether the Complainant felt she had had poor parenting or had felt protected by her parents.  She suggested that the Complainant's parents had put X before the daughter.  Ms Collins also allegedly stated that the Complainant had been happy when X touched her because she was happy that X was having pleasure, and that X1 was possibly in denial.  The Complainant alleged that these questions were leading, and detrimentally influential.  Ms Collins allegedly was insistent the police be called against the Complainant's expressed desire not to do so.

The Complainant discussed the counselling with her parents, resulting in a meeting between Ms Collins and the Complainant's father.  The Complainant also attended, allegedly at Ms Collins insistence, and against her own expressed wishes.  At this meeting the Complainant, when asked whether she wished to withdraw from the counselling, replied yes. Ms Collins allegedly then pursued the matter, which the Complainant alleged failed to respect her right to autonomy.

Ms Collins allegedly stated that having taken advice, she now knew that, as the Complainant was over 16, it was for her to involve the police should she so wish.  The Complainant stated that she did not know that Ms Collins would discuss issues with her supervisor.  Ms Collins allegedly also made reference to an incident which had happened some ten years previously, which she did not have the Complainant's permission to disclose. 

Before the Complainant left the meeting, she stated that there was a sharp exchange of views between her father and Ms Collins, which caused her emotional and mental distress.

The Complainant said that the overall result of that meeting was that she had a traumatic experience which has left her with unresolved trust issues.

In accepting this complaint, the Pre-Hearing Assessment Panel was concerned with the following areas, and in particular these were:

1. Ms Collins allegedly failed to provide the Complainant with a good quality of care and competently delivered services which met her needs, in that she made judgmental statements that a member of the Complainant's family was a paedophile, that another member of her family was in denial and that her parents were not protecting her.

2. Ms Collins allegedly failed to provide the Complainant with a good quality of care in that she engaged in an exchange with her father, which caused the Complainant distress.

3. Ms Collins allegedly failed to clarify and agree the rights and responsibilities of her as a practitioner and the Complainant as a client, in that she did not clarify with the Complainant whether she had received and read the pre-counselling information and did not inform her that she would be discussing the Complainant in supervision.  

4. Ms Collins allegedly failed to show respect for the Complainant's privacy and dignity and pay careful attention to consent and confidentiality, in that she shared information with the Complainant's father that had been told to her in confidence by the Complainant, without the Complainant's consent. 

5. Ms Collins allegedly failed to demonstrate respect to the Complainant in that she referred to one family member as a paedophile, said that another was in denial of the alleged abuse and also said that the Complainant's parents were not taking care of her. 

6. Ms Collins allegedly failed to obtain from the Complainant, her adequately informed consent to attend the session in which her father was also in attendance, and respect her right to choose whether to continue or withdraw from that session.

7. Ms Collins allegedly failed to respond appropriately to the letter of complaint sent on behalf of the Complainant or the request to provide her membership number.

8. Ms Collins allegedly failed to remedy any harm that she may have caused to the Complainant.  

9. Ms Collins allegedly failed to inform the Complainant, through her father, of the existence of the Professional Conduct Procedure, or of her membership details.

10. Ms Collins' alleged behaviour, as experienced by the Complainant and as identified in the numbered paragraphs referred to above, suggests a contravention in particular of paragraphs 1, 3, 11, 12, 41, 42 and 46 and the ethical principles of Being Trustworthy, Autonomy, Beneficence and Non Maleficence of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling & Psychotherapy (2013), and showed a lack of the personal moral qualities of Empathy, Resilience, Respect, Humility, Competence, Wisdom and to which counsellors are strongly encouraged to aspire.

Preliminary matter

The Panel was mindful that in answering the allegations, Ms Collins sought to rely on her "Records of Sessions" which had been provided to the Panel.  She explained in her correspondence with BACP, and to the Panel in evidence, that her practice was to make shorthand notes of her counselling sessions whilst writing in full anything that seemed to be of particular significance.  She explained that when she reviewed her original notes to provide these to BACP, she thought that as they were a little "scruffy", and possibly difficult for someone else to understand, she copied them out again, writing things in full where they had originally been abbreviated and adding some extra information in colour, such as explaining the roles of individuals referred to in the notes.  Ms Collins said that any quotes in the re-written session notes were things said in the counselling session and were written in the original notes.  Having transcribed the notes, Ms Collins then shredded the originals.

As the original counselling notes had been destroyed, the Panel considered whether it could rely on the re-written session notes provided by Ms Collins, ("the session notes").  The Panel concluded that it could.  It was satisfied that the original notes were an accurate representation of the content of the counselling sessions.  It accepted the explanation provided by Ms Collins about how and why she had transcribed her original shorthand notes.  The Panel had no reason to believe that Ms Collins had any inappropriate motive for re-writing the notes, or that she had embellished or mis-represented information provided to her by the Complainant.

Findings

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

1. In relation to the allegation that Ms Collins had made judgmental statements, the Panel considered the alleged statements in turn.

It was alleged that Ms Collins stated that a member of the Complainant's family was a paedophile.  The Complainant's evidence was that she had told Ms Collins about an incident of possible abuse by a family member. The Complainant alleged that in the context of that disclosure, Ms Collins said, "Once a paedophile, always a paedophile".  Ms Collins accepted, in her written responses to the complaint, and to the Panel in evidence, that she had used the word "paedophile" in the context of the Complainant's disclosure.  Ms Collins' session notes recorded the disclosure made by the Complainant about the family member and stated, "Told [complainant] that what she described is sexual abuse which needs to stop and that paedophiles tend not to change".  The Panel was therefore satisfied that Ms Collins made a statement that a member of the Complainant's family was a paedophile.

Ms Collins told the Panel that she used the word "paedophile" deliberately, to ensure the Complainant was aware of the seriousness of what had happened to her.  The Panel decided however, that the use of the word at such an early stage of the Complainant's disclosure was judgmental.

It was alleged that Ms Collins said another family member was in denial about the abuse.  The Complainant's evidence was that Ms Collins asked her if another particular family member was aware of the alleged abuse, and when the Complainant said "no", Ms Collins said that the family member was possibly in denial.  The Panel had regard to the session notes in which Ms Collins had written, in the context of the conversation about whether the other family member was aware of the abuse, "....these are difficult issues and she might be in denial".  Ms Collins had said, in one of her written responses to the complaint, "I concede that my conjecture concerning [family member] was' perhaps superfluous".  The Panel was therefore satisfied that Ms Collins had made a statement that a family member was in denial, and that this was a judgmental statement.

It was alleged that Ms Collins said the Complainant's parents were not protecting her.  In reaching its decision on this issue, the Panel considered the Complainant's written complaint in which she stated that Ms Collins, "...asked me did I feel my parents had failed in their protection of me".  The Panel's view was that the Complainant was alleging Ms Collins had asked her a question about her parents; she was not alleging that Ms Collins had made a statement about them.  Further, in the session notes, and in Ms Collins' evidence, she denied that she had said the Complainant's parents were not protecting her, but accepted that she had said, "...it is the duty of parents and all responsible adults to protect young people".  The Panel found that this was a general statement about the responsibilities of adults towards young people, and did not amount to a statement that the Complainant's parents were not protecting her.  The Panel therefore concluded that there was no evidence before it to support this part of the allegation.

The Panel therefore found that Ms Collins had made two judgemental statements.  She had said that a member of the Complainant's family was a paedophile, and that another family member was in denial.  It found that the making of these statements amounted to a failure to provide the Complainant with a good quality of care and competently delivered services which met her needs.

Allegation 1 was therefore upheld in part.

2. The Complainant described a meeting between her father and Ms Collins, at which she was present.  She explained that the issue of sexual abuse by a family member was discussed at the meeting, amongst other matters.  She said that Ms Collins "aggressively interrupted" her father at one stage and she stated that "...the unnecessary witnessing of the exchanges between the counsellor and my father caused me extreme emotional and mental distress".

Ms Collins also described that meeting in detail in the session notes.  She referred to the Complainant's father as "aggressive in his approach".

It was clear from the evidence of both parties that the Complainant's disclosure of abuse had been discussed in some detail at the meeting in the Complainant's presence and that
the atmosphere had been tense.  The Panel was satisfied from the oral and documentary evidence from both parties that there had been an "exchange" between Ms Collins and the Complainant's father.  Ms Collins stated in her written response to the allegation, "That [the Complainant] was distressed was clearly true and very regrettable".  The Panel therefore found that Ms Collins had engaged in an exchange with the Complainant's father, and that this had caused distress to the Complainant.  It found that this amounted to a failure to provide the Complainant with a good quality of care.

Allegation 2 was therefore upheld.

3. It was alleged that Ms Collins did not clarify whether the Complainant had received and read the pre-counselling information.

The Complainant told the Panel that she did not recall receiving any pre-counselling information.

Ms Collins explained that it was [ . . . ] services which provided pre-counselling information.  She referred the Panel to an email from an employee at [ . . . ] services who confirmed that he always goes through the information leaflet with the [ . . . ], then attaches the leaflet to an email confirming the details of the appointment.

Whilst there was a conflict in the evidence about whether the pre-counselling information was provided, the Panel was only required to decide whether Ms Collins had  clarified whether the Complainant had received and read it.  She stated in her written response to the allegation, "It is possible that I failed to ask [the Complainant] if she had read the Counselling Booklet provided by [ . . . ] Services....".  The Panel found therefore that Ms Collins had not clarified whether the Complainant had received and read the pre-counselling information.

It was also alleged that Ms Collins did not inform the Complainant that she would be discussing her in supervision.

Ms Collins told the Panel that the Complainant might not have known supervision was a requirement for all BACP counsellors.  The Complainant told the Panel, however, when questioned about this, that she recalled Ms Collins telling her in the first session, that if need be, she (Ms Collins) would talk to her "superior".  The Panel concluded from this that Ms Collins must have told the Complainant that she would discuss her in supervision if necessary.  It did not therefore uphold this part of the allegation.

The Panel was satisfied that in not clarifying with the Complainant whether she had received and read the pre-counselling information, Ms Collins had failed to clarify and agree the rights and responsibilities of her as a practitioner and the Complainant as a client.

The Panel therefore found allegation 3 upheld in part.

4. The Complainant initially alleged that during the meeting between Ms Collins and her father, at which she was present, Ms Collins divulged confidential information about possible sexual abuse, without her permission.  During questioning at the hearing however, the Complainant accepted that she had seen the letter dated 12 October [year 1], written by her father to Ms Collins.  This letter stated, "I wish to discuss comments made to my wife and me by our daughter and the response made by you to her."  The Complainant had then given the letter to Ms Collins.

Ms Collins denied a breach of confidentiality.  She said that all those present at the meeting were clearly aware of the issues and that the Complainant's father had raised the subject of sexual abuse without any prompting.

As the Complainant accepted that she had seen the letter and had handed it to Ms Collins, the Panel was satisfied that this demonstrated that she knew that a meeting was likely to take place between Ms Collins and her father and knew what was to be discussed at the meeting.  The Panel found that she had therefore given her consent for those matters to be discussed.  In the circumstances, the Panel was not satisfied that Ms Collins had shared confidential information without consent; and therefore it did not find that she had failed to show respect for the Complainant's privacy and dignity or failed to pay careful attention to consent and confidentiality. 

Allegation 4 was not upheld.

5. The Panel found in allegation 1, that Ms Collins referred to one family member as a paedophile and said that another was in denial.  It had not found that Ms Collins said the Complainant's parents were not taking care of her.

The Panel was satisfied that her comments that one family member was a paedophile and that another was in denial constituted a failure to demonstrate respect to the Complainant.

Allegation 5 was therefore upheld in part.

6. It is alleged that Ms Collins failed to obtain from the Complainant, her adequately informed consent to attend the session at which her father was also in attendance.

The Complainant told the Panel that when she handed the letter from her father to Ms Collins, she told Ms Collins that she did not really want to be in the room during the  meeting, but Ms Collins told her she should be for confidentiality reasons.  The Complainant then attended the meeting with her father and Ms Collins.

Ms Collins said she told the Complainant that she would never see the parent of a [ . . . ] or client without permission from [ . . . ] or without them being present.  Ms Collins said she asked the Complainant if she was willing to attend, and the Complainant agreed.  Ms Collins' evidence was supported by the session notes.

Whilst the versions of events from the parties were not identical, it was clear to the Panel from the evidence of both parties that the Complainant agreed to attend the meeting.  The Panel found, in allegation 4, that the Complainant knew what would be discussed at the meeting.  It was therefore satisfied that she had given her consent to attend and that her consent was adequately informed.  Ms Collins had not failed to obtain the Complainant's adequately informed consent to attend the session.

It is also alleged that Ms Collins did not respect the Complainant's right to choose whether to continue or withdraw from the meeting/session.

The Panel could find no evidence in support of this part of the allegation. Although the Panel found in allegation 2 that the exchange between Ms Collins and the Complainant's father caused distress to the Complainant, there was no evidence that the Complainant indicated, either by her words or her actions, that she had changed her mind and wished to leave the meeting.  The Panel was not therefore satisfied that Ms Collins had failed to respect the Complainant's right to choose whether to continue or withdraw.

Having found that Ms Collins had not failed to obtain the Complainant's adequately informed consent to attend the session, and had not failed to respect the Complainant's right to choose whether to continue or withdraw, the Panel did not uphold allegation 6. 

7. It was alleged that Ms Collins failed to respond appropriately to the letter of complaint sent on behalf of the Complainant.

The Panel considered the letter written by the Complainant's father to Ms Collins dated 20 October [year 1].  His letter began, "Thank you for your letter regarding my daughter.....".  He pointed out an inaccuracy in the letter sent to him from Ms Collins, explained that his daughter had now seen her GP who had made an urgent referral, and suggested that Ms Collins might have questioned his intentions to ensure the Complainant received help.  He stated, "As to where the matter goes from here this will be determined at a later date and on advice given.  I have filed the documents you have sent to me and noted you are fully insured...."

Ms Collins responded by email three days later, saying, "Thank you for responding to my letter and it is good to know that your family G.P. is activating a speedy referral to [ . . . ].  Hopefully this will not take too long and will be helpful".

The Panel was not satisfied that the letter written by the Complainant's father amounted to a letter of complaint.  Whilst he raised some concern, he had not intimated, either explicitly or implicitly, that he was making a complaint about Ms Collins at that stage.  The Panel therefore could not find that Ms Collins failed to respond appropriately to the letter of complaint.

It was also alleged that Ms Collins failed to respond appropriately to the request to provide her membership number.

The Complainant's father sent an email to Ms Collins on 12 March [year 2], asking her to forward her BACP membership details.  Ms Collins responded by email the next day, saying, "I have no intention of forwarding you any further details, but if you wish any further information you should request via [ organisation Z]."

It was clear that Ms Collins had refused to provide her membership details to the Complainant's father.  However, the Panel had regard to paragraph 41 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy, which states,

"Practitioners should respond promptly and appropriately to any complaint received from their clients".

As the Panel had found that no complaint had been intimated to Ms Collins at that stage, it determined that there was no strict obligation on her to provide her membership details.  Whilst to do so would have been courteous, and Ms Collins accepted that it would have been better to provide them, in the absence of any obligation, the Panel did not find that her refusal to provide these details amounted to a breach of the Ethical Framework.

In view of its findings that Ms Collins did not fail to respond appropriately to the letter of complaint or to the request to provide her membership number, the Panel found allegation 7 not upheld.

8. It was clear from the evidence of both parties that at the meeting on 15 October [year 1], when Ms Collins, the Complainant and her father were all present, the Complainant expressed to Ms Collins that she did not wish to seek further counselling from her.

As the Complainant had terminated the counselling relationship, and had informed Ms Collins in the last session, in the presence of her father, that the only reason she wished to end the counselling with Ms Collins was because ‘the rooms were better and not so dull' in [ . . . ] where she had had previous counselling, the Panel determined that there was no obligation on Ms Collins to take steps to remedy any harm that she may have caused to the Complainant as at this particular stage, Ms Collins was not aware of any harm that she may have caused the Complainant.  The Panel therefore found that there had not been a failure by Ms Collins to remedy any harm.

Allegation 8 was therefore not upheld.

9. It was alleged that Ms Collins had failed to inform the Complainant, through her father, of the existence of the Professional Conduct Procedure.

There was no evidence before the Panel that the Complainant or her father had requested details of the Professional Conduct Procedure.  The Panel had also determined in allegation 7 that no complaint had been intimated by the Complainant or her father.  As details of the Professional Conduct Procedure had not been requested, and as no complaint had been made, the Panel found that Ms Collins was not obliged to inform the Complainant of the existence of the Professional Conduct Procedure, and had not therefore failed to do so.

It was also alleged that Ms Collins failed to inform the Complainant, through her father, of her membership details.

The Panel had already found in allegation 7, that although Ms Collins had not provided her membership details, she was not obliged to do so.  For those reasons, the Panel did not find that she failed to inform the Complainant, through her father, of her membership details.

Allegation 9 was therefore, not upheld.

10. In light of the above findings, the Panel was satisfied that paragraphs 1,3, and 11 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy (2013 edition) and the ethical principle of Being Trustworthy had been breached.  It also found that Ms Collins demonstrated a lack of the personal moral qualities of Respect, Wisdom, Resilience and Competence to which all practitioners are strongly urged to aspire. 

The Panel did not find that paragraphs 12, 41, 42, and 46 of the Ethical Framework had been breached or the ethical principles of Autonomy, Beneficence and Non Maleficence or that Ms Collins lacked the personal moral qualities of Empathy and Humility.

Decision

Accordingly, the Panel was unanimous in its decision that these findings amounted to Professional Malpractice, in that Ms Collins had provided inadequate professional services.

Mitigation

The Panel found that Ms Collins had shown a degree of insight into her wrongdoings.  In particular, she;

- Acknowledged that she had made a mistake by destroying her original session notes;

- Recognised that she should have sought advice before meeting with the Complainant's father, and;

- Admitted that she should have clarified that the Complainant had read and received the pre-counselling notes.

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.

Within three months 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 detailed report which evidences her learning from and understanding of the elements of the complaint upheld by the Professional Conduct Panel and how she would do things differently if faced with the same set of circumstances.

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)