October 2017: Theresa Jacobs, Reference no 552348

The complaint was heard under the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure and the Panel considered the alleged breaches of the BACP Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions.

The focus of the complaint, as summarised by the Pre-Hearing Assessment Panel, is that on 4 August Year 1, Ms Jacobs disclosed to the complainant that the counselling relationship with a male client had stepped outside of the professional boundaries.  As a result of this disclosure an investigation was carried out, which found that: 

1. Ms Jacobs did not maintain appropriate professional and personal boundaries in the counselling relationship with one of her clients;

2. Ms Jacobs engaged in a personal relationship with the client and visited him at home;

3. Ms Jacobs entered into private encrypted correspondence with the client during the professional relationship.

Ms Jacobs was dismissed from her employment with the complainant on 23 August Year 1, by reason of gross misconduct.

It is alleged that Ms Jacobs obtained her client's personal contact details from a file at the offices of the complainant and then visited him at home following a counselling session on 28 July and again on 29 July Year 1.  

Ms Jacob's supervisor states that Ms Jacobs disclosed in supervision that she had told her client that she loved him and that he also loved her.  Ms Jacob's supervisor states that Ms Jacobs  was not in a rational state of mind and she was concerned about Ms Jacob's psychological wellbeing after disclosure of the events had been made to her.

The Pre-Hearing Assessment Panel, in accepting this complaint, was concerned with the allegations and information set out within the complaint suggesting contravention of the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions, and those in particular as follows:

1. In contravention of paragraph 12 of the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Profession, Ms Jacobs allegedly failed to do everything to develop and protect her client's trust, in that she entered into a personal relationship with her client whilst still in a counselling/client relationship.

2. In contravention of paragraph 25a, Ms Jacobs allegedly failed to protect the privacy and confidentiality of her client by actively protecting information about her client from unauthorised disclosure, in that she obtained his personal contact details from the offices of the complainant and used this information to visit her client  at home.

3. In contravention of paragraph 33a, Ms Jacobs allegedly failed to establish and maintain appropriate professional and personal boundaries with her client and ensure that these boundaries were consistent with working together with her client, in that she entered into a personal relationship with her client and engaged in out of session contact with him.

4. In contravention of paragraph 33b Ms Jacobs allegedly failed to ensure that she avoided a dual relationship where the risks of harm outweighed the benefits to the client, in that she entered into a personal relationship with her client whilst she was also his counsellor.

5. In contravention of paragraph 34, Ms Jacobs allegedly had a sexual relationship or behaved sexually towards her client.

6. In contravention of paragraph 36, Ms Jacobs allegedly exploited or abused her client emotionally and sexually by entering into a personal relationship with her client.

7. In contravention of paragraph 39, Ms Jacobs allegedly failed to maintain high standards of honesty and probity in all aspects of her work in that she was not initially forthcoming with either the complainant or her supervisor about the extent of her personal relationship with her client.

8. In contravention of paragraph 44, Ms Jacobs by virtue of her alleged conduct failed to avoid any actions which would bring the profession into disrepute.

9. In contravention of paragraph 48, Ms Jacobs allegedly failed to ensure that she reviewed in supervision how she was working with her client, in that she did not initially disclose her feelings towards her client or that she was either considering or engaging in personal contact with her client outside of the sessions.

10. In addition to the paragraphs of the Ethical Framework referred to in the allegations above, Ms Jacob's alleged behaviour, as experienced by the client and reported by the complainant also suggests a contravention of the principles of the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions (2016) of Being trustworthy, Beneficence, Non-Maleficence and Self-respect and showed a lack of the personal moral qualities of Care, Integrity, Identity, Respect, Sincerity and Wisdom to which counsellors are strongly encouraged to aspire.

The Member Complained Against confirmed on numerous occasions that she would not be attending the hearing scheduled for [ . . . ], 2017, in Rugby, or any other hearing and therefore, the matter was referred under paragraph 4.9 of the Professional Conduct Procedure, which states:

Where a Complainant or Member Complained Against fails or refuses to attend a Professional Conduct Hearing, the Registrar has the power to decide to either:

a)   Proceed with the Hearing in the absence of one or both of the parties; or

b)    Adjourn the Hearing to a date not less than 28 days in advance; or

c)    Terminate the proceedings; or

d)    Refer the matter for consideration under Article 12.6 of the Memorandum & Articles of Association.

The options were carefully considered, and in light of the circumstances, a decision was made to go ahead with the hearing in the absence of the Member Complained Against. 

Findings

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

1.   It was undisputed that Ms Jacobs had a counselling relationship with the client and the Panel was satisfied on the evidence available to it that Ms Jacobs had stepped outside of the Counsellor/Client relationship into a personal relationship.  Ms Jacobs admitted in writing to the allegation stating, "I accept that this is true in that I visited the client at home shortly after the penultimate session."  Ms Jacobs also stated in her written evidence, "I did not disclose in supervision that I was considering engaging in personal contact with the client outside of the sessions."  The Panel was satisfied on the evidence that Ms Jacobs had entered into private encrypted correspondence with the client; met with the client outside of the professional relationship in his home; made a declaration of love towards the client, expressed deep feelings for the client and kissed the client, (refer to findings 5 and 6).  Therefore the Panel found that Ms Jacobs had failed to do everything to develop and protect her client's trust in that she entered into a personal relationship with her client whilst still in a counselling relationship.  For the reasons stated above, this allegation is upheld. 

2.   Ms Jacobs admitted in writing that she took the client's personal number after the penultimate session and called the client, and subsequently visited the client at his home.  The Panel was satisfied that Ms Jacobs had contravened paragraph 25a and therefore the allegation was upheld.

3.    The Panel was satisfied, on the evidence available to it, that Ms Jacobs had stepped outside the counsellor/client relationship into a personal relationship and that she engaged in out of session contact with the client.  Ms Jacobs admitted in writing to the allegation stating, "I accept that this is true in that I called the client after the penultimate session and then visited the client at home."  For the reasons stated above, this allegation is upheld. 

4.    In relation to the allegation, Ms Jacobs stated in writing, "I accept that this is true in that I visited the client at home and therefore stepped outside of the client/counsellor relationship."   Ms Jacobs also stated in her written evidence, "I did not disclose in supervision that I was considering engaging in personal contact with the client outside of the sessions."  The Panel was satisfied on the evidence that Ms Jacobs had entered into private encrypted correspondence with the client; met with the client outside of the professional relationship in his home; made a declaration of love towards the client, expressed deep feelings for the client and kissed the client, (refer to findings 5 and 6).  The Panel was satisfied that the evidence demonstrated that Ms Jacobs had a dual relationship with the client in that she had both a counselling and a personal relationship with the client.  The Panel was satisfied, on the evidence, that the client was vulnerable and that by stepping outside the professional boundary Ms Jacobs placed the client at risk of harm, which outweighed any potential benefit to the client and adversely impacted the client.  For the reasons stated above, the allegation is upheld.

5.    Ms Jacobs refuted this allegation in writing, stating, "I do not accept that I was behaving sexually towards the client.  We talked and when I left we hugged and kissed on the cheek but I do recognise that this stepped outside the boundary of the client/counsellor relationship."  Contained within the evidence was a statement from Ms Jacobs' external supervisor detailing her communications with Ms Jacobs about her relationship with the client.  The supervisor in her statement stated that Ms Jacobs, "told me that following her counselling session with the client on [ . . . ] 28 July Year 1 she had an overwhelming impulse to see him......She told him that she loved him and he told her he loved her.  She visited him again on [ . . . ] 29 July Year 1 and stayed with him for some time that day.  Ms Jacobs told me they had kissed and cuddled.  I asked Mrs Jacobs why she did not call me when she felt the impulse to see her client and break the  professional boundary and she told me, I didn't want anyone to stop me. .... on [ . . . ] 15 August Year 1 ......told me she had been visiting the client for the last four days and had visited him that morning.  She said she had agreed to marry him."  The organisation for which Ms Jacobs worked had investigated the matter and in its report stated Ms Jacobs, "lay on the bed with him and they kissed.  She said that she does have very deep feelings for him.  [ . . . ] asked if there had been sexual contact, Theresa said there had not..... Upon her return she showed [ . . . ] a message which had been sent to her through a HUSH account (a highly encrypted email service that is not authorised for use by the Complainant organisation) Theresa said that the client had opened that account over the weekend so that they could have private contact.... Theresa said there had been many messages exchanged on that account but that she had deleted them.  Theresa confirmed to [ . . . ] that the  messages had been of an intimate nature in terms of personal disclosures about her life and her feelings for him."    Ms Jacobs in her written evidence stated, "I did sit on the external covers of the bed with the client and whilst I recognise this was wrong, I should add that this was convenient for the client due to a [ . . . ] rather than going to bed with him.  I remember that I kissed the client on the cheek and he returned the kiss on the cheek."  Ms Jacobs also stated "something happened to me when working with this client, something so powerful which overwhelmed me and led me to step outside of the professional boundaries."  On questioning, the representative of the Complainant told the Panel that Ms Jacobs had said there was no sexual contact between herself and the client.  The Complainant also informed the Panel that she had no reason to disbelieve Ms Jacobs.  The Panel was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that it was proven that there had been a sexual relationship.  However, the Panel found that Ms Jacobs had met with the client in his home, outside of the professional relationship, having obtained the client's personal contact without authorisation.  It also found that Ms Jacobs had kissed the client whilst on his bed and that Ms Jacobs had entered into private encrypted correspondence with the client.  Ms Jacobs in her written evidence accepted the possibility of having said that she loved the client as her "feelings towards the client were very powerful".  The Panel found that Ms Jacobs communicated with the client outside of the professional relationship and that she had expressed deep feelings for the client, and was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that she had made a declaration of love for the client.  The Panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Ms Jacob had behaved sexually towards her client and therefore for the reasons stated above, this allegation is upheld.

6.   In her written response to the complaint, Ms Jacobs refuted this allegation stating, "I do not accept that I exploited or abused the client sexually but I do recognise that my actions were not consistent with good practice regarding a client's emotions."  The Panel noted from the evidence presented that the client was vulnerable.  The Panel was satisfied that  Ms Jacobs had entered into private encrypted correspondence with the client; met with the client outside of the professional relationship in his home; made a declaration of love towards the client, expressed deep feelings for the client and kissed the client (refer to previous  finding).  The Panel was satisfied from the evidence, that a personal relationship existed between Ms Jacobs and the client.  Ms Jacobs admitted to something happening to her when working with this client "something so powerful which overwhelmed [her] and led [her] to step outside of the professional boundaries."  The Panel was satisfied that Ms Jacobs had behaved sexually towards to the client (refer to previous finding) and, on the evidence, that the client was vulnerable The Panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Ms Jacobs had contravened paragraph 36.  For the reasons stated above the allegation is upheld.

7.    Ms Jacobs in relation to this allegation stated in writing, "I accept that I should have spoken to my employer or my supervisor before I called the client, but this was a spur of a moment decision, and on reflection I should have taken professional support at that time."  Ms Jacobs had a counselling session with the client on 28 July Year 1, after which she accessed the client's personal contact number without authorisation.  Ms Jacobs visited the client without informing the Complainant organisation or her supervisor that she was going to visit the client.  On questioning by the Panel, the representative of the Complainant confirmed that they had been made aware by Ms Jacobs of the extent of the relationship between her and the client on 4 August Year 1, and that when Ms Jacobs spoke to the Complainant on the previous day, Ms Jacobs had not made mention of the client.  The Panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Ms Jacobs had contravened paragraph 39.  For the reasons stated above, this allegation is upheld.

8.    Ms Jacobs accepted that her actions were outside of her professional boundaries.  The Panel found that Ms Jacobs had entered into a personal relationship outside of the professional relationship and that she had behaved sexually towards her client and acted inappropriately as a professional and breached boundaries (refer to findings 1 to 7).  The Panel also noted that Ms Jacobs had been dismissed by her employer by reason of gross misconduct.  The Panel was satisfied that Ms Jacobs had failed to avoid actions which could potentially bring the profession into disrepute.  For the reasons stated above, the allegation is upheld.

9.    Ms Jacobs in her evidence stated that she had previously brought this client to supervision.  She further stated, "I did not disclose in supervision that I was considering engaging in personal contact with the client outside of the sessions as I had no such plan to do so.  The contact I made with the client was immediately after the penultimate session and was a spur of the moment decision as it was not something I had been considering at any time prior to the penultimate session."  The Panel accepted Ms Jacobs' evidence.  As such, it did not find that she had breached paragraph 48 and for the reasons stated above, the allegation is not upheld.

10.  In light of the above findings, the Panel was satisfied that paragraphs 12, 25a, 33a, 33b, 34, 36, 39 and 44 of the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions (2016) and the ethical principles of Being trustworthy, Beneficence, Non-Maleficence had been breached.  It also found that Ms Jacobs demonstrated a lack of the personal moral qualities of Care, Integrity, Identity, Respect, Sincerity and Wisdom to which counsellors are strongly encouraged to aspire. 

The Panel was not satisfied that paragraph 48 or the ethical principle of Self-Respect had been breached.

Mitigation

The Panel accepted the verbal and written evidence attesting to Ms Jacobs' behaviour being out of character and that she had previous unblemished service when she had provided valuable counselling services to clients.  This was supported by the oral evidence of the representative of the Complainant.  Ms Jacobs had brought her actions to the attention of her supervisor and employer.  She apologised and showed some awareness of the impact of her actions and some evidence of remorse and reflection. 

Decision

Accordingly, the Panel was unanimous in its decision that these findings amount to serious professional misconduct given the behaviour of Ms Jacobs and the gravity of the findings.

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. 

Ms Jacobs is no longer a member of BACP, having not renewed her membership prior to this Hearing.  However, had Ms Jacobs been a member of BACP, the Panel would have made the following sanction:

The Panel would have suspended Ms Jacobs' membership for a minimum period of 12 months, after which Ms Jacobs would have been required to satisfactorily address the issues in relation to the areas of the complaint that were upheld and to demonstrate her fitness to practise.

The Panel recommended that any future application by Ms Jacobs for BACP membership would have to be considered under the Article 12.3 Procedure, so that her suitability for membership can be properly considered by an appropriate panel.

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