Professional Conduct notice / MB

February 2023: Martha Bvunzawabaya Reference No 00756181, Registrant ID 378491

Allegations

[ . . . ]

Admissions

[ . . . ]

Evidence before Panel

[ . . . ]

Summary of Evidence

[ . . . ]

Decision and Reasons for Findings

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

Allegation 1 - UPHELD

1.1 The Member suspended her regular supervision with [ . . . ] in/around March Year 1 as she was taking a break from seeing clients - PROVED

1.2 The Member arranged to restart it on 1 December Year 1. - PROVED

1.3 The Member had no supervision arrangement in place between March and 30 November Year 1. – PROVED

1.4 Between August and November Year 1, the Member saw one or more clients without having appropriate supervision in place. – PROVED

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

53 We will consider carefully in supervision how we work with clients.

60 Supervision is essential to how practitioners sustain good practice throughout their working life. Supervision provides practitioners with regular and ongoing opportunities to reflect in depth about all aspects of their practice in order to work as effectively, safely and ethically as possible. Supervision also sustains the personal resourcefulness required to undertake the work. – PROVED

Allegation 2 - UPHELD

2.1 [ . . . ] –PROVED

2.2 [ . . . ] – PROVED

2.3 [ . . . ] – PROVED

2.4 [ . . . ] – PROVED

2.5 [ . . . ] – PROVED

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

91 We will take responsibility for our own wellbeing as essential to sustaining good practice with our clients by:
c. seeking professional support and services as the need arises - PROVED

Allegation 3 - UPHELD

3.1 [ . . . ] - PROVED

3.2 [ . . . ] - PROVED

3.3 [ . . . ] - PROVED

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

72. Supervisees have a responsibility to be open and honest in supervision and to draw attention to any significant difficulties or challenges that they may be facing in their work with clients. Supervisors are responsible for providing opportunities for their supervisees to discuss any of their practice-related difficulties without blame or unjustified criticism and, when appropriate, to support their supervisees in taking positive actions to resolve difficulties. – PROVED

Allegations 1, 2 and 3 are allegations of professional misconduct.
The Panel considered whether the allegations amounted to Professional Misconduct as defined by the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2018. It agreed that the allegations amounted to Professional Misconduct individually and collectively

Decision

The Panel was unanimous in its decision that there had been a failure to comply with the Professional Standards, specifically that the Member had acted contrary to paragraphs 53, 60, 91 and 72 of the BACP Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.

The Panel found the allegations (individually and collectively) amounted to Professional Misconduct (as defined by the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2018).

Sanction

[ . . . ]

Sanction Decision

The Panel reconvened [ . . . ] 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 Panel considered the Member’s undated sanction submissions. The Panel considered that in her sanction submissions the Member contested the Panel’s findings in relation to Allegations 1,2 and 3. [ . . . ]

The Panel considered that the Member had failed to show any respect for the Panel’s decisions. Further, the Panel determined that the Member had wholly failed to demonstrate any insight into her failures [ . . . ] and their consequences for clients, colleagues, and the reputation of the profession. The Panel determined that the allegations found proved were serious and there remained a risk of repetition.

Taking into consideration all matters and the absence of any mitigating factors, the Panel concluded that the only appropriate sanction which would adequately protect the public and the reputation of the profession was withdrawal from membership.

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