January 2023: Lavinia Grace Dawson, Reference No: 00640289, Registrant ID 114340
Preliminary issue
1. The decision of the Investigation and Assessment Committee (the Committee) [ . . . ] was that, although Ms Dawson is no longer a member of the BACP, the BACP has jurisdiction to consider the complaints against her. The decision of the Panel was to refer to Ms Dawson as ‘Ms Dawson’ rather than ‘the Member’ to reflect Ms Dawson’s status as a former member of the BACP.
2. At the beginning of the hearing the Case Presenter made an application pursuant to Paragraph 4.12 of the Professional Conduct Procedure 2018 to amend the Allegations as set out below:
1. Allegation 1.1 to amend ‘15 January Year 2 to ‘17 December Year 1’
2. Allegation 1.2 to amend ‘2016’ to ‘2018’
3. Allegation 1.2 to amend ‘19 (b) to ‘91 b’
4. Allegation 2.1 to amend ‘15 January Year 2 to ‘17 December Year 1
5. Allegation 2.2 to amend ‘2016’ to ‘2018’
6. Allegation 3.2 to amend ‘2016’ to ‘2018’
Having taken legal advice from its Clerk, the decision of the Panel was to allow each of the amendments for the following reasons:
• 2, 3, 5 and 6 are corrections of typographical errors and are not, therefore, prejudicial to Ms Dawson
• 1 and 4 accurately reflect the email dated 15 January Year 2 from [ . . . ] the complainant to the BACP in which she describes an incident that took place between her and Ms Dawson on 17 December Year 1. This e mail has been provided by the BACP to Ms Dawson and Ms Dawson provided a preliminary response on 21 June Year 2 in which she stated that she will not be contesting the allegations. In these circumstances, the view of the Panel is there is no prejudice to Ms Dawson by allowing these amendments.
Allegations as amended
Allegation 1
1.1 The Member was not fit to undertake pre-arranged work due to being intoxicated on 17 December Year 1 and/or on 23 March Year 2.
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: 18 (We will maintain our own physical and psychological health at a level that enables us to work effectively with our clients - see 91 Care of self as a practitioner) and 91 (b) (We will take responsibility for our wellbeing as essential to sustaining good practice with our clients by: b. monitoring and maintaining our own psychological and physical health, particularly that we are sufficiently resilient and resourceful to undertake our work in ways that satisfy professional standards.)
Allegation 2
2.1 The Member was inappropriate in her verbal interactions with her client on 17 December Year 1 in that:
a. she used abusive and offensive language, including but not limited to calling the client a [ . . . ]
b. she referenced knowledge she acquired during sessions with the client and used this to abuse the client, including but not limited to:
i. telling the client she was a [ . . . ]
ii. describing the client as ‘fake’ and/or
iii. describing the client’s defence mechanism as a ‘bitch’’ and/or
iv. that since the client had met her [ . . . ] she had not been ‘present’ in the therapy sessions
2.2 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: 35 (We will not exploit or abuse our clients in any way: financially, emotionally, physically, sexually or spiritually) and 12 (We will do everything we can to develop and protect our client’s trust.)
Allegation 3
3.1 The Member telephoned the Samaritans and/or clients whist intoxicated and been abusive.
3.2 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 Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy 2018: 48 (We will avoid any actions that will bring our profession into disrepute.)
Allegations 1.1, 2.1 a, 2.1 b and 3.1 amount to professional misconduct as defined in the Professional Conduct Procedure.
Documents and evidence before the Panel
In reaching its decision the Panel carefully considered the following:
• The Association’s Case Papers
• The Member’s Case Papers
• The BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2018
• The Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018
In reaching its decision the Panel carefully considered the following:
• The allegations made
• The written evidence
• What weight to attach to the evidence
• Whether the allegations should be upheld
Background and Summary of Evidence
[ . . . ] the Committee considered two complaints about Ms Dawson, one from a client, [ . . . ] , and one from [ . . . ] police, and provided the following summary of the complaints:
1. The Association submits this complaint under paragraph 1.5 of the Professional Conduct Procedure (PCP) it being the opinion of the Registrar that the conduct of the former Member, referred to as ‘the Member’, is such that it would be in the public interest for the conduct of the Member to form the basis of a complaint pursuant to the PCP.
2. BACP received information on 15 January Year 2 about an incident that allegedly took place on 17 December Year 1. A client of the Member arrived at 1.15pm for her session with the Member. Whilst the client was parking her car, the Member called her to cancel the appointment. The Member asked the client to stay on the phone and kept talking. The client asked the Member if she had been drinking and she responded that she had and laughed. She said she was in her car parked in a lay-by.
3. The client drove to the lay-by and saw an empty bottle of wine outside the car. She states the Member was visibly drunk and upset. She told the client she did not want to be alive. The client states she spent 45 minutes with the Member trying to convince her to be dropped off at home. The client stated that in this time the Member was crying and abusive. The Member said things to her including:
i. the client is [ . . . ]
ii. the client is “fake”
iii. the client’s defence mechanism is “a bitch” and
iv. that ever since she met her [ . . . ], the client has not been “present” in the therapy
sessions.
4. The client says that she became angry and so she left the Member. She drove to the Member’s home address and told the Member’s [ . . . ] what had happened.
5.On 23 March Year 2 PC [ . . . ] of [ . . . ] police reported to BACP that [ . . . ] police had cause that day to attend the Member’s home address. On the second occasion she was arrested and taken into custody at the police station.
6. It is understood from the police that the Member’s home address is also her practicing address and that she had a client attend for a session for 7.00 that morning for which she was heavily intoxicated.
7. The PC states that they have information that the Member regularly calls the Samaritans and clients when intoxicated and is abusing them.
8. The police also allude to there being other complaints pending. They consider that the Member is not fit to practice.
9. The Association alleges that the Member has displayed a pattern of behaviour which suggests mental health illness and inappropriate alcohol consumption. These have affected her ability to practice safely and ethically on at least three separate occasions. Specifically she has:
a. not been fit to undertake pre-arranged work due to being intoxicated on more than one occasion;
b. has been inappropriate in her verbal interactions with her clients whilst intoxicated, referencing things from their counselling sessions;
c. she has telephoned the Samaritans and clients whilst intoxicated and been abusive.
10. The Member has responded by e mail dated 21 June Year 2, indicating that:
i. She will not be contesting the allegations;
ii. To avoid a lengthy process, she agrees to the removal of her name from BACP’s professional membership register with immediate effect.
11. On 1 July Year 2 the Member confirmed by e mail that she has resigned her membership and removed herself from the register.
The Panel’s Paragraph 5.9 decision
In light of Ms Dawson’s failure to respond to communications from the BACP and her failure to confirm whether she would be attending the upcoming Professional Conduct Hearing, the Panel convened [ . . . ] to consider as a preliminary issue under to Section 5.9 of the Professional Conduct Procedure 2018 whether to:
• proceed with the hearing in Ms Dawson’s absence
• adjourn the hearing to a new date
• dismiss the allegations, which means the case will be closed
The decision of the Panel was to proceed with the hearing in Ms Dawson’s absence. The Panel provided the following reasons:
The Panel first considered whether the matter should be dismissed as Ms Dawson was unwilling to engage with the process. However, it noted that the IAC [ . . . ] had determined that there was a realistic prospect that Ms Dawson had breached the Ethical Framework as set out in the allegations it had put forward at that time. Further the IAC had considered that the breaches were sufficiently serious so as to amount to professional misconduct if found proved.
The Panel took into account that the Ms Dawson was not a current member of BACP and had not been a member since July Year 2. Nevertheless, the Professional Conduct Procedure made it clear that a case could continue provided the individual had been a member at the time of the event complained about. The fact that Ms Dawson was not now a member of the Association was not a reason not to continue with this case.
The Committee noted that the allegations were serious and went to the heart of the behaviours and conduct expected of a member of the Association. If found proved, they were sufficiently serious to suggest Ms Dawson may pose a risk to clients and to the wider public. For that reason, it considered that the failure to consider the allegations at a hearing could undermine public confidence in the Association.
Having balanced the interests of the parties with the interests of the public and taking into account its overarching remit to protect the public, the Panel did not consider that it would be appropriate to dismiss the allegations in this case.
The Panel then considered whether it would be reasonable to adjourn the hearing to allow Ms Dawson a further opportunity to attend. However, in view of the seriousness of the allegations, the Panel considered that there was a public interest in addressing them without delay. Further it had not seen any information to suggest that the position would change at a future date. As such it did not consider that an adjournment would be appropriate.
The Panel therefore decided that it would be fair and reasonable to proceed with the proposed Professional Conduct Hearing. It very much hoped that Ms Dawson would take the opportunity to engage with the process even at this stage. However having considered all of the information, the Panel was satisfied that it was appropriate and in the public interest for the concerns that had been raised to be fully investigated and it considered this could best be done at a hearing
The hearing
[ . . . ]presented the case on behalf of the BACP relying on the Association’s Case Papers which consisted of:
• a two page e mail from [ . . . ] to the BACP dated 15 January Year 3
• a BACP consent form signed by [ . . . ] dated 11 March Year 2
• a copy of a two page letter she sent to Ms Dawson at the beginning of January Year 2
• a one page e mail from [ . . . ] to the BACP dated 11 March Year 2
• screenshots of text messages between [ . . . ] and Ms Dawson starting from 19 December Year 2
• a single page e mail from PC [ . . . ] to the BACP dated 23 March Year 2
• a BACP consent form signed by PC [ . . . ]
Decisions and Reasons for Findings
The Panel received and accepted advice from its Clerk who advised the Panel to consider the evidence in relation to each allegation separately in deciding whether any allegation was proved on the balance of probabilities.
Having fully considered all the evidence in the case, the Panel made the following findings.
The Panel took into account that [ . . . ] has not been cross examined. It is the view of the Panel that [ . . . ] found herself, as a client of Ms Dawson, in a very challenging position on 17 December Year 1 but that in her communications with BACP she describes what happened and its impact on her in a measured and non-judgmental way and that in her communications with Ms Dawson her tone is compassionate and non-judgmental. The decision of the Panel is that the written evidence of [ . . . ] is descriptive, has not been exaggerated and is, therefore, credible.
Allegation 1.1 The Member was not fit to undertake pre-arranged work due to being intoxicated on 17 December Year 1 and/or on 23 March Year 2
Found proved on the balance of probabilities for each date.
17 December Year 1:
In her e mail of 15 January Year 2 [ . . . ] states:
‘This incident took place on the 17th December Year 1. I arrived at 13:15 and parked up down the street, as my session was scheduled for 13:30. I got a call from Lavinia just as I parked and as she was talking, she didn’t sound herself. She told me she would have to cancel the session that day because [ . . . ]. Lavinia kept talking to me on the phone and asked me not go off the phone, I asked if she had been drinking because I could tell that she was not her usual self. She said she had been drinking and laughed. I asked if she was home and if she wanted me to come and check she was okay. She told me she was in a lay-by in her car. I was extremely concerned, thinking she had been drinking diving on a busy road, but it turned out she was round the corner from her house down a country lane. I asked if she wanted me to come and get her and she said yes. I drove to the lay-by and got in her car. There was an empty bottle of wine in a puddle outside of the car. She was visibly drunk and upset and started telling me things like that she didn’t want to be here (alive) anymore and that her [ . . . ] psychologically abused her. She kept saying she had messed things up and that stuff had gone down at [ . . . ]’
The Panel finds that:
• [ . . . ] had a prearranged session with Ms Dawson on 17 December Year 1 at 13.30
• Ms Dawson was intoxicated at the time of [ . . . ] session on 17 December Year 1
• Ms Dawson was not fit to undertake work with [ . . . ] due to her intoxication
and therefore finds this part of the allegation proved on the balance of probabilities.
23 March Year 2:
In the relevant part of her e mail PC [ . . . ] states:
‘Police have had cause to attend DAWSONS home address twice today, the second time resulting in her arrest. I understand the home address is also the address to which she has clients and had a client attend for a session at 0700 hrs this morning for which she was heavily intoxicated.
….
DAWSON remains at [ . . . ] custody suite, should it be required the custody reference number applicable is [ . . . ]
The Panel took into account that PC [ . . . ] has not been cross examined. It is the view of the Panel that in communicating with the BACP PC [ . . . ] was providing a factual description which was unembellished and therefore credible.
The Panel finds this part of the allegation proved on the balance of probabilities.
Allegation 2.1 a The Member was inappropriate in her verbal interactions with her client on 17 December Year 1 in that:
a. she used abusive and offensive language, including but not limited to calling the client a [ . . . ]
Found proved on the balance of probabilities.
The Panel accepts that the first time [ . . . ] stated that Ms Dawson had called her a [ . . . ] was in her e mail to the BACP on 15 January Year 2. The view of the Panel is that in her letter and text messages to Ms Dawson which [ . . . ] sent before her e mail to the BACP, she outlined her concerns in general but withheld particulars of what Ms Dawson had said to her and that she did so out of compassion for Ms Dawson. In her e mail to the BACP [ . . . ] puts the word [ . . . ] in inverted commas; the view of the Panel is that this adds to the credibility of [ . . . ] as she has taken the care to identify the actual word she says was spoken by Ms Dawson.
The view of the Panel was that the use of the word [ . . . ] by a BACP member towards one of their client’s was inappropriate, abusive and offensive.
The Panel finds this allegation proved on the balance of probabilities.
Allegation 2.1 b she referenced knowledge she acquired during sessions with the client and used this to abuse the client, including but not limited to:
i. telling the client she was a [ . . . ] and/or
ii. describing the client as ‘fake’ and/or
iii. describing the client’s defence mechanism as a ‘bitch’’ and/or
iv. that since the client had met her [ . . . ] she had not been ‘present’ in the therapy sessions
Found on the balance of probabilities.
The Panel accepts that the first time [ . . . ] stated that Ms Dawson used the words particularised in Allegations 2.1 b i, ii, iii and iv was in her e mail to the BACP on 15 January Year 2. The Panel adopts the analysis it applied to Allegation 2.1 a, that in her letter and text messages to Ms Dawson [ . . . ] outlined her concerns in general but withheld particulars of what Ms Dawson had said to her out of compassion for Ms Dawson. In her e mail to the BACP [ . . . ] puts the words she says were spoken to her by Ms Dawson in inverted commas; the view of the Panel is that this adds to the credibility of [ . . . ] as she has taken the care to identify the actual words she says were said to her by Ms Dawson.
The Panel finds that the words particularised in Allegations 2.1 b i, ii, iii and iv were said by Ms Dawson to [ . . . ] and that her use of these words as a BACP member towards a client was inappropriate and were used by Ms Dawson to abuse [ . . . ].
Ms Dawson and [ . . . ] were in a therapeutic relationship; the Panel finds that in saying the words particularised in Allegation 2.1 b i, ii, iii and iv Ms Dawson referenced knowledge she acquired during sessions with [ . . . ].
The Panel finds each of Allegations 2.1 b i, ii, iii and iv proved on the balance of probabilities.
Allegation 3.1 The Member telephoned the Samaritans and/or clients whist intoxicated and been abusive.
Not found proved.
In the relevant part of her e mail PC [ . . . ] states:
‘It has been reported to Police that DAWSON is routinely calling the Samaritans and clients when intoxicated and abusing them.’
Taking the everyday meaning of the words ‘It has been reported to Police’ the Panel cannot tell from this:
• the identity of the person or people who are said to have told the police that Ms Dawson has been calling the Samaritans and/or clients whilst intoxicated and been abusive
• the source/reliability of the source of knowledge of the person or people who are said to have told the police that Ms Dawson has been calling the Samaritans and/or clients whilst intoxicated and been abusive
• when it is alleged that Ms Dawson has called the Samaritans and/or clients whilst intoxicated and been abusive
• how many times it is alleged that Ms Dawson has called the Samaritans and/or clients whilst intoxicated and been abusive
• what was said to have been said by Ms Dawson that was abusive
The decision of the Panel is that this part of PC [ . . . ] e mail does not provide sufficient detail about Ms Dawson’s alleged conduct and so does not find this allegation proven
Allegation 1.2
The Panel determined that by not being fit to undertake pre-arranged work due to being intoxicated on 17 December Year 1 and on 23 March Year 2 Member breached the following paragraphs of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy 2018:
18: We will maintain our own physical and psychological health at a level that enables us to work effectively with our clients - see 91:Care of self as a practitioner, and
91: We will take responsibility for our wellbeing as essential to sustaining good practice with our clients by: b. monitoring and maintaining our own psychological and physical health, particularly that we are sufficiently resilient and resourceful to undertake our work in ways that satisfy professional standards
Allegation 2.2
The Panel determined that by virtue of its finding allegations 2.1 a and 2.1 b i, ii, iii and iv proved, the member breached the following paragraphs of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy 2018:
35: We will not exploit or abuse our clients in any way: financially, emotionally, physically, sexually or spiritually and
12: We will do everything we can to develop and protect our client’s trust.
Allegation 3.2
As it did not find 3.1 proved, the Panel did not need to consider allegation 3.2.
Professional Misconduct
The Panel reminded itself of the definition of Professional Misconduct in the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2018:
professional misconduct means a failure to meet professional standards that is of sufficient seriousness that a period of suspension of membership or withdrawal of membership of the Association may be warranted.
The view of the Panel is that maintaining physical and mental health in order to work safely and effectively with clients is a core requirement of BACP membership.
The Panel is further of the view that verbally abusing a client, including using knowledge acquired though the therapeutic relationship, is conduct that destroys the therapeutic relationship and is unacceptable from a BACP member.
The decision of the Panel is that allegations 1.1, 2.1 a and 2.1 b i, ii, iii, and iv amount to professional misconduct.
Decision
The Panel was unanimous in its decision that there had been a failure to comply with the Professional Standards that amounted to Professional Misconduct as defined in the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2018 but only in respect of the proven Allegations 1.1, 2.1a and 2.1b i, ii, iii and iv. Specifically that Ms Dawson had acted contrary to paragraphs 18, 91b, 35 and 12 of the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.
Sanction
Due to unavailability, the BACP Registrar appointed a replacement Clerk and panel member under paragraph 4.1 of the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2018.
The Member had not provided any sanction representations in the timeframe allowed, so the Panel reconvened [ . . . ] to decide what, if any, sanction was appropriate. It reminded itself of its findings set out above, the sanctions available under the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2018 and the BACP Sanction Protocol.
The Panel also noted that the Member is not currently a BACP member. It agreed that it should continue to consider whether a sanction is appropriate in order to maintain professional standards and the reputation of the professions and the BACP. Should the Member apply to re-join the BACP in the future she may be required to comply with the sanction before her application is considered.
The Panel decided not to impose a timeframe for the sanction as the Member has resigned from the BACP so a timeframe cannot be enforced.
The Panel decided that the Member should:
1. Provide the BACP with a personal statement addressing her personal reflections about what she did wrong, what she has learnt from the experience and how she will change her practice going forward to prevent repetition, in particular in relation to:
a. her self-care;
b. the impact of her behaviour on the Complainant and clients in general;
c. the impact of her behaviour on the reputation of the BACP and counselling profession.
N.B. The Member should discuss her submissions with her clinical supervisor and obtain evidence from her supervisor (such as a signature or direct email) confirming that this has happened.
2. After producing the personal statement above, provide the BACP with a genuine and sincere letter of apology addressed to the Complainant, accepting responsibility for and acknowledging the impact of her conduct on the Complainant.
(Where ellipses [ . . . ] are displayed, they indicate an omission of text)