December 2023 : IZN, Reference No 00770545, Registrant ID 195469

December 2023: Ivama Zavina-Newman, Reference No 00770545 , Registrant ID 195469

Allegations

Allegation 1

• The Member failed to demonstrate proper care and diligence in her work with the Complainant in that she:

1. Discussed her personal belief systems in sessions when that was not beneficial to the client; and/or

1. Inappropriately “moved into exploration of different approaches

[student/mentor]”  rather than remaining with “therapeutic engagement” in the therapy sessions, which was not beneficial to the client.

• The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraph of ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018: 33 (We will establish and maintain appropriate professional and personal boundaries in our relationships with clients by ensuring that: a) these boundaries are consistent with the aims of working together and beneficial to the client; and/or b) any dual or multiple relationships will be avoided where the risks of harm to the client outweigh any benefits to the client)

• Allegations 1.1 (a) and/or (b) amount to professional misconduct as defined in the Professional Conduct Procedure.

Allegation 2

2.1 The Member failed to make the client the focus of her work in that she made        assumptions about the client’s levels of understanding of the methods and philosophies she was exploring.

2.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraph of ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018: 7 (We will make each client the primary focus of our attention and our work during our sessions together.)

2.3 Allegation 2.1 amounts to professional misconduct as defined in the Professional Conduct Procedure.

Preliminary issues

Application to amend.

At the commencement of the hearing, […] applied to amend allegation 1 (b) by replacing the word ‘the’ where it occurs in the phrase ‘the therapy sessions’ and replacing it with the word ‘a’ and to change the word ‘sessions’ to ‘session’.

[…] advised the Panel that the Member had not been notified of the application as it had only been identified recently that amendment was required. She submitted that the proposed amendment made it clear that the allegation related to a single therapy session. She also submitted that this was in the Member’s interest. […] referred the Panel to paragraph 4.12 of the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure (the Procedure).

The Panel accepted the advice of the Clerk. He advised the Panel that it had the discretion to grant the application but should consider whether the amendment could be made without injustice and prejudice to the Member.

The Panel determined the proposed amendment made it clear that Allegation 1 (b) related to only one therapy session. The Panel further determined that it would be beneficial to the Member for this matter to be clarified and was also in the public interest.

The panel also amended allegation 1 (a) in the same light replacing sessions with session.

In all the circumstances, the Panel granted the application.

Admissions 

None

Evidence before Panel

In comings to its decision the Panel carefully considered the following:

• The Association’s bundle of evidence and exhibits.
• The written and oral evidence of the Complainant
• The written evidence of the Member
• The Panel heard evidence from […]
• The BACP professional Conduct Procedure 2018
• The Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018

Summary of Evidence

The Complainant has complained about Ivama Zavina-Newman, (the Member) an individual member of the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (‘the BACP’).

The Complainant gave oral evidence before the Panel. She adopted her witness statement.

The Complainant told the Panel that at the time of the allegations she was studying an MSc in counselling .

The Complainant told the Panel that she had chosen the Member by going to the BACP website looking at the Member’s directory and the location of Members. The Complainant told the Panel that she wanted an ‘holistic approach’ and that the Member’s entry stated that the Member took a holistic approach to therapy. The Complainant told the Panel that she had also discovered – although she could not recall how – that the Member was a ‘spiritual healer’ but that she had not gone to the Member for ‘spiritual healer’.

The Complainant detailed her recollection of what had occurred in the second session with the Member. She told the Panel that there was a discussion regarding her psychic heritage. The Complainant said that she had gone to the Member for therapy as she ‘[..]’. The Complainant said that the Member had told her there was a ‘psychic cycle’ and that the Complainant was breaking that cycle.  The Complainant said that the Member had said that an ancestor had seen someone’s […] or someone […] and this was the reason her family was emotionally devoid. The Complainant told the Panel that the Member also said that she had high emotional intelligence and that she was functioning on the ‘sixth DNA strand of consciousness’.

The Complainant told the Panel that the Member started ‘going off topic’ and discussed what the member thought ‘was wrong with the world’ including genocide and the coronavirus. The Complainant said that the Member had told her that she should not take the coronavirus vaccine or the booster as it would change the Complainant’s DNA and suppress her unconsciousness. The Complainant said that the Member also told her that individuals in government were ‘non-humans’ and had released the coronavirus to decrease the human population in order to control humanity and turn humans into Artificial Intelligence and when the earth was no longer liveable in the non-humans would take what was left to another planet.

The Complainant told the Panel that she felt like the Member was trying to help her and give her insight. The Complainant said that following the session the member sent her an email containing links to the matters the Member had spoken about during the session.

The Complainant also told the Panel that the session had left her distressed and confused. The Complainant explained to the Panel how this had affected her personal life, caused her to feel isolated and confused and ‘pushed her to the edge’ emotionally. She said that she had been unable to […] .

The Complainant explained that she had discussed what had occurred during the session with one of her […] who had advised her that what had happened was not normal practice and encouraged the Complainant to report the Member to the BACP.

In answer to questions from the Panel the Complainant explained that in entering into therapy with the Member she had hoped to get insight and perspective into a holistic approach to therapy to assist in her studies. She also confirmed that her course required her to undertake 15 hours of personal therapy but that she had not wanted a student/mentor relationship. The Complainant confirmed that she undertook the therapy as part of her own personal development and to gain experience of different approaches to therapy. The Panel referred the Complainant to the Member’s BACP entry and that it referred to Jungian therapy. The Complainant told the Panel that at the time of the allegations she did not understand the Jungian approach to therapy, but now had a better understanding of it. The Complainant also advised the Panel in response to questions that she accepted the sessions notes provided by the member and placed before the Panel were accurate. She further confirmed that after the first session the Member had given the Complainant ‘homework’ including:

‘To continue exploring ‘overcompensatory’ patterns of behaviour and how these behavioural patterns obscure the natural self, e.g., parenting others and feeling overly responsible for others. To continue developing a nurturing inner parent.’

The Complainant confirmed to the Panel that she had looked at these issues.

When questioned by the Panel in relation to Allegation 1.2, the Complainant stated that’100%’ she felt that there had been a breach of boundaries as the Member had set out the Member’s personal beliefs in relation to the coronavirus and the Complainant’s DNA and told her these were true. When the Complainant was specifically asked by the Panel whether she had concerns about the Member taking a Jungian approach to the therapy sessions, the Complainant stated that she had no concerns over this.

When questioned by the Panel in relation to Allegation 2.1, the Complainant told the Panel that she states, ‘I guess that I felt like she was taking advantage maybe’ and that ‘from my perception [the Member] shouldn’t assume what a client knows’. The Complainant also told the Panel that she felt the Member had taken advantage of the Complainant’s knowledge of science  and ‘twisted’ it in relation to coronavirus and DNA. The Complainant  stated that the Member had made the assumption  that the Complainant ‘didn’t have all the information’. When questioned further by the Panel, the Complainant accepted that this was her own personal assumption.

The Panel also took into account the Member’s written reply to the BACP. It noted her comments that in an initial telephone conversation with the Complainant, the Member

‘was very clear and explicit about my approach that combines eastern philosophies, Jungian archetypes, new physics, soul psychology and western psychology. I also strongly emphasised that an open-minded attitude would be required within this particular engagement. The client expressed interest and was keen on the exploration of different approaches as complementary to her studies. Following this agreement, we proceeded towards undertaking a few sessions with the intention of conducting a review during approximately weeks 4-5’.

In respect of session 2 the Member stated:

‘The basis of the second part of the session was focused upon providing present day examples based on the current collective themes for the exploration of the potential 'bridging' into the framework with which I work, and which includes, as I mentioned earlier, elements of Eastern Philosophy, Collective Consciousness, Jungian Approach, Incarnational Memory, New /Quantum Physics, Soul Psychology, TA, Psycho-dynamic, and Western Psychology.’

The Panel further noted the Member’s comments that:

‘In retrospect I feel that during the second part of the session the shift has occurred naturally to accommodate the dual aim of therapeutic engagement with the therapeutic focus shifting from therapy [therapist/client] to exploration of different approaches [student/mentor]. I sense that this was the prime ‘trigger’ for the client’s feelings of being ‘imposed’ which were further exasperated by the emergence of transference/ counter-transference issues. Additionally, English being my second language may have further contributed to the feeling of ‘imposition’. Occasionally I may come across as ‘direct’ in the use of personal pronouns. Unfortunately, the client took it literally and possibly experienced my speaking manner as ‘imposing’. I wish to sincerely apologise if my manner of speech came across as ‘imposing’ as my intention was to allow the client to use their own discernment and to form their own independent opinion…

On reflection I feel that the concepts may have been taken too literally and too much for the client and created difficulty in comprehending and linking them with the domain of psychological approaches that I utilise in my practice. Because the client is on the master’s academic course in counselling, I was under the impression that the client has already had initial familiarity with psychological terms, approaches, archetypes, and metaphors.

On reflection, difficult feelings of the client may have been triggered by the emergence of transference/countertransference. As the session focus was shifting toward student/mentor roles, this has initiated the trigger for a potential transference/countertransference [mother/daughter] in both parties. Both parties may have been ‘unconsciously’ acting out the ‘family systems roles’ acquired in childhood and rooted in the wounding with the primary caregiver [the mother-child wound]. I sense that this ‘acting out’ brought to the surface hidden, difficult feelings within the client and possibly initiated ‘flight, freeze, fight’ reactive responses with subsequent emergence of primary ‘coping defence mechanism’. My feeling is that at this stage the client had two choices: to process/work through these feelings collaboratively with the therapist, or to further engage with defence mechanisms, e.g., ‘withdrawal’ from therapy, seeking external bias and to then possibly ‘expel’ the build-up of inner conflict/tension/difficult feelings through behaviours that would enable the release and resolution for the client’.

[…] submitted that the Panel should find the Complainant a credible and reliable witness who had given her evidence clearly and with no elaboration. She further submitted that the Complainant’s oral evidence was consistent with her written witness statement.

In relation to Allegation 1 (a) […] referred the Panel to the relevant sections of the Complainant’s written witness statement and her oral evidence. […] also referred the Panel to the emails that the Member had sent to the Complainant following the sessions containing various links.

[…] submitted that the Complainant clearly felt despair and was affected emotionally as a result of what the Member had said to her during the session.

In relation to allegation 1 (b) […] again referred the Panel to the Complainant’s witness statement and oral evidence. She also referred the Panel to the contract between the parties and the Member’s written response to the BACP and submitted that there was no evidence before the Panel of their being any dual purpose to the session. She further submitted that there was no evidence that the approach taken by the Member was beneficial to the Complainant or appropriate.

In relation to Allegation 2.1, […] referred the Panel to the Member’s written response to the BACP and submitted that the Member should not have made assumptions about the Complainant’s levels of understanding and that there was no dual purpose to the session.

[…] submitted that in relation to both Allegations 1 and 2, the Member had failed to meet the relevant professional standards and that in doing so her actions amounted to professional misconduct.

The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Clerk.

Decision and Reasons for Findings

In reaching its decision the Panel took into account the written witness statement and oral evidence of the Complainant and the written response of the Member to the BACP. It also took into account all relevant documentation and followed the advice of the Clerk.

The Panel considered each allegation in turn.

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

 

1.1 The Member failed to demonstrate proper care and diligence in her work with the Complainant in that she:

1. Discussed her personal belief systems in sessions when that was not beneficial to the client; and/or

Allegation 1.1 (a) found proved.

The Panel determined that the Complainant’s oral evidence was generally consistent with her written witness statement and the documentation before it. It concluded there was nothing before it to undermine the Complainant’s evidence or cause the Panel to consider that her evidence was unreliable.

When reaching its conclusions on allegation 1 (a) the Panel also took into account the stem of the Allegation  and determined that to find allegation 1 (a) proved it not only required to find that the Member discussed her personal belief system, but also that this amounted to a failure to demonstrate proper care and diligence in the Member’s work and was not beneficial to the Complainant.

In considering this allegation, the Panel first determined that the Member was a Jungian therapist – a fact known to the Complainant when she entered into her contract with the Member. The Complainant had told the Panel that she was attracted by experiencing Jungian therapy.

The Panel further determined that the member speaking about matters such as sixth DNA strand and emotional intelligence was a constituent part of Jungian therapy. The Panel also took into account that the Complainant had told it that she did not have any issue with these matters being raised.

However, the Panel determined that the Member’s discussion of her personal views on the coronavirus, its effect on people and individuals in government did not form part of Jungian therapy and did amount to an expression of her personal belief system.

The Panel further determined that the Complainant had been caused emotional distress by the Member discussing her personal belief system. The Panel determined that this was not beneficial to the Complainant.

The Panel was satisfied that the Member was under an obligation to demonstrate proper care and diligence in her work with the Complainant in terms of the Ethical Framework for Counselling Profession 2018. The Panel determined that by discussing her personal beliefs in relation to coronavirus and individuals in government the Member had failed to demonstrate proper care and diligence in her work.

Accordingly, the Panel found Allegation 1.1 (a) proved.

1. Inappropriately “moved into exploration of different approaches [student/mentor]” rather than remaining with “therapeutic engagement” in the therapy sessions, which was not beneficial to the client.

Allegation 1.1 (b) found not proved

In considering Allegation 1 (b) the Panel noted that it alleged that any ‘move into exploration of different approaches’ required to be ‘not beneficial to the client’. The Panel determined that for this allegation to be found proved any exploration of different approaches had to be not beneficial to the Complainant.

The Panel noted that in the Complainant’s oral evidence she had clearly stated that part of the reason why she had commenced therapy with the Member was that she wanted to learn about different approaches to therapy. The Panel took into account that the Complainant had told it that she wished to experience approaches to therapy. The Panel determined that the Complainant had commenced therapy with the Member for personal therapy plus experiencing therapy with a different modality as part of her learning.

The Panel determined that the member had ‘moved into exploration of different approaches ‘ rather than remaining in ‘therapeutic engagement’. However’ the Panel further determined that this was not inappropriate as the Complainant had stated that she wished to experience alternative approaches to therapy and that there was no evidence before it that this had not been beneficial to the Complainant.

Allegation 1.1 (b) is therefore found not proved.

1.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraph of ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018: 33 (We will establish and maintain appropriate professional and personal boundaries in our relationships with clients by ensuring that: a) these boundaries are consistent with the aims of working together and beneficial to the client; and/or b) any dual or multiple relationships will be avoided where the risks of harm to the client outweigh any benefits to the client)

Allegation1.2 found proved

The Panel determined that by acting in the manner set out in Allegation 1.1 (a) the Member had acted in a way that was inconsistent with paragraph 33 of ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018 in that the Member had not established and maintained appropriate professional and personal boundaries in her relationships with the Complainant by ensuring that: a) these boundaries are consistent with the aims of working together and beneficial to the client.

The Panel further determined that the Member thereby failed to meet professional standards.

Allegation 1.2 is therefore found proved, but only in relation to Paragraph  33 (a).

Allegation 1.3 found proved

In considering Allegation 1.3, the Panel considered it in relation to Allegation 1.1 (a) only, having found 1.1 (b) not proved.

The Panel reminded itself of the definition of professional misconduct in the Professional Conduct Procedure that states:

‘means the standards that should reasonably be expected of a Member with regard to the Ethical Framework and any other Codes or rules issued for the purposes of this procedure by the Association from time to time concerning the standards to be expected of a Member.’

The Panel took into account the nature and extent of the personal beliefs discussed with the Complainant and that this was unrequested. The Panel determined that there was the potential to cause emotional harm and that Complainant had been severely emotionally distressed by the Member discussing these personal beliefs and remained unable […]. The Panel further determined that the Member abused her position of trust when discussing her personal beliefs.

The Panel decided that, in these circumstances Allegation 1.1 (a) amounted to professional misconduct.

Allegation 1.3 is therefore found proved in relation to 1.1 (a) only.

2.1 The Member failed to make the client the focus of her work in that she made assumptions about the client’s levels of understanding of the methods and philosophies she was exploring.

Allegation 2.1 found not proved.

The Panel determined that there was no evidence before it that any assumption had been made by the Member.

Further, the Panel determined that there was no evidence before it that the Member had ‘failed to make the client the focus of her work’. The Panel determined that the notes of the sessions – which were accepted as being correct by the Complainant  -  showed that the Member had asked questions of the Complainant and in the first session given her ‘homework’.

The Panel therefore finds Allegation 2.1 not proved.

Allegations 2.2 and 2.3 found not proved.

Having found Allegation  2. 1 not proved, the Panel consequently found Allegation 2. 2 and 2.3 not proved.

Decision

In conclusion the Panel was of the view that the Member's actions in relation to allegations 1.1 (a) amounted to Professional Misconduct.

Sanction

The Panel reconvened on […] to consider what, if any, sanction was appropriate in this case. It reminded itself of its findings above. It also considered the guidance within the 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 was advised that the Member, who was no longer a member of the BACP, had made no submissions on sanction.

The Panel noted that there was evidence that the Member’s conduct had caused the Complainant anxiety and influenced her decision about whether to be […]. It accepted the Member’s right to have whatever belief system she chooses. However, it was wholly inappropriate to disclose that to clients given the power imbalance present during therapy. The Panel noted the Member had apologised for the distress she caused the complainant but agreed she had not demonstrated insight and acceptance that what she did was wrong.

The Panel noted the guidance in PR14 regarding factors that may indicate that a suspension or withdrawal of membership is appropriate. It concluded that the Member had: knowingly and deliberately disclosed her personal beliefs to the Complainant; abused her position of trust; shown a lack of insight and remorse for the conduct (although showed remorse for the distress caused). The Panel also concluded that the Member’s actions were prejudicial to the reputations of the BACP and the counselling professions.

For the above reasons, after much discussion, the Panel concluded only a period of suspension was sufficient to maintain the public’s confidence in the BACP and the counselling professions.

The Panel concluded that, had the Member still been a member of the BACP, it would have imposed the following sanction:

1. The Member to be suspended for a period of 3 months.
2. The Member to provide evidence that, within 4 weeks, she had completed 6 hours continuous professional development[1] (CPD) focused on the establishment and maintenance of professional boundaries, in particular in relation to personal disclosures of personal belief systems.
3. The Member to provide, within 4 weeks of completing the above CPD:
   1. a personal statement demonstrating specific changes/improvements in the Member’s practice that;

(i) reflects on what went wrong with her work with the Complainant and shows acceptance of responsibility for what the Panel found went wrong;

(ii) demonstrates a deep understanding of the harm that can be caused by personal disclosure by a counsellor and bringing their personal perspective/beliefs into the therapeutic relationship;

(iii) details what she has learned and what she has changed to prevent repetition of what went wrong.

1. after completing the above personal statement, a genuine and sincere letter of apology to the complainant that accepts responsibility for the actions in the allegations, recognises and apologises for the harm and distress caused to the complainant. 
2. confirmation that she has discussed her CPD, personal statement and letter of apology with her supervisor.

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

 

[1] The BACP Registrar defines CPD as:

‘Any learning experience that can be used for the systematic maintenance, improvement and broadening of competence, knowledge and skills to ensure that the practitioner has the capacity to practise safely, effectively and legally within their evolving scope of practice. It may include both personal and professional development’.