Professional Conduct notice / ST

July 2024: Sharon Thompson, Reference No 00373624, Registrant ID 808856

Allegations (as amended)

Allegation 1

1.1 The Member failed to keep Child A’s mother updated on the progress of her child’s therapy in that she:

a. Did not provide any documentation; and/or

b. Did not provide information verbally on her child’s progress;

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 2018:15 (We will keep accurate records that are adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary for the type of service being provided) and/or 12 (We will do everything we can to develop and protect our clients’ trust) and/or 27 (Careful consideration will be given to working with children and young people that: a) takes account of their capacity to give informed consent, considering whether it is appropriate to seek the consent of others who have parental responsibility for the young person, and their best interests; and/or b) demonstrates knowledge and skills about ways of working that are appropriate to the young person’s development and how relationships are formed; and/or demonstrates a sound knowledge of the law relevant to working with children and young people and their human rights and/or d) is informed about the current culture and customs that affect parenting/caregiving and how children and young people interact with each other and other significant people in their lives) and/or 30 (building an appropriate relationship: we will usually provide clients with the information they ought to know in advance in order to make an informed decision about the services they want to receive, how these services will be delivered and how information or data about them will be protected. Where the urgency or seriousness of the situation requires us to intervene before providing such information, we will do so at the first appropriate opportunity)

Allegation 2

2.1 The Member failed to manage the ending of the therapeutic relationship appropriately in that she:

a. Did not notify the Complainant that the sessions were ending; and/or

b. Failed to provide any feedback or advice on how to manage the child’s issues in the future.

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 ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018: 30 (building an appropriate relationship: we will usually provide clients with the information they ought to know in advance in order to make an informed decision about the services they want to receive, how these services will be delivered and how information or data about them will be protected. Where the urgency or seriousness of the situation requires us to intervene before providing such information, we will do so at the first appropriate opportunity) and/or 39 (We will endeavour to inform clients well in advance of approaching endings and be sensitive to our client’s expectations and concerns when we are approaching the end of our work together.)

Allegation 3

3.1 The Member produced documentation which was false and/or misleading in that:

a. The SDQ record sheet recorded that it had been completed by the child’s parent on 6 January Year 5 when that was not true.

b. The SDQ recorded “Parental Consent” as being given on 20 April Year 5 when no such consent had been given.

3.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraphs of Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018: 15 We will keep accurate records that: are adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary for the type of service being provided and/or 43 (We will maintain high standards of honesty and probity in all aspects of our work) and/or 48 (We will avoid any actions that will bring our profession into disrepute).

Allegations 3.1 a) and b), amount to professional misconduct as defined in the Professional Conduct Procedure.

Allegations 3.1 a) and b), are allegations of dishonesty.

Preliminary issues

1. The parties advised there were no preliminary matters.

Admissions

2. […] advised at the commencement of the Hearing that the Member admitted Allegation 1 b). He further admitted that the Member admitted Allegation 2 a) as to fact.

Evidence before Panel

3. In coming to its decision the Panel carefully considered the following:
• The Association’s bundle of evidence and exhibits (47 pages)
• The written and oral evidence of the Referrer
• The Member’s bundle of evidence and exhibits (36 pages)
• The oral evidence of the Member
• The Investigation and Assessment Committee Summary of Allegations
• The BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2018
• The Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018
• Good Practice in Action 046 Working with children and young people within the counselling professions

Summary of Evidence

4. The Referrer has complained about Ms Sharon Thompson (the Member) an individual Member of the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (the BACP).

BACP Witness Evidence

5. The Referrer (hereinafter referred to as the Witness) affirmed and gave oral evidence before the Panel. She adopted her witness statement and gave supplementary oral evidence.

6. The Witness told the Panel that she had brought the complaint due to her experience following her […] (Child A) having counselling sessions with the Member between 12 January Year 5 to 20 April Year 5. The Witness explained that Child A was […] years old at this time. She also explained to the Panel that Child A had become […] and generally was not […] to Child A’s […]. The Witness explained that Child A’s school had been offering regular support, but that at the end of Year 4 it was decided that at the start of Year 5 that Child A would start counselling.

7. The Witness told the Panel that she was informed by the school that […] was a support agency that the school could refer Child A to. She told the Panel that the school provided her with referral documentation that she had completed, but that she was not told what specific counsellor Child A would have. The Witness said that documentation referred to confidentiality and that the sessions would run weekly for 50 minutes. She said she was told that the sessions would take place at the school for an initial period of one school term. She said the documentation also stated that a review would take place at six week intervals and that parents would be involved with this. The Witness also explained that the agreement stipulated that the sessions would take place in accordance with the BACP Ethical Framework and detailed data protection provisions. The Witness stated that no one checked that she understood the documentation nor was there any discussion regarding it with anyone.

8. The Witness said that she returned the documentation to Child A’s school and it was passed to […]. She stated that she did not have any conversation with an employee of […] before Child A’s sessions. She told the Panel that Child A had sessions in a private room with the Member and the sessions commenced on 12 January Year 5.

9. The Witness told the Panel that as a result of the COVID-19 lockdown Child A’s sessions were due to stop. She said she did not want this to happen and had asked the school for the Member’s contact details but was told by the school that they had difficulty contacting the Member but had the contact details for […]. She said she subsequently received a telephone call from the Member and they discussed how Child A’s sessions could be kept going. The Complainant told the Panel that, as she was a [..] worker, Child A was going to school on certain days and it was agreed with the Member that Child A could still have sessions with the Member. The Witness said she had asked the Member to ring her every week but she had not done this. She said that the telephone conversation that she had with the Member was short and there was no discussion regarding Child A’s progress in counselling.

10. The Witness said that after Child A’s penultimate counselling session Child A informed her that the next session set down for 20 April Year 5 would be the last session. The Witness said she was surprised when Child A told her this as there had been no discussion with the Member regarding this and was surprised that the sessions were ending. She also said that at this point no updates, tools or strategies had been shared with her. The Witness also stated that, as Child A was[…] years of age, she felt it was appropriate that she was engaged in discussion about the ongoing support of her […]. She told the Panel that a few weeks after the last session she requested an update on Child A’s counselling as she had received nothing from […]. She said she had initially spoken to Child A’s school and was told that the school had assumed the Witness was having direct communication with the Member. She said the school was shocked she had not heard anything from Member. The Witness said it was her belief that had she not followed matters up she would not have heard anything with regard to Child A’s counselling sessions.

11. The Witness also told the Panel that during the period when Child A was receiving counselling she also had obtained support from the […] for Child A. She said that the […] had an entirely different approach to that she experienced with the Member. In particular it provided her with regular updates on Child A’s counselling and the tools that were being used in the counselling.

12. The Witness said this made her question the Member’s approach and she rang […] directly and asked to speak to a manager but told there was none available. She told the Panel she eventually received a call from the owner of […] and felt that the owner was very flippant and overly familiar in their conversation. She said during this conversation she was told that during sessions children were taught coping strategies and there was usually no real depth in 12 weeks of counselling. The Witness said she asked for all relevant documentation in relation to Child A and was advised that […] did not tend to write a lot of information down due to client confidentiality.

13. The Witness told the Panel that she made a formal complaint to […] on 14 May Year 5, requesting all relevant paperwork to be emailed to her and that she received electronic versions of the documentation 18 May Year 5. The Witness stated that upon reviewing the documentation she was concerned that the paperwork had been falsified. She said her signature was on documents she had not seen and she was concerned at the length of time it had taken her to receive the documentation.

14. The Witness also told the Panel that in the documentation there was an ‘SDQ Record Sheet’ that she had not seen before and she was concerned that Child A was labelled as being […] on this document. She said that at this time Child A was her normal self and she considered this an extreme label to use. She said that this document recorded it was completed by the parents on 6 January Year 5. The Complainant stated that she had seen and signed the initial Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, but it had not been explained to her. She also said that parental consent was stated to have been given on the follow-up Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire on 20 April Year 5 but she had not given any such consent.

15. The Witness said that the documentation contained counselling notes which she had not seen. She stated she considered it would have been useful for her to have seen this documentation as it talked about how Child A was feeling and it would have helped her understand what was going on. She said she became upset after reading the documentation. The Witness also detailed further documentation which was provided to her which she had not seen before. She said this included a Child Outcome Rating Scale which Child A had scored herself at the beginning and end of the sessions. She said she had not been made aware of the scores or any change in the scores throughout the sessions.

16. The Witness further told the Panel that she was provided with a sheet detailing an overview of the work done in the counselling sessions and recommendations for Child A including that she should continue to use coping tools provided. The Witness said she was unable to support Child A in this regard as she did not know what these coping tools were.

17. The Witness explained that in her complaint to […] she said she was complaining due to lack of contact and consultation with her. She said she also expressed concerns about the controls […] had place to prevent any potential safeguarding issues but was informed that the team were trained and operated to relevant professional standards, the rest being left to trust.

18. The Witness told the Panel that she was advised by […] that it would investigate the matter and later was told that it would be dealt with in-house and would be likely to result with a verbal warning.

19. The Witness said that she decided to refer the matter to BACP due to the manner in which […] dealt with the complaint.

20. The Witness did accept that the Member had developed a good relationship with Child A and that from Child A’s perspective she had benefited from the sessions. The Witness stressed that the problem was that the Member had not communicated with her or Child A‘s school regarding her progress and she believed that to be unacceptable.

21. During cross examination the Witness accepted she had not been happy with the way she'd been talked to by the owner of […]. She also accepted that the counselling had been arranged through the school and that she had asked for counselling for Child A. She also accepted that the school had arranged the counselling and that the documentation relating to the commencement of counselling had been supplied to her by the school. She said she knew that the Member was seeing other pupils on the days that she saw Child A.

22. When it was suggested to the Witness during cross-examination that the school had arranged for Child A’s counselling sessions to continue during Covid and that the sessions took place regularly on a specific day the Witness said she was unaware of this. She also accepted that Child A apparently had a good relationship with the Member and got on well with her and that Child A had benefited from the counselling. When asked if Child A would understand what was discussed during sessions would be confidential and therefore didn't discuss it with the Witness, the Witness said she didn't know if this was the case.

23. During cross examination the Witness was referred to the […] counselling agreement. She confirmed she had signed this document and at the top it detailed that all sessions will be conducted in confidence. The Witness also confirmed that it was Child A who told her that the sessions were ending and that she had not discussed this with the school until after the last session. She stated that she felt very much in the dark about what had occurred and she wanted peace of mind about Child A’s well-being. When asked during cross examination what support she had been expecting to receive she stated that it was her expectation that she would have received tools and processes she could use to support Child A.

24. When asked why she didn't contact the school for some weeks the Witness stated that she had expected to hear something and it was only when she didn't, that she decided to follow things up.

25. When asked by the Panel how Child A had been aware of the day and the time of the sessions during Covid the Witness replied she assumed it had been confirmed by someone at the school but she didn't know by whom or when.

Supplementary Matter

26. In the light of […] opening remarks and the interrelationship he raised between the Referrer and the client, the Panel brought to the attention of both parties BACP’s Good Practice in Action (GPiA) 046 Working with children and young people within the counselling professions, which the Panel considered could be relevant to matters being considered and is available to Members on the BACP website.

27. As the Panel is required to ensure that all relevant documentation is disclosed, the Panel considered it appropriate to provide both parties with a copy of this document and allowed a short time for them to consider it, to ascertain if it raised any matters that required addressing prior to […] commencing the Member’s case.

28. Following the time allowed, neither party raised any issues or objections to GPiA 046 being included in the hearing documents.

Member’s Evidence

29. The Member affirmed and gave oral evidence, she adopted her witness statement and gave supplementary oral evidence.

30. The Member told the Panel that she had qualified as a counsellor in Year 1 and detailed her qualifications. She said her one and only counselling role has been with […] and she had commenced this in January Year 4. She explained to the Panel what her career had been prior to training as a counsellor. She said she wanted to create a positive change in her life and the life of others and that improving the lives of her clients motivated her and that was why she wish to pursue a career in counselling.

31. The Member explained to the Panel that when she joined […] she was shown the referral form the organisation used and how they should be completed. She said she was also shown other forms relevant to her role. She said she was initially allocated six children who were already clients of […] and she therefore did not have any involvement in the initial documentation and paperwork for these clients. The Member said that by March Year 4 she had been allocated a total of 10 clients across three different schools.

32. The Member explained following her initial induction, the Covid pandemic hit and sessions were continued remotely. She said she had not worked remotely before. She did attend some sessions in person with the children of key workers or vulnerable students that were still in school. When she attended sessions in person she would then return home to complete remote sessions which she said was a very new way of working.

33. The Member told the Panel that in July Year 4 her caseload was a total of 12 clients and that she was allocated Child A’s school in September Year 4. She said that between September and October Year 4 she had been allocated five new schools, a total of 17 new clients and by the end of October Year 4 had a total of 28 clients across eight schools.

34. The Member explained that the safeguarding lead at the school managed all referrals to her. She further explained that this meant the school would arrange for all relevant paperwork to be completed by the parent. She told the Panel that the forms to be completed as part of referral would be an assessment, a contract and an SDQ form. The Member explained once these had been completed they would be sent to the Member by the school and the Member would normally arrange an introductory call with the parent. The Member explained what the scores signified on the SDQ form and that there were boxes to be completed by the parent, the teacher and the counsellor.

35. The Member said that when she was seeing the Child A she was also completing sessions at another school in the same afternoon. She said that these were conducted remotely so she had to rush to get home to deal with these remote sessions in the afternoon. The Member explained that she was seeing […] children at the school and that the time of their weekly sessions would rotate each week. She explained the that the Child A would be waiting for her in the reception at the school

36. The Member told the Panel that she had a good rapport with the Child and that the Child A enjoyed coming to the sessions. The Member told the Panel that the sessions seemed to help eliminate Child A’s worries and she said they made her feel better. The Member said the Child A referred to her as one of her best friends. The Member told the Panel that Child A presented as a very bright and articulate child. She was very curious and asked a lot of questions. The Member said that the Child A’s understanding of counselling was very good, she knew things were private and that counselling was a safe place to discuss things

37. The Member took the Panel through the various documents contained in the BACP bundle including the Child Outcome Rating Scale document completed by the child and she explained in detail how each document was completed by whom and how they were used.

38. The Member representative addressed the specific allegations in turn.

39. The Member said that she accepted she did not provide Child A’s mother with any documentation, but this was routine practice at […]. She said the usual practice was to communicate progress verbally and denied that there was any failure on her part to provide the Witness with documentation relating to Child A’s progress. The Member also told the Panel it was not normal practice to send out counselling notes or CORS documentation to parents. She said that such data was confidential to the client and no such information was exchanged with any third-party without the client’s consent.

40. The Member told the Panel that she accepted that she did not provide information to the Witness verbally on Child A’s progress. She explained it was her normal practice to arrange a parent review meeting every 6 to 8 weeks during a therapeutic relationship in accordance with […] procedure. She said this meeting was normally completed by phone and was an opportunity to explore with the parent how they think counselling is going and whether there has been any change in their child's behaviour. The Member stressed that during any such review meeting she would never share or discuss confidential information with parents. She said that she would provide a parent with a general overview of the child's progress and ask if there were any specific areas future sessions should focus on.

41. The Member accepted that she did not conduct a parent review with the Witness at the 6 to 8 week point. She explained that this was her first ever counselling role and the Covid pandemic had impacted on her practice due to lack of support and this was compounded by her lack of experience. She also indicated that she was travelling between schools and home to complete remote sessions. The Member said she lacked the confidence to raise queries or concerns with her supervisor. She told the panel that she was not using this as an excuse for any failure.

42. The Member told the Panel that when she met the Child A she was satisfied that the Child A fully understood what counselling was for and the meaning of confidentiality and its importance. She said she was satisfied that Child A had the necessary level of comprehension to give informed consent. She also said that the Witness, having completed the agreement form, that she was satisfied that she had informed consent both from the parent and Child A. The Member said that if she had any concerns about the Child A’s capacity she would have gone back to the school and asked it to contact the parent to discuss this matter. The Member stressed that at all times she had protected Child A’s confidentiality and worked within the law. She pointed out that under […] counselling agreement it was not permitted for her to inform the parent of what had occurred during sessions unless she had the client’s consent.

43. The Member stressed that her client was Child A, they had a good therapeutic relationship and therefore she had not breached the BACP Ethical Framework.

44. In relation to the end of counselling the Member told the panel it was her usual practice to contact parents when the counselling appeared to be going well and issues appear to have improved. She said she would normally discuss how parents felt about bringing counselling to an end in accordance with […] counselling procedures. She further explained it was normal practice to give four weeks’ notice of the ending of counselling. She said that she accepted in this case she had not notified the parent that the sessions were ending. However, she explained that she did explore endings and give notice to Child A who was the client.

45. In relation to providing feedback or advice on how to manage Child A’s issues in the future the Member explained this would not be her usual practice. She said her role was to manage identified issues and the purpose of the counselling would be to address existing issues. The Member also explained that it was up to the client to disclose any coping tools used within counselling . The Member told the Panel that she did not recall having a telephone conversation with the Witness but to her knowledge she had not requested feedback from her in relation to advice on managing Child A’s issues in the future. She said that if the Witness had wished to speak to her about a particular concern, she would have been happy to do so.

46. In relation to the completion of the SDQ Record Sheet the Member told the Panel that the completion of the initial SDQ questionnaire was arranged by the school. She said the SDQ questionnaire is normally completed by both parent and a teacher. She referred to the SDQ questionnaire completed by the Witness dated 6 January Year 5 and explained this was provided to her by the school. She further explained that when she received the completed questionnaire she then prepared the record sheets contained in the BACP bundle based upon the information provided within the questionnaire. She told the Panel the SDQ Record Sheet was an analytical tool used to assist with any treatment plan. The Member explained the dates of the top of the form refer to the dates the SDQ questionnaire was completed by the parent and teacher and that in this case this was 6 January Year 5. The Member stressed that the SDQ Record Sheet referred to in the allegation was an analytical tool completed by herself based upon the information provided by the parent and teachers at the school.

47. In relation to the SDQ recording parental consent being given when no such consent had been given, the Member said she denied this allegation. She explained she had inadvertently completed an SDQ questionnaire containing Child A’s name but which related to a different client. She said she had completed a follow-up SDQ questionnaire with another parent over the phone which was normal at the time due to Covid restrictions. She recorded parental consent on the form as this had been given over the phone by the parent. However, she explained as the form incorrectly had Child A’s name on it she incorrectly filed it in the Child A’s folder when completing her filing. She said this was solely administrative error and she had no intention of acting falsely or in a misleading manner.

48. The Member told the panel she continued to work […]. She also explained that following the complaint a number of supporting measures were put in place by her employer including monitoring and evaluation, retraining, scrutiny of her caseload, tighter measures with office systems and further reflection. The Member provided further details in relation to each of these matters and she also provided references from colleagues.

49. The Member said that she'd worked really hard to improve her practice and had received some positive reviews from the school she was currently working in. She said she was deeply sorry for any distress caused to the Witness, but it had never been her intention to cause any such distress.

50. During cross examination the Member confirmed it was her understanding that all information belonged to the client. She further confirmed that the client was the Child A, notwithstanding that the parent had signed the counselling agreement form. The Member reiterated that there was no reason to discuss anything with a parent unless the client gave permission to do so. She accepted that she had not contacted the Witness to explain to her that she was not the client and that the Member could not talk to her. She disputed the suggestion that it was reasonable for the Witness to consider that she was the client.

51. In response to Panel questions the Member confirmed that she considered there was distinction between the provision of client documentation and information and providing a review process.

Decision and Reasons for Findings

52. The Panel accepted the advice of the Clerk.

53. In reaching its decision the Panel took into account the evidence of the Referrer (Witness) and the Member and all relevant documentation. The Panel considered each allegation in turn.

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

54. The Panel considered that both the Referrer and the Member gave their evidence in a clear manner and sought to assist the Panel. However, the Panel also considered that the Referrer’s perception of what she was entitled to receive and that she was the client arose from her personal perception and opinion of the parties’ relative positions. The Panel considered that both the Referrer and the Member clearly were concerned about the best interest of Child A.

55. The Panel also considered that with regard to the factual matrix giving rise to the allegations there appeared to be little dispute between the parties.

56. The Panel noted that at the outset of the hearing […] indicated on behalf of the Member that allegation 1.1 b) was admitted. However, the Panel further noted that having heard legal advice provided to the Panel, […] made it clear that in order to find any allegation proved where failure was alleged, the BACP had to prove there was an obligation on the Member to act in the manner which it was alleged she had failed to do.

57. The Panel noted that the stem of Allegation 1.1 narrates that the ‘Member failed to keep Child A's mother updated.’ Panel determined that it therefore had to consider whether there was in fact an obligation on the Member to either provide Child A’s mother with documentation in relation to Child A’s therapy or to provide Child A’s mother with verbal information on Child A’s progress. The Panel therefore considered initially who was the ‘client’.

58. The Panel carefully considered the BACP Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions guidance. In particular, the Panel noted that in the section ‘Key terms’ a client is specifically defined as ‘anyone in the receipt of coaching, counselling, pastoral care, psychotherapy or counselling skills from a Member or Registrant’ of the BACP. The Panel considered that there was no dubiety in this description, nor did it accept […] submission that it should take a wide approach to its interpretation of the Ethical Framework. The Panel considered that if the BACP had wished a client to include any person other than one directly receiving services that it would clearly have set this out in its definition of a client.

59. Applying this to the undisputed factual situation that the individual receiving services from the Member was Child A, the Panel determined that Child A was ‘the client’.

60. The Panel took into account that the Referrer considered herself to be the client, but concluded that this was simply her personal interpretation of the relationship between herself and the Member and that this personal interpretation was incorrect.

Allegation 1 found - NOT PROVED in totality.

1.1 The Member failed to keep Child A’s mother updated on the progress of her child’s therapy in that she:

a. Did not provide any documentation; and/or

b. Did not provide information verbally on her child’s progress;

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 2018:15 (We will keep accurate records that are adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary for the type of service being provided) and/or 12 (We will do everything we can to develop and protect our clients’ trust) and/or 27 (Careful consideration will be given to working with children and young people that: a) takes account of their capacity to give informed consent, considering whether it is appropriate to see the consent of others who have parental responsibility for the young person, and their best interests; and/or b) demonstrates knowledge and skills about ways of working that are appropriate to the young person’s development and how relationships are formed; and/or demonstrates a sound knowledge of the law relevant to working with children and young people and their human rights and/or d) is informed about the current culture and customs that affect parenting/care giving and how children and young people interact with each other and other significant people in their lives) and/or 30 (building an appropriate relationship: we will usually provide clients with the information they ought to know in advance in order to make an informed decision about the services they want to receive, how these services will be delivered and how information or data about them will be protected. Where the urgency or seriousness of the situation requires us to intervene before providing such information, we will do so at the first appropriate opportunity)

61. The Panel noted that the stem of both limbs of Allegation 1.1 alleges that the Member failed to keep Child A’s mother updated on the progress of her child's therapy. Whilst the Panel noted that […] had initially admitted these allegations, it also noted that he had clarified that the Member only accepted factually that actions did not occur and there were no admissions there was any requirement to do what it was alleged had not been done. The Panel therefore considered that it required firstly to address the question of whether any such obligation actually existed.

62. The Panel carefully considered the terms of the counselling agreement. The Panel determined that there was no obligation in the counselling agreement that required the Member to provide any documentation to Child A’s mother updating her on the progress of her child’s therapy. Further, the Panel noted the clear obligations of confidentiality between the Member and Child A as the client set out within the counselling agreement the Panel noted this states:

‘All sessions will be conducted in confidence. Without the permission of the child we would not inform parents of what has occurred within the sessions. This confidence will be maintained and applied to any and all records in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR)’

63. The Panel noted that there were certain exceptions to this confidentiality clause, but that none of them applied to the situation existing when Child A was receiving counselling from the Member.

64. The Panel considered all other documentation before it, but concluded there was nothing which varied or superseded the terms of the counselling agreement.

65. The Panel took into account it was accepted by the Member that it was her normal practice to hold a parent review meeting every 6 to 8 weeks. However, the Panel also noted the Member’s evidence that this was simply an opportunity to ask a parent how they thought counselling was going and whether they had seen any change in their child's behaviour and would not involve disclosure of any information relating to actual counselling. The Member’s evidence was consistent with the terms of the confidentiality clause in the counselling agreement.

66. The Panel also took into account the Referrer’s evidence that she considered that she was entitled to this information, but the Panel concluded this was simply her personal subjective opinion and that the Referrer’s opinion was wholly inconsistent with all other evidence before it.

67. In these circumstances, the Panel determined that there was no obligation on the Member to provide Child A’s mother with any documentation or verbal information on Child A’s progress in therapy.

68. As there is no obligation, the Panel determined that the Member could not have failed to provide Child A’s mother with any such documentation or verbal information.

69. The Panel therefore determined that allegation 1.1 a) and b) were found not proved

70. Allegation 1.1 having been found not proved into totality, the Panel necessarily also found allegation 1.2 not proved.

Allegation 2 found - NOT PROVED in totality

2.1 The Member failed to manage the ending of the therapeutic relationship appropriately in that she:

a. Did not notify the Complainant that the sessions were ending; and/or

b. Failed to provide any feedback or advice on how to manage the child’s issues in the future.

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 2018:15 (We will keep accurate records that are adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary for the type of service being provided) and/or 12 (We will do everything we can to develop and protect our clients’ trust) and/or 27 (Careful consideration will be given to working with children and young people that: a) takes account of their capacity to give informed consent, considering whether it is appropriate to see the consent of others who have parental responsibility for the young person, and their best interests; and/or b) demonstrates knowledge and skills about ways of working that are appropriate to the young person’s development and how relationships are formed; and/or demonstrates a sound knowledge of the law relevant to working with children and young people and their human rights and/or d) is informed about the current culture and customs that affect parenting/care giving and how children and young people interact with each other and other significant people in their lives) and/or 30 (building an appropriate relationship: we will usually provide clients with the information they ought to know in advance in order to make an informed decision about the services they want to receive, how these services will be delivered and how information or data about them will be protected. Where the urgency or seriousness of the situation requires us to intervene before providing such information, we will do so at the first appropriate opportunity)

71. The Panel noted that limbs a) and b) of Allegation 2.1 alleges that the Member failed to manage the ending of the therapeutic relationship appropriately by not notifying that the Referrer that Child A’s sessions were ending and or failing to provide any feedback or advice how to manage her child’s issues in the future.

72. The Panel noted that the Member admitted that she had not notified Child A’s parent that the sessions were ending. However, as in Allegation 1 above, the Panel considered that as a failure was alleged it required firstly to address whether any such obligations actually existed.

73. In relation to allegation 2.1 a), the Panel noted that it did not allege that the Member had failed to notify Child A appropriately, merely that she had failed to inform her parent.

74. The Panel again carefully considered the terms of the counselling agreement. The Panel determined that there was no requirement within this document that the parent be informed that the counselling sessions were ending. The Panel considered all other documentation before it, but concluded there was nothing which varied or superseded the terms of the counselling agreement.

75. Further the Panel noted that the counselling agreements clearly states that ‘the work will initially be contracted to take place over one school term.’ The Complainant had told the Panel she had read the counselling agreement before signing it and, in these circumstances, the Panel determined that the Referrer would have been aware that the counselling sessions were only to last for a single school term.

76. The Panel also took into account the Referrer’s evidence that she considered that she was entitled to this information, but the Panel concluded this was simply her personal subjective opinion and that the Referrer’s opinion was wholly inconsistent with all other evidence before it.

77. The Panel acknowledged that the Member accepted that her communication with the Child A’s parent was inadequate and did not meet her expectations. However, the Panel determined that this was not the regulatory concern specified in Allegation 2.1 a). The Panel was also satisfied that the Member had improved her practice since the date of the allegations.

78. The Panel therefore found allegation 2.1 a) not proved.

79. In relation to allegation 2.1 b), the Panel again carefully considered the terms of the counselling agreement. The Panel determined that there was no requirement within this document that the Referrer be provided with any feedback or advice on how to manage Child A’s issues in the future. The Panel considered all other documentation before it, but concluded there was nothing which varied or superseded the terms of the counselling agreement. The Panel considered all other documentation before it but concluded there was nothing which varied or superseded the terms of the counselling agreement.

80. The Panel also took into account the Referrer’s evidence that she considered that she was entitled to this information, but the Panel again concluded this was simply her personal subjective opinion and that the Referrer’s opinion was wholly inconsistent with all other evidence before it.

81. The Panel also noted that there had been no request to the Member from the Referrer that this information be provided.

82. In these circumstances the Panel found allegation 2.1 (b) not proved.

83. Allegation 2.1 having been found not proved into totality, the Panel necessarily also found allegation 2.2 not proved.

Allegation 3.1 (a) found NOT PROVED, 3.1 (b) and 3.2 found PROVED (in part);

3.1 The Member produced documentation which was false and/or misleading in that:

a. The SDQ record sheet recorded that it had been completed by the child’s parent on 6 January Year 5 when that was not true.

b. The SDQ recorded “Parental Consent” as being given on 20 April Year 5 when no such consent had been given.

Allegations 3.1 a) and b), amount to professional misconduct as defined in the Professional Conduct Procedure.
Allegations 3.1 a) and b), are allegations of dishonesty.

84. The Panel noted that Allegation 3 simply refers to the ‘SDQ Record Sheet’. Having carefully considered the evidence of the Referrer and the Member and the documents produced by the Referrer, the Panel determined there were two SDQ documents produced by the Referrer. The first document is the SDQ Record Sheet and shows the SDQ having been completed by the Referrer on 6 January Year 5. The second is the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire dated 20 April Year 5.

85. In relation to the first document the Panel noted the Member’s explanation that she had prepared this based upon the information provided in the questionnaires which had been completed by the Referrer and Child A’s teacher. The Panel had no evidence before it to suggest this was not what occurred. The Panel further noted that the SDQ Record Sheet not only states that it was completed by the parent on 6 January Year 5 but then states that it was completed by Child A’s teacher on 19 January Year 5. There is also a space on this document for an entry as to when it was completed by the relevant counsellor. No date had been entered on the document for this. The Panel was satisfied that this document was completed as explained by the Member based upon information provided to her. The Panel further determined that the date entered on this document was the date on which the Referrer had completed the questionnaire and that it was not an entry stating that this document (the record sheet) had been completed by the Referrer on 6 January Year 5.

86. The Panel therefore determined that the SDQ record sheet did not record it had been completed by the Referrer on 6th January Year 5 and Allegation 3.1 a) is therefore not proved.

87. In relation to the strengths and difficulties questionnaire dated 20 April Year 5 the panel noted the Member’s explanation she had mistakenly entered Child A’s name in this document, but that it had otherwise been completed based upon information obtained by her during a telephone conversation with another child’s parent on 20 April Year 5. Again, the panel had no evidence before it to suggest that this was incorrect. The Panel further considered that the Member’s explanation was wholly plausible.

88. Whilst the panel accepted the Members explanation it concluded that the information contained on the document dated 23 April Year 5 was factually misleading, albeit that this arose as a result of a mistake on the part of the Member.

89. The Panel therefore found allegation 3.1 b) proved as regards facts.

90. Having found allegation 3.1 b) proved, the panel went on to consider whether the member had acted dishonestly in respect of the facts found proved in allegation 3.1 (b).

91. The Panel applied the test for dishonesty set out in the case of Ivey v Gentings Casinos (UK) Ltd [2017] UKSC 67.

92. The Panel first considered subjectively the actual state of the mind of the Member. As set out above, the Panel was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the entry of parental consent on the document arose out of an error by the Member. The Panel then went on to consider whether this would be considered honest or dishonest by applying the objective standards of ordinary decent people. The Panel was wholly satisfied that the Member’s conduct would not be seen as being dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people.

93. The Panel therefore determined that in respect of the Member’s actions found proved allegation 3.1 (b) that the Member had not acted dishonestly.

94. In relation to Allegation 3.2, the Panel determined that the facts found proved were a breach of paragraph 15 of the Ethical Framework. The Panel noted that when the breach occurred the Member was recently qualified and that her position at […] was her first role as a counsellor. The Panel also considered that the Member’s actions occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic when she was trying to conduct counselling sessions both in person and remotely and was under consequent great stress. The Panel also considered it was relevant that at this time the Member did not feel capable of discussing this with her line manager. The Panel considered these were mitigating factors. The Panel noted that the Member has a good working relationship with her line manager and also noted the positive testimonials provided on her behalf.

95. The Panel was of the view that the Member's actions in relation to Allegations 3.1 b) and 3.2 did not amount to Professional Misconduct.

Decision

The decision of the Panel is that there had been a failure to comply with the Professional Standards with regard to Allegation 3.1 b) in that there had been a breach of paragraph 15 of ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.

Sanction

The Panel reconvened on 7 May Year 8 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 in detail the submissions on sanction dated 9th April Year 8 on the Member’s behalf. It accepted that the conduct found proved amounted to an error rather than a deliberate act. It noted the references to the Member’s witness statement and acknowledged the steps she has taken to improve her practice since the error came to light. It further noted the remedial steps she has taken since including training, ongoing management guidance and supervision to improve and monitor her documentation and record keeping for accuracy. Since the events of Year 5 the Member has been working for the same employer with no further concerns.

She had also apologised to the Complainant for the distress caused.

The Panel was mindful that the purpose of any sanction is to ensure public protection and to raise and maintain standards of practice. Given the remedial steps taken by the Member in this case, the Panel did not consider that it would be proportionate to impose a sanction in these circumstances.

The Panel decided therefore to impose no sanction in this case.

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