The key issue
What is the appropriate disciplinary sanction for psychologists entering into intimate relationships with former clients?
The background
The case relates to a registered psychologist who treated a client on 11 occasions for post-traumatic stress in 2011. The parties settled the matter at mediation.
In 2013, the client and psychologist developed a personal relationship after running into each other at the school their children attended.
Between 2013 and 2015:
- the psychologist spoke with the client’s daughter at the client’s request as she was experiencing anxiety. The psychologist spoke to her on three occasions; and
- the relationship between the psychologist and client became intimate.
Communication continued between the pair infrequently until 2017, when more regular contact resumed, including messages and photographs of a sexual nature being exchanged.
The psychologist was found to have entered into an inappropriate relationship with the client and breaching the Code of Ethics, including Principle C.4.3(c), which requires psychologists to explore with a senior psychologist the possibility that a former client may be vulnerable and at risk of exploitation, and encourage the former client to seek independent counselling on the matter before engaging in sexual activity with former clients after a period of two years from the termination of the service.
The psychologist was also found to have breached Principle C.3.1(a) of the Code of Ethics by engaging in both a friendship and then an intimate and personal relationship with the client while providing services to the client’s daughter which may have impaired the psychologist’s competence, effectiveness, objectivity, or ability to render those services to the client’s daughter.
In mitigation, the Respondent had no prior disciplinary history and had practised for several years since without repetition of the conduct.
The outcome
The tribunal found the psychologist guilty of professional misconduct, suspended her for 18 months, imposed conditions (supervision and further education) on her registration once the period of suspension ends and ordered her to pay costs of $5,000.
The implication
The case confirms that, despite therapeutic relationships ending, there are still active steps practitioners need to take to ensure that they have discharged their obligations to ensure that any personal relationships which develop only commence after appropriate action – in line with any relevant guidelines – has taken place.
The decision Psychology Board of Australia v Martin [2020] VR 70 can be read here.
