Professional Conduct notice / RJ

September 2025: Ruth Jenni, Reference No 00720309, Registrant ID 84213

Outcome Details

Consensual Disposal

Reasons

1. Ruth Jenni, a 麻豆原创 individual member, agrees to the following outcome of the investigation into a complaint of a failure to meet the Professional Standards under reference PCP[鈥.

Background

2. Ruth Jenni has been a 麻豆原创 member since [鈥.

3. The Member works in [鈥.

4. On [鈥 May Year 7 a complaint was made about the Member鈥檚 conduct; in summary the Complainant complained about the Member with whom she had a therapeutic relationship between [鈥 September Year 1 and [鈥 May Year 4. Sessions were initially over the phone, though later sessions were also held via video calls. Additionally, the two parties communicated via email, calls and WhatsApp messages outside of sessions.

While stating that there were 鈥渘o clear boundaries鈥� from the start due to the closeness and rapport established between the Complainant and the Member, the complaint is focussed on events from [鈥 February Year 3 onwards, from which point sessions became twice weekly and the Complainant states that boundary blurring intensified.

Throughout Year 3 the Member [鈥 details of which she shared with the Complainant. The Complainant states that the Member disclosed feeling burnt out, having taken only a week off, and that these disclosures formed part of a broader pattern of the Member disclosing personal circumstances and challenges, cementing the Complainant鈥檚 perception of a special and unique bond between them.

Around April Year 3, the Member started to offer the Complainant daily check-ins when the Complainant was in a period of crisis. From September Year 3, the Complainant states the Member began to end phone conversations and sessions by saying she loved the Complainant.

The two also exchanged teddy bears as gifts.

On [鈥 January Year 4, the Member sent the Complainant an email establishing new rules to set boundaries (e.g. ending the daily check-ins and the texting), noting she was burnt out, while characterising the relationship as special and stating 鈥淚 love and care for you鈥�.

While in sessions the Member stated she wanted to continue the therapeutic relationship, on [鈥 February Year 4 she announced her intention to work towards ending therapy, which the Complainant states shocked and destabilised her.

The Complainant reports having longstanding attachment and boundary issues and states the Member鈥檚 conduct has had a negative lasting impact, leading to her initially feeling punished and at fault for the fall out. She states she has since come to understand it was not her responsibility to manage the therapeutic relationship.

Supporting statements from other therapists whom the Complainant saw during and after her therapeutic relationship with the Member, describe the Complainant鈥檚 state of vulnerability at the time of the ending.

Admissions

5. The Member makes the following admissions, which the 麻豆原创 accepts:

Allegation 1

1.1 During the period of the therapeutic relationship, the Member failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries in that she:
a. Told the client that she loved her on one or more occasions; and/or
b. Made excessive personal disclosures to the client; and/or
c. Gave and/or accepted gifts to/from the client, including giving the client a teddy bear; and/or
d. Implementing daily check-ins with the client when that was not therapeutically beneficial; and/or
e. Allowing and/or encouraging frequent out of session contact with the client.

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 Association鈥檚 Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018: 33a (We will establish and maintain appropriate professional and personal boundaries in our relationships with clients by ensuring that: these boundaries are consistent with the aims of working together and beneficial to the client).

Allegation 2

2.1 The Member failed to manage her own psychological wellbeing in that she continued to provide therapy to the client when she was not sufficiently resilient to do so.

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 Association鈥檚 Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018: 91( We will take responsibility for our own wellbeing as essential to sustaining good practice with our clients by: 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; and/or c) seeking professional support and services as the need arises).

Allegation 3

3.1 The Member failed to manage the ending of the therapeutic relationship appropriately in that she advised the client that the relationship was ending despite having assured the client shortly before that it would continue.

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 the Association鈥檚 Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018: 39 (We will endeavour to inform clients well in advance of approaching endings and be sensitive to our client鈥檚 expectations and concerns when we are approaching the end of our work together).

Allegation 4

4.1 The Member continued to provide therapeutic services to the client after she became aware that she was acting outside her area of competence.

4.2 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 Association鈥檚 Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018: 13 (We must be competent to deliver the services being offered to at least fundamental professional standards or better. When we consider satisfying professional standards requires consulting others with relevant expertise, seeking second opinions, or making referrals, we will do so in ways that meet our commitments and obligations for client confidentiality and data protection).

Mitigation

6. The Member puts forward the following in mitigation (not exhaustive), which has been taken into account by the IAC in deciding the appropriate outcome (in summary only):

Told the client that she loved her on one or more occasions:

The Member regrets her use of the word 鈥榣ove鈥� and is truly sorry for the confusion and destabilising effect this had on the Complainant. She also regrets her subsequent pattern of over-reassurance which had a very detrimental effect on the stability of the therapeutic relationship. This mistake was first made on the day of [鈥.

Made excessive personal disclosures to the client:

In hindsight, the Member states that she should have explored the Complainant鈥檚 wish to hear personal information more explicitly within the therapeutic work and used that as a route into understanding her needs and attachment dynamics, rather than responding in kind.

Gave and/or accepted gifts to/from the client, including giving the client a teddy bear:

The Member states that the teddy bear was brought in and communicated to the client as a therapeutic tool intended to support her to internalise a more nurturing relationship with herself.

Implementing daily check-ins with the client when that was not therapeutically beneficial:

The Member states that she was deeply concerned for the client鈥檚 safety. The Member states that she accepts that she should have prioritised clearer communication and clearer safeguarding planning earlier on.
The Member states that she deeply regrets that she did not forecast and plan for the emotional and relational impact of withdrawing daily contact.

Allowing and/or encouraging frequent out-of-session contact with the client:

The Member states that the emergence of these patterns coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic and national lockdowns, during which all her sessions and supervision moved online. The Member states that she was isolated and managing a high-stress personal situation. The Member states that these factors diminished her objectivity and made it harder for her to recognise how far the boundaries had shifted in her work with the Complainant. She was in supervision throughout this period and scheduled extra supervision regularly.

Did not take adequate steps to ensure appropriate self-care:

The Member states that when it became clear that she could no longer sustain working with the Complainant, she gave her three months' notice and provided therapy throughout that time. The Member states that she did not end the therapy suddenly or without care and that she worked to give the ending as much structure and thoughtfulness as she could, under difficult circumstances.

Did not manage the ending of the therapeutic relationship appropriately:

The Member states that when she realised she could no longer work effectively with the Complainant she gave three months' notice rather than ending the work abruptly. She continued to offer therapy throughout that time and sought supervision to help navigate the ending as sensitively as she could. Her intent was always to act in a way that protected the Complainant鈥檚 wellbeing, even as she recognised her own limits.

Continued to provide therapeutic services to the client after she became aware that she was acting outside her area of competence:

The Member states that the ongoing stress of the COVID-19 pandemic was a significant contextual factor during this period.
However, she states that she now recognises that she had a professional responsibility to act more decisively. The Member states that she deeply regrets this missed opportunity and the additional distress it may have caused. The Member states that she is sincerely sorry for the ways in which her hesitancy contributed to the difficulties experienced, particularly towards the end of the work.

The Member indicates also that she has studied key texts to deepen her understanding of attachment dynamics, client vulnerability, and boundary integrity. These include:

鈥� Attachment in Psychotherapy by David J. Wallin
鈥� Trauma and the Avoidant Client by Robert Muller
鈥� Counselling Suicidal Clients by Andrew Reeves

The Member indicates she has undertaken supervision training, which gave her the opportunity to reflect on ethical responsibilities, power dynamics, and the importance of containment and process in relational work.

Conclusion

7. The issues identified and admitted by the Member amount to breaches of the professional standards reasonably expected of the Member having regard to the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy 2018, in particular as identified in the admissions above:

33a. We will establish and maintain appropriate professional and personal boundaries in our relationships with clients by ensuring that: these boundaries are consistent with the aims of working together and beneficial to the client.

91. We will take responsibility for our own 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; and/or c) seeking professional support and services as the need arises.

39. We will endeavour to inform clients well in advance of approaching endings and be sensitive to our client鈥檚 expectations and concerns when we are approaching the end of our work together.

13. We must be competent to deliver the services being offered to at least fundamental professional standards or better. When we consider satisfying professional standards requires consulting others with relevant expertise, seeking second opinions, or making referrals, we will do so in ways that meet our commitments and obligations for client confidentiality and data protection.

8. One of the aims of the Professional Conduct Procedure is to protect members of the public. The IAC in considering the appropriate outcome and sanction for the admitted breaches in this case have taken into account the interests of public protection and determined that it is reasonable and proportionate to conclude it by agreement on the terms set out below.

9. In relation to the finding above, the IAC considers it appropriate that the Member, within 8 weeks of the date of the agreement,

a) Completes The Neurobiology of Attachment (鈥楥ourse A鈥�), and The Treatment Trauma Master Series (鈥楥ourse B鈥�) continuing professional development courses and provides evidence of completion with relevant certificates and learning outcomes.

b) Provides a reflective piece, detailing how she will use the learning from Course A and Course B as part of implementing changes to her practice and demonstrating how she would avoid similar breaches in the future. The reflective piece should also demonstrate how she will use supervision to inform her practice.

c) On completion of Courses A and B, and having written her reflective piece, the Member should write a letter of apology addressed to the Complainant demonstrating that she acknowledges the impact of her conduct on the Complainant and how she has learnt from this complaint.

10. The Member agrees that this Agreement will be published by the 麻豆原创 in line with the Publication Policy and that it will be disclosed to the Complainant.

11. The Member agrees that she will not act in any way inconsistent with this agreement such as, for example, by denying the admissions in paragraph 5 above.

12. If the Member fails, without good reason, to comply with the sanction set out above or acts in a way which is inconsistent with this Agreement the matter will be referred to a sanction panel for consideration. A sanction panel may determine that it will terminate her membership. Such a decision will be published.

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

听