Professional Conduct notice / HA

September 2025: Holly Arymar, Reference No 00774422, Registrant ID 227796

Allegations

Allegation 1

1.1 The Member acted and/or continued to act in a conflict of interest by providing counselling to Ms X and her former partner [鈥, both individually or jointly, when she knew that they had separated due to domestic violence.

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 鈥楪ood Practice鈥� 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).

1.3 Allegation 1.1 amounts to professional misconduct as defined in the Professional Conduct Procedure.

Allegation 2

2.1 The Member acted unprofessionally and/or facilitated a breach of the Domestic Violence Prevention Order (DVPO) by encouraging Ms X to remain in a relationship with her former partner [鈥 saying that:

i.Ms X should go with 鈥渉er gut instinct about [鈥 and what to do with him鈥� and/or that [鈥 鈥渋s no threat鈥� as he still loves her and doesn鈥檛 want to hurt her; and/or
ii.[鈥 had offered the Member 拢5000 鈥渋f I can convince you to get back with him鈥�; and/or
iii.When the DVPO ends she should keep it running as long as possible to keep him away; and/or
iv.鈥淚 honestly don鈥檛 think he is a threat鈥�.

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 鈥楪ood Practice鈥� 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) and/or 20 (We will fulfil the ethical principles and values set out in this Ethical Framework regardless of whether working online, face-to-face or using any other methods of communication. The technical and practical knowledge may vary according to how services are delivered but all our services will be delivered to at least fundamental professional standards or better) and/or 21 (We will respect our clients鈥� privacy and dignity) and/or 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).

2.3 Allegations 2.1 (i) and/or (ii) and/or (iii) and/or (iv) amount to professional misconduct as defined in the Professional Conduct Procedure.

Allegation 3

3.1 The Member failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries in sessions and electronic communications in that she:

i. Made inappropriate personal disclosures regarding [鈥.
ii. Used over familiar language and kisses (xxx) in electronic communications with Ms X.

3.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraph of 鈥楪ood Practice鈥� 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) and/or 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).

Allegation 4

4.1 The Member wilfully failed to take issues regarding Ms X and [鈥 to supervision, promptly or at all.

4.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraph of 鈥楪ood Practice鈥� in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018: 53 (We will consider carefully in supervision how we work with clients) and/or 72 (Supervisees have a responsibility to be open and honest in supervision and to draw attention to any significant difficulties or challenges that they may be facing in their work with clients. Supervisors are responsible for providing opportunities for their supervisees to discuss any of their practice-related difficulties without blame or unjustified criticism and, when appropriate, to support their supervisees in taking positive actions to resolve difficulties).

4.3 Allegation 4.1 amounts to professional misconduct as defined in the Professional Conduct Procedure.

Allegation 5

5.1 The Member failed to take appropriate steps to safeguard Ms X, when she knew that a DVPO was in place, by:

i. Failing to notify the appropriate authorities that [鈥 had offered her 拢5000 to persuade Ms X to reconcile with him; and/or
ii. Failing to notify the appropriate authorities that she had disclosed this offer to Ms X.

5.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraph of 鈥楪ood Practice鈥� in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018: 9 (We will give careful consideration to how we manage situations when protecting clients or others from serious harm or when compliance with the law may require overriding a client鈥檚 explicit wishes or breaching their confidentiality) and/or 10(In exceptional circumstances, the need to safeguard our clients or others from serious harm may require us to override our commitment to making our client鈥檚 wishes and confidentiality our primary concern. We may need to act in ways that will support any investigations or actions necessary to prevent serious harm to our clients or others. In such circumstances, we will do our best to respect the parts of our client鈥檚 wishes or confidences that do not need to be overridden in order to prevent serious harm).

5.3 Allegations 5.1 (i) and/or (ii) amount to professional misconduct as defined in the Professional Conduct Procedure.

Allegation 6

6.1 The Member failed to maintain client confidentiality by disclosing information regarding [鈥 counselling appointments to Ms X.

6.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraph of 鈥楪ood Practice鈥� in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018: 55 (We will protect the confidentiality and privacy of clients by: a) actively protecting information about clients from unauthorised access or disclosure)

6.3 Allegation 6.1 amounts to professional misconduct as defined in the Professional Conduct Procedure.

Preliminary issues

Proceeding in absence

1. [..] appeared on behalf of 麻豆原创. The former Member, Ms Holly Arymar, (hereinafter referred to as 鈥渢he Member鈥�) did not attend, nor was she represented.

2. On [鈥 the Panel met to consider the complaint brought by the Association and, in light of indications made by the Member about her not planning to attend this hearing, the Panel made the decision then that it would proceed in the absence of the Member at this hearing.

听

Application to adduce hearsay evidence

3. At the outset of the hearing, [..] made an application to admit the hearsay evidence contained within the witness statement of [鈥. She referred to Professional Conduct Procedure (鈥淧CP鈥�) 4.9(b) and submitted that the evidence was relevant and that it would be fair to admit it. [..] said that references in [鈥 statement to Ms X鈥檚 evidence are hearsay in that accounts are given about what she said took place, but Ms X is not attending this hearing. [鈥 submitted that there were a number of factors for the Panel to consider when deciding whether to admit hearsay evidence.

4. [鈥 invited the Panel to find that there was a good and cogent reason for the non-attendance of Ms X, namely that Ms X had not made a complaint direct to 麻豆原创 and 麻豆原创 considered it inappropriate in the circumstances to contact her and put her through the ordeal of having to give evidence in a hearing. In addition, [鈥 submitted that the hearsay evidence provided by [鈥 is not the sole and decisive evidence because the information provided by Ms X was captured by the Person in Position of Trust (鈥淧iPoT鈥�) case records that are before the Panel and also in messages passing between Ms X and the Member. Furthermore, she submitted, [鈥 has provided a statement and exhibited supervision records with accounts given to her by the Member.

5. [鈥 also referred to the nature and extent of the challenge to the content of the account given by Ms X. She referred the Panel to the responses provided by the Member and highlighted that there was not in fact a great deal in dispute in this case. [鈥 said that whilst the Member has perhaps not always accepted the seriousness of the allegations, she does not dispute the majority of the factual allegations.

6. The Panel was reminded by [鈥 that the Member had chosen not to attend the hearing and so had waived her right to be present and to cross-examine witnesses, so that even if Ms X had attended, she would not have been cross-examined by the Member. In all the circumstances, [鈥 invited the Panel to admit the hearsay evidence.

7. The Panel considered the application with care and followed the advice of the Clerk, who referred to the case of Razzaq v Financial Services Authority [2014] EWCA Civ 770 and the principles derived therefrom when considering whether to admit hearsay evidence in regulatory proceedings.

8. The Panel was satisfied that the hearsay evidence of Ms X was relevant as it went directly to a number of the matters alleged against the Member. The Panel therefore had to decide whether it was fair to admit it, that is to say fair to the Member, but also fair to 麻豆原创 who bring this case. The Panel also had in mind the public interest in ensuring that matters are properly explored in order to ensure public protection and the maintenance of professional standards.

9. The Panel was satisfied that there was a good and cogent reason for the absence of Ms X, as referred to by [鈥. The Panel took into account the fact that the hearsay evidence of Ms X was not the sole and decisive evidence in relation to the matters alleged. This was because there was other supporting evidence provided in the records kept by the PiPoT and also in the supervision notes made by [鈥 of her supervision meetings with the Member. In addition, the Panel took into account the fact that the Member had raised very little in dispute of what Ms X had said.

10. In all the circumstances, the Panel decided it would be fair to allow 麻豆原创 to adduce the hearsay evidence of Ms X, as contained within the statement and exhibits of [鈥. No undue prejudice would be caused to the Member by admitting this evidence and the Panel would decide what weight to give it when considering the facts as a whole.

Background

11. Ms Arymar was an individual 麻豆原创 member and at the relevant time was employed as a counsellor at [鈥.

12. In [鈥, 麻豆原创 received a referral from a PiPoT, [鈥 at [鈥, raising concerns that the Member, Holly Arymar, had allegedly been psychologically abusive towards a vulnerable client (Ms X), that she may have facilitated a breach of a Domestic Violence Prevention Order (DVPO) and made inappropriate personal disclosures.

13. Subsequently, in [鈥, 麻豆原创 received a complaint from [..], [鈥, raising concerns about Holly Arymar and alleging that she had knowingly breached the Ethical Framework in her actions in connection with her counselling of Ms X and Ms X鈥檚 former partner,[鈥.

14. In [鈥 [鈥 PiPoT stated that the Client had first reported her concerns in [鈥 and these had been discussed at a Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference (鈥淢ARAC鈥�) two days later.

15. The concerns were as follows:

鈥� the client was having private counselling with Ms Arymar. Ms Arymar had previously provided couples counselling to the client and her partner but after they separated they had both continued to see Ms Arymar separately. The client said that both parties had had the issue of conflict explained to them and agreed to continue seeing Ms Arymar.

鈥� A DVPO was put in place on [..]. However Ms Arymar had recently told the client to go with 鈥渉er gut instinct about [former partner] and what to do with him鈥� and that the former partner had recently offered Ms Arymar 拢5000 鈥�if I can convince you to get back with him鈥�.

鈥� During the last session, the client had told Ms Arymar that she 鈥渇elt a little more room to breathe as her partner was [鈥 but Ms Arymar said that wasn鈥檛 correct and that he was [鈥 and she had an appointment to see him the following week.

鈥� It is alleged that the Counsellor has previously told the client that the former partner 鈥�is no threat鈥� as he 鈥�still loves her and doesn鈥檛 want to hurt her.鈥� Ms Arymar is also alleged to have told the client that when the DVPO ends she should keep it running as long as possible to keep him away.

鈥� The Member is alleged to have shared personal details of her own circumstances including that her [鈥.

鈥� The Member is alleged to have sent the client messages to the effect of "Please don鈥檛 implicate me with work, I need this job [鈥 and I don't have [鈥.鈥� This led the client to wonder about the previous comments made regarding the 拢5000 payment offered by the abusive person to the Counsellor.

鈥� The client informed the Member that she would be reporting the offer of 拢5000, said to have been made by her former partner, to the police.

16. Subsequently, on [鈥, [鈥 confirmed that the client had advised her that her former partner had been [鈥. She said that the client had said that she had felt manipulated by the Member into trying to get her to go back to her former partner.

17. On [鈥, [鈥 forwarded to 麻豆原创 a number of the text messages between the client and the Member discussing the arrangement for the Member to continue counselling both the client and her former partner even after their separation and also with regard to the alleged breach of the DVPO by the former partner. The Panel had sight of these messages.

18. In [鈥, 麻豆原创 received a complaint from [鈥, [鈥

19. [鈥 she was told by the Member, on [鈥, that 麻豆原创 was investigating a complaint against her brought by the Local Authority in [鈥. [鈥 realised that she had no knowledge of the counselling arrangement involved between the Member, Ms X and Ms X鈥檚 ex-partner, [鈥. The Member said she had briefly mentioned her work with the ex-partner but not the subsequent couple鈥檚 counselling and individual therapy. Ms Arymar said that she had not brought it to supervision as she did not want to implicate the supervisor in any wrongdoing and she knew that [鈥 would advise her against working in the way she wished to do with regard to this couple. She had expected a complaint at some time as she had been contacted by the police regarding a safeguarding incident in connection with the couple. The Member had not brought this to supervision either.

20. [鈥 said the Member had told her that the complaint was in part because she had shared personal details of her life [鈥. She had discussed with Ms Arymar that not bringing these matters to supervision was in itself a breach of the Ethical Framework. She said that Ms Arymar had stated that she had not done so as she knew [鈥 would not have supported her choices in this matter and didn鈥檛 want to implicate her in what she was doing. She said that the Member had stated that she had made some disclosures as she felt that in this case it would be helpful to the couple.

21. [..] said that she had ended her supervision arrangement with the Member and their last session had been in November 4.

22. [鈥

Decision on facts

23. In reaching its decisions on the facts the Panel took into account the live evidence from [鈥 and [鈥, together with all the documents relied on, which included the written submissions provided by the Member. In addition, the Panel took into account the submissions made by [鈥 on behalf of 麻豆原创. The Panel also heard and accepted the advice of the Clerk and bore in mind that it was for 麻豆原创 to prove the case and to do so on the balance of probabilities.

24. The Member provided various written responses to the matters alleged against her and these are referred to below. Some matters she accepted were true, others she denied and some she did not refer to. In a letter dated [鈥, the Member said, 鈥�I made mistakes with this couple which I acknowledge but I always acted with the best of intentions and care for both individuals as I have done with all my clients (nearly 4000 client hours) and have not had any issues previously.鈥�

25. In her most recent response, dated [鈥, the Member said she had reflected on this therapeutic relationship for over [..] years and added, 鈥�I want to say to the parties concerned that I am so sorry for any upset or difficulty which my involvement caused. As a counsellor my paramount concern was always the client. I acknowledge the mistakes and errors I made in dealing with this client.鈥�

26. The Member went on to say:

鈥淎t the time of seeing the client I over identified with her and I acknowledge this was harmful- especially not taking it to supervision, of which I am truly remorseful.鈥�

鈥淚f there is any possibility of being able to make amends or demonstrate my learning and remorse through this situation I would be grateful. I was honoured to be a counsellor and to share so many peoples鈥� worlds, and I think in general, I made some positive impact on my clients. I was also proud to be a member of the 麻豆原创 and would like to be again, should there be an opportunity for that to happen.

Please accept my apologies again, especially the client.鈥�

Allegation 1

27. 麻豆原创 relied on the evidence provided by [鈥 and [鈥 and their exhibits.

28. The Panel noted that the Member was providing counselling to Ms X and her former partner while they were together, but in [鈥 Ms X told the Member that they had separated and asked if she could still come for counselling, although she acknowledged there might be a conflict of interest. The Member responded on the same day to say 鈥�I would love to see you and work with you again but I do have to follow this rigid ethical framework and as my initial contract was with [鈥 I have to appreciate that. I am supposed to be seeing him next week so let me see if he wants to continue the counselling. If he chooses not to, I could see you鈥�. The Member continued to counsel [鈥 but on [鈥 she texted Ms X to say 鈥�I鈥檝e seen [鈥.. this evening. I am happy to see you as well separately if you feel this would be beneficial? I would keep the counselling totally separate and want you to feel safe to be able to do that. I鈥檓 totally impartial and you know I鈥檓 very fond of you both鈥�..鈥� The Member then continued to provide counselling to both parties.

29. In her statement [鈥 said, "The Member also stated that the female client asked to see the Member after the couple had split up. The Member then spoke about seeing them both in [鈥, and as far as the Member was concerned, everything was on good terms and they were appreciative of the Member's work.鈥� [鈥 added, 鈥淭he Member had mentioned the male client to me once previously. I went back through my notes, and on one occasion, the Member mentioned that he was a new client and she was starting work with him. There was no mention of him after that point and there was no mention of working with him and his wife as a couple. She disclosed to me that she deliberately withheld that from supervision, which is the basis of my complaint.鈥�

30. In her written submissions, the Member said:

鈥淚 initially was seeing the client鈥檚 ex-partner for 4 sessions. The work was clearly focussed on his relationship and he requested if his partner could come which I thought was beneficial. We worked together (3 of us) for 5 sessions until the relationship appeared to come to an end. The client sent me an email (attached) asking if I could see her on her own and I explained that her ex-partner was my priority as I had been seeing him first. On 10th November the clients ex-partner explained to me that she was really suffering with her mental health and would I please see her on her own (as per the email thread). I continued to see her ex-partner until [鈥 and I finished seeing this client [鈥. I have reflected in great detail following seeing these clients. I recognise that I made decisions with the best intentions given the inside knowledge of their relationship. However I have realised that in fact it wasn鈥檛 best for me to work alongside both of them and that the 麻豆原创 ethical framework describes conflict of interests. I was aware this client wanted to continue the counselling and at the time believed we had built a solid counselling relationship and therefore felt it would benefit the client from continuing seeing me as she wished.鈥�

31. The Member also said:

鈥淚t is correct that I continued to see Miss X after her relationship breakdown. I concur that this was a conflict of interest but was repeatedly asked by her ex- partner to see her (鈥榓s she could really talk to me and she wasn鈥檛 doing well鈥�). Miss X also requested I see her on an individual basis (as per the email I forwarded to you previously). I did not seek out continuing my working relationship with Miss X.鈥�

32. The Panel noted that in an email sent by Ms X to the Member on [鈥, Ms X said 鈥渁fter a number of eventful days of vile comments and put downs I鈥檝e told [鈥 that I can no longer be in a relationship with him鈥� and that she was 鈥�having some free counselling through a domestic violence charity.鈥� This would have alerted the Member to the fact that Ms X and [鈥 had separated and that there was domestic violence in the background of this relationship and therefore how inappropriate it was to continue to counsel both Ms X and [鈥. This was further developed in [鈥. On [鈥, Ms X sent the Member a text saying, [鈥. Obviously this has set me back knowing [鈥, but also the fact he offered you 拢5k to convince me to take him back. I attach a copy of the domestic violence protection order, which states that he can't intimidate, harass or pester me or encourage others to do so."

33. It is clear that the Member was aware, sometime between [鈥 (when the DVPO was put in place) and [鈥 (when she had a counselling session with Ms X), that there was a DVPO in place. Indeed, the evidence of [鈥 was that, 鈥�The Member informed me that in [鈥, the male client went [鈥. The female client called the police[鈥 The Member also disclosed to me that she offered to introduce the male client [鈥, who has a past history of [鈥, however, the meeting never happened.鈥�

34. In a letter dated [鈥, the Member said:

鈥淚 did not see Miss X鈥檚 partner after the DVPO was put in place. I knew there was no physical abuse in the relationship but acknowledge that I wasn鈥檛 educated enough in aspects of domestic violence to identify the difference between abusive behaviour and what appeared a chaotic and turbulent relationship with intervals of calm.鈥�

35. The Panel was satisfied that there was no evidence the Member met Ms X and [鈥 jointly after she knew that they had separated due to domestic violence. However, there was ample evidence, as detailed above, that the Member continued to see both Ms X and [鈥 individually after she became aware of the separation due to domestic violence. This was a clear conflict of interest as the Member herself acknowledged. In a supervision session with [鈥 it is recorded that the Member 鈥�agrees she 鈥榢nowingly worked unethically鈥� and would not do that again鈥︹€� and 鈥溾€� knew that the way she was choosing to work was at best risky and at worse unethical.鈥�

36. It was apparent that the Member was aware that she should not be seeing both Ms X and [鈥 after [鈥 as she hid this from her supervisor, [鈥, in the knowledge that [鈥 would not have approved. It appears, however, that she was persuaded by [鈥 to continue seeing Ms X as well as seeing him. Thereafter she passed on information to Ms X about her sessions with [鈥, breaching confidentiality and blurring professional boundaries.

37. The Member clearly acted in a conflict of interest and the Panel therefore found Allegation 1.1 proved, on the basis that she continued to provide counselling individually to Ms X and her former partner [鈥, when she knew that they had separated due to domestic violence. It is axiomatic that domestic violence can by psychological as well as physical and the Member should have been aware of this.

38. Having found this fact proved, the Panel concluded that the Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraph of 鈥楪ood Practice鈥� 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.

43. The Member said she was acting in their best interests as she could empathise with their situation, but later concurred that 鈥渢his was a conflict of interest鈥�, but said she was talked into doing it by [鈥. Professional boundaries includes avoiding this very type of conflict. By blurring these professional boundaries with [鈥 and Ms X the Member could not have an effective professional relationship with either of them. The very purpose of counselling is to provide a safe place so that clients can express what they wish to, in a confidential setting. By telling Ms X things said to her in her sessions with [鈥 the Member was breaching that position and made the clients unsafe. The Panel considered the Member鈥檚 judgment was clouded by her poor decision to see both Ms X and [鈥 at a time when there was a clear conflict. Any reasonable therapist would have known that this was wrong and it was a clear breach of paragraph 33. The Panel therefore found Allegation 1.2 proved.

44. The Panel deferred its decision on whether this amounted to professional misconduct, until it had decided all the facts. It was clear that all the matters alleged represented a course of conduct that was inextricably linked. Accordingly, it would be artificial to consider whether individual proven facts amounted to professional misconduct and the Panel made its decision on professional misconduct once it had concluded its deliberations on all the facts.

Allegation 2

i.Ms X should go with 鈥渉er gut instinct about [鈥 and what to do with him鈥� and/or that [鈥鈥渋s no threat鈥� as he still loves her and doesn鈥檛 want to hurt her; and/or
ii.[鈥 had offered the Member 拢5000 鈥渋f I can convince you to get back with him鈥�; and/or
iii.When the DVPO ends she should keep it running as long as possible to keep him away; and/or
iv.鈥淚 honestly don鈥檛 think he is a threat鈥�.

45. 麻豆原创 relied on the evidence provided by [鈥 and [鈥 and their exhibits.

46. The Panel first considered whether the evidence proved the matters alleged in i, ii, iii and iv.

47. With regard to i., 麻豆原创 relied on the PiPoT Case Record, where it is recorded, 鈥�Counsellor recently told client "to go with her gut feeling about (abusive person) and what to do with him鈥� and 鈥淐ounsellor has previously advised client that abusive person is of no threat, as he still loves her and does not want to hurt her.鈥�

48. In her various written responses the Member makes no reference to whether she made these comments. However, it is apparent from the text message she sent to Ms X on [鈥 that the Member did not see [鈥 as a threat to Ms X (see iv. below). The Panel acknowledged that the PiPoT Case Record was not the best evidence as it was third hand. However, it was able to give these entries considerable weight as they were consistent with the text sent on [鈥, consistent with the Member鈥檚 approach to Ms X and [鈥 and not denied by the Member. The Panel was therefore satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the Member did say these things and it found 2.1 i. proved.

49. With regard to ii., 麻豆原创 relied on the PiPoT Case Record, where it is recorded, 鈥淐ounsellor recently told the client 鈥hat 鈥淸鈥 has offered me 拢5,000 if I can convince you to get back with him.鈥� This evidence was supported by a text message from Ms X to the Member on [鈥, in which she said, 鈥淥bviously this has set me back knowing not only he is still contacting people around me [鈥, but also the fact he offered you 拢5k to convince me to take him back.鈥�

50. In her written responses, the Member said:

鈥淭he client sent me a message asking if I could let their DV advisor know that her ex-partner had offered me money to get back with her (which I didn鈥檛 reply to the request and didn鈥檛 take as a serious offering). As I recall I explained by text that it would put me in a difficult situation, I understood if she needed to let them know but I didn鈥檛 want her ex-partner to create any problems for[鈥. I do not recall from memory mentioning that 鈥業 don鈥檛 have [鈥鈥�. She replied saying she felt her [鈥 was at threat and didn鈥檛 want to cause me any problems but needed to say something. I replied with 鈥業 understand鈥�.鈥�

and

鈥淲ith regards to the 拢5000 I鈥檓 fairly sure the sum flippantly offered by message was 拢3000 (the police have the message- it was on an old phone which broke last year) and which I didn鈥檛 make any response to because I felt it a preposterous statement.鈥�

and

鈥淚 did disclose to the client that her ex partner had (not seriously) offered me a sum of money to rekindle the relationship. I did not reply to this. There was no Machiavellian plan between myself and Miss X鈥檚 ex partner.鈥�

51. There would, therefore, appear to be no real dispute about this alleged fact. The Member does not deny this exchange although her memory was of a different amount. The amount, however, appears clear from the text message from Ms X. The Panel was thus satisfied on the evidence that the Member did say[鈥 had offered her 拢5000 if she could convince Ms X to get back with him and found this fact proved.

52. The Panel noted that iii. fell into a different category. 麻豆原创 relied again on the PiPoT Case Record, where it is recorded, 鈥淐ounsellor has also advised client that when her DVPO ends, to keep it running as long as she can to keep him away.鈥� However, in this instance there is no supporting evidence and the Member has denied saying this. In her written response she said that [鈥:

鈥渟tated that I told Miss X to keep the DVPO going as long as possible. This is not the case and if it were, conflicts with the accusation that Miss X felt manipulated by me to get back with her partner. Knowing the close working relationship I had with Miss X I find it hard to believe that she ever felt manipulated by me or felt anything other than me having her best interests as paramount concern.鈥�

53. In light of that denial, the comment鈥檚 inconsistency with the rest of the Member鈥檚 approach to Ms X and [鈥, the lack of any supporting evidence and the fact that the PiPoT Case Record is third hand, the Panel was not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that 麻豆原创 had proved this alleged fact.

54. With regard to vi. the comment 鈥�I Honestly don鈥檛 think he is a threat鈥� is contained within a text sent by the Member to Ms X. There is thus very credible evidence to support this alleged fact and the Member has not denied sending the text. Accordingly, the Panel was satisfied that this fact was proved.

55. Having found i., ii. and iv. proved, the Panel then reverted to the stem of Allegation 2 in order to decide whether the Member acted unprofessionally and/or facilitated a breach of the DVPO, by encouraging Ms X to remain in a relationship with her former partner [鈥, by saying the things found proved in i., ii, and iv.

56. In her written response the Member said:

鈥淎t no point did I encourage Miss X to remain in a relationship with her ex. I believe in client autonomy and was not suggestive - especially in terms of her rekindling her relationship with her ex partner.

57. The Panel has already indicated above that the evidence shows the Member became aware of the DVPO sometime between [鈥 and [鈥. There was no evidence before the Panel to indicate when the comments found proved in i. and ii. were actually made. They are recorded as being disclosures made by the Member to the PiPoT on [鈥, but no actual date is provided for when they were said. The references to going with her 鈥榞ut feeling鈥� and the 拢5000 were said to have been made 鈥�谤别肠别苍迟濒测鈥�, but it was not possible for the Panel to conclude that meant they were made at time when the Member was aware of the DVPO. The other comments about 鈥榖eing no threat鈥�, 鈥榮till loving her and not wanting to hurt her鈥� were said to have been made 鈥�previously鈥� and again the Panel was unable to conclude that meant they were made at time when the Member was aware of the DVPO.

58. The only comment that the Panel could be satisfied was made at a time when the Member was aware of the DVPO was that contained in the text message on [鈥, which followed straight on from Ms X sending the Member a screenshot of the DVPO. The Panel thus had to decide if this comment amounted to the Member encouraging Ms X to remain in a relationship with [鈥 and if so whether that facilitated a breach of the DVPO.

59. The evidence suggested that the DVPO conditions are: 鈥�not to contact client directly or indirectly, not to attend specific addresses. Not to molest client, Not to threaten client or encourage others to do so. Not to intimidate, harass or pester client or encourage others to do so.鈥�

60. The Panel considered that the comment 鈥�I honestly don鈥檛 think he is a threat鈥� could be said to be encouraging Ms X to remain in relationship with [鈥, but was of the view that it was too tenuous to say she was thereby facilitating a breach of the DVPO, that is to say, making it more likely that a breach might occur.

61. However, the Panel did consider that the Member acted unprofessionally in saying those things in i., ii. and iv. The Member was aware that there was a conflict between the parties and that they had separated due to domestic violence. In such circumstances it was clearly unprofessional to make such comments. The Member was acting in a conflict of interest and providing confidential information by passing on comments made by [鈥 to Ms X.

62. The Panel therefore found Allegation 2.1 i., ii. and iv. proved on the basis that the Member acted unprofessionally in saying those things, but not that she had facilitated a breach of the DVPO.

63. Having found these facts proved, the Panel concluded that the Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraphs of 鈥楪ood Practice鈥� 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 - by introducing material and statements from other clients and addressing what might or might not be the other clients鈥� views the Member was not making the individual clients her primary focus and this raised the question of whose interests she was trying to serve.

20 We will fulfil the ethical principles and values set out in this Ethical Framework regardless of whether working online, face-to-face or using any other methods of communication. The technical and practical knowledge may vary according to how services are delivered but all our services will be delivered to at least fundamental professional standards or better - in the Panel鈥檚 view, the Member delivered services that did not meet the fundamental standards required, as detailed above.

21 We will respect our clients鈥� privacy and dignity - things said in the privacy of a counselling session with [鈥 and then repeated in a counselling session with Ms X, meant the privacy of [鈥 was breached.

64. The Panel therefore found Allegation 2.2 proved. As with Allegation 1, the Panel deferred its decision on whether this amounted to professional misconduct (see below).

Allegation 3

3.1 The Member failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries in sessions and electronic communications in that she:

i. Made inappropriate personal disclosures regarding [鈥.

ii. Used over familiar language and kisses (xxx) in electronic communications with Ms X.

65. 麻豆原创 relied on the evidence provided by [鈥 and [鈥 and their exhibits.

66. In her [鈥 notes, [鈥 records:

"Discussed at length the issues of self-disclosure, over sharing personal circumstances, lack of boundaries鈥�.. again the concern is the same as above, because it came from 鈥渃aring鈥� 鈥� I thought it would help鈥� then its ok鈥� I have real concerns over the level of personal disclosure with the client/s involved re personal situation, [鈥, her [鈥, [鈥. Plus the fact that at one point Holly thought that introducing the client to a [鈥 member might help by sharing their experiences. Although it is my understanding that meeting did not happen."

67. In [鈥 statement, when speaking of the referral, the following is stated:

鈥淭he Member shared personal details with the client; the Member said [鈥.

and

鈥淎cceptance of having given personal info [鈥: "The Member said she had done some reflection and learnt a lot, and she acknowledged that it was not a good idea or good practice to discuss her [鈥

68. In her written submissions, the Member said:

鈥淚 did self-disclose to the client [鈥 so I had some understanding of her feelings as she had described [鈥. My intention was transparency and the client responded positively to this. I believe that self-disclosure can be a huge benefit to the counselling process, showing the client that their situation is relatable. Through my own personal counselling in the past with other counsellors, I found self-disclosure very helpful to gain trust with my counsellor knowing they could relate to my own life situations.鈥�

69. The Member also said:

鈥淚鈥檓 unsure where the boundary for 鈥榓ppropriate鈥� and 鈥榠nappropriate鈥� self- disclosure is. I believe the self disclosure was relevant for what the client鈥檚 experience was and she responded warmly to this.鈥�

and
鈥淚 did offer some personal disclosure[鈥

70. It was clear on the evidence, and largely admitted by the Member, that she made disclosures [鈥. The Panel acknowledged that personal disclosures can be helpful in certain circumstances for clients. However, the Member had not provided any information about what the therapeutic purpose was for the self-disclosures. She may have thought it might have been helpful but that is not enough without setting out why she shared these from a therapeutic point of view and stating what the advantage for the client might be. The Member said she thought it would be helpful to gain the client鈥檚 trust by knowing they can relate to her situation. This does not, however, amount to a therapeutic justification, in the Panel鈥檚 view, as the Member did not say how this would help the client. In such circumstances, the Panel concluded that the personal disclosures were inappropriate and represented a failure to maintain appropriate professional boundaries. The Panel therefore found 3.1 i. proved.

71. With regards to 3.1 ii. the Panel was provided with a number of text messages sent by the Member to Ms X in which she used language such as 鈥淚鈥檓 very fond of you both鈥� and 鈥淪ending loads of strength strong lady鈥� and in which she signed of using kisses (xx). The Member has not disputed sending these messages. The Panel considered them to be completely inappropriate. There are many ways for a counsellor to show concern for clients without using over familiar expressions of emotion. This was, in the Panel鈥檚 view, another example of the Member failing to maintain appropriate professional boundaries in her communications with Ms X. The Panel therefore found 3.1.ii. proved.

72. Having found these facts proved, the Panel concluded that the Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraphs of 鈥楪ood Practice鈥� 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 - if the Member had provided appropriate therapeutic reasoning for her disclosures then it could have been said that she was maintaining her focus on the client. She has not done that and so this is just her wanting to share her experiences, which she may have felt were helpful, but there was no evidence to say that they were. The Member was, therefore, taking focus away from the client and onto herself.

73. The Panel therefore found Allegation 3.2 proved.

Allegation 4

4.1 The Member wilfully failed to take issues regarding Ms X and [鈥 to supervision, promptly or at all.

74. 麻豆原创 relied on the evidence provided by [鈥 and her exhibits.

75. In her supervision records [鈥 made the following entries:

鈥測ou told me if a s/vee refuses to work in an ethical manner you would not supervise them, so I made the decision not to bring this to you as you would not have agreed with what I was trying to do鈥� 鈥測ou would have stopped me鈥�

and

鈥淒iscussed at length with s/vee that the failings are not just those in the complaint 鈥� she has breached the ethical framework by NOT bringing any of the issues around the couple work onwards to our sessions. Holly repeated this was because she 鈥渄idn鈥檛 want to implicate me鈥� and 鈥渒new I would not agree to her way of working鈥�.鈥�

76. In her written submissions, the Member said 鈥淭his is correct. I have reflected on this and am regretful that I did not take this to [鈥 at the time.鈥� She added:

鈥淔rom my recollection, speaking months earlier during supervision [鈥 and I had discussed a client bringing in a partner to an individual session. [鈥 had said it would need to be considered carefully with good reason as to why. But if she did not agree with the reason, then the supervisee would need to take this to supervision elsewhere. During my own training, my mandatory counselling had involved bringing my partner to the session (which [鈥 was aware of) which was beneficial to the process. I therefore felt unable to bring the work to supervision as I felt [鈥 would not support my decision but using the information I had at the time and knowledge of the client work, I made the decision to see them both together. I take responsibility for this and strongly regret not taking this to [鈥. I have reflected in detail and would act differently now.鈥�

77. [鈥 evidence was clear and not disputed by the Member, who accepted that she had not mentioned to her supervisor the issues regarding Ms X. It was clear to the Panel that the Member had quite deliberately and wilfully not gone to [鈥 with the issues regarding Ms X as, in her own words, she believed [鈥 would not support her decisions. The Member did not want to implicate [鈥 in her 鈥渨rongdoing鈥� and also she did not want [鈥 to stop her from doing what she was doing. The Panel thus found Allegation 4.1 proved.

78. Having found these facts proved, the Panel concluded that the Member failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraphs of 鈥楪ood Practice鈥� in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018:

53 We will consider carefully in supervision how we work with clients - the Member had clearly not considered her working arrangements with Ms X carefully. Had she done so she would not have not continued or, at the very least, would have raised it with her supervisor.

72 Supervisees have a responsibility to be open and honest in supervision and to draw attention to any significant difficulties or challenges that they may be facing in their work with clients. Supervisors are responsible for providing opportunities for their supervisees to discuss any of their practice-related difficulties without blame or unjustified criticism and, when appropriate, to support their supervisees in taking positive actions to resolve difficulties - the Member had not acted openly and honestly with her supervisor, quite the opposite, she had concealed important information as she knew her supervisor would not have approved her actions.

79. The Panel therefore found Allegation 4.2 proved. As with Allegations 1 and 2 the Panel deferred its decision on whether this amounted to professional misconduct (see below).

Allegation 5

5.1 The Member failed to take appropriate steps to safeguard Ms X, when she knew that a DVPO was in place, by:

i. Failing to notify the appropriate authorities that [鈥 had offered her 拢5000 to persuade Ms X to reconcile with him; and/or
ii. Failing to notify the appropriate authorities that she had disclosed this offer to Ms X.

80. 麻豆原创 relied on the evidence provided by [鈥 and [鈥 and their exhibits.

81. In her written submissions, the Member said that this was not a serious offer and she felt it was flippant and inconsequential. She added:

鈥淢iss X told me by text message that she would inform her domestic abuse people if I didn鈥檛 so I knew they would be informed. I then promptly spoke to the police with regards to this.鈥�

82. The Panel has already indicated that the Member knew there was a DVPO in place sometime between [鈥. It was not entirely clear to the Panel who the 鈥榓ppropriate authorities鈥� might be in this situation, although it appeared to be a reference to the police and certainly Ms X had made reference to making the police aware of the offer of 拢5000.

83. The Panel noted that paragraph 10 of 鈥楪ood Practice鈥� in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018 provides as follows: 鈥淚n exceptional circumstances, the need to safeguard our clients or others from serious harm may require us to override our commitment to making our client鈥檚 wishes and confidentiality our primary concern. We may need to act in ways that will support any investigations or actions necessary to prevent serious harm to our clients or others. In such circumstances, we will do our best to respect the parts of our client鈥檚 wishes or confidences that do not need to be overridden in order to prevent serious harm.鈥�

84. The Member has said that she did not take the offer seriously, although she accepts she told Ms X about it. The Panel had to decide whether she was under a duty to report the fact of the offer and the fact of having disclosed the offer to Ms X, to the police, or other 鈥榓ppropriate authorities鈥�. In accordance with paragraph 10 of the Ethical Framework above, only in exceptional circumstances should a member override their commitment to preserve confidentiality. In the Panel鈥檚 view, the Member was entitled to decide that the offer was frivolous and that there was therefore no need for her to override her obligations of confidentiality and disclose this matter to the police or others. The Panel considered the Member鈥檚 decisions to be within an acceptable range of professional judgment and was not satisfied, therefore, that she was under any duty to disclose the fact of the offer or the fact of having disclosed the offer to Ms X.

85. It followed that if 麻豆原创 had not proved the Member was under a duty to disclose the 拢5000 comment, or having disclosed the comment to Ms X, to the appropriate authorities then there cannot have been a failure to do.

86. Accordingly, 麻豆原创 had not discharged its burden of proof in this instance and the Panel found Allegation 5.1 not proven.

Allegation 6

6.1 The Member failed to maintain client confidentiality by disclosing information regarding [鈥 counselling appointments to Ms X.

87. 麻豆原创 relied on the evidence provided by [鈥 and her exhibits.

88. [鈥 statement made reference to breaches of confidentiality as follows:

鈥淭he Member did not appear to understand the breach of confidentiality of the ex-partner, by informing the client of his whereabouts, which concerned me as she is working in a confidential environment. I questioned her on that, and she said the client advised her ex-partner was [鈥. She said she knew differently and had to tell the client the truth. The Member did not seem to grasp that confidentiality is irrespective of whether something is the truth or not.鈥�

and

鈥淒uring last session, the client told the Member that she had more room to breathe due to the ex-partner being [鈥. The Member responded stating that the ex-partner was actually [鈥, and she was due to see him the following week.鈥�

89. In her written responses, the Member said:

鈥淭he client brought her relationship to the therapy session every week. I was working with the issues she was bringing. I did tell her that her ex-partner was [鈥 and I knew [the] information she was telling me was incorrect.鈥�

and

鈥淚 did disclose to the client that her ex partner had (not seriously) offered me a sum of money to rekindle the relationship.鈥�

90. In a text message from the Member to Ms X on [鈥, the Member disclosed that she had seen [鈥 that evening.

91. On the evidence provided by [鈥, and agreed by the Member, together with the above text message, the Member had on three occasions disclosed information to Ms X about [鈥 counselling appointments. There was no evidence of any therapeutic reason for overriding the duty of confidentiality. The Members view that she had a duty to tell the truth about [鈥 whereabouts when Ms X thought he was [鈥 did not, in the Panel鈥檚 view, amount to exceptional circumstances justifying the need to override a client鈥檚 confidentiality, in accordance with paragraph 10 of the Ethical Framework (referred to above). Accordingly, the Panel found Allegation 6.1 proved.

92. Having found these facts proved, the Panel concluded that the Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraph of 鈥楪ood Practice鈥� in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018:

55 We will protect the confidentiality and privacy of clients by: a) actively protecting information about clients from unauthorised access or disclosure - the Member had clearly failed in this regard with the breaches of confidentiality referred to above.

92. The Panel therefore found Allegation 6.2 proved.

93. The Panel went on to consider whether the Member鈥檚 conduct as found proved in relation to Allegations 1, 2, 4 and 6 amounted to professional misconduct. In accordance with the 麻豆原创鈥檚 PCP, professional misconduct means a failure to meet professional standards that is of sufficient seriousness that a period of suspension of membership or withdrawal of membership of the Association may be warranted. As referenced above, the Panel considered it appropriate to decide this matter in the round as the facts found proved related to one client relationship (that between Ms X and [鈥) and represented a course of interlinked conduct over several months.

94. The Member had acted in a way that represented a conflict of interest when seeing both Ms X and [鈥 when she knew they had separated due to domestic violence. She acted unprofessionally in the way in which she communicated with Ms X and she failed to maintain client confidentiality by disclosing information about [鈥 counselling sessions with Ms X.

95. All of this could potentially have been managed had she done that which she was duty bound to do, namely conferring with her supervisor [鈥. That was the safety net, there to protect both clients and members alike. However, the Member seriously aggravated the situation by wilfully failing to take the issues regarding Ms X and [鈥 to supervision, in the realistic expectation that [鈥 would not have supported her actions. This was behaviour that breached many parts of the Ethical Framework, as detailed above, and fell far below the standard expected of a member of 麻豆原创 and would be considered deplorable by other members of the profession.

96. Whilst not at this stage determining what the sanction in this case might be, the Panel was satisfied that the Members behaviour represented a failure to meet professional standards that is of sufficient seriousness that a period of suspension of membership or withdrawal of membership of the Association may be warranted. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Allegations 1,2, 4 and 6 amount to professional misconduct as defined in the PCP.

97. The Panel therefore finds Allegations 1.3, 2.3, 4.3 and 6.3 proved.

SANCTION

98. The Panel reconvened on [鈥 to consider what sanction it would
have imposed if the Member had been a member of the Association.

99. The Panel reminded itself of the findings it had made, that the allegations
covered a range of concerns and it that it had found that Allegations 1.1, 2.1, 4.1 and 6.1 amounted to Professional Misconduct as defined by 麻豆原创.

100. In light of its findings of Professional Misconduct, the Panel firstly considered
the factors set out in 麻豆原创鈥檚 Indicative Sanctions Guidance that it is to take into account when considering suspension or withdrawal of membership. Having done so, the Panel went on to consider whether any of these factors were present and of sufficient seriousness to warrant suspension or withdrawal of membership. The Panel was not so satisfied.

101. Although the Member is no longer a member of the Association and did not
attend the hearing, the Panel took into account documents provided by the Member which are listed below:

(a) response to the allegations that were before the Panel during the hearing,

(b) email dated [鈥 in which she set out her reflection on her conduct, which was also before the Panel during the hearing

(c) email dated [鈥 in which, having explained her otherwise non engagement before the Panel when it considers sanction, she says:

I fully accept any sanction the 麻豆原创 puts in place and feels is right. I would appreciate the opportunity to be able to make things better whether that be though further training, letters of apology etc but understand whatever sanction. 麻豆原创 decides.

102. The Panel noted that the Member is no longer a member of 麻豆原创 but has indicated that she would like to return to practice and the panel is satisfied that the Member has shown a willingness to work to improve her practice. In these circumstances, the Panel considered it appropriate to put in place a sanction that would enable the Member to provide evidence that she has remediated her conduct and made changes in her practice, should she choose to comply with it.

听

Decision on Sanction

103. The decision of the Panel is to impose the following sanction:

1. Within 4 months of written receipt of this decision, to undertake 16 hours of CPD covering the areas of:

(a) maintaining professional boundaries;

(b) maintaining client confidentiality;

(d) the requirements of the Ethical Framework 2018 that the Panel have found have been breached by the Member.

The Member is to provide evidence of completion of the above CPD.

2. Within 5 months of written receipt of this decision and having undertaken the training outline above, provide an in depth written reflective statement demonstrating specific changes/improvements to her practice that:

(a) demonstrates reflection on what went wrong in this case and that she accepts
responsibility for what went wrong;

(b) demonstrates a deep understanding of the harm that can be caused by failure
to:
(i) observe boundaries;
(ii) use supervision;
(iii) maintain client confidentiality.

(d) explains what she has changed and/or plans to change on her return to practice to prevent a repetition of what went wrong in this case.

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

听