网爆门

April 2025: Angela Wicke, Reference No 00745864, Registrant ID 252356

Allegations

Allegation 1

1.1 The Member failed to respect the Complainant鈥檚 wishes, stated in electronic messages dated 7 and 11 April Year 3, not to meet and/or to terminate the therapeutic relationship.

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 鈥楪ood Practice鈥� in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018: 12 (We will do everything we can to develop and protect our clients鈥� trust) and/or 29 (Our work with clients will be based on professional partnerships with them that aim to increase their wellbeing, capability and/or performance) and/or 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).

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

Allegation 2

2.1 The Member failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries between herself and the Complainant in that she:

a) suggested social meetings which were not related to therapy; and/or

b) brought her grandson to a meeting with the Complainant; and/or

c) sent an electronic message saying 鈥淟OL!!! I鈥檓 getting in the bath too!鈥�; and/or

d) inappropriately shared information regarding her personal circumstances; and/or

e) suggested that the Complainant should crochet her a hat in lieu of payment for sessions; and/or

f) sat inappropriately close to the Complainant during therapeutic sessions.

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 鈥楪ood Practice鈥� in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018: 12 (We will do everything we can to develop and protect our clients鈥� trust) 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 and/or b) any dual or multiple relationships will be avoided where the risks of harm to the client outweigh any benefits to the client) and/or 35 (We will not exploit or abuse our clients in any way: financially, emotionally, physically, sexually or spiritually) and/or 48 (We will avoid any actions that will bring our profession into disrepute).

2.3 Allegations 2.1 a), b), c), d), e) and/or f) amount to professional misconduct as defined in the Professional Conduct Procedure.

Allegation 3

3.1 The Member failed to focus on the Complainant in that she replied to electronic messages and/or answered a telephone call during therapeutic sessions.

3.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular 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).

Allegation 4

4.1 The Member failed to maintain her own psychological health to a level where she was able to provide an effective service to the Complainant.

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: 18 (We will maintain our own physical and psychological health at a level that enables us to work effectively with our clients).

Documents and Evidence before the Panel

In coming to its decision the Panel carefully considered the following:
鈥� The Association鈥檚 Case Papers, which included the complaint made by [鈥�] (the Complainant) together with her witness statement dated 18 August Year 4 and 6 exhibits
鈥� The Member鈥檚 Case Papers, which included the Member鈥檚 written response to 网爆门 dated 16 November Year 3, her reflection dated 8 January Year 5, numerous positive and supporting testimonials and electronic correspondence between her and the Complainant
鈥� The 网爆门 Professional Conduct Procedure 2018
鈥� The Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018

and took into account the following:
鈥� The allegations made
鈥� The written evidence
鈥� What weight to attach to the evidence
鈥� Whether the allegations should be upheld

听

Background and Summary of Evidence

1. The Complainant states in her witness statement that she saw the Member on a weekly basis from October Year 1 until April Year 3 and that the sessions were in person at the Member鈥檚 house.

2. The Complainant informs that the Member showed her on Google maps where she used to live in [鈥�], told her about her previous marriages and talked a lot about her children.

3. The Complainant has provided a copy of an electronic message sent to her from the Member in which the Member asked her to crochet her a hat 鈥榯o cover two counselling sessions鈥�.

4. The Complainant says that the Member often invaded her personal space without asking her permission, that the Member would sit right beside her on a very small sofa without checking if she was fine with this. The Member would come over and show her matters, such as one day the Member put her book on the Complainant鈥檚 lap that she was referring to and also that if the Complainant was showing the Member something on her phone the Member would just come up and sit next to her and take her phone. The Complainant explains that she has a lot of issues surrounding personal space, men and being taken advantage of and that the Member knew that this was part of the reason she came to therapy.

5. On interruptions during sessions the Complainant says:

Many times, the Member's phone went off and she has responded to messages during our sessions. It is hard to recall specific examples. I do remember one occasion, when our session had overrun. The Member's laptop was out in the session and her laptop started ringing. It was her next client; the client was trying to call her as her session was meant to have started. She answered it and said: "can you give me a minute" and hurried me out of the door. She was always overloaded with clients, she did not give any time between sessions. The Member also respond to a text message on her phone. I think this was with the same client as the client also rang her on her mobile phone as well.

I can recall another time when the Member messaged a friend or family member during a session. The Member is [鈥�], so it may have been someone in [鈥�]. I believe it was regarding a topic that we were talking about; it was not based on therapy but it was either to do with a family member or friend.

6. On her attempts to end the therapeutic relationship the Complainant says:

By April Year 3, I had not seen the Member for approximately eight or nine weeks at this time. The Member and I were both unwell a lot. The Member also had a lot going on and we did not see each other. At this point, I felt our sessions had not really been helping, and it seemed to me that we were just meeting up to chat. I therefore texted the Member on 7 April Year 3 and informed her that I did not want to continue sessions. The Member's response was: 鈥淚鈥檓 sorry, so sorry you鈥檝e felt like this - abandoned - to be honest, I鈥檝e been so very unwell. And my [鈥�] has had a [鈥�] occurring and I guess I鈥檝e been having to take their calls. I am very able to see you now however. And have missed you. Even if you haven鈥檛 felt different, it鈥檚 good to have me in your life鈥�. The latter part of the message, 鈥渋t鈥檚 good to have me in your life鈥�, is an odd thing to say and concerned me. It made me feel on edge. It is not the Member's place to say whether she鈥檚 a positive addition to my life. I also felt very dismissed. I did not want to see the Member again after that.

Three days later, on 10 April Year 3, the Member sent me a text message again to ask how I was. I explained that I was not doing great and was struggling most days. She asked if I wanted to meet up and I responded the next day, stating that I did not really want to. The Member replied: 鈥淢aybe a walk together? With your doggie? I don鈥檛 get out enough! Maybe at an [鈥�] place? Have a coffee or tea together? Or play bird monopoly or teach me to crochet? Maybe you鈥檙e right, maybe it鈥檚 okay to take a break from formal counselling? I enjoy your presence, and would enjoy doing things with you鈥�. I agreed to meet for a walk with my dog as I did not feel comfortable returning to her house as this is where sessions were held and the Member did not want to have a session, she wanted to spend time with me. The Member told me that liked spending time with me. In addition, the context of the Member's messages is very first-person centred; it is very much about the Member, such as when she used the term 鈥淚 don鈥檛 get out enough!鈥�, and my needs as a client felt missed.

I thought that meeting up with the Member for a walk would put an end to it all, therefore, the next day, on 12 April Year 3, we met for a walk. When I saw the Member pull up for the walk, I saw two people in her car. Her [鈥�] got out of the car with her. The Member told me a lot in sessions about the problems with [鈥�] and that her [鈥�] was living with her because of a [鈥�]. The Member's [鈥�] went off on his own and then we circled back and met up with him. The Member said we have the same type of [鈥�] and share the same personality type. The Member is very into personalities. It was very uncomfortable, and I did not expect her to bring her [鈥�] along. I found that to be quite strange behaviour for a therapist.

Furthermore, during the walk, the Member asked me briefly how I had been and then spent the rest of the hour we were together talking about herself and the issues that had been going on for her [鈥�].

When I returned home that day, I sent the Member a picture of my dog in the bath and she responded with, 鈥淟OL!!! I鈥檓 getting in the bath too!鈥�. 鈥�.. I do not think I responded to her as the message felt very invasive. I do not think it is acceptable for a therapist to tell their client that they are getting in the bath.

I have not seen the Member since our walk together. On 26 May Year 3 the Member sent me a message on WhatsApp which said: 鈥淗i [鈥�] Might you have time for a wee dog walk or to come over soon? I got a letter requesting I provide some information, but I鈥檇 rather chat with you than do it by myself. Would that be okay?鈥�. The message made me feel panicked and overwhelmed. The letter in question was from [鈥�] services asking the Member for details regarding [鈥�] I reported two years prior and about the psychological affect it has had on me. However, I do not think it is appropriate to ask the client to help fill in such a form when it is the therapist鈥檚 duty to do this. I informed the Member that she could respond without speaking to me.

I got reassurance from my [鈥�] and responded to the Member with: 鈥淟et me have a think and I鈥檒l get back to you鈥�. The Member replied: 鈥淥kay. Also I鈥檇 like to say, I am sorry I talked so much last time about myself. I think I meant to just give you a little context about why my schedule is so different and why I may have seemed distracted. But I won鈥檛 do that again when we meet. Always thinking of you, and hoping you鈥檙e not too bad at the moment. How are you?鈥�. I do appreciate the apology in regard to the Member talking so much about herself. However, I find the Member's message quite presumptuous by stating: 鈥淚 won鈥檛 do that again when we meet鈥�, even though I had tried to end therapy with her previously, clearly signifying I was not comfortable or happy with our relationship as therapist-client. In addition, the Member stating that she was "always thinking" of me overstepped boundaries.

Admissions

7. At the Commencement of the hearing the Member was asked by the Panel whether she made any admissions. The Member admitted all of the allegations as drafted, including the breaches of the Ethical Framework 2018 (the EF) as alleged and Professional Misconduct as alleged.

The hearing

8. 网爆门鈥檚 Case Presenter informed the Panel that, in light of:
(a) the Member鈥檚 admissions,
(b) the vulnerability of the Complainant,
(c) that the Complainant did not wish to give evidence unless she had to,
that the Complainant had been de-warned the Case Presenter invited the Panel to find all of 网爆门鈥檚 case found proved based on the Member鈥檚 admissions that she had made at the hearing and her acceptance of the case against her in correspondence with 网爆门 before the hearing.

9. The Panel took note that, prior the Case Presenter informing it that he had de-warned the Complainant, it had not been informed in the hearing that the Complainant was considered by 网爆门 to be vulnerable nor had any request been made for special measures or adjustments to be put in place to support the Complainant and enable her to give evidence.

10. The Panel heard the submissions of the Case Presenter that the Panel should find the allegations proved as the Member had made admissions in the hearing, that these admissions were consistent with the evidence and that the Member had accepted the allegations before the hearing.

11. The Case Presenter stated it would not be helpful to have full evidence from the Complainant and that putting the Complainant through further questions would not be conducive to her mental health.

12. The Case Presenter stated it would be perverse if the Panel did not find the case proved on the Member鈥檚 admissions.

13. The Case Presenter proceeded to take the Panel through the written evidence of the Complainant and how this fitted with the factual allegations as drafted. The Case Presenter referred to the Member鈥檚 written submissions in which she put her actions into context.

14. The Case Presenter further submitted that the breaches of the Ethical Framework 2018 (EF) as alleged were clearly met and that the Panel would need strong reasons to depart from the Member鈥檚 admissions to these breaches.

15. The Member informed the Panel that she was happy that the Complainant was not giving evidence and thanked the Case Presenter for sending her home.

16. The Clerk provided her legal advice that there was no provision in 网爆门鈥檚 Professional Conduct Procedure (PCP) that a Panel should announce matters proved based on admissions made by a Member.

17. The Panel retired to make its decision.

Allegations 1.1, 2.1, 3.1 and 4.1 each found proved on the balance of probabilities

18. The decision of the Panel was that it accepted the legal advice of the Clerk and that it found allegations 1.2, 2.1, 3.1 and 4.1 proved on the balance of probabilities, not solely on the admissions made by the Member (though it took those into account), but after having carefully considering all of the evidence before it.

Alleged breaches of the Ethical Framework 2018: 1.2, 2.2, 3.2 and 4.2 and allegations of Professional Misconduct: 1.3 and 2.3

19. The further decision of the Panel was that, having accepted the legal advice of the Clerk, it did not find the breaches of the EF as set out in allegations 1.2, 2.2, 3.2 and 4.2 or the allegations of Professional Misconduct as set out in allegations 1.3 and 2.3 found proved on the Member鈥檚 admissions. The view of the Panel was that these were matters for it to determine based on its assessment of the evidence and its assessment of the seriousness of the Member鈥檚 conduct.

20. In light of its decision on alleged breaches of the EF and allegations of Professional Misconduct, the Panel heard further submissions from the Case Presenter on how the written evidence of the Complainant supported findings of all matters alleged in 1.2, 1.3, 2.2, 2.3, 3.2 and 4.2.

21. The Member informed the Panel she had no submissions to make on 1.2, 1.3, 2.2, 2.3, 3.2 or 4.2.

22. The Case Presenter and the Clerk agreed that there was a burden of proof on 网爆门 to prove matters in 1.2, 1.3, 2.2, 2.3, 3.2 and 4.2 and that the standard of proof was the balance of probabilities.

23. The Panel retired to make their decisions on 1.2, 1.3, 2.2, 2.3, 3.2 and 4.2.

24. The following morning the Clerk informed the Panel and the parties that she wished to amend the legal advice she had provided the previous day about the standard of proof for 1.2, 1.3, 2.2, 2.3, 3.2 and 4.2.

25. The clerk鈥檚 amended legal advice was that paragraphs 5.3 (a) and (b) of the PCP should be read together so that in a Disciplinary Proceedings Track hearing, as this was, allegations of fact, in this case 1.1, 2.1, 3.1 and 4.1, the burden is on 网爆门 to prove each fact on the balance of probabilities. The Clerk continued that paragraph 5.3 c. of the PCP should be read separately from paragraphs a. and b. and requires the Panel to consider whether the facts found proved amount to breaches of professional standards as alleged in 1.2, 2.2, 3.2 and 4.2 or amount to Professional Misconduct as alleged in 1.3 and 2.3, but that it does not require the Panel to be so satisfied on the balance of probabilities.

26. The Panel heard the submissions of the Case Presenter that:
(a) all the matters alleged were all allegations and that it would be a fundamental misreading of paragraph 5.3 to interpret it as advised by the Clerk,
(b) if the advice of the Clerk was correct, it would be open to the Panel to find other allegations of Professional Misconduct by adding allegations of Professional Misconduct to 3.1 and 4.1 where none had been drafted and that this would be perverse and unfair on the Member,
(c) that it would be unfair not to find the breaches of the EF and Professional Misconduct as alleged,
(d) that the public would be horrified if the Panel did not find the breaches of the EF and Professional Misconduct as alleged,
(e) that the Panel would be overriding its duty to look at the evidence if it did not find the breaches of the EF and Professional Misconduct as alleged,
(f) that the Panel would not be fulfilling its duty if it did not find the breaches of the EF and Professional Misconduct as alleged,
(g) that the Panel would be diminishing public respect if it did not find the breaches of the EF and Professional Misconduct as alleged.

27. The Panel retired to consider the Case Presenter鈥檚 submissions and the legal advice of the Clerk and to reach its determination on 1.2, 1.3, 2.2, 2.3, 3.2 and 4.2 in light of the decision it reached on how to interpret paragraph 5.3 of the PCP.

28. The Panel returned and announced its decision on its interpretation of paragraph 5.3 of the PCP. The decision of the Panel was that it accepted the legal advice of the Clerk that paragraphs 5.3 a. and b. of the PCP provide that the Panel has to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that allegations of a factual nature are proved but that paragraph 5.3 c. does not require the Panel to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities to make its decisions on alleged breaches of the EF or allegations of Professional Misconduct. The view of the Panel was that it was fulfilling its duty by considering and assessing the evidence in support of breaches of the EF and allegations of Professional Misconduct in order to determine whether 1.2, 1.3, 2.2, 2.3, 3.2 or 4.2 were made out and that by conducting itself in this way the public would have confidence in the decisions made by the Panel.

29. The Panel heard further submissions from the Case Presenter on how the evidence supported each alleged breach of the EF and allegation of Professional Misconduct.

30. The Panel retired to make its decision on the breaches of the EF as alleged and allegations of Professional Misconduct.

Allegation 1.2, found proved solely for paragraph 33 a.

31. The Panel identifies the core concern in Allegation 1.1 as the failure by the Member to respect the wishes of the Complainant as she expressed it in her two messages; the Panel considers these messages to be an expression by the Complainant of her wish to put in place a boundary between her and the Member but that the Member failed to accept this. This failure is aggravated by the Member鈥檚 knowledge that one of the reasons the Complainant came to therapy was that she was being taken advantage of. In these circumstances, the Panel finds that the Member has breached paragraph 33a of the EF: (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.)

32. The Panel finds that neither paragraphs 12 or 29 of the EF capture the core concern it has identified in 1.1 so finds these paragraphs of the EF not proved.

Allegation 1.3 found not proved

33. Although the Panel is critical of the Member, it considers that her conduct as found in 1.1 was not sufficiently serious to amount to Professional Misconduct as defined in the PCP.

Allegation 2.2, found proved solely for paragraph 33 a.

34. The Panel noted that particulars (a) to (f) range from matters that took place inside the Member鈥檚 home, (d) and (f), to electronic messages, (a), (c) and (e), and matters which occurred away from the Member's home, (a), (b) and (d). The Panel is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence of a failure by the Member to maintain professional boundaries during the therapeutic relationship to find that the Member had breached paragraph 33a of the EF: (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.)

35. Whilst the Panel had found that the Member had breached professional boundaries by the conduct alleged in allegation 2.1, it was not satisfied on the evidence before it from the parties that a dual or multiple relationship had come into being between them during the currency of the therapeutic relationship and hence does not find a breach of paragraph 33b of the EF.

36. In addition, the Panel finds that neither paragraph 12 or 35 of the EF capture the Member鈥檚 conduct as identified by the Panel, that of breach of boundaries.

Allegation 2.2 in relation to paragraph 48 and Allegation 2.3

37. Although the Panel is critical of the Member it considers that her conduct as found in 2.1 was not sufficiently serious to amount to a breach of paragraph 48 of the EF or amount to Professional Misconduct as defined in the PCP.

Allegation 3.2 found proved

38. The Member鈥檚 commitment to the Complainant is that she will focus solely on the Complainant throughout each session. Allegation 3.1 is that the Member failed to do this; in these circumstances the Panel finds the Member had breached paragraph 7 of the EF: (We will make each client the primary focus of our attention and our work during our sessions together.)

Allegation 4.2 found proved

39. The Panel has found that the Member failed to maintain her own psychological health to a level where she was able to provide an effective service to the Complainant. It follows, therefore, that the Panel finds the Member had breached paragraph 18 of the EF: (We will maintain our own physical and psychological health at a level that enables us to work effectively with our clients.)

Sanction

40. On the first day of the hearing, after handing down its determination on facts, the Panel had raised with the Member whether, if she was to be informed of its findings, if any, on breaches of the EF and Professional Misconduct, she would like to make oral submissions to the Panel about sanction rather than waiting to receive the Panel鈥檚 written determination and then make any written submissions to 网爆门. The Member鈥檚 response was that she would like to make oral submissions.

41. After receiving the Panel鈥檚 oral determination on breaches of the EF and Professional Misconduct the Member confirmed her position and addressed the Panel on sanction.

42. The Member informed the Panel of the large number of CPD she had undertaken since the Complainant鈥檚 complaint and outlined changes she had made to her practice, to the supervision she received and steps she had taken to support her psychological health.

43. The Panel retired to consider what sanction, if any, to impose.

Decision of the Panel on Sanction

44.The decision of the Panel was to impose the following sanction:

(1) Within 4 months of receipt of the Panel鈥檚 written determination in this case, the Member is to provide to 网爆门 a genuine and sincere letter of apology addressed to the Complainant addressing:
(a) what went wrong in this case,
(b) acknowledging the harm caused to the Complainant by her actions.

(2) Within 3 months of receipt of the Panel鈥檚 written determination in this case, the Member is to undertake 16 hours of CPD and provide to 网爆门 evidence of the learning/training she has undertaken on:
(a) the importance of creating and maintaining professional boundaries within counselling
(b) the importance of self-care as a counsellor,
(c) the Ethical Framework 2018.

(3) Within 4 months of receipt of the Panel鈥檚 written determination in this case, the Member is to set out in a reflective statement the changes she had made to her practice to avoid a repetition of what went wrong in this case, and addressing:
(a) the enhanced supervision she receives and how this supports her practice,
(b) the maintenance of professional boundaries, including time boundaries at the end of sessions and at the end of therapy
(c) changes to the terms on which she provides her services including as to contact with clients between sessions and the time and methods of payment by clients
(d) how she maintains and proposes to maintain her psychological health
(e) her learning from the CPD she has undertaken
(f) the impact of her conduct on 网爆门 and the wider counselling professions.

The Member is asked confirm to 网爆门 that she has discussed with her supervisor her letter of apology and her reflection.

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

听