The Charge

The Director of Proceedings laid a charge against Ms Keriata Paterson (the Psychologist) alleging professional misconduct in that she commenced an intimate and/or sexual relationship with one of her former clients (the Patient). 

Finding

The Psychologist pleaded guilty to the charge of professional misconduct.  The Tribunal considered the facts of this case to be serious and found the Psychologist guilty of professional misconduct.

Background

From 23 January 2006, the Psychologist was contracted by the Department of Corrections (Corrections) to work as a private practitioner.  This was to provide assessment of and treatment to offenders at the Pariora Probation Office

The Patient was a long term client of the Corrections.  He had a long history of criminal offending and was described as a “high risk, serious violent offender”.  In 2006 he was serving a term of imprisonment.

Between October and December 2006, the Patient attended, a community residential centre, offering community based residential therapeutic programmes aimed at rehabilitation, and in assisting long term violent offenders.  The Patient’s wife had died in October, at the start of the programme, and the Psychologist was contracted by Corrections to provide grief counselling to the Patient. Their first session occurred on 3 November 2006.

On 15 December 2006, the Patient was released on parole with a condition that he live at an address approved by his Parole Officer.  At that time, the Psychologist accepted an offer from Corrections to provide ongoing psychological services of a general nature to the Patient. Sessions occurred on 21 December 2006, 5 January 2007 and 17 January 2007. 

During their last session, they talked about being attracted to each other.  The Psychologist informed the Patient that this was inappropriate in terms of her ethical obligations.  On 24 January 2007, the Psychologist reported to the Principal Psychologist, at the Corrections Hamilton Psychologists Office, (the Principal Psychologist) that she was attracted to the Patient and that he had indicated similar feelings toward her.  She was told not to see the Patient again, either professionally or personally, and to make immediate appointments with her supervisor, so that a management plan could be formulated to enable the issues to be addressed.

The Psychologist was inconsistent in attending sessions with her supervisor.  The supervisor reported her concerns to the Principal Psychologist.  On 14 February 2007, the Psychologist had not conducted any appointments with Corrections Service clients for two or three weeks, without explanation, and it had not been confirmed that contact with the Patient had ended.  Her contract with Corrections was subsequently terminated.

From 20 March 2007, there was a sexual relationship between the Psychologist and the Patient.  On 30 April 2007, a friend of the Psychologist’s telephoned the Patient’s Probation Officer and told her that the Patient was living with the Psychologist and that she was very worried about the Psychologist’s safety.  As the Patient was not living at his approved address, a breach of parole was then actioned.  The Patient was arrested and held in custody pending a recall hearing.

The Psychologist, despite indicating she wanted to get out of the relationship, supported the Patient during the recall hearing.  She also filed an affidavit for the purposes of that proceeding in which she confirmed that a relationship had developed.  After the Patient was released on parole in July 2007, their relationship continued.

By July 2007 an investigation by the HDC had commenced.  The Psychologist told HDC investigators that the Patient had not lived in her house but he did stay overnight at times and he kept his personal effects there.

On 21 January 2008 the Psychologist reported domestic violence to the police.  This resulted in an assault conviction against the Patient in April 2008.  The Court was told the parties had been in a relationship for a year. Following a report of domestic violence against the Psychologist by the Patient, the Family Court issued a protection order against him on 9 June 2008. 

Reasons for Finding

The Tribunal was completely satisfied that:

• there was a professional relationship between the Psychologist and the Patient between November 2006 and January 2007.
• immediately after the Psychologist’s disclosure of the mutual attraction, appropriate responses were given by the Psychologist’s colleagues as to what steps needed to be taken.  The Psychologist did not implement any of these sensible steps.
• on 5 February 2009 an intimate relationship commenced and by 20 March 2007 there was a sexual relationship.
• the parties lived together, intermittently, for more than a year.
• there was domestic violence in the relationship, which resulted in criminal proceedings and the obtaining of a domestic protection order.
• the Psychologist did not tell the truth to the Principal Psychologist and the HDC investigators, when they became aware of the matter.

The Tribunal was satisfied there was unethical conduct and neglect of professional duties amounting to malpractice and that conduct of this nature is such as to bring harm to the reputation of the Psychologists’ profession.  The Tribunal considered that the conduct was sufficiently serious to warrant discipline for the purpose of protecting the public, maintaining professional standards and punishing the practitioner.

Penalty

The Tribunal considered that although the Psychologist was vulnerable at the time of the relationship that this was not a mitigating factor as she had an express responsibility under the Code of Ethics to address her own health issues and she did not do this.  The Tribunal did not consider that the domestic violence could be seen as a mitigating factor either as on the evidence the domestic violence occurred after the relationship commenced.  It could not be used as an excuse for the relationship having commenced.  The Tribunal concluded that the Psychologist lacked insight.

The Tribunal concluded that harm had been done to the Patient in that:

• the Psychologist’s conduct contributed to his recall to prison.
• the relationship was one of psychologist/client, with the client being vulnerable.
• once the relationship was allowed to develop, his controlling behaviour was able to be maintained, and appeared to have escalated.

The Tribunal concluded that the public interest required that the Psychologist’s registration be cancelled.  The Tribunal also censured her.  The Tribunal made it very clear indeed that conduct of this kind was completely unacceptable.

The Psychologist was ordered to pay 50% of the costs in respect to the costs incurred by the HDC and prosecution by the Director of Proceedings; and 50% of costs incurred by the Tribunal.  

The Tribunal further ordered that a summary of the Tribunal’s decision be published in the “Journal”, the “Shrink Wrap” bulletin of the New Zealand College of Clinical Psychologists, “The Bulletin” and/or “Connections” of the New Zealand Psychological Society and the New Zealand Psychologists Board’s 2009 annual report.  A copy was also ordered to be published on the Tribunal’s website.