VCAT found
The respondent engaged in professional misconduct within the meaning of the definition in paragraphs (a) and (c) of s 5 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (National Law) in that, from on or around the period 1 August 2017 to 2 February 2018,
- she transgressed the professional boundaries that should and ordinarily do exist between a psychologist and her patient and/or former patient in that she engaged in an inappropriate dual relationship including a personal and intimate relationship with her patient and/or former patient Mr XY. (Allegation 1)
- The respondent engaged in professional misconduct within the meaning of the definition in paragraph (a) of s 5 of the National Law in that between August 2017 and September 2017, and during the course of her of psychological treatment with Mr XY, the respondent provided treatment that was not evidence based and was not clinically justified when she touched parts of Mr XY’s body. (Allegation 2)
An outcome - with the agreement of the Psychology Board and the practitioner - is that under the National Law the practitioner is disqualified from applying for registration as a registered health practitioner for a period of two years and is prohibited from providing (whether as employee, contractor, manager or volunteer, and whether directly or indirectly) any health service involving the provision of mental health, psychological or counselling services for a period of two years.
- The respondent engaged in professional misconduct within the meaning of the definition in paragraph (a) of s 5 of the National Law in that on or around November 2017 and December 2017, she failed to maintain Mr XY’s privacy and confidentiality and/or transgressed professional boundaries that should and ordinarily do exist between a psychologist and her patient and/or former patient, when she discussed Mr XY with her husband, including the prospect of Mr XY returning to therapy with her and by encouraging Mr XY to pursue a relationship with her husband. (Allegation 3)
VCAT's overview states
Ms Sheridan Leanda Meulblok was a registered psychologist from August 2000, when she was first registered, until December 2018, when she did not renew her registration and it lapsed.
This case is about Ms Meulblok’s professional conduct between August 2017 and February 2018 in relation to a patient, Mr XY, and the consequences of that conduct.
It concerns an inappropriate relationship Ms Meulblok pursued with Mr XY, including personal and intimate communications and physical contact; persisting with contact after he had asked her to stop; breaches of his privacy; and a failure to safeguard his well-being. It is about the risk of serious harm posed by a psychologist who fails to recognise or acknowledge that professional boundaries are being blurred and then crossed; fails to seek timely supervision; and puts his or her own emotional or other needs above the patient’s care and well-being. The risk is well-known and in this case was realised. The conduct caused serious and significant harm to Mr XY. These are professional disciplinary proceedings under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (National Law). The Psychology Board of Australia (Board) has referred three allegations to the Tribunal:
Allegation 1: between 1 August 2017 to 2 February 2018, Ms Meulblok transgressed the professional boundaries that should and ordinarily do exist between a psychologist and her patient or former patient by engaging in an inappropriate dual relationship including a personal and intimate relationship with a patient/former patient;
Allegation 2: between 1 August 2017 and September 2017, during the course of her psychological treatment, she provided treatment that was not evidence-based and was not clinically justified when she touched parts of Mr XY’s body (the so-called ‘energy medicine’ therapy); and
Allegation 3: in November and December 2017 she failed to maintain Mr XY’s privacy and confidentiality and transgressed professional boundaries when she discussed Mr XY with her husband, including the prospect of Mr XY returning to therapy with her, and encouraged Mr XY to pursue a friendship with her husband.
Soon after receiving notice of the complaint, Ms Meulblok took full responsibility for her conduct. She expressed shame and regret for the damage it has caused to Mr XY, her family and her profession. She cooperated with conditions imposed by the Board’s Immediate Action Committee (IAC) in April 2018. In late 2018, she decided to cease practice as a psychologist and not renew her registration. She does not intend to return to practice in the future.
Ms Meulblok admits the three allegations, including that she acted in breach of:
- the Australian Psychological Society’s Code of Ethics (Code) and the associated guidelines including the:
- Australian Psychological Society’s Guidelines for managing professional boundaries and multiple relationships (version with effect from March 2016);
- Australian Psychological Society’s Ethical Guidelines on the prohibition of sexual activity with clients (version with effect from February 2017);
- Australian Psychological Society’s Ethical Guidelines on confidentiality (version with effect from December 2017); and
- Australian Psychological Society’s Ethical Guidelines relating to procedures/assessments that involve psychologist-client physical contact (version with effect from October 2016).
On the basis of Ms Meulblok’s admissions, the agreed facts supported by the evidence in the Tribunal Book, and the expert report of Dr Christopher Lennings, we found the allegations proved and made those findings at the hearing. We found that the conduct in allegation 1 is appropriately characterised as professional misconduct under paragraphs (a) and (c) of the definition in s 5 of the National Law, and the conduct in Allegations 2 and 3 are professional misconduct under paragraph (a) of the definition. ...
Ms Meulblok had no prior disciplinary history over an 18-year career as a psychologist and had a local reputation as a well-regarded psychologist with notable success in treating eating disorders.
This case illustrates that a failure to step back in time from crossing professional boundaries, reflect and modify one’s conduct, raise the issues and their solution in formal supervision, and appropriately transfer the patient’s care, can end a career.In dealing with 'energy medicine' VCAT states
[4.8] During the treatment sessions, the notifier referred to chronic pain in his neck, shoulders and jaw. In response, in or around August 2017, Ms Meulblok introduced the concept of ‘energy medicine’ treatment during a session. She suggested that childhood trauma might be the cause of this pain and ‘energy medicine’ may be able to release the trauma and relieve the pain.
[4.9] The ‘energy medicine’ consisted of Ms Meulblok sitting on the couch next to the notifier and placing her hands on parts of his body that were experiencing pain. Ms Meulblok practiced the ‘energy medicine’ by: (a) on 14 August 2017, by placing her hand on his shoulder for approximately 20 seconds; (b) on 22 September 2017, by placing her hands on his back, shoulder, chest and jaw.
[4.10] The notifier was under the impression that the ‘energy medicine’ practice was a proper approach and well-founded.
[4.11] Ms Meulblok knew that there was no evidence base for the ‘energy medicine’ described above and it had no clinical justification.
[4.12] In the circumstances, there was no appropriate rationale or purpose for the physical contact and any consent obtained was not informed consent. The physical contact was not documented, nor was any rationale, purpose or consent obtained.
[4.13] At the time of the physical contact, Ms Meulblok had developed affection for, and attraction to, the notifier. Ms Meulblok knew that the physical contact increased the likelihood of sexualisation of the therapeutic relationship.At [62] VCAT states
Counsel for the Board provided a table of decisions of this Tribunal in the last 10 years involving personal, intimate or sexual boundary breaches by psychologists, to illustrate the range of facts and circumstances that have come before the Tribunal, and the consequential orders made. The cases show that loss of the right to practise, whether by suspension or disqualification, will be almost inevitable, and that the orders made will depend very much on the particular circumstances of the case.That table is a useful resource for health law students.
