±«ÓãÊÓƵ

April 2025: Rachael Turner , Reference No 00571143 , Registrant ID 23199

A Professional Conduct Panel consisting of […] met in person at the […] on […] to consider a complaint made by […] (the Complainant) against Rachael Turner (the Member).

The Complainant attended and was supported by Professional Supporter […].

The Member attended and was represented by […] of counsel and supported by […]

Also in attendance were […], Clerk to the Panel, and […] and […] of ±«ÓãÊÓƵ

The Complainant concerned an alleged failure to comply with professional standards and resulted in the Investigation and Assessment Committee formulating the following Allegation:

Allegation

1.1 When communicating with the Complainant whilst they were in the therapeutic relationship, the Member:
(a) liked and/or followed the Complainant on social media and/or
(b) supported and/or encouraged the Complainant to attend the same church as she attended and/or
(c) used a professional electronic account on one or more occasions to communicate with the Complainant about the Complainant attending the same church as she (the Member) attended and/or
(d) included a red heart shaped emoji on one or more occasions in an electronic message to the Complainant.

1.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with paragraphs 33 a. and/or 33 b. and/or 33 c. of ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018 which state:

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
b. any dual or multiple relationships will be avoided where the risks of harm to the client outweigh any benefits to the client
c. reasonable care is taken to separate and maintain a distinction between our personal and professional presence on social media where this could result in harmful dual relationships with clients.

Ìý

Summary of Evidence

The evidence disclosed concerns about the Member’s failure to maintain personal and professional boundaries in her relationship with the Complainant, specifically in the Member’s use of social media, including heart shaped emojis in electronic messages she sent to the Complainant and in supporting the Complainant to attend the same church.

The hearing

At the hearing the parties proposed to resolve the complaint by Consensual Resolution.

The Panel took into account paragraph 5.8 d. of BACP’s Professional Conduct Procedure that provides:

d. The Panel will consider any agreed proposal for resolution referred to it by the
parties and may decide to resolve the complaint on the basis proposed, unless the
Panel considers that the proposed resolution is contrary to the public interest.

The proposal was that, on the Member admitting the Allegation as drafted, the complaint would be resolved by the imposition of the following sanction:

1. Within 2 months of receipt of this decision report the Member is to provide evidence to ±«ÓãÊÓƵthat she has undertaken 6 hours of CPD in total on:
(a) maintenance of professional boundaries;
(b) use of social media.

2. Within 3 months of receipt of this decision report the Member is to provide to ±«ÓãÊÓƵa reflective statement:

i addressing her failure to maintain personal and professional boundaries in her relationship with the Complainant
ii acknowledging the harm done to the Complainant
iii setting out the changes she has made or will make to her practice in order to avoid a repetition of what went wrong in this case
iv stating her learning from the CPD she has undertaken pursuant to this sanction and
v confirming that she has discussed the content of the statement with her supervisor.

3. Within 3 months of receipt of this decision report the Member is to provide to ±«ÓãÊÓƵa sincere and genuine letter of apology to the Complainant acknowledging what went wrong in this case and the impact on the Complainant.

The Panel was satisfied that the proposed sanction was proportionate and that it was in the public interest to resolve the complaint in the way proposed.

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

Ìý