网爆门

August 2025: Paula Smyton, Reference No 00757820, Registrant ID 82625

Allegations

Allegation 1

1.1 On 4 July Year 1, the Member breached professional boundaries in that she:

(a) transferred 拢200, stated to be a loan, into A鈥檚 bank account while A was a client; and/or

(b) made the transfer without the consent or knowledge of A鈥檚 father.

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: 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) and/or 48 (We will avoid any actions that will bring our profession into disrepute).

1.3 Allegations 1.1 (a) and/or (b) amount to professional misconduct as defined in the Professional Conduct Procedure.

Allegation 2

2.1 The Member addressed A as 鈥淟ovely鈥� which was over familiar and/or unprofessional in electronic messages dated:

(a) 19 June Year 1; and/or

(b) 27 June Year 1; and/or

(c) 3 July Year 1; and/or

(d) 10 July Year 1; and/or

(e) 11 July Year 1.

2.1 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: 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).

Preliminary Issue

1. The original complainant is 摆鈥�] the father of the young person (YP) who had received counselling from the Member. In addition to his original complaint with supporting documents, 摆鈥�] provided to 网爆门 a witness statement exhibiting his original complaint and documents in support.

2. The hearing of the complaint had been listed for hearing on 20 and 21 January Year 3 but was ineffective on both dates.

3. 摆鈥�] attended remotely on both 20 and 21 January Year 3.

4. 摆鈥�] was not in attendance on 14 April Year 3.

5. The Case Presenter made an application for paragraph 9 of 摆鈥�] witness statement to be admitted as hearsay evidence.

6. The Case Presenter accepted that parts of paragraph 9 provided the sole evidence in support of matters surrounding the payment of 拢200 by the Member to YP and that 摆鈥�] set out in that paragraph what YP had told him what they said the Member had told them. The Case Presenter made submissions on the factors set out in the case of Thorneycroft v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2014] EWHC 1565 (Admin) and applied these to the facts of this case. He invited the Panel to conclude that the provisions of paragraph 4.9 of 网爆门鈥檚 Professional Conduct Procedure (PCP) were satisfied and that the disputed parts of paragraph 9 should be admitted as hearsay evidence.

7. The application was opposed on behalf of the Member. Counsel for the Member drew the Panel鈥檚 attention to the relevant parts of his skeleton argument and submitted that, applying the Thorneycroft factors to the circumstances of this case, it would not be fair to admit those parts of paragraph 9 that were sought to be admitted.

8. The Clerk provided legal advice setting out:
(a) paragraph 4.9 of the PCP,
(b) the factors in paragraph 56 of Thorneycroft,
(c) that it was only if the material in dispute was admitted that the issue of what weight to attach to it arose.

9. The Panel retired to make its decision.

10. The Panel applied the factors in Thorneycroft:

(1) whether the material in dispute was the sole or decisive evidence;

The view of the Panel was that parts of paragraph 9 provided 网爆门鈥檚 sole evidence in support of what 摆鈥�] said YP had told him about what the Member had said to them regarding the payment of money to them.

This factor mitigated against admitting the disputed parts of paragraph 9.

(2) the nature and extent of the challenge to the contents of the material in dispute;

In her written documents the Member accepted that she had given YP the 拢200 and the Panel had before it screen shots of this transfer, but in her written documents the Member provided an explanation for this transfer that differed significantly from the disputed parts of 摆鈥�] paragraph 9. In addition, only the Member was in attendance to give evidence about the circumstances surrounding the transfer of the 拢200.

This factor mitigated against admitting the disputed parts of paragraph 9.

(3) whether there was any suggestion that 摆鈥�] had reasons to fabricate his evidence;

The Case Presenter submitted that 摆鈥�] may have had his own agenda about the issues the Member said YP raised with her. The view of the Panel was that it had no way of knowing whether this was in fact true and therefore did not consider this factor assisted it in the circumstances of this case.

(4) the seriousness of the Allegations, taking into account the impact that adverse findings might have on the Member鈥檚 career;

The view of the Panel was that all criticisms of a Member鈥檚 professional practice may have an adverse impact on their career. In this case, there was an Allegation of Professional Misconduct as defined in the PCP which, if found proved would, in the Panel鈥檚 view, be likely to have an adverse impact on the Member鈥檚 career.

This factor mitigated against admitting the disputed parts of paragraph 9.

(5) whether there was a good reason for the non-attendance of 摆鈥�];

The Panel was informed by the Case Presenter that after the ineffective January hearing dates 网爆门 had proposed to 摆鈥�] a number of dates but that these dates were at times when 摆鈥�] . The Panel was further informed by the Case Presenter that on other dates that were subsequently proposed to 摆鈥�] .

This factor mitigated against admitting the disputed parts of paragraph 9.

(6) whether 网爆门 had taken reasonable steps to secure 摆鈥�] attendance;

The view of the Panel was, in light of the steps outlined under (5) above, 网爆门 had taken reasonable steps to secure 摆鈥�] attendance.

This factor was to be taken to support admitting the disputed parts of paragraph 9.

(7) whether the Member had prior notice that 摆鈥�] was not attending the hearing.

The Member was aware before the hearing that 摆鈥�] would not be attending. The view of the Panel is that this is a neutral factor in the exercise of its discretion.

Decision on Preliminary Issue

11. Weighting each of the factors considered above and applying them to the provisions of paragraph 4.9 of the PCP, the decision of the Panel was that the material sought to be admitted was relevant to the matters it had to resolve, but that it would not be fair to admit it.

摆鈥�]

Background and Summary of Evidence

13. YP attended counselling with the Member through their school.

14. An issue that YP brought to their sessions with the Member was that they were transgender.

15. It was not in dispute that the Member transferred the sum of 拢200 to a bank account that YP had. On screen shots evidencing the transfer of the money was the word 鈥榣oan鈥�.

16. The Member had provided 网爆门 with the email correspondence between her and YP in which she had called YP 鈥榣ovely鈥�.

The hearing

17. The Member gave evidence under affirmation and answered questions put to her by the Case Presenter and one from the Panel.

18. The Member gave evidence of her history of working with young people and her experience in safeguarding.

19. The Member was emotional at times while giving her evidence.

20. The Member described YP鈥檚 case as unique. YP had two parents. 摆鈥�].

21. The Member described her role as supporting YP being transgender. She did not judge YP.

22. Although in the transfer it states it is a loan, there was no expectation that it would be paid back.

23. There were 3 weeks left of school. YP had no money to buy clothes. The Member accepted that giving money to YP was not the norm, that it was unusual. She gave YP the money as she feared YP may 摆鈥�] and wanted to motivate YP to want 摆鈥�].

24. The Member鈥檚 evidence was that she did not require the consent or agreement of YP鈥檚 father to transfer the money to YP as YP was a young adult, they were 16, a few weeks off being 17; they had autonomy.

25. The Member accepted that she had used the word 鈥榣ovely鈥� in emails when addressing YP. The Member explained that it is a generic word, it is a gender-neutral word and by using it she avoided any misuse of pronouns.

26. The clerk provided legal advice. The advice covered the burden and standard of proof on factual Allegations 1.1 and 2.1, that whether standards were breached as alleged in Allegations 1.2 and 2.2 was a matter for the Panel鈥檚 judgement, as was whether any finding of Allegation 1.1 (a) and or 1.1 (b) amounted to professional misconduct, ie amounted to 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.

Decision and Reasons for Findings

Allegation 1.1 (a)

On 4 July Year 1, the Member breached professional boundaries in that she:

(a) transferred 拢200, stated to be a loan, into A鈥檚 bank account while A was a client

Found PROVED.

The stem of this charge includes the phrase 鈥榖reached professional boundaries鈥�. In order, therefore, to find this Allegation proved the Panel would be required to find a breach of either paragraph 33(a) and/or 48 of the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018 (the EF) as alleged in Allegation 1.2.

The Panel finds that by providing YP with 拢200 the Member had breached paragraph 33(a) of the EF. The view of the Panel is that the aim of a counsellor in working with clients is to work with the client to help them manage their mental and emotional turmoil, in order to better equip them for life鈥檚 challenges. In giving YP 拢200 the panel accepted that the Member believed she was assisting YP. However, in the Panel鈥檚 view, the Member breached a boundary; rather than equipping YP to deal with challenges they faced, she was attempting to eliminate them, thus stepping outside the remit of acting as YP鈥檚 counsellor
The Panel is further of the view that as YP was 16 the Member was required to be particularly boundaried, to not act as the parent YP 摆鈥�], but to remain in her professional role as the counsellor.

Allegation 1.1 (b)

On 4 July Year 1, the Member breached professional boundaries in that she:

(b) made the transfer without the consent or knowledge of A鈥檚 father.

Found NOT proved.

The Panel accepts the Member鈥檚 position; although the Panel is critical of the Member鈥檚 conduct, as YP was 16, the Member did not require the consent or knowledge of YP鈥檚 father to act as she did.

Allegation 1.2 and 1.3 for Allegation 1.1 (b)

As the Panel did not find Allegation 1.1 (b) proved, it did not have to go on to consider Allegations 1.2 and 1.3 in relation to it.

Allegation 1.2, paragraph 33(a) for 1.1 (a)

Found PROVED.

See under 1.1 (a) above.

Allegation 1.2, paragraph 48 for 1.1 (a)

Paragraph 48 of the EF provides: We will avoid any actions that will bring our profession into disrepute.

Found NOT proved.

Whilst the Panel finds a breach of paragraph 33(a) of the EF, in the Panel鈥檚 view, the Member鈥檚 conduct was a failure of professional judgment that is not sufficiently serious to amount to a breach of paragraph 48 of the EF; it does not bring the profession into disrepute.

Allegation 1.3 in relation to Allegation1.1 (a)

The Panel had not found a breach of paragraph 48 of the EF. It did not consider that the Member鈥檚 conduct was so serious that it amounted to Professional Misconduct.

Allegations 2.1 (a) to (e)

Found NOT proved in its entirety.

The stem of this charge includes the words 鈥榦ver familiar and/or unprofessional鈥� In order, therefore, to find any part(s) of Allegation proved the Panel would be required to find the word 鈥榣ovely鈥� to be either over familiar and/or unprofessional.

The Panel accepts that the word 鈥榣ovely鈥� was not inappropriate where used in a school context by an adult towards a younger person and that it is gender-neutral. The Panel is not, therefore, critical of the Member鈥檚 use of this word when addressing YP and did not find it to be over familiar or unprofessional.

Allegation 2.2

As the Panel did not find Allegation 2.1 proved, it did not have to go on to consider Allegation 2.2.

Findings and reasons on Sanction

The Panel reconvened on 23 June Year 3 to determine the appropriate sanction (if any) to impose on the Member in the light of its findings above.
The decision on sanction is a matter for this Panel exercising its own judgement. In reaching its decision, the Panel has had regard to the Member's written evidence and submissions and has taken account of Protocol 14 of the PCP, which sets out the factors to be taken into account when deciding on sanction, and the Indicative Sanctions Guidance.

Paragraph 5.12 of the PCP states that the Panel may impose one or more of the following sanctions where a case is allocated to the Disciplinary Proceedings Track and one or more of the allegations is found proved:

i. A requirement to send a written apology to a relevant recipient of therapeutic services provided by the Member (whether or not that recipient is the Complainant) by a specific date;
ii. A requirement to demonstrate specific change/improvement in practice by a specific date;
iii. A requirement to undertake specific training by a specific date;
iv. Suspension of membership, for a specified period not exceeding 18 months, or
until specified conditions have been met;
v. Withdrawal of membership.

The Panel has borne in mind that the purpose of a sanction is not to be punitive, although it may have a punitive effect, but to protect members of the public and to safeguard the public interest by improving practice. Throughout its deliberations, the Panel applied the principle of proportionality, balancing the Member鈥檚 interests with the public interest.

Submissions

The Member has provided a two page submission on sanction dated 12 May Year 3 in which she states in summary that:

鈥� She fully accepts the panel鈥檚 finding that she breached professional boundaries by providing financial support to Client A.

鈥� She has fully cooperated with the 网爆门 and has submitted extensive documentation including detailed personal reflections, session notes, professional references and testimonials from clients and colleagues.

鈥� She has been open and transparent from the outset and did not deny providing financial support to Client A. Her primary concern was not to conceal her actions, but to advocate for her client鈥檚 right to confidentiality and to protect her emotional and ethical safety. At the time, she held a genuine belief that Client A was at imminent risk of serious harm, but she understands that altruistic intent does not override the importance of maintaining clear professional boundaries.

鈥� Her career has been dedicated to supporting vulnerable individuals and she has worked with integrity and commitment in emotionally and systemically complex environments. She has remained focused on promoting the wellbeing, autonomy, and dignity of clients.

鈥� She has previously undertaken extensive continuing professional development across a wide range of areas, including trauma-informed practice, safeguarding, systemic approaches to mental health, and ethical decision-making.

鈥� Since this incident, she has taken active steps to ensure robust application of counsellor-client boundaries and has changed supervisors, choosing someone with significant expertise in ethical safeguarding and professional boundary management.

鈥� She plans to engage in personal therapy to support her understanding and recovery of the events in this matter.

鈥� She is undertaking additional training in ethics, risk frameworks, and professional containment to deepen her insight and embed reflective safeguards into her ongoing practice.

鈥� She now accepts that in attempting to take sole responsibility for wider systemic failures, she breached her role as a therapist and should have sought multidisciplinary support.

鈥� In light of her acceptance of the panel鈥檚 findings, her professional experience and commitment to vulnerable clients, and the proactive steps she has taken to strengthen her practice, she invites the panel to consider a minimum sanction.

Decision on Sanction

The Panel considered the submissions on sanction from the Member together with her reflections before the panel at the hearing and the testimonials provided.

The Panel has taken into account the evidence received during the earlier stages of the hearing where relevant to reaching a decision on sanction. It bore in mind that it did not find that the Member鈥檚 conduct in respect of the allegation found proved amounted to professional misconduct.
The Panel noted that the Member has cooperated with the investigation and now accepts that her desire to help a vulnerable client led her to breach professional boundaries. It acknowledged that this was a single incident in a long career of working with vulnerable clients and young people. It took into account the steps she has taken, and intends to take, since this incident, including changing her supervisor, engaging in personal therapy and undertaking additional training. The Panel acknowledged that she is taking proactive steps to improve her practice. It considered that the Member鈥檚 submissions demonstrate that she has reflected on the reasons for her conduct in this case and what she would do differently in the future.

The Panel considered therefore that the Member is unlikely to behave in a similar way in the future and the risk to the public is low. It also considered that as she has fully accepted the Panel鈥檚 findings, which will be published, it is not necessary to impose a sanction for the purposes of maintaining public confidence in the counselling profession.

The Panel determined therefore, in the particular circumstances of this case, not to impose any sanction on the Member.

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