Sordid claims against Gold Coast psychologist knocked by judge, Ombudsman restrictions overturned

A judge has labelled scandalous claims that a psychologist encouraged his sexual trauma patient to join a kink community and send him nude photos as “improbable”, despite his clinical notes commenting on her breast size.

A judge has labelled scandalous claims that a Gold Coast psychologist encouraged his sexual trauma patient to join a kink community and send him nude photos as “improbable”, despite the psychologist’s clinical notes commenting on her breast size and text messages apologising for “blurry” boundaries. Generic image.

A judge has labelled scandalous claims that a Gold Coast psychologist encouraged his sexual trauma patient to join a kink community and send him nude photos as “improbable”, despite the psychologist’s clinical notes commenting on her breast size and text messages apologising for “blurry” boundaries.

A Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) has ruled this week to dismiss practising restrictions imposed by the Queensland Health Ombudsman against an experienced Gold Coast psychologist.

The Queensland Health Ombudsman prohibited the man – referred to in documents simply as ‘YBCG’ – from having contact with female patients after two female patients raised concerns about his conduct, several months apart.

The allegations, labelled as “improbable” by Judge Geraldine Dann, included that the psychologist had arranged to have an affair with a complex sexual trauma patient referred to as ‘Patient B’.

Patient B claims the psychologist had suggested she join BDSM and kink community Fetlife, persuaded her to send him nude photos of herself, and had “cuddled” with her during sessions.

She said he later messaged her via Fetlife and persuaded her to record and upload audio erotica to Pornbub.

The woman also claimed that when she had texted the psychologist about having overwhelming suicidal thoughts, he responded by “instructing” her to “go and masturbate and think about him”.

On another occasion, she claimed he advised her to self harm and tell her GP she was suicidal in order to get a referral.

After the allegations were first raised, the Ombudsman found that the practitioner posed a “serious risk to persons” and that it was “necessary to take immediate registration action to protect public health and safety”.

Judge Dann noted in her judgement, delivered on Tuesday, that the Ombudsman had not had access at the time of their decision to the accused psychologist’s clinical records, an affidavit from the psychologist, and expert opinion from another psychologist concerning both patients involved.

This expert had found that Patient B’s complaint was “unconvincing” and that her claims of sexual impropriety could not be relied upon.

Court documents reveal how Patient B was treated by the psychologist for over two years, in which time she claims he engaged in sexualised and flirtatious behaviour towards her.

“He made it clear to me he had to wait two years to date me but he wasn’t going to wait that long,” she claimed.

“We agreed he would wait three months after my final therapist session to begin the affair.”

The woman had also said the psychologist also advised her to download the messaging app ‘Telegram’ and send him messages.

The psychologist denies flirting with Patient B or encouraging any kind of sexual relationship with her.

He told the Tribunal that the woman had told him in a session that she was attracted to him, but that he had made it clear that was inappropriate.

The psychologist said he had been “shocked” to receive a text message from the woman saying “she really wanted to kiss him”.

He said he called her in anger to say the message was inappropriate, but that he had also said if she “insisted” on sending personal messages, she should send them through Telegram as he was concerned his wife or children would see texts.

According to the court documents, some of his session notes with Patient B included “big breasted – DD at aged 12. Double J” – which he said had been volunteered by the woman during a discussion about back pain.

Messages between the two following their final session revealed how Patient B had formed a “strong emotional connection” – for which the psychologist apologised to her.

“I will always be your friend and my door is always open if you need any further therapy again,” he wrote to her.

“ … I realise the boundaries were blurry and the messages were mixed.”

The expert said there was no evidence to support the woman’s claims that the psychologist had been flirtatious or suggested a sexual relationship with Patient B.

“There is evidence of poor maintenance of boundaries in the therapeutic exchange, poor choices of therapeutic approach, use of some techniques that posed a risk of increasing emotional distress and potentially evoked false memories of childhood abuse,” the expert noted.

The psychologist acknowledged before the Tribunal that he was out of his therapeutic depth in treating Patient B and that it was unwise to have kept treating her after learning of her attraction.

But he argued that the material in full did not support the contention he was a “manipulative sexual predator” or that he posed serious risk.

He submitted he had simply been lax in his note taking and failed to recognise his limitations in treating “particularly complex patients”.

The psychologist’s second accuser, referred to as ‘Patient A’ alleged he had discouraged her from reconciling with her husband and said she would be “better off finding a no strings attached sexual relationship with a married man”.

Patient A claimed that at her next appointment he asked if she would like to “come to that sort of arrangement with him” – and that she quickly said no.

The psychologist denies having said that or propositioning the woman in that way.

Patient A further claimed the psychologist had complimented her appearance on multiple occasions, “making her feel weird”, and telling her words to the effect that she had a “great body”.

She said he had complained about his own wife and children and discussed his marital problems with her.

The psychologist said he may have complimented the woman but couldn’t recall doing so, and similarly that he does sometimes share personal information in the context of therapy.

But he denied saying he and his wife were experiencing marital problems, saying “it is not something I would say to a patient”.

He said he had suspected Patient A may have been attracted to him because she had told him she was attracted to an intelligent man that she couldn’t approach – and that he had simply clarified that issue with her.

The expert had said the Patient A’s lack of exaggeration placed greater credibility on her accusation that the psychologist behaved in a way that “at a minimum, blurred boundaries and possibly more”.

But she ultimately could not tell from the documents, however, whether the psychologist had definitively behaved in an inappropriate manner.

Court documents reveal the psychologist’s notes did not include any reference to Patient A saying she was attracted to a particular person, and that he had made no notes at all for three recorded sessions with her.

The psychologist submitted that he had since taken steps to address his issues with note taking and recognising his limitations as a psychologist, to the extent that the Tribunal could now be satisfied he didn’t pose any serious risk.

The Ombudsman submitted that if Patient A’s complaint was accepted as credible, that alone showed that the psychologist posed a serious risk.

They argued he lacked the “ability or willingness to comply with his ethical and professional responsibilities to refrain from engaging in inappropriately intimate or sexually charged communications with patients”.

The Ombudsman further argued that his dealings with Patient B reflected a competency issue in dealing with clinically difficult patients.

Judge Dann concluded she was ultimately “not sufficiently inclined” towards Patient A’s account of her interactions with the psychologist to “form a reasonable belief” that he posed a serious risk.

She took into account some inconsistencies in the appointment notes written by Patient A’s GP compared with her later verbal account of interactions with the psychologist.

Judge Dann was satisfied the psychologist had erred in his lack of detail in reports to the woman’s GP, and the lack of explanation in his notes to justify the clinical rationale for paying compliments.

She further noted it was unlikely the psychologist would have made the note about Patient B’s breast size if it had been in the context she had alleged.

She said Patient B’s account of events was “improbable” and “internally inconsistent”.

“The Tribunal does not reasonably believe that the practitioner encouraged Patient B to seek a personal and sexual relationship with him, despite her significant past trauma and particular vulnerability,” Judge Dann said.

She said she was not persuaded that the psychologist had acted in a way that constituted “serious risk”.

“He has shown comprehension that his practice was inadequate and some insight as to where he went wrong in this case,” she stated.

As such, Judge Dann ordered that the Ombudsman’s restriction on the psychologist be set aside.

The psychologist will be permitted to treat female patients once again as a result.

Originally published as Sordid claims against Gold Coast psychologist knocked by judge, Ombudsman restrictions overturned