1. In relation to allegations 1, 2, 5 and 6, Dr White is found to have behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct within the meaning of (a) in the definition of that term in the Health Practitioner National Law (National Law).
2. In relation to allegations 3 and 4, Dr White is found to have behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct within the meaning of (b) in the definition of that term in the National Law.

1. Dr White is reprimanded under s 196(2) of the National Law.
2. Dr White's registration is suspended for 12 months from the date of this order, under s 196(2)(d) of the National Law.
3. The conditions set out below are imposed on Dr White's registration, under section 196(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the National Law. These conditions commence to apply after the completion of the period of suspension.

ORDERS UNDER THE OPEN COURTS ACT 2013

The following orders, made on 25 July 2019, under s.17 of the Open Courts Act 2013 remain in force:

1. The disclosure by publication or otherwise of any report of the whole or any part of this proceeding, or of any information derived from this proceeding, which identifies or has the effect of identifying the client, witnesses or notifiers is prohibited.
2. This order applies throughout Australia. The Tribunal's reasons for decisions are published on the AustLII website, which is accessible throughout Australia. The privacy of the people referred to in order 1 would be breached if persons living outside Victoria know or come to know their identity.
3. This order operates until the death of all of the client, witnesses and notifiers.

The following conditions are imposed under order 3 above under the National Law:

1. The Practitioner must undertake and successfully complete a program of education, approved by the Psychology Board of Australia (the Board)/AHPRA and including a reflective practice report, in relation to:
   • (a) preventing boundary violations (early recognition of transference, counter-transference and power dynamics in therapeutic relationships and developing strategies to avoid boundary violations particularly as it manifests when treating people with personality disorders) (topic 1);
   • (b) maintaining adequate clinical records in accordance with ethical and professional standards (topic 2);
   • (c) undertaking adequate and appropriate risk assessments on clients (topic 3);
   • (d) provision of evidenced based care in the treatment of personality disorders (topic 4).
2. Within twenty-eight (28) days of the notice of the imposition of these conditions, the Practitioner must make a nomination to undertake either one on one education or a formal education course (the education) as follows:

On the approved form (HPN24), nominate for approval by the Board/AHPRA an education course, assessment or program (the education) addressing the topics required. The Practitioner must ensure:

(a) The nomination includes a copy of the curriculum of the education.

(b) The education contains a formal assessment component.

(a) nominate a person(s) to be approved by the Board/AHPRA to act as educator, and

(b) provide acknowledgement that AHPRA will obtain a report from the approved educator at the conclusion of the education.

The Practitioner must ensure that the nomination of an educator is accompanied by acknowledgement, on the approved form (HPNA11), from the nominated educator and by an education plan outlining the form the education will take and how the topics of the education will be addressed.

1. The Practitioner must complete the education within six (6) months of the notice of the Board/AHPRA's approval of the education.
2. Within fourteen (14) days of the completion of the education, the Practitioner is to provide:
   • (a) Evidence of successful completion of the education.
   • (b) A report demonstrating, to the satisfaction of the Board, that the Practitioner has reflected on the issues that gave rise to this condition requiring they undertake education and how the Practitioner has incorporated the lessons learnt in the education into the Practitioner's practice.

1. The Practitioner must be supervised by another registered psychologist in relation to:
   • (a) preventing boundary violations (early recognition of transference, counter-transference and power dynamics in therapeutic relationships and developing strategies to avoid boundary violations particularly as it manifests when treating people with personality disorders) (topic 1);
   • (b) maintaining adequate clinical records in accordance with ethical and professional standards (topic 2);
   • (c) undertaking adequate and appropriate risk assessments on clients (topic 3);
   • (d) provision of evidenced based care in the treatment of personality disorders (topic 4).

For the purposes of this condition, 'supervision' is defined as a professional relationship in which a skilled registered practitioner (the approved supervisor) helps to guide the professional development of another registered practitioner (the Practitioner) to integrate professional knowledge and skills into demonstrated competencies that meet the accepted standard of performance outlined in the Board adopted code of ethics.

1. The supervision must be in person (that is, not by telephone, or other electronic means) and must occur on a weekly basis for a minimum of twenty-four (24) months with each session being of one (1) hour duration. The supervision must continue until these conditions are removed by the Board.
2. Within twenty-one (21) days of the notice of the imposition of these conditions, the Practitioner must:
   • (a) Provide to the Board acknowledgement, on the approved form (HP13), that reports will be sought from the supervisor(s) approved by the Board and what those reports must contain.
   • (b) Nominate to the Board, on the approved form (HPNE13), the names of three suitability skilled registered psychologists to be considered for approval as supervisors.
   • (c) Ensure the nominated supervisors meet all the requirements on the approved form and hold endorsement in Clinical Psychology.
   • (d) Ensure the nomination is accompanied by acknowledgement of the nominated supervisors on the approved form (HPNAE13) and by the information and documentation required on the form.
3. Within fourteen (14) days of being advised of the supervisor approved by the Board the Practitioner is to:
   • (a) commence supervision with the Board approved supervisor, and
   • (b) provide to the Board, on the approved form (HPSP13), a supervision plan signed by the approved supervisor. The supervision plan must include the schedule, format and details of how supervision will address the matters set out in condition 7.
4. The Practitioner is to ensure reports are provided to the Board or AHPRA as follows:
   • (a) every month from the date of approval of the supervisor by the Board;
   • (b) at the conclusion of the minimum period of supervision prescribed in the conditions on the Practitioner's registration;
   • (c) at any later time that the Practitioner requests the Board to consider reviewing the supervision condition;
   • (d) whenever the supervisor has a concern or becomes aware of a concern regarding the Practitioner's conduct or professional performance; and
   • (e) when requested either verbally or in writing by AHPRA or the Board.
5. The Practitioner is to ensure reports provided in accordance with this condition include:
   • (a) the format, date, time and length of each supervision session that has occurred since the previous report;
   • (b) the supervisor's opinion as to whether the Practitioner has satisfactorily participated in and understood the focus of the supervision; and
   • (c) the Practitioner's own reflections on the supervision (unless the report is for the purpose of the approved supervisor raising concerns about the Practitioner).
6. The Practitioner is to continue with supervision until such time as the Board advises in writing that it is satisfied the reports demonstrate the Practitioner has reflected on and addressed the issues that gave rise to the supervision condition and how the Practitioner has incorporated the lessons learnt in the supervision.
7. In the event the supervisor is no longer willing or able to provide the supervision required, the Practitioner is to provide a new nomination to the Board in the same terms as previous nominations. Such nomination must be made by the Practitioner within twenty-one (21) days of becoming aware of the termination of the supervision relationship.
8. The Practitioner is not entitled to claim the hours spent with the supervisor or the time spent preparing reports for the Board in compliance with this condition as part of the Continuing Professional Development requirements for registration.
9. Within twenty-one (21) days notice of the imposition of these conditions the Practitioner must provide to AHPRA, on the approved form (HPC), the contact details of a senior person, such as the Director of Medical Services, Director of Nursing, Senior Practice Manager, Senior Manager, Senior Partner, Proprietor, Owner, or equivalent (the senior person) at each current place of practice. In providing this form, the practitioner acknowledges that:
   • (a) AHPRA will contact the senior person and provide them with a copy of the conditions on the Practitioner's registration or confirm that the senior person has received a copy of the conditions from the Practitioner, and
   • (b) The Practitioner will be required to provide the same form:
     1. within seven days of the commencement of practice at each and every subsequent place of practice, and
     2. within seven days of each and every notice of any subsequent alteration of these conditions.
10. All costs associated with compliance with the conditions on their registration are at the Practitioner's own expense.

1. One of the lessons arising from this case is the danger for health professionals in using informal means to communicate with their clients. In this case, text messaging. This can lead practitioners more easily down the road towards breaching their ethical obligations, and to the blurring of boundaries between professional and personal conduct.
2. This proceeding concerns a psychologist who allowed a professional relationship with a client to develop into a platonic social friendship, without ensuring that her client /friend was sufficiently protected from the foreseeable intermediate and prospective collateral impacts of that transition. Associated with this were inadequacies in client care in relation to record-keeping, risk assessments and continuity of client care.
3. Dr White is a psychologist who has held registration since 2003. From 1 August 2017 to 3 February 2018, she provided psychological treatment to a female client (Client) who was vulnerable, and had serious mental health issues.
4. On 3 February 2018, Dr White ceased the therapeutic relationship, and a non-professional friendship ensued.
5. On 15 March 2018 the Psychology Board of Australia (Board) received a confidential notification suggesting that boundary transgressions had occurred, associated with this friendship. Dr White was cooperative with the investigation. She provided four detailed responses to various series of questions put by the Board.
6. She obtained from Telstra copies of the various text messages she had exchanged with her Client during the period 7 July 2017 - 1 January 2018, 13 - 14 February 2018, and 30 March 2018 - mid May 2018 (approximately). Texts sent during the intermediate periods were not able to be obtained. There is no suggestion of Dr White having done anything to prevent the retrieval of these missing texts.
7. On 4 March 2019, after an investigation, six allegations of professional misconduct were brought by the Board against Dr White under the Health Practitioner National Law (National Law)[1] arising out of the relationship between Dr White and her Client.
8. Dr White accepts she is guilty of professional misconduct in each case. The parties provided the Tribunal with an Agreed Summary of Facts, Findings and Determinations (the Agreed Summary).
9. The parties are agreed as to all applicable facts, as well as the findings and determinations which they urge the Tribunal to make, save for one aspect. That concerns the question of which category of professional misconduct applies to allegations 1 and 6. At the hearing, it was suggested on behalf of the Board that Dr White should be found to have engaged in professional misconduct within the meaning of sub-clause (c) of the definition of that term in the National Law (conduct inconsistent with the practitioner being a fit and proper person to hold registration). On behalf of Dr White on the other hand, it was submitted that the conduct should be characterised as professional misconduct within the meaning in subclause (a) of that definition (conduct below the standard expected for that practitioner).
10. On 14 June 2018, an Immediate Action Committee of the Board accepted an undertaking from Dr White not to practise, under s 156 (1) of the National Law. That undertaking remains in effect.
11. The six allegations are set out in the Appendix to this decision. In summary, they relate to the following:
    • Allegation 1 - Inappropriate communication outside scheduled sessions, and establishing a personal relationship with her Client (between 3 September 2017 and 3 February 2018).
    • Allegation 2 - Crossing professional boundaries, and not acting in her Client's best interests by telling her that she (Dr White) had previously been the subject of a complaint in relation to boundary violations (on 6 January 2018).
    • Allegation 3 - Failing to record in her clinical file conversations with other professionals involved in the treatment of her Client, thus prejudicing the Client's best interests in the event that her clinical file was relied upon by others in the future (between 29 August 2017 and 3 February 2018).
    • Allegation 4 - Failing to make adequate assessments of the risks faced by her Client, in particular, in two situations. First, where her Client had ceased taking lithium without informing her medical practitioners, and was self-medicating with certain different medications she had access to by other means. Second, where her Client advised her she had been in hospital (between 1 August 2017 and 3 February 2018).
    • Allegation 5 - Failing to make reasonable arrangements for the continuity of psychological services for her Client after the professional relationship explicitly ended, and the personal relationship commenced (after 3 February 2018).
    • Allegation 6 - Engaging in a personal relationship with her Client, without adequate consideration of her welfare, and whether an equal relationship could be established (after 3 February 2018).

Agreed Summary of Facts, Findings and Determinations

1. The parties jointly submit this agreed statement of facts, findings and determinations for the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal)'s consideration.
2. The parties also agree that the Tribunal should have regard to the documents filed by the Board in this proceeding for further context.

1. Dr Melissa White has held registration as a registered psychologist (registration number PSY0001124096) since 17 November 2003. She remains registered albeit currently subject to an undertaking not to practice.
2. On 19 December 2014, conditions were imposed on Dr White's registration due to a finding of unprofessional conduct pursuant to section 191(1)(b)(ii) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Victoria) Act 2009 (National Law) by a Performance and Professional Standards Panel (PPSP). The conduct involved Dr White crossing professional boundaries on multiple occasions with a client in December 2012 and January 2013.
3. The conditions imposed by the PPSP on Dr White's registration required a period of supervision in relation to, amongst other things:
   • (a) clarity regarding professional boundaries; and
   • (b) awareness of the challenges associated with treating patients with borderline personality disorder.
4. On 12 September 2016, the Board decided to remove the conditions from Dr White's registration.

1. On 15 March 2018, AHPRA received a confidential notification about Dr White in relation to possible boundary transgressions involving a former patient [the Patient].
2. On 29 March 2018, the Board determined to investigate Dr White under section 160(1) of the National Law.
3. On 24 April 2018, AHPRA informed Dr White of the notification and investigation into her conduct.
4. On 14 June 2018, Immediate Action Committee of the Psychology Board of Australia accepted an undertaking from Dr White not to practice pursuant to s 156(1) of the _National La_w.

1. On 15 June 2017, Dr White received a referral letter from [referring doctor] indicating that [the Client] had suicidal ideations, had made three previous suicide attempts and had a history of alcohol addiction, suicidal thoughts and manic depressive illness.
2. Between 1 August 2017 and 3 February 2018, Dr White provided psychological treatment to [the Client].
3. On 1 August 2017, [the Client] undertook her first therapeutic session with Dr White. In this session she revealed trauma history, including [a number of highly traumatic events, well beyond the ordinary, the details of which have been removed for the purposes of this decision].
4. On 11 August 2017, [the Client] had her second session with Dr White.
5. On 29 August 2017, [the Client] informed Dr White by email that she had ceased taking Lithium without informing her treating medical practitioners and was self-medicating with [certain other] medications.
6. Dr White did not inform any of [the Client's] treating medical practitioners of the email of 29 August 2017.
7. The email of 29 August 2017 was not recorded in [the Client's] clinical file by Dr White.
8. Between 3 September 2017 and 3 February 2018, Dr White and [the Client] communicated via text messages outside of scheduled therapeutic sessions and outside of business hours. These communications occurred on the following occasions:
   • (a) On 3 September 2017, Dr White sent [the Client] text messages outside of working hours. The purpose of the text messages were to schedule a consultation.
   • (b) On 27 November 2017, Dr White and [the Client] exchanged text messages outside of working hours.
   • (c) On 2 December 2017, [the Client] sent a photo to Dr White via text message outside of working hours.
   • (d) On 4 December 2017, Dr White sent [the Client] a text message outside of working hours apologising that she had not responded to [the Client's] message on the weekend.
   • (e) On 5 December 2017, [the Client] sent a poem to Dr White via text message outside of working hours.
   • (f) On 15 December 2017, Dr White sent a photo of her and her partner to [the Client] via text message outside of working hours.
   • (g) On 25 December 2017, [the Client] sent a poem to Dr White via text message outside of working hours.
   • (h) On 26 December 2017, [the Client] sent a photo to Dr White via text message outside of working hours.
   • (i) On 1 January 2018, [the Client] sent a poem to Dr White via text message.
9. Between 7 November 2017 and 3 February 2018, Dr White and [the Client] exchanged text messages that were inappropriate in content. These text messages occurred on the following occasions:
   • (a) On 7 November 2017, Dr White and [the Client] exchanged text messages following a missed appointment which included familiar terminology and emojis. [The Client] advised that she had recently been in hospital.
   • (b) On 13 November 2017, [the Client] sent photos to Dr White, including a 'selfie', following their session earlier that day.
   • (c) On 18 November 2017, Dr White sent multiple text messages to [the Client] which contained compliments and overly familiar language.
   • (d) On 1 December 2017, [the Client] sent a YouTube clip and a thank you message to Dr White.
   • (e) On 2 December 2017, [the Client] sent a photo to Dr White.
   • (f) On 5 December 2017, [the Client] Dr White a poem about the stages of the lifecycle.
   • (g) On 15 December 2017, Dr White and [the Client] exchanged text messages about an upcoming appointment with an expectation of chocolate which included emojis.
   • (h) On 15 December 2017, Dr White sent [the Client] a photo of her and her partner.
   • (i) On 18 December 2017, Dr White and [the Client] exchanged text messages including emojis about a Christmas present that [the Client] had bought for Dr White.
   • (j) On 22 December 2017, [the Client] sent a photo of herself to Dr White.
   • (k) On 25 December 2017, [the Client] sent a poem to Dr White.
   • (l) On 26 December 2017, [the Client] sent a photo to Dr White.
   • (m) On 1 January 2018, [the Client] sent a poem to Dr White.
10. None of these text messages were recorded in [the Client's] clinic file by Dr White.
11. On 29 September 2017, [the Client] had her third session with Dr White.
12. On 13 November 2017, [the Client] had her fourth session with Dr White. In this session Dr White told [the Client] that, while there are professional boundaries, she should contact her in a crisis situation.
    • (a) Dr White did not adequately record the findings and details of any risk assessment of [the Client] in her clinical notes for the session on 13 November 2017.
13. On 16 November 2017, psychologist by [name of psychologist removed] at [name of Health Service removed] Mental Health Service spoke with Dr White on the telephone regarding [the Client's] treatment. Dr White did not record this conversation in [the Client's] clinical file.
14. On 28 November 2017, [the Client] contacted Dr White distressed and bleeding from the stomach. In response, Dr White called the police and ensured [the Client] received medical treatment.
15. On 29 November 2017, Dr White received confirmation from the [name of hospital removed] that [the Client] had been assaulted rather than self-harmed.
16. On 1 December 2017, [the Client] had her fifth session with Dr White.
17. On 8 December 2017, [the Client] had her sixth session with Dr White.
18. On 15 December 2017, [the Client] had her seventh session with Dr White.
19. On 15 December 2017, Dr White discussed the treatment of [the Client] with her supervisor, Dr [name removed]. In this session, her supervisor reminded her that [the Client] is a high risk client and that she would need to be careful about boundaries.
20. On 22 December 2017, Dr White received a gift from [the Client]. The gift was a slideshow recreation of a scene from the romantic comedy Love Actually. The slides stated:

'I had to see you before Christmas but you don't need to say anything. Love Actually is my favourite movie and you are one of my favourite people. And on Christmas you're allowed to say the truth. So thank-you for saving my life this year. Thank-you for the smiles, the laughter and even the tears. And for loving dogs almost as much as me. I hope you have the best Christmas with the ones you love. Because you deserve it more than anyone else I know. Now my pen is running out so I'll see you next year.'

1. On 4 January 2018, [the Client] sent two text messages to Dr White. The first stated that [the Client] was about to send a message that she would like Dr White to ignore as someone else was making her send it. The second stated that she wished to terminate the professional relationship.
2. On 6 January 2018, [the Client] had her eighth session with Dr White. In this session, the topic of boundary issues was discussed and Dr White disclosed to [the Client] that she had previously been the subject of a complaint alleging a failure to maintain boundaries.
3. On 10 January 2018, psychologist [name of psychologist removed] at [name of Health Service removed] Mental Health Service spoke with Dr White on the telephone regarding [the Client's] treatment. Dr White did not record this conversation in [the Client's] clinical file.
4. On 30 January 2018, [the Client] had her ninth session with Dr White.
5. On 2 February 2018, Dr White received a package from [the Client] containing a CD and a letter expressing her desire to commence a friendship.
6. On 3 February 2018, [the Client] had her tenth session with Dr White. In this session, the therapeutic relationship was terminated. Dr White suggested that [the Client] contact Sandra Boughton, psychologist, and stated that she would transfer her clinical file once an appointment had been made.
7. [The Client] did not contact, or receive treatment from, Sandra Boughton following cessation of the professional relationship with Dr White.
8. Dr White took no steps to ensure the continuity of psychological services was provided to [the Client] or to ascertain whether [the Client] had received or engaged with, psychological treatment following cessation of the professional relationship and commencement of a personal relationship.
9. Dr White failed to consider the extent to which [the Client] was dependant on her prior to commencing a social relationship.
10. Between 12 and 14 February 2018, Dr White and [the Client] exchanged text messages and had a telephone call. [The Client] sent a woman's photo and online dating profile to Dr White.
11. On 15 February 2018, Dr White and [the Client] attended a café together.
12. On 16 February 2018, Dr White spoke with her supervisor, Dr [name removed]. During this conversation Dr White reported that [the Client] had been contacting Dr White outside of therapeutic sessions. Concerns that [the Client] may be having erotic transference towards Dr White was discussed.
13. On 27 February 2018, Dr White and [the Client] became Facebook friends.
14. Between 30 March and 22 May 2018, Dr White and [the Client] exchanged text messages, including photos and videos, on a very frequent basis.
15. From March 2018 onwards, [the Client] disengaged and failed to respond to her clinicians at [name of Health Service removed] Mental Health Service and her GP.
16. On 24 April 2018, AHPRA informed Dr White of the notification and investigation into her conduct.
17. On 16 May 2018, Dr White spoke with her supervisor, Dr [name removed] . During this conversation, Dr White disclosed that a friendship had commenced with [the Client] one to two weeks after the therapeutic relationship had been terminated.
18. On 22 May 2018, [the Supervisor] submitted a signed statement to AHPRA which contained various details and admissions relevant to the conduct.
19. On 8 June 2018, notes made by [name of psychologist removed] at [name of Health Service removed] Mental Health Service confirm that [the Client] has disengaged and failed to respond to her clinicians since March 2018. [The Client's] GP had also reported that [the Client] has disengaged from contact.
20. On 12 June 2018, Dr White by letter to AHPRA:

admitted to establishing a personal relationship with [the Client] following the provision of psychological services,

accepted that the language used in communications had been inappropriate,

that she should not have disclosed her previous notification to [the Client], and

that her friendship with [the Client] may have led to [the Client] not engaging with another psychiatrist.

1. On 23 October 2018, Dr White admitted by letter to AHPRA that there were some deficits in her record keeping.

1. On 12 November 2018, the Board determined to refer the conduct of Dr White to the Tribunal, pursuant to section 193 of the National Law.
2. On 4 March 2019, the Board filed the Letter of Referral and Notice of Allegations in the Tribunal raising allegations against Dr White.

1. Dr White admits that she engaged in the conduct particularised in the Notice of Allegations (as amended) and Agreed Statement of Facts.
2. Dr White admits that her conduct breached principles of the Australian Psychological Society Code of Ethics (2007) and the APS' Ethical guidelines for managing professional boundaries and multiple relationships (2016) as particularised in Allegation 7 [sic] of the Notice of Allegations.
3. Allegation 1 constitutes professional misconduct within the meaning of (a) and/or (c) of the definition of 'professional misconduct' in the National Law.
4. Allegation 2 constitutes professional misconduct within the meaning of (a) of the definition of 'professional misconduct' in the National Law.
5. Allegation 3 constitutes professional misconduct within the meaning of (a) and/or (b) of the definition of 'professional misconduct' in the National Law.
6. Allegation 4 constitutes professional misconduct within the meaning of (a) and/or (b) of the definition of 'professional misconduct' in the National Law.
7. Allegation 5 constitutes professional misconduct within the meaning of (a) and/or (b) of the definition of 'professional misconduct' in the National Law.
8. Allegation 6 constitutes professional misconduct within the meaning of (a) and/or (c) of the definition of 'professional misconduct' in the National Law.

a reprimand under section 196(2) of the National Law; and

conditions of registration in the terms set out in Appendix A, under section 196(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the National Law to commence after the period of suspension.

a suspension of 12 months from the date of the Tribunal's order under section 196(2)(d) of the National Law.

Findings by the Tribunal on the six allegations

1. In accordance with Dr White's admissions, we find each of the six allegations proved. Dr White is found to have behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct in relation to each.

1. The next question is how this conduct should be characterised, in terms of the definition of professional misconduct (and unprofessional conduct) set out in the National Law.
2. These definitions are as follows:

unprofessional conduct, of a registered practitioner, means professional conduct that is of a lesser standard than that which might reasonably be expected of the health practitioner by the public or the practitioner's professional peers, and includes - ...

professional misconduct, of a registered health practitioner, includes -

(a) unprofessional conduct by the practitioner that amounts to conduct that is substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience; and

(b) more than one instance of unprofessional conduct that, when considered together, amounts to conduct that is substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience; and

(c) conduct of the practitioner, whether occurring in connection with the practice of the health practitioner's profession or not, that is inconsistent with the practitioner being a fit and proper person to hold registration in the profession.

Allegation 1 - inappropriate communications and establishment of a personal relationship (3 September 2017 - 3 February 2018)

1. The text messages from Dr White to her Client clearly contained inappropriately informal language. This included overly familiar terminology, slang terms, multiple exclamation marks and emojis. Although it was the Client who sent by far the largest volume of messages, with the greatest amount of personalised content, this was implicitly encouraged by several inappropriately informal messages such as 'I see you have a very kind heart, which has been unfairly treated by life and I would really like to be your support person...' (7 November 2017), and use of the term, 'my dear' (18 November 2017). When her Client sent her a Christmas gift, she rightly sought to have her take it back. However, instead of using this as an opportunity to draw a boundary, she said, 'After all, I don't deserve it...' (18 December 2017) thus keeping the focus on the personal rather than the professional. Dr White's use of an inappropriate nickname to refer to herself further contributed to the informality of communications with her Client.
2. We note however, that the message of 15 December 2007, referred to at paragraphs 18(f) and 19(h) of the Agreed Summary states that Dr White sent her Client a photo of her and her partner. It appears to us, however, that this was in fact sent by the Client to Dr White.
3. Nevertheless, as Mr Reid accepted on behalf of Dr White, the evidence illustrates a steady slide towards a personal relationship.
4. In considering whether the conduct also falls within (c) of the above definition of professional misconduct, as contended by the Board, it is of course important to focus on precisely what is alleged by allegation 1, rather than the conduct more broadly. The allegation is failing to maintain professional boundaries by: (1) engaging in inappropriate communication with the Client outside of scheduled sessions, and (2) establishing a personal relationship while providing the Client psychological services.
5. In our view, focusing on the precise terms of the allegation as we must, in the light of the above matters, it is going too far to say that the conduct the subject of allegation 1, of itself, is 'inconsistent with the practitioner being a fit and proper person to hold registration in the profession'.
6. As the Board submitted, there is no suggestion that the conduct in this case involved any sexual element, or any element of coercion or exploitation by Dr White. There is no suggestion that she ever acted in any way other than according to what she thought at the time was in her Client's best interests (albeit misguidedly).
7. The overall picture which emerges from the sequence of text messages during the period August - December 2017 is as follows: most of the early texts simply dealt with arrangements for appointments. On 7 and 18 November, Dr White sent texts which contained professional content by way of encouragement, or counselling. There is also reference to a telephone call 'last night' (28 November 2017). In the meantime, the Client was sending texts which amounted to a mixture of social chat, various photos, including selfies, statements about her personal feelings, emotions and personal relationships, including with Dr White, and also a number of poems.
8. It appears Dr White misguidedly implicitly encouraged the Client to seek to form a personal relationship. She subsequently acknowledged in correspondence to the Board that the language used in the texts to her Client was unprofessional and may have contributed to the blurring of professional boundaries.
9. Even assuming the Client was the primary instigator of the personal relationship, it was clearly incumbent on Dr White to avoid the steady slide towards a personal relationship, and she did not do that. We have no hesitation in concluding that the conduct the subject of allegation 1 is substantially below the standard reasonably expected of an experienced psychologist and so falls within (a) of the above definition.

Allegation 2 - disclosure to Client of prior complaint

1. We agree with the parties that the conduct the subject of allegation 2 falls within (a) of this definition. It is conduct which is substantially below the standard reasonably expected of an experienced psychologist.
2. It can be a trap for psychologists, in seeking to empathise with their clients, that they speak about their own personal experience. Here, Dr White fell into that trap. There was no therapeutic reason for her to make this disclosure. Informing her Client as to the seriousness of the consequences for herself of boundary violations introduced the element of the impact on herself personally resulting from her dealings with her Client. The unfortunate irony for Dr White is that by disclosing this information to her Client about previous boundary violations, she committed a further boundary violation.

1. In relation to allegation 3, we find that the conduct falls within (b) of the above definition of professional misconduct. That is, it comprises more than one instance of unprofessional conduct, which, when considered together, amounts to conduct that is substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience. Dr White is an experienced psychologist.
2. The Particulars for allegation 3 refer firstly to Dr White's failure to transcribe into her Client's records any of the text messages, phone conversations or emails she exchanged with her between 29 August 2017 and 3 February 2018, relevant to her treatment and management. The expert report obtained by the Board from Dr Lennings noted that while many of the early texts are about arranging appointments, several of the Client's texts have significant therapeutic content, and two texts from Dr White had therapeutic relevance. To this extent, the Client's best interests were prejudiced, given that in the event that her clinical file was relied upon by others in the future, it would not provide a full and accurate picture.
3. More importantly, the Board submitted that Dr White's failure to include in her clinical file conversations with other professionals involved in the treatment of her Client, created the risk of interrupting the Client's continuity of care should Dr White be unavailable to explain her clinical history. Given the Client's longitudinal clinical history, suicidal ideations and attempts, and her cessation of lithium during the period of care, comprehensive clinical notes were vital. We agree with this submission. As Dr Lennings said, it is hard to see a situation where a liaison with another treating professional of the Client's should not be recorded.
4. This latter instance quite possibly amounts to a substantial departure on its own. In any event, we are satisfied that the multiple instances of inadequate record-keeping the subject of allegation 3 comprise professional misconduct under subclause (b) of the definition.

1. Allegation 4 concerns failing to make adequate assessments of the risks faced by her Client, in particular, in two situations. First, where her Client had ceased taking lithium without informing her medical practitioners, and was self-medicating with certain different medications she had access to by other means. Second, where her Client advised her she had been in hospital.
2. The Agreed Summary states at 23(a) that Dr White did not adequately record the findings and details of any risk assessment of [the Client] in her clinical notes for the session on 13 November 2017. The expert report from Dr Lennings stated that Dr White's notes refer to Risk Assessment without any detail. Dr Lennings said that typically a risk assessment should identify what questions were asked, and the responses given. Overall, the effect of Dr Lennings' report is that although risk assessment was not entirely ignored, there is no information to indicate it was done effectively in relation to the Client.
3. It is clear that this client was potentially very vulnerable. The consequences of not conducting a risk assessment, and properly recording it, could have been extremely serious.
4. Hence we find that these two failures to carry out risk assessments effectively comprise professional misconduct under subclause (b) of the definition.

1. In circumstances where the personal friendship followed directly from the professional relationship, it was not possible to make an absolutely clean transition from one relationship to the other. The circumstances posed a foreseeable risk that the former client would assume, to a greater or lesser degree, that her psychological needs were being taken care of via the new friendship.
2. At the outset of the personal relationship, on 3 February 2018, Dr White suggested to her Client that she contact another psychologist. But that was the extent of it. The Client did not do so, and Dr White did not follow this up.
3. Here, concerningly, the Client disengaged with two different professional clinicians (being a mental health clinician, and her GP) after the personal relationship with Dr White commenced. Dr White acknowledged that her decision to commence that personal relationship with her former Client had likely contributed to her former Client's decision not to engage with a mental health clinician following cessation of the therapeutic relationship.
4. Accordingly, the Client's care was compromised. In practical terms, following the transition from a professional to a personal relationship with Dr White, the Client, who was vulnerable, and had a serious mental health issue, was left for some time without a psychologist, mental health clinician, or GP. In these circumstances, her vulnerability to adverse outcomes was further increased to the extent she explicitly or implicitly relied on Dr White to fill any of those gaps.
5. We find Dr White's failure to provide appropriate continuity of client care was substantially below the standard reasonably expected of an experienced psychologist and so falls within (a) of the above definition.

Allegation 6 - personal relationship with client after 3 February 2018)

1. Allegation 6 focuses on the nature of the personal relationship between Dr White and her former Client, after 3 February 2018. The lack of continuity of care aspect has already been covered by allegation 5. Allegation 6 focuses primarily on the potential for an unequal relationship.
2. It is in our view self-evident that there would be difficulties in expecting to be able to transition immediately into an ordinary social relationship, such that each party is on an equal footing in the circumstances pertaining here. The Client's history of significant mental health issues, and the duration and content of the psychologist/client relationship up until 3 February 2018, all militate strongly against this. Dr White was aware of so many intimate details of the Client's life - which she had acquired in a completely different context to a social relationship, namely, in a professional psychologist/client relationship - that it would be virtually impossible for these not to impact on the personal relationship. Further, there were some indications that the Client might have exhibited dependence, vulnerability and/or erotic transference during the professional relationship with Dr White.
3. In these circumstances, The APS' Ethical Guidelines for Managing Professional Boundaries and Multiple Relationships (2016) have not been adhered to. In particular, Guideline 6.4 states that a psychologist needs to consider 'the extent to which they and the former client can establish an equitable relationship'. [our emphasis]
4. In considering whether the conduct also falls within (c) of the above definition of professional misconduct, once again it is important that we focus on precisely what is alleged by allegation 6, rather than the conduct more broadly. Allegation 6 refers to embarking on the personal relationship 'without adequate consideration of the welfare of [the Client], or whether an equal relationship could be established'.
5. As noted, the major issue to do with the welfare of the Client, concerns the continuity of care, which has been dealt with by Allegation 5.
6. Similarly to the position with allegation 1, in our view it is going too far to say that the relevant conduct the subject of allegation 6, of itself, is 'inconsistent with the practitioner being a fit and proper person to hold registration in the profession'.
7. Once again, it is relevant, as the Board submitted, that there is no suggestion that the conduct in this case involved any sexual element, or any element of coercion or exploitation by Dr White. We note that in subsequent correspondence with the Board, Dr White said that if she had her time again, she would 'withhold from commencing the friendship'. She acknowledged she should have obtained advice from her mentor and/or the APS Advisory Board, and in effect, that her then judgement that she was maintaining an appropriate distance from her client, was, on reflection, wrong.
8. However, the relevant actions the subject of allegation 6 clearly comprise conduct which is substantially below the standard reasonably expected of an experienced psychologist, and so, we find, falls within (a) of the above definition.
9. We note one other matter. We are conscious that the Board's position that Dr White's conduct should be characterised under (c) of the definition of professional misconduct, might not necessarily sit easily with the fact that it only sought a suspension (rather than cancellation of registration). Suspension generally connotes an acceptance that by the time the specified period is completed, the practitioner can be regarded as fit and proper to return to practice.[2]
10. Having said that, we acknowledge that not being a fit and proper person to hold registration, on the one hand, and having in the past engaged in conduct which is inconsistent with being a fit and proper person to hold registration, on the other, might potentially be different things. We also note the Board's point that by the time a period of suspension is finished, Dr White will have undergone the education required by the agreed conditions.
11. However, in all the circumstances, for the reasons stated, in our view characterisation under (c) is not appropriate here.

1. The parties each made submissions in support of the agreed proposed determinations, namely, a reprimand, 12 month suspension, and the imposition of agreed conditions for education and supervision.
2. In determining disposition, our task is to focus primarily on the protection of the public, and the maintenance of the reputation of, and public confidence in, the psychology profession, rather than the punishment of the practitioner.
3. First, we agree a reprimand is appropriate. This is a formal statement denouncing Dr White's conduct concerning the boundary violations, and in relation to failures concerning record-keeping, risk assessments and continuity of client care. It is a public statement, as it will appear not only in this decision, but also on the public register of practitioners maintained by the Board.
4. Next, we turn to the proposal put jointly by the parties that Dr White's registration should be suspended for 12 months, that conditions be imposed requiring supervision, and the undertaking of a program of education approved by the Board. The supervision is to be by way of weekly, one hour, face to face sessions (that is, not by telephone, or other electronic means) for a minimum of 24 months. The education and supervision is to cover the prevention of boundary violations, maintaining clinical records, risk assessments and evidence-based care in treating personality disorders. Both the education and supervision components will require a significant professional and financial commitment from Dr White. The supervision, for example, will require, as a minimum, more than 100 one-hour sessions. These conditions are proper in light of the fact that Dr White may still not have achieved full insight (see below), and given her previous failure in 2012 to maintain professional boundaries (the subject of the Performance and Professional Standards Panel (PPSP) hearing of October 2014).

1. Amongst the material provided to us was a statement of 22 August 2018 given to AHPRA by Dr White's supervisor, a registered psychologist (who we refer to as the 'Supervisor'). The Supervisor provided mandated supervision to Dr White in 2015, following a previous complaint and investigation process. A PPSP had been conducted in relation to a previous boundary violation issue. (This is the matter the subject of allegation 2.) This resulted in a requirement for supervision, which ended in the third quarter of 2016. However, the Supervisor continued to supervise at Dr White's request, by way of monthly telephone consultations. These continued through to 16 May 2018.
2. The Supervisor is quite critical of Dr White, in particular suggesting that she had omitted to disclose relevant information during the course of their mentoring sessions.
3. Although numerous matters of detail were raised in her Supervisor's statement, the Board did not call her to give evidence. Nor did it focus on her statement to AHPRA in any detail in its submissions. It did not pursue most of the concerns raised by her Supervisor as part of its case put to the Tribunal.
4. A number of the comments in the Supervisor's statement appear to be speculative. They also make reference to Dr White's own psychological situation. There is a flavour of the Supervisor being unhappy that Dr White omitted to provide relevant information to her on a number of occasions.
5. In relation to one of these occasions, an explanation was provided by Dr White in correspondence with the Board, to the effect that the Supervisor was mistaken.
6. In relation to another of these occasions, Dr White accepted that she had been wrong not to advise her supervisor of relevant information at the time. This concerned the extent to which Dr White withheld from her Supervisor the extent of her eagerness to commence the personal relationship with the Client at the time, in February 2018. Dr White acknowledged early in her correspondence with the Board that she had not been 'forthright with [her Supervisor] regarding my intentions to consider and accept friendship with [her Client] once the therapeutic relationship was terminated'.
7. In terms of insight, we note that Dr White has previously breached professional boundaries in a manner apparently not dissimilar to the present case. It is apparent that it took some months for her to accept that her conduct here was unprofessional. However, it is also apparent that her understanding as to the implications of her conduct has moved substantially since then. Dr White's plea of guilty to the allegations, her cooperation with the Board's investigation from an early stage, and her admissions and statements of contrition and remorse in correspondence during the investigation, all support this. Certainly, in relation to inappropriate disclosure to her client, maintaining proper client records, conducting risk assessments and making arrangements for continuity of care for clients she ceases to see, we are satisfied that Dr White is disposed to addressing these concerns. However, concerning allegations 1 and 6, her non-attendance at the hearing made it difficult for the Tribunal to appreciate fully Dr White's current attitudes.
8. While we do not want to over-state the significance of this, we do note that Dr White did not take the opportunity to demonstrate complete insight into her conduct in entering into a personal relationship with her client. She was given the opportunity to file a self-written submission/reflective piece about her conduct, by the Tribunal of order of 3 September 2019. She did not provide any such document. She did not attend the hearing (although Mr Reid indicated this was because of her work and parenting responsibilities).
9. In light of the above matters, we agree that the conditions requiring a substantial commitment in terms of education and supervision, are appropriate.
10. We have considered other cases which might be suggested to be more or less comparable to the present one, including the cases referred to us by the parties.[3] Bearing in mind each case must of course be considered according to its own unique facts and circumstances, we consider the determinations agreed by the parties to be broadly consistent with prior decisions. Looking at the cases referred to us by the parties, this one is relatively unusual in that it involved a platonic relationship.
11. No doubt there is much material of value for Dr White to reflect on from her Supervisor's report. However, in all the circumstances, we believe it would be wrong to place such a degree of reliance on the matters referred to in the Supervisor's report (many of which were left merely as assertions, or not followed through with, or not relied on by the Board) that it would form the basis of a conclusion that Dr White's registration should be cancelled, rather than suspended.
12. In this regard, we place weight on the position of the Board, as the expert body entrusted with regulation of the profession, which has indicated that suspension rather than cancellation appropriate here.
13. We are conscious that at the earliest, Dr White will not resume practising until February 2021, by which time, 32 months will have elapsed since she last practised.
14. Overall, we are satisfied that suspension for 12 months is the correct determination here. In our view, the concerns expressed by the Supervisor, and the need for some further reflection in relation to professional boundaries and personal friendships, are sufficiently reflected in a determination to suspend Dr White's registration, given the significant commitment to further education and supervision which will be required.
15. In terms of the period of suspension, bearing in mind the seriousness of the conduct, the requirements of specific and general deterrence, the comparable cases, and the agreement between the parties, we find that 12 months is appropriate.

1. Between 3 September 2017 and 3 February 2018, Dr Melissa White engaged in professional misconduct within the definition of 'professional misconduct' in the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Victoria) Act 2009 (National Law), in that Dr White failed to maintain professional boundaries with her client, [the Client], by:

1.1 engaging in inappropriate communication with [the Client] outside of scheduled sessions; and

1.2 establishing a personal relationship while providing [the Client] psychological services.

(a) Dr White provided psychological treatment to [the Client] from 1 August 2017 until 3 February 2018.

(b) Dr White and [the Client] communicated by email and text message outside of scheduled therapeutic sessions and outside of business hours on many occasions between 29 August 2017 and 3 February 2018.

(c) The text messages exchanged between Dr White and [the Client] between 29 August 2017 and 3 February 2018 are not consistent with the maintenance of appropriate professional boundaries. The text messages included pictures, songs and poems.

(d) The content of the text messages sent by Dr White between 29 August 2017 and 3 February 2018 was inappropriate as she used unprofessional language, including slang terms and emojis, was overly familiar, referenced [the Client's] personal qualities, and covered topics that are outside of the usual professional discourse.

(e) Dr White accepted a Christmas gift from [the Client] on 22 December 2017. The gift was chocolates and a slideshow recreation of a scene from the movie Love Actually. The slides state 'I had to see you before Christmas but you don't need to say anything. Love Actually is my favourite movies and you are one of my favourite people and on Christmas you're allowed to say the truth, so thank-you for saving my life this year. Thank-you for the smiles, the laughter and even the tears and for loving dogs almost as much as me. I hope you have the best Christmas with the ones you love because you deserve it more than anyone I know now my pen is running out so I'll see you next year...'

(f) Dr White failed to take appropriate steps to establish and maintain proper professional boundaries with [the Client].

(g) Dr White raised the need to maintain professional boundaries in communication on one occasion, during a therapeutic session on 6 January 2018.

(h) Dr White received a package containing a CD and a letter from [the Client] expressing her desire to be friends on 2 February 2018.

(i) Dr While terminated the professional relationship with [the Client] on 3 February 2018.

(j) Dr White placed her own self-interest to engage in a personal relationship above the welfare of [the Client].

(k) Dr White had supervision in relation to boundary violations in the three years proceeding this conduct following the finding of a Performance and Professional Standards Panel on 19 December 2014 that she crossed professional boundaries with a client.

(l) The conduct of Dr White is substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a psychologist which can be construed with reference to the Australian Psychological Society (APS) Code of Ethics (2007) (Code), and the APS' Ethical guidelines for managing professional boundaries and multiple relationships (2016) (Guideline).

• General Principle A explanatory statement: 'They...recognise the power they hold over people when practising as psychologists.'
• General Principle B: 'The welfare of clients and the public, and the standing of the profession, take precedence over a psychologist's self-interest'.
• B.3(g): 'Psychologists provide psychological services in a responsible manner. Having regard to the nature of the psychological services they are providing, psychologists...are aware of, and take steps to establish and maintain proper professional boundaries with clients and colleagues'.
• General Principle C: 'Psychologists recognise that their knowledge of the discipline of psychology, their professional standing, and the information they gather place them in a position of power and trust. They exercise their power appropriately and honour this position of trust. Psychologists keep faith with the nature and intentions of their professional relationships.'
• C.3.1: 'Psychologists refrain from engaging in multiple relationships that may:

(a) impair their competence, effectiveness, objectivity, or ability to render a psychological service;

(b) harm clients or other parties to a psychological service; or

(c) lead to the exploitation of clients or other parties to a psychological service.'

• C.3.2: 'Psychologists who are at risk of violating standard C.3.1, consult with a senior psychologist to attempt to find an appropriate resolution that is in the best interests of the parties to the psychological service.'
• C.4.1: 'Psychologists do not exploit people with whom they have or had a professional relationship.'

• 5.3: 'When managing professional boundaries, psychologists consider the following questions to help clarify whether they are acting in the best interests of their client:
  • am I overstepping my limits of competence?
  • is there a possibility of a conflict of interest developing?
  • am I self-disclosing more than usual?
  • am I finding it difficult to stay in my professional role?
  • am I providing a different level or quality of professional service than is indicated for the client's situation?
  • are any of my current personal difficulties adversely influencing my professional objectivity?
  • am I avoiding discussing the client in supervision?'

1. On 6 January 2018, Dr White engaged in professional misconduct within the definition of 'professional misconduct' in the National Law in that Dr White disclosed to her client, [the Client], that she had previously been the subject of a complaint in relation to boundary violations, when the disclosure was not in the best interests of [the Client] or not consistent with the maintenance of the boundaries of a professional relationship.

(a) Dr White provided psychological treatment to [the Client] from 1 August 2017 until 3 February 2018.

(b) On 6 January 2018, Dr White disclosed to [the Client] that she had previously been the subject of a complaint in relation to boundary violations.

(c) It was not in [the Client's] best interests for Dr White to disclose that she had previously been the subject of a complaint in relation to boundary violations.

(d) It was not consistent with the maintenance of professional boundaries for Dr White to disclose that she had previously been the subject of a complaint in relation to boundary violations.

(e) The conduct of Dr White is substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a psychologist which can be construed with reference to the Code and the Guideline. The Guideline relevantly provides:

• 6.8.1: Self disclosure - 'While self-disclosure may be beneficial in some client relationships and in some cultural contexts, psychologists are aware of the potential for self-disclosure to also lead to a compromising of professional boundaries (Audet, 2011). Self-disclosure can draw the psychologist into a personal relationship with a client with whom they have, or are building, a professional relationship. Prior to disclosing personal information, psychologists examine their motivations for self-disclosure, the potential impact on the client, and ensure that any self-disclosure is for the benefit of the client.'

1. Between 29 August 2017 and 3 February 2018, Dr White engaged in professional misconduct within the definition of 'professional misconduct' in the National Law in that Dr White failed to maintain adequate clinical records in relation to the treatment of [the Client].

(a) Dr White provided psychological treatment to [the Client] from 1 August 2017 until 3 February 2018.

(b) Dr White did not transcribe or record in [the Client's] clinical file any of the text messages, phone conversations and emails she exchanged with [the Client] from 29 August 2017 to 3 February 2018, relevant to the treatment and management of [the Client].

(c) Dr White did not document or record in [the Client's] clinical file conversations with other professionals treating [the Client]. [The Client's] clinical record from [name of Mental Health Service removed] Mental Health Service psychologist [name of psychologist removed] indicates that she spoke to Dr White on 16 November 2017 and 10 January 2018. Neither conversation was recorded by Dr White in [the Client's] clinical file.

(d) In the alternative, Dr White did not document or record in [the Client's] clinical file the finding of a risk assessment Dr White claims to have undertaken on 13 November 2017.

(e) The conduct of Dr White is substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a psychologist which can be construed with reference to the Code and the Guideline. The Code relevantly provides:

• B.2.1: 'Psychologists make and keep adequate records'.

1. Between 1 August 2017 and 3 February 2018, Dr White engaged in professional misconduct within the definition of 'professional misconduct' in the National Law in that Dr White failed to exercise proper clinical judgment with respect to the best interests of her client, [the Client], including by failing to make adequate risk assessments.

(a) Dr White provided psychological treatment to [the Client] from 1 August 2017 to 3 February 2018.

(b) On 29 August 2017, [the Client] informed Dr White by email that she had ceased taking lithium without informing her medical practitioners and was self-medicating with [certain other] medications.

(c) Proper clinical practice would have included to inform [the Client's] other treating practitioners and case worker of the non-compliance with medication, initiate immediate contact with [the Client], and undertake a risk assessment.

(d) Dr White did not adopt proper clinical practice as she did not consult with [the Client] until 29 September 2017, did not contact [the Client's] other treating practitioners, and did not undertake a risk assessment.

(e) On 7 November 2017, [the Client] text[ed] Dr White saying that she had been in hospital.

(f) Proper clinical practice would have included undertaking and recording a risk assessment.

(g) Dr White consulted with [the Client] on 13 November 2017. Dr White's clinical notes do not record sufficient detail as to the description of the intervention, the risk management, or the proper description of hospitalisation and treatment provided.

(h) Throughout Dr White's treatment of [the Client] no formal risk assessments were documented.

1. Since 3 February 2018, Dr White engaged in professional misconduct within the meaning of the definition of 'professional misconduct' in the National Law in that Dr White failed to make reasonable arrangements for the continuity of psychological services for [the Client] where she commenced a personal relationship with her.

(a) On 3 February 2018, the professional relationship between Dr White and [the Client] was terminated.

(b) Following termination of the professional relationship, Dr White failed to consider the extent to which [the Client] was dependant on her prior to commencing a social relationship.

(c) From March 2018, [the Client] had disengaged with her clinicians at [name of Mental Health Service removed] Mental Health Service as well and her General Practitioner Dr [name removed].

(d) On 3 February 2018, Dr White suggested [the Client] contact Sandra Boughton, a psychologist.

(e) Dr White failed to take any steps to ascertain whether [the Client] had received or engaged with, psychological treatment following cessation of the professional relationship and commencement of a personal relationship.

(f) [The Client] did not contact, or receive treatment from, Sandra Boughton following cessation of the professional relationship with Dr White.

• (g) Dr White established and continued a personal relationship with [the Client] from 12 February 2018 onwards.
• (h) On 15 February 2018, Dr White and [the Client] went to a café together.
• (i) On 27 February 2018, Dr White and [the Client] became Facebook friends.
• (j) The personal relationship between Dr White and [the Client] involves exchanging text messages, photos, videos and calls, giving gifts and undertaking social activities together.
• (k) The conduct of Dr White is substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a psychologist which can be construed with reference to the Code and the Guideline. The Code relevantly provides:
  • B.11.3: 'Psychologists make reasonable arrangements for the continuity of service provision when they are no longer able to deliver the psychological service.'

1. Since 3 February 2018, Dr White engaged in professional misconduct within the definition of 'professional misconduct' in the National Law in that Dr White engaged in a personal relationship with [the Client], who had previously been her client, without adequate consideration of the welfare of [the Client] or whether an equal relationship could be established.

(a) On 3 February 2018 the professional relationship between Dr White and [the Client] was terminated.

(b) [The Client] was particularly vulnerable as prior to her referral to Dr White she had been admitted to a psychiatric hospital for six weeks, and had recently attempted suicide.

(c) [The Client] disclosed to Dr White her trauma history in the course of the professional relationship.

(d) [The Client] had exhibited signs of dependence, vulnerability and/or erotic transference during the professional relationship with Dr White.

(e) Dr White established and continued a personal relationship with [the Client] from 12 February 2018 onwards.

(f) On 15 February 2018, Dr White and [the Client] went to a café together.

(g) On 27 February 2018, Dr White and [the Client] became Facebook friends.

(h) The personal relationship between Dr White and [the Client] involved exchanging text messages, photos, videos and calls, giving gifts and undertaking social activities together.

(i) Dr White placed her own self-interest to engage in a personal relationship above the welfare of [the Client].

(j) Dr White only informed her supervisor Dr [name removed] of her ongoing friendship with [the Client] on 16 May 2018.

(k) The conduct of Dr White is substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a psychologist which can be construed with reference to the Code and the Guideline. The relevant provisions of the Code and the Guideline are set out in 1(l) above. Further, the Code provides:

• 6.4: Former Clients - 'Psychologists are responsible for carefully assessing the risks and benefits of any form of future relationship with a former client, and for ensuring that the former client will not be adversely affected. Prior to engaging in a social, financial, or business contact with a former client, psychologists consider:
  • the extent to which they and the former client can establish an equitable relationship;
  • whether the former client is dependent on the psychologist in any way;
  • whether the former client may want to re-establish a professional relationship in the future;
  • the nature of the past psychological service (e.g . counselling, supervision);
  • the duration of the previous professional relationship;
  • the potential for the new relationship to undermine the effectiveness of the past psychological service.

[1] The National Law is applicable in Victoria is set out in a schedule to the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Victoria) Act 2009.

[2] Honey v Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria [2007] VCAT 526 at [43].

[3] Psychology Board of Australia v IVX (Review and Regulation) [2016] VCAT 35; Psychology Board of Australia v Sheppard (Review and Regulation) (Corrected) [2018] VCAT 1279; Psychology Board of Australia v Griersmith (Review and Regulation) [2019] VCAT 52; Psychologists Registration Board of Victoria v Schirmer (Occupational and Business Regulation) [2009] VCAT 2349; Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Sandra Garie [2019] SAHPT 4; Nursing and Midwifery Board Australia v Montero [2015] QCAT 316; Medical Board of Australia v MBO (Occupational Discipline) [2015] ACAT 69.