Psychotherapist suspended for six months for breaching former patient's confidentiality

Some six months later, they came a second time but after that the husband continued to see him regularly alone.

In January 2016, Mr Rabson met Patient A’s sister without her knowledge.

A week later, at a meeting with both Patient A and her sister, he did not disclose he had previously met the sister until confronted by Patient A.

She had “purposefully been kept in the dark without good reason” by Mr Rabson, the panel concluded.

Patient A told the panel she had been shocked to learn that Mr Rabson had forwarded emails she had sent to him to her husband.

In one email, Mr Rabson advised the husband to delete the forwarded emails.

Patient A had found out about the emails because one of her children, who had access to his father’s emails, had shown them to her.

The panel was satisfied that Patient A had no knowledge that her emails containing “significant personal details” had been forwarded to her husband.

Mr Rabson tried to claim his action did not breach professional confidentiality because he considered the husband, and not the wife, to have been his client but the panel rejected this.

Nor did it accept his argument that if his actions were considered a breach of confidentiality, they had “been motivated by the intention to protect the children of the family and this was paramount”.

Mr Rabson told the panel he had heard recordings made by the husband apparently containing Patient A “screaming and abusing her children” - some of which were played at the hearing.

He was criticised also for a letter he wrote to the husband’s solicitors which included his view of safeguarding issues relating to the children.

While the panel noted there had been growing concerns over safeguarding, it said the involvement already of a “wide range” of outside agencies and authorities did not justify his letter.

Calling the letter “grossly misleading”, the panel said he had “exceeded his professional competence”.

In summary, it said Patient A was a “vulnerable person” and Mr Rabson had engaged in behaviour that was “inappropriate, breached her confidentiality, was against her best interests, caused harm and distress and was dishonest”.

The woman, who left the family home during 2016, complained to the UKPC later that year.

The panel took into account Mr Rabson’s previously unblemished record, testimonials from colleagues and the offer of an apology to Patient A.

As well as suspending him, it ordered him to undertake a minimum of 18 sessions with a UKCP psychotherapist and then write a “reflective report” on what he had learned from the experience before it would consider closing the file.

Mr Rabson said this week: “For legal reasons, I am advised I am unable to discuss the case.”