0
0
A therapist who entered a sexual relationship with a former patient just ten days after her final session has successfully challenged disciplinary action taken against him by his professional body.
Neale Haddon, a seasoned psychotherapist with over 20 years of experience, began a six-month relationship with a former client he had treated for a driving phobia. During therapy, the woman reportedly made romantic advances, including asking Haddon if he found her attractive. After the sessions concluded, she invited him for a drink—an offer he initially declined to maintain professional boundaries.
However, ten days after her final session in December 2019, Haddon agreed to meet her. The pair soon began a romantic relationship that included intimate encounters at her home and once in his car. They also exchanged explicit messages throughout the relationship, which lasted until June 2020.
The UK Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP) found Haddon guilty of “serious misconduct,” stating he had violated core professional standards by initiating a sexual relationship too soon after therapy ended. As a result, he was removed from the UKCP register.
Haddon challenged the decision in the High Court, arguing that the penalty was “disproportionate.” His legal team maintained that the relationship began only after therapy had concluded and that the client had shown significant improvement—particularly in overcoming her fear of driving.
Deputy Judge Rory Dunlop acknowledged that Haddon had erred by not allowing sufficient time to pass between the end of therapy and the beginning of the relationship. “Ten days was plainly not enough to ensure proper closure,” the judge stated, adding that any therapist should understand the disciplinary risks associated with such actions.
Nevertheless, Judge Dunlop ruled that the UKCP’s adjudication panel had demonstrated bias against Haddon after hearing his oral testimony. “My overall assessment is that the adjudication panel took against the claimant after hearing his oral evidence and failed to balance their adverse impression of him against the available evidence,” he said.
The court ordered that the case be reconsidered by a new disciplinary panel. The outcome of the re-evaluation will determine whether the original sanction is upheld, modified, or overturned.
