A south-west Victorian psychologist has been banned for two years after engaging in "energy medicine" therapy which involved her touching a male patient she was attracted to.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Sheridan Leanda Meulblok was a registered psychologist from August 2000 until December 2018 when she did not renew her registration.
She is now working as a life coach.
In a case involving the Psychology Board of Australia, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal heard she engaged in professional misconduct from August 2017 to February 2018 which created havoc with her patient's mental health.
The tribunal's finding said she had engaged in an inappropriate dual relationship, including a personal and intimate relationship with her patient, discussed the patient with her husband and "made a bizarre attempt to engage the patient in a relationship with her husband".
Ms Meulblok also visited the patient's home for a two-hour session.
The tribunal heard she parked down the road, entered his house via a back door and then held hands and kissed him, the tribunal heard.
When the patient told his partner what had happened she ended their relationship.
The patient eventually blocked contact with the psychologist.
In March 2018 the patient notified the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency that he had engaged in a personal and intimate relationship with Ms Meulblok, his treating psychologist.
The board took immediate action before referring the case to VCAT the following September.
Initially the patient was referred to Ms Meulblok by his doctor in October 2016 for issues including excessive alcohol consumption, depression, anxiety and stress.
He presented with particular vulnerabilities exhibiting mild depression, severe anxiety and moderate stress.
It was reported that early on treatment was effective and there were significant gains.
During the therapeutic relationship Ms Meulblok communicated with the patient by email and text message to follow up on sessions and appointment details.
The tribunal found that in August 2017, the content of the emails became increasingly personal and affectionate and communication by text message was becoming more frequent and personal.
Ms Meulblok began signing off correspondence with "x", referring to the patient as a "beautiful man" and using heart emojis.
She also began to discuss herself in treatment sessions.
This escalated over time and included such matters as issues in her relationships with family members and her own traumatic childhood experiences.
During the treatment sessions, the patient referred to chronic pain in his neck, shoulders and jaw.
In response, Ms Meulblok introduced the concept of "energy medicine" treatment, consisting of her sitting on the couch next to the patient and placing her hands on parts of his body that were experiencing pain.
She practiced the "energy medicine" by placing her hand on his shoulder for about 20 seconds and placing her hands on his back, shoulder, chest and jaw.
The patient said he was under the impression the "energy medicine" practice was a proper approach and well-founded.
In the agreed facts of the case, at the time of the physical contact, Ms Meulblok had developed affection for, and attraction to, her patient and she knew the physical contact increased the likelihood of sexualisation of the therapeutic relationship.
During the sessions, Ms Meulblok and Ms Meulblok's husband had incidental social contact from time to time and their social circles overlapped.
At one time they were at the same venue and Ms Meulblok sent a text inviting her patient to have a drink with her and her friend.
Ms Meulblok's friend left and they continued drinking and talking.
The tribunal found in that conversation Ms Meulblok told the patient she had an intense attraction to him and they discussed the topic of their attraction for one another.
From then until late November, Ms Meulblok and the patient contacted each other almost daily by text message, email and telephone.
The contact was variously personal, affectionate, intimate and quasi-therapeutic in nature.
In October 2017, the patient could not attend a session and Ms Meulblok proposed travelling to his home.
She parked down the road and entered the home through the back door, where she stayed for two hours.
They held hands, embraced and kissed.
Ms Meulblok and the patient had a conversation where she informed him she considered the therapeutic relationship to be over but her professional obligations prevented a sexual relationship from taking place for two years after the conclusion of therapy.
At the next appointment the patient told Ms Meulblok he had told his partner about what had happened and that she had ended the relationship.
He made it clear the events involving the psychologist had damaged his life.
Subsequently, Ms Meulblok initiated intimate contact, sat on his lap, straddled him and kissed him while he was sitting on the patient couch.
Ms Meulblok also told him they were soul mates, reiterated they could not have sex for two years after the cessation of the therapeutic relationship and discussed how they could wait that long and transition into a relationship.
That was the last occasion the patient attended Ms Meulblok's consultation rooms but they met in person several further times.
Ms Meulblok told the patient if he disclosed the relationship it would have consequences for her registration as a psychologist, which would be financially damaging.
Towards the end of October 2017, Ms Meulblok asked the patient if she could inform her husband what had occurred. He agreed, and subsequently Ms Meulblok's husband contacted the patient and they met in person twice.
The patient then tried to reduce contact with Ms Meulblok and in mid November the patient blocked Ms Meulblok's telephone number.
In emails to Ms Meulblok in November 2017, the patient conveyed the damage he had suffered, his desire to reconnect with his partner and requested time and space.
Despite the requests, Ms Meulblok continued to contact him by email, text message and telephone regarding matters of a personal and quasi-therapeutic nature.
The tribunal said that in an email to the patient she referred to their forbidden love, expressed an interest in continuing a relationship with him and encouraged him to develop a relationship with her husband.
The patient said Ms Meulblok's conduct was seriously damaging and he considered that period to be one of the most difficult and destabilising in his adult life - to the extent when he saw or heard about Ms Meulblok it could make him feel physically unwell.
The tribunal found the conduct was not the most serious example of an inappropriate relationship as sexual intercourse did not take place, no criminal conduct was involved, and while she was persistent and manipulative, her conduct was not said to be predatory.
But the tribunal found the case involved a number of aggravating features which placed it at the more serious end of boundary violations by a psychologist - the patient was particularly vulnerable because of his past history and actual harm resulted from the conduct, which did not deter her.
"At the same time, she made a bizarre attempt to engage the patient in a relationship with her husband, which also involved a serious breach of the patient's privacy," the tribunal determined.
Soon after receiving notice of the complaint, Ms Meulblok took full responsibility for her conduct, the tribunal said.
She expressed shame and regret for the damage it had caused her patient, her family and her profession.
In late 2018 she decided to cease practice as a psychologist, did not renew her registration and said she did not intend to return to practice in the future.
Ms Meulblok had no prior disciplinary history over an 18-year career as a psychologist and had a local reputation as a well-regarded psychologist with notable success in treating eating disorders.
"This case illustrates that a failure to step back in time from crossing professional boundaries, reflect and modify one's conduct, raise the issues and their solution in formal supervision, and appropriately transfer the patient's care, can end a career," the tribunal found.
Have you signed up to The Standard's daily newsletter and breaking news emails? You can register below and make sure you are up to date with everything that's happening in the south-west.