Therapist accused of having s3x with patient in car after he cured her driving phobia

A therapist who had a s3xual relationship with a former patient just ten days after her final session has won a legal challenge to clear his name following disciplinary action by his professional body.

Neale Haddon, an experienced psychotherapist with over two decades in practice, began a six-month relationship with a former client after treating her for a driving phobia. The woman had reportedly made romantic overtures toward Haddon, including asking if he found her attractive during sessions.

Following the conclusion of therapy, she invited him for a drink, which he initially declined due to professional boundaries.

However, ten days after her final session, Haddon agreed to meet her. The two soon entered a relationship, which involved intimate encounters both at her home and once in his car. They also exchanged explicit messages throughout their time together, which lasted from late December 2019 to June 2020.

The UK Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP) found Haddon guilty of “serious misconduct,” arguing that he had breached core professional values by engaging in a s3xual relationship too soon after the therapeutic relationship ended. As a result, his name was removed from the UKCP register.

Haddon contested the decision in the High Court, arguing through his legal team that the sanction imposed was “disproportionate.” He maintained that the relationship began only after his professional obligations had concluded and after the client had shown signs of significant recovery—specifically, overcoming her fear of driving on busy roads.

Deputy Judge Rory Dunlop acknowledged that Haddon had not allowed enough time to elapse between the end of the therapy and the start of the s3xual relationship. “Ten days was plainly not enough to ensure proper closure,” he stated, noting that any therapist should be aware that such actions risk disciplinary consequences.

Despite this, the judge found that the original adjudication panel had shown 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 ruled that the case will now be re-evaluated by a new disciplinary panel. The outcome of the reassessment will determine whether the previous sanction stands or is amended.

Source: LIB