Allison Baden-Clay - GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD #46

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
LadyBird1 said:
... Has GBC exercised his "charms" on this lady also?...QUOTE]

This, of course, is an important question - not to be dismissed. How well did the counsellor know this male client?
If she had only just met him, in her capacity as Relationship Counsellor, then is it reasonable to assume that he set out to impress her in his usual manner?
Did this blind her or was she able to assess for safety concerns?
How experienced was this Counsellor with conflicted relationships, high emotional distress versus disengagement in the couple presentation?
Many unknowns at this point in time.IMHO.
Click to expand...
 
I think that the client attempted to charm the majority of women he met. Whether they found it charming or creepy is a matter of personal preference :-)
 
I think it is an important point too that Relationships Australia are the ones technically fighting it. I want to believe that RA and the counsellor are just doing it because trust is a massive thing in counselling sessions with clients. And IMO their reasoning is that future clients may be less likely to open up if there was a risk that this type of scenario (court subpoena) could happen to them.

But here's the thing - this exception to confidentiality has been around for a very long time. Clients (should) are always told that this can happen. Of course, those clients who want to hide something out of fear of it coming out in a court of law will hide it, regardless. I haven't worked for RA, but I would assume they would have documentation and standard forms that clients fill out. This would suggest to me that GBC and Allison both were aware of this exception to confidentiality. Given a murder has occurred, I find it astounding that RA are still challenging this.

I made a post a while back about objective versus subjective case notes - I am really wondering if this could be a reason for this stubborn fight. Maybe some 'observations' or details were included in the notes that do open the counsellor up for quite intense scrutiny. And let's not forget the counsellor more than likely has a supervisor or superior at RA who would have some responsibility in the management of this case.

All just my opinion and just trying to understand the mechanics of this.

It would be interesting to know if RA has had previous subpoenas (which I am almost certain they would have), and how often they have fought so much to not comply. If this is the norm for RA to fight subpoenas, or just this one.
 
Sorry - another thought :)

Couples counselling can be tricky, especially when a counsellor sees the individuals separately. Generally, to avoid boundary issues and to maintain confidentiality, it's best to always see the couple together. However, this isn't always possible.

If a couple was seeing a counsellor, and the individual had issues they wanted to discuss one on one with the counsellor, it is often best to refer to another counsellor for the 'individual' therapy. It's just a safer option that trying to balance the power, avoid breakdowns in boundaries, etc. Which takes me to the possibility that maybe there has been a breakdown in one or all of these?

I really want to believe the counsellor has acted ethically and appropriately at all times. But sometimes slipups happen. But I just wonder if information discussed with either GBC or Allison crept into the other's session without consent. And given Allison went missing only a few days after....I wonder why the defense are so okay with the counsellor's testimony and/or case notes.

Oh, I don't know, could be overthinking it and it's as simple as RA following constitutional law.
 
I think this counselling hoo-ha is all going to cancel itself out. What could it possibly bring to the table to create reasonable doubt of his guilt? Nothing IMO. GBC may have told the counsellor what she and Allison wanted to hear but his actions were telling another story altogether.
 
I think the sorts of things that could be included in these case notes are:

-Allison's state of mind i.e. given she was on antidepressants, the counsellor may have (should have) conducted a suicide assessment
-perspective of both Allison and GBC re the state of the marriage
-GBC's affair
-financial struggles

I'm thinking that maybe GBC's defense team are thinking they could use the case notes to support the notion that Allison killed herself - state of mind, depression, etc.

Whereas I think the prosecution could use the case notes to support the degredation of the marriage, or details about the affair as well as GBC's stress over finances to show motive.

This is all IMO, as we really don't know what is in the notes.
 
Strangeworld said:
I think the sorts of things that could be included in these case notes are:

-Allison's state of mind i.e. given she was on antidepressants, the counsellor may have (should have) conducted a suicide assessment
-perspective of both Allison and GBC re the state of the marriage
-GBC's affair
-financial struggles

I'm thinking that maybe GBC's defense team are thinking they could use the case notes to support the notion that Allison killed herself - state of mind, depression, etc.

Whereas I think the prosecution could use the case notes to support the degredation of the marriage, or details about the affair as well as GBC's stress over finances to show motive.

This is all IMO, as we really don't know what is in the notes.
Click to expand...

We don't know whether this was or was not done, but IMHO it was the RA Counsellor's duty to assess for safety concerns to either marital partner or the children. There is well documented research evidence and practice training that separating/divorcing couples can be at potential 'risk' to their safety/survival at this time. We do not know if any DV had been disclosed. Hypothetically, if Allison had exposed any DV claims, this could have been felt as a deep, narcissistic wound. Retrospectively, the reality was that Allison was 'at risk' and there were 'safety concerns'.

Maybe there is something that RA counsellors Australia wide (watching this space keenly) can learn from this case to improve practice and 'safety' assessments in deeply conflicted couple presentations. A four year emotional, social and sexual relationship outside the marriage is a significant divestment by one of the partners - regardless of what they stated to the Counsellor.

In support of the counsellor, denial can present real challenges to counselling intervention IMHO. RA counsellor training is more specialist/advanced training, combining 'internships' with theory and practice development. IMO it is not generic qualified counselling. RA Counsellors generally deal with highly/deeply distressed couples and work in a emotionally volatile environment which is emotionally demanding and their training and skills are aimed at assisting them to deal with complex presentations.
 
I get what you're saying Fuskier, but preventing this type of murder is extremely hard. I believe the RA counsellor was there for marriage counselling. This was to help Allison and GBC work through issues - whether it was to discuss separation and/or how to keep their marriage going. Guess we'll find out more at trial.

But even if the counsellor suspected any potential violence, there is really nothing she could have done to protect Allison. She couldn't have requested a restraining order unless Allison herself deemed her life to be in danger - and if this was the case, she would have just put in for the order herself (not the counsellor). All she could have done is offer support and resources.

And the problem with pre-empting criminal behaviour is there is often nothing that can be done. Even when it comes to kids - a person usually needs to have DONE something before the law will allow for any type of intervention. I can reassure you that when counselling, there are many people that cross paths with therapists that are a bit 'off'. You just know they're either not presenting themselves honestly, that they are a potential risk to others, or that seem psychopathic or sociopathic. But unless there is enough evidence to support these hunches, there's not a lot that can be done. One option is to send for psych assessment, but you really need to have a very strong case for this to happen without consent, and even then, they would be released fairly quickly after assessment unless there is a certain risk to the safety of themselves/others.
 
So now we wait for Justice Douglas to make his decision. I don't think we should hold our breaths that it will be any time soon. After all, the trial is not until June so it's not urgent. Both parties already have the counsellor's notes, it's just a matter of her giving evidence at trial.
The judge will be very careful to get his decision and written reasons legally correct as this is an important legal issue under the media spotlight and has wider reaching ramifications and possible appeal issues.
 
http://www.news.com.au/national-new...r-should-testify/story-fnii5v6w-1226730693253
Gerard Baden-Clay appears in court for pre-trial hearing to decide whether counsellor should testify, by DAVID MURRAY, The Courier-Mail, October 01, 2013.
Justice James Douglas says it is "bizarre" to argue a counsellor should not give evidence in the Baden-Clay murder trial. The pretrial hearing on the Baden-Clay counselling sessions has concluded, with Justice Douglas to advise of his decision at a future date.
 
Police found the counsellor’s notes about the conversations in a search of her employer, Relationships Australia Queensland, in May 2012.

The counsellor had two conversations with Mrs Baden-Clay on March 27, 2012.

On April 16, the counsellor had one conversation with Baden-Clay followed immediately by one with Mrs Baden-Clay.


Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...ve-evidence-20131001-2upso.html#ixzz2gT7jgMI8
 
BBM. Strangeworld what is the basis for the exception to confidentiality that you refer to? Finding that basis seems to be what the court hearing today is all about so from what you are saying, it is nothing new. Thank you too for all your great info on the role of a relationship counsellor. It has helped me understand it much better. Like you have said, I too wonder that this surely has happened before to RA where they have been subpoenaed. Maybe in domestic violence charges. I certainly get that for eg it would likely not be appropriate for a subpoena regarding family court matters like property settlement or custody issues but is there an intention that the prohibition on admissibility excluded criminal matters? We will wait to see what Justice Douglas thinks about this.

Strangeworld said:
I think it is an important point too that Relationships Australia are the ones technically fighting it. I want to believe that RA and the counsellor are just doing it because trust is a massive thing in counselling sessions with clients. And IMO their reasoning is that future clients may be less likely to open up if there was a risk that this type of scenario (court subpoena) could happen to them.

But here's the thing - this exception to confidentiality has been around for a very long time. Clients (should) are always told that this can happen. Of course, those clients who want to hide something out of fear of it coming out in a court of law will hide it, regardless. I haven't worked for RA, but I would assume they would have documentation and standard forms that clients fill out. This would suggest to me that GBC and Allison both were aware of this exception to confidentiality. Given a murder has occurred, I find it astounding that RA are still challenging this.

I made a post a while back about objective versus subjective case notes - I am really wondering if this could be a reason for this stubborn fight. Maybe some 'observations' or details were included in the notes that do open the counsellor up for quite intense scrutiny. And let's not forget the counsellor more than likely has a supervisor or superior at RA who would have some responsibility in the management of this case.

All just my opinion and just trying to understand the mechanics of this.

It would be interesting to know if RA has had previous subpoenas (which I am almost certain they would have), and how often they have fought so much to not comply. If this is the norm for RA to fight subpoenas, or just this one.
Click to expand...
 
Sorry ali - should have explained it clearer. The exception is if supbpoened by court, a counsellor can be asked to hand over client files. In psychology, it's called limits of confidentiality and is part of the code of ethics. Here's an excerpt:

A.5.2. Psychologists disclose confidential information obtained in the course of their provision of psychological services only under any one or more of the following circumstances: (a) with the consent of the relevant client or a person with legal authority to act on behalf of the client; (b) where there is a legal obligation to do so; (c) if there is an immediate and specified risk of harm to an identifiable person or persons that can be averted only by disclosing information; or (d) when consulting colleagues, or in the course of supervision or professional training, provided the psychologist: (i) conceals the identity of clients and associated parties involved; or
15
(ii) obtains the client’s consent, and gives prior notice to the recipients of the information that they are required to preserve the client’s privacy, and obtains an undertaking from the recipients of the information that they will preserve the client’s privacy.

I should note this is for psychologists - so counsellor ethics may be set out differently. But the main concepts would probably still apply.

This issue that I think has arisen with this case (thanks to your legal perspective too ali!) is the discrepancy with the LEGAL guidelines for subpoenas i.e. at state level and federal (constitutional) level. It seems like RA are grasping at straws using the Family Law Act to hide behind. This is specific to FAMILY COUNSELLING, which would certainly apply to the BC case.

But what gets me is they are claiming (IMO) future clients may not like the fact that their information might be available to the courts without their consent. This seems ridiculous for the following reasons:

-one of the clients (ABC) has been murdered
-all clients should already be forewarned that their information may not remain confidential if a court requests access to it
-both GBC and the prosecution BOTH want the testimony admissible
-my belief is that most clients would be ok with a breach of confidentiality if their life was either in danger, or they had been killed

Hope that makes sense. I'll try and find the ethical guidelines for counsellors so we have that too - they'll likely be similar.
 
Agree Strangeworld. RA counsellors are subject to their professional Code of Ethics in addition to the RA Code of Practice.To my knowledge, RA does inform clients at the outset of counselling about confidentiality and the exceptions to it: being threat of harm to oneself or to others and duty to inform. The limits of confidentiality under the Family Law Act are also explained before the Informed Consent forms are signed by each partner. RA deals with domestic violence on a regular basis including partners who are subjected to an Intervention Order which the Counsellor must abide by in the process of counselling. In this case, one of the partners has been murdered, allegedly by the other partner; therefore, harm has come to one of the partners, a serious crime has taken place. The intent of confidentiality under the Family Law Act relationship counselling expires IMO and the Counsellor's evidence should be admitted before the Criminal Court. I hope that Justice Douglas will also see it in a similar way.
 
This is from the Australian Counselling Association:

http://www.theaca.net.au/documents/ACA Code of Ethics v8.pdf


The counselling contract will include any agreement
about the level and limits of the confidentiality
offered. This agreement can be reviewed and
changed by negotiation between the counsellor and
the client. Agreements about confidentiality
continue after the client’s death unless there are
overriding legal or ethical considerations. In cases
where the client’s safety is in jeopardy any
confidentially agreements that may interfere with
this safety are to be considered void
(see 3.6 ‘Exceptional circumstances’).

Exceptional Circumstances
(a) Exceptional circumstances may arise which give the
counsellor good grounds for believing that serious
harm may occur to the client or to other people. In
such circumstance the client's consent to change in the agreement about confidentiality should be
sought whenever possible unless there are also good
grounds for believing the client is no longer willing
or able to take responsibility for his/her actions
Normally, the decision to break confidentiality
should be discussed with the client and should be
made only after consultation with the counselling
supervisor or if he/she is not available, an
experienced counsellor.
(b) Any disclosure of confidential information should
be restricted to relevant information, conveyed only
to appropriate people and for appropriate reasons
likely to alleviate the exceptional circumstances.
The ethical considerations include achieving a
balance between acting in the best interests of the
client and the counsellor’s responsibilities under the
law and to the wider community.
(c) While counsellors hold different views about
grounds for breaking confidentiality, such as
potential self-harm, suicide, and harm to others they
must also consider those put forward in this Code,
as they too should imbue their practice. These views
should be communicated to both clients and
significant others e.g. supervisor, agency, etc.

Contracting with Clients
i. Counsellors are responsible for reaching
agreement with their clients about the terms on
which counselling is being offered, including
availability, the degree of confidentiality
offered, arrangements for the payment of any
fees, cancelled appointments and other
significant matters. The communication of
essential terms and any negotiations should be
concluded by having reached a clear agreement
before the client incurs any commitment or
liability of any kind.BBM

So there seems to be a little more leniency in regards to confidentiality with counsellors, as there is room for individualising client contracts. This teamed with contradictory legislation for family counsellors (which CR is) would make this a minefield for standards of practice.
 
And finally, here's the excerpt from the Family Law Act:

FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 - SECT 10D Confidentiality of communications in family counselling
(1) A family counsellor must not disclose a communication made to the counsellor while the counsellor is conducting family counselling, unless the disclosure is required or authorised by this section.

(2) A family counsellor must disclose a communication if the counsellor reasonably believes the disclosure is necessary for the purpose of complying with a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.

(3) A family counsellor may disclose a communication if consent to the disclosure is given by:

(a) if the person who made the communication is 18 or over--that person; or

(b) if the person who made the communication is a child under 18:

(i) each person who has parental responsibility (within the meaning of Part VII) for the child; or

(ii) a court.

(4) A family counsellor may disclose a communication if the counsellor reasonably believes that the disclosure is necessary for the purpose of:
(a) protecting a child from the risk of harm (whether physical or psychological); or

(b) preventing or lessening a serious and imminent threat to the life or health of a person; or

(c) reporting the commission, or preventing the likely commission, of an offence involving violence or a threat of violence to a person; or

(d) preventing or lessening a serious and imminent threat to the property of a person; or

(e) reporting the commission, or preventing the likely commission, of an offence involving intentional damage to property of a person or a threat of damage to property; or

(f) if a lawyer independently represents a child's interests under an order under section 68L--assisting the lawyer to do so properly.

(5) A family counsellor may disclose a communication in order to provide information (other than personal information within the meaning of section 6 of the Privacy Act 1988 ) for research relevant to families.

(6) Evidence that would be inadmissible because of section 10E is not admissible merely because this section requires or authorises its disclosure.

Note: This means that the counsellor's evidence is inadmissible in court, even if subsection (2), (3), (4) or (5) allows the counsellor to disclose it in other circumstances.

(7) Nothing in this section prevents a family counsellor from disclosing information necessary for the counsellor to give a certificate of the kind mentioned in paragraph 16(2A)(a) of the Marriage Act 1961 .

(8) In this section:

"communication" includes admission.
 
DrWatson said:
If he did, and after I joined the discussion on another thread (the Morgan Huxley thread here on WS) where the young man had 14 girls on the go at once (allegedly), I'd just like to know what their secrets are. Must be an interesting life having women falling all over you merely by being in the same room as them!

Don't know whether to be envious, or not - except that GBC is in jail and the other young man is deceased.

On second thoughts, I think my monogamous state is probably ideal - less trouble that way :drumroll:
Click to expand...


For what its worth DW - I think these people are usually aiming to have what you have seemingly have successfully achieved - a fulfilling, happy, monogamous relationship.
 
I am just catching up on the melb case, I note on 2 oct MSM ran a yarn on the singer who was killed in mermaid waters a few years ago, re court appearance of accused.

I have been looking at the websleuths threads on the jonbenet Ramsey case from Colorado in the mid nineties too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 110 more.
Total: 1,451 (members: 111, guests: 1,340)

Online statistics

Members online
111
Guests online
1,340
Total visitors
1,451
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
605,793
Messages
18,192,381
Members
233,544
Latest member
jarneson59
Back
Top