Strangeworld, I totally agree with you. I don't want to blame the counsellor either, however I think this was an inappropriate 'homework' exercise to set on the first meeting with GBC - she had seen ABC on 27 Mar 2012 by herself. Maybe this is why the counsellor stood behind the confidentiality clause when she did.
Yes, imagine GBC 'listening to how Allison feels' for even a minute.
ABC who had some psychology training, talked of GBC's choleric temperament. Here's some reading on it.
http://temperaments.fighunter.com/?page=choleric
It can be a bit of a minefield counselling couples when one of the clients has been seen individually. It raises many issues, such as ensuring fairness and equity in the client-counsellor relationship, and making sure that neither client perceives favouritism, particularly from the perspective of the client starting late in the relationship (in this case, it would have been GBC, as Allison had already had a session).
It depends on how the relationship with Allison was formed. For example, you can have individual therapy, couples/family therapy with one client only (work on relationship issues without both parties present), or couples/family therapy with both clients present. It is very important for counsellors to clarify these boundaries, and make sure that each person AND the relationship itself is treated like a separate entity (if that makes sense).
I don't know how Relationships Australia works, so I'm not sure how these boundaries would have been set.
Also, privacy issues are much more important when it comes to couples therapy - for instance, the counsellor, having seen Allison individually first, would had to have been careful about what she spoke to GBC about, because Allison may not have specifically consented to what information was to be shared. Let me tell you, it can be tricky to make sure you don't reveal information when discussing relationships without both parties present. Keeps you on your toes!
I also wonder why the counsellor felt it so important to spend a whole session, which was intended to only be a half session, with GBC trying to convince him to do these homework exercises. You are never going to change a client in one session, and if he was that resistant, it would have rung alarm bells with me. I believe (and of course this is as an outsider looking in without all details of the initial assessment) the time would have been best served by getting the two to talk IN SESSION. I wonder if the counsellor even observed their communication skills before sending them home with this sort of homework. This should be a very important step, particularly when dealing with two very different personalities in Allison and GBC.
Anyway, these are just a few thoughts - I really do want to say though that counselling is a VERY challenging profession, and hindsight makes it much easier to critique what's happened. I hope Carmel has plenty of support herself - would be absolutely horrible to lose a client this way.
