Time for another instalment on the Smalley case, a spectacularly mishandled fitness for practice hearing by the UK Council for Psychotherapy.
The story so far…The UKCP took over three years to investigate complaints about Mr Smalley, a Jungian analyst with the Independent Group of Analytical Psychologists. At the end of a long sequence of delays, they decided that seven allegations had been proven, but also decided not to sanction him. The fact that he admitted in the hearing that he destroyed his notes doesn’t seem to have prompted a sanction. The UKCP’s laughable response to this is that they didn’t sanction him for destroying his notes because there wasn’t a complaint about destroying his notes.
In the two instalments we discussed two of the allegations that were found proven. One was that Smalley inappropriately set up two of his clients in a business partnership with each other. The other is that he made derogatory comments about other clients to the complainant, including one where he (jokingly, according to Mr Smalley) suggested to the complainant that he hang around after the session because he had an attractive female client coming.
This time, let’s look at a dispute that erupted in the case regarding Smalley’s supervision. His supervisor was the late Dr Anne Maguire of the Independent Group of Analytical Psychologists, who sadly passed away in August 2011. Dr Maguire was a very eminent and respected figure, both as a Jungian analyst and as a dermatologist. In 1998 she gave the valedictory address at the funeral of Marie-Louise von Franz, founder of the CG Jung Institute and colleague of Jung.
During the Smalley hearings, the question of supervision came up, particularly with regard to the inappropriate business relationship that Smalley set up.
Later in the hearing, the questions returned to supervision.
The “ethical position”, the panel later concluded, was that this was misconduct. If this is as described, then Dr Maguire gave him carte blanche to carry out this misconduct. It would be a stain on the reputation of an internationally-renowned Jungian.
But did she do this? After the hearings, the complainant’s wife submitted a statement to the UKCP panel. In 2007, she and the complainant had a split in their relationship (one of the allegations found not proven by the UKCP was that the complainant seemed to blame Mr Smalley for the split). They subsequently reconciled and married. Around this time, she was attending analysis with Dr Maguire.
Mr Smalley hotly denied the claim.
To corroborate his insistence that he discussed these matters in supervision, Mr Smalley gave the panel receipts for supervision, and entries from his work diary showing his appointments with Dr Maguire. However, Dr Maguire’s records were not presented. I have no idea if they were sought from her estate.
The complainant then responded pointing out that the receipts and diary entries do not provide a complete record of his monthly supervision.
The “diagnosis of PPD” mentioned is a reference to one of the allegations found not proven – that Mr Smalley (who is not a medical doctor) diagnosed the complainant with paranoid personality disorder.
Here we have, as in many areas of this dispute, two wildly differing accounts. One, in which the late Dr Maguire sanctioned Smalley’s misconduct. The other, in which she hadn’t seen him for a while around the time of the inappropriate introduction. A record to show that Smalley had supervision was provided, but this record was incomplete. And in any case, it showed no evidence of what was actually said in those supervision sessions.
This needs investigating, and the records need to be sought if they have not been already. It may not fall to the UKCP to do this, as Mr Smalley is no longer a member. However, Mr Smalley is still a member of the IGAP, as was the late Dr Maguire. They have a clear duty to investigate.