An Auckland counsellor who was found to have mishandled the case of a woman who was in a polyamorous relationship has been publicly named by the Health and Disability Commission.
Neil Oliver was found to have breached the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights after he “failed to act with care and respect” during his time with the woman, including his questioning of her over a sexual assault.
The commission named him today after he failed to carry out any of the recommendations it made to him last year.
The woman made her complaint in September 2020, after attending relationship advice sessions with her husband and another woman. The three were in a polyamorous relationship.
Things first started to go wrong for the three after a difficult session between Mrs A and Oliver.
The woman stormed out of a session early, saying it “hadn’t gone well”. She alleges Oliver “made a comment to the effect that her husband needed to control her behaviour”.
She said that immediately after her session, the other woman saw Oliver, where he “shared his side of the story”, disclosing that she made “made him cry” – cancelling his other appointments.
The woman said that during their appointments, Oliver frequently asked the other woman about Mrs A.
“Mrs A told HDC that her female partner stated that regularly Mr Oliver told her that he believed she was in a manipulative relationship,” HDC Deputy Dr Vanessa Cladwell said in her report.
Another incident saw Mrs A’s husband return from a session “agitated and angry”, asking her why she stormed out of the previous session.
She told him about the comment made and said Oliver wanted to “bring the three of us together to confront me as I was at the centre of all of the issues, controlling and manipulating”.
After this, the husband stopped seeing Oliver.
‘Beyond interrogation’
The woman booked another session with Oliver, hoping to apologise for storming out of their previous one.
During that visit, Oliver asked her about a “non-consensual sexual event” that happened six years earlier.
She said the following line of questioning was “beyond interrogation”, describing it as “victim blaming and victim shaming”.
“He asked LOTS [sic] of personal questions over and above what a police officer would ask in a similar situation.
“Things I couldn’t always remember or answer. I was reliving the nightmare trying to answer, I didn’t and don’t understand his need to know.”
She claimed Oliver said her story “didn’t add up”, accusing her of cheating on her husband.
“Mr Oliver said I had put myself in that position,” she said.
Throughout the session, the woman said Oliver took notes – and when she asked to see them, he refused to show them.
Following the session, the woman left “visibly upset, shaking and crying”.
Oliver also left the clinic at the same time, in the same elevator, “and that she felt unsafe in the lift with him”.
“Mrs A told HDC that Mr Oliver showed no remorse, and she felt that he was angry with her.”
Following this, the woman stopped attending sessions with Oliver.
‘False, manufactured lies’
In his response to the HDC, Oliver said her claims were “false, manufactured lies” – saying there was no evidence that supported her allegations.
He also denied disclosing information to other clients.
As for the incident where he questioned her about sexual assault, Oliver said that what happened “was not rape” in his opinion.
“Based on the information and facts presented to me, [Mrs A’s] claim of rape is baseless, and nothing more than an attempt to disguise the guilt she has for being a willing participant in her own infidelity,” he said.
“This was discussed with [Mrs A] in session. [Mrs A] was also cautioned against falsely alleging rape as it is a criminal offence.”
All up, the three only has two group sessions with Oliver, insisting that it happen more often.
“He seemed to have no intent of this happening”.
Caldwell found Oliver had breached the woman’s rights and recommended he “provide a written apology to the woman, and attend training on ethics, professional boundaries, therapeutic communication, establishing rapport and trust with patients, and counselling for patients who have experienced sexual assault.”
“She also recommended the counsellor develop a robust complaints procedure and update his marketing material to be transparent about not being registered with the New Zealand Association of Counsellors (NZAC).”
The HDC made multiple attempts to contact Oliver, informing him the recommendations were due – each time, he failed to do anything.
"In our most recent communication of 20 September 2023, I advised Mr Oliver that I intended to amend my published decision on this investigation to name him and Auckland Counselling Clinic and reflect that he had not met my recommendations,” Caldwell said.
“As of 1 November, Mr Oliver has not replied with a valid reason for why I should not name him.
"In failing to meet any of my recommendations, Mr Oliver has failed to comply with his legal obligations under the Code to provide an appropriate standard of care and demonstrated a lack of commitment towards improving his practice.”
The HDC also said it was considering further action against Oliver. It also highlighted that a number of other complaints were made about him “which are currently being investigated”.
SHARE ME