The couples counsellor was identified as having pattern of disrespectful and unprofessional behaviour. Photo / 123rf

An unregistered counsellor who was meant to support vulnerable couples instead inflicted a pattern of belittling behaviour, including clicking his fingers in a woman’s face “like you would call a dog” and telling her the door was open for her to leave.

The allegations against the man are documented infour complaints to the Health and Disability Commissioner (HDC) that related to behaviour between 2023 and 2025.

The practitioner was also accused of telling another woman she was “the problem” and publicly accusing clients of narcissism.

According to a decision released today, the man repeatedly turned clients’ vulnerabilities against them and then stonewalled them.

Deputy commissioner Dr Vanessa Caldwell said he breached clients’ rights and core ethical obligations, particularly towards women, leaving clients distressed, confused, and questioning their own reality.

In one case, the counsellor provided marriage counselling to a couple in which the woman advised she had been unfaithful.

The woman attended an individual session with the counsellor and reported to the HDC that the counsellor told her “she was the problem” in their marriage.

In another session, she disclosed she had been sexually assaulted and her husband’s behaviour sometimes crossed boundaries.

The woman said the counsellor, who was only identified as Mr B in the decision, then used that experience as an example of when her husband said no (to not crossing her boundaries), she “did not like being told no”.

“Mrs A said that Mr B’s response made her cry, and she felt that he was insinuating that the behaviour (not respecting sexual boundaries/consent) was okay,” Caldwall said in her decision.

When she advised the counsellor it might be an idea the couple spend some nights apart, he reportedly told her this would traumatise their child.

The woman left a negative comment about his practice on Google reviews and the counsellor posted a public reply.

He listed personal characteristics he associated with the woman, including selfishness, narcissism and covert emotional control.

“There is a clear warning on our website which states if [it] is your intention to use the counselling environment to manipulate your partner not to book in. Best not to choose [Mr B’s business name] for relationship counselling unless you want to restore your relationship, take responsibility and be accountable,” the counsellor’s response said.

After the woman complained to the HDC, the counsellor failed to respond to information requested by the HDC.

Another couple also complained to the HDC, after the husband said the counsellor did not take time to get to know him and labelled him “a controlling and abusive partner”.

The husband told the HDC that when his wife did attempt to support him in their sessions, she was quickly shut down by the counsellor, which enforced “his rhetoric”.

“My wife and I are now considering divorce due to the fact that Mr B has cemented into my wife’s mind that I have a controlling nature,” the man told the HDC.

Another couple reported to the HDC that the counsellor could not assist them in resolving their issues, which was understanding each other better.

“Ms A said that she left the session feeling very confused, embarrassed, violated, bullied, and ‘questioning her own reality’,” the decision said.

“Ms A said that, during the session, when she was speaking with her partner, Mr B ‘leant forward towards her and started clicking his fingers in her face like you would call a dog’.”

The woman also reported the counsellor had asked her whether she had been sexually abused and when she responded no, he said “are you sure?”

When she got upset, the counsellor flung the door open and said: “Here is the door if you didn’t know ... it’s now open for you to get out.”

He also told her husband that the person who leaves the room first is always at fault.

After her complaint was made and the HDC requested information from the counsellor, he sent back an email.

“[P]eople from the public decide with malicious intent that they will use your office as an attempt to attack people like me without true justification. Your office and investigations are being used and weaponised as lawfare to attack,” his email said.

He did not engage further with the investigation.

Another woman complained to the HDC about the counsellor’s medical notes on her file, which stated she was suicidal, had had an affair and that he felt sorry for her husband.

“He’s been willing to do what it takes to make things wor[k] this whole time. [Mrs B] has knowingly deceived him and then come to counselling to restore her relationship.”

The woman told the HDC she had never been suicidal, had never had an affair and the notes were fabricated.

When the couple came in for couples therapy, the counsellor disclosed to her husband that she was on medication for anxiety.

After they left the session, the woman contacted the counsellor and asked him why he disclosed her private information to her husband.

“Happy to have a chat with you; however, it will need to be in room and with [Mr B] present,” he responded.

He continued to refuse to talk to her without her husband and the woman told the HDC she felt bullied by him.

The HDC attempted to engage with the counsellor regarding the complaint but got limited responses.

When asked to respond to the provisional opinion of the HDC investigation, he said he accepted he had not dealt with the HDC in “the best way”.

“[M]y biggest concern with this situation now is that I’m in a position now as a practitioner where anyone can make any complaint at all about me that actually has no merit and I then have to defend myself. I feel your process [is] one that allows clients with malicious intent to manipulate.”

Following investigations into the four complaints, the HDC identified a pattern of disrespectful and unprofessional behaviour by the counsellor over a sustained period.

The deputy commissioner determined the counsellor had breached clients’ rights and the code of ethics, particularly with the women.

The counsellor, who is not registered, did not complete any recommendations requested by the HDC and was referred to the director of proceedings, who did not take further action.

“These cases have been provided to the Ministry of Health to highlight the importance of requiring registration for counsellors, given they work with people often at their most vulnerable and the public has the right to receive an appropriate level of care and accountability for when this does not occur.”

Shannon Pitman is a Whangārei-based reporter for Open Justice covering courts in the Te Tai Tokerau region. She is of Ngāpuhi/Ngāti Pūkenga descent and has worked in digital media for the past five years. She joined NZME in 2023.

Join the NZ Herald’s Open Justice team for Case by Case, a video and podcast series examining the disputes and decisions making headlines across New Zealand.