Psychologist admits to romance with inmate

Paul Walsh for the Star Tribune

A psychologist had a summertime romance with an inmate she was counseling, the state Board of Psychology determined, prompting the panel to revoke her license for at least 10 years.

In findings released Thursday, the board found that Nicole Holman, 33, of St. Paul, admitted to state Department of Corrections investigators that she and the inmate began their sexual relationship in June 2010 while she was providing therapy to him as part of the chemical dependency program.

While the board's report didn't disclose where Holman worked, state records show that she was at the Lino Lakes prison at the time of the relationship. The name of the inmate also was not disclosed.

According to the board:

Holman and the inmate "engaged in sexually explicit dialogue" in telephone conversations last summer. One call refers to the inmate "spanking" Holman. Two other calls refer to when the inmate exposed himself to Holman, "presumably during a therapeutic session."

In a three-week period from late July to mid-August, the inmate called Holman's cell phone 106 times.

Holman can apply to have her license restored in 10 years.

Prior to working with the Department of Corrections, Holman was employed with Hennepin County as a child-protection social worker, according to county records.

A telephone message was left Thursday afternoon with Holman seeking a reaction to the board's ruling.

Psychologist Seeks Return of License

By Colman Herman

CommonWealth

June 22, 2011

A female psychologist is asking the state's Supreme Judicial Court for her license back even though she violated one of the cardinal rules of her profession by having sex with a former patient.

The standard punishment for someone in the medical and related professions who has sex with a patient or former patient is permanent revocation of his or her license. Officials at several of the boards that oversee health professionals said they couldn’t recall an instance where a practitioner who had sex with a patient failed to lose his or her license.

But Brookline psychologist Mary O'Neill says she deserves another chance. She acknowledges beginning a sexual relationship with her patient, Eric MacLeish, just weeks after his therapy sessions ended, yet says her license shouldn’t be permanently revoked because her lapse in judgment was caused by a marriage that had collapsed.

O’Neill petitioned a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court to review her license revocation by the Board of Registration in Psychology.  Subsequently, she and the board jointly asked the full court to hear the case, which it agreed to do. Oral arguments are scheduled for this fall.

O’Neill is arguing that the psychology board “arbitrarily and capriciously” refused to consider the mitigating evidence she presented. Rather than revoking her license, she says the board should have suspended her license for a year and then allowed her to resume work on a probationary basis for a year. She says she would continue to receive personal psychotherapy and have her work supervised by a peer. O’Neill also says she would do 100 hours of community service.

The psychology board’s regulations adopt the code of conduct of the American Psychology Association. The code states that “psychologists do not engage in sexual intimacies with current therapy clients/patients” nor with “former clients for at least two years after cessation of therapy.” Beyond two years, sex between a psychologist and patient is permitted only if the therapist can prove there has been no exploitation. The regulations also say it is not a defense to say the patient consented. The regulations were crafted to prevent psychologists from exploiting the tremendous power they often have over their patients and former patients.

In its April 2010 decision, the psychology board held that O’Neill’s marriage crisis “no doubt exacted a significant emotional toll” on her and that her “marriage crisis can be understood to have ‘clouded’ her judgment.” But the board nonetheless revoked her license, saying her care was the “antithesis of treatment” and her “conduct abrogates a basic tenet of the psychology profession: trust.”

The entire article can be found here.

Thanks to Ken Pope for this story.