In the Psychology Board of Australia v Noordink [2025] QCAT 165 (5 August 2025), the Tribunal considered issues of appropriate conduct and the suitability of the treatment applied to the client.
The case involves Dr. Peter Noordink, a registered psychologist, who was found to have engaged in professional misconduct against a female client, MK, who had an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) diagnosis.Particularly of note is that the Tribunal found that the practitioner had inadequate records substantiating his rationale for the proposed therapeutic treatment for the client.
There were, however, a number of grounds of misconduct.
1. Primary Misconduct with the Client (Ground 1):
Dr. Noordink made inappropriate and sexualised comments to his vulnerable client, MK (although the details were not particularised in the judgement decision)
He also made, or attempted to make, unwelcome physical contact with her without her consent (also unparticularised in the judgement decision).
This conduct occurred over a period of one month, from 20 October 2020 to 20 November 2020.
The Tribunal found this to be a “clear and significant breach of his professional obligations,” which caused MK to feel violated, intimidated, and terrified of seeking further therapy, and aggravated her pre-existing vulnerability due to her ASD.
2. The Email to the Complainant (Ground 2):
During the Board’s investigation into the initial misconduct, Dr. Noordink sent an email directly to MK on 11 April 2021.
Key actions in the email included:
Telling MK that her complaint could end his career as a psychologist.
Attempting to make her feel guilty by citing the distress this would cause his other patients, including stating that he had to respond to a “a 95 yo lady in tears”.
Stating that he forgave her for her role in potentially ending his career.
The Tribunal characterised this email as a “blatant attempt at emotional blackmail” and a “gross breach of his professional obligations. The Member was concenred this email was in many ways “worse than the conduct itself” and a “very significant indictment of his personal character, humanity and morality.” It was seen as a significant amplification of his initial misconduct.
3. Expansion on the Failure to Provide Adequate Care (Ground 3):
The Tribunal’s finding of inadequate care was heavily based on the expert opinion of Dr. Paul Pusey, who identified critical failures in Dr. Noordink’s clinical approach, specifically regarding his choice and application of therapeutic modalities for a patient with ASD. The failures were not just a minor oversight but demonstrated a fundamental lack of competence. Specifically, Dr. Noordink:
Used an Inappropriate Therapy Without Adaptation: He employed Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) without any apparent consideration for its suitability for MK. A core failure was that he used this therapy when it was inappropriate to do so with a client diagnosed with ASD. ACT, which often involves navigating abstract concepts like cognitive defusion and values-based living, can be challenging for individuals with ASD who may think more concretely or literally.
Lacked Rationale and Modification: He failed to provide a rationale for his choice of ACT and, crucially, failed to adequately consider and discuss with MK whether any modifications to that treatment were required given her diagnosis. This indicates a “one-size-fits-all” approach that ignored her specific needs.
Fundamental Clinical Omissions: His inadequacy extended to basic clinical practice. He failed to obtain informed consent from MK for the chosen treatment, meaning she could not properly agree to a plan that was likely ill-suited for her. He also failed to establish a baseline measure from which to gauge her progress, rendering any assessment of the therapy’s effectiveness impossible.
Lack of Competence and Supervision: The expert opinion concluded that Dr. Noordink failed to have the adequate level of competence and/or knowledge to treat a patient with ASD. Compounding this, he failed to obtain professional supervision in respect of his treatment of MK, which could have identified these serious clinical errors and potentially prevented the other misconduct.
4. Additional Professional Failures:
He failed to keep adequate records (Ground 4), further demonstrating a disregard for professional standards.
He provided false and misleading information (Ground 5) to the Health Ombudsman and the Board by initially denying conduct that he later admitted to.
Outcome
The Tribunal found that Dr. Noordink’s actions, particularly the initial misconduct combined with the retaliatory email, constituted serious professional misconduct. The agreed-upon sanctions were imposed, which included:
A formal reprimand.
Disqualification from applying for registration as a health practitioner for 18 months.
A prohibition from providing any health service until he was registered again.
The Tribunal noted that due to the gravity of his actions—especially the email and the profound clinical failures—it had “grave misgivings about Dr Noordink ever practising again.”
Observations
There are obviously a number of significant failings in this disciplinary proceeding, but perhaps most interesting finding was in relation to the improper therapeutic treatment. This makes it clear the Psychology Board will take an inquisitorial approach, informed by its own experts, as to whether or not practitioner has selected a suitable therapeutic approach and further has recorded and substantiated the rationale for this approach. Relatedly, this raises questions of whether or not the proposed treatment has been properly explained to the client with the opportunity to provide informed consent. It further suggests that where a particular therapeutic treatment is selected, clinical notes and the informed consent ought to substantiate the rationale for why this modality was selected.
