Provisional psychologist reprimanded for professional misconduct, breaching professional boundaries

17 Oct 2024

A Queensland provisional psychologist has been reprimanded for breaching professional boundaries with a patient, and failing to maintain adequate treatment records, while practising at an adult male prison.

The Psychology Board of Australia (the Board) referred Melanya Polata, a provisional psychologist, to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the tribunal) alleging that she had engaged in professional misconduct for her contact with a patient (Patient A).

Ms Polata was employed as a provisional psychologist by Queensland Corrective Services and worked at an adult male prison for approximately eight months in 2019, where she treated Patient A. Approximately six and a half months into Ms Polata’s employment, her supervisor advised her to cease contact with Patient A. She continued to engage with Patient A despite her supervisor repeatedly advising against it. Ms Polata subsequently resigned from the prison. Following her resignation, Ms Polata and Patient A continued to communicate via telephone.

In May 2020, having received a notification regarding the inappropriate relationship with Patient A, the Board proposed to take immediate action to suspend Ms Polata’s registration. In response, Ms Polata gave an undertaking not to practise as a provisional psychologist. This was accepted by the Board in place of the proposed suspension. Ms Polata’s registration subsequently expired, and she remains unregistered.

In finding the conduct objectively serious, the tribunal noted the importance of someone with provisional registration following the guidance and direction of a more experienced team member, particularly in the work environment of a maximum security prison.

On 18 September 2024, the tribunal found that Ms Polata had behaved in a way that constituted professional misconduct and ordered that she be reprimanded. It noted the Board’s position that, had Ms Polata not been away from practice for more than four years, the Board would have sought that she be precluded from practising for a further period.

Read the tribunal’s full decision on Austlii.