Roberta Bogle and the Center for Counseling Wellness were sued today for violating the South Carolina Code of Ethics for Professional Counselors.
Roberta Bogle is a Counselor in North Myrtle Beach at the Center for Counseling Wellness. The center gets a primary source of funding from the United Way.
The lawsuit states that at 1:50 p.m. on February 5, 2018, Sara Price informed Plaintiff that she was taking his child, a minor, to receive counseling at the Center for Counseling and Wellness. The counseling session was scheduled for 2:00 p.m. the same day, which was approximately 10
minutes of notice and a violation of the Consent Order of record in the Family Court.
Roberta Bogle knew that Ms. Price was not in compliance with the Consent Order on February 5, 2018. Bogle also knew that another licensed therapist, Angie Dosemagen, had seen the child prior to February 5, 2018.
Bogle spoke with Ms. Dosemagen about the child. Dosemagen told Bogle that her opinion was that the child, as well as a sibling, did not need therapy.
Bogle chose to ignore the opinion of Ms. Dosemagan and, instead, relied on the opinion of a lawyer who acted as the guardian ad litem in the divorce case.
Plaintiff immediately objected to Bogle counseling the child, which Bogle chose to ignore.
Plaintiff also notified Bogle that Sara Price’s father, Doug White, was a board member of the United Way of Horry County and had been intimately involved in approving grants to local counseling centers like Defendant CCW.
According to Defendant Bogle, her practice heavily relies on funding from the United Way
of Horry County. In fact, according to Defendant Bogle, Doug White was present for the first two interviews with the United Way of Horry County in which CCW was considered for, and eventually received, a grant.
The lawsuit goes on to state:
Defendant Bogle was negligent, grossly negligent, and reckless in her actions by violating the requisite standard of care in the following manner:
a. Defendant Bogle violated several sections of the South Carolina Code of Ethics for Professional Counselors, 43-5 S.C. Reg. 131, 36-22, including B.1, and B.10, which deal with the general responsibility that counselors have with clients (S.C. § 40-75-20 paragraph 7 describes counseling “clients”);
b. Defendant Bogle violated South Carolina Code of Ethics for Professional Counselors, 43-5 S.C. Reg. 131, 36-22, A.6 & A.7, which addresses practice outside the scope of competence. Defendant Bogle operated outside the realms of the consent form that clients are required to sign in her practice regarding children and custody disputes. Defendant Bogle also failed to operate according to the
c. Defendant Bogle violated South Carolina Code of Ethics for Professional Counselors, 43-5 S.C. Reg. 131, 36-22, B.10, which specifically describes the requirements for counselor competence, and given Defendant Bogle’s failure to complete a thorough assessment for both children initially, she practices in a manner inconsistent with competence in working with children in disputed custody cases;
d. Defendant Bogle violated South Carolina Code of Ethics for Professional Counselors, 43-5 S.C. Reg. 131, 36-22, B.15 regarding the confidentiality of material shared in counseling (S.C. Code § 40-75-190, also outlines confidentiality). Given that Plaintiff’s communication with Defendant Bogle were in the context of the children’s counseling, Plaintiff was granted protection of his exchanges with Defendant Bogle. Without Plaintiff’s consent, any information shared by Defendant Bogle about Plaintiff was a breach of confidentiality.
e. Defendant Bogle violated South Carolina Code of Ethics for Professional Counselors, 43-5 S.C. Reg. 131, 36-22, B.2, which describes the responsibility that a counselor has in working with client’s who are seeing other counselors., Defendant Bogle initiated communication with the receiving counselor without any written consent and made disparaging comments about Plaintiff, which violates the confidentiality standards.
f. Defendant Bogle violated S.C. Code § 40-75-90 which addresses complaints to LLR and the privileged nature of reports, including the disclosure of complaints or use of complaints in other legal proceedings. Defendant Bogle used statements against Plaintiff that he filed a complaint to LLR against Defendant Bogle in a retaliatory manner. Such statements appear to be in direct violation of Sec 40-75- 90 (D) in particular.
g. In general, Defendant Bogle violated the primary ethical standard for counselors of non-maleficence. Defendant Bogle demonstrated a lack of objectivity and outright bias.