Patient Sues Therapist for Stealing her Boyfriend

Patient Sues Therapist for Stealing her Boyfriend

Ethical Breach: Patient Wins Lawsuit Against Therapist Who Stole Her Boyfriend

A therapeutic relationship took a shocking turn when a patient sued her former therapist for professional malpractice after the therapist began dating the patient’s ex-boyfriend just weeks after their sessions concluded. The court found that the therapist had intentionally sabotaged the patient’s five-year relationship, ultimately ruling in favor of the plaintiff for the full amount of therapy costs, citing a “flagrant abuse” of the therapist’s position.

Sabotage Under the Guise of Therapy

The plaintiff testified that she and her long-term partner sought therapy to navigate their relationship, but she soon felt that her therapist, Ms. Sinclair, was actively driving a wedge between them. According to the plaintiff, Sinclair focused disproportionately on the couple’s differences and, by the fifth session, pressured them to take a break. Within one session of that “break,” the partner—whom Sinclair is now dating—abruptly ended the relationship.

A Flagrant Violation of Ethics

During the hearing, Sinclair attempted to frame the romance as an innocent connection, even smiling throughout her testimony. The court, however, was unmoved. Referencing the American Psychological Association’s ethical standards, the judge noted that a mandatory two-year waiting period is required between ending a therapeutic relationship and starting a romantic one. Sinclair’s attempt to ignore this fundamental rule was met with sharp condemnation from the bench.

The Court’s Verdict

Calling the situation “truly one of the most flagrant abuses of your position this court can fathom,” the judge did not mince words regarding Sinclair’s professional conduct. The court concluded that the sessions had been a calculated sabotage from the start. Finding Sinclair guilty of a severe violation of her ethical duties and standards of care, the judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff for the full cost of the six sessions, labeling the entire ordeal “sickening.”