A 2018 review of 647 convictions of psychiatrists and psychologists worldwide from over a 17-year period (2000-2017) showed that the top two crimes committed by psychiatrists and psychologists are fraud and sex-related crimes—36% and 30%, respectively, with drug crimes representing 14%.

Studies in numerous countries reveal that between 10% and 25% of psychiatrists and psychologists admit to sexually abusing their patients.

A 1997 Canadian study of psychiatrists revealed that 10% admitted to sexually abusing their patients; 80% of those were repeat offenders.

In a 1999 British study of therapist-patient sexual contact among psychologists, 25% reported having treated a patient who had been sexually involved with another therapist.

As reported in 2001, a U.S. study of therapist-client sex, reported that 1 out of 20 clients who had been sexually abused by their therapist was a minor. The female victims’ ages ranged from 3 to 17, and from 7 to 16 for the males. The average age was 7 for girls and 12 for boys.

A pretty distasteful subject.

Psych Rape Reporter presents the sex crimes and sexual misconduct-derived state disciplinary actions against mental health practitioners (sorry, we’re not going to call them professionals). All of this content has been reported elsewhere,  such as in the news media or in the disciplinary section of the state health care licensing board website.  Psych Rape Reporter is not the original source of any of our content so please don’t waste my time or yours accusing Psych Rape Reporter of reporting lies.  We just repost other peoples’ stories.

44 responses to “About

  1. Hi, where did the statistic come from (Up to 25% of psychiatrists & psychologists use their patients for sex)? I was looking at including your site in my directory, but the sites there have to have verified information.

    • It’s a statistic which is drawn from several sources:

      “Physicians Disciplined for Sex-Related Offenses,” by Christine E. Dehlendorf, BSc and Sidney M. Wolfe, MD, as published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, June 17, 1998, states that a 1998 review of United States medical board actions against 761 physicians disciplined for sex-related offenses from 1981 to 1996, found that psychiatry and child psychiatry were significantly over-represented. While psychiatrists accounted for only 6.3% of physicians in the country, they comprised 27.9% of physicians disciplined for sex-related offenses.

      “Reporting practices of psychiatrists who knew of sexual misconduct by colleagues,” by Nanette Gartell, et al, which was published in the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry in 1987, stated that 65% of respondents (to a survey) reported treating a patient who admitted to sexual involvement with a former psychotherapist.

      Another study by Gartrell, et al (“Psychiatrist-patient sexual contact: Results of a national survey, I: Prevalence”), which was published in the American Journal of Psychiatry, in 1986 (Vol 14, p.1126-1131), stated that approximately 10% of psychologists admitted to at least one sexual encounter with a patient.

      An article in the March 12, 1990 US News and World Report stated that as much as 25% of psychiatrists engaged in sex with their patients.

      Certainly, most of these sources are not current but they are most current ones on the subject.



      • The dates on the resources you mention are 20+ yrs old. What credible information do you have that world support your statistical claim reflects current state of things? Anything within the last decade at least?

      • Yes, actually. It’s been updated with info on a 2018 analysis. See new first paragraph.

  2. I can add some info. And, although I have a more conservative estimate than 25%, I won’t soft-peddle the issue, either. I have asked mental health professionals in discussion groups if any major ethical breakthrough in psychotherapy ethics has ever happened without a hail of lawsuits preceding it. So far, no one has provided much of a response. I think confidentiality has been pretty secure without lawsuits, but that’s it, as far as I know.

    I think that the 25% figure is highh for a number of reasons (but, like you mentioned, I’m not finding good recent information on this–and I looked, because I write continuing education programs for therapists).

    – The high estimate from “experts” that appeared in U.S. News and World Report does not say who the experts are, except for a Church of Scientology group (Citizens for Human Rights) that has made bizarre and impossible claims about psychiatry for decades.

    – The rates from polls that have been in the 10% range (and yes, it was probably low because it was by admission) took place before there were ethical and legal strictures against it that are in place today, AND before the issue was addressed widely in education as well as information provided to the public. For example, in California, the licensing board now requires a therapist to give a client a booklet on the subject if the client indicates that they have had sex with a former therapist.

    But I’m not going to stick my head in the sand, either. Some of the really big names in the history of psychotherapy (like Karen Horney and Carl Jung), have had sex with patients. In Horney’s case, it was flagrant, serial partners that included students. Freida Fromm-Reichman developed a sexual relationship a patient but stopped the therapy before marrying him (Eric Fromm).

    When the first research into the subject took place, the Los Angeles branch of the American Psychological Association suppressed it, despite the fact that it was an ethical violation to suppress research.

    We should also distinguish between “using patients for sex” (which implies a pattern of behavior) and a therapist that had a single relationship (probably early in their career) and sought help or otherwise refrained from ever doing it again. There is a range of profiles from the single violation to the outright sociopath that uses people without any regard or compassion. The latter are probably responsible for the greatest number because of their serial violations.

    Masters and Johnson, in their research on human sexuality, noted that people who had sex with their therapists were often very traumatized by the experience. As a result, these researchers were very strong in their support for laws against such liaisons. As usual, they were ahead of the curve.

    If you need some wry humor (if I can call it that) after such a serious subject, you might like (or not like) my report from a fictional psychoanalist who has a very bad problem with boundaries. http://www.PsychInnovations.com/weckles.htm One of the ways I decompress from dealing with serious things, is to write things that aren’t.

  3. I am working on a novel. One character is a New York psychotherapist who has entered into a relationship with a former patient. The thirty-year-old former patient is happy in the relationship, but her mother wants to have the therapists license stripped.

    Can you suggest a resource that would help me understand how this might play out?

    • Hi Jeanne,

      If you visit pretty much any state’s medical or psychologist or behavioral health licensing board website, you can usually find a section which explains the Board’s rights, the applicable rules, regulations and laws and the potential sequence of a disciplinary action against the health care practitioner. I unfortunately can’t recommend one state’s site over another as being most informative in this way but I am confident you can find what you are looking for. My ten-second explanation is that someone files a complaint. If it is about something within the Board’s jurisdiction and is of sufficient concern, the Board will open an investigation and inform the practitioner, to give them an opportunity to respond to the complaint. In the case of a sex-related complaint involving a former patient, it is only a Board concern if the complainant can show that it occurred within two years of the termination of the professional relationship. Loss of license for sex with a patient is not always the outcome. I think it sometimes has to do with how good the practitioner’s lawyer is, if the practitioner admits wrongdoing (the Board’s seem to value practitioner contrition) and other factors I may not be aware of. There are some egregious cases in which the practitioner did not lose the license and some seemingly mild cases where the practitioner did. It helps to review documents from such cases. I have some but I find that Steve over at http://www.psychcrime.org has lots of them and is very free with sharing them. You might want to contact him.

  4. You need a math lesson so as not to make such a stupid mathematical statement. 27.9% of 761 is 213 clinicians. 213 clinicians is NOT 25% of all such clinicians. It is a MUCH lower percentage (like less than 1%). You might say that those reported are not all of them, which is true, but that is zero foundation for your 25% number, which you have created out of a complete lack of understanding of basic math and percentages. I guess you’re entitled to make idiotic inflammatory statements, but I’m sure glad I get to point out what a stupid statement that is.

    • And you need a lesson in manners so as to not inflict your rudeness on our readers.

      • You need a lesson in humanity. One of the psychiatrists you decided to “report” about on this site was my father. Imagine, looking up your father’s obituary and finding his name included on a website with “rape” in the title.

        David J. Wood died September 17th, 2013. He is sorely missed by his family and his patients. You have no idea what really happened, whereas I have every detail. Please, just take his report down. He is no longer alive, and trust me, you are doing much more damage with that report than he ever did. I don’t know if you know what it is like to lose a parent. I hope for your sake you don’t.

        If you have any compassion or human decency, take that report down.

      • I am sorry for your loss and I appreciate you contacting me about this but please understand that this story was posted more than 18 months ago and is informed solely by documents issued by the state medical board that investigated Dr. Wood. Hardly a vicious attack, it is a summary of facts contained in the state’s documents.

        I will consider removing it.


  5. Here one you may not have:
    Larissa K Humiston, Florida Social Worker and Psychotherapist had license suspended for sex with a patient: Link:

  6. I suspect, my prior posting on your blog was a little too professional and reasonable that you had to delete it? Anyway, may wee ask you Sue, a personal question? How many psychiatrists/psych/mental health personnel have restrianing orders against you?

  7. I am writing a book on physicians, hospitals (the Joint Commission), and medical boards. I would like to discuss the issue of mandated reporting with the individual who is responsible for this blog.

    When the Mass Board refused to cooperate by giving me information I was requesting, I put up a website (purposely contentious) with commentary on some of the cases that came before it or were never reported to it: the Board immediately invited me in for a meeting.

    The site is at http://www.MassMedicalBaord.com.

    Thank you.

    • Hi,

      I appreciate you asking, but that is really not an area I consider myself very knowledgeable about.


      • I thank you for your response. I would be very interested to know your motivation for publishing this blog.

      • I mostly repost news items about crimes and misconduct committed by mental health providers like psychiatrists, psychologists and the like. My motivation is to bring as much of it together in one place and make it easily accessible to a people who might not otherwise know about it.


  8. Aaron Montana

    I left a comment last week but have not recieved a reply. Perhaps I’m just being impatient – but more probably I’m just being ignored. I do have a need to vent my frustration with your website. I agree that there are plenty of predatory clinicians out there praying on vulnerable clients and they do deserve to be exposed, that is surely not the case in every instance. The case I am referring to recently occurred in Virginia. Due process was not afforded to the therapist, she was lied about very convincingly to the Board of Social Work by a habitual liar, a person who has wanted to for years to burn somebody, anybody for a lifetime of anger and frustration. I should know I was married to her for 18 years. Now I see your website characterizing this therapist as some kind of criminal or rapist which she is most certainly not. I for that matter was not a vulnerable client who was prayed upon and abused. We had feelings for each other, we fell in love, and we were married, we have a wonderful partnership. Yes, a regulation was violated and the price is being paid, but how dare you lump my wife in with a group of sexual predators. Doing so is not responsible, in fact is horribly irresponsible. I hope the administrators of this website have the professionalism to open a dialogue with me. I will be expected a reply.

    • Dear Aaron,

      On this blog, we (1) re-post news items that were published elsewhere and (2) post summaries of health care licensing board disciplinary actions.

      In other words, Psych Rape Reporter is not the source of any of the stories here. I welcome you to go “vent” to the board of social work examiners.

      Even if I were inclined, there aren’t enough hours in the day to listen to voluminous justifications that psychiatrists, psychologists and other mental health “professionals” give for why they can’t keep their hands (and other body parts) off their patients. That’s why “psychotherapist sexual exploitation” is a crime in more than 20 states and several non-U.S. countries. Of course, all health care licensing board regulations have something called “sexual misconduct,” for which the practitioner’s license can be disciplined.

      I am glad if you’re in love. That doesn’t change the fact that the therapist committed a violation for which they could be held accountable…which they were.

      This blog collects psychotherapist sex-related misconduct and crimes and the story (you don’t even mention the name of the social worker) will remain.


  9. Hi there,
    Could you email me? I work for a journalist doing a story on inappropriate therapeutic relationships and he’d love to speak with you. mascia@nytimes.com. Thanks!


    • Hi Jennifer,

      I am not really so much an authority on this subject. I am just aware of it, outraged by it and feel it needs to be made more widely known. I would suggest you or the journalist contact Steve Wagner at Citizens Commission on Human Rights (swagner@cchr.org), as they have been exposing this kind of thing for since the 70s and their website is where I get most of the news items I post.


  10. Hi Sue,

    I have long wondered whether mental healthcare providers (especially psychiatrists) are ever permitted to legally marry their former patients without revocation/suspension of their license, and/or fines. I imagine that a marriage between a provider and his/her former patient is rare, but I am interested in the incidence and/or prevalence of such marriages and if so, how state or federal law address these legal unions. I have read a variety of education specific to the ethics for mental health providers in the US and for the most part such unions are prohibited from an ethical standpoint. Most all APA literature on the ethical boundaries between a psychiatrist and patient condemns any relationship outside that of the established professional relationship. Do such marriages come to the attention of the medical ethics boards by way of complaint irrespective of the source, or are there watch dogs/flags for marriage licenses, or both (or other)? Are there established rules/laws governing the length of time between terminating the professional relationship and beginning a casual/intimate relationship?

    I hope that my questions do not give you the impression that I condone boundary violations between mental health providers and their patients. Your website is sobering and much needed.

    • My understanding is that there is a period, usually of two to three years following the termination of the therapist-patient relationship, when a therapist may not get involved with a former patient in any other capacity. If they can wait the two or three years, then they are not violating the rules.

  11. No physical presence (address, phone number), so there is no way to follow up on replies that are ignored.

    Your site Characterizes some “incidents as crimes or rapes” when in-fact they are not. You publish case decisions of supervisory boards as if reporting actual criminal acts when in fact they are not.

    Hey psychrape reporter, keep hiding in cyber space, keep smearing peoples names. Do you homework. And, have the integrity to respond to me and open a conversation. If you are too insecure to do so via a public forum then do so through e-mail.

  12. Sue,
    I need to apologize concerning my earlier post dated today, challenging you about ignoring me. I did not see this reply until after I sent it this morning. Thank you.

    My assertions remain. Based upon the name of this website alone, you are characterizing every case decision and every incident as rape when in fact they are not all rapes. Your sight implies that people who have undergone disciplinary action via a state licensing board are criminals. There is a huge difference between a person who has been convicted of a crime and a person who has been disciplined by a supervisory board. Supervisory boards such as the Virginia Board of Social Work do not follow the rules of law,the rules of evidence, they do not hold the accused to the standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

    My wife, Elizabeth Balyeat is not a criminal, she is not a rapist. In order to be considered one she has to first be accused of a crime, then offered due process, and be convicted. None of these things have happened, no crime occured. Yet any one browsing this website will automatically assume she is some kind of criminal based on the fact that she has been reported on Pshycrapereporter.

    We have not denied our relationship to anyone. We stood up and told the truth, owned what happened between us, even after attorneys and others advised us to lie, and because of our honesty Elizabeth has been damned by your website.

    I was not a vulnerable person in need of psycho-therapy who was victimized by a predatory practitioner. That we found each other was a miracle! I was person in need of a 3rd party to help me through a crisis. That person was Elizabeth. We were two people who were both going through a horrible time in our lives. We both finally, after 20 years of emotional and physical abuse at the hands our our former spouses, were finally standing up and leaving. Outside of her control I learned a great deal about Elizabeth and her personal life. Through a chance meeting with her ex-husband in a training class. I saw his true character as an abuser up close, before I connected him to Elizabeth. I identified his more turpitude (because of his inappropriate behavior towards women in the class he did not get his EMT certification). And when I asked, and she answered that this classmate was her ex-husband, I found that she was in every bit of a crisis as I was. I am a firefighter, I’m in as caring, and helping profession as Elizabeth is. We pulled each other out of the dirt, we helped each other survive and thrive.

    When my vengeful ex-wife learned about our relationship she was cunning enough to manipulate the Virginia Board of Social Work as an instrument for her revenge. She used a kernel of truth and elaborated upon it with a plethora of lies and deceit to claim that Elizabeth seduced me and destroyed our “happy” marriage. My marriage was over long before Elizabeth came into the picture. Yet the board bought her claims hook,line, and sinker, and allowed itself be used as a tool. I’m sure my ex-wife smiles everyday knowing that Elizabeth has been labeled a “rapist” by you and your website.

    • Dear Aaron,

      I will be straight with you: I really don’t give a **** about what’s behind your marriage with Elizabeth Balyeat or the ways in which you want to justify her conduct or your own. State law or regulation prohibits counselors, social workers, etc. from engaging in sexual/romantic relations with patients. If she didn’t know it, well…that’s rough. “Ignorance of the law,” as it has been said, “is no defense for breaking it.”

      As for Psych Rape Reporter, our “About” page states that we “present the sex crimes and sexual misconduct-derived state disciplinary actions against mental health practitioners.” Further, “All of this content has been reported elsewhere, such as in the news media or in the disciplinary section of state health care licensing board websites.” And lastly: “Psych Rape Reporter is not the original source of any of our content so please don’t waste my time or yours accusing Psych Rape Reporter of reporting lies. We just repost other peoples’ stories.”

    • Oh dear. “Aaron”, or whomever you beleve yourself to be. Browsing through this website and, a little ghoulishly, the comments too, I have made sure to maintain a skeptical frame, reminding myself I am not privvy to much of the details pertinent to the cases the commendable owner of the site has collated. Though it appears to me, that although there are trivial flaws occuring within the site on the whole (as obnoxiously pointed out by the correct but attrotious maths moron previously in the comments) the representations are true as stated numerous times already. You must be falling for your own bullshit, as evidenced by your laughable assertions that because your current partner fessed up when pressed (though dollar gagging law folks apparently advised otherwise) she somehow did not “deserve” to have her mug and bio amongst her fellow health employee “fails”. And that this site has caused her harm. But-this is not that complex if you concentrate- she is fucking a patients husband. Engaging in prohibited sexual relations with the immdiate family member of a patient or ex patient. Porking the patients partner. Then, most obviously, is engaging in supremely unproffessional slandering of her client, whom she deceived, maligned, discredits, and now as a duo you both romantically engage in shaming and desecrating online, in public, while protesting any glints of light be illuminating the practitioners astounding misconduct, malpractice, and utt lack of integrity. Would be amusing perhaps, were it not so offensive and destructive.qq

  13. The url http://www.psychrapereporter.wordpress.com, the name, Psychiatric & Mental Health Rape Reporter along with the accompanying picture of jail cells, suggests that your blog posts reports of rapes in a mental health setting., a serious criminal act. While conducting a web search for my wife Elizabeth a person will undoubtedly find the post on your website concerning the Virginia Board of Social Work’s decision against her. The unfortunate thing is Elizabeth is not a criminal, she has not been arrested and charged with a crime, has not been tried, convicted or sentenced in a court of law. However, a person conducting this web search will conclude that Elizabeth is a criminal and a rapist based on the fact that her name appears below a banner that declares that this blog reports rapes in a mental health setting. What you are doing is constitutes libel.
    I will be straight with you. Unless you remove any and all mention of Elizabeth Balyeat from this blog, you Sue, psychrapereporter.com, and WordPress will face a defamation of character lawsuit. You probably can’t afford a court battle let alone a judgment against you, we don’t have to, our attorney will represent us for a percentage of any monetary award. Think long and hard… do you want to go there?

  14. Peter Schweich

    While your threat could have been proof-read to make it more effective, your point is not invalid. Whatever Sue’s motivation in running this site might be, it certainly appears that she has an agenda to smear psychiatrists at every turn. As I have read through her blog from time to time, very few cases involve rape. Sue does no research and bases what she writes on medical board information, which is often scant and without facts.In many cases, physicians merely resign and when this option is accepted, no other facts are usually stated. There is a huge difference between a physician engaging in an inappropriate sexual relationship with a patient and rape. Most often, that relationship is consensual at the time, although still inappropriate. I know of no case within the past 10 years (as far back as my research has taken me) in which a psychiatrist has been charged with rape by a district attorney or indicted by a grand jury, much less convicted of rape. Sue seems focused on the “damage” psychiatrists do when having inappropriate relationships with patients, but seems to have no issue damaging children and family of psychiatrists in reporting an action by a medical board in a way that the reader assumes, incorrectly, that the psychiatrist committed a crime: your point about the blog’s title is absolutely correct. It cannot be read without the assumption that every psychiatrist mentioned is a rapist.

    I might suggest that you report this site to the medical board in Sue’s (who obviously remains anonymous for a reason) state and to the AMA. Sue clearly has some sort of personal problem which has driven her to engage in this vendetta, disregarding facts and charging her victims with rape and then calling them rapists, when they simply are not.

    Your Elizabeth was suspended, perhaps for only 6 months, because she did not follow administrative rules – not because she raped you. She isn’t even accused of having a personal relationship with you during the time you were her patient or client. But Sue uses any professional error she can find, even if not supportive of her claims about rape, to support her claim that a high percentage of mental health workers are predators and rapists freely.

    Unfortunately, Sue will likely not publish this, as she controls the content. However, If she doesn’t, I will attempt to report her site to the DA in her state and ask WordPress to take down the site. I will also attempt to locate you in Virginia and put you touch with the daughter of a Massachusetts psychiatrist who Sue maligned through innuendo, since the publicly released information on her father’s case were never released: because of his age and deteriorating health, he chose to resign and that is all that was published.

    In the end, I suppose Sue’s hero is Sen Joe McCarthy. She uses the same tactics and uses WordPress as her vehicle to defame any mental health worker by repeating any error in judgement under a title that makes that error look like the crime of rape.

  15. Peter Schweich

    At least Sue has finally revealed herself as the nasty human being she most certainly must be. A one woman mudslinger who indiscriminately defames health care workers, even if they are reprimanded for administrative errors. Who can take a woman who uses such language to attack someone who points out the truth to her and complains to her about her misrepresentation of the public record.

    • Well, Peter Schwing, all I can say is: You’re either a “mental health” practitioner or you’re intimately involved with one or you’re a consumer of “mental health” services. If you are a “mental health” practitioner, perhaps you’ve got something to hide and that’s why you protest so loudly the stories I post. Either way, I really don’t give a damn and I regret having wasted the last 90 second responding to you.


      • Indeed Dr Sue. I concur. My final diagnosis pertaining to the unfortunate Peter Schweichturd, will not surprise my learned colleagues. Patient Schwonkster exhibits classic Dickheads Nonsensicus Rantellum as suspected. Acute threats with closed fisted tantrumming required confirmatory testing, and subsequent analysis reported malignant levels unwarranted arrogance, impairing personhood, and systemic pustular acrid outbursts primarily expelling piss and vinegar. Yes old chaps, it probably remains beyond our current treatment capacities. An eyesore, “nurse, discharge this hazardous unit”.

  16. Notice how your rant above, Peter, describes her as a ‘woman’? Why is that? “A one MAN mudslinger who…blah blah” What’s up with that? OH! Women are suppose to play nice, right?

    • This girl doesn’t suffer fools lightly.


      • Sorry, but any person who so glibly posts such malignant “facts” of another’s life without regard for verifiable accuracy and consequence has a problem. And if you are so confident in the state boards reports, then why the need to report what they are already reporting? When they report, it is factual and doesn’t imply things or judge or malign another’s character. Frankly, what you’re doing here, at tines, may be considered immoral or illegal. Lastly, if you are so sure of your ‘mission’ and means, then publicize your identity as you so readily do with the lives of so many others. Let the state boards do their own jobs .

      • Dear Concerned,

        I can see your point but I am not swayed.

        Our blog contains the same information as the state’s own disciplinary reports but is (a) far more accessible and (b) easier to understand. So people who need the information can find it quickly.

        Anyway, it’s a free country and we’re not alleging anything in any case that the state has not already alleged.


        Sue Sikes

      • Don’t try to make an issue where there is none. The articles on this site are far more accessible and comprehensible than most state board orders, accusations, etc. We present the facts, allegations, etc. as presented by state agencies, and, sometimes, media. We are not a source of information but rather a “redistributor.”

  17. he is worst than Hitler

  18. Thanks for providing this information. I think people should know about this as many are afraid to come forward. I noticed you have not posted anything since around 2014 – do you have any more recent information – I am specifically looking for information in the state of Florida

  19. Good morning Sue,
    You wrote about me in a post 9 years ago. The source from which you derived your information was an article containing nothing more than allegations. Since then, these allegations have been refuted through investigations. In fact, I am now fully licensed and practicing psychology. I was never charged with any type of crime, and in fact, my employer (at the time of these allegations) was court ordered to remove my “termination” status and accept my resignation due to the investigation findings that the allegations were false. I am respectfully requesting that you consider removing my name from your site. I would like to provide you with more detailed information so you can make an informed decision regarding my request. Can we please talk via email? Thank you.

    • Hi. I’d be happy to have a look. You’d need to tell me which article you’re referring to. Then you’d have to provide me proof that the charges or findings or disciplinary action was later refuted or rescinded or whatever occurred. Please send me links. I don’t do email with regard to this site. (And I don’t publish things unless they’ve been issued by state agencies or can be otherwise verified.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s