A supervisor asked to sign an unread custody report and backdate a log
Dr. Marc Bélanger, C.Psych., agreed 14 months ago to supervise Marcus, a supervised practice member completing the year required for autonomous registration. The written supervision contract specified two hours of direct supervision per month. In practice they have spoken by video for about 45 minutes in 9 of the past 14 months, and Dr. Bélanger has not read any of Marcus's reports. Marcus trained in adult anxiety, but about 60% of his current practice is child custody and parenting-capacity assessment. He has just sent Dr. Bélanger a 34-page custody report for signature; it recommends sole custody to the father and "supervised access pending reunification therapy," which Marcus has offered to provide himself at $200 per session. The report is due in court in four days. Marcus also asks Dr. Bélanger to sign a revised supervision log showing two hours monthly for the whole year, explaining that "the College only looks at the total." Dr. Bélanger has never conducted a custody assessment.
1. Should Dr. Bélanger sign the custody report? Explain your reasoning.
Read the worked answer
No. Signing as supervisor represents that he has reviewed the work and stands behind it professionally; it is not a courtesy stamp, and this report is going to a court where a judge will rely on it to decide where a child lives.
Three problems make signing indefensible. First, supervision has not occurred as contracted: nine brief video contacts in fourteen months against a written commitment of two hours monthly, with no report review. Second, the content is outside both parties' competence. Custody and parenting-capacity work is a specialized forensic area requiring knowledge of the relevant research, the legal framework, collateral interviewing, and the limits of psychological evidence; Dr. Bélanger has never done such an assessment, and Marcus's training is in adult anxiety. Third, the report embeds a role conflict: Marcus assessed the family and proposes to provide and bill for the reunification therapy he recommends. An assessor who becomes the service provider has a financial and professional interest in his own recommendation.
What he should do instead: refuse in writing immediately, with reasons; tell Marcus not to release the report; consider with him whether the work can be salvaged (additional collateral, a properly qualified co-assessor, possibly an adjournment) or whether the family must be told and part of the retainer returned. The four-day deadline is a scheduling problem for the court, not a justification for signing something untrue. He should also notify the College through the supervised practice process rather than let the signature go forward.
2. Marcus asks for a revised supervision log showing two hours monthly for the whole year. How should Dr. Bélanger respond?
Read the worked answer
He must refuse, and he should be clear with himself about why. The log is a record. A record stating that supervision occurred when it did not is false, and creating it at the supervisee's request to satisfy the College converts a documentation gap into dishonesty. Backdating is not a paperwork shortcut; it misrepresents the supervision the College relies on to decide whether the public is protected.
Refusing is only half the job. Dr. Bélanger should correct the record accurately - a dated addendum describing what supervision actually occurred, when, for how long, and what was covered - and he should own that the shortfall is his failure as much as Marcus's. He should then decide whether he can responsibly continue. That means reinstating the contracted schedule, reviewing every report before it leaves the office, defining the areas he can supervise and arranging a qualified co-supervisor for the rest, and telling Marcus plainly what he will and will not sign. If Marcus cannot meet the requirements, Dr. Bélanger's report to the College at the end of the supervised year must say so honestly; that report is the mechanism that protects the public, and softening it would defeat the purpose of supervision.
All of this should be put in writing to Marcus, because a supervisee refused a false log may later describe the conversation differently.
3. What are Dr. Bélanger's obligations going forward if he continues as supervisor?
Read the worked answer
Continuing is permissible only if he can actually provide adequate supervision, which means matching the supervision to the risk and complexity of the work rather than to a fixed habit.
Concretely: reinstate and document the contracted schedule; require that no report leaves the practice without his review; agree in writing on the scope of Marcus's practice, with high-risk forensic work either paused or supervised by someone competent in it; arrange a qualified co-supervisor or consultant for that area, and say so in the supervision record. He should require further training for Marcus before custody work resumes, and he should consider whether Marcus's case mix needs to be reduced while that happens.
He also has to think about the family in the current case. They believe a qualified psychologist produced an independent report. If the report cannot stand, someone must tell them and the court, and the cost of that conversation is not a reason to avoid it.
Beyond the individual case, the supervisor has a public-protection role. His end-of-year report must be an honest appraisal of Marcus's competence, not a formality. If Marcus's practice remains unsafe, he should be telling the College that, and he should keep his own record of what he advised and when. Supervision is not a favour to a colleague; it is a delegated piece of the College's quality assurance.