The Relocated Supervisor and the Undisclosed Home Practice

Deficiencies, in order of severity:

1. Signing for hours she did not supervise. Dana has no knowledge of the four home-based clients - no intake review, no treatment plans, no risk assessment. An attestation that these hours were supervised is a false statement to the Board, regardless of whether the underlying hours were competently delivered.
2. Uncovered practice site. Supervision attaches to a supervisee's practice, not just to a name on a form. A new site appearing mid-cycle requires a revised written supervision agreement, confirmation that the supervisor is willing and able to oversee that setting, and disclosure to the Board if its rules require site approval.
3. Format/quantity shortfall. The Board's rules set a minimum ratio of supervision hours to experience hours and specify how much must be individual and face-to-face. Whatever the current figures are, a 90-minute group session split four ways yields roughly 20 minutes of individual-equivalent attention, which cannot substitute for the required individual contact. Verify the exact format and ratio in the Board's current rules before computing anything.
4. Technology-delivered supervision. Many boards permit video supervision but limit the proportion of total supervision that may be delivered remotely, and some require in-person contact. Dana must confirm the current rule rather than assume.
5. Supervisor availability/qualification. Relocating out of state can affect the supervisor's ability to meet any in-state meeting, records-review, or availability requirements, and may affect the supervisor credential itself.

Before signing, Dana must: obtain full disclosure of the home practice and either formalize it in an amended supervision agreement with record review or require Marcus to suspend it; review all active files, including a documented risk assessment for the 15-year-old; restore compliant individual supervision; and sign only the hours she can truthfully attest to. If she cannot meet the rules, she must help Marcus transfer to a qualified supervisor and document the transition.

Marcus's duties run parallel to Dana's; a supervisee cannot hide behind a supervisor's signature.

His obligations:

• Disclose every practice setting and every client to his supervisor before or at the outset of services, and get written confirmation that the site is covered.
• Practice only within the scope of the supervision agreement, and only while supervision is actually in effect.
• Maintain his own records, risk assessments, and consultation notes, and make them available on request.
• Recognize that the 15-year-old with suicidal ideation exceeds a typical entry-level comfort zone; he needs a documented suicide risk assessment, safety planning with the guardians, consultation, and a supervision schedule frequent enough to monitor risk.

If Dana declines or partially signs: He should not argue for inflated numbers, and he should not simply find a supervisor willing to sign retroactively for hours never supervised. The correct sequence is: (1) request a written statement of the hours Dana will verify and why the remainder is excluded; (2) arrange prospective supervision with a qualified LPC-S, disclosing the gap honestly; (3) ask the Board, through its staff or a written inquiry, how the gap can be cured - most boards allow additional supervised hours rather than forfeiting the entire experience; (4) keep his own contemporaneous log with dates, durations, and supervisor signatures so the record is defensible later.

A supervisee who lets a supervisor overstate hours is a participant in the misrepresentation, not a victim of it.

For Dana: the conduct implicates supervision standards, honesty in dealings with the Board, and possibly the supervisor credential itself. Sanctions typically escalate along a continuum - letter of concern or reprimand, conditions, required supervision coursework, suspension, revocation - depending on harm and prior discipline. Signing for unsupervised hours is a character and integrity issue, which boards tend to treat more harshly than a technical paperwork lapse.

For Marcus: his application for licensure would rest on a false attestation. Even if he is licensed, a later complaint or audit can reopen the question, and the Board can deny, condition, or revoke based on misrepresented supervised experience.

How the process generally unfolds: a complaint (from a client, an employer, a colleague, or a Board-initiated audit) is docketed; the Board or its staff screens it for jurisdiction and whether it states a violation; the licensee receives notice and an opportunity to respond in writing within the stated deadline; staff or a committee investigates, which may include subpoenaing records and interviewing the supervisor and supervisee; the matter is resolved by dismissal, consent agreement, or formal hearing with the protections the statute provides; the licensee retains the right to counsel and to respond to the allegations. Sanctions are public to the extent the statute requires. Both should assume the client files - especially the 15-year-old's - will be reviewed line by line, so contemporaneous documentation is the only real defense.