Whatcom mental health counselor’s license suspended for alleged ‘intimate’ relationships
The state has suspended the license of a Whatcom County mental health counselor, alleging that she had “intimate and personal relationships with two clients and the husband of one client,” according to Washington State Department of Health documents.
Alana Ruth Karsch is barred from practicing as a mental health counselor until the allegations against her have been resolved. She has 20 days to respond to the allegations and to ask for a hearing, the state agency announced in a release on Friday, Jan. 24.
Karsch is accused of failing to maintain appropriate boundaries with her clients, according to the state agency. She also allegedly altered treatment records after she was terminated from her job and an investigation was launched.
Karsch has not responded to a request for comment left on her voicemail.
Additional details of the state health department allegations, as laid out in its release and in case documents, include:
▪ Karsch used pet names and terms of endearment for someone identified only as client A, whom she treated from about April to October 2017.
She reportedly sent emails to the client in which she used “love” and “hugs,” contacted the client outside of counseling at least once, and “interacted with and touched client A in ways that client A reasonably interpreted as romantic, seductive or sexual.”
▪ Karsch accepted gifts and money from a person identified only as client B, whom she provided counseling and/or “coaching” services to from about February 2016 to October 2018.
She wrote “I love you” in communications with the client and had personal and intimate communications with the client, and participated in a “mutual fantasy” with the client in which she became pregnant and gave birth to their “imaginary child.”
The state alleged that Karsch failed to maintain appropriate boundaries with the client while she was counseling the client and after she stopped doing so.
▪ Karsch also allegedly had an inappropriate relationship with client B’s husband that included “exchanging email and text communications that (the) husband reasonably interpreted as romantic, seductive or sexual.”
