Van der Heijden is from Belgium and moved to New Zealand in September 2000 and was working in Taupo at the time of the incidents.
The Psychologists Board of New Zealand understands he is now overseas.
He was ordered to work with a board-appointed supervisor from February 2021.
Through till August 2021 there was a series of communications between van der Heijden, the board, board staff, and other psychologists, in which he dubbed the board a ‘Kangaroo court’.
He was suspended by the board in September 2021, however he continued to take on clients seeking ADHD diagnoses.
Two of the four clients paid van der Heijden more than $2000 in fees.
He had five appointments with one client either at his Taupo home office or through Skype and sought sensitive mental health information for assessing her status using psychometric tools, when he was supposed to have been supervised.
He saw the other clients a variety of times when he was either under supervision or suspended.
In its findings released today, the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal censured van der Heijden and stripped him of his registration, and ordered him to pay more than $100,000 in costs after being found of multiple breaches including inappropriate behaviour and lying to the practising authority.
Van der Heijden had also been practising while suspended and outside the scope of his practising certificate.
He sent an unnamed board member multiple emails over several months accusing the board and its delegates’ of “corruption, nepotism, and abuse of power, could potentially pose a serious risk to their country’s public health and safety”.
Later that same day, September 3, 2021, he sent another email stating it was acting as a “kangaroo court itself, I am afraid that the Board has left me no other choice than to notify the appropriate authority about the Board and its delegates’ serious misconduct”.
He also made derogatory allegations about other psychologists, including potential supervisors, and one that worked at the Lakes District Health Board.
The emails to the board continued through September.
“I would also like to point out a major mistake on the Board’s website,” he wrote.
“I can understand that the Board would like this to be the case, but unfortunately for the Board, the Board is NOT the regulatory authority appointed under the HPCA Act 2003 ... Indeed, psychology is a science and not a profession! Taking this into account, don’t you think it is ironic that the Board considers me to be the one that is incompetent?”
After being contacted about his continued practice the following month, van der Heijden continued to deny he had been practising as a clinical psychologist, writing “you do not seem to be able to accurately read legal texts which, again, proves your own incompetence”.
The tribunal established all five allegations after a hearing in June last year.
Van der Heijden was overseas at the time and sent a link to the proceedings but failed to dial in.
The tribunal found van der Heijden had multiple opportunities to remedy his practice and restore his good standing before it got to a disciplinary process.
“Instead of engaging in good faith, he deliberately and dishonestly breached orders the Board made, disregarded attempts by the Board to ameliorate his practice, and was abusive to several individuals who were attempting to support him ... this was not a one-off occurrence.
“Overall, it was a sustained and deliberate course of inappropriate conduct that began when the Board raised his concern with his practice, and continued through his eventual suspension, PCC investigation, and resulting disciplinary process.
“The practitioner harmed the clients he saw. He misled them into thinking he was a registered psychologist, with some witnesses noting that his website recorded him as being a clinical psychologist.”
His registration was cancelled and not able to reapply for three years due to his “demonstrated and prolonged pattern of conduct”.
However, before he reapplied he had to complete a board-approved course covering legal, professional, and ethical obligations.
Van der Heijden was censured and ordered to pay 60 per cent towards costs; $81,879.05 to the PCC and $30,584.67 to the Tribunal.
Belinda Feek is an Open Justice reporter based in Waikato. She has worked at NZME for eight years and been a journalist for 19.
