Fair and balanced reporting?

The Scottish Social Services Council, as far as I am aware, is the only organisation within the Scottish legal system that has the resources to provide comprehensive details of its side of the cases it hears.

The decisions, often very lengthy, are posted on its website, but these do not consist of charge (allegation) and verdict (decision) but primarily the full, often refined, thrust of the prosecution (investigation).

Little or no details on the worker's mitigating circumstances are given, so what you read is very much just from the SSSC side. This is where you see a further widening of the gap between a criminal case and a civil case. In the former, fair and balanced reporting is vital; as far as SSSC civil proceedings go this is deemed unnecessary.

My feeling is that the details on the web must surely constitute ‘publication’, therefore to quote one legal source on this subject: “When more than the result is reported, however, great care must be taken to see the report is not one-sided. If one party’s allegations are mentioned, the other party’s replies should be given equal prominence.”

That should apply to all cases. So a minor breach of the peace that can earn a £50 fine with three weeks to pay, where no online details are provided, is protected by fair and balanced reporting. However, an SSSC hearing which could result in tens of thousands of pounds in lost earnings, then the termination of a career can ignore the obligations of fairness and balance.

Given that some of the information provided online by the SSSC need not have emerged from the actual proceedings, I’m unsure as to what is actually covered by legal privilege {protection} in its posts. But it is these that form the basis of most online, newspaper and radio reports, which should be fair and balanced.

You would think then that a worker might complain over that but then, if you’ve been struck off, and probably unemployed, are you likely to start costly legal proceedings against a newspaper or a radio station, seeking an admission of failing to provide “fair and balanced” coverage of your failings?

That could be a big spend, with little reward, and absolutely no positive outcome and your case being regurgitated again to a public audience.

But would a news editor be comfortable doing the same with lengthy one-sided reports from a JP or Sheriff Court?

Below are three stories about me, the first two you'll find online. The first was one I saw published in a provincial evening newspaper with a  circulation of around 11,000, the second from a regional daily with a print run of  32,000. Neither have an audience comparable with making the national TV news headlines but enough to ensure colleagues and service users were aware of the SSSC decision. I don’t take issue with the reports themselves. At 235 and 330 words respectively they are both a fair effort from that 5000-word online decision from the SSSC which, while certainly damning, barely mentions the ‘defence’ case.

And they don't mention my rejected offer of conditions... or vaginas once, a bizarre dimension I’ll return to later.

Interesting though, the boss from the charity I worked for gets a quote in the evening paper but not me.

The third report is unpublished and one I asked my journalist husband to write from his notes taken at the hearing. Many of the details contained in that are missing from the online decision, but it is fair, accurate and balanced; it will also be covered by privilege, probably unlike the SSSC publication.


(Published from SSSC online Decision)

Local childcare worker struck off after emailing personal details of child

A childcare worker has been struck off after admitting sending personal details of a child in her care to her own email account.

Judith Morkis, a service manager with Aberlour Child Care Trust, also failed to forward on child protection concerns raised with her on three occasions.

A Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC) panel told Mrs Morkis that her actions amounted to a “deliberate disregard” of child protection requirements.

Her employer’s policy was to report concerns within 48 hours – but she failed to do so on August 7 and 12, 2015, and March 7, 2016.

While the SSSC accepted that no children had come to harm, there had been a “risk of harm”.

The panel took evidence from senior staff at Aberlour and referred to emails sent by Mrs Morkis from a work laptop.

The panel told Mrs Morkis: “The protection of vulnerable service users is a fundamental tenet of social work and the panel was of the view that your conduct would be considered unacceptable by fellow social workers.”

The panel struck Mrs Morkis from the register due to a lack of “meaningful insight (or) willingness” from her throughout the investigation.

SallyAnn Kelly, chief executive officer at Aberlour Child Care Trust, said: “We are aware of the case and the SSSC published findings, however we are unable to comment on individual former employees.”


(Published from SSSC online Decision)

Social worker struck off after ‘breach of trust in care’ ruling

A Dundee social worker has been struck off after she was judged to have failed to progress three child protection concerns.

Judith Morkis was a service manager with Aberlour Child Care Trust when the incidents, which related to two children, took place in 2015 and 2016.

A ruling by the Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC) also found she sent two contact record forms containing personal details of a third youngster to her personal email account.

In its judgment, the SSSC said: “The panel considered that these failures amounted to a deliberate disregard of CP (child protection) requirements of which you were aware and ought to have appreciated were to have been followed.

“The events occurred over an extended period of time, demonstrated a repeated failure on your part and exposed vulnerable persons to risk of harm.

“The panel considered that your actions constituted a breach of trust in the care of vulnerable persons and that, as a consequence, your actions brought your suitability to work in social work into serious question.

“The protection of vulnerable service users is a fundamental tenet of social work and the panel was of the view that your conduct would be considered unacceptable by fellow social workers.

“In the circumstances, the panel concluded that your conduct fell so far short of the standards of conduct reasonably to be expected of a social worker as to amount to misconduct.”

During the tribunal, Mrs Morkis admitted her management was poor but added she “acted immediately” when concerns were raised.

She also said she had been overwhelmed by the amount of work and did not consider that she was putting at risk either of the children whose paperwork was not attended to “because there was so much other input from other social service workers.”

However, the SSSC decided she had committed “a breach of trust in the care of vulnerable persons.”



(Unpublished from attendance at hearing)

Manager’s behaviour akin to refusing to perform vaginal examinations

A manager with a children’s charity, who declined to have conditions applied to her registration as a social worker after an 18-month investigation, was struck off hours later at a hearing in Dundee.

Judith Morkis, a Dundee-based service manager with Aberlour Child Care Trust, faced allegations of sending personal details of a child in her team’s care to her own email account, and also failed to file child protection concerns raised with her about an active case on three occasions.

Mrs Morkis, who was not represented, admitted sending the details to a private account, claiming records were being falsified and had asked the SSSC to initiate a police investigation. The SSSC declined that request.

Mrs Morkis also admitted not completing the administrative paperwork within the allocated time on the child protection concerns, claiming she had ensured the case was being dealt with by social workers from Dundee City Council and she was undergoing harassment and bullying by two managers during a period of turmoil at the Aberlour service she managed.

The SSSC accepted that no children had come to harm, but, given different circumstances, there could have been “risk of harm”. Mrs Morkis said that she had never failed to sign off forms after tasking all other required actions in the past, and the failure here was related to stress caused by the conflicting demands and harassment from the employer's fund-raising and children's services departments.

The SSSC called her two managers as witnesses who both denied any harassment or causing undue pressure on Mrs Morkis. A recording made by Mrs Morkis that she claimed would support her bullying claim was deemed inadmissible.

The SSSC chose not to speak to Mrs Morkis’ defence witness or those involved in the child protection cases at the time of the incomplete paperwork.

SSSC solicitor Tom Miller said Mrs Morkis’ behaviour could only be interpreted as professional misconduct in her field. To support this he presented to the all-male panel 24 pages detailing the 2011 case of an English midwife who refused to perform vaginal examinations.

After consideration of this and other historic medical cases from England, the Scottish Social Services Council panel ruled in favour of a removal order from the Scottish social services' register as the most appropriate sanction for the public safety.


Picture: Annalise Batista

Registrant 1104254: A disgrace to the profession, a danger to the public

This is maybe stating the obvious but the conclusion of an SSSC Fitness to Practise hearing is not by any means the end of the matter.

You will be notified of the Panel’s decision and near enough at the same time so will the world.

There is a section on ‘Decisions’ on the SSSC website and I would strongly suggest everyone heading towards a hearing takes the time to read these.

The outcome for registrants does, I think its fair to say, vary greatly and some may raise an eyebrow. There may be a case that you think is terrible and the worker is ordered to write an essay. In other cases, where you might think the issues are not that major, the registrant may be struck off.

This isn’t necessarily an inconsistency, it’s just that the Decision does not detail all the facts.

I was removed from the register and I found the 5000-word decision below damning, humiliating and one-sided, especially considering I had again been offered conditions on my registration minutes prior to my hearing. An offer deemed wholly inappropriate a few hours later...

Do not expect any of your mitigating circumstances to be given equal prominence to the details of events as published by the SSSC.

Given the legal status of the hearing process, and the Scottish legal demands that published reports of proceedings, criminal and civil, should be fair and balanced, these ‘decisions’ fall well short of providing any balance.

No doubt the SSSC would defend them as simply its formal Decision, from its perspective, and nothing more. But there is a problem with that. These Decisions are where the media goes for its information for its reports. It is highly unlikely you will get a call asking for your side of the story so if you take a clobbering online from the SSSC, be prepared for your local radio or local papers to do the same without giving you the right to put your side of the story. Of course, if there is a reporter sitting in on your hearing then what will be published will be more balanced.

Now if you think, “Okay that person was struck off, she deserves all the bad publicity she gets”. Consider this: A woman puts a bar of chocolate in her handbag and walks out of the shop. She is caught and charged with shoplifting. These are the undisputed facts. But it does change a little if the facts are fleshed out: A 88-year-old woman suffering from the onset of dementia puts a bar of chocolate in her handbag and walks out of the shop. When apprehended she has no idea how the chocolate has got there and becomes distressed when the police are summoned…

The core facts are the same but the details change the story.

I’m not going to argue with the thousands of words written about me below. The hearing process and that decision tell a story I barely recognise and that, in itself, is another damning indictment of me, according to personality/psychological profiling by a person, or people, who never met me.

And that was the reason for my complaints.

So, here is my introduction to the world as a menace to society and a disgrace to the profession I love and admire. Officially, and legally, this is me and the professional termination of Registrant 1104254...

Outcome of Fitness to Practise Panel impairment hearing held on Wednesday 30, Thursday 31 May, Friday 1 June and Monday 23 July 2018

Name: Judith Morkis
Registration number: 1104254
Part of Register: Social Workers
Current or most recent town of employment: Dundee
Sanction: Removal
Date of effect: 10 August 2018

The Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC) Fitness to Practise Panel held on Wednesday 30, Thursday 31 May, Friday 1 June and Monday 23 July 2018.

The decision of the Fitness to Practise Panel is below followed by the allegation.

The following allegation and decision may refer to the Scottish Social Services Council as ‘the Council’ or ‘the SSSC’.

Decision

This is a Notice of the decision made by the Fitness to Practise Panel (the Panel) of the Scottish Social Services Council (the SSSC) which met on Wednesday 30, Thursday 31 May, Friday 1 June and Monday 23 July 2018 at Compass House, 11 Riverside Drive, Dundee, DD1 4NY.

At the hearing, the Panel decided that all of the allegations against you were proved, that your fitness to practise is impaired, and made the decision to remove your Registration from that part of the Register for Social Workers.

Further, the Panel decided to impose a Temporary Suspension Order (TSO) until the expiry of the time limit for any appeal to the Sheriff of the conclusion of any appeal, whichever is the later.

Determination on the Facts

Background

The allegations that led to the hearing arose from your actions as a Service Manager with Aberlour Child Care trust in 2015 and 2016 and in particular your handling of potential child protection matters.

Allegations

The allegations made against you were:

that while employed as a Service Manager with Aberlour Child Care Trust based in the Children and Families Team in Dundee, and during the course of that employment, you did:

1. between around 7 August 2015 and around 7 March 2016, fail to respond appropriately to child protection concerns in that you did:

a. on around 7 August 2015, fail to progress a child protection concern referred to you by staff member ZZ regarding Child A

b. on around 12 August 2015, fail to progress a child protection concern referred to you by staff member YY regarding Child B

c. on around 7 March 2016, fail to progress a child protection concern referred to you by staff member YY regarding Child B

2. On around 29 March 2016, send two contact record forms containing personal details of Child C to your own personal email account and in light of the above your fitness to practise is impaired because of misconduct as set out in allegations 1 and 2.

Admitted facts

At the outset of the proceedings you admitted allegation 2. In accordance with Rule 18.2, the Panel announced allegation 2. as admitted and proved.

Evidence

The Panel received evidence on behalf of the SSSC from:

1. ZA, Assistant Director, Aberlour Child Care Trust

2. YA, Assistant Director, Aberlour Child Care Trust

3. Brian Smith, Learning and Development Adviser, Professional development Team, SSSC.

The Panel had regard to the documentary evidence provided by the parties which included:

1. The “Evidence relation to findings in fact” bundle (F1-F392)

2. The “Evidence in relation to impairment” bundle (I1-I4)

3. The “Evidence in relation to sanction” bundle (as added to on 23 July 2018) (S1-S46)

4. The evidence bundle submitted by you (W1-W18)

The Panel’s approach

In reaching its decision on the facts, the Panel has borne in mind the advice it received from the Chair. That advice was that the burden of proof lies on the SSSC and it is for the SSSC to prove the allegation. You did not need to prove anything. The standard of proof applied was that applicable in civil proceedings, namely the balance of probabilities, i.e. whether it was more likely than not that the events occurred. The Panel was entitled to draw reasonable inferences but was not to speculate. The Panel was to consider the evidence in the round and not compartmentalise the evidence in respect of each aspect of the allegations.

The Panel’s analysis of the evidence

The Panel, having considered the evidence led, considered each of the paragraphs of the allegation that were not admitted separately and evaluated the evidence in order to make its findings on the facts.

Both ZA and YA spoke to the procedures in place to assess and progress child protection concerns within Aberlour Child Protection Trust (the Trust).

YA spoke to the policy in place in August 2015 and ZA in respect of the same policy that was in place in March 2016. Both identified under reference to the Trust’s Child Protection Policy and Procedure document that child protection concerns when presented to you were to be progressed within 48 hours by the completion of relevant documentation for submission to the Trust’s Director of Children’s Services, Assistant Director and if appropriate to the relevant Social Work Services department.

Both witnesses expressed the view that child protection (CP) concerns required priority action. YA stated that she had been unaware, whilst your line manager in 2015 that there had been CP concerns presented to you on about 7 August 2015 in respect of Child A and on about 12 August 2015 in respect of Child B. ZA stated that she was unaware that CP concerns had been presented to you in respect of child B on 7 March 2016 until after your work had been examined after you became absent from work [information redacted] at the end of March 2016.

ZA stated that it was only when your work was examined at that time that it had come to light that all three CP concerns had not been progressed by you.

The Panel found both ZA and YA to be impressive witnesses who recognised that there had been a stressful work environment within the Trust at the relevant times.

The Panel accepted their evidence as credible and reliable.

As regards allegation 1.a., the Panel had regard to the email to you of 7 August 2015 from ZZ attaching a Referral of Child Protection Concerns Form in respect of Child A. The Panel noted that in your handwritten Personal Statement Form dated 16 October 2016, you stated that you had resolved to complete the paperwork in respect of the concern raised “on the next working day, 10 August.”

The Panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that you were aware of the CP concern raised by ZZ in respect of Child A on 7 August 2015. The Panel was also satisfied that as a Service Manager you were aware of the Trust policy and the need to action the concern raised within 48 hours.

The Panel accepted the evidence of YA that as Assistant Director she was not aware at that time of the concern being actioned by you. Further, the Panel accepted the evidence of ZA that on examination of your work, after you absented yourself [information redacted] in March 2016, this CP concern was noted as not having been actioned by you.

The Panel thus concluded on the balance of probabilities that you were aware of the referral on 7 August 2015 and of the need to act on it in terms of the Trust policy within 48 hours, and had failed to progress it at all.

As regards allegation 1.b., the Panel had regard to the email to you of 12 August 2015 from YY attaching a Referral of Child Protection Concerns Form in respect of Child B. The Panel noted that in your handwritten Personal Statement Form dated 16 October 2016, you stated that you saw this form on 13 August 2015. The Panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that you were aware of the CP concern raised by YY in respect of Child B on 13 August 2015. As with allegation 1.a., the Panel was satisfied that as a Service Manager you were aware of the Trust policy regarding CP concerns and of the need to action the concern raised within 48 hours. The Panel accepted the evidence of YA that as Assistant Director she was not aware at that time of the concern being actioned by you. Further, the Panel accepted the evidence of ZA that on examination of your work after you absented yourself [information redacted] in March 2016, this CP concern was identified as not having been actioned by you.

The Panel thus concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that you were aware of the referral on 13 August 2015 and of the need to act on it within 48 hours in terms of the Trust policy, and had failed to progress it at all. As for allegation 1.c., the Panel had regard to the email to you of 7 March 2016 from YY attaching a further Referral of Child Protection Concerns Form in respect of Child B.

The Panel noted that during a meeting with XA on 1 June 2016 you stated that you had received this form. You are recorded as stating that you “wanted” to give the form back to YY for more information. The Panel had regard to your letter emailed to the SSSC on 1 May 2017 in which you stated that you had no computer on 7 March 2016 and so could not have accessed the email.

However, the Panel noted the printed screenshot from your email account with the Trust which records that you had email access on and after 7 March 2016. The Panel also noted that on 11 March 2016 you emailed WA, the Trust’s IT Manager, and confirmed that you had a loan of a laptop.

The Panel preferred the documentary evidence of email activity, which it considered was supported by your statement that you had a loan of a laptop, to your assertion that you were without a laptop at around the relevant time.

The Panel, taking account of your statement on 1 June 2016 and the email activity log, was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that you were aware of the CP concern raised by YY in respect of Child B on or about 7 March 2016.

As with allegation 1.a. and 1.b., the Panel was satisfied that as a Service Manager you were aware of the Trust policy regarding CP concerns and of the need to action the concern raised within 48 hours. The Panel accepted the evidence of ZA that as Assistant Director she was not aware at that time of the concern being actioned by you.

Further, the Panel accepted her evidence that on examination of your work after you absented yourself [information redacted] in the second half of March 2016 this CP concern was identified as not having been actioned by you. The Panel thus concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that you were aware of the referral on or about 7 March 2015 and of the need to act on it within 48 hours in terms of the Trust policy, and had failed to progress it at all.

Findings in Fact

The Panel having considered the evidence finds the following:

that while employed as a Service Manager with Aberlour Child Care Trust based in the Children and Families Team in Dundee, and during the course of that employment, you did:

1. between around 7 August 2015 and around 7 March 2016, fail to respond appropriately to child protection concerns in that you did:

a. On around 7 August 2015, fail to progress a child protection concern referred to you by staff member ZZ regarding Child A. Determined and found proved.

b. On around 12 August 2015, fail to progress a child protection concern referred to you by staff member YY regarding Child B. Determined and found proved

c. On around 7 March 2016, fail to progress a child protection concern referred to you by staff member YY regarding Child B. Determined and found proved.

2. On around 29 March 2016, send two contact record forms containing personal details of Child C to your own personal email account. Admitted and proved.

Determination on Impairment

The Panel next considered in accordance with Rule 18 of the Combined Fitness to Practise Rules whether, on the basis of the facts found proved your fitness to practice is impaired by reason of misconduct.

The evidence

The Panel took into account all of the evidence received during the facts stage of the hearing, both oral and documentary. No further evidence was presented.

Submissions

On behalf of the SSSC, the Presenter submitted that your fitness to practise was impaired by reason of misconduct.

He invited the Panel to have regard to the Code of Practice for Social Service Workers (the Code). He submitted that your actions amounted to breaches of parts 1.4, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 3.8, 5.7, 5.8 and 6.1 of the Code.

He submitted that they gave rise to the potential for harm for service users and as such they were serious.

As a consequence, he submitted that your actions amounted to misconduct and that in the light of the same your fitness to practise is impaired.

The Presenter submitted that you were not fit to practise without restriction. He submitted that the Panel should look forward and consider whether there was a risk of repetition. In that regard, he submitted, the Panel should consider whether you had demonstrated insight into events.

He submitted that the Panel should take into account the need to protect the public and the maintenance of confidence in the social work profession.

His submission was that your failings were serious and could have placed children at harm.

You had failed to appreciate that CP matters took priority over management activity and had not provided any reason why you had acted as you had, nor offered any evidence from which the Panel should conclude that you would act differently in the future.

He submitted that you had demonstrated only limited insight into the importance of progressing CP matters as a priority. He submitted that limited engagement with these regulatory proceedings also demonstrated a limited insight into the significance of your actions.

He acknowledged that whilst you had, since leaving the Trust, undertaken some training in basic CP matters [information redacted], you had not been employed.

In the event of a return to work, because of your experience, you were unlikely to be offered induction training on CP matters.

He submitted that there was a risk of harm to service users if you were permitted to return to unrestricted practise.

Further, in the absence of meaningful reflection and insight, he submitted that the public would be rightly concerned were you permitted to return to unrestricted practise.

You submitted that you accepted that your CP management in 2015 and 2016 was poor. However, you submitted that no concerns arose before then and when a subsequent significant CP concern [information redacted] arose in March 2016 you acted immediately.

You considered that was you “putting things right”. You stated that in 2015 and 2016 you were overwhelmed by the work that you had to do. You did not consider yourself to be putting Child A or B at risk by not attending to the paperwork because there was so much other input from other social service workers.

Legal Advice and relevant legal principles

The Chair reminded the Panel that in considering whether on proved facts your fitness to practise is impaired there was no burden or standard of proof; and that the decision on impairment is a matter for the Panel’s judgment alone. The Chair reminded the Panel of the two-stage process to be adopted: first to consider whether the facts as found proved amounted to misconduct; and then to consider whether any misconduct was such as to lead to a finding of impairment. The Chair also reminded the Panel that it had to determine whether your fitness to practice is impaired today, taking into account your conduct at the time of the events and any relevant factors since then, such as whether the matters are remediable, have been remedied and the likelihood of repetition.

The Panel’s determination on misconduct and impairment

The Panel first gave consideration to whether your actions as found proved amounted to misconduct.

In accordance with rule 36.1 of the Rules, the Panel gave consideration to the terms of the Code. The Panel also gave consideration to the terms of the Decisions Guidance for Fitness to Practise Panels and Scottish Social Services Council staff (the Decisions Guidance). The Panel concluded that your actions constituted serious departures from parts 1.4, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 5.7, 5.8 and 6.1 of the Code.

Whilst there was no evidence of actual harm, your actions in not progressing the CP concerns were as a result of a choice made by you to progress management work before CP concerns.

The Panel considered that whilst your working environment at the time may have been stressful for you, there was no evidence of bullying within the workplace.

The need to progress CP concerns as a matter of urgency was clearly stated in Trust policy and was known to you, yet you repeatedly elected not to prioritise that work. In failing so to do, you failed to communicate with your managers in an appropriate, open and accurate manner (part 2.2 of the Code) undermining your reliability and dependability (part 2.4) and put vulnerable service users at unnecessary risk (part 5.7).

In not abiding by the Trust’s CP policy you failed to meet the relevant standards of practise (part 6.1).

The Panel did not consider that the Trust’s CP policy could be properly characterised as your employer’s Health and Safety Policy and so was not satisfied that you had failed to comply with part 3.8 of the Code. However, the Panel did consider that your transmission of information relating to service users to your own email address did amount to a failure to respect the privacy of service users (contrary to part 1.4), undermined your reliability and dependability (part 2.4) and demonstrated a failure to meet relevant standards of practice (part 6.1).

Overall, your actions within the workplace brought your suitability to work in social services into question, contrary to part 5.8 of the Code.

The Panel considered that these failures amounted to a deliberate disregard of CP requirements of which you were aware and ought to have appreciated were to have been followed. The events occurred over an extended period of time, demonstrated a repeated failure on your part and exposed vulnerable persons to risk of harm.

The Panel considered that your actions constituted a breach of trust in the care of vulnerable persons and that as a consequence your actions brought your suitability to work in social work into serious question.

The protection of vulnerable service users is a fundamental tenet of social work and the Panel was of the view that your conduct would be considered unacceptable by fellow Social Workers.

In the circumstances, the Panel concluded that your conduct fell so far short of the standards of conduct reasonably to be expected of a Social Worker as to amount to misconduct.

Having found the facts proved amounted to misconduct, the Panel went on to consider whether, as a result, your fitness to practise is currently impaired. In doing so, the Panel had regard to the Decisions Guidance and balanced various mitigating and aggravating factors.

Whilst the Panel had regard to your otherwise unblemished record in social work, the Panel considered the repeated nature of your actions in not progressing CP concerns over an extended period, and having elected not to progress them for some time was of significant concern. Further, your conduct in sending information to your personal email address was accepted by you to be a deliberate act for your own protection.

You were an experienced Social Worker who must have appreciated that your actions were placing children at risk whether from immediate CP concerns or from the unauthorised transfer of personal information.

Whilst the Panel considered your actions in emailing personal information to yourself was not of the same order of concern as your failure to progress the CP concerns presented to you, they were significant in their own right.

Whilst the Panel notes that you have not worked since leaving the Trust and therefore have had little opportunity to demonstrate a willingness to engage in any training as regards stress management, self-awareness, reflection or insight, the Panel was not satisfied that you had, in the intervening time, meaningfully reflected on your actions or demonstrated true insight into your actions in not progressing the CP concerns.

You said that you regretted what had happened, but offered no apology for your actions. You said that you found it difficult to accept that you had not accepted the concerns of service users. You found it difficult to accept the role of the regulator.

The Panel considers that you do not appreciate the significance of the risk that you created for vulnerable service users by not progressing the CP concerns in the manner prescribed by your employer.

Looking forward, in light of your past conduct, the Panel concludes that there remains a risk as regards service user safety.

In the Panel’s judgment, your actions amount to failures of various fundamental tenets of your profession. As regards public confidence in the profession, a return to unrestricted practise at this time, is in the judgment of the Panel, likely to bring the profession into disrepute. The Panel therefore determines that your fitness to practise is impaired.

Determination on Sanction

Evidence on Sanction

The Panel received the evidence of Mr Brian Smith, Learning and Development Adviser, Professional Development Team, SSSC.

He stated he was responsible for, amongst other things, post-registration social work training and quality assurance assessments of social work performance. He had previously considered the wording of potential conditions in case the Panel were minded to impose conditions.

Under reference to the Initial Notice of Referral (S3) he said that he had drafted proposed conditions to allow you to return to work whilst at the same time undergo training with support from a future employer. He considered that the training anticipated would not be unduly onerous for a future employer working in child protection matters. He had reviewed the CP activity undertaken by you but did not consider it was of sufficient depth to provide comfort in relation to the depth of understanding required for child protection work in social work.

In his opinion, the possible conditions set out in the Initial Notice of Referral were, in the light of his understanding of what social work employers provide as regards training in child protection matters, enforceable and manageable in terms of time for completion and would not be onerous to comply with. The provision of confirmation from any employer and then a reflective account from you would provide the opportunity to demonstrate that relevant issues had been addressed.

Submissions

The Presenter referred the Panel to Rule 20.9 and to the Decisions Guidance issued by the SSSC. He submitted that the Panel must act proportionately and consider the lesser restrictive sanctions first.

Sanctions, he reminded the Panel, were not intended to be punitive, though they may have that effect. Public protection and the public interest were the paramount considerations. He observed that, whilst you had regretted your failings, there had been no meaningful reflection or insight by you to give confidence that events would not be repeated in the future. He observed that whilst you had not disputed the facts of the events relied upon you had nevertheless obliged the Panel to proceed to a full hearing.

He submitted that your participation in proceedings, which he characterised as “critical and negative”, demonstrated that you were focused on yourself rather than the broader public interest.

Whilst proceedings had been adjourned in advance of the sanction stage and you thereby having been given the opportunity to further reflect on the decision of the Panel on impairment, it remained the case that no true insight had been shown by you.

He submitted you had not fully explained why you had acted as you had; and that you had not explained what you would do differently in the future. There was a lack of convincing reflection.

Such limited insight as had been shown did not demonstrate any remedial steps that you had taken.

He accepted that it was the case that there was no previous adverse history with the SSSC. Further he reminded the Panel that there was evidence of significant demand on your time, and a degree of upheaval at your work, at the material times.

There was also [information redacted]. He further observed that you had stated that you were also affected by [information redacted] at the time.

Whilst you claimed that there had been bullying at work he observed that the Panel had concluded that there was no evidence of bullying.

However, he submitted that you were aware of the allegations relating to the two children but despite being an experienced Social Worker did nothing about them at the time. Whilst no harm had occurred, there had been a risk of harm.

In addition, you had failed to comply with data control procedures. Further, the Panel’s decision on impairment demonstrated a particular concern. He observed that you have not worked since 2016, but he submitted that was neither a mitigating nor aggravating factor.

Under reference to the Decisions Guidance, the Presenter submitted that no order would not mark the seriousness of the finding of impairment and was inappropriate.

In his submission, there remained a risk of repetition. A warning, given the concerns raised as to insight and reflection, was not appropriate either.

In his submission if you were to return to work, there remained a risk to the public because your insight was limited. He submitted that as regards an order of conditions on your Registration, with or without a warning, that would only be appropriate when insight is demonstrated and that you had failed to do so, despite the Panel having expressed its views on impairment and you having had an opportunity to reflect on that over the period of the adjournment of the hearing.

As for an order of suspension, [the SSSC presenter] submitted that a suspension would achieve little practical purpose: whilst you had been not been employed in social work for some time, you had not demonstrated insight in that time.

In the circumstances, he submitted that as your actions were serious and deliberate, and because you had not demonstrated insight there was a significant risk of repetition, and as there was no indication that you would comply with any conditions, a Removal Order would be appropriate. He invited the Panel, were it minded to impose a Removal Order, to impose a TSO in respect of the period allowed for any appeal.

Legal Advice and relevant legal principles

The Chair advised the Panel of the possible disposals open to it. He advised the Panel that the appropriate disposal was a matter for the Panel’s judgement

. He reminded the Panel that it must act proportionately and consider first whether the least restrictive disposal was adequate, and only in the event of it not being so, to consider more restrictive possibilities.

The Panel’s determination on sanction

The Panel, having considered the Decisions Guidance and the submissions made considered that:

* To decide to impose no sanction would not reflect the seriousness of the Panel’s findings on impairment.

*A warning would not be appropriate as it also would not adequately address the impairment of your fitness to practise. The Panel considered that your behaviour was serious and, although there was no evidence of harm to any child, despite being a Senior Social Worker with experience of child protection matters you failed to take prompt action on those occasions and thereby created a risk of harm for vulnerable children on three occasions. You compounded that by a significant breach of data protection arrangements. A warning would neither offer adequate protection to the public nor adequately reflect the public interest concerns.

*The Panel gave careful consideration to whether conditions might be imposed which would adequately manage future risk of repetition. The Panel was not satisfied that the conditions proposed in the Initial Notice of Referral would adequately protect the public or reflect the public interest. The Panel considered that a fully informed member of the public who is reasonable would be surprised and concerned were you permitted to return to work in a supervisory role whilst undergoing further training in child protection measures. Whilst the Panel gave consideration to conditions that might limit any return to work to non-supervisory social work roles, your lack of insight, together with your expressed reluctance to accept conditions on your practice, is such that the Panel was not satisfied that any conditions which could be formulated would be complied with and therefore concluded that conditions would not offer adequate protection to the public.

*A warning plus conditions would not be appropriate due to the reasons already outlined above.

*Further, without evidence that you acknowledge your failings and pattern of behaviour, your repeated behaviour and lack of insight, suggests your behaviour is likely to be repeated in the future. Your misconduct was serious. In the circumstances, a Suspension Order would not be appropriate as there is no evidence that any period of suspension would be utilised to reflect and seek to remedy the cause of the impairment of your fitness to practise.

*Suspension plus conditions would not be appropriate given the lack of insight on your part. The Panel was not satisfied that there was a preparedness on your part to reflect or accept your failings. Suspension was, in the opinion of the Panel, having regard to your attitude to the allegations and the proceedings to date, unlikely to result in you gaining an insight that would be a prerequisite to a conditional return to work.

*The Panel therefore considers that a Removal Order is the most appropriate sanction as it is both necessary and justified for public safety and in the public interest to maintain the continuing trust and confidence in the social work profession and the SSSC as the regulator of the profession. Your conduct was serious and repeated and entailed a risk of harm to vulnerable children. You have not demonstrated any meaningful insight nor meaningful willingness to consider the significance of your actions, including willing engagement with the regulatory proceedings, and the Panel has no confidence that you would in the future. The Panel considers that a well-informed member of the public acting reasonably would, in the circumstances, be surprised and concerned were your name to be permitted to remain on the Register. Whilst the Panel recognises that the order will affect your ability to work in Social Work, the Panel determined that such was the seriousness of your actions and your lack of insight that no other disposal was appropriate.

Imposition of a TSO

In light of the decision of the Panel, in terms of rule 16.2.a. of the Rules, imposed a TSO until the expiry of the time limit for any appeal to the Sheriff of the conclusion of any appeal, whichever is the later.

Matters taken into account

In coming to its decision, the Panel had regard to these documents:

*the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act 2001
*the Rules
*the Code
*the Decisions Guidance

Next: https://ssscandme.blogspot.com/2019/08/fair-and-balanced-reporting.html

Picture: Gerd Altmann

Actions and reactions

August 25, 2019

Thanks to everyone who offered me their support on Facebook when I launched this blog on Friday. And, as I said at the outset, I really don't want this to be viewed as a bitter, ‘poor me’ project but a reference point for those facing a hearing at 11 Riverside Drive, Dundee.

What I was going to do here was simply post the online Decision on my case that you can find on the SSSC website.

But that doesn't really provide any information on my side of the story so, adopting the ethos of that hit from my childhood "It's my party and I'll cry if I want to", allow me some self indulgence here to tell you my side, before reading the formal version which I'll post right after this.

It really does need to be separate because it is very long.

Unless there is a news reporter at your hearing, it is very unlikely that your side of the case will be given equal billing to the 'prosecution' version and that's an issue I can't really advise on. But that may now be academic. The SSSC has just announced it is planning a major overhaul of the hearing system, which, in a nutshell, seems set to be remodelled as an almost appeal process over the official decision.

While that's to be applauded, unfortunately for me it's a bit overdue. The SSSC states: "Our analysis shows that when the worker hasn’t engaged with the fitness to practise process, the outcome of the hearing is the same as what we initially proposed."

Well, seems I was a freak of the statistical norm given I had 18 months of Conditions, No Conditions, Conditions, then a three-day hearing culminating in me being struck off and declared a danger to the public in Scotland, the UK and across the EU.

That is a remarkable ascent in notoriety, and a remarkable descent in character and personality.

So before you read the warning that went out, and is still there, to the 513,000,000 European citizens, I was a social worker for 30 years. I found it a challenging, demanding but intrinsically rewarding career.

Focusing on children and families, there were highs and lows, successes and failures but the drive never diminished in trying my best to help those who needed our profession’s support to find their own way through the turbulence life can inflict on every one of us.

Having shared the impact of drug deaths and AIDS, families disintegrating, lost wee souls desperate for love, puts my personal circumstances into perspective.

And while I would find it more constructive to share my thoughts on a profession now gasping for resources to cope with the increasing demands placed upon it by an austerity-driven political agenda, my views would be worthless.

Fifteen months  have now passed since I received what is probably a social worker’s greatest humiliation – being 'struck off', removed from the Scottish Council of Social Service’s register.

My case did make the headlines, albeit in a very small way.

You will see the formal epilogue to my career on the official Decision that follows this  – an egocentric liar who put children at risk so I could concentrate on my managerial administrative duties, and blamed a caring, supportive and benevolent management network in a national children’s charity for my shortcomings, inventing a tale of harassment, criticism and bullying to cover my inadequacies as a professional and as a person.

That’s a pretty damning finale to a career, and didn't leave me with much dignity.

There was no way I could formally challenge that summation; I didn't have the information to challenge the processes within the timeline and after two years without a salary I didn't have the money to hire legal representation. And, of course, I am certainly not using this blog to prove my innocence in all accusations. If my profession demands that 'sentence' for my actions then I accept that.

But my mitigation is that for every action there is a reaction. The SSSC case was that my actions precipitated the situation that led to my removal from the register. My case was that the actions of my employers resulted in my omissions and commissions and the allegations against me.

While I must accept the final decision of the SSSC panel,  this is the only chance I have to include my side of the story, omitted from that 5000-word decision against me.

The overriding priority throughout my career and in its post mortem has always been the welfare of service users and, for most of those years, these service users were vulnerable children and their carers.

What I find most offensive about the decision made against me is the statement that on three occasions I jeopardised the welfare of two children so I could focus on my managerial role with the charity while those all around me dedicated themselves to the service users.

Anyone who knows me will see that as laughable. The truth is the children were always my priority and any neglect I was responsible for was in the administration. Did I do things by the book? No. I admit that. But did I ever put a child at risk? Never!

That breaks my fundamental code.

According to the SSSC, I invented a pressurised scenario of constantly working on and revising business plans, dealing with financial issues, trying to deliver on non-achievable promises made to outside funding organisations, sourcing new premises and filling and moving boxes and boxes of paper and office equipment?

I should have shouted louder that I wasn't coping; I should have ensured my concerns were recorded. Without that formal record, it is easy to dismiss the situation as nothing more than fantasy.

But if there is one good thing that has come out from my hearing and my case, it’s that the charity has vowed on record and in a legal setting that good childcare practice takes precedent over absolutely everything. There is no pressure on its managers to re-align their focus if there are active childcare issues, and there is 100 per cent support for that priority.

I genuinely welcome that, but I didn’t experience that philosophy. My working with children and families was never under scrutiny, this ‘business’ side of the charity always seemed to be the issue that was top of the agenda. Apparently for 10 years I had that wrong.

I took my role with the charity very seriously – I was entrusted with managing two projects, co-wrote a practice manual, dealt with STV and the BBC to publicise its work. It wasn’t just my professional life, it became my whole life.

I had eight line managers in 10 years, and gaps where I had no support at all (the last one for almost a year). The organisation I worked for had five different chief executives, and at least four directors of children and families, as well as two restructures in that time. That in itself surely underlines a period of turmoil. Outside of work and running parallel to all that my father was lost to Alzheimer’s, my mother to numerous strokes and subsequent degeneration, and then my younger brother to cancer.

I’m sure many will relate to the treadmill of work, work and work. I’m ashamed to admit that the very second my mother slipped away, my phone rang. I was still holding her hand but being checked on by new line manager No 7 whether I would complete work on the report for STV’s Children’s Appeal while on compassionate leave. 

I remember returning to work after mum's death and was surprised to be greeted by an atmosphere of jollity. My manager hadn't told the team of my loss. Why did I not see the writing on the wall at this point?

As the pressure mounted at work I found it increasingly difficult to cope and my working life seemed to become an endless circle of harassment and criticism.

During that time I fell behind with the bread and butter work and was forced to take administrative shortcuts - there was no backfill for the hundreds of hours spent on the practice manual for example . It seemed to me that management involvement of protection issues stopped at me and with me, unlike business plans.

And when I finally crashed and went off sick, these shortcomings would emerge. One case of a particular family was active with frontline social workers closely involved – I knew what was happening, verbal communication with those involved was ongoing, pretty much on a daily basis, and my insistence that workers recorded every concern about that family was my ultimate downfall and, yes, my recording was poor.

My failures ultimately led to my departure from the charity.

But, of course, I accept this is only my version of events. My fitness to practise hearing would judge most, if not all, of  that version was total fiction and fabrication, at least in terms of it having any impact on my performance.

My last two managers both emphasised their care, support and compassion for all staff. For some reason I did not respond to this atmosphere and culture of benign, maternalistic management.

As they told the panel, I was, simply, not very good at my job and showed no regard for the children and the families we supported.

I wasn’t represented at my hearing and was mentally stumbling about when these two managers, both of whom I had cited for their lack of support and harassment, were called as witnesses against me. Their mutual corroboration was taken as confirmation of my delusion.

At one point, one was telling the panel how she had trawled through the reports of all her predecessors - none of whom was called as a witness -  simply to find a criticism of my performance. She found what she was looking for, just one - a report I had to write in a hurry and was, I admit, pretty poor.

“Did you find anything good?” I enquired.

“I wasn’t looking for anything good,” came the response.

In her witness statement she also alluded to her suspicion that I had issues in my personal life that she never 'got to the bottom of'. She was, in fact, right. My brother was dying, slowly and in great pain; he was the single father of a four-year-old. 

If this caring, supportive manager was aware of this, she never asked once how I was coping.

After the Decision, I’ll move on to the actual hearing next. And, I promise, that will be less about me and more about what you can expect.

Next: https://ssscandme.blogspot.com/2019/08/registrant-1104254-disgrace-to.html

Picture: Gerd Altmann

Who governs the governing body?

This blog is not written as an attempt at vindication or as a plea for absolution... and it should have been posted earlier but the last few weeks have brought some dramatic changes.

And, hopefully, these changes will help those employed in social services in Scotland if they find their fitness to practise under investigation.

The first of these is the appointment of Alexandra Graham Campbell as convener of the Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC). A qualified social worker who has also worked in the health sector, she joins the Non Departmental Public Body in September with 40 years' experience in the public sector. Ms Campbell is well qualified to lead the SSSC into a new era and will, hopefully, at least look at some of the issues I'll be raising here.

The other change is one that could have a major impact. In July the SSSC announced that the Fife Law Centre would be offering free legal advice and representation to registered workers living in Fife whose fitness to practise is under investigation.

The Law Centre, a charity founded in 2008, will, according to reports, take on cases that fall into the category of "unmet legal need".

No doubt there will be terms and conditions but this initiative could be a game changer for Fife registrants. I only wish I could have turned to it a year or so ago.

And, I suppose, that brings me... to me.

I am, at least officially, a disgraced social worker, labelled with that stigma of being "struck off". I failed to perform three actions, and did one thing I should not have. My mitigation was that I was on the point of burn-out and breakdown. I worked for a charity and had eight line managers within 10 years, and five chief executives. I had roles, duties and expectations thrust on me, and changed repeatedly with unrelenting criticism. Outside of work I had to deal with the deaths of my father, my mother and then my younger brother. Eventually, feeling constantly harassed and intimidated at work, I couldn't take it any more, leaving the office without completing the admin' on an active case.

So, did I deserve to be struck off? If that is the consistent 'sentence' for the offence, then yes. And I never sought to appeal that.

What was harder to deal with was, having insisted on going to hearing, my failures delivered me into the jaws of the Scottish Social Services Council which shredded my reputation and career, then spat me out to personal and public humiliation.

My mitigating circumstances were unanimously declared a fabric of lies. Without any of my previous bosses in the charity being contacted, or my decades of previous experience examined, my final two line managers, whom I had cited, together portrayed me as a very poor social worker, who was more focused on business plans and securing funding than being interested in the children and families we worked with. And, as that career manager, I wasn't very good at that either.

My working environment, contrary as to how I saw it, was portrayed as a haven of support, empathy and openness where every single person was treated exactly the same, though whether that was equally or fairly was never queried by the SSSC.

And the service users were always, without exception, the priority, everything else - every spreadsheet, funding application, every report - was secondary to that. Everyone knew that... except me.

To underline that management compassion, my final line manager confessed to the panel that she did wonder just before I went off with stress if all was not well with me.

So with no representation, no witnesses to support me, no past managers to defend me, my misconduct was correlated to a number of medical cases, all but one involving the deaths of children... and then came the damning psychological profile of showing no insight into my actions.

I was a danger to the public, and I was removed from the SSSC register.

So, it may come as a surprise, perhaps especially to those within the Scottish Social Services Council who must surely view me now as an irritating pest, that I believe a governing body for the profession is absolutely vital.

There have been cases reported recently where those entrusted with the care and support of others have abused that responsibility and have deservedly been brought to account with the courts administering justice.

That is how it should be but every case investigated by our governing body must be done thoroughly and fairly.

Resource is not an argument. If there is neither the time nor the manpower, because of the budget, then that needs to be flagged. The responsibility of the SSSC is so great, with careers and, literally, lives at stake, the process must aspire to be faultless, flawless, transparent and completely comprehensive.

What is concerning is, on the surface, these ambitious and inevitably unachievable goals apparently have been attained publicly and are claimed to be maintained. Very few of the questions I raised, and none of the complaints I have lodged about the SSSC processes have been granted any validity.

However, this blog is not to prove I am right and the SSSC is wrong. Its purpose is to show registrants what can happen to you in the fitness to practise process, and in its aftermath.

And if there is a message, or perhaps it is a warning, I can give, that is to assess the pressure you are under. Examine every single aspect of your workload, down to the smallest detail, and if you are giving anything less than 100 per cent to service users, whatever the reason, you need to go to your line manager, or higher, and make sure your concerns are on the record, along with your demands for them to be addressed.

This may seem easier said than done, but you need to do it. Trust me!

The SSSC does not understand the specific intricacies of your job, though it claims to. It can’t. The social services profession is diverse; procedures and processes vary from field to field and across private, public and charitable sectors. Social work trained SSSC staff are in the minority, and if you are investigated it will probably be by a solicitor. He may emerge as an expert in coronary surgery, in gynaecology and psychology, but his knowledge of social work practice is likely to be limited.

But the one criterion the SSSC does demand from its registrants is that the care and support of the service user is total. That is 100 per cent. Nothing less.

There is no account taken of that spreadsheet, business plan, funding proposal, restructuring, relocation or any of that mountain of paperwork with a bright red deadline on it. If a service user's welfare is anything less than 100 per cent - despite your best efforts in the face of all that then you will be judged to have failed.

And don’t be too critical of the SSSC on that. It will take a very special boss to come to your defence and admit management was creating the pressures that weakened your total commitment.

Every single one will stand before the SSSC, or whatever your governing body is, and say management always puts service users first and your failings, were yours... and yours alone.

Be prepared for that. You need to join the union, or join a professional organisation, ensure you have protection and use that security to speak up and have your concerns minuted and on the record. It is a small price to pay compared to losing your income during a two-year investigation, then your career, then your reputation… professionally and personally. If you struggle on bravely through an increasing workload but trip, your struggle will be an irrelevance and the focus only on your fall.

In many ways I was lucky. I had been a social worker for 28 years before I tumbled from grace.

Retirement was not that far away. While I was never a shining star in the social care firmament I felt proud of much of my work, I had many memories of people and events I cherished, and some I didn’t. 

Given my age and stage, my own children were up and grown, I had a roof over my head, food on the table and the support of family and good friends. Some of those who have endured an SSSC investigation, and some of those who will in future are less fortunate, and believe me you need all the support you can get over the two-plus years the process takes... and the aftermath.

In my research for this blog I learned that between 2013 and September 2018, a total of 23 people have died while under SSSC investigation. Of course given the time an investigation takes perhaps that's not surprising. But I do know that a long investigative shadow over you doesn't make your journey through life any easier. 

That's why fairness, transparency and thoroughness are vital - no matter the weight it places on the investigators. And we should never underestimate the power this non-government organisation holds. I spoke to a TV journalist who told me that during her research for a programme about child protection in Scotland the SSSC was often mentioned, but people didn’t want to go on record. The seed for this blog was probably planted there.

There was another development which meant I had to put this blog on hold for a few weeks. I’m glad I did because it completed the jigsaw and brought me full circle.

Having had my complaints dismissed by the SSSC and the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO) rejecting my referral to her as they did not come within the SPSO parameters, my tale was essentially at an end, other than sharing my experience on this blog.

However, there was one issue which surfaced again - the gender balance of the SSSC hearing panels. There’s much more of that to come but the SPSO advised I raise this with an elected representative, which I duly did.

That was a couple of months ago and the issue went from my MSP to the Minister for Children and Young People, Maree Todd MSP, and then on to Scotland’s Chief Social Work Adviser, Iona Colvin.

None was able to provide the information I sought with all directing me to raise my concerns with the SSSC, and, if I still wasn’t happy, then I could go the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman…

So the circle was completed – SSSC to Ombudsman to Government to SSSC to Ombudsman, and so on.

In the posts that follow, there are dozens and dozens of questions. I hope you see my rationale for asking them and that colleagues in my profession see their validity.

But the overriding one is ‘Who governs the governing body?’

Next: https://ssscandme.blogspot.com/2019/08/actions-and-reactions.html

Picture: David Bruyland