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.
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)
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
No comments:
Post a Comment