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...
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
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. 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
No comments:
Post a Comment