Monday, 7 October 2019

Complaint 10: Subjective and unsubstantiated psychological analysis


Through those past nine complaints and the thousands of words and dozens of unanswered questions, I come to what I consider to be the most repugnant practice adopted by the Scottish Social Services Council - its psychological analysis of a worker.

Every single person employed in social services surely must adhere to the principle that you never make value judgements concerning service users. Or worse, you take an off-the-shelf judgement with no understanding of what it even means.

It is astonishing to believe that in 2019 that practice can exist; it is abhorrent to everything that social care stands for. And, perhaps even more importantly, it undermines the vital work being done by support groups regarding mental health.

And if you add in the fact that those psychological assessments are carried out without speaking to, or even meeting, the person being “assessed”, it is surprising SSSC registrants haven’t demanded their immediate end and every pretentious diagnosis redacted from its online archive of decisions.

While we all try to remove the stigma surrounding mental health, our profession permits ‘quacks’ to come forward with damning psychological indictments, presented as fact, then published on the web for the world to see and the media to trawl through and publish with total freedom.

You have no recourse. You have no challenge.You can ask no questions.

When a decision is published, you will, as they say in Scotland, “get your character”. That will not be flagged as subjective but as fact. It has the potential to stay with you for the rest of your life.

It is a disgusting, vile and humiliating practice, and yet we tolerate it. In a non-judgemental profession, we wouldn’t work beside a colleague who judged a service user, be that child, adult or family, never mind one who had never met or spoken to them.

It is a heinous act, yet we permit our governing body to do it to us.

In my case my pursuer was not just expert in all things gynaecological but also, apparently, psychological.

Granting a knowledge of search boxes on websites, one would imagine the SSSC wouldn’t take too long to establish that the most basic form of psychological assessments that began in China in 2000BC involved a process far more sophisticated than what happens at 11 Riverside Drive.

Fast forward 4000 years and see if you can find anyone who would support any formal or informal evaluation of a person’s personality or state of mind without speaking to them or meeting them.

What qualifications does your assessor have? Good luck finding that out. (My FOI request on the qualifications of SSSC investigators was refused under data protection).

In fact, good luck on finding any rationale or clinical authority.

It is all subjective hogwash, and yet every personal insight on every worker is accepted without question by the SSSC chief executive, every SSSC council member, every MSP, every Scottish Minister, every reporter, every editor and, sadly, it seems every SSSC registrant.

The same phrases and judgements are sprinkled through the SSSC online decisions, and they are presented as fact to the panels.

It is an ongoing scandal and, in itself, raises dozens of questions, but be careful of the nature and number you ask.

The response from SSSC chief executive Lorraine Gray is at the end of the complaint. Perhaps not surprisingly it suggests going to a higher court.



Complaint 10: Subjective and unsubstantiated psychological analysis in the SSSC final written decision

While I feel very strongly that my case was mishandled from start to conclusion and was a tailored prosecution by a single case handler, I wish to challenge the SSSC’s psychological evaluation of myself which is subjective, unsubstantiated and, I believe, put together without any training or professional validity, and carried out surreptitiously.

I am aware such psychological pretensions are commonplace in the SSSC’s ‘Notice of Decision’ issued to registrants. Given these are key to the final decision which can literally end a person’s career there are several areas I believe that the SSSC must explain.

A number of questions were submitted to the SSSC as FOIs but, again, all were deemed “vexatious”, however, while they may not fall within the remit of an FOI, I believe they remain valid questions that need answered by the SSSC in the interests of the public and all registrants.

1. Can the SSSC explain the structure and methodology behind its psychological assessments and the qualifications?

2. Why does the SSSC not highlight on its websites or within its investigation guidelines that workers are being psychologically assessed by an unknown medical individual or untrained individual?

3. What process does a worker require to go through to for him/her, his/her doctor, his/her legal representatives to have access to those psychological assessments?

4. Given the Scottish Social Services Council performs this psychological analysis of workers, undertaken without their knowledge or recourse, and without any disclosure of who is making such personal assessments, on what credible grounds does the SSSC justify their inclusion in any of its findings?

These questions are crucial and the fact that the SSSC does not highlight such processes are being undertaken then presented to a panel as fact does merit explanation.

As the SSSC declined to answer these questions under FOI requests, I can only assume, as it would be incredible if this was blanket policy, that these assessments are made after a number of face-to-face sessions with the psychological evaluator.

I do not know the rationale behind my case but I did not have a single face-to-face meeting with any SSSC representative prior to my hearing. Yet in the caseholder’s direction to the panel and subsequent Notice of Decision it is stated by the SSSC:

He {the case holder} 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.

Not being aware of any conversation on this matter, this was presented as absolute fact, not conjecture.

What is the Scottish Social Services Council’s definition of “meaningful reflection” and “insight”? What psychological tests were employed to determine that assessment. How do the Scottish Social Services Council medical and mental health experts gauge “meaningful reflection”? How does that department judge the levels of “meaningful reflection”, in terms of its absence and return? What are the criteria in assessing “meaningful reflection” and “insight”. At what point does the SSSC psychological expertise re-assess “meaningful reflection” and decree it has returned?

As I pointed out during the investigation, because of the length of time taken, I also encountered other, very distressing events in my personal life. By the time I attended the hearing some two years had passed since I left Aberlour, and some 27 months since the last alleged incident.

Reflection, insight, remorse, resilience all fluctuate with time and circumstance, and response to loss and grief is a process of adaptation which takes place, usually over an approximate two-year period. Any main grade social worker knows that - it is part of the essential theoretical underpinning to the work. The SSSC, it appears, may not.

The Notice of Decision continues:

You had not disputed the facts… nevertheless obliged the Panel to proceed to a full hearing, He {the case holder} submitted... your participation...as ‘critical and negative’ {and} demonstrated that you were focused on yourself rather than the broader public interest…

As the facts are not disputed then this must be a careful psychological evaluation by the Scottish Social Services Council, otherwise it is a personal viewpoint and totally subjective. Is this an individual expert conclusion or from a team of SSSC medical advisers?

Given no face-to-face session, what is the validity of this further statement in the Notice of Decision:

There was a lack of convincing reflection. Such limited insight as had been shown did not demonstrate any remedial steps that you had taken...if you were to return to work, there remained a risk to the public because your insight was limited

Other than contradictory communication from the SSSC, with an obvious lack of understanding of the social work processes I was involved in, I consider it my right to know who made those psychological evaluations of me, why I wasn’t told they were being made, and why the SSSC does not tell every single registrant he or she is being assessed by an unknown SSSC representative, with unknown qualifications, and one(s) you will not meet.

Response from Lorraine Gray, chief executive SSSC

Under this heading, you raise a complaint about how matters such as insight and remediation were determined by the Panel. The decision the Panel made in relation to these is a decision under our Rules. There is a statutory appeal right to the Sheriff Court.

As with a number of the previous parts of your complaint, the issues you have raised under this part of the complaint do not fall within our Complaints Handling Procedure and you should consider appealing the decision to the Sheriff Court.

Picture: John Hain

Wednesday, 2 October 2019

Complaint 9: SSSC decision to notify Children’s Hearings Scotland


Thankfully, until I came to the attention of the SSSC I  personally had little need of  legal services. 

Before Tom Miller, the official solicitor for the SSSC, and Andrew J. Webster QC, acting sheriff and a recognised fount of all knowledge in relation to fitness to practise, entered my life, the only time we used a solicitor was for conveyancing when we bought our home. 

As a practising social worker though, I had many opportunities to work with and observe legal professionals at children's hearings and in child welfare cases in court. The majority of these men and women acted professionally, ethically and responsibly. On some occasions however, they did not, and it really seemed as though the power invested in them by their LLB and diploma in legal practice, and the prospect of a Legal Aid cheque overcame any scruples or concerns about the welfare of children, but rather presented them with the chance to grandstand.

A good friend and fellow social worker was once carpeted because one such individual lodged an official complaint when she asked him, after a long, gruelling afternoon in the witness box, how he slept at night?

During the  SSSC investigation, but at the time when all conditions had been removed, and long before the hearing, I began training to become a Children's Panel member. I advised the SSSC when I had completed this, as I was still trying to co-operate in its processes.

And I was reminded of  unscrupulous legal practice  during my Children's Panel training. 

The general public probably thinks that when a child is removed from an abusive home situation the happy ending is assured; it was certainly what I naively believed when I contemplated a career in social work many, many moons ago. This is not so and whatever that child has experienced can make him or her impossible to care for - the old adage "the child who is most in need of love is the most unlovable" is sadly too often true. It is imperative that these children get the right help as early as practically possible.

Trainee panel members observe a number of hearings and one I attended involved a very young child. I do not know what that child had endured; as a trainee I had not had sight of the papers. Suffice to say this wee soul was being moved from pillar to post as successive carers gave up. The social worker had moved heaven and earth and identified one placement which was going to be made available for the child but needed to be taken up quickly as the demand for places there was so high. This intensively therapeutic environment was the best chance for this very damaged child, but required a move to another part of the country.

I watched as the social worker passionately argued the case for the child, and listened to the evidence - all refuted by the parent. 

I listened closely as the parent's solicitor defended her client and patronised the social worker. I watched as the panel wrestled with some very difficult decisions and silently applauded their courage (and shed a tear) when they agreed the child should move to the placement.

The solicitor appealed on behalf of the mother, legally her responsibility was her client's interests, not those of the child... and the place went to another child while the legal wheels rumbled on. 

You may be asking what this has to do with my decision to resign from the panel. It is simply this, I have seen what a solicitor acting for parents will do, and it is not outwith the realms of possibility that, had I been able to continue as a panel member some legal eagle would challenge a decision I had been party and I couldn't be trusted as a disgraced social worker.

I could not countenance the possibility that children would be at risk because of me. I had to go.

As I've said  elsewhere, a social worker’s behaviour is under scrutiny by the SSSC in professional and personal life.

Even if your career has ended the SSSC process and its decisions can still impact.

Part of me accepts that and I accept that we all need to be above reproach, especially if we are involved in any work where children are present.

Having been deemed a risk to the general public and a threat to all children of all ages in Scotland, I do understand the SSSC decision to notify Children’s Hearing Scotland of the decision made against me and my possible unsuitability to be a Children’s Panel member.

Of course, this was a humiliating episode but, as I would never do anything to bring the work of this organisation into disrepute, I accept it.

I do not, however, accept that the SSSC managed the situation in a fair, transparent and respectful manner.

I volunteered for the panel, believing my years of experience might be of value to a process I fully support and value.

Obviously it was naive on my part to believe the hearing would not impact on that, but then again I really did expect to be vindicated.

So, once again, minutes before the fitness to practise hearing began, the SSSC believed me suitable for panel duty, if I accepted the conditions proffered on my registration.

A few hours later and I was a threat to the public and especially to children.

Children’s Hearing Scotland was notified of this before I had decided if I was going to appeal the SSSC decision but, more distressing, was that their officials received the warning about me before I learned the SSSC was sending that out.

I only discovered that when I tearfully called up to tender my resignation, and discovered a letter had already been received.

My advice to anyone who finds themselves under investigation is to avoid all volunteering duties until after the SSSC decision has been reached. Those you are working with don’t have your side of the case and you will be seen as a deviant and a danger.

Interestingly, this was the only complaint to which Lorraine Gray was able to respond with any confidence, and without scurrying into the stock response of ‘ appeal to the Sheriff’. This was an action it was easy for her to defend because, having reached the 'right' decision it was the proper thing to do, even if the way they went about it was not . It makes you wonder about her response to the other nine though...


Complaint 9: SSSC decision to notify Children’s Hearings Scotland

I challenge the decision to inform Children’s Hearings Scotland regarding the outcome of my fitness to practise hearing, and seek the legal basis for that decision, particularly in light of General Data Protection Regulation.

From the SSSC website I cannot see that you have an information sharing agreement with this organisation and I cannot understand how the hearing has an impact in my role as a volunteer with Children’s Hearings Scotland.

I would like to know who made the recommendation to send the letter and the justification for doing so.

Your website states that “Fitness to Practise investigations and decisions are not about punishing workers. Our role is to protect people who use services and maintain public confidence in the workforce."

However, this feels to me exactly like a punishment. The SSSC has terminated my career and has now also resulted in my suspension from a volunteer role which had restored some confidence and self-worth following a degrading and dehumanising two years of investigation.

My involvement with Children’s Hearings Scotland was freely provided by myself, in line (on my part) with open and honest engagement. If I had not informed the SSSC of my training to become a Panel member it would have been oblivious to it.

In addition the SSSC decreed that this training removed the need to take a Child Protection course if I ever worked again. So where was the risk here?

As far as I am aware I am within the time limit for raising an appeal and I do not believe the decision to inform Children’s Hearings Scotland was appropriate until it was clear that the outcome of the hearing would not be challenged.

Response from Lorraine Gray, chief executive SSSC

You raise a complaint that we notified Children's Hearings Scotland of the decision made In your case and we did not tell you that this would happen until it had been done.

Under rule 9.e of our rules, we have a duty to send a copy of any Notice of Decision placing a sanction on a worker's registration to "any other person or body which the SSSC considers should be informed because of its interest In the protection of members of the public or in the public interest."

It is permissible for a public body to process data where it is necessary for the performance of a public task carried out In the public interest or in the exercise of public authority vested in the controller.

In your case, the Information was shared with Children's Hearings Scotland because we have a statutory responsibility to protect the public by taking action in cases where a worker's fitness to practise is impaired. Children's Hearings Scotland's mission Is to improve outcomes for vulnerable children and young people in Scotland by making high quality decisions about their future. They have a vision of everyone working together to make sure that all children and young people are cared for and protected. We therefore share public protection objectives and as such we have a responsibility to share relevant information with them so they can make informed decisions about the suitability of volunteers sitting on their panels who make decisions affecting vulnerable children.

There is also an overarching public interest in ensuring that the Children's Hearings Panel are aware that the SSSC has decided to remove a worker's name from the Register due to concerns about their fitness to practise. This is because they may decide that allowing that person to continue sitting on their Panels might pose a risk to their reputation given the particular sensitivities of the work that they do. The reasonably informed member of the public would expect that we would notify organisations such as Children's Hearings Scotland when we take steps to remove that worker from our Register due to findings that their fitness to practise is currently impaired.

I am therefore satisfied that we have complied with data protection law in sharing this information in your case.


Picture: Gerd Altmann