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