First-tier Tribunal (Health Education and Social Care Chamber)

 

 

 

PH

V

General Social Care Council

[2010] 1707.SW

 

 

 

 

 

Before

 

Miss Maureen Roberts, Tribunal Judge

Mrs Jenny Lowcock Specialist member

Judge Hugh Brayne, Second member

 

 

DECISION

 

 

 

Heard on 15^th June 2010 at The Employment Tribunal Offices Ber Street Norwich .

 

The Appellant represented herself. Her husband and daughter attended to support her but did not give evidence.

The Respondent was represented by Miss Tahta of Counsel.

 

Prior to the hearing the tribunal read the bundle which included the pleadings from the parties, the Notice of Recommendation from the Respondent’s  Investigations Team Manager, letters from the Appellant in response to the Respondent’s enquiries, Social Services records, notes of telephone interviews of the Appellant by the Respondent and the decision of the Respondent’s Registration Committee.

 

The tribunal heard submissions from Counsel for the Respondent and from the Appellant.

 

1.   The Appellant appeals against a decision made by the Respondent on 22 September 2009 to grant the application for renewal of registration subject to conditions namely:

i. For the period of the three-year registration or until this condition is revoked, you must show any person or body who is considering whether to employ you, or commission your services as a social worker or social care worker, the following two documents (as redacted by the Council);

ii. the letter to the GSCC, dated 7 November 2008 from PC of Suffolk County Council (SCC) summarising your involvement with SCC; and 

iii. the strategy meeting minutes from the meeting held on the 3 July 2008 providing detail of SCC's specific concerns in relation to you.

These two documents as redacted by the Respondent are attached as an appendix to this decision.

 

2.   The Appeal is made under S68 of the Care Standards Act 2000 (CSA).  It is for the Care Standards Tribunal ("the CST") to endorse that decision or to direct that it shall not have effect: see section 68(2) of the Care Standards Act 2000. The tribunal also has the power under section 68 (3), to vary any condition for the time being in force in respect of the person to whom the appeal relates; to direct that any such condition shall cease to have effect; or to direct that any such condition as it thinks fit shall have effect in respect of that person.

 

3. The tribunal directed, under rule 26 (3) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Health Education and Social Care Chamber) Rules 2008 (the rules), that the hearing was to be held in private.
4. Further the tribunal makes an order, under the rule 14 (1) (b) of the rules, that the Appellant in these proceedings shall be referred to as PH. The order prohibits the disclosure or publication of any matter which is likely to lead members of the public to identify the Appellant or any members of her family.

 

Background.

5. The Appellant has three children from her first marriage; a daughter KH born in 1987, a son SH born in 1988  and a son JH born in 1991. This marriage ended in 1994. The Appellant states that her first husband was violent towards her and that he left the family home after years of physically and mentally abusing her and the children. The Appellant met her present husband Mr. H in 1994. She has a daughter SoH born in 1994 from this marriage.
6. The three children from the first marriage were all on the child protection register in 1999. This lasted for a year. The child JH had made an allegation of sexual abuse against his birth father which was not proceeded with. Further the child JH was diagnosed with ADHD and received education at a pupil referral unit. The child SH was in care of the local authority from March 2003 to March 2005. There were difficulties with JH in 2007 due to his behaviour. The final SCC entry for JH dates from March 2008 when there were concerns about the company that JH was keeping.
7. In 2001 KH left home to live with her biological father; this lasted for 18 months. In 2002 SH also went to live with his father, for 9 weeks, after which his father placed him in care. This caused the Appellant concern; however she was informed that as the children were over 14 they could make their own choice about where they lived. The Appellant sought to support her three eldest children when they were not living at home. They are now adults leading independent lives.
8. The Respondent also noted as part of the background that in August 2008 SCC had assessed SoH in respect of a ‘recent’ burglary at the Appellant’s home, that had taken place in November 2007. They also noted that in November 2008 a pre-birth assessment was completed in respect of KH, who was pregnant; the unborn baby was subject to a child protection plan due to concerns regarding the baby's father.
9. The Appellant has worked all her working life in the social caring professions and in the NHS. Between 2001 and 2004 she took a degree in Early Childhood and from 2005 to 2008 she took a social work degree, which she successfully completed in July 2008.
10. In November 2007 a burglary took place at the Appellant's home. The burglar was a friend of the Appellant’s son JH and although the burglar was apprehended and sent to prison there was some harassment of the Appellant's family by the family of the burglar.
11. Following the burglary it appears that the Appellant had spoken to her college tutor in respect of her home situation due to the fact that she had had some time off college (two weeks) after receiving an injury during the burglary. The concern was referred to Suffolk County Council and a strategy meeting held on 3 July 2008 (see appendix). As a result of that strategy meeting, SCC made an assessment of the youngest child SoH on 11 August 2008. The assessment concluded that SoH, who had some physical health problems, was ‘very well cared for by her parents and that there was no need for any further involvement by social services.’
12. It is evident, from the minutes of the strategy meeting, that a member of staff from the University attended that meeting. They reported that there were no concerns about the appellant’s academic work, but because of the concerns raised by SCC there was a delay in the Appellant receiving her degree. After due consideration the University stated that they ‘could not see any reason for withholding the degree and why the applicant should not be recommended to the GSCC for registration.’ This was formally notified to the GSCC and the Appellant received her degree.
13. The GSCC asked the University if the Appellant should have made the University aware of her involvement with social services. The University replied that “the University do not ask applying students whether they, or any members of their family, have ever been service users.” They confirmed that they did not have any knowledge of the Appellant's previous involvement with social services. The University considered that the Appellant was fit to practise and they had no concerns about her that arose from her participation on their programme. They confirmed that the Appellant had completed the GSCC Qualified Application form and they would be endorsing this.
14. SCC first contacted the Respondent by letter dated 3 September 2008 providing details of the Appellant's involvement with the authority in respect of her children and enclosing a copy of the strategy meeting minutes dated 3 July 2008. Following this and in light of information from the University the Respondent corresponded with both SCC and the Appellant to investigate in greater detail the situation in respect of the care of her children and the situation in the family. They had a number of positive references from people who knew the Appellant and the Appellant's three eldest children had written in support of their mother.
15.  A full report of the investigations together with supporting documentation was presented to the Respondent’s Registration Committee who decided to grant registration subject to the conditions noted above, and it is against those conditions that the Appellant appeals.

The Respondent’s decision and its submissions to the Tribunal.

16. The Respondent cited a number of the rules from the Code of Practice for Social Care Workers to support their decision and these sections were repeated (and added to) at the hearing. The Respondent considers that the Appellant has been potentially in breach of:

Section 2.1 being honest and trustworthy;

Section 2.2 communicating in an appropriate, open, accurate and straightforward way

Section 2.6 declaring issues that might create conflicts of interest and making sure that they do not influence your judgement or practice;

Section 5.8 (must not) behave in a way in work or outside work which would call into question your suitability to work in social care services

Section 6.3 informing your employer or the appropriate authority about any personal difficulties that might affect your ability to do your job competently and safely.

17. In summary the Respondent raised matters of concern as follows:

i.                 That the Appellant had not declared her involvement with SCC to the University nor to the GSCC. However it was noted that neither body expressly asked for this information.

ii.                The Respondent took the view that the Appellant had not given a consistent account of her involvement with SCC in her responses to the Respondent and that she had presented information dishonestly and been selective about what she told them. The Respondent considered that some of the information provided by the Appellant was in direct contradiction to that provided by SCC.

iii.               The Respondent stated that it had considered the Appellant had not shown that she had taken responsibility for her own contribution to the children’s involvement with SCC and that she appeared to blame others, including her children. She had not satisfied the Respondent that she had insight into her involvement with the Council and

iv.               The Respondent had concern about the Appellant's parenting skills and historical involvement with the Council, and how these concerns might impact of on her ability to assess risk appropriately.

18. As against these points the Respondent noted all the positive character references and the fact that the University had considered her suitable to receive the award of her degree. Further, the Respondent noted that there were no concerns about her current relationship with her children and that the recent assessment in respect of her youngest child had been positive. In addition the Appellant had of course explained that her present family and matrimonial circumstances were quite different to the time of her involvement with SCC.
19. In conclusion the Respondent stated that “it is satisfied that the applicant is of good character and conduct, and meets the criteria to be registered. However, in light of the applicant's newly qualified status and subsequent lack of social work experience, with which the GSCC can seek assurance on how this matter may impact on her ability to assess risk, the Council is minded to grant the application subject to the conditions.” (recorded above)
20. Counsel on behalf of the Respondent submitted to the tribunal that there was concern that the Appellant had had considerable difficulty with three of her children and considerable involvement with social services in respect of them. Her behaviour had not always been appropriate with the children. Therefore there was concern in relation to her assessing risk, especially risk in relation to the behaviour of children and parents in her work.
21. The Respondent gave the Appellant credit for her determination to complete her qualification. However it considered that in her response to the initial enquiries by them she had played down the issues affecting her family between 1999 and 2007. It was the Respondent's view that the Appellant had only given further detail when she had been pressed about certain incidents. In their view prospective employers should know about the involvement that the Appellant had had with her children and SCC in respect of her parenting abilities. The Respondent's concern was that she would not, of her own accord, bring these matters to the attention of a prospective employer and that she might be given a job working with children without disclosing these matters.
22. The tribunal asked counsel for the Respondent whether it was a normal requirement of applicants for registration to disclose service use by them. She said that the matter would depend on the facts: for example whether there was just a single incident or a series of incidents. She also directed us to the provisions, cited above, in the Code of Practice.

The Appellant’s evidence and submissions

23. At the start of the hearing, the tribunal clarified the Appellant’s current work position. The Appellant has, in the last week, obtained permanent employment as a social worker in her local hospital. She had been working in a placement at the hospital doing relief work and when a permanent job became available her manager suggested that she might apply for it. She showed her manager the documents relating to her conditional registration and the manager encouraged her to continue with her application. After interview she was appointed to the post.
24. The Appellant confirmed the evidence she had given to the Respondent, and in her submissions to us said that she was very aware of the difficulties that she had had with her children. She said that she was not proud of some of the situations that had arisen in respect of her children. However she did not consider that it would impact in her work as a social worker or in relation to assessing risk in respect of children.
25. The Appellant gave some further detail about one or two incidents which had been brought to the attention of the Respondent. Most recently she explained how the impact of JH’s behaviour had affected the family and that because of concern for her youngest child she had had to decide that JH could no longer remain in the family home. He has independent accommodation of his own.
26. She said that she had worked for a number of years in the National Health Service and in the care sector and that she had never tried to withhold information. When her two eldest children left home at 14 or older she was told that there was nothing that social services could do about it, even though she had expressed her concern about where they were going to live. She felt that social services had never sat down and asked her for her side of the events. She had always continued to support all her children and this support continued now.
27. The Appellant considered that she had worked hard to overcome some of the disadvantages of her life and complete her further education.  Partly because of her experiences she considered that they had made her a better person and that she would be a good social worker. She considered that the issue of disclosure had to be seen in context, and that she knew that her service use of SCC should be disclosed to employers. For example when she had been working in a school as part of her training she had disclosed to the school the problems that she had had with JH.
28. The Appellant said that she fully understood her professional responsibilities. She said that each case is an individual matter and that if she had any issues arising out of her work that were of concern to her she would raise those in supervision.
29. Because of the conditions attached to her registration she had struggled to find work as a social worker. The job that she has just been appointed to was, she said, the tenth job she had applied for. She said that she considered that elements of the documents were untruthful, defamatory and without any basis. She had consulted a solicitor with a view to taking action but been told that she did not have sufficient resources to take the matter further.

 Conclusions and decision.

30. Having read the bundle that had been prepared for the tribunal, which included all the documents which the Respondent’s Registration Committee had, the tribunal indicated at the start of the hearing that they had concerns about the contents of the two documents which were attached as conditions of registration. The tribunal indicated therefore that they would hear submissions and make an initial decision as to whether the conditions should remain or not. In the event that they decided conditions should remain then they would then consider whether the concerns should be recorded in a short agreed statement.
31. The Appellant was a service user in the past. She acknowledged this and explained the circumstances of her contact with SCC in regard to her three eldest children. As noted above she explained the difficulties she had had and her worries about her children, especially when they went to live with their father as young teenagers.
32. The Appellant came across as an honest and forthright woman. We believe her when she says that she would tell prospective employers about her past involvement with SCC. We accept that the Appellant is aware when these matters should be disclosed to prospective employers.
33. Those who have worked closely with her have had no concerns about her academic ability or her social work practice. During the years before she qualified, when she was working in the health and care services and during her placements in training, there have been no concerns about her work or practice.
34. The Appellant told the tribunal that she felt that this was the first time she had been able to speak and to put her side of the story. We understand this in that many meetings and sharing of information took place without the Appellant’s knowledge. This is usual in child protection matters. She was aware that she could have attended the Respondent's committee in person; however she did not choose to do this.
35. The tribunal appreciates the difficulties of investigating issues of child protection, but concludes that too much reliance appears to have been given to SCC records of incidents as reported by teenage children taken at face value. Subsequently the children have all written letters in support of the Appellant and in some have admitted that they had lied in the past.
36. We noted that the matter had come to light because the Appellant reported her injury during the burglary to her University tutor. It appears that there was a delay from November 2007 to July 2008 before there was an investigation into the potential consequences of this burglary on the child then living in the house. It is clear from that assessment that there were no concerns about the Appellant's parenting skills for that child, SoH.
37. It took a further year for the investigations by the Respondent to be completed and the conditional registration communicated to the Appellant. For nearly two years the Appellant's has had the uncertainty about her future career and difficulty in getting work.
38. While we accept that persons in the social work profession must be honest and forthcoming about their past if it potentially impacts on their work, we fail to see how the Appellant’s service user experience necessarily would “impact on her ability to assess risk”.
39. The tribunal can appreciate why the Respondent wished to use’ original’ documents to be attached as conditions, but these documents in themselves raise a large number of questions and do not outline the full picture to a prospective employer. The documents were not suitable to be used without further proper exploration of the statements in them.
40. The tribunal consider that the concerns were communicated in an exaggerated way and this has resulted, in effect, in punishment of the Appellant during this time. For two years she has been unable to obtain employment in her profession and, on her own evidence, as far as she can tell, this has been because of the conditions attached to her registration.
41. On the evidence that we have read and after consideration of the submissions made to us we are not satisfied that the conditions are necessary for the protection of the public or in the public interest or that they are reasonable, fair and proportionate in all the circumstances.

We are allowing the appeal and direct that the conditions attached to the Appellant's registration shall cease to have effect.

Our decision is unanimous.

Maureen Roberts

Jenny Lowcock

Hugh Brayne

 

June 2010

 

Appendix

 

Letter from SCC to the Respondent dated 7 November 2008 (as redacted by the Respondent)

 

Dear Ms G

Re PH Social Care Registration Number…

 

Further to our recent telephone conversation I am writing to provide you with the information you requested.

Firstly there are no further strategy meetings planned in respect of PH as there are no ongoing issue to address.

A summary of the involvement of SCC’s Children and Young People Services since June 1999 is as follows:

On 29 July 2008 a referral was received regarding a burglary at the family home and an initial assessment was completed on 11 August 2008 in respect of the impact of this upon SoH the child living in the family home.

Further, on 29 July 2008 a strategy meeting took place in respect of PH in relation to her position as a student social worker and the history of concerns regarding the care of her children. A copy of the notes of this meeting have already been sent to you.

On 6 August 2008 the police reported to the social worker completing the initial assessment that the family were being harassed by the burglar’s family.

On 19 August 2008 a management decision was made to close the case due to the completion of an initial assessment which did not identify any concerns regarding the family.

In respect of JH in May 2005 J made an allegation of sexual abuse against his (redacted) the outcome of this was agreed as No Further Action and J would not make a formal statement in respect of this allegation. Since then there has been a regular involvement in respect of issues relating to housing and education.

In September 2007 the situation with J at home deteriorated (end of sentence redacted). Work was completed with the family in order to try and resolve the difficulties at home. There were concerns regarding the impact of the situation upon the youngest child SoH.

(Two paragraphs redacted)

JH  was on the child protection register between the 29 January 1999 and 10 December 1999 under the category of physical injury.

 SH was in the care of the local authority between 22nd of March 2003 to 16th of May 2003 and 28 May 2003 to 31 March 2005.

I can confirm that the local authority would not have ended PH’s employment as a community care practitioner, this position came to an end as it was a temporary time limited contract which concluded.

 Please contact me if you require further information.

 

Yours sincerely PC

 Safeguarding Manager

 

Minutes of strategy meeting held on the 3 July 2008

Present

 

TW                   Area Safeguarding Manager

LJ                    Workplace Development Manager

JB                    Social care manager

KP                    Programme leader, [Name of University]

 

This meeting was convened under [SCC] safeguarding procedures.

 

TW said this is a strategy meeting to discuss PH date of birth… who lives at….. PH has four children:

KH date of birth 1987

SH date of birth 1988

JH date of birth 1991

SoH date of birth 1994

 

JB informed that K S and J were all subject to a Child Protection Plan in January 1999 for issues regarding neglect. The relationship between parents is volatile and there are unresolved childhood issues for PH.

It came to light that PH was training to be a social worker and DM (Social Care Manager) went to see PH (from [name of university]) and raised concerns. These were not just around the children's names being on the Child Protection Register but about PH's responses to the children throughout their childhood. She has systematically neglected the children (end of sentence redacted). S was Looked After and spent time in residential care. He was also known to the Youth Offending Service.

 KH ran away to Scotland due to many arguments with her mother. JH has ADHD and advice and assistance has been given regarding this in the past. He was made to live with his father because the situation was so difficult (end of paragraph redacted).

JH is currently in supported housing (end of sentence redacted).

J is currently in supported housing (sentence redacted).PH will not contact the department and is not offering assistance for JH although at times she will take his washing home. (sentence redacted)

JB saw PH at [location] and she informed JB that she was spending three years in social work training.

There are concerns regarding the pattern of the children's rejection and PH's lack of parenting skills. She also has a lack of insight into the needs of her own children.

KP said that there are only two more weeks left of PH's programme and there have been no real concerns. PH has had some time off sick, she disturbed a burglar down stairs at home and broke her arm. The burglar is in prison at the moment but she is still being threatened by his family.

PH has successfully completed all the requirements and no specific concerns were raised. (redacted sentence). PH's first placement was at [name of school] and she has also worked with older people at [Name of] District Council.

LJ advised that PH is in the final stage of the student experience before registration as a social worker. There is an Examination Board for academic work and [name of university] can recommend someone as a registered Social Worker. At the moment is PH is registered as a student social worker. Within the suitability to practice the HCI has a duty to disclose any relevant information. The GSCC following discussion with LJ would expect PH to have disclosed her history.

(Paragraph redacted)

 

Action plan.

1.      The police to carry out checks on (PH’s home address)

2.      The placement form in SCC has been changed to determine whether PH or any other members of the family have ever been service users in the Children and Young people services.

3.      DW to be contacted to ensure that all family records are removed from IT systems.

4.      An initial assessment to be undertaken on SoH given the information received regarding the burglary and the fact that PH fears for herself.

5.      LJ to consult with Adult Services to determine whether there were any concerns raised while PH was in placement.

6.      A copy of the strategy minutes to be made available to [name of university] and GSCC.

7.      KP to contact the GSCC to determine their view of the situation.

8.      KP and LJ to meet to discuss the situation, bearing in mind that the GSCC’s expectation was for disclosure. Concerns should also be discussed with the GSCC.

9.      TW to look into why this situation was not dealt with by the Safeguarding Manager three years ago.

10.   TW has offered safe recruitment ideas to [name of university].

 

Signed TW Safeguarding Manager