Juanita Paris
V
General Social Care Council
[2009]  1621.SW-SUS 

Before

Miss Maureen Roberts, Tribunal Judge
Mrs Christa Wiggin, Specialist Member
Mr Brian Cairns, Specialist Member

DECISION
Heard on 17 November 2009 at Cheltenham Magistrates Court, St Georges Road, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire

Representation:  The Applicant was represented by Mr. Martin Weinbren of the British Association of Social Workers (BASW).

The Respondent was represented by Mr. Carlton Sadler solicitor of Bevan Brittan Solicitors

APPEAL

	1. The Applicant appeals against a decision made by the Preliminary Proceedings Committee of the Respondent on 20 August 2009 to impose an Interim Suspension Order (ISO) for six months on the Applicant. 

THE LAW

      	2. The Respondent's power to impose an ISO is provided by Rule 5, (Function of committees) of the General Social Care Council (Conduct) Rules 2008.
	
       	3.  These provide that before any order is made, the committee must be satisfied that such an order is necessary for the protection of members of the public, or is otherwise in the public interest, or is in the interests of the registrant herself.
	
	4. The committee should bear in mind the effects of any sanction on the registrant and whether it would be proportionate. The need for the protection of the public, particularly service users, and the maintenance of the public's confidence in social care provision must be balanced against the consequences of an ISO for the registrant.
	
	5. The committee should consider the seriousness of the allegations, and any evidence relating to the likelihood of any further incidents of harm, particularly to service users, occurring in the period before the final disposal of the complaint. An ISO is an interim measure and lasts in the first instance for six months.
	
	6. The appeal against the ISO is brought to the tribunal under section 68 of the Care Standards Act 2000. The powers of the tribunal at an appeal against an ISO are the same as the Preliminary Proceedings Committee in that it considers the gravity of the allegations and the nature of the evidence, the risk of harm to members of the public, the wider public interest and the prejudice to the applicant if the order was continued. It can consider any additional information received by either party after the Preliminary Proceedings Committee. It does not make any findings of fact.

THE BACKGROUND

	7. The Applicant qualified as a social worker in 1999 and worked for two local authorities before she joined Community Foster Care in 2003. She was dismissed from her employment with Community Foster Care in April 2008. We noted that the grounds for dismissal were later reduced from gross conduct to misconduct however she remained dismissed from her employment. She then worked as a nanny and in September 2008 she gained employment with Pathway Care in their fostering service. They were not satisfied with her work and at the end of her probationary period she was dismissed from her employment with them.
	
	8. Community Foster Care lodged a complaint to the Respondent in March 2008. Quite separately and without knowledge of this complaint Pathway Care lodged a complaint with the Respondent in May 2009. It is as a result of these complaints that the Preliminary Proceedings Committee sat in August 2009 to determine the ISO.

THE ALLEGATIONS
	
	9. The first five of the following six allegations were put to the Preliminary Proceedings Committee in August. The sixth allegation was added on 9 November 2009. Mr Weinbren, on behalf of the Applicant, objected to the additional allegation however the tribunal ruled that it was open for either party to bring additional information to the tribunal at this stage and that included the Respondent being permitted to add an additional allegation. The allegations are as follows.
	
While you were employed as a social worker by Community Foster Care (CFC):
		
	1.  In relation to child A, a 14-year-old looked after child:
		(a) on or after 14 October 2003, you did not act on information that child 	A was accessing pornographic websites from his placement; and
		(b) you did not start child protection procedures; and
		(c) you did not raise this with his carers in their supervision; and
		(d) you did not address this with the carers at your review held on 13 		December 2004;
	2. In relation to child B a looked after child, you:
		(a) on 6 September 2005 you told him that he would go to a remand 	centre and/or secure unit if he kept making allegations about his foster 	carers; subsequently
		(b) child B made a formal complaint against you which was upheld; and
		(c) you did not work with the foster carers to help them deal with 	challenges presented by a young person in difficulty as required;
	3. In relation to child C a looked after child, you:
		(a) in February 2007 did not inform Cardiff social services (his home 	authority) about previous concerns regarding the foster carers;
		(b) you did not tell your manager about these concerns; and
		(c ) consequently, you did not follow appropriate procedures;
		(d) as a result of this child C was placed with these foster carers and left 	at risk of harm when another placement could have been arranged;
		(e) in December 2007, you did not follow Gloucestershire safeguarding 	children procedures and/or child protection procedures when Cardiff 	social services informed you that child C ‘s foster carer had thrown a 	game at him and thrown him onto a chair causing the chair to break; in 	particular:
		i. Did not discuss the incident within one hour with your manager as you 	were required to do;
		ii. inform the resident local authority about the incident immediately as 	you were required to do;
	4. In relation to child D, a looked after child, you:
		(a) between July and November 2007, represented or caused 	representations to be made to the fostering panel, court and your 	employer that new long-term foster carers had been approved for child 	D, and
		(b) introduction visits had been planned; when
		(c) no such approval had taken place;
		(d) records in relation to child D were not complete:
	Further:
		(e) from July 2007 to October 2007 you were aggressive and bullying to 	child D and his foster carers to the extent that:
		i. The foster carer asked twice for a change of social worker in July 2007
		(f) on 5 July 2007 you shouted loudly at child D;
		(g) on the 5 July 2007 you ‘ranted and raved ' at the foster carers for 20 
		minutes, causing them to stop their journey;
	5. Between approximately September 2008 and May 2009, whilst employed by 	Pathway Care, Midlands, you:
		(a) did not complete administrative tasks as required to keep foster care 	files up-to-date; and
		(b) you intimidated and bullied foster carers;
		(c) took carers daily logs away, contrary to Pathway Care’s practice;
		(d) gave carers inappropriate advice;
		(e) breached confidentiality by giving confidential documents about 	people who use services and their carers to be typed up by someone who 	was not an employee of Pathway Care;
	6. In your application for employment with Pathway Care dated 14 August 2008, when you had been suspended by Community Foster Care on 17 December 2007 and subsequently dismissed in April 2008, you made dishonest statements in that you;
		(a) stated that your reason for leaving your employment with Community 	Foster Care in April 2008 was” wanting to progress in my career and gain 	further experience in other environment”.
		b) declared that you had never been the subject of any past current or 	outstanding disciplinary procedures, periods of suspension or legal action.

SUBMISSIONS TO THE TRIBUNAL

	10. The tribunal had considerable documentation concerning the allegations. It also had the transcript of the hearing before the Preliminary Proceedings Committee and its decision.
	
	11. On behalf of the Respondent Mr Sadler went through each allegation briefly and put to us that the allegations were serious and wide ranging in nature, and covered a considerable period of time (six years). In his view there were a number of occasions where the Applicant had failed to follow proper child protection procedures. There were two quite separate complaints from foster carers about the applicant's intimidating and bullying manner towards them. There was a failure to communicate concerns about foster carers and there was a misrepresentation regarding the placement of a looked after child (child D). There were complaints from two separate employers about failure to keep proper records. There was an issue about a breach of confidentiality when the Applicant had apparently asked a friend to help type her reports. 

	12. Finally there was the issue as to what the Applicant had put on her application to Pathway Care; under the heading ‘Disciplinary procedures’ there was a question “ Have you ever been/are you the subject of any past, current or outstanding disciplinary procedures, periods of suspension or legal action? Please answer Yes or No.” The Applicant had ticked ‘No’ as her answer. The form was completed on 14 August 2008.

	13. Mr Sadler, in his submissions put to us that the allegations were not only serious but weighty in nature. He said that the applicant had failed to follow child protection procedures in 2003 and 2007, had admitted intimidating a child (B) in 2005. She had failed to give the correct information to a placing authority in 2007 and had failed to give the correct and true information about child D
   	to court. There were two occasions when she had bullied carers. She had given inappropriate advice to carers for Pathway Care, breached confidentiality and made dishonest declarations to Pathway Care in her job application.

	14. The Respondent put to the tribunal that whilst there were no findings of fact to be made, nonetheless there was a wide range of sources for the information; foster carers, looked after children and two different employments. In addition at least two of the allegations had been independently investigated by the relevant organisations and complaints upheld against the Applicant. The inappropriate conduct spanned six years and in the Respondent’s submission the Applicant had not shown insight which would reassure the Respondent that such matters would not happen again. In the Respondent’s view there was a clear issue of public protection and for this reason the Applicant should remain subject to the interim suspension order.

	15. The Applicant gave evidence to the tribunal. At present she is working as a domiciliary carer going into the homes of, mainly elderly persons assisting them with their daily living tasks. After she had left Pathway Care she obtained a post as a social worker with Gloucestershire County Council through an agency and she told the tribunal that she was then offered this job on a permanent basis. They had been satisfied with her work. Her financial circumstances are difficult in that she has gone from a take-home pay of £2000 a month to do a job paying six pounds an hour where she can only work up to 30 hours a week. She also told the tribunal that the suspension was having an effect on her health. She has a daughter, aged 25 who is going through further education and it is difficult to continue to help to support her.
	
	16. In response to further questions the Applicant explained that she did understand the importance of record keeping for all the parties involved. She said that she was trying to improve her typing skills. In respect to the application form to Pathway Care she said that she had taken legal advice on the phone about what she should say in response to the question of concerning previous disciplinary procedures. She said she was told that she did not have to refer to the previous dismissal proceedings because the matter was dealt with by then. The Applicant said, following her dismissal from Pathway Care, she disclosed her work history to the agencies through whom she had sought work and to Gloucestershire County Council.
	
	17. Mr Weinbren referred the tribunal to two cases. The first was the case of Sheikh v General Dental Council [ 2007] EWHC 2972 Admin. The facts of the case involved a dentist who had been convicted of fraud and placed on an interim suspension order by his professional regulatory body. We noted that in that case there was reference, that in such cases “the bar is set high” and that  “necessity is an appropriate yardstick” because of reasons of proportionality. The interim suspension order was not upheld in that case. However we noted that ultimately Mr Sheikh was struck off and also that the allegations leading to the interim suspension were not ones concerning his practice as a dentist.

	18. The other case that we were referred to by Mr Weinbren was that of Cordingley v The Care Council for Wales [ 2009] 1464 SCW; this was a Care Standards Tribunal case. In that case the social worker had made one professional misjudgement which amounted to misconduct. The tribunal in that case did not consider that the misconduct in itself justified the ultimate sanction of removal from the register. “It was not the culmination of a long record of poor decision-making. It did not display dishonesty or breach of trust. It was an error of professional judgement.” The tribunal allowed the appeal. We noted that this decision was not about an interim suspension order but concerned the permanent removal of the Appellant from the social work register.

	19. Having regard to the nature of the allegations in this case we do not consider that either of the cases cited by Mr Weinbren assist the tribunal in its decision. 

	20. The Applicant submitted to the tribunal that an interim suspension order should only occur in a relatively rare case. Further the Applicant said that the order was made in the context of untested allegations. If an interim suspension order remains in place then it is very difficult for the Applicant to show that she has improved or worked well in the interim period.

	21. Further the Applicant emphasised that the overarching requirement is whether there is the necessity for the interim suspension order and whether that decision is proportionate to the risk involved. 

	CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
	
	22. The Applicant is a social worker who has been qualified since 1999. She has been dismissed from two employments namely, Community Foster Care and Pathways Care. We find that the grounds for dismissal in both cases were similar in that they involved concerns about record-keeping and her relationships with the foster carers. We note the seriousness of the allegations of dishonesty, withholding information and intimidation of foster careers in terms of the public confidence in the professional social work role. 

	23. The GSCC Code of Practice for Social Care Workers sets “out the conduct that is expected of social care workers and to inform service users and the public about the standards of conduct they can expect from social care workers.”  Without making findings of fact we conclude that if proven the allegations do potentially amount to breaches of paragraphs 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.2, 3.8, 5.1, 5.2, 6.1, 6.2, and 6.5 of the Code of Practice for Social Care Workers.

	24. We note that the allegations arise from her employment with both Community Foster Care and Pathway Care, from colleagues, foster carers and looked after children. Two of the allegations have been investigated by independent social workers and one by a local authority complaints procedure.

	25. The tribunal is concerned by the Applicant's explanation for why she did not disclose the disciplinary procedures that she had been through when she applied for a job with Pathway Care. The question on the application form is clear. We note that she says she spoke to her legal adviser before completing the answer. As noted above the Applicant told the tribunal that she had informed Gloucestershire County Council of her previous disciplinary matters.

	26. The tribunal accepts that the allegations against the Applicant could result in risk to the public whether through failure to follow child protection procedures or keep proper records or communicate concerns. In addition there are allegations of a breach of confidentiality, inappropriate behaviour towards foster carers and a failure to disclose a previous dismissal on an application form.

	27. By the nature of an Interim Suspension Order the allegations are untested. We accept that the public would view the allegations as serious and, that if the allegations were made out they would call into question the suitability of the applicant to remain on the social care register. We therefore conclude that in view of the allegations there is the necessity for the ISO and that such order is proportionate to the risk involved.

	28. We dismiss the appeal. We would request that such steps as are necessary are taken to ensure that the investigations are completed within the six-month period so as to provide a final decision for the Applicant.

	DECISION
	The appeal is dismissed.

	Miss M Roberts (nominated tribunal judge)
	Mrs C Wiggins (specialist member) 
	Mr B Cairns (specialist member)

	30 November 2009