Caravaca- Lawson v General Social Care Council (GSCC) [2010] UKFTT 463 (HESC)

FTT-HESC

Caravaca- Lawson v General Social Care Council (GSCC)

[2010] UKFTT 463 (HESC) · 2010-10-07

(1) having received information from a 14 year old child's school counsellor that the child (A) had been having a sexual relationship with an unnamed 21 year old man, that her failure to act on this information in an appropriate way, and therefore to protect the child’s well-being amounted to misconduct

(2) having developed a personal relationship with a former client (C) by contacting her despite having no official role in her case, remaining in contact with her, buying her birthday presents, and offering support and guidance to her in the absence of any official status as her support worker or any official record of being made, that this amounted to misconduct

(3) the above misconduct warranted the sanction of an admonishment which should remain on her entry on the relevant register for a period of 1 year.

We heard evidence from Ms Caravaca-Lawson, and submissions from Ms Robertson and Mr Lynch. We have considered all the oral evidence and the documents in the bundle which ran to 517 pages as identified in the index and the submissions. We also admitted a reference from Jon Wiggins, from Leeds City Council, and a copy of a fitness to practice panel decision relating to a different person which was submitted simply because of case citations within it as to the meaning of misconduct, as Mr Lynch did not object.

We point out here that both Judge Saffer and Ms Mcloughlin had previous professional involvement with Jon Wiggins in their roles as a solicitor/barrister and children's Guardian respectively, the last involvement being some 4 or 5 years ago and the involvement being on a sporadic basis prior to that. Neither party objected to the panel continuing to hear the case as he was not giving evidence or even making any observations on what we should do, but merely giving testimony as to Ms Caravaca-Lawson’s current employment and his knowledge of her professional history, that information being un-contentious.

We will not summarise all the evidence, some of which is historical in nature, but will summarise that which has been most relevant to the issues for determination. We are grateful to all who contributed.

At the commencement of the proceedings, the procedure to be adopted was explained to all attendees. We raised with the representatives whether we have the power to increase the sanction. It was submitted by both representatives that we did not, and that our only powers were to uphold the sanction or not uphold it. Our preliminary view was that we did have power to impose a different sanction in accordance with s68 (3) (c) of the Care Standards Act 2000. However, upon further reflection, we agree with both representatives that we do not have such power in accordance with s68 (2) of the Care Standards Act 2000 as we stand in the shoes of the committee who themselves do not have the power to impose conditions which is the word used in s68 (3) (c).

Evidence

The facts of the case were not, and never had been, in dispute and can be summarised very simply.

The first matter was that Ms Caravaca-Lawson worked as a social worker in Jersey and was told on 18 th September 2008 by A, who was then 14 years old, that A had been accused by her mother of kissing a 21 year old man called Mr B, an allegation that A denied. Ms Caravaca-Lawson recorded this information electronically but did nothing more. A then spoke to her school counsellor on 7 th October 2008 and said she was having a sexual relationship with a 21 year old man. The school counsellor told this to Ms Caravaca-Lawson that day. The following day Ms Caravaca-Lawson told a supervising social worker and said she did not think A’s boyfriend was much older and that it was nothing to worry about. Ms Caravaca-Lawson did not tell her line manager. The police became involved when further information was received on 21 st October 2008 and this led to the suspension of Ms Caravaca-Lawson on 5 th November 2008. There was a disciplinary panel hearing followed by an appeal against the disciplinary panel hearing both of which found against Ms Caravaca-Lawson. The net result was that it was recommended she not be involved with any ongoing case work in child protection cases. She left her job in Jersey on 30 th March 2009.

The second matter was that whilst working in Jersey, Ms Caravaca-Lawson became involved with a 17 year old female service user, C, who was emotionally fragile and immature. Ms Caravaca-Lawson recommended that C be moved to Yorkshire which duly happened. Ms Caravaca-Lawson was no longer professionally responsible for C. After leaving her job in Jersey, Ms Caravaca-Lawson moved to Yorkshire and began working as a social worker. She made contact with C, purchased her gifts, and offered support and guidance .

General Social Care Council

The submission was made that individually each of these matters amounts to misconduct. In the first matter this was due to there being a failure to follow established processes and procedures and thereby placing a child at risk of harm. In relation to the second matter it was submitted that Ms Caravaca-Lawson had crossed the professional boundaries by engaging in a personal relationship with a highly vulnerable service user after she had left Ms Caravaca-Lawson’s care. It was submitted that collectively the sanction imposed took into account all the mitigating circumstances and was proportionate. It was not an exceptional case where no sanction was appropriate given Ms Caravaca-Lawson was a “front-line” social worker dealing with highly vulnerable children. It was pointed out that before the GSCC at the disposal part of the hearing, it was submitted on behalf Ms Caravaca-Lawson, that “a period of admonishment would be appropriate… but …perhaps the length of time that an admonishment should remain against the registrant's name should be as short as the committee deem appropriate.”

We note from the General Social Care Council Indicative Sanctions Guidance for Conduct Committee's 2008, that

“Where a finding of misconduct has been found the Council expects the Conduct Committee will take action against a social care worker’s registration in order to protect the public interest (protection of users of services, maintenance of public confidence in the provision of social care services and upholding proper standards of conduct and practice). There may however, be exceptional circumstances in which the committee might be justified in taking no action against the social care workers registration. Such cases are likely to be rare.”

We further note that

“An admonishment is the least severe sanction that can be applied in a case where the misconduct of a social care worker has been found proved. An admonishment does not directly affect the social care worker’s ability to practice, but is disclosed if an employer enquires about the social care worker’s entry on the social care register, and appears in the social care worker’s entry on the public facing register. It will be recorded against their entry for up to 5 years, and can be disclosed to any PPC or conduct committee in the future if other complaints are received about the social care worker. Therefore, an admonishment may be appropriate where the offence is at the lower end of the spectrum of misconduct; where the Conduct Committee wishes to mark the behaviour was unacceptable and must not happen again.”

“The factors to be considered include:

· evidence that the behaviour would not cause direct or indirect harm to service users

· evidence of insight into failings

· behaviour was an isolated incident, which was not deliberate

· genuine expression of regret/apologies

· acting under duress

· previous good history

· no repetition of behaviour since incident

· evidence that rehabilitative/corrective steps have been taken

· relevant and appropriate references and testimonials.”

Ms Caravaca-Lawson

It was submitted by Ms Robertson that neither matter amounted to misconduct, but even if they did no sanction should have been imposed, it serving no purpose in terms of public interest or protection. It was submitted by Ms Robertson upon reflection that she should not have made the submission she did to the Conduct Committee.

Ms Robertson relied on the submissions she made to the conduct committee that Ms Caravaca-Lawson made an error of judgement in relation to the first matter and should have spoken to her line manager. It did not amount to misconduct. She was not the only professional involved and A’s mother was also aware of the matter and therefore those who were most immediately responsible for A were informed.

In relation to the second matter Ms Caravaca-Lawson said that she felt it was her duty and a core value of the social work profession to do as she did. She acknowledges that her contact was unwise. She would not however now “go the extra mile” even though she thinks it was the right thing to do for the service user. She states that she had a difficult time in Jersey having been harassed by her manager and the delay in the various elements of the proceedings should be considered. She states that she has learned her lesson.

It was submitted that it was unnecessary to take the matter through the regulatory process and the sanction imposed was disproportionate even if the matters amounted to misconduct.

Determination of issues

We have noted the testimonials provided and all the case summaries to which we have been referred.

We are satisfied that the failure by Ms Caravaca-Lawson to contact her line manager and follow the correct procedures and when she became aware of the relationship in which A was engaged amounts to misconduct. That is because we are satisfied that she was aware by the 7 th October 2008 of the age differential and sexual nature of the relationship and accordingly that it was unlawful and placing A risk of significant harm. She gave the wrong advice to the Counsellor which apart from her other failings in this matter gives us significant cause for concern. It was not good enough to simply rely on either the mother of the child or a different social worker because that is an abrogation of the primary responsibility of a child protection social worker.

We are satisfied that the personal relationship Ms Caravaca-Lawson developed with a former client, C, by contacting her despite having no official role in her case, remaining in contact with her, buying her birthday presents, and offering support and guidance to her in the absence of any official status as her support worker or any official record of being made amounts to misconduct. We are not satisfied simply because C had turned 18 years old, that negated the extent of the professional relationship. Ms Caravaca-Lawson was aware that C was vulnerable and blurring the boundaries of the relationship they had she was likely to have given C the wrong impression about what professionals could do without undermining further professional relationships C would have as she would expect those professionals to act in the same way. This is not a case of “going the extra mile” but going beyond the boundaries of professional involvement.

We were concerned as to the continued lack of understanding by Ms Caravaca-Lawson that the breaches of these duties of professional care amount to misconduct and that she does not understand fully the boundaries that professionals operate with vulnerable adults or children. That was compounded by the evidence she gave us at the hearing where she said that she thought it was the right thing for C.

In relation to the first incident we accept that she had a previous good history and it was an isolated incident for which she has expressed a genuine regret. In relation to the second incident we accept that her behaviour would not cause direct harm to the service user. In relation to both matters we accept that she has not repeated that type of behaviour since and she has relevant and appropriate references and testimonials. We are not however satisfied that she has insight into her failing, or that she acted under duress, or that she has evidence of having taken rehabilitative/corrective steps. We are also concerned that there were 2 separate matters of a different nature and she is unaware of the impact her behaviour may indirectly harm service users.

We are satisfied, bearing in mind all the above, that admonishment was proportionate and the correct sanction, and that she was very fortunate to only receive 1 years admonishment on the register.