Note in box added 18.1.17
| We have since learnt that the Professional Standards Authority automatically reviews all serious decisions by the HCPC on fitness to practice.
The issue for the Transparency Project is not the decision itself but the lack of transparency about reasons and the impact of this on public confidence. We note the PSA helpfully publishes it’s (anonymised) decisions not to act. As well as the judgments or consent orders from court decisions where it does decide to appeal the HCPC decision to court. |
Second Note in box added 20.1.17
| See also: The HCPC Fitness to Practice Publication Policy and Celtic Knots reflections at Twit Longer
The Transparency Project do intend to write to the PSA on the Transparency issues arising |
The discussion
An important conversation burst out on twitter last night, with the suggestion that the three social workers found by the family court to have lied on oath, may now have been cleared of professional misconduct by the Health and Care Professions Council.
If so this raises serious questions as to why; and about the transparency of HCPC decision making, in cases of particular importance to public confidence in the social work profession.
The case
A, B, C, D & E (Final Hearing), [2015] EWFC B186 was heard in the family court at Portsmouth on 18 November 2015 by His Honour Judge Horton.
The earlier judgments dated 7 April 2014 and 18 December 2014 contain the full details. But introducing the judgment setting out his final decision, His Honour Judge Horton said:
- ..in my experience it is exceptional to find a case in which there has been deliberate and calculated alteration of a report prepared by one social worker in order to make that assessment seem less favourable, by another social worker and the Team Manager; the withholding of the original report when it was ordered to be disclosed and the parties to the alterations lying on oath one of them twice, in order to try to cover up the existence of the original report. Those people are referred to and named in my December judgment but given the enormity of what they did and the fact they still work as social workers it is right that I should name them again so that practitioners and members of the public coming across them are aware of their shortcomings in this case.
- Sarah Walker Smart the children’s Social Worker lied twice to me on oath. I was told during this hearing that she has been promoted to Team Manager within this authority.
- Kim Goode, Sarah Walker Smart’s then Manager, was the person who initiated the wholesale alteration of the original report and who attempted to keep the truth from the parties and me. At the time of the last hearing she was District Manager for the Isle of Wight. I was told during this hearing that she is still in post.
- Lisa Humphreys was Kim Goode’s Manager. Her evidence was deeply unimpressive. She made a ‘hollow’ apology to the parents during her evidence; she regarded a social worker lying on oath as “foolish” and she failed to accept any personal responsibility for what had gone on under her management. At the date of the last hearing she was Assistant Director of Children’s Social Care with Lambeth Borough Council.
Suespicious Minds explained the case here at the time, calling it ‘deeply shocking stuff’.
The Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC)
The HCPC is the regulatory body set up to regulate social workers, among other health and social care professionals.
It maintains and publishes a Register of health professionals that meet it’s standards.
The ‘fitness to practice’ decision
It also investigates the ‘fitness to practice’ of registrants, including on referral from the public.
The decision the HCPC had to make was whether these social workers were ‘fit to practise’
The HCPC say this means ‘that they have the skills, knowledge, character and health they need to practise their profession safely and effectively.
And that ‘fitness to practise is not just about professional performance. It also includes acts by a registrant which may affect public protection or confidence in the profession.’
That ‘If a registrants fitness to practise is ‘impaired’, it means that there are concerns about their ability to practise safely and effectively. This may mean that they should not practice at all. Or that they should be limited in what they are allowed to do.’
The social workers themselves would have had an obligation to inform the HCPC of the findings made by the family court against them, triggering a duty on the HCPC to investigate.
The Standards
The HCPC decision is measured against published Standards of Performance and Ethics (revised January 2016).
‘When we are deciding whether we need to take any action against a registrant to protect the public, we look at whether the registrant has met these standards.’
Other standards are likely to apply but Standard 9 alone raises real questions as to how the social workers remain fit to practice, if that is what has been decided:
‘Be honest and trustworthy
Personal and professional behaviour
- You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.
Publication of decisions
HCPC decisions to take action against a professional found not fit to practise are published but decisions and reasons relating to those not made out don’t seem to be.
That may make some sense in a typical stand-alone case. But where as here, (unusually) the names of the social workers and the findings by a family court of their serious professional misconduct are already in the public domain, yet they (seem to) have gone on to be found fit to practise by the HCPC, there is a serious lack of transparency by way of complete absence of any explanation for that decision.
There may be an adequate reason but the public (and other professionals at pains to uphold high standards of professional conduct, in a challenging occupation), are not able to see it.
The public interest in the integrity of decision making by public servants taking decisions of the utmost seriousness in the name of the public; and of the professional body charged with upholding this, could not be higher.
Confidence in the family courts and child protection system seems to many to be at an all time low.
The evidence of professional misconduct by way of family court findings (not overturned on appeal or reconsidered) is unarguable.
The HCPC decision in this exceptional case surely demands that cogent reasons are made public.
If, as may be the case, the social workers have been properly exonerated for good reason, they are likely to want this information in the public domain themselves. No doubt they could permit publication as an exception to the general rule. If not, one must wonder why.
Asking the HCPC
We propose to tweet a copy of this blog to the HCPC and would welcome their comment.
How are people ment to trust the hcpc allow there sw to get away with lieing found in courts… this will not help the public trust them more…
I wonder what mumby is thinking now!
Especially after his coments a while ago on sw lieing …
I feel for the family that have these things proven yet see the sw get away with it….
anyone in any position that commits perjury should be prosecuted
Both verbal and written statements made by Social workers had to be retracted. They had committed perjury
The Judges comment
Dealing with the Local Authority witnesses, obviously criticisms can be made of the Local Authority in this case but this judgment is simply not the place to make them.
It IS shocking that 3 social workers have lied under oath and fabricated reports. It seems to me that the team manager was most at fault (she is described as a very strong willed person against whom it would difficult to argue) as she clearly thought social worker X was not perceiving the gravity of the situation with the children and so sought to “remedy” that by lying. The social worker shouldn’t have gone along with it, but she may be young and very inexperienced and so I can see how she thought this was what happened in such cases. I’m a bit unclear who the 3rd social worker was – is this the Service Manager who said in court that it was “foolish” to lie in court. What about the LA lawyer – did he/she know what was going on.
I think the 3 of them were guilty of gross misconduct and were possibly de-registered but I absolutely agree that this a confidential matter between the social workers concerned and the HCPC. Why do people think they have the right to know. I have known social workers who have been disciplined for misconduct (in the days before national oversight) one had an affair with a service user and another was stacking up referrals and not actually doing the work. Both were moved down the pay scale but kept their jobs. In the latter case it was discovered the he did in fact have a mental illness that was undiagnosed, so he hadn’t witheld this information from his application form.
I am in no way condoning what happened BUT it does happen and I have never heard of another case where social workers have deliberately lied under oath, which doesn’t mean that they haven’t done it of course. The police are guilty of lying under oath and there are several examples I can think of off the top of my head – Hillsborough, the shooting of the Chilean man on the underground. They told lie on lie – the man was wearing a thick jacket which could be concealing a bomb – he wasn’t wearing any jacket at all. He jumped over the barrier – NO it was the police who jumped over the ticket barrier. Everyone in the carriage testified that the man was on the floor and restrained by several police officers, so why was he shot 7 times? The police had the wrong man but this did not come out until much later on in the case. The newspaper seller who was knocked to the floor by a police officer at the G20 demos a few years ago – it was caught on video, so plain as a pikestaff – the man was making his way home. Once they realised he was dead following being pushed to the ground the police got some dodgy pathologist (who was already be investigated for incompetency) to say he died of a heart attack. He didn’t – 2 pathologists later agreed he had died as a result of internal bleeding caused by the push to the ground. Mark Duggan – and the fact that no police officer saw him with a gun but one armed officer thought he had one and shot him dead. Later they “find” a gun in some waste ground opposite the scene of the crime. If they saw no gun, nor a gun being thrown why were they searching waste ground for a gun. Many people have died in police custody – people with mental health problems at most risk. I could go on ……………….the IPCC is a joke – as far as I know NO police officer has ever been found guilty of unlawful killing. I think the Mark Duggan inquest did in fact find he had been unlawfully killed but the IPCC said there was no case to answer. I think that’s right, no doubt someone will correct me if I’m wrong.
OK all that doesn’t make it right that social workers lied under oath. Gross misconduct is committed by medics, albeit rarely although we only know about the cases that hit the headlines. The last one I recall was a consultant oncologist found guilty of abusing young boys with cancer – apparently one whilst his parents were sitting behind a curtain by his bed. You can’t stoop much lower than that can you. OK that was a criminal offence of some magnitude which is why it made national news.
I think I’m right in saying that the Judge made Care Orders in the case under discussion. I wonder why this was – presumably the LA had proved their case, even with the fabricated reports. I don’t understand why an independent social worker was not appointed to carry out a comprehensive assessment of the family (not the social workers)
People are talking about perjury. What’s the difference between perjury and perverting the course of justice. Is one easier to prove than the other, and what would be the legal remedy in this case.
Kate – Hampshire disagreed with the judge’s findings, as did the HCPC it seems. I would normally agree that HCPC no case to answer complaints should be confidential (otherwise all vexatious claims would be published and inference taken) but given the judgement has been published and there is such polarity, I think clarity would be helpful.
We reported 3 social workers, a child guardian and a psychologist to HCPC
but all 5 cases were closed after approx 4 weeks. reason given, our complaints didnt meet the criteria.
the Guardian was responsible for serious failings to protect our 7yr old son after he had been deliberately kept away from all his family by a child protection SW. the guardian stated in her case file he was very mixed up and in Urgent need of counselling support but he never got that help. the Guardian never followed up on that case file for over 12 months yet the judge defended her when she was questioned by Barristers. HCPC didnt even bother to act on this case file even when we sent it to them.
We still have not seen our son since Feb 2015. Absolute disgrace.
it would seem that there is a serious problem of professionals covering for eachother.