A senior social worker has been sanctioned for making “inappropriate” sexual comments in the presence of other social workers, including two newly qualified staff.
A Health and Care Professions Council tribunal found that, on the balance of probabilities, the registered social worker had made “inappropriate sexual comments” during a supervision session in December 2015 with a newly qualified child protection social worker, when he was a locum assistant team manager for Dudley council.
The social worker also admitted that, the following day, he had made an inappropriate sexual comment in the presence of two other social workers, including another newly qualified worker. All three of the other social workers were women.
A formal grievance procedure took place after this second incident but the social worker left before this was completed.
‘Breached fundamental tenet’
He was given a six-month conditions of practice order after the panel found that, though he had not put service users at risk of unwarranted harm by his actions, and wasn’t liable to do so in the future, he had brought the social work profession into disrepute and “breached one of its fundamental tenets”.
The panel said he had a “responsibility to be an example to other members of staff” due to his seniority, and should “have known better than to speak in that manner”.
It also said, though, that he was “working under challenging circumstances” at the time, and had been put in charge of a team of social workers “who had not been receiving proper management and supervision for some time whilst having a caseload himself”.
Supervision session
The social worker denied that during the supervision session he had made inappropriate comments regarding a pregnant service user who was also a sex worker, but accepted that the service user’s case had been discussed.
He also accepted that, on the same day, he made reference to a Chinese sexual saying and explained its meaning, but said it was not in relation to the service user in question or to any other service user.
He told the panel he had referred to the Chinese saying and its meaning during a break in the supervision session, during a conversation he had with the newly qualified worker about time he had spent in China undergoing martial arts training. He said the break and the conversation took place after he had finished inputting the notes of the discussion in relation to the service user onto the computer system.
He also said he had previously discussed his time in China with the NQSW before this supervision, the first session between them, where about 30 of the NQSW’s cases were discussed.
‘Not credible’
However, the panel said it did “not find it credible” that, “in what would have been an intense supervision session, there would have been a break and that during that break the Registrant would again discuss his time in China and then make reference to the Chinese saying and its meaning, which was clearly sexual”.
It found that it was “more probable” that the reference to the Chinese saying was made following or during the discussion about the service user, adding: “The Chinese saying can be said to be linked to sex workers, and to the conversation about this particular service user being sexually active and continuing to have children.”
Character evidence
As well as the three main witnesses, the HCPC panel took evidence from the interim head of services for Dudley children’s services at the time of the allegations, and from the registrant’s line manager at another local authority before the events, who has also been his line manager since.
Both were unable to give direct evidence about the allegations but gave character evidence regarding the social worker’s professionalism and stated that there had been no known previous concerns about his conduct and practice.
The registrant also apologised to the first social worker shortly after the incident on 30 December 2015, but the panel said he had “not gained full insight into his misconduct”.
It pointed out that he had “sought to transfer the blame for his actions” on 30 December 2015 onto the newly qualified worker, “in that he maintained his belief that she had manipulated and/or engineered the situation so that he would make those comments”.
In determining its sanction, the panel considered that the social worker had “fully engaged” with the fitness to practise process, had shown “some evidence of remorse and insight”, and had a “previously unblemished record” as a social worker.
He had also engaged in “reflective and relevant” supervision sessions with his current line manager, and had the support of this manager to assist him if conditions were imposed on his practice.
The panel said his current manager “clearly holds him and his ability as a social worker in high regard”.
Under the conditions of practice order the social worker must work with his supervisor on a personal development plan to address deficiencies in his practice related to supervision, professional boundaries, and mentoring NQSWs.
Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole 
Hampshire County Council 
Lincolnshire County Council 
Norfolk County Council 
Northamptonshire Children’s Trust 
South Gloucestershire Council 
Wiltshire Council 
Wokingham Borough Council 
Children and young people with SEND are ‘valued and prioritised’ in Wiltshire, find inspectors 
How specialist refugee teams benefit young people and social workers 
Podcast: returning to social work after becoming a first-time parent 
Podcast: would you work for an inadequate-rated service? 
Family help: one local authority’s experience of the model 
‘We are all one big family’: how one council has built a culture of support 
Workforce Insights – showcasing a selection of the sector’s top recruiters 
Facebook
X
LinkedIn
Instagram
Interesting..so he did ”not put service users at risk of unwarranted harm by his actions, and wasn’t liable to do so in the future” even though he had a full caseload and was unfit to be in a position of power and control.
This HCPC is starting to become like attending court. Apparently it’s a very oppressive environment.
Maybe with good reason or maybe cases like this should heard be in a court?
does anyone know when we are getting a new regulator?
I can’t work out what on earth they were talking about in supervision, but it certainly makes mine seem as exciting as an episode of country file.
Does this really require the heavy boots of the HCPC to police?
What ever happened to local in-house resolution?
it’s easier to palm off that to some formal body…… and it also shows a deficiency of the ability to engage in communication and problem resolution of the place where the guy was employed.
I note the information given is exceptionally vague so that understanding the pros and cons of the circumstances is difficult to assess. I would have thought that taking local action would have been enough to assist the practitioner to gain insight regarding his conduct.
The HCPC is becoming Ham fisted with regards to human failings, where a less punitive approach may be appropriate. I also note that a female Senior Manager in a London Borough had her picture all over the press for sending sexualised pictures of herself to a male friend. She was wearing her Social Work ID badge at the time.This Manager was allowed to leave the department with no action being taken by the HCPC.
Are we now living in a Social Work femocracy ?
No, I surely do not think so. But we live in a time where it becomes more and more difficult to understand the logic in the decision making of HCPC,. What becomes clear is that social workers are not deemed to be human beings once they step into the office. They need to simply function…… I cannot see much effort being spent on nurturing staff, good supervision, the team ethos….. Very sad that.
Somewhere they HCPC said that sanctions are not punishment. I suggest they study the dictionary as to the meaning of the word sanction. One is closely linked to the other!
Why has hcpc become so oppressive – isn’t there a court of law to challenge their decision.
Carol, Prussik and SW111 The HCPC have always been oppressive. There’s nothing new in this. Standing before them is worse than appearing before a judge in court.
You are judged before you attend. No matter your defence you will not escape without disproportionate punishment and public humiliation which once published, Google holds the headline forever therefore you are never ever free to move on.
Having said that we shouldn’t forget there are a few bad apples who definitely aren’t fit to practice. Generally, no genuine social worker worth their salt would ever deliberately set out to harm another and similarly, social work is a tough job to do, stamina and broad shoulders are needed to bat off what get thrown at them. However the HCPC are very heavy handed and must justify their power in that they severely punish the stuff which managers should – if competent be able to deal with themselves.
The HCPC have no interest in the welfare or wellbeing of social workers and never take into account mitigating factors, what’s been done to them or what conditions they must endure.
In this case the social worker has been an idiot, apologise, and all parties move on.