Again the Care Standards Tribunal (CST) has brought clarity and light where the social care regulator, this time the Care Council for Wales (CCW) have acted in very bad taste and pampered to the press rather than logic, and NOT applied dispassionate analysis , which is their absolute duty– sadly the CCW are going the same way as those Dorks at the GSCC (General Social Care Council).
This case involves Eleni Cordingley , formerly a social worker of some several years qualified experience in Swansea. The CST considered her appeal against the Care Council for Wales and can be found here:
http://www.carestandardstribunal.gov.uk/Public/View.aspx?ID=1041
The CST website is here: http://www.carestandardstribunal.gov.uk/ and the Care Council for Wales website here:
http://www.ccwales.org.uk/ They carry out the same functions as the English GSCC, with sister agencies in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The Care Standards Tribunal who upheld the appeal of Cordingley lambasted, albeit very nicely, the Care Council for Wales for effectively not doing their job, being lazy and incompetent (my words, but that is what it comes down to). Where do they get these committee members from? Mars? Even worse where do they get their staff, and it particular its legal officers who advise on basic things like human rights and proportionality? Jupiter?
Actually it is a little known planet in our solar system that some can pinpoint when the telescope of reality is applied – it’s called planet Dork. It’s a very dark place being a long way from the Sun (not the newspaper, although in its stupidity it is very close to that) where the clear light of day is replaced by a gloom that is so overwhelming that it obviously distorts the populations view of the real world. Dorks, in fact, are not very good natured or indeed insightful people – they certainly know sod all about fairness or proportionality and even less about social work, which they are meant to regulate.
Cordingly had been implicated in the case of Aaron Gilbert, aged 13 months, who was murdered in May 2005 by mother’s boyfriend, Andrew Lloyd – he was imprisoned for murder whilst mother went to jail for failing to prevent his death. Rather unusually Aaron was not on the child protection register and there was no active social work involvement. Cordingly who never met the family was processing a referral to gather more data/facts when Aaron was killed. She was subsequently disciplined by Swansea City Council and given a warning, albeit she admitted fault her actions were not reckless but her judgement was perhaps at its best but well meaning in again another dysfunctional organisation – Swansea Council are effectively under special measures.
Cordingley was vilified in the press but she continued on regardless in Swansea until several years later she applied to renew her registration with the CCW – quite rightly she notified CCW of the above who then decided in their wisdom (sic) to investigate further. The result – they removed Cordingleys registration and Swansea sacked her in January 2009.
Now, Wilt is a rather simple fellow. He, together with the far more intelligent CST (Care Standards Tribunal), was in light of these facts left a little bewildered, as no doubt was poor Eleni Cordingley. Now, if Wilt and the CST can do some simple analysis and apply compassion, proportionality and intellect, why cannot CCW?
Here are some observations by the CST:
“It is incumbent upon any regulatory body to give full reasons to explain their decision making processes. The decision following two days hearing runs to just 3 ½ pages. The rationale of the decision is as follows;
“The misconduct admitted in this case is considered so serious that removal from the register is the only appropriate sanction. This is necessary for the protection of the public and to uphold the public interest in maintaining confidence in social care services. ”
“The only reference to alternative sanctions is to say that they were considered but not felt appropriate. Their inappropriateness is not explained. There is no reference to the context in the Assessment and Investigation team at the time, no reference to Mrs Cordingley’s subsequent performance, no reference to her insight, no reference to her remorse. There is no consideration of the fact that 3 ½ years have passed without any further concerns being raised. Critically there is no analysis of why this conduct was considered so serious that no other sanction was appropriate. The impression is gained that the Committee was so influenced by the fact that underlying all the issues was the death of Aaron, that they failed to analyse forensically the decision making on 27 April 2005 objectively and dispassionately.”
I mean, I know Wilt is a bit of a simple fellow, but does one recognise a certain familiar pattern emerging here?
The text of the CST hearing goes on:
“The Conduct Committee’s decision has the effect of depriving Mrs Cordingley of her livelihood. Accordingly any such decision has to be proportionate to the misconduct found or admitted. In this case there was a wrong decision made. In the context of the manner in which the information was received and the pressure this new team were under it is a misjudgement that others may also make. It is, in the cold light of day and with the benefit of hindsight, a serious error but when she made the decision she did not have the time and space that others over the years have had to dissect it. We do not consider that the misconduct in itself justified the ultimate sanction. It was not a case of gross misconduct. 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 judgment.”
The CST go on to adjudicate:
“Since the Maria Caldwell case in the 1980’s a number of child deaths have generated expensive enquiries looking at how agencies can do better to protect children from murder by their parents and carers. Through cases such as Kimberley Carlisle and Tyra Henry through the Victoria Climbie case to Baby Peter society has tried to understand how the deaths occurred to prevent future deaths. Alongside this has grown a culture of blame not toward those who perpetrate the crimes but toward the professionals doing their best to protect children. Yet despite the increased levels of hysteria homicide rates have remained relatively consistent over the years. People will continue to kill children despite, not because of, the efforts of professionals. No system can prevent desperate, inadequate or depraved people abusing their children.
It is important that those charged with the regulation of the professions remain vigilant not only in rooting out dangerous practice but to the necessity not to be swayed by apparent calls for retribution towards professionals. A professional conduct committee must offer a forum for detached, informed and detailed evaluation of the alleged misconduct itself. The consequences, however tragic, of the misconduct should not be allowed to dictate the sanction imposed.
It follows from what we have said above that we do not consider that Mrs Cordingley’s honest but wrong decision fell into the category of decisions that required the ultimate sanction. The misconduct itself cannot however be considered in isolation. It was incumbent upon the conduct committee to consider the mitigation that Mrs Cordingley had to offer; her work record, her remorse, her insight.
Under S68 our powers are limited to either allowing the appeal or dismissing it. We have no hesitation in allowing it. We have been told by Mr Miles that the Care Council for Wales will give careful consideration to any alternative sanction that we recommend. The events that have been analysed in depth took place over 4 years ago. Mrs Cordingley has been punished enough. She has been out of work since February 2009, she has suffered vilification and her health has been adversely affected. To suspend her now for events 4 years ago would be inappropriate. We cannot see that given all the positive measures taken by Mrs Cordingley to January 2009 an admonishment is necessary or reasonable. We therefore recommend that no further action be taken.
Appeal Allowed.
We direct that the decision taken by the Care Council for Wales on 23 January 2009 to remove her name from the Register of Social Workers not have effect.”
Wilt is now adding the CCW to the Dork list and is on probation pending any signs of improvement in, well, basic intelligence, understanding their role and delivering on justice – and not just justice for the press.
I hope CCW you feel rightly ashamed. And you seemed to be doing so well. Get a grip will, you!
Of course Swansea Council were no better – they could have relocated Cordingley to a non-social work (qualified) post pending this appeal, bit no she was too convenient a scapegoat – that sounds very familiar too, as it would to people like Lisa Arthurworry.
What an utter waste of public money – the CCW. What a breath of fresh air, and sunlight, the CST.
I think there should be some new regulations – those which fine the Regulators when they fail to do even the basic of tasks which they are paid to do, at huge public expense. Grrrrrrrrrrr!!!!! What total pillocks.
Wilt