By Charlotte Webster-
A social worker has been suspended for 12 months after he failed to carry out “some of the most fundamental and basic tasks”, which could have caused “emotional and physical” harm to “vulnerable children” under his responsibility.
A HCPC panel ruled the agency social worker’s fitness to practice was impaired on public protection grounds after he made repeated failings in relation to five separate service users over a two-month period. Her failures included failing to complete a section 47 investigation, which helps safeguard children who have been identified as at risk.
It pointed out the practitioner failed to carry out important visits and risk assessments, or to notify the police and other agencies about important matters, and arrange for strategy discussions to take place. The practitioner’s failure to complete a section 47 investigation was highlighted as a “particular concern”.The panel said it found “widespread and serious failings” by the practitioner in “some of the most fundamental and basic of tasks” required of a social work
The panel said it found “widespread and serious failings” by the practitioner in “some of the most fundamental and basic of tasks” required of a social worker in “the critical field of child protection”. It concluded that the failings led to “very real risks”, which “could have caused harm” to vulnerable children.
Despite considering mitigating factors, including “limited supervision at work”, the panel said there was a “very real concern” the practitioner would “repeat the same failings” unless action was taken. Concerns surrounding the agency worker’s practice came to light on 27 January 2017, when he asked his senior manager, FB, to authorise a number of assessments he had completed. When FB reviewed the case, she noticed the social worker had failed to complete tasks, leading her to examine the social worker’s entire caseload.
Further evidence presented to the panel about the social worker’s failure to conduct weekly visits to a three-year-old child under the protection of social services caused serious alarm. The first service user had been a child in need for some time and concerns had escalated around the level of care that the parents were providing. The child’s grandmother had provided full time foster care under a regulation 24 arrangement, due to the substance misuse and neglect of the child’s parents. Service user A required weekly visits until the first looked-after child review on 19 December 2016, but the practitioner failed to conduct weekly visits until the review, not visiting the child from 12 December until 24 January 2017.
Reports of domestic violence between the child’s parents gave cause for careful and professional care of the child’s affair, but the social worker failed to do so. On a separate occasion, the child’s mother brought the child to school under the influence of alcohol.
According to FB, the social worker “should have responded straightaway to the information that came in from the nursery as this was a serious domestic violence incident”. However, a copy of a child concern notification was not received by the police until later that day. The social worker should have contacted his team manager because the incident required management oversight “to agree the strategy, course of investigation, and to seek agreement to request a foster placement”. As an “experienced social worker”, the practitioner should have known to do this, FB added.
She said the practitioner should also have made arrangements to see the child “immediately” after he was prompted and told to arrange to accommodate the service user in a safe placement. In another worrying case, the panel heard how the practitioner failed to complete a section 47 investigation surrounding concerns about the safety of an unborn child. The social worker was absent from the meeting but was required to complete an urgent application for court and the social worker to complete a section 47 investigation.
The child was born on 26 December and was allocated to the social worker on 28 December, with a section 47 to be completed. However, the social worker admitted he “had not progressed the strategy” and “had not completed the section 47 investigation as required”.Records show the practitioner did commence a section 47 investigation but it had not been completed and signed off.