A TEENAGER has said he does not feel a warning given to a social worker reflects the “seriousness” of the complaint he raised. 

The youngster, now 17, raised concern about the behaviour of Victoria Wells with Social Work England in October last year and contacted the Telegraph & Argus to express his dissatisfaction with the outcome.

In looking at the regulatory concerns, the Case Examiner Decision said: “1. Whilst employed as a social worker for Bradford children’s services you put pressure on child HC to stay at your house overnight, instead of going back to their placement, which made him feel vulnerable.

“2. Whilst employed as a social worker for Bradford children’s services you compromised the safeguarding of child HC as follows:

“On or around the 24th of January 2020 during a telephone conversation you inappropriately stated to child HC ‘go home and bite the bullet’. On or around the 4th of February 2020 during a telephone conversation with HC you inappropriately stated, ‘if your dad is rough handling you this is not significant harm’.

“Whilst working with child HC when he mentioned that he felt he was being groomed you made inappropriate comments such as ‘the boy that cried wolf’, ‘are you being gang raped in the back of a van’.”

In looking at whether those concerns could be proved, the report says case examiners acknowledged the difficulty in determining if the social worker put pressure on the teenager to stay at her house.

The report says: “However, the case examiners accept that HC might have felt pressured to stay at the social worker’s house overnight, and that this may have made HC feel vulnerable.

“Furthermore, there is evidence that the social worker did suggest that HC could stay at the social worker’s house overnight. Specifically, the case examiners have had sight of a screenshot of a text message from the social worker to HC, which states “…are you walking around or are you with someone that you are happy to stay with?? Or do you wanna come to my house & stay at mine tonight?”

The case examiners concluded there would be a realistic prospect of that concern being found proven by adjudicators, but not the second set.

The report says the social worker acknowledged her motivation to “safeguard HC led to an error in judgment and the use of a flawed strategy to ensure HC’s safety”.

It says it seems to have been an “isolated incident” and there is no evidence professional boundaries were breached over an extended period. 

“Rather, the evidence indicates a short-lived lapse in judgement, which the social worker says was motivated by a desire to safeguard HC,” says the report.

However, case examiners concluded a social worker suggesting a service-user could stay overnight at their home represented a risk to the public and a “serious error of judgement”.

The case was not referred to a full hearing, as “examiners do not believe adjudicators would seek to remove the social worker from the register”. 

The report says: “This is due to the insight and remorse shown by the social worker, and that fact this seems to be an isolated incident in an otherwise unblemished career.”

It was determined a one-year warning would be given which said: “The case examiners understand that social workers can feel a significant amount of responsibility for people who are allocated to them, and that they can sometimes ‘go above and beyond’ to meet the needs of individuals and families. However, it is essential that social workers always adhere to Social Work England’s professional standards in respect of their practice.”

The teenager in question said: “The outcome does not reflect the seriousness of the matter”.

Social Work England said it did not wish to make any further comment on the case.

Mark Douglas, Strategic Director of Children’s Services at Bradford Council, said the department would never “shy away” from notifying Social Work England when “high standards of practice” are breached, but added: “It would not be appropriate to comment on the outcome of this matter.”