Two Edinburgh social workers have their contempt of court convictions quashed

Two Edinburgh social workers have had a contempt of court conviction quashed. They were convicted of this charge in December 2013, when a sheriff found they had acted unlawfully in respect of a contact order relating to two children who were looked after and accommodated and their mother. The two children were being cared for by foster carers and had been seeing their mother on a monthly basis. The mother appealed to court, and an order was imposed allowing her weekly contact in May 2013. In July the social worker stopped the contact as this was causing the children apparent distress, and referred the case back to a children’s panel which was delayed. The mother’s legal representative subsequently wrote to the Sheriff who had allowed the order, and the Sheriff convicted the social worker and her line manager of contempt of court; no penalty was imposed.

The social workers, consistently supported by Unison throughout this process, and the City of Edinburgh Council appealed the conviction. The ruling in the Court of Sessions states that the social worker’s actions may be seen as "overzealous, overcautious, or an error of judgment" but were done in "good faith based on a concern for the children’s best interests". Lord Malcolm said: "A decision made by the responsible social worker to suspend contact and refer the matter to the children’s hearing out of a genuinely held concern as to a serious risk of harm to the children cannot properly be categorised as a contempt of court”.

Michelle Miller, Chief Social Work Officer for the City of Edinburgh Council, said: "We welcome this judgement and are pleased that common sense has prevailed. "From the outset our experienced child protection managers were motivated to act in the best interests of two vulnerable children. The past year has been very challenging for our staff and I am delighted they have been fully vindicated in the decisions they took, as has the social work profession "The wellbeing of vulnerable children is of paramount importance for all social work staff."

SASW at the time of the original ruling stated that we were not aware of the detail of the case (and neither should we be - such is rightfully confidential) but that social workers had to act within the boundaries of the law.

The report on this ruling provides more information previously not shared.

We are pleased that this ruling suggests that the welfare of children is the primary consideration and that the appeal has recognised the complexity of assessment and decision making which social workers face on a daily basis. Furthermore: Individual workers act as agents of the local authority and this, despite their professional autonomy, should be respected as such. It appears from the ruling that what impacted here were clearly convoluted systems; there may well be more reflection on the position of children's hearings and the courts.

Click here for the full report