Child care worker showed disregard for service users
A Tayside child care worker who brandished a piece of wood at a young person with learning difficulties showed “a fundamental disregard for the safety and wellbeing of service users.”
The Scottish Social Services Council said Scott Hamilton also displayed a deep-seated personality or attitudinal problem over his very serious misconduct.
The Arbroath residential child care worker was struck off for his actions and the SSSC has now published its judgment in the case following a hearing in Dundee.
In an episode on September 2 2012, while working for New Breaks Ltd in the Angus town, Hamilton was found to have made disrespectful comments about the 17-year-old’s physical abilities and skills.
On two occasions he pushed him on to a sofa, used his leg to restrain the teenager’s legs, held his arms against the sofa and restrained him for a period of time when he knew he should not be restrained.
Hamilton had refused to allow the young man to go to the toilet and had brandished the piece of wood at him.
Hamilton had said in his defence that he had never hurt anyone in his life and had not come into the industry to beat up or threaten children. He accepted there was an incident but not one where he had any malicious intent.
The SSSC conduct sub-committee found that he had behaved in a way which called into question his suitability to work in social services.
The incidents specified were numerous and involved verbal and physical abuse of an extremely vulnerable service user.
His actions were not premeditated but fell below the standard expected of a social worker.
He also failed to display any insight, remorse or regret in relation to his actions and indeed sought to justify his behaviour.
Hamilton said he had no intention of returning to social work but the sub- committee said they could not be satisfied his conduct would not be repeated.
The sub-committee said a warning would not adequately protect the public and they were concerned about the risk of recurrence.
Hamilton had no negative history but there was no evidence of him having insight into his failings or being willing to change his behaviour.
