//
[2012] QCAT 213
General information, not legal advice.
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal
2012-04-13
Original judgment source is linked above.
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).
[1] MC is an approved teacher[1] who has teacher registration current until 31 December 2015. MC has been a registered teacher since 2001. She last taught from 2006 to 2010.
[2] MC's behaviour led her school principal to have concerns around her mental health. These concerns centred on MC's ability to function appropriately in her role as learning support teacher for Years 7, 8 and 9 students.
[3] MC's registration was suspended to allow for the preparation of a psychiatric assessment and report requested by the school. Her employment was subsequently terminated based on the contents of the psychiatric report.
[4] For the disciplinary hearing, the parties submitted an agreed statement of facts which acknowledges the concerns which arose about MC's emotional health and professional and personal conduct, together with the psychiatric and psychological assessments of MC. MC concedes that she is not suitable to teach.
[5] Dr Richardson, a psychiatrist, found that MC presented with a capacity to develop a significant fantasy life which is at odds with her responsibility and role as a learning and support teacher for students aged between 11 and 18 years. He considered there were indications that she was significantly depressed, quasi-suicidal and withdrawn and self-harming. He considered her insight was marginal, her judgment poor and that there had been a progressive deterioration in her work and social functioning. He diagnosed Chronic Dysthymia and Personality Disorder.
[6] He considered her school had no option but to cease her employment. He considered her functional deterioration and behavioural disturbance was inconsistent with her continuing roles and responsibilities with respect to children in her care, and that ongoing treatment was imperative for her future functioning in her desired role as a learning support teacher.
[7] He recommended referral for ongoing psychiatric care. He further considered that she should be subject to ongoing psychiatric evaluation and that ongoing treatment should be considered with respect to any future placements.
[8] Dr Henry, a psychologist, subsequently did a health assessment of MC. She noted that MC had not sought further psychiatric evaluation or treatment as agreed in the interview with Dr Richardson, and nor did she consult her General Practitioner to access the medical report prepared by Dr Richardson. She unilaterally and without medical advice reduced her medication after 9 years of taking it, because she was concerned about addiction and that it may mask her problems. She had arranged some 10 sessions with a local counsellor.
[9] Dr Henry observed that MC attempted to place herself in an overly positive light, by minimising psychological problems, suggesting little insight and possible lack of openness to psychological self-evaluation. She considered her unlikely to seek psychological treatment or fully co-operate with treatment if implemented. She considered MC was likely to have little awareness and insight as to her difficulties which did not auger well for her suitability to work in a child-related field.
[10] Queensland College of Teachers has referred a disciplinary proceeding to the tribunal for determination whether a ground for disciplinary action against MC has been established under the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2003 (the Act).
[11] Section 92 of the Act sets out the grounds for disciplinary action. These include, in section 92(1)(h), that the teacher is not suitable to teach. Sections 11, 12, and 12A set out the matters which must be considered when considering whether a person is suitable to teach. Section 12(1)(b) provides for consideration to be given to whether the person is suitable to work in a child-related field.
[12] In M v M,[2] the High Court of Australia considered that access between a child and parent would not be granted if that access would expose the child to an unacceptable risk of harm. The test of 'unacceptable risk of harm' has recently been adopted by the tribunal in determining whether a person is suitable to work in a child-related field. In QCT v Brady,[3] the tribunal considered that although Mr Brady's criminal history did not compel a finding that he was not suitable to teach, his behaviour crossed the line of teacher-student boundaries. The tribunal considered that Mr Brady's lack of insight into the deleterious and harmful effects of his behaviour and his professional responsibilities as a teacher supported a view that Mr Brady poses an unacceptable risk of harm to children. Therefore, he was not suitable to work in a child-related field.
[13] If the tribunal considers that a ground for disciplinary action has been established, under section 160(2) of the Act, it may, amongst other things, cancel an approved teacher's registration and make orders for a notation to be entered in the register. It may prohibit reapplication for registration for a stated period or indefinitely.
Is a ground for disciplinary action established?
[14] The essential question is whether MC poses an unacceptable risk of harm to children. If she does, adopting the reasoning in QCT v Brady, she is not suitable to work in a child-related field.
[15] MC's personal and professional functioning deteriorated. Dr Richardson diagnosed a mental illness and recommended ongoing psychiatric care as well as evaluation, and that ongoing treatment should be considered with respect to future placements. He considered MC's insight marginal and judgment poor, and that her functional deterioration and behavioural disturbance was inconsistent with her roles and responsibilities with respect to children in her care.
[16] Dr Henry noted that MC did not seek further psychiatric evaluation or treatment following her interview with Dr Richardson, although she did have some sessions with a local counsellor. She also, without advice, changed her medication regime. She considered MC's lack of insight into her difficulties did not auger well for her suitability to work in a child-related field.
[17] Given MC's diagnosis; her lack of insight into her behaviour and problems, and her failure to follow through with Dr Richardson's recommendation for ongoing psychiatric treatment and evaluation; her propensity not to adhere to medical advice as demonstrated by making her own changes without medical advice to her medication regime, the tribunal is satisfied that MC does pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children. She is therefore, not suitable to work in a child-related field. Accordingly, the tribunal finds that she is not suitable to teach.
[18] QCT and MC have made a joint submission on penalty, but it is for the tribunal to decide what disciplinary action is appropriate.
[19] It is well-established that disciplinary action is protective, not punitive. MC currently represents an unacceptable risk of harm to children, and is unsuitable to work in a child-related field and therefore, is not suitable to teach. The tribunal is satisfied that her registration should be cancelled.
[20] If she obtains ongoing psychiatric treatment and evaluation, MC may become well, and in the process gain the insight and judgment which she currently fails to demonstrate. If this occurs, she may no longer be unsuitable to teach. It is not possible to identify a timeframe within which this may occur. It could happen within a year, or may not happen for 5 years, or at all. Therefore, the tribunal does not consider that it is appropriate to prohibit MC from reapplying for registration for a period.
[21] However, if MC reapplies, she should provide a report/assessment from a consultant psychiatrist or registered psychologist to the QCT with her application. In particular, the tribunal considers that the report/assessment should address the following:
MC's suitability to work in a child related field particularly as a teacher;
A risk assessment including risk and protective factors;
MC's ability to identify potentially problematic situations and her ability to initiate realistic solutions for avoiding risk of harm to herself and students;
MC's understanding and awareness of the triggers/stressors that may cause a relapse in functional and behavioural capacity as a support teacher;
MC's understanding and awareness of a need to appropriately seek medical advice when experiencing a functional or behavioural deterioration, and in addition, to seek medical advice prior to altering a prescribed medical regime;
MC's awareness of the implications, consequences and effects of her behaviour within the school environment as well as the school community;
MC's awareness of any behaviour which may compromise the professional standing of a teacher and the profession of teaching; and
MC's understanding of and full adherence to the Queensland College of Teachers' Code of Ethics.
[22] Any such report/assessment should include a reference to the report writer being provided with copies of:
- The report of Dr Greig Richardson, Consultant Psychiatrist, dated 26 November 2010;
- The report of Dr June Henry, Clinical Psychologist, dated 2 September 2011;
- The agreed statement of facts signed by MC in these proceedings;
- These reasons for decision.
[23] The Tribunal notes that publication of any identifying information about MC, including her name and address is prohibited under s 66 of the QCAT Act[4], as ordered by Senior Member, Clare Endicott, on 11 November 2011.
[2] M v M [1988] HCA 68.
[3] Queensland College of Teachers v Brady [2011] QCAT 464.
Queensland College of Teachers
MC [2012] QCAT 213
M v M [1988] HCA 68
Queensland College of Teachers v Brady [2011] QCAT 464