Mrs Rebeca-Daniela Obada

Profession: Social worker

Registration Number: SW106846

Hearing Type: Final Hearing

Date and Time of hearing: 09:00 11/06/2018 End: 16:00 14/06/2018

Location: Health and Care Professions Tribunal Service (HCPTS), 405 Kennington Road, London, SE11 4PT

Panel: Conduct and Competence Committee
Outcome: Struck off

Please note that the decision can take up to 5 working days to be uploaded onto the HCPTS website. Please contact one of our Hearings Team Managers via or +44 (0)808 164 3084 if you require any further information.



While registered as a Social Worker, and employed by Buckinghamshire
County Council between October 2015 and August 2016:

1.  In respect of Service User A, in around January - February 2016, you completed a Child and Family Assessment which was inadequate in that:

i. you did not provide clear reasoning for completing the assessment;
ii. the assessment did not contain sufficient detail and/or analysis about
the child's development;
iii. you did not provide evidence for your comments relating to parenting capacity.
iv. lacked sufficient information and/or analysis
2. In respect of Service User B you:
a. On or around 5 April 2016, completed a visit which was inadequate in that you:

i. did not explain the concerns to Person 3 regarding the referral and  its impact on Service User B;

ii. did not implement a Contract of Expectations with Person 3;

iii. did not obtain sufficient information to appropriately identify and/or safeguard against risks;

iv. did not obtain sufficient details about Service User B's family;

v. told Person 3 you would contact Person 4 and when Person 3 became distressed, you did not ask why.

b. On or around 07 April 2016, you completed a visit which was inadequate in that you:

i. did not obtain sufficient details about Service User B's family and/or ask to visit Person 3's parents;

ii. did not use age appropriate interactions to engage with Service User B

iii. discussed with Person 3 your own personal parenting experiences when this was not relevant;

iv. did not adequately explain the Contract of Expectations with Person 3;

v. did not adequately identify risks including that Service User B needed to be protected under an Initial Child Protection Conference;

c. You completed a Genogram which was inadequate.

3. In respect of Service User C, you recorded inaccurate information in the
case closure.

4. You did not consistently demonstrate the ability to practise as an autonomous professional in that you did not:

i. appropriately identify and make effective assessments of risks to    service users;

ii. record accurate and comprehensive documentation;

iii. complete tasks, including case closures, in a timely manner.

5. You completed a ‘non-live' assessment during your probationary period, and:

a. accessed the electronic "LCS" service user records when you had been
instructed not to do so;

b. denied accessing the "LCS" service user records.

6. Your actions described in paragraph 5(a) and/or 5(b) were dishonest

7.  Your actions described in paragraphs 1 - 4 constitute misconduct and/or lack of competence.
8. Your actions described on paragraphs 5 and 6 constitute misconduct.

9. By reason of your misconduct and/or lack of competence you fitness to
practise is impaired


Preliminary matters:
Hearing Directions and timing of evidence
1. It was noted that prior to the hearing the Chairman had received an application from the HCPC for two of the HCPC’s witnesses to give their evidence through the medium of video or telephonic communication. In both instances personal health reasons supported this application. The Registrant had informed the HCPC that it was her intention to participate in the hearing by telephone link to allow her to discharge her parenting responsibilities and also because of health reasons. Those applications had been approved.
2. The Registrant’s availability to attend on which days and at which times via telephone was established before the HCPC opened its case.
Amendment of the Allegation
3. The HCPC had notified the Registrant on the 6 November 2017, of its intention to amend the Allegation. The Registrant had not previously raised any issue and at the hearing agreed to the amendments being made. It was argued that those amendments better reflected the evidence and aided clarity of what was alleged. It was stated that these amendments did not widen the allegation and therefore did not cause the Registrant any prejudice. The HCPC gave reasons for each proposed amendment and referred the Panel to the relevant supporting sections of statements and documentation.
4. The Panel received advice from the Legal Assessor, which included reference to the fact that there is no specific power for the Conduct and Competence Committee to amend the Allegation. There was, however, at common law, the ability to amend so far as it was limited to correction, clarification, or the addition of detail, rather than to introduce a new strand to the case, which did not benefit from a ‘case to answer’ determination by the Investigating Committee.
5. The Panel approved all the proposed amendments.
6. The Registrant commenced work on 8 October 2015, with Buckinghamshire County Council (BCC), as a Social Worker in the Children’s Assessment Team. The Registrant had been recruited from overseas along with a number of other Social Workers from the same country. She was initially subject to a 20-week probationary period which involved fortnightly supervision, regular mentoring and training. She did not hold a caseload. In spite of the support made available to her there remained significant issues with her practice and she was dismissed from the role on 1 August 2016.                    
7. A referral was received by the HCPC on 12 September 2016, outlining the BCC’s concern in respect of the Registrant’s ability to identify risk and safeguard children.
Decision on Facts:
8. The Registrant accepted the factual basis of all particulars. Her admissions were noted.
9. The Panel had before it several bundles of documentation. It heard evidence from three HCPC witnesses.  These were:
10. NH, who had worked at BCC as an Assistant Team Manager from November 2015 to March 2016. During this time NH was the Registrant’s supervisor. Notes of her supervision sessions with the Registrant were before the Panel.
11. Her evidence related to particulars 1, 3 and 4 and was delivered in person. In the Panel’s view she was a credible witness giving a fair, professional assessment of the Registrant’s abilities and prepared to acknowledge when she was not sure of detail. Her evidence was consistent and demonstrated personal sympathy for the Registrant’s situation.
12. TC was employed by BCC as Assistant Team Manager from April 2016 to 15 July 2017. Her evidence related to particulars 2 and 4. Her testimony was given on day 1 of the hearing through a video link, which proved problematic due to technical difficulties, and then by telephone on day 2.
13. TC’s evidence was considered by the Panel to be credible, clear, reliable and fair. She was keen to demonstrate empathy towards the Registrant’s situation. She stated that she was not responsible for the Registrant’s supervision at the time she carried out direct observations of the Registrant’s practice.
14. LC had worked within the department during the whole time the Registrant had been employed by BCC. Following an internal request in March 2016, LC had led a project to implement an Action Plan for the Social Workers who had been recruited from overseas. The aim of this was to review and assess the needs and capabilities of these Social Workers. At this point in March 2016, LC became the Registrant’s overall manager.  Her evidence relates to particulars 4, 5 and 6.
15. LC gave clear and confident testimony, which in the Panel’s opinion was delivered in an open and honest manner, including her concerns about the approach and handling of this cohort of overseas Social Worker’s recruited by BCC. She displayed a good recollection of events, particularly in relation to the interview in which she said the Registrant had attempted to mislead, and finally admitted to, her access to the live records on the computer system. She gave the Panel an overview of the structure of the organisation and the grading levels within the department.
16. The Registrant gave evidence by telephone. She had fully engaged in the HCPC process and participated throughout the hearing. She had provided the Panel with a large body of documentation.
17. Her evidence supported the information placed before the Panel by the HCPC. She challenged the evidence once, when one HCPC witness had failed to be totally accurate in a small detail. She presented as being compliant and had been in agreement with all that was said of the events and her performance.
18. Before the Panel set out its finding on fact, it confirmed that it has accepted that the burden of proof is on the HCPC to prove the Allegation to the requisite standard, namely the civil standard of balance of probabilities.  There is no burden on the Registrant to disprove anything, although it noted the Registrant’s admissions to all particulars of the Allegation.
Particular 1 – all elements of this particular are found proven.
19. This particular relates to an assessment produced by the Registrant following a joint visit with another qualified Social Worker. It related to a concern raised about Service User A’s changed behaviour following an overnight stay to her father who was an alcoholic.
20. The evidence for this particular came from NH. The Child and Family Assessment document completed by the Registrant was before the Panel. In NH’s view significant detail had been missed despite the form containing prompts as to what sort of information should be included.
21. NH met with the Registrant on 10 March 2016 for a supervision meeting where she notes in her review of the meeting ‘the assessment is lacking information and analysis’.
22. Matters such as information from other agencies involved with the family e.g. the school, was missing; observations as to whether the child was clean or dirty, well fed or malnourished and how well the child communicated, had not been made; no detail of who had made the most recent referral and when; no clarity about the reason for the referral; no note of discussion of needs in relation to parenting capacity; and little by way of background for this family, a family that had previously been known to BCC.
23. NH stated that gathering all the relevant details was part of the basic work of a Social Worker when interacting with a family. Most could have been gathered by observation and simple questioning. NH identified that there was such a paucity of information that an analysis of risk could not have been undertaken and stated that she would never have been willing to approve the recommendation of the Registrant for ‘no further action’, in a case lacking so much basic information.
24. The Panel noted that in the section headed ‘Parenting Capacity’ the Registrant had documented that the mother ‘was exaggerating the issue with her husband, and regarding Service User A’s visits to her father’s place’. This opinion is not supported by the evidence.
25. The Panel accepted the uncontested evidence before it in relation to this particular.
Particular 2 – all part of the particular are found proven to the requisite standard.
26. This particular relates to a recent incident of domestic violence witnessed by the child, Service User B. At the time of the incident there had been a Restraining Order in place which had been breached by the father. There had been a Contract of Expectations with the mother which had been broken.
Particular 2 (a)
27. The visit on 5 April 2016, assessed the impact on the child, Service User B, following the incident of domestic violence. It was also to assess if there was a continuing risk to the child, and, if necessary, the need for a plan to manage that risk.
28. This visit was undertaken by the Registrant with TC observing the interaction of the Registrant with the mother and the child. TC had been instructed not to intervene. There was an expectation that the Registrant would emphasise to the mother the need to comply with the Contract of Expectations in order to safeguard Service User B.
29. The Panel noted that TC has identified the following inadequacies in the Registrant’s approach:
• ‘SW explained the details of the referral but did not expand on why this would be concerning and the impact of this on the child’.
• Did not discuss the expectations of the LA now in regards to mother keeping child safe. I had to intervene and be clear with mother she must not allow father access. SW did not pick up on this cue and implement a contract of expectations with mother.
• ‘Restraining order in place until 2019 - SW did not ask why she has breached it, again…SW did not ask what contact father is having since the last incident or how mother had been managing contact given the restraining order in place.’
• ‘SW told mother she will contact father. Mother immediately became distressed. SW did not ask why but said again she would be contacting him. I interjected and asked why mother was distressed…Mother believes any contact with father from CSC will trigger an incident and he will come to the home.’
30. The evidence of TC was that the Registrant had not demonstrated that she had understood or accurately assessed the family situation. She said that the Registrant had not engaged with the mother on the issue of the continuing need for a Contract of Expectations and she had not sought relevant information which would have allowed her to make an assessment of risk for the child. The Registrant had appeared to have little understanding as to why her proposal to contact the father would cause the mother to become agitated and had not sought to explore why the mother had become distressed at this proposal.
Particular 2 (b)
31. TC told the Panel that at the follow up visit two days later, the Registrant had not been able to engage in an age appropriate manner with the three-year-old child, Service User B. The Registrant had failed to obtain the child’s attention and TC had felt compelled to intervene and engage with the child using age appropriate means. At this visit the Registrant had failed to obtain sufficient information to allow for the level of risk to the child to be assessed.
32. The Registrant had, it appeared, in an effort to empathise with the Mother, used her own experiences of parenting rather than relying upon evidence-based practice as a source for her advice. The Panel noted TC’s view that the Registrant had failed to identify a possible causal link between the child’s change in behaviour and the most recent domestic violence incident. She considered the Registrant’s approach to be inappropriate and demonstrated her lack of understanding of risk.
33. TC observed that the Registrant was unable to explain the reasons for a Contract of Expectations and had failed to seek either contact with, or contact details for, members of the wider family, such as the maternal grandparents.
Particular 2 (c)
34. From the information before the Panel it was clear that Service User B was a member of a much wider and complex family structure, with many half siblings. This was not shown on the Genogram before it.
35. The Registrant had previously attended training on how to complete a Genogram. Despite this, according to TC, she had failed to elicit, either at the meeting with the mother, or from the file, sufficient information to enable her to demonstrate diagrammatically the complex nature of this family structure.
36. The Panel accepted the uncontested evidence before it in relation to this particular.
Particular 3 – found proved.
37. The Panel had before it the copy of the first draft Case Closure Form prepared by the Registrant on which NH had noted her observations of the information supplied in this document which were factually incorrect;
• Person 5, the mother, had been seen at home when in fact the mother had not been seen at home.
• Children had all been seen on their own, when in fact they had not been seen alone.
• Agency checks had been stated as completed when in fact this was only the case in respect of one of the children, Service User C.
38. The Panel accepted the uncontested evidence before it in relation to this particular.
Particular 4 found proven in its entirety.
39. The three HCPC witnesses all attested to the Registrant’s lack of competence and understanding of her role and responsibilities. In their view the Registrant was unable to work safely as a qualified Social Worker. Further, their opinion was that her ability to identify and assess risk was worryingly absent. TC considered that the Registrant was performing at the level of a first-year Social Work student and LC considered the Registrant’s abilities as being equivalent to a newly qualified Social Worker. NH considered that the Registrant had appeared to be unable to appreciate where her failings lay and was not safe to practise independently. She described one of her completed Child and Family Assessments as ‘not fit for purpose’.
40. All three HCPC witnesses stated that they did not consider that the Registrant could work as an autonomous practitioner and during her time at BCC had not demonstrated that she had an ability to work unsupervised. This being the case, the Registrant had not ever been allocated a single case to manage on her own.
41. As part of the Action Plan put in place by LC, the Registrant had been asked to undertake six paper-based Child and Family Assessments in order to assess her ability as a Social Worker. These were to be completed within a fixed period of time. The first assessment was the occasion on which the Registrant accessed the live system referred to in particular 5 below. She then completed three further assessments but failed to complete assessments 5 and 6 within the time allowed. The Panel noted that LC had concluded that the Registrant ‘was unable to complete this task to a satisfactory level’. 
42. The fact that the Registrant had such limited understanding of what she was required to do had been noted by other team members, not just the three HCPC witnesses. Those views had been reflected in the final assessment which had been undertaken by LC and presented at the disciplinary hearing. There was, in the Panel’s view, sufficient information before it to support all limbs of this particular.
43. The Panel accepted the uncontested evidence before it in relation to this particular.
Particular 5 – found proved.
44. The Panel noted that within the Action Plan presented to those completing this task, was a clear instruction not to access the live version of the cases included in the assessment, from the system. Having been told that, the Registrant had chosen to look at the live case on the system before completing and sending her assessment by email. LC confirmed that she was able to accurately identify the date and time the Registrant had accessed the system and so was able to establish that this was before the recorded time of the Registrant’s email, sending the assessment to her.
45. In an interview with LC and Ms Suzy Shaw, the Registrant initially denied accessing the system and when challenged on this stated that she had looked at the system after emailing the assessment. When informed that LC knew this to be false the Registrant had, according to LC, admitted to having looked at the live system despite being instructed not to. 
46. The Registrant has accepted that she initially denied accessing the system. The Registrant has also accepted that she had then proceeded to give an untrue account of when that access had been made.
47. The Panel accepted the uncontested evidence before it in relation to this particular.
Particular 6 – both limbs proved.
48. The Panel noted the detailed representations made by the HCPC and the advice given by the Legal Assessor on this aspect of the case.
49. At the interview with LC the Registrant had first denied accessing the system and then had given a false explanation of when she had done this. The Registrant has accepted in her written statement and her oral evidence that she had ‘cheated’ in looking at the live system and was aware that it was wrong to do this. She acknowledged that her reason for doing so was to help her complete the assessment. In evidence she acknowledged that it was ‘not very smart’ of her to do this. She told the Panel that she was scared that she would fail her probation and therefore lose her job.
50. The Registrant knew and has acknowledged that what she was doing was not allowed and that her responses to LC had not been true.
51. Accessing the system and then denying that she had done this and then giving misleading accounts of when she had done this are, in the Panel’s view, dishonest.
52. The Panel accepted the uncontested evidence before it in relation to this particular.
Decision on Grounds:
53. The Panel, having found all matters proven moved on to consider the statutory grounds as alleged. In relation to particulars 1 to 4, lack of competence and/or misconduct and in relation to particulars 5 and 6 misconduct.
54. The Panel has taken into account the representations of the parties and the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel has also referred to the relevant guidance issued by the HCPC, and in particular the Standards Of Conduct, Performance and Ethics and the Standards of Proficiency relevant to Social Workers applicable at the time these matters arose.
55. The incidents straddle the 2012 and 2016 editions of the Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics and so the provisions of both are relevant. This being the case there are many elements of the Standards which have been breached by the Registrant’s actions. The Panel understands that breach of these provisions does not automatically establish a ground of lack of competence or misconduct.
56. In relation to particulars 1 to 4, the Panel considered that there was no evidence that the Registrant’s actions had been intentional acts of misconduct. The view of the three HCPC witnesses is that the Registrant had a fundamental inability to perform to the requisite standard of a qualified practitioner. There is evidence of BCC undertaking a comprehensive and lengthy programme of training and supervision which had failed to produce sufficient improvement in the Registrant’s performance. There is considerable evidence in notes of supervision meetings and in case note documentation of the Registrant’s continuing inability to understand what is required of her as a qualified Social Worker, including information gathering and the identification and assessment of risk. There is therefore sufficient evidence to support a finding of lack of competence.
57. The Registrant’s demonstrable lack of competence in carrying out basic Social Worker tasks was not, in the Panel’s view, derived solely from her being within an unfamiliar environment, or her language limitations, but arose from a lack of understanding and appreciation of the core duties, skills and responsibilities of a Social Worker. The Panel has determined that in respect of these four particulars there is a serious and concerning lack of competence.
58. The Registrant’s dishonest actions have brought her trustworthiness and integrity into question. If no finding of misconduct were made it would bring her profession and her regulator into disrepute. Therefore in relation to particulars 5 and 6, the Panel has concluded that they amount to serious misconduct.
Decision on Impairment:
59. In reaching its decision the Panel has taken into account that the test of impairment is expressed in the present tense, and must be assessed as at today. Whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired is a matter of judgment for the Panel.
60. The Panel has sought and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and the representations of the parties. It has also taken into account the guidance issued by the HCPC entitled ‘Finding that fitness to practise is impaired.’
61. As directed the Panel has considered whether the Registrant’s acts and omissions as found are capable of remedy, have been remedied and whether there remains a risk of repetition.
62. In the Panel’s view, the Registrant has not demonstrated any insight into, or recognition of, her failings and her lack of ability to practice as an autonomous Social Worker and the risk this poses for potential service users.
63. There is no evidence that the Registrant has undertaken any further training since leaving BCC. For family and personal reasons, the Registrant has also been unable to offer herself for further employment as a Social Worker. The Registrant has therefore not taken any steps to remedy her serious lack of competence.  There remain concerns about her ability to work safely and autonomously without risk to others.
64. The Registrant has shown some insight and regret into her actions which led to the finding of dishonesty. However, these acts of dishonest behaviour have brought her ability to work as a Social Worker without restriction into question. The Panel understands that arguably acts of dishonesty cannot be remedied and so there remains the likelihood of a repetition of that dishonest behaviour.
65. The Panel has therefore found that on the personal component of its decision the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired.
66. In relation to the public interest element of its decision the Panel has concluded that a finding is also warranted. In the knowledge that the Registrant has demonstrated herself to be an unsafe and untrustworthy practitioner the public would rightly be concerned if she was allowed to remain in practice without restriction.
67. The Panel therefore find the Registrant’s fitness to practise impaired on the public component of its decision.

Decision on Sanction:
68. The Panel at this stage took into account the guidance issued by the HCPC in the Indicative Sanctions Policy and heard and accepted the representations of the parties and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.
69. The Registrant has told the Panel that she had been delighted to be offered a position of employment as a grade 7 Social Worker with BCC. She told the Panel that she had requested to be given a position more appropriate to her abilities in 2016, but this had not been possible.
70. She has told the Panel that she has hopes that she will be able to work as a Social Worker again in the UK at some point in the future. She accepted that she would require more training. At the moment it was unclear whether family and health issues would in fact allow her to achieve this objective.
71. To assist its deliberations on this issue of what is the proportionate and appropriate sanction in this case, the Panel identified mitigating and aggravating factors.
Mitigating factors:
• The Registrant had fully engaged in the HCPC process and had made full admissions to the factual basis of all particulars, and full admissions of professional failings and lack of ability.
• TC and LC accepted that the Registrant had found herself in a very difficult and indeed, possibly untenable position, through no fault of her own. In this regard the Panel took into account the fact that the BCC recruitment process was flawed in that she was considered to be inappropriate by the people who interviewed her in her home country and this decision was overturned by ‘a senior manager at BCC on the basis that they were “desperate for Social Workers” ’.
• There were language and cultural differences as well as differences in Social Worker practice that the Registrant needed to overcome.
• There were a number of changes of staff who were responsible for the Registrant’s supervision and there was also a period, towards the end of her time at BCC, when she received no supervision.
• The Registrant made every effort to engage in the training, supervision and mentoring designed to support her in her role at BCC.
Aggravating factors:
• There is a finding of dishonesty, two instances of verbal dishonesty which were consecutive.
• Those acts of dishonesty had been for her personal and financial gain in that she had attempted to avoid losing her position with BCC.
• There was evidence of her lack of insight into the importance of honesty in the context of working as a Social Worker.
• The professional failings occurred, and were repeated, over a prolonged period of time (during the whole of her employment with BCC) and were such that she was never allowed by BCC to work independently.
• There was evidence of the Registrant’s lack of insight into, and lack of understanding of, her fundamental inability to work at the level required of her, as a registered Social Worker in the UK.
• There is a large body of evidence that the Registrant had been given a significant level of support, training, and supervision, but this had failed to improve her level of performance.
72. Given the open acceptance by the Registrant, and the conclusion of the Panel that the Registrant is not able currently to practise at the standard required of an autonomous practitioner, the Panel discounted taking no further action. It considered that Mediation was not practicable or appropriate. The Panel also discounted the imposition of a Caution Order, which would not provide any service user protection and was therefore not appropriate.
73. The Panel considered whether it was able to apply a Conditions of Practice Order. Given that the Registrant was not working, had undertaken no form of remediation for her practice issues relating to lack of competence, the Panel had serious concerns as to whether this level of restriction was workable in the current circumstances. The Panel was conscious that it should not construct conditions which were so prescriptive and constricting that they were in effect a period of suspension by another means.
74. At this stage the Panel took into account the comprehensive and lengthy period of training, support and supervision which had been provided by BCC and the fact that this had produced no significant improvement in the Registrant’s abilities to work as a Social Worker or to identify risk. There is no further evidence before the Panel to indicate that additional training or supervision would assist her in gaining the fundamental knowledge and ability required to exercise those core skills.
75. After very careful consideration the Panel decided that it could not construct a set of conditions, and indeed given the level of competence displayed by the Registrant this may not be the appropriate means to address her serious professional failings and for these reasons this would not be in the wider public interest.
76. In assessing whether a period of suspension or permanent removal from the register was the appropriate and proportionate measure in this instance the Panel considered whether the Registrant’s failings, relating to her practice and to her levels of honesty and integrity, were fundamentally incompatible with her remaining on the register.
77. In this regard the Panel took into account the numerous incidents which attest to the failings in the Registrant’s basic level of practice as a Social Worker. These in essence amount to her needing to undertake a full course of retraining. It was difficult for the Panel to identify ways in which the Registrant would be able to utilise a period of suspension given this fundamental lack of knowledge and of core skills. Whilst the Panel accepted that there is no unwillingness on the part of the Registrant, at this time, to comply with any directions, the Panel has serious concerns as to whether the Registrant actually has the ability to achieve the objective of such directions. Therefore, the Panel considered that the imposition of a Suspension Order would serve no purpose.
78. The Panel reached its decision that a Striking Off Order is the appropriate and proportionate sanction in this instance based on two main areas of concern. First, that the Registrant has displayed a continuous persistent failure to identify risk and her level of performance was of serious concern. Secondly, the Registrant’s dishonesty arose at a time when she was in a stressful and difficult situation. The Panel had grave concern that should the Registrant find herself in such a position again she may exercise poor judgement and make an attempt to find a dishonest solution.
79. The Panel considered that overall, the Registrant presented as a practitioner who was not trustworthy either in relation to her level of performance or her integrity. The Registrant had shown little or no understanding of the standards of her profession which required her to be able to consistently work within her level of competency, identify risk and always be open and honest.  Furthermore, there was no evidence that the Registrant would, if given a period of suspension, have the ability to address her failings in the future. 
80. In making this order, the Panel has balanced the Registrant’s interest with those of service users and the wider public interest and has come to the conclusion that a Striking Off Order is appropriate and proportionate to maintain professional standards, the reputation of the profession and confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.
81. If the Registrant’s long term wish and desire to be a Social Worker remains there is the opportunity after five years to take steps to reapply for her registration.



The Registrar is directed strike the name of Mrs Rebeca-Daniela Obada from the register on the date this order comes into effect.


Right of Appeal:
You may appeal to the High Court in England and Wales against the Panel’s decision and the order it has made against you.
Under Article 29(10) of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001, any appeal must be made within 28 days of the date when this notice is served on you.  The Panel’s order will not take effect until the appeal period has expired or, if you appeal, until that appeal is disposed of or withdrawn.

European alert mechanism:
In accordance with Regulation 67 of the European Union (Recognition of Professional Qualifications) Regulations 2015, the HCPC will inform the competent authorities in all other EEA States that your right to practise has been prohibited.
You may appeal to the County Court against the HCPC’s decision to do so.  Any appeal must be made within 28 days of the date when this notice is served on you.  This right of appeal is separate from your right to appeal against the decision and order of the Panel.

Application for an Interim Order:
1. Following the decision on Sanction, Ms Sheridan, on behalf of the HCPC, made an application for an Interim Suspension Order which was consistent with the Panel’s finding that the Registrant was not fit to practice. Ms Sheridan in her application said that there was a wide ranging lack of competence and the Registrant had displayed a continuous persistent failure to identify risk together with a finding of dishonesty and the likelihood of repetition.
2. The Registrant raised no objections to the imposition of an Interim Order and stated that she did not wish to appeal the substantive order.
3. The Legal Assessor gave advice where she reminded the Panel that they may make an Interim order on three grounds; protection of the public, the wider public interest and the Registrant’s own interest. The current Substantive Order had been made on only two grounds, for public protection and the public interest. The Panel could impose an Interim Conditions of Practice Order or an Interim Suspension Order however, it should take into account its deliberations on whether a conditions of practice order would be workable or achievable as part of its substantive decision making process.
4. The Panel considered that an Interim Order was required despite the Registrant stating that it was not her intention to appeal at this time.
5. The Panel first considered an Interim Conditions of Practice Order, but for the same reasons as set out in the substantive hearing, it concluded that an Interim Conditions of Practice Order was not appropriate.
6. The Panel was firmly of the view that an Interim Suspension Order was appropriate in all the circumstances given that the lack of competence was so wide ranging, there was very little evidence of any meaningful remediation and they had identified a risk of repetition in relation to both competence and dishonesty.
7. In all the circumstances the Panel determined to make an Interim Suspension Order on the grounds of public protection and the wider public interest. The Panel make this order for a period of 18 months. In deciding to impose this length, it took account of the fact that if the Registrant were to appeal, that process may take a considerable period of time.

Interim Order:
The Panel makes an Interim Suspension Order under Article 31(2) of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001, the same being necessary to protect members of the public and being otherwise in the public interest.  This order will expire: (if no appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) upon the expiry of the period during which such an appeal could be made; (if an appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) the final determination of that appeal, subject to a maximum period of 18 months.


Hearing History

History of Hearings for Mrs Rebeca-Daniela Obada

Date Panel Hearing type Outcomes / Status
11/06/2018 Conduct and Competence Committee Final Hearing Struck off