Michelle A Hughes

The panel at the Substantive Hearing ( the Original Panel) found the following:

Facts proved:  1a. 1b. 2. 3. 4. 5a. 5b. 6. 7.

Facts not proved: None.

Grounds: Misconduct.

Fitness to Practise impaired: Yes.

Sanction; 12 months suspension.

Proceeding in private

1. The Registrant submitted that the hearing should be conducted partly in private so as to protect those matters that related to her private life and which should be regarded as confidential. Mr Collins supported this application.
2. Having heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, the Panel determined that those matters that related to the private life of the Registrant should be received in private. Otherwise, this is a public hearing. The written determination of this hearing will be redacted to reflect this ruling.

Background

3. The Registrant is a registered Occupational Therapist. During the period referred to in the charges, the Registrant worked as a bank worker for Sussex Mental Health Line ("SMHL"), a 24-hour mental health helpline. SMHL is run by the Sussex Partnership Foundation Trust ("the Trust"). The Registrant was a Mental Health Senior Clinician (Band 6).
4. On 2 September 2021, SMHL received a complaint from Service User A alleging that the Registrant had called Service User A, visited his property and sent him something in the post. Service User A was a caller who was previously known to the helpline and was considered to be vulnerable due to his complex mental health needs. When contacted by the investigating officer, TF, the Registrant informed her that the allegations were true. The Registrant had ended her employment with SMHL on the 19^th of August 2021.

5. On 10 September 2021, the HCPC received a referral from SMHL. On 13 September 2021 the HCPC received a self-referral from the Registrant.

The Fitness to practise hearing conducted between 13 – 16 February 2023.

6. The substantive fitness to practise hearing was conducted before the Original Panel, being a panel of the Conduct and Competence Committee of the HCPC. The hearing took place between 13 -16 February 2023.

7. The Registrant was present at the hearing but was not represented. The Registrant denied the allegations that were contained in particulars 1 and 7 of the Allegation. She admitted the facts that are contained in particulars 2,3,4,5(a), 5(b) and 6 of the Allegation. Having heard the evidence, considered the submissions and having accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, the Original Panel made the findings and determinations that are set out above.

8. The Registrant made representations to the Original Panel. Her representations to the Original Panel are summarised in the written determination of the Original Panel and include those that are set out below. For ease of reference, the paragraph numbers used in the determination of the Original Panel have been retained but are shown in brackets.

   (73) In her closing submissions the Registrant indicated her acceptance of the case against her and that she understood that the allegations were likely to be upheld by the Panel and that some restriction was likely to be placed on her right to practise further.

    

   (74). REDACTED (75). REDACTED

   (76). The Registrant told the Panel she now felt that she wished to retain the option to practise as an Occupational Therapist. She described a long-standing wish to pursue a social enterprise business of her own in connection with food and baking in which she had always had a strong interest. She thought her HCPC registration might validate her and support confidence in her in this enterprise. She now felt the challenges she faced were not insurmountable and she relied heavily on her spiritual beliefs.

   (77) The Registrant said she felt that she had had "a light bulb moment”  where she realised that she had not offered the service which NHS service users were entitled to expect. She offered her appreciation to those involved in this hearing. She expressed remorse and apology to TF who had observed the hearing and asked her forgiveness for her unacceptable behaviour. The Registrant expressed again how she now wished to go forward.

   The decision of the Original Panel as regards misconduct
9.  The Original Panel determined that the facts found proved, amounted to misconduct on the part of the Registrant. Its reasons as set out in its written determination, include those that appear below. For ease of reference, the paragraph numbers used in the written determination of the Original Panel have been retained, but are shown in brackets.

   (115).    The Panel was mindful that misconduct is a matter for its own judgement, rather than the application of the legal standard of proof, and before making a finding of misconduct, the Panel must be satisfied that there has been a serious falling short of the HCPC's Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics.

   (116).   The Panel's starting position was that the issues in this case were serious. On two dates, the Registrant had failed in her duty of care towards a service user whom she knew to be a vulnerable and damaged individual who had called SMHL, a helpline, seeking help and support. The Registrant failed to take the action required of her in her role at SMHL, which was to ask questions of the service user and obtain current information from him, to assess risk, to find out what support mechanisms he had in place and to ensure there was a plan in place at the end of the call. Instead, the Registrant relied on assumptions rather than seeking current information. On the occasion on 12th July 2012, the service user was understood to have called an ambulance and the Registrant did not seek to establish what had caused him to do so.

   (117).   In relation to the further allegations, the Registrant breached professional boundaries and abused her position of trust in a serious way. The Registrant inappropriately brought her own views and interests into the care of the service user by expressing her views on his medication and directing the conversion towards her views on spiritual health which it is clear from her evidence is a particular interest for her.

   (118).   The Registrant obtained the service user's personal contact details from the SMHL system, being fully aware that this was a breach of information governance requirements and a breach of confidentiality. She then used these details to pursue contact and a relationship with the service user for her own reasons and purposes. The service user later made it known that the contact was unwelcome, but the Registrant continued, including visiting the service user's address. The Panel had found that there was a sexual element to this, as part of her motivation was to pursue a potential future sexual relationship with him. Significantly, the Registrant was aware what she was doing was wrong throughout. She knew that Service User was a vulnerable individual. She placed her own interests above his. (REDACTED).

   (119). In the light of the above, the Panel concluded that the following HCPC Standards had been breached by the Registrant's actions:

    

   • You must keep your relationship with service users and carers professional.
   • You must listen to service users and carers and take account of their needs and wishes.
   • You must use all forms of communication appropriately and responsibly, including social media and networking websites.
   • You must treat information about service user as confidential.
   • You must take all reasonable steps to reduce the risk of harm to service users, carers and colleagues as far as possible.
   • You must not do anything, or allow someone else to do anything, which could put the health or safety of a service user, carer or colleague at unacceptable risk.
   • You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public's trust and confidence in you and your profession.
   • You must declare issues that might create conflicts of interest and make sure that they do not influence your judgment.The decisions of the Original Panel as regards impairment
10. The Original Panel determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired by reason of her misconduct, in respect of both the personal and the public components. Its reasons as set out in its written determination, include those that appear below. For ease of reference, the paragraph numbers used in the written determination, have been retained, but are shown in brackets.

(120). The Panel next considered whether the Registrant's fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of her misconduct. The Panel received and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel considered all the information before it, the evidence presented and the submissions of the parties.

(121). The Panel kept in mind that the question of impairment is a matter for its own judgement. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note, Fitness to Practise Impairment, which confirms that the purpose of fitness to practise proceedings is not to punish a registrant for past acts or omissions, but to protect the public from those who are not fit to practise.

(122). The Panel had regard to the conduct of the Registrant, the nature, circumstances and gravity of the findings and the critically important public policy issues, in particular the need to protect the public, to declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour and to maintain public confidence in the profession.

(123). The Panel first considered the personal component of current impairment, that is, the current competence and behaviour of the Registrant. The Panel had made findings of serious misconduct which indicated breaches of a number of key HCPC Standards. The Panel acknowledged the admissions made by the Registrant in relation to the allegations and her recognition, expressed in particular in her closing submissions, of the gravity of her past actions in the case of Service User A. The Panel concluded that the Registrant's understanding had developed significantly over the course of this hearing.

(124). The Panel concluded that the misconduct in this case is potentially capable of being remedied. However, having listened carefully to the Registrant's evidence and submissions, the Panel considered that, as the Registrant herself recognises, she has not yet attempted any meaningful attempt at remediation. At the beginning of this hearing, the Registrant indicated she may not wish to maintain her HCPC registration although by the time she made her closing submissions, she seemed to express a hope of continuing in her profession in the future.

(125). The Panel concluded that the Registrant has now developed some insight into her past misconduct. However, this is at an extremely early stage and she is far from having full insight. The Panel remained concerned that although in her submissions the Registrant expressed remorse towards Service User A for her actions, and towards TF, as a representative of her peers in the healthcare profession, the Registrant nevertheless remains very focused on herself and her own issues rather than fully understanding the implications of her actions for service users and for her profession. The Panel concluded that at present there would be a risk of repetition of the conduct if the Registrant's fitness to practise were not found to be impaired.

(126). In her closing submissions the Registrant was very frank about highly personal and sensitive matters in her history which she suggested may be underlying triggers for her actions in this case. Whilst the Panel listened carefully and appreciated the Registrant's openness and honesty, it concluded that these were primarily matters of personal mitigation to which it could give little weight to at this, the impairment stage. However, the Panel would consider and take matters of personal mitigation into account at the next, sanction stage, if reached.

(127). The Panel concluded that the Registrant's fitness to practise is currently impaired in respect of the personal component.

(128) In relation to the public component of current impairment, the Panel was satisfied that members of the public would be shocked if a finding of current impairment were not made in this case, where the Registrant has abused her professional position as an Occupational Therapist in relation to a vulnerable and damaged service user who called a mental health helpline for professional help. Given the scope and nature of the Panel's findings of misconduct, the Panel concluded that public confidence in the profession and in the HCPC as its regulator would be seriously undermined if a finding of current impairment were not made in this case.
(129). The Panel determined that the Registrant's fitness to practise is currently impaired in respect of the public component of impairment.

(130). In relation to risk, the Panel was of the view that the Registrant continues to present a risk of harm to service users as she has not yet taken any meaningful steps to remedy her past misconduct. The Panel concluded that the Registrant's misconduct has brought the Occupational Therapist profession into disrepute and that she has breached a fundamental tenet of the profession in relation to the breach of her duty of care to the service user.

(131). The Panel's conclusion is that the Registrant's fitness to practise is currently impaired in respect of both the personal and public components of current impairment.

The decisions of the Original Panel as regards sanction.

11. The Original Panel having taken account of all the aggravating and mitigating factors determined to impose a 12 months suspension on the Registrant. Its reasons as set out in its written determination, include those that appear below. For ease of reference, the paragraph numbers used in the written determination have been retained, but are shown in brackets.

(140). The Panel first considered the mitigating and aggravating factors present in the case.

(141). The Panel identified the following aggravating factors:

• The Registrant was a senior Occupational Therapist of some 15 plus years' experience;

• The allegations involved abuse of the Registrant's professional position and a breach of trust;

• The Service User was a vulnerable individual with a complex mental health background;

• Harm, in the form of distress, was caused to the service user;

• The Registrant made deliberate decisions to act as she did in the knowledge that her actions were wrong;

• The Registrant has not undertaken any meaningful remediation and the Panel found the risk of repetition remained;

• At this stage the insight the Registrant has shown is limited and at an early stage.

(142). The Panel identified the following mitigating factors:

• The Registrant has not previously been the subject of any regulatory findings;

• The Registrant has engaged fully with the HCPC proceedings.

• (REDACTED)

• The Registrant has reached a position over the course of this hearing where she has now frankly admitted all her past failings and has shown remorse and offered apologies, which the Panel accepts are genuine, to the Service User and to her former colleagues and to her profession;

• The Panel also concluded that she has now begun to demonstrate real insight, albeit this is recent and is at an early stage.


(143).The Panel weighed the mitigating and aggravating factors and concluded that the aggravating factors must necessarily carry greater weight in this case. However, the Panel was also mindful that although the issues in relation to Service User A could not properly be described as a single incident, they did relate to interaction with one service user in a long and otherwise blemish free career. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant's issues may be capable of remedy, in particular in the light of the greater insight she has begun to show in the later stages of this hearing.

(144). The Panel moved to consider the issue of sanction, taking a proportionate approach and considering the available sanctions in ascending order of seriousness:

Mediation

This was not appropriate, as the issues found proved were too serious to be addressed by means of mediation.

No Further Action

Given the nature and seriousness of the Panel's finding in this case, the matter was too serious for no further action to be appropriate;

Caution

The factors indicating that a Caution Order may be appropriate were not present. The misconduct was not minor in nature. The Panel was not reassured that the risk of repetition was low and, at this time, meaningful remediation has not taken place. The Panel also considered that a Caution would be insufficient to mark the seriousness of the Panel's findings and to maintain the confidence of the public and the profession.

Conditions of Practice Order

The Panel did not consider this was a case in which conditions of practice were appropriate. It was not of the view that suitable conditions which would adequately protect the public could be formulated. The Panel decided that a Conditions of Practice Order would not be effective in marking the seriousness of the findings or protecting the public interest.

Suspension

The Panel gave very careful consideration to whether a period of suspension would be a sufficient response in the light of its serious findings in this case. The Panel referred to the HCPC Sanctions Policy as to when a suspension order is appropriate. In this case, the concerns found proved do represent a serious breach of the Standards of Conduct. The Panel has not found that they are unlikely to be repeated. However, the Panel has concluded that the Registrant has shown that she is developing fuller insight into her actions in Service User A's case. The Panel observed that she has gained much greater insight over the course of this hearing and today in her submissions she has indicated her full acceptance of the gravity of the situation and full acceptance of the Panel's findings. She has now shown a willingness to engage and resolve the issues involved in the misconduct.

The Panel was fully mindful of the range and gravity of the aggravating factors it had identified. However, the Panel was mindful that the Registrant has had a long career of some 15 years plus as an Occupational Therapist and has no previous history of fitness to practise findings. The Panel considered that although it has received no psychological or medical evidence, the Registrant's personal issues, which she has described fully and frankly, played a part in the circumstances at the time of this case. The Panel was satisfied in particular that the Registrant has gained significant insight in the latter stages of this hearing.

The Panel was of the view that with application and determination the Registrant may be able address and remediate her misconduct and demonstrate that she still has skills and experience to offer the profession.

The Panel was satisfied that an order for suspension would be a proportionate response which would protect the public and maintain public confidence in the profession whilst at the same time enabling the Registrant to work on remedying her currently impaired fitness to practise.

The Panel did give thorough consideration to whether a striking off order was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction which would protect the public. In considering the Sanctions Policy, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant has now started to show a higher level of insight and accepts that she is willing to engage to resolve matters. The Panel was satisfied after extensive consideration, that a striking off order would be disproportionately punitive and was not necessary to protect the public or the public interest as this could be achieved in this case by an order of suspension.

(145). In these circumstances, the Panel concluded that a Suspension Order for a period of twelve months was the appropriate and proportionate sanction which would protect the public interest and demonstrate the seriousness of the matter to the profession and the public.

Guidance given by the Original Panel as to what might assist a subsequent reviewing panel.

12. The Original Panel gave guidance as to what might assist a future reviewing panel. That advice was expressed in the following terms.
(147). Whilst this Panel is not able, and would not seek, to bind the future review panel, it recommends to the Registrant that the future panel may be assisted by the Registrant providing evidence to the HCPC (sufficiently in advance of the review hearing) to demonstrate that she has:

a. (REDACTED);

b. Engaged with a professional occupational therapy mentor;

c. Prepared a reflective piece dealing with her personal issues and how they interact with her professional duties;

d. Undertaken appropriate Continuing Professional Development, if necessary, with the aid of a mentor;

e. Put support mechanisms in place to ensure no similar situation occurs in the future.

The first review of the Substantive Order conducted on 07 February 2024.

The Submission made on behalf of the HCPC

13. Mr Collins on behalf of the HCPC took the Panel through the determination of the Original Panel. He identified passages within the determination of the Original Panel which he submitted had particular relevance. He referred to the documents that had been submitted by the Registrant. He noted that the Registrant had not complied with all the suggestions made by the Original Panel, as to what might assist a reviewing panel. On the central issues as to whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired and if so, the appropriate sanction to impose, Mr Collins left the matter to the judgment of the Panel. He did not make any positive submissions on either matter.

Evidence and Submissions by the Registrant

14. The Registrant has provided the Panel with a number of documents. They include the following:
a. Correspondence between the Registrant and prospective mentors.
b. Reflective Log complied by the Registrant concluding with an entry containing extensive comments on the “Submissions of the HCPC” as set out in the determination of the Original Panel.

The Panel has read all the above documents.

15. The Registrant gave evidence to the Panel. She responded to questions from Mr Collins and also from the Panel. The Registrant submitted that her fitness to practice was no longer impaired. In the course of her evidence and in response to questions, the Registrant spent time reiterating her written submissions which were largely self-focused on the impact the incidents have had on her. However, upon guidance from the Legal Assessor, she began to update the Panel on her current circumstances which were that:

a. The Registrant accepted that her behaviour toward Service User A was inappropriate. She accepted that her behaviour had a serious impact on Service User A, also on the team, of which she was a part and on the reputation of the profession. She agreed that her conduct undermined the trust that clients and the public would have in the profession of an Occupational Therapist.

b. She agreed that her conduct toward Service User A could have prejudiced his treatment. She knew that he was a vulnerable person and a serious drinker. However, she maintained that “he was not a suicide risk” and “he was not a significant risk”.

c. She explained her conduct as arising from her intense dislike of working within the NHS. She said that her conduct toward Service User A was a means to an end; her behaviour was motivated to securing an end to her employment within the NHS. She mentioned this on more than one occasion.

d. She gave a detailed explanation of her present circumstances and future plans. She is presently working as a catering assistant within a care home for the elderly. She is also a volunteer with the Ashram spiritual centre. In the future, she hoped to develop her catering skills in the context of the Ashram Centre. She described that as a very spiritual and supportive environment.

e. She had no plans to work in the foreseeable future as a registered Occupational Therapist. She was proud of the profession, and she did not want to be struck off. In the foreseeable future, she plans to use the skills that she had acquired as an Occupational Therapist, to assist with the provision of vocational interventions with the Ashram Centre.

f. (REDACTED). In addition, she had not tried to maintain her professional skills as an Occupational Therapist.

g. She said that since the previous hearing in February 2023, she had changed. She had put all her fears behind her. She described in detail her dislike of working within the NHS and of the type of treatment that the NHS offered to service users. She said that she had a strong belief in vocational interventions and that is what she hoped to offer in the future.

The decisions of the Panel made on 07 February 2024.

16. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

17. The Panel is aware that it has all the powers that are set out in Article 30 (1) and 30 (2) of the Health Professions Order 2001, which are set out in the email sent to the Registrant giving notice of this hearing.

18. The Panel is aware that the process under Article 30 [1] of the Order is one of review, not one of appeal and that its function is to determine whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired: if so, whether the Suspension Order under review remains appropriate and proportionate or should be varied or replaced by some other order.

Decision of the Panel on Impairment

19. Having taking account of the submissions made by Mr Collins and the evidence of the Registrant, the Panel has concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired. Its reasons are essentially the same as those given by the Original Panel.

20. The Panel also notes and agrees with the comments made by the Original Panel in paragraphs 120-131 of its determination. In substance, the Panel concluded that the Registrant had not discharged the persuasive burden of establishing that she is no longer impaired. The Panel also took account of the considerations that are set out below.

21. In the course of her evidence to the Panel:

a. The Registrant had shown no meaningful change to her level of insight and of her understanding into how her actions impacted Service User A. She has had three opportunities to consider, in detail, the impact of her repeated actions on Service User A, however, in the Final Hearing and today in her written reflection and oral evidence, she was very much still focused on the impact the incidents have had on her. The Panel also noticed that it was only after questioning from the HCPC and the panel that the registrant reflected on the impact her actions had on Service User A, her colleagues and the wider profession but it was lacking depth and meaningful consideration. The Panel noted that this was reflected in her written reflection too. In addition to this, when the panel asked if she was in a similar situation, how would she respond she stated:
" I want to feel in control of my career and do something I’ve created. In the Ashram I would be watched like a hawk and there are protocols and controls in place around everything I do. This is however within the confines of a spiritual environment which is better for me. I would rather be guided and held to account by the Ashram than by the NHS. I don't know what I would do if in that situation again. I would have to recreate that feeling again to know how I would respond. In the Ashram I am working in a way that I am feeling like I am productive and not working in a service which is counterproductive to my attitudes like the NHS was. I already work with vulnerable adults.”

b. Furthermore, when the panel asked her, had she not seen the “red flags”, had been attracted to Service User A (as mentioned in her reflective document) and had not been reported, would she have stopped her actions towards the service user. The Registrant, in response stated “I can’t answer that. It would merely be speculation.” The Registrant’s answers did little to reassure the panel that her past behaviour would not be repeated should she resume unrestricted practice as a registered OT. The panel found this worrying.
c. In terms of remediation, (REDACTED) the Registrant had not chosen to engage in any meaningful remediation including the suggestions posed by the previous panel. The Panel felt that there was a general unwillingness to do so and this would not change going forward as the Registrant has had twelve months already to demonstrate remediation of her past misconduct.
d. The Registrant had stated that she deeply disliked working within the NHS and that her conduct with Service User A was motivated by a desire to end her employment with the NHS. If that was a true explanation for her conduct, the Registrant’s behaviour was a very serious breach of her duties. It shows a culpable element to the harm that was incurred to Service User A. The Panel noted that at paragraph 61 of the determination of the Original Panel, there was a suggestion that this was indeed her motive.
e. The Registrant had acknowledged that she knew that Service User A was a vulnerable person and that her conduct towards him could prejudice his treatment, but maintains that “he was not at risk of suicide” and “he was not a significant risk”.

22. The Panel has concluded that in all the circumstances it could not exclude a risk of repetition. It also concluded that public confidence in the profession and in the HCPC as its regulator, would be gravely undermined if the Panel was to determine that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was not now impaired and the Registrant was permitted to return to unrestricted practice. The Panel believes that had the Registrant shown the required level of insight and had taken steps to remediate her past failings, this would have satisfied the public interest, however, this was not the case. Consequently, for all the reasons that are set out in this determination and those expressed by the Original Panel, the Panel determines that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired on both the personal and the public components.

Decision of the Panel on Sanction:

23. In considering the appropriate order the Panel had regard to the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy updated in March 2019, to the submissions of Mr Collins, to those of the Registrant and to the advice of the Legal Assessor.
24. The Panel has applied the principle of proportionality. The Panel is aware that the purpose of sanction is not to be punitive and that it must consider the risk of repetition and public confidence in the profession and its regulator.
25. The Panel has considered the sanctions available in ascending order of restriction. The Panel considered that to take no action or to impose a Caution Order would be wholly inappropriate.
26. The Panel gave consideration to the possibility of formulating a Conditions of Practice Order. However, it concluded that it could not formulate appropriate conditions which were not tantamount to suspension. Moreover, because the facts found proven, reflected the Registrant’s personal conduct and her attitude, rather than her clinical performance, the Panel could not formulate relevant conditions. The Panel also had grave doubts as to whether the Registrant should be compliant with a Conditions of Practice Order. In this context, the Panel noted that the Registrant had not complied with the suggestions made by the Original Panel, as to what would assist a reviewing panel. Moreover, the Panel concluded that a Conditions of Practice Order would not adequately address the public interest considerations that arise in this case.
27. The Panel next considered a continuation of the Suspension Order. In this context it also considered whether it should make a Striking Off Order. The Panel gave very serious consideration to the Sanctions Policy published by the HCPC in March 2019 and in particular to those paragraphs which address an Suspension Order (paragraphs 118 to 126) and to those paragraphs which address a Striking Off Order (paragraphs 127 to 132) The Panel concluded that in all the circumstances, it would not be sufficient to impose a further period of Suspension and that only a Striking Off Order would suffice to protect the public and address the public interests considerations that arise in this case. In coming to this conclusion, the Panel’s reasons include the following:

a. The Registrant’s conduct was serious, persistent and deliberate.
b. The Registrant had knowingly abused her professional position with an extremely vulnerable service user.
c. The Registrant had abused information that came to her as a result of her professional status.
d. The Registrant’s conduct exposed Service User A, to serious harm and she was culpable. The Registrant was aware that Service User A was an extremely vulnerable person, and her actions were intentional and deliberate as it was a way of securing the end of her NHS career.
e. The Registrant had shown very limited insight and had not seriously endeavoured to remediate her past failing. Further, the Panel had not been able to identify any real intent or willingness on the part of the Registrant to address and remediate her conduct.
f. There was a clear statement by the Registrant to the Panel that her conduct toward Service User A had been actuated by a desire to end her employment with the NHS.
g. There was a serious risk of repetition which includes the Registrant’s lack of reassurance into not repeating her past misconduct.
h. Any lesser sanction would be insufficient to protect the public, public confidence in the profession and public.

Order : The Registrar is directed to remove the name of Ms Michelle Hughes from the Register.

Effect from the date when the current Suspension Order expires, namely 16 March 2024.

History of Hearings for Michelle A Hughes