Queensland College of Teachers v Eldridge
[2013] QCAT 683
| CITATION: | Queensland College of Teachers v Eldridge [2013] QCAT 683 |
| PARTIES: | Queensland College of Teachers (Applicant) |
| v | |
| Mr Sam Jarred Eldridge (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | OCR046-13 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Occupational regulation matters |
| HEARING DATE: | 28 August 2013 |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Dr Cullen, Member Senior Member O’Callaghan Member Robyn Oliver |
| DELIVERED ON: | 5 December 2013 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. The Teacher’s teacher registration is cancelled and he is prohibited from applying for registration or permission to teach until 14 September 2014. 2. The Queensland College of Teachers’ register of approved teachers is to be endorsed with a notation that any application by the Teacher for re-registration be accompanied by a psychologist’s report which includes assessment of the teacher’s appreciation of the mechanisms that can be utilised to maintain appropriate teacher-student professional boundaries. |
| CATCHWORDS: | OCCUPATIONAL REGULATION – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – TEACHERS – where teacher not suitable to teach – where inappropriate personal friendship and then sexual relationship between teacher and former student from school at which teacher taught –where relationship commenced day after student graduated Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 ss 32 and 66 Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 s 92(1)(h) Queensland College of Teachers v DRR [2012] QCAT 671 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member O’Callaghan
In this matter, I have had the benefit of reading Dr Cullen’s reasons in draft. I agree with her reasons, and conclusions, and the order she proposes.
Dr Cullen, Member
A Teacher-Student relationship commenced too soon
Mr Sam Eldridge is a 24 year old, romantically inexperienced, teacher who found himself with feelings for one of his students. He was aware that he could not pursue a relationship with Jane whilst she remained a student at the school he taught at, and explains that he tried to avoid dealing with his feelings.
Jane was a student at X College between January 2010 and 16 November 2012 when she graduated. Mr Eldridge was Jane’s music teacher in 2011 and 2012, and they were both involved in extra curricular activities such as the X College musical.
Between January 2011 and 16 November 2012, Mr Eldridge and Jane had a close, but not romantic, relationship. Jane would, from time-to-time, seek personal advice from Mr Eldridge and would share jokes with him, and Mr Eldridge had a benign nickname for Jane (along with nicknames for other students in his group).
During Jane’s final term at X College, Mr Eldridge became aware that his feelings for Jane had grown beyond mere teacher fondness, and had become romantic in nature. He sought help dealing with his building feelings of affection and attraction for Jane by seeing a psychologist. As he did understand the more obvious boundaries that need to exist between a teacher and a 17-year-old student, Mr Eldridge did not befriend Jane on Facebook, contact her by mobile, or meet her outside of school at the time she was still a student.
Jane graduated from X College on 16 November 2012. At graduation, Mr Eldridge and Jane posed for a photo together and he placed both his arms around her. The following day, Mr Eldridge accepted Jane’s Facebook “friend request,” which had been sent to him by Jane on 14 November 2012.
From 17 November onward, they began to communicate via Facebook initially, and then also through other forms of electronic communication including text messaging using “Viber” and “Heytell.” Their communications were as frequent as daily, and could extend to a couple of hours in duration.
In late November/early December, Jane invited Mr Eldridge to the movies, however, he declined.
On 7 December, Jane was at Currimundi, near Mr Eldridge’s residence at Coolum, and in communication with him via text messaging. Mr Eldridge subsequently telephoned Jane, as she was apparently upset. He then drove to Currimundi, and spent time with Jane at the beach.
The following evening, 8 December, Mr Eldridge attended the X College staff Christmas party, and made arrangements for Jane to pick him up from the party. At 9.00 pm, Jane collected him from the party, and they drove around for a period before parking the car. At this point, they expressed their feelings for each other, and engaged in an intimate kiss. Mr Eldridge told Jane that he was not certain whether they could have a relationship because of his job.
Regardless, between 8 December and 19 December, Mr Eldridge and Jane had frequent contact with one another, including organised outings and visiting at Mr Eldridge’s residence. From 19 December 2012 until 6 January 2013, Jane was overseas, but maintained frequent electronic communication with Mr Eldridge.
On 12 January 2013, Jane attended a friend’s party which was located near to Mr Eldridge’s residence. He picked her up from the party, and she stayed the night at his house where they engaged in consensual sexual intercourse.
Frequent communication and contact continued between Mr Eldridge and Jane until 26 January 2013, at which point Jane’s parents became aware of their relationship.
On 27 January 2013, Jane’s mother made a complaint about the relationship to the X College principal, which led to these disciplinary proceedings in the Tribunal by the Queensland College of Teachers.
Grounds for Disciplinary Action by the College of Teachers
Mr Eldridge admits that following Jane’s graduation, and whilst he was employed at X College, he engaged in a relationship with Jane between 16 November 2012 and 27 January 2013. It is the inappropriateness of this relationship that forms the basis of the Queensland College of Teachers’ disciplinary action against Mr Eldridge.
It is of credit to both the College of Teachers and Mr Eldridge that prior to the hearing of this matter, they reached agreement in relation to:
a) the establishment of the allegation and material facts as set out above; and
b) the establishment of the ‘ground for disciplinary action’ ‘not suitable to teach’ under s 92(1)(h) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005.
I agree with the parties that the ground is established. As I said above, this is a situation where Mr Eldridge did recognise some of the boundaries that need to exist between a teacher and a 17-year old student. However, his recognition of the appropriate boundaries did not extend far enough.
Mr Eldridge was 24 at the time he formed an inappropriate relationship with Jane. There is no allegation of “grooming” from the College of Teachers, and it is agreed that the relationship began the day after Jane graduated.
The inappropriateness of the relationship is because it cannot be said that a mere day after her graduation, Jane was no longer influenced by the power-imbalance that exists in a teacher-student relationship. Jane was a young woman, uncertain of her future path in life, and genuinely enamoured with Mr Eldridge as a result of their interactions whilst she was a student. It is apparent that there was a genuine affection between Mr Eldridge and Jane, but it developed in a context where Mr Eldridge was in a position whereby Jane would look to him for educational guidance, and in her case, also personal guidance.
At the point in time the relationship culminated in dating, and shortly thereafter, in sexual activity, sufficient time had not passed such that Mr Eldridge and Jane were on equal footing in the relationship. It can fairly be said that she was still his student, and he, her teacher, no matter whether the relationship was mutually affectionate. What must be understood, and was not understood by Mr Eldridge here, is that Jane was not in a position to consent to a relationship with him free of the teaching context.
Several other cases of a similar nature have been heard by the Tribunal and have firmly established that in circumstances like this, a teacher must recognise that young people, even those with a degree of personal maturity, are ‘inherently volatile and, given excited expectation and disappointment, unforeseen and dangerous consequences may ensue from this type of relationship’.[1]
[1] Queensland College of Teachers v DRR [2012] QCAT 671 at [93].
Appropriate Sanction
Mr Eldridge submits that a disciplinary sanction is appropriate, and that an appropriate sanction would be the imposition of cancellation together with an 18-month prohibition from re-applying for registration as a teacher from the time of his suspension on 14 February 2013.
The College of Teachers submits that cancellation and prohibition period of 2-years and 9-months in appropriate, relying heavily upon the previous Tribunal decision in Queensland College of Teachers v Derbyshire [2011] QCAT 536.
In Derbyshire, the Tribunal imposed cancellation with a 3-year prohibition in circumstances where a 26-year old inexperienced teacher had sex with a 17-year old student on one occasion, within a 3-month period following the ending of the formal teacher-student relationship.
The College of Teachers points to the similar age differential here (24 vs 17 years) and in Derbyshire (26 vs 17 years), and notes that Mr Eldridge had the mitigating features of mental illness and insight.
In DRR (citation above), the Tribunal imposed a 30-month cancellation and suspension. DRR involved grooming behaviour, and a lack of insight on the part of the 31-year old teacher, who had sent sexual texts, images of his penis, and expressed sexual fantasies involving the student, to the 17-year old student.
The College of Teachers argues that because the relationship in this matter involved Mr Eldridge and Jane actually engaging in sex, it is of a more serious nature. Whilst this might seem an obvious conclusion, I do not agree that it is either correct, or reflective of the various types of sexual interaction that are possible in human relationships. There are sexual relationships that purely satisfy the primal urges of the aggressor, and there are those that whilst forbidden, are born from an emotional connection between the participants.
There is no question that this is a relationship which should not have commenced, or which should have remained platonic for a substantial period of time longer, sufficient for Jane to mature and make a decision free of the teacher-student sphere of influence. This is not, however, a matter where Jane was treated with casual disregard by Mr Eldridge. It is clear that there was, albeit inappropriate, affection and concern of a mutual nature in this relationship.
The behaviour in Derbyshire certainly did not demonstrate Mr Eldridge’s degree of genuine affection or concern, but rather, was of a more hedonistic sexual nature, which involved the pair meeting and staying at a city hotel, provision of alcohol by the teacher to the student, and sex. In my view, that makes the behaviour in Derbyshire worse. Whilst Jane should not have been taken advantage of in this way, it cannot be said that she was pursued as a sexualised object; it is apparent that Mr Eldridge cared for her, and suffered a mental struggle to grapple with emotions that led to his own depression.
I also acknowledge that Mr Eldridge spoke with a psychologist, who indicated that it was likely that his depressive symptoms and anxiety impaired his decision making capacity in relation to the relationship he commenced with Jane in late 2012.
Taking the various factors discussed, the decisions and penalties imposed in DRR and Derbyshire into account, I consider that cancellation with a 19-month prohibition is the appropriate penalty. For the reason that Mr Eldridge has suffered a psychological struggle in relation to the feelings he experienced for his student, I also believe an appropriate safeguard to his re-registration should include a psychologist’s report addressing Mr Eldridge’s development of appropriate mechanisms for ensuring his ability to maintain appropriate teacher-student professional boundaries in the future.
I note that Orders were made by the Tribunal on 5 March 2013, prohibiting publication of the names, address and former school of the child “Jane” referred to in these proceedings pursuant to s 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.
Orders
The Teacher’s teacher registration is cancelled and he is prohibited from applying for registration or permission to teach until 14 September 2014.
The Queensland College of Teachers’ register of approved teachers is to be endorsed with a notation that any application by the Teacher for re-registration be accompanied by a psychologist’s report which includes assessment of the teacher’s appreciation of the mechanisms that can be utilised to maintain appropriate teacher-student professional boundaries.
Member R Oliver
Background
Sam Eldridge is an approved teacher who was 24 years old at the time he began an inappropriate sexual relationship with a former student. Mr Eldridge realised he had feelings for the student at the very end of student’s last year of school in 2012. During the final week of school the student requested Mr Eldridge become her Facebook friend which he did on the day after school finished. It transpired that the student had held long term feelings for Mr Eldridge which had not been made known to him. After he became a Facebook friend the relationship progressed quickly and became a sexual relationship on 12 January 2013. No improper conduct by Mr Eldridge is alleged during the two years he was the student’s teacher. To be clear the conduct complained of occurred after the student left school.
Mr Eldridge was an inexperienced teacher and had just completed his second year of teaching at the time of the misconduct. Although his teaching duties placed the student and him in close proximity on countless occasions, both in school time and during school activities outside school hours, he behaved appropriately. Towards the end of his second year he realised he had personal feelings for the student and being disturbed and worried about this, he sought advice about it from a number of sources including the Teacher’s Union.
Mr Eldridge also voluntarily sought psychological advice, support, and therapy, in order to address his emotional concerns and boundary-crossing issues. His psychologist confirms a significant level of therapy and successful reflection on adherence to appropriate boundaries is understood by Mr Eldridge for the future.
There can be no doubt about Mr Eldridge’s understanding of the inappropriateness of the feelings and relationship that he was allowing to develop with the student. There can also be no doubt about the distress caused to Mr Eldridge by his naïve desire to keep the relationship protected through secrecy and his own isolation from those professionals within his school who may have been able to help him. There is no evidence or suggestion of him engaging in grooming behaviour.
This is an unusual case in that the teacher’s behaviour at all times whilst the student was at school was respectful and caring. This is not to say that there was not dishonesty and inappropriate behaviour which is evident in the facts of the relationship’s development, particularly after the student left school.
Relevant Law
Mr Eldridge was found to be unsuitable to teach under s 12 of the Act.[2]
[2] Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 s 12.
The Queensland College of Teachers’ submits that this case is similar to the case of Queensland College of Teachers v Derbyshire [2012] QCAT 536. The similarities between this case and Mr Eldridge’s case lie in the age, inexperience, and naïveté of the teachers involved. However, each relationship was very different. Mr Eldridge was the student’s teacher for two years. During this time Mr Eldridge’s performance of his professional duties and extra curricular duties is beyond reproach according to the reports of his Principal and Head of Subject Department. The student was not at risk during this period as the relationship did not begin until after she had left school. Mr Derbyshire on the other hand was not the student’s teacher at all. She was a student at the school where he was undertaking a very short period of contract teaching. Inappropriate communication continued between Mr Derbyshire and the student for some months prior to the sexual misconduct, both of which occurred while she was still a student at school. This in my view makes Mr Derbyshire’s behaviour more serious.
In Queensland College of Teachers v A Teacher[3] the Tribunal accepted that ‘the more recent, the longer, the closer, the more vulnerable the student or more significant the teacher/student relationship was, the more likely that substantial time must pass or significant intervening events must occur to extinguish that power imbalance’.[4] In Mr Eldridge’s case there is no evidence that the student was vulnerable because she had been in previous sexual relationships during her last year of school. Also, the relationship with Mr Eldridge was of short duration. This does not excuse Mr Eldridge’s conduct but it does demonstrate that the entering into the relationship was not only as a result of a significant power imbalance of which Mr Eldridge took advantage. This is a matter that should be taken into account when considering sanction.
[3][2010] QCAT 225 at [26].
[4]Ibid.
Sanction
This case is about sexual misconduct by a teacher who has been found to be unsuitable to teach. For the reasons set out above, in particular the teacher’s naïveté, his remorse, the assistance he sought to address the problems he was facing, and the fact there was no inappropriate conduct while the student was still at school, the appropriate sanction in my view is that Mr Eldridge have his registration cancelled for a period of 19 months inclusive of the suspension period since 14 February 2013. Mr Eldridge will be unable to apply for re-registration until 14 September 2014.
Also, I accept the submissions of the Queensland College of Teachers’, that there should be a notation on the register that any application for re-registration must be accompanied by a psychologist’s report including assessments of Mr Eldridge’s understanding around the many boundaries that support the teaching profession.
2
4
0