Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher EAJ
[2014] QCAT 29
•22 January 2014
| CITATION: | Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher EAJ [2014] QCAT 029 |
| PARTIES: | Queensland College of Teachers (Applicant) |
| v | |
| Teacher EAJ (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | OCR097-12 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Occupational regulation matters |
| HEARING DATE: | 11 November 2013 |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Presiding Member Clifford Senior Member Endicott Member Robyn Oliver |
| DELIVERED ON: | 22 January 2014 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: | 1. The publication of Teacher EAJ’s name and identity and the names and identities of EAJ’s children is prohibited. 2. Any documents produced to the Tribunal by the Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services for this disciplinary proceeding can be accessed by the parties but not by any other person without further order and any information in the produced documents cannot be published except so far as that information is disclosed in these reasons for decision. 3. Teacher EAJ’s teacher registration is cancelled and she is prohibited from reapplying for registration as a teacher for a period of two years from the date of this order. 4. The following notation must be entered into the register: that after the expiry of the prohibition period, should Teacher EAJ reapply for registration as a teacher, that such application must include an independent psychological report satisfactory to the Queensland College of Teachers addressing the following: a. suitability to teach and suitability to work in a child related field; b. an assessment of the likelihood of Teacher EAJ engaging in similar types of behaviour outlined in the disciplinary decision in the future; c. awareness of personal and social behaviour that would compromise the professional standing of a teacher and the profession of teaching; d. understanding of what constitutes inappropriate communication; e. understanding of and full adherence to the Queensland College of Teachers Code of Ethics. 5. The psychologist report must include: a. an indication from the psychologist about whether the psychologist is satisfied Teacher EAJ has adequately understood and addresses the above points; b. reference to the psychologist being provided with copies of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal’s decision and reasons and the amended referral under s 97 of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 dated 8 January 2013. |
| CATCHWORDS : | TEACHER – grounds for disciplinary action – convicted of an indictable offence - suitability to teach – marital breakdown – child safety issues – number of criminal offences – previous disciplinary matters – impact of personal conduct on reputation of profession – confidence of the community NON-PUBLICATION ORDER – material obtained under the Children Protection Act 2009 Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 ss 12; 92(1)(b) and (h); 158; 160 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
| APPLICANT: | Queensland College of Teachers represented by Mr Jon Gormley, Principal Legal Officer |
| RESPONDENT: | EAJ self represented and attended by telephone from Cairns |
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member Endicott
I have read the reasons of Member Clifford in draft and agree with them, and the conclusions she has reached and the orders she proposes.
Member Clifford
Background
Teacher EAJ has been a registered teacher since December 1976. EAJ is currently teaching senior students in a far north Queensland secondary school.
Around 2006 EAJ’s marriage broke down. Between 2007 and 2012 EAJ’s two adolescent children were subject to various concerns and notifications raised with the Department of Child Safety. Ultimately, these concerns and notifications resulted in Orders being made under the Child Protection Act 2009 including, variously, supervised contact, suspended contact and the taking into foster care of one child between September 2009 and March 2012.
Arising from the marriage breakdown and the involvement of Child Safety, EAJ engaged in behaviours towards those she saw involved in these events that culminated in charges and convictions against her in the criminal justice system.
Firstly, in February 2008 EAJ was convicted with common assault, two counts of wilful damage, three counts of breaching a Domestic Violence Order and one count of unlawful stalking, for incidents between 2005- 2008. These incidents involved EAJ’s former husband and his new partner.
No conviction was recorded for any of the charges but EAJ was ordered to pay restitution, to have no contact with the subject of the stalking incident for 5 years and was placed on 12 months probation.
On 27 October 2008 the Queensland College of Teachers’ Professional Practice and Conduct Committee (PP&CC) issued EAJ a ‘Warning’ in relation to these incidents.
Secondly, on 24 September 2009 EAJ was convicted of serious assault on a person in the lawful execution of their duty. This charge related to incidents involving verbal abuse and spitting in the face of a Child Safety Officer from the Department of Child Safety.
A conviction was recorded against EAJ and she was placed on 18 months probation with conditions she submits to such medical, psychiatric and psychological assessment and treatment as directed by her authorised corrective services officer.
On 9 July 2010 the PP&CC issued EAJ a ‘Reprimand’ and noted EAJ’s offending showed a pattern of behaviour and instability with little regard to child witnesses in regard to these incidents.
Thirdly, on 20 October 2011 EAJ pleaded guilty and was convicted of ‘using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence’ in relation to incidents between 5 and 8 November 2010. These incidents involved EAJ using her son’s Facebook account to send multiple abusive messages to her son in care and his foster parent.
EAJ was sentenced to three months imprisonment to be suspended forthwith on recognizance of $1,000.00 and placed on probation for a period of 2 years.
On 22 August 2012 the Queensland College of Teachers (QCT) referred a matter to the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings under the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005. The referral was amended on 8 January 2013.
Legislation
The Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 establishes the QCT and confers the QCT with the functions and powers about the registration, and taking disciplinary action against teachers.
The main objectives of the Act are to uphold standards of the teaching profession, maintain public confidence in the teaching profession and to protect the public by ensuring education in schools is provided in a professional and competent way.[1]
[1] Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 s 3.
Disciplinary grounds and evidence
The QCT submit the grounds for disciplinary action are twofold.
Firstly, EAJ has been convicted of an indictable offence that is not a serious offence[2] in relation to the conviction on 20 October 2011; and secondly EAJ is not suitable to teach[3].
[2] Ibid s 92(1)(b).
[3] Ibid s 92 (1)(h).
In support of the grounds for disciplinary action the QCT relies on the material provided in the referral and amended referral, Affidavit of Mr Gormley and material produced by the Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services. QCT also provided written and oral submissions.
EAJ has not fully engaged in this disciplinary proceeding but provided an email letter to the Tribunal, dated 1 September 2013, in response to these proceedings and attended the hearing by telephone.
Ground 1.
It is uncontested and the material provided in the referral indicates that EAJ was convicted on 20 October 2011 under the Commonwealth Criminal Code for using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence between 6 – 7 November 2010.
In particular, EAJ used her son’s Facebook account to abuse her son’s foster parent. Examples of the words used include: ‘I see that piece of shit’, ‘die bitch die’, ‘I notice she has one retard in the photos, she is getting extra money from the govt saying you are a retard too’, and ‘I hope she dies a terrible death, the fat ugly cow. She took you away from your family and they are gone forever’.
EAJ was sentenced to 3 months imprisonment, to be released forthwith on recognisance: $1,000.00 and good behaviour period 2 years.
At hearing EAJ stated that she had no money to defend herself and so pleaded guilty. EAJ did not elaborate on the particulars of her conviction but commented ‘these people’ had other children and earned money from the government and that they had also put things on Facebook.
EAJ is an approved teacher and has been convicted of an indictable offence, other than a serious offence. Whilst EAJ’s explanation gives some context to her conviction, there is nothing before the Tribunal to change the fact that this ground for disciplinary action has been made out.
Ground 2.
The second ground for disciplinary action - not suitable to teach requires the Tribunal to take into account various considerations,[4] including a person’s criminal record, whether a person is suitable to work in a child-related field, whether a teacher behaves in a way that does not satisfy a standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher and whether a teacher has behaved in a disgraceful or improper way that shows they are unfit to granted registration or permission to teach.
[4] Ibid ss 11 and 12.
The QCT submits, EAJ is not suitable to teach because of the circumstances of the offence in the first ground for disciplinary action and because of her involvement with Child Safety under the Child Protection Act 1999.
In particular, the QCT submits, that not only was the offence of such seriousness that a prison sentence was imposed, but that the seriousness is elevated through the lens of ‘suitability to work in a child related field’.
QCT also submits, the conduct was disgraceful, designed to upset the child and foster parent and to undermine the care arrangements.
The QCT further submits that the conduct was fundamentally contrary to the role and behaviour expected of a teacher.
Moreover the QCT submits, given EAJ’s overall history of involvement with the Department of Child Safety, the resultant variety of child protection orders and the number of charges and convictions for criminal offences with consequential disciplinary action by the PP&CC, EAJ is an unacceptable risk of harm to children and has engaged in conduct that is incongruent with high standards and the child welfare focus of teachers and is conduct of a nature that is disgraceful and improper that it shows unfitness to be registered.
Whilst it is uncontested EAJ has been involved with Child Safety and subject to various orders, EAJ strongly refutes the claim she is unsuitable to teach.
EAJ states she suffered a very bad marriage breakdown and went about her work as best she could. EAJ states one of her children acted badly and Child Safety believed what he told them.
At hearing EAJ focussed heavily on the ‘lies’ her son told ‘DOCS’ and how that has made her life hell. EAJ states ‘the child has ruined my life’, ‘his brother despises him’ and ‘I hate him’.
EAJ submits these personal issues have nothing to do with her teaching and that no student she teaches would say she was a bad teacher.
EAJ states she volunteers her time for a variety of out of school hours events such as discos, movie nights, school council and youth of the year.
EAJ also opines she is better teacher than many and states that she works from 7.30 am until 5.30 – 6.00 pm each day.
EAJ states teaching is her life and that financially she needs to work until she is 65 years as she is a single mother.
EAJ submits reputation is built on your role in the classroom. EAJ submits she gives teachers a good reputation and that she never runs down the profession, students or the school.
EAJ states she went to a psychologist earlier but formed a view they could do nothing for her. EAJ states she made changes in her life, has buried the past and states she is now stronger.
Whilst the second ground for disciplinary action is based on the October 2011 conviction and involvement with Child Safety, it really touches on all the personal, professional, disciplinary and criminal circumstances in which EAJ has been involved since around 2005. It is in essence the consequence and accumulation of events that forms the basis of this ‘unsuitable to teach’ ground for disciplinary action and not solely that EAJ has been subject to child protection Orders.
EAJ is a senior and experienced teacher. The Acting Principal and two Head of Departments of the secondary school where EAJ currently teaches attest to her professionalism and dedication and confirm there have been no instances of complaints from peers or parents concerning EAJ.
At time of hearing EAJ had only recently completed the 2-year probation period arising from the October 2011 conviction for the offence of using a carriage service to menace. EAJ had been sentenced to three-months imprisonment fully suspended. The conviction arose from circumstances over a few days in early November 2010 whereby EAJ sent via Facebook, invective messages towards a foster carer, her son and other children in the foster carer’s care.
The Tribunal is of the view that the existence of the offence itself would not necessarily render a person ‘not suitable to teach’. That circumstance in itself is covered by the existence of a specific ground in the legislation as noted above. It is the content of the message that is important in a suitability to teach ground for disciplinary action.
The QCT submits that the seriousness of the conduct is elevated through the lens of ‘suitability to work in a child related field’.[5]
[5] Ibid s12 (1)(b).
On any ordinary reading of the messages sent by EAJ the Tribunal agrees with the QCT that the conduct was designed to upset the child and foster carer and undermine the care arrangements.
EAJ has made little reference to the content of the messages. At hearing she noted in a derogatory tone that the foster carer received government money for her services and stated, without providing detail, that the carer had also posted messages.
EAJ strongly claims that her personal life has nothing to do with her teaching. The Tribunal does not agree with this view and has previously noted in the case of Teacher CAP
Personal conduct is capable of relevance to a professional discipline if there is a relationship between conduct and relevant professional standards and responsibilities. The Tribunal considers that the manner in which a teacher behaves with a child in the sphere of private and family life is relevant to the professional standards and responsibilities of a teacher. If there is no recognition of appropriate boundaries in a teacher’s private relationship with children, it is reasonable to infer that appropriate boundaries in professional teacher student relationships may be unrecognised and appropriate standards transgressed in a professional setting.[6]
[6]Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher CAP [2011] QCAT citing Zeims v Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of NSW [1957] HCA 46.
Whilst there is no evidence before the Tribunal that EAJ directly poses a safety risk towards the students she teaches, it is difficult to reconcile how EAJ is suitable to teach in a child related field given EAJ has engaged in invective towards not only her own child whilst he was in care, but refers to other foster children as ‘retards’ and is highly abusive towards a person fulfilling an important role in the child protection framework, referring to her as a ‘bitch’ and hoping she dies. Furthermore, EAJ displays continued and serious distain towards a Department of State wholly involved in the care and protection of children.
EAJ seeks to compartmentalise her personal circumstances from her working life. The Tribunal is not persuaded in EAJ circumstances this is possible or desirable given the obligations and significant role teachers have to play within the child protection framework.
EAJ’s personal views and actions significantly undermine and cast real doubt that EAJ could and would fulfil her professional obligations and commitment in referring matters or dealing with matters concerning any student to the Department of Child Safety. This attitude could indirectly place students in need of protection from abusive parents at risk. EAJ has not demonstrated any insight into the impact her actions may have on her ability to undertake her professional role in an objective and balanced way should child protection issues arise concerning her students.
Furthermore the abuse of others through social media is of great concern to those in the school community. Teachers are often required to intervene in the fallout from such abuse between students. Given EAJ’s view that her personal circumstances have no impact on the teaching profession nor the public confidence in the profession, this also calls into doubt how effectively EAJ would deal this common school scenario.
The nature and context of EAJ personal actions seriously put into doubt how as a teacher, a professional who is intrinsically involved with the care and protection of children, could appropriately and fully respond to student issues concerning abuse or harm by a parent or abuse by another student via social media. In all these circumstances the Tribunal is satisfied EAJ is not suitable to teach in a child related field based on the content and context of the October 2011 conviction for the offence.
Whilst there may be circumstances and cases before the Tribunal where the offence is a ‘one-off’ and there are mitigating circumstances to persuade the Tribunal otherwise. This is not the case here.
If the October 2011 conviction and the particulars surrounding it not are sufficient to find EAJ is not suitable to work in a child related field solely, the earlier actions concerning EAJ and her engagement with Child Safety further support the claim she is not suitable to teach in a child related field.
EAJ has an extensive history with Child Safety concerning the care of her children during the breakdown of her marriage and beyond. Whilst the Tribunal does not intend to re-agitate or re-prosecute those issues here. The Tribunal notes EAJ’s view that her younger son has serious mental health issues and has told lies and that her eldest son now resides with EAJ and the other continues to have contact with her.
However, the Tribunal relies on the significant Department of Child Safety material and Orders that have found EAJ wanting in the care and protection of her children on numerous occasions concerning a variety of incidents, including verbal, emotional and physical abuse.
Given the cumulative effect of an extensive child protection history, the abuse displayed towards a child safety officer, resulting in a conviction of assault, the invective towards a foster carer and ultimately EAJ’s continued rage against the Department of Child Safety as a whole the Tribunal is satisfied EAJ is not suitable to teach in a child related field.
The QCT submits that not only is EAJ not suitable to teach in a child related field but is not suitable to teach because her actions are fundamentally contrary to the role and behaviour expected of a teacher and are disgraceful and shows that she is unfit to be granted registration or permission to teach.
The Tribunal concurs with the QTC. If the Tribunal’s finding in relation to EAJ’s suitability to work in a child related field is insufficient, the Tribunal is satisfied that EAJ’s child safety history, extensive criminal record relating to stalking, serious assault and use of a carriage service to menace and consequential disciplinary proceedings fall significantly short of the standard of behaviour expected of a teacher.
Furthermore when considering the particulars of these offences and EAJ’s behaviour the word ‘disgraceful’ unfortunately fits easily as a descriptor.
The maintenance of public confidence in the teaching profession is an objective of the governing law. At hearing EAJ failed to answer if the parents and students she taught had knowledge of her personal circumstances and criminal record. Whilst the Tribunal notes EAJ does not have any complaints against her and it does not dispute that EAJ is held in good esteem. The Tribunal is convinced that this view of EAJ and thus the public confidence in the teaching profession would be severely dented if there was public knowledge that a person with an extensive history of child safety complaints against them and a long criminal record relating to stalking, assault and use of a carriage service to menace was engaged as a teacher and found suitable to teach.
Furthermore EAJ has been subject to disciplinary proceedings arising from the early convictions. EAJ was given a Warning on 17 October 2008 and a Reprimand on 18 June 2010 by the Professional Policy and Conduct Committee. It would appear the approach the PP&CC took in relation to those proceedings gave EAJ every opportunity to overcome her personal circumstances and engage some professional therapeutic assistance. Unfortunately EAJ’s lack of insight and anger towards others prevailed and ultimately brought her before this Tribunal with her professional college seeking the most serious of disciplinary action.
The Tribunal is satisfied EAJ is not suitable to teach as she has not met the standards of behaviour expected of a teacher and has behaved in a disgraceful way that shows she is unfit to be granted registration or permission to teach.
Disciplinary action - sanction
The QTC seeks EAJ teacher’s registration be cancelled and that she be prohibited from reapplying for a two year prohibition period.
Furthermore, the QCT seeks that a notation be entered into the register that after expiry of the prohibition period should EAJ reapply for registration that such application includes an independent psychological report satisfactory to the QCT addressing the following issues.
The overarching objectives of the regulation of teachers are protecting students from harm, maintaining public trust and confidence in the teaching profession and upholding professional standards. The disciplinary process and any sanction should be considered in that light, its purpose is not punitive.
In reaching a decision as to the appropriate level of sanction, many factors can be considered including: the nature and context of the behaviour itself, the level of insight a teacher may have in regard to the impact their actions and behaviour may have on the students, school and community, what actions they have taken to remedy the behaviour, their teaching history, seniority and any leadership role they may hold.
This case is somewhat novel for the Tribunal in terms of considering appropriate sanction with its mixed and inter-related circumstances.
The QCT submits the nearest comparative case, in relation to non-sexual offending cases, is that of Wright[7] whereby a teacher’s registration was cancelled after conviction for stalking a student over the course of one day for which he was given a 2 year probation order. The teacher’s registration was cancelled and prohibited from reapplying for registration for 21 months.
[7] Queensland College of Teachers v Ryan William Wright [2011] QCAT unpublished.
Whilst there is general agreement EAJ circumstances arose from a difficult marriage breakdown and that EAJ was under significant mental stress, EAJ’s reaction to this not uncommon event was played-out in an angry and hostile manner, lashing-out against her children and other third parties not involved in her marriage breakdown. This behaviour brought her in contact with the child safety services and as a consequence of her own actions the criminal justice system and disciplinary proceedings before her professional college.
EAJ, although states she saw a psychologist early in the piece, has not taken the opportunity to seek professional therapeutic help. It was apparent to the Tribunal at hearing EAJ continues to rage against those she feels have done wrong by her. EAJ lacks insight into the impact her behaviour has on her profession but also on her own mental health needs. At hearing EAJ expressed the willingness to see a psychologist if the Tribunal wanted her to do so. Unfortunately for EAJ this willingness has come too late.
EAJ has had full knowledge of the disciplinary case against her and that the QCT was seeking to cancel her registration. EAJ has not fully engaged in the Tribunal process, providing only one email letter and attending at hearing to mount a defence. The Tribunal adjourned an on the papers hearing of this matter to give EAJ a final opportunity to provide any personal or professional references, or any health professional report that she may seek to rely on in this proceeding. EAJ did not provide any material.
The Tribunal concurs with the QCT submissions that EAJ’s matter involves features more serious than Wright, including more serious offences, prior history of offending, prior disciplinary history, sustained child safety history and being an experienced teacher.
The Tribunal has also considered the case of Osborne[8]. In that case, the teacher, who showed no remorse or insight for a conviction of defrauding the Commonwealth (Centrelink) of $46,000.00, sentenced to imprisonment but released forwith. The sanction the Tribunal issued was an 18 months suspension, suspended after 6 months with conditions. This case however did not relate to any direct or indirect risk to children, nor does it raise the multiple or complex circumstances of this case.
[8] Queensland College of Teachers v Osborne [2013] QCAT 471.
Given EAJ’s teaching experience, the significant lack of insight she demonstrates and her continuing blame on others in relation to her behaviours over a long period of time that have resulted in child protection notifications and orders, criminal charges and convictions and two other disciplinary proceedings, the Tribunal is satisfied that in all the circumstances cancellation of EAJ’s registration for a period of 2 years with conditions noted on the register is appropriate.
The Tribunal orders accordingly.
Non- publication
The Tribunal has the authority under section 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Act 2009 to prohibit the publication of various information, including the contents of a document, evidence given before the Tribunal or information relating to the identity of a particular person.
This matter involves circumstances that have directly involved the care and protection of children under the Child Protection Act 1999. The Tribunal is satisfied that it would be contrary to the public interest to identify EAJ and her children and allow the information contained within the documents provided by the Department of Child Safety to be disclosed other than in the form of these reasons.
The Tribunal Orders accordingly.
Robyn Oliver, Member
Background
EAJ is 61 years old and has worked as a teacher since becoming registered in 1976.
EAJ has two children, one born on the 1st of May 1996 and the other on the 3rd of September 1997. The younger child is an adopted child and has multiple disorders, including Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. In 2006 EAJ went through a very acrimonious separation from her husband of 15 years.
Child Protection Services have been involved in this family’s life since the marriage breakdown in 2006. Both children are damaged by their experiences during and since the marriage breakdown. The younger child was placed in foster care from 2011 until 2012 and is not currently living at home. The older child is now living with EAJ and is studying Avionics and doing well.
During the whole of the time of the involvement of the Child Protection Services and EAJ’s misconduct, the subject of these proceedings, she has continued in full time employment as a teacher and been involved in the school community.
This disciplinary proceeding arises because in October 2011 EAJ pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court to an indictable offence and was convicted under the Commonwealth Criminal Code. The magistrate imposed a term of imprisonment of 3 months with immediate release under a recognizance of $1000 with two years probation. This was EAJ’s third conviction.
EAJ received two prior disciplinary orders from Queensland College of Teachers in 2008 and 2010 respectively. Both disciplinary decisions followed convictions in the Magistrates Court. (The details are set out in paragraphs 91, 92, and 93 below.)
The two issues to be considered in this proceeding are whether EAJ has been convicted of an indictable offence that is not a serious offence under s 92(1)(b) of the Act; and whether EAJ is not suitable to teach under s 92(1)(h) of the Act.
If these issues show that grounds for disciplinary action are established the Tribunal is to order the appropriate disciplinary action to be taken.
Relevant Law
The Act[9] requires consideration of a number of matters in connection with a teacher’s criminal history: when the offence was committed, the nature of the offence and its relevance to the duties of a teacher, and any other matter relevant to deciding whether the teacher is suitable to teach.[10]
[9] Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld).
[10] Ibid s 11(3).
The objects of the Act include upholding the standards of, and maintaining public confidence in, the teaching profession.[11] Unsuitability to teach can take a number of forms. One is when a teacher behaves in a way that does not satisfy a standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher.[12] QCAT has observed that honesty, integrity and respect for the law are fundamental standards which are necessary for the maintenance of public confidence in the teaching profession.[13] The courts have established by reason of her convictions on three occasions that EAJ has not maintained the standards expected of a teacher.
[11] Ibid s 3(1).
[12] Ibid s 12(3)(a).
[13] Queensland College of Teachers v Neilson [2012] QCAT 693 at [39].
The Queensland College of Teachers submits that EAJ is not suitable to teach because her conduct is disgraceful and improper. Evidence shows a lack of appreciation for protecting her own children from harm, a lack of respect for the law, and a lack of willingness to cooperate with relevant authorities. During the hearing Mr Gormley outlined the Queensland College of Teachers’ position that EAJ had ‘compartmentalised’ the offending behaviours by stating that the offending behaviours were personal in nature and had no bearing at all on her professional conduct as a teacher. He also submitted that blameless performance in her role as a teacher is not enough to remove the tension between her poor behaviour and the public interest in the profession.
Mr Gormley relied on the case of Ryan Wright[14] as a broad comparison with the circumstances of this case. The conduct complained of in Wright took place outside the school environment but still compromised the professional standing of a teacher. Mr Wright, a 28 year old, first year teacher, was convicted of ‘unlawful stalking’ of a young female student. He was stood down from his teaching duties within two weeks of the offence. In contrast, amongst many other offences, EAJ was also convicted of stalking behaviour between 2005 and 2007. For this conduct, the Professional Practice and Conduct Committee of the Queensland College of Teachers sent EAJ a letter of warning, stating that any similar conduct in the future could result in more serious disciplinary action being taken against her. It is difficult to reconcile the different disciplinary responses to what appears to be similar conduct.
[14] Queensland College of Teachers v Wright OCR051-10.
Further offences by EAJ continued to occur and further action from the Professional Practice and Conduct Committee resulted in a letter of reprimand in July 2010.
It is unfortunate that the Professional Practice and Conduct Committee of the Queensland College of Teachers did not take a firmer approach with these earlier transgressions. Had they done so, the extent of EAJ’s subsequent misconduct might have been avoided, given her obvious emotional instability at the time.
A further relevant case is that of Kim Osborne[15] who was convicted of dishonestly receiving benefits of $29,000 from Centrelink. She contended that this behaviour was personal and did not impact on her professional conduct as a teacher. QCAT found that Ms Osborne had committed serious offences of dishonesty over a lengthy period and that she lacked insight or remorse for her actions. She was found to be not suitable to teach because these breaches of standards diminish public confidence in the teaching profession.
[15] Queensland College of Teachers v Osborne [2013] QCAT 471.
Many of the principles in Ms Osborne’s case are very similar to those in EAJ’s case. The sanction imposed on Ms Osborne was a period of six months suspension, but with the suspension itself suspended for 18 months provided that she complied with two QCAT conditions in addition to not being subject to any further disciplinary proceedings during that time. This sanction allowed Ms Osborne, a single parent on a disability pension, to continue to repay her financial debt to the community, in addition to allowing her, by keeping her job, to keep her small family together.
Sanction
It is agreed by all parties that this is a very unusual case.
I am satisfied that EAJ is unsuitable to teach under s 92(1)(h) of the Act. Her on-going misconduct supports this finding about which there can be no dispute.
The purpose of the disciplinary process is not to impose a sanction which is only punitive. The objects are to uphold standards in the teaching profession, public confidence in the profession, and protection of the public by ensuring education is provided by approved professionals.[16]
[16] Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) ss 3(1)(a)(b)(c).
There are however a number of mitigating circumstances in EAJ’s matter that require more detailed consideration. They are as follows:
1. EAJ has had an exemplary career as a teacher. Her record in her school environment is exemplary and is supported by references from her Principal and Heads of Departments of the subjects taught by her.
2. EAJ is an experienced Senior Teacher. This is a highly respected role, which requires a teacher to engage in numerous responsibilities, tasks, and initiatives above and beyond those of a non-Senior Teacher. An experienced teacher may not necessarily hold Senior Teacher status. For example, EAJ wrote the new Legal Studies Work Programme for her school and attended the necessary professional development sessions to enable the implementation of this initiative in her school. She is the sole teacher in this subject area.
3. EAJ is a mentor for beginning teachers, assisting them in learning to develop curriculum, and learning how to assess and report on Queensland Studies Authority requirements.
4. According to her superiors EAJ delivers her own curricula in a professional and accountable manner, meeting deadlines in relation to assessment and reporting. EAJ responds readily to feedback about processes.
5. EAJ volunteers to assist with extracurricular school events in her own time. These events include activities such as: school dances, Optiminds Creative Sustainability Challenge, school fetes, regional seminars, school excursions.
6. EAJ is liked and respected by her classes of students. This is evidenced by the numbers of students in her classes remaining stable.
7. EAJ’s Principal and peers make comment on how she is willing to spend her own lunch breaks and after school time to help students who need assistance.
8. There have been no reports of complaints about EAJ from either parents or peers.
9. The loss of EAJ to her school community, beginning teachers, and her pupils would be profound if her registration is cancelled. It is unrealistic to consider that she would ever be able to return to the profession. EAJ is 61 years of age.
10. In 2006 EAJ went through a very acrimonious marriage breakdown which impacted severely on all people involved including children.
11. EAJ has two children. The younger has been diagnosed with Reactive Attachment Disorder in addition to Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. EAJ’s marriage breakdown and much associated and documented trauma affected this child profoundly.
12. EAJ has managed to maintain a stable study environment for the older child who is now living with her. This stability needs to remain in place for the success of this child who remains under Child Protection. There is no reason why this stability will not continue in the future.
13. EAJ has sworn under oath that she will lose her mortgaged home if she loses her job. In addition, EAJ states that she will not be able to afford the fees for the Avionics course her son is studying.
In view of the ramifications of EAJ’s registration cancellation on the ‘settledness’ of this child-in-care, and his prospects of completing a course of study, the loss of EAJ’s expertise and dedication to her school community, I propose that a different type of sanction should be imposed which would place the older child’s situation into the spotlight, with a hope that the younger child may reunite with the family in the future.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that any child in the school community has been or is currently at risk as a result of EAJ’s behaviour. In fact it is to the contrary.
The options for sanction are set out in section 160 of the Act. Cancellation would provide the community with one appropriate sanction for the actions taken. Other possibilities are available under s 160(2)(c), s 160(2)(i), and s 160(2)(k).[17]
[17] Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld).
I consider that a more appropriate sanction in this unique case would be for EAJ to be suspended from teaching for the rest of her teaching career (4 years). I would also wholly suspend this suspension immediately with the added condition that she complete a course or undertake private counselling, approved by and reported to Queensland College of Teachers, and paid in full by EAJ. She would be required to prove that she has gained some insight around the extent of the damage she has caused to her children and her profession, through her misconduct, within the first 12 months of the suspended suspension period. This suspended suspension would only remain in place if there were no further complaints of a disciplinary nature about EAJ’s behaviour, in either her professional life, or personal life. If there were any further breaches of standards, cancellation would be an immediate consequence. This response places the care of her Child-in-care as paramount in the litany of EAJ’s poor behaviour.
To cancel EAJ’s registration outright would take away her earning capacity in circumstances where there is no evidence that her conduct has had any adverse impact on the school community. Should she lose her registration it is highly unlikely that she will ever return to the teaching profession, which could be seen as solely punitive.
A cancellation sanction would outweigh the potential benefit to the community and the teaching profession when EAJ has demonstrated that she does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm in the workplace.
Within this very difficult set of circumstances the proposed sanction addresses the misconduct, but also ensures that there will be on-going stability for this child who is a victim of EAJ’s past behaviour.
2
3
2