Family support worker dismissed for personal relationship with service user: dismissal fair
A tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a family support worker with 14 years' service who began a personal and later romantic relationship with a service user, finding the council's decision was within the range of reasonable responses.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #personal-relationship-with-service-user
- #social-media-breach
- #professional-boundaries
- #vulnerable-adult
- #signpost-agreement
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Family Support Worker from 4 August 2008 to 31 January 2023.
- She began a personal and later romantic relationship with a service user (CM) while still providing professional services.
- The claimant added CM on Facebook in March 2022, breaching the Signpost Agreement and Code of Conduct.
- The respondent conducted a disciplinary process and dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct.
- The claimant appealed but the dismissal was upheld.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was fair and within the range of reasonable responses.
Timeline
-
Employment start
Claimant began employment with Leeds City Council.
-
Assigned to family
Claimant assigned to work with a family under the Signpost service.
-
Case closed on Mosaic
Claimant's case on Mosaic system was closed, but she continued professional contact.
-
Facebook contact initiated
Claimant emailed CM and suggested adding on Facebook; personal communication began.
-
Liaised with school
Claimant emailed school regarding CM's family, indicating ongoing professional work.
-
Final work visit
Claimant had a formal goodbye visit with CM and JM as instructed by manager.
-
Friendship developed
Regular messages exchanged during women's Euros; claimant considered CM a friend.
-
Romantic relationship began
Claimant and CM entered a romantic relationship.
-
Email to school about relationship
Claimant emailed school from work email to confirm relationship with CM.
-
Dismissal
Claimant dismissed for gross misconduct after disciplinary hearing.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal for misconduct was fair, focusing on whether the employer had a genuine belief in the misconduct, carried out a reasonable investigation, followed a fair procedure, and whether dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim for unfair dismissal.
The key reason was that the employer had a genuine belief in the misconduct, carried out a reasonable investigation, and followed a fair procedure. The dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses given the seriousness of the breach of professional boundaries and the vulnerability of the service user.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was unsuccessful.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers can fairly dismiss for misconduct if they have a genuine belief based on a reasonable investigation and follow a fair procedure.
- Breaching clear professional boundaries, such as personal relationships with service users, is likely to be considered gross misconduct.
- Length of service does not automatically protect an employee if the misconduct is serious enough.
- Employees should be aware of and comply with their employer's policies on professional boundaries and social media.
This case shows how seriously tribunals take breaches of professional boundaries, especially when vulnerable adults are involved. The family support worker had 14 years of service but began a personal and later romantic relationship with a service user, adding them on Facebook in breach of the employer's Signpost Agreement and Code of Conduct.
What the employer did right
Leeds City Council carried out a disciplinary process that the tribunal found to be reasonable. The investigating officer gathered evidence, including emails and social media messages, and the disciplinary hearing officer considered the claimant's explanations before deciding on dismissal. The appeal was also properly considered by a different manager. The tribunal noted that the employer had a genuine belief in the misconduct and that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
What the employee could have done differently
The claimant argued that the relationship only developed after she believed the professional relationship had ended. However, the tribunal found that she continued to provide professional services even after the case was closed on the system, and she had used her work email to contact the service user. A clearer understanding of the policies and earlier cessation of professional contact might have avoided the situation.
Why this matters
This case reinforces that employers can fairly dismiss for misconduct even when the employee has long service, provided they follow a fair process. It also highlights the importance of clear policies on professional boundaries and social media, which tribunals will uphold when they are breached.
Similar cases
20-year support worker dismissed for introducing vulnerable patient to convicted fraudster
An NHS trust fairly dismissed a community healthcare assistant with 20 years' service for gross misconduct after she introduced a vulnerable patient to a convicted fraudster and shared confidential information. The employment tribunal upheld the dismissal.
Senior lecturer dismissed for romantic relationship with student: dismissal fair
A senior lecturer with 14 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after developing a romantic relationship with a student. The tribunal rejected his claims of unfair dismissal and race discrimination.
Support worker dismissed over raised voice: unfair dismissal due to flawed investigation
A support worker who raised her voice at a vulnerable adult was unfairly dismissed after her employer relied on undisclosed witness statements. The tribunal awarded £12,108, reduced by a third for her own conduct.
Community nurse dismissed for gross misconduct: professional boundaries with vulnerable patient
A Band 5 community nurse with six years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after inappropriate contact with a vulnerable patient, the tribunal ruled.
