In another incident, the same disabled resident punched herself in the face but neither the abuse nor self-harm were reported to bosses.
However, both were caught on camera by a female support worker who took inappropriate and non-consensual photos and videos of five disabled residents for her own entertainment.
Now that worker has been found in breach of the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights for the images seen by her husband, who made a complaint to the Health and Disability Commissioner.
The woman said she was in the middle of a bitter separation from her husband, who made the complaint to get her fired and that she took the images to protect herself against the disabled clients’ “erratic and violent behaviour”.
But Deputy Health and Disability Commissioner Rose Wall said it was the support worker’s responsibility to protect the rights and privacy of the vulnerable residents and she rejected the woman’s explanation, saying the images were made for her own gratification.
In all, the woman - identified as Ms A - filmed or photographed five residents at the home run by an unnamed disability service provider, and kept the images on her mobile phone.
Some of the 13 photos show one man, Mr V, asleep or sitting on a couch, sitting on a chair covering his face, reading a newspaper, sitting on a beach and having an alcoholic drink at a bar or restaurant.
In a video of another resident, Ms Z, Ms A can be heard telling her to go to her room before Ms Z can be seen punching herself in the face.
In another, Ms A can be heard telling Ms Z, “You’re stinking”, before Mr C - another support worker - tells Ms Z, “You smell like a dead rat”.
The video shows Ms Z spitting at Mr C, who cannot be seen but can be heard spitting at Ms Z in response.
“If you spit, I’ll spit”, he said, and “You look like a devil”.
Ms A denied sharing the images with her husband, Mr B, as he alleged in his complaint to the HDC.
She said his complaint was the result of a “bitter, disgruntled and vengeful ex-partner” who had “embarked on a crusade to ruin my life”.
“His ultimate aim was for me to lose my job and go back to him because I would not survive financially … on my own.
“[Mr B] was a possessive and jealous partner who would constantly and forcibly check my phone. There were many times when I was not in the room while [Mr B] went to my phone.
“The only way that he would have got the photos and videos was by forwarding these to his own phone.
At this point in our relationship, I had already advised [Mr B] that I want [sic] a separation. My guess is that he knew then how he would use this information against me.”
But Mr B denied accessing the photos without Ms A’s consent and said he had “zero interest” in ruining her career and did not intend to cause his ex or her reputation any harm.
The disability service provider accepted as credible Ms A’s explanation for how Mr B saw the images.
However, it gave her a formal written warning for disregarding its Code of Conduct in respecting client privacy.
Wall said taking the photographs and videos was inappropriate and did not demonstrate respect for the consumers.
“In my view, Ms A took these photographs and video recordings for an unnecessary and personal purpose.
“I strongly reject Ms A’s submissions that she took the photographs and video recordings as evidence of ‘erratic and violent behaviour’, and that she did so in an attempt to protect herself.”
Wall said most of the photos showed Mr V appearing outwardly calm.
“Ms A also created an animated video of Mr V dancing, dressed in a rabbit suit.”
She said Ms A’s actions meant that not only did she have no regard for their privacy in the most vulnerable of circumstances, “but she did so in a demeaning way, and it seems for no other reason than her own personal gratification and entertainment”.
Wall also criticised Ms A for not reporting Mr C’s treatment of Ms Z and Ms Z’s self-harm.
She found Ms A breached their rights to be treated with respect, dignity and independence, and to have services provided with reasonable care and skill.
Wall recommended Ms A write apologies to each resident and their whānau.
She did not find the service provider in breach but recommended it develop a system to ensure any changes to policy were advised to employees and that it used the case to develop education and training for staff members.
By Natalie Akoorie
Open Justice multimedia journalist
