The charges found proven against a Central Otago midwife last night amounted to negligence and brought the profession into discredit, the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal said.
Charges that she failed to act in the best interests of her client and had inadequate client records were proven, tribunal chairman Bruce Corkill QC said at the end of the three-day hearing.
The woman was sentenced to 18 months' supervision, censured, ordered to attend a technical skills workshop and have an annual standards review and ordered to pay 40% of the tribunal's costs and 40% of the costs incurred by the New Zealand Midwifery Council's Professional Conduct Committee (PCC).
While the tribunal had decided against suspending the woman from practising, her behaviour had been unacceptable, Mr Corkill said.
A penalty was required, to protect the public and maintain professional standards.
PCC counsel Matthew McClelland said the committee's concern was the midwife's "total lack of insight - and even with hindsight, she doesn't understand where she went wrong."
The midwife's counsel, David More, said there was no suggestion the woman was incompetent in her work - her care of mothers and babies was exemplary.
Mr Corkill said the tribunal decided to suppress the midwife's name permanently to maintain the integrity of the other suppression orders already in force for other people involved.
The woman was charged with failing to act in the best interests of a 17-year-old client between November 2006 and January 2007, by initiating, promoting, progressing and managing a private adoption with the midwife's family members as the prospective parents of her client's baby.
She was also charged with failing to document or adequately document her care of the client, and decisions made during her midwifery care.
Mr McClelland said the girl was vulnerable to any undue pressure or influence and social workers and the girl's lawyer all had concerns about whether she was receiving impartial advice from her midwife.
"The one person whose role it was to assist and facilitate the matter, in my submission, was the midwife, yet she stood to gain significantly from the adoption."
The midwife's counsel, David More, said it was difficult for her to step aside from the case as she could not find another lead maternity carer in the girl's home town.
The midwife believed details about adoption were best left to the professionals, so aside from mentioning her family members as prospective parents and arranging a meeting between the parties, she had not been involved, Mr More said.
The mother of the client said the family was "more than happy" with the midwife's care and all decisions were made without any pressure.
The girl said in a letter her midwife was "good and caring" and she had not felt under any pressure to give her baby up for adoption.
