A SCOTS carer has been struck off for sending “sexually motivated photos” to a vulnerable care user.
Marshall McRoberts was removed from the Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC) register on Sunday following the incidents between November 2016 and December 2017.
McRoberts, from Glasgow, was found to have acted in a “sexually motivated manner” and caused distress to an unnamed care service user.
He was found to have sent countless images of himself in various scenarios – including sunbathing topless – to the same user.
On top of this, McRoberts also acted in a “financially exploitative” manner by asking for various sums of money from the same person on around 31 occasions.
The SSSC have now imposed a removal order on McRoberts who worked as a supervisor in a care at home service for adults at the time of the incidents.
The report from the panel stated: “Social service workers are entrusted to work with some of the most vulnerable people in society.
“In supporting vulnerable people, social service workers are expected to establish and maintain professional boundaries.
“You have used social media to establish a relationship with a vulnerable service user outside of work. Your messages were sexual and abusive in nature.
“Part of your behaviour was sexually motivated, and you attempted to exploit the user for your own gain.”
They continued: “Your behaviour took place over a period of approximately 11 months, and was prolonged and intentional.
“The behaviour is of the highest seriousness, and involves a significant abuse of trust, sexually motivated behaviour, and financially exploitative behaviour towards a vulnerable service user.
“Behaviour of this nature amounts to a fundamental failure to follow the Codes of Practise for social service workers.
“You largely deny the allegations and have not provided the SSSC with detailed insight, regret, or apology for your behaviour.”
In determining the correct and appropriate sanction for McRobert’s behaviour, the SSSC concluded: “Your behaviour was deliberate, repeated and took place over 11 months.
“As such, a warning would not adequately address the impairment of your fitness to practise and would offer no protection to service users or the wider public interest.
“A condition would not be appropriate because there are no conditions which could be placed on you which would address why your fitness to practice is currently impaired.
“A suspension order would not be appropriate as your behaviour is fundamentally incompatible with continuing professional registration.
“The serious nature of the behaviour necessitates a removal order to ensure members of the public are not exposed to a continuing risk of harm.
“A removal order is also in the public interest because it is necessary to maintain the continuing trust and confidence in the social service profession and the SSSC.”
