A SCOTS carer is to be struck off the register after being found guilty of embezzling nearly £35,000 from a service user.
Tracey McEnemy was initially given a temporary suspension earlier this month after being convicted of the crime at Hamilton Sheriff Court last August, but is currently within her appeal period.
McEnemy was employed as a support worker in a care at home service when she was found to have embezzled an eye-watering £34,893 from a service user between February 2019 and September 2020.
In her defence, McEnemy, from Bathgate, West Lothian, claimed that the actions were a result of a relationship with the service user, simply referred to as AA.
She claimed AA had been in the habit of frequently transferring her money for business payments, had been aware of the embezzlement and had already devised a repayment plan for her.
Despite this, McEnemy’s conviction led to a hearing of care watchdog the Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC), whose panel agreed that the carer’s fitness to practise was impaired.
The SSSC’s report stated: “The allegation against you at the hearing was as follows:
“On 23 August 2022, you were convicted at Hamilton Sheriff Court of embezzlement, namely:
“Between 1 February 2019 and 30 September 2020, both dates inclusive, at [information redacted], and elsewhere, you did while employed as a carer of AA, embezzle £34,893.04 from them.”
They continued: “The panel next considered whether, in all the circumstances, your fitness to practise is impaired as a result of the conviction.
“It bore in mind that it had to consider whether your fitness to practise is currently impaired.
“It noted the need to take into account public protection, the wider public interest, whether the misconduct was easily remediable, whether it had been remedied, whether it was likely to recur, and whether you had demonstrated any insight.
“It noted the need to consider current rather than past impairment.
“It noted in particular the need to maintain confidence in the profession, and the need to declare and uphold proper standards so as to maintain public confidence in social services.
“These last points were considerations that it was proper to take into account in coming to a decision on whether your fitness to practise is impaired.”
The panel agreed that McMenemy showed insight into her convictions, but found it incompatible with the seriousness of her behaviour.
They divulged: “The panel considered that you had clearly demonstrated some insight into the effects of your behaviour.
“You had taken steps to seek assistance from [organisations redacted] which you considered had been effective, although the panel noted that your engagement with these bodies occurred only after a [Temporary Suspension Order] had been placed on your registration.
“You clearly understood the concerns the public were likely to have about your behaviour and conviction.
“However, your insight did not appear to the Panel to extend to thinking in any depth about how you would deal with stressful situations in future, or how you would avoid falling into similar patterns of behaviour.
“Your insight and the steps taken in consequence, appeared to the panel to be reactive rather than proactive.
“The panel accepted the positive nature of your insight but considered that dishonest behaviour consisting of a serious breach of trust, would be very difficult to counteract, and would require a long period of positive behaviour to remedy.”
The panel agreed that a removal from the register in addition to a temporary suspension order was the most suitable sanction.
They stated: “The panel did not consider that it was appropriate to make no order. The behaviour was extremely serious, and the case was not so exceptional as to warrant no action.
“A warning alone was not appropriate. This was not a case at the lowest end of the scale. It was one in which more serious action might be appropriate.
“The panel did not consider that it was appropriate that you could be allowed to return to work in care without restriction.
“A warning would not serve to address public protection concerns in any way and would not address the public interest aspects of the case.”
The temporary suspension order came into effect on 15 August but is due to be replaced by a removal order.
