Carer struck off after performing intercourse act on disabled man in automotive after ‘professing love’
Megan Neilson, from Airdrie, was convicted at Hamilton Sheriff Court of performing sexual acts on a disabled client between June and August 2022, and was subsequently banned from the profession
Megan Neilson
A carer who engaged in a sexual act with a disabled client at the Falkirk Wheel has been removed from the profession.
Megan Neilson, from Airdrie, was prohibited from practising on May 6. The ban came after she was found guilty of participating in sexual activity with the vulnerable man at Hamilton Sheriff Court last year.
The mother-of-two refuted any misconduct between June and August 2022, but was convicted following a trial. Neilson was instructed to complete 300 hours of unpaid work, received a one-year tagging order and was placed under supervision for 18 months. She was also added to the sex offenders’ register for five years.
The court heard that Neilson formed a close relationship with her client, then aged 29, which resulted in them professing their love for each other.
Neilson frequently kissed and hugged him during visits to a bowling alley and at Strathclyde Park, before later performing a sexual act on him in a car at the Falkirk Wheel, reports the Daily Record.
Their inappropriate relationship was exposed when they arrived hand-in-hand at his father’s house and announced they were a couple. Neilson informed the appalled father that she would resign from her position as a support worker, but the police were subsequently contacted.
Upon the arrival of the officers at her residence, she asked: “Is this about the inappropriate relationship?” The jury was shown a police interview where the man explained how he believed he was in a relationship with Neilson and detailed the sexual acts they had engaged in.
He said: “She said if anybody found out about us she would lose her job, her daughter and her college course. I felt awkward because this had never happened to me before.”
His father told the court he had harboured ‘suspicions’ about the pair before they revealed their relationship to him.
He said: “I was in shock but then realised my suspicion was confirmed that there was something going on and I had this sickly feeling because it was a major breach of trust by the support worker working with him. He is still not the same wee laddie.”
The matter was brought before the Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC) this week. Following her conviction, the watchdog determined her practice to be impaired.
A statement from SSSC reads: “Social care workers should not form unprofessional or harmful relationships with individuals in their care. You failed to maintain professional boundaries by seeking to enter into a sexual relationship with AA, whom you were providing care services to. In doing so, you grossly breached the trust placed in you by AA and their family. AA was put at risk of serious emotional harm.
“The behaviour which you have been convicted of could cause emotional harm if it were to be repeated. The behaviour is fundamentally incompatible with that expected of a caring professional. The behaviour is highly serious, and this type of sexual offending falls under the types of cases where more serious action would be required.
“The nature of the behaviour raises significant concerns about your character and values. The behaviour occurred repeatedly, indicating it was planned and deliberate rather than a spontaneous one-off lapse of judgement.”
The statement went on: “While you accept the seriousness of the allegation, you do not accept that you acted in the manner for which you have been convicted. This limits how much weight can be attached to the insight, regret and apology demonstrated in your comments to the SSSC. The offending behaviour indicates underlying value issues. Where there is an underlying values issue, this increases the risk of the behaviour being repeated and not being capable of remediation.”
Delivering the sentence, Sheriff Nicolson told Neilson: “It’s only because of the particularly detrimental effect that a custodial sentence would have on your two young children that a community-based disposal will be imposed.”
