Support worker struck off over affair with addict that led to abortion

David Phillips' actions were branded a 'significant abuse' of his position following an investigation by the social care watchdog.

Glasgow support worker who impregnated addict struck off over sexual relationship before abortion Google Maps
Phillips was found to show 'insufficient insight and no real remorse' for his actions.

A support worker in social care who had a sexual relationship with an addict in his care resulting in the woman undergoing an abortion when she became pregnant has been struck off.

David Phillips also used “controlling behaviour” towards the woman before she underwent the termination, according to a report submitted to the Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC).

The relationship with the woman, known only as AA, was said to have taken place between April 1, 2020 and October 5, 2020.

It was found that after initially exchanging phone numbers and kissing and touching the woman, Phillips made personal visits to her home, had sexual intercourse with her which resulted in pregnancy.

She later terminated the birth, but Phillips later became abusive and caused her “physical harm”.

The regulator found that Phillips had started a sexual relationship with AA while she was a resident at his place of work and “took advantage of your position to make contact with her”.

Phillips, who worked at a housing support service in Glasgow, was also found to have threatened AA against telling anyone about their relationship.

The SSSC said that he had told the woman she “would lose her place at your employer’s care services” if she told anyone about their relationship, stating: “if you show them messages from me, I will show them messages from you.”

Deciding to strike him off the register, the watchdog found that Phillips showed “insufficient insight and no real remorse” for what he had done.

It said: “There has been a clear pattern of behaviour involving messages to a service user and pursuing a sexual relationship with her, which included personal visits to her home, and meeting outwith her home.

“You have shown insufficient insight and no real remorse for your actions. We cannot be assured that there is no risk of repetition. You have not provided comments to provide reassurance in lowering the risk of repetition.

“There is an ongoing risk to public protection and a reasonable person in possession of all the information would consider the reputation of the profession to be damaged if you were to remain able to practise without restriction.”

In conclusion, the watchdog said a removal order was the “most appropriate sanction” to maintain the “continuing trust and confidence in the social service profession and the SSSC as the regulator of the profession”.

The removal order came into effect on August 2.