Livingston care worker struck off for 'borrowing' money from vulnerable client and accepting gold rings
The panel ruled that her actions undermined public confidence in the social care profession.
A Livingston care worker has been struck off after ‘borrowing’ money from a vulnerable person she supported as well as accepting two gifts from another service user.
Abygirl Zaranyika was removed from Scottish Social Services Council Register following a fitness to practice hearing held between October 12 and October 15.
The panel found that Zaranyika had borrowed £50 from one service user after disclosing her own financial difficulty, but had failed to repay the money.
She had also accepted gifts from the client, including tea towels and miniature bottles of whiskey and gin.
In a separate incident, Zaranyika had also accepted two gold rings from another service user between March and July 2025.
The allegations related to her employment as a Community Care Worker by Blessing Grace Limited at Cura.
Zaranyika admitted to accepting the gifts, sharing personal information about her circumstances and borrowing the £50. She also admitted to accepting the two gold rings.
However, she denied asking the client to order her Highland cow coasters and failing to repay the borrowed money.
The panel found the allegation about the coasters was not proven, but ruled that she failed to repay the £50.
During the meeting, Zaranyika told the panel she had not intended to take advantage of the service users and said she had not been able to repay the money because she had been instructed not to contact the client following her employer's investigation.
She also said the gifts had been offered voluntarily and that she now understood she should have declined them.
Zaranyika apologised for her conduct and told the panel she recognised that she had breached professional boundaries.
However, the panel said her actions amounted to an abuse of the trust and power she held over vulnerable people.
It said that both service users had experienced anxiety and distress following the incidents, with the client feeling exploited after lending her money which had not been returned.
The panel noted that neither the money nor the gifts had been returned by the time of the hearing.
Therefore the panel ruled that her fitness to practice was impaired by misconduct and said allowing her to remain on the register would undermine public confidence in the social care profession.
A removal order was imposed, with the panel concluding that lesser sanctions, including a warning or suspension, would not adequately protect service users or address the seriousness of the misconduct.