Abbi Rutherford

Introduction

Abbi Rutherford is a children’s and young people’s worker from Dunfermline in Fife, Scotland, who was struck off the social services register after assaulting a boy in her care at a local residential unit. The Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC) removed Rutherford from its register for children and young people’s workers, ruling that her behaviour was “fundamentally incompatible” with remaining in the profession. Before the regulatory action, Rutherford had been convicted at Dunfermline Sheriff Court of assaulting the child — referred to in official documents only as AA — while he was in her care. The Removal Order took effect on May 6, ending her registration with the regulator.

Background Information

Rutherford worked as a sessional practitioner for Moore House School Ltd, based at Moore House Primary at Buchanan House, Upper Steelend, near Dunfermline. The service was a residential unit caring for looked-after youngsters, and AA was a looked-after child living at the service where Rutherford worked. A sessional role of that kind placed her in direct, day-to-day contact with vulnerable children — precisely the position of trust that the SSSC’s rules for social service workers exist to protect.

In April 2024, during the course of her employment there, Rutherford assaulted a child in her care. On November 26, 2024, she was convicted of that assault at Dunfermline Sheriff Court. The child she assaulted was AA, the looked-after youngster at the service.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Adjudicated. Rutherford’s conviction at Dunfermline Sheriff Court on November 26, 2024 for assaulting a child in her care is a matter of court record; the account below rests on that conviction and the regulator’s response.

According to the SSSC decision, Rutherford slapped AA on the face during the course of her employment and then wiped blood on his face. Regulators said her actions had the potential to cause “significant physical and emotional harm” to the child and emotional harm to others who witnessed what happened.

In detailed written reasons, the council stressed that social service workers are trusted to care for “the most vulnerable members of society” and are expected to keep people in their care safe from abuse and harm. It said workers must not put service users at unnecessary risk or behave, inside or outside work, in a way that calls their suitability into question.

The decision said Rutherford’s conduct was an abuse of the trust placed in her by the child, his family and the public, and that it fell “far below” the standard expected of a caring professional. It found she had breached several sections of the SSSC Code of Practice for Social Service Workers, which sets out how staff must treat children and young people using services.

Public Reaction and Consequences

Panel members concluded that Rutherford had shown no insight into her behaviour. They said they could not be confident there was no risk of repetition and warned there was an ongoing risk to public protection if she were allowed to continue practising without restriction. A reasonable member of the public, they added, would see the reputation of the profession as damaged if no firm regulatory action was taken.

Although Rutherford had not previously come to the attention of the SSSC, the panel said that could not be treated as a mitigating factor, because this case involved harm to a child in her care and degrading treatment. The behaviour took place at work, involved a service user and represented a serious abuse of a position of trust.

Investigators considered issuing a warning, placing conditions on her practice or imposing a suspension, but ruled each of these out. They said her behaviour was at “the higher end of the scale of seriousness” and reflected “serious values issues that are not easily remediable”. The SSSC accordingly imposed a Removal Order striking her from the register, and it took effect on May 6.

Current Status

Rutherford is struck off the SSSC register for children and young people’s workers. The Removal Order took effect on May 6, and it rests on the panel’s findings that she showed no insight and that there was an ongoing risk to public protection if she were allowed to continue practising without restriction. The regulator’s published decision stands as the record of both the findings against her and the sanction imposed. No appeal against the SSSC Removal Order was reported.

Impact on Their Career/Life

The Removal Order ended Rutherford’s registered career in children’s and young people’s services in Scotland. Having been removed from the register for children and young people’s workers, she can no longer practise in that registered role — excluding her both from sessional work of the kind she performed for Moore House School Ltd and from any comparable post requiring SSSC registration. The panel’s conclusion that her behaviour was “fundamentally incompatible” with remaining in the profession placed the conduct — slapping a looked-after child in her care and wiping blood on his face — beyond the lesser sanctions of warning, conditions or suspension, each of which the investigators expressly ruled out as inadequate for behaviour at “the higher end of the scale of seriousness”.