Nursing and Midwifery Council determination — substantive hearing

Struck off the register

The regulator’s term: erasure

What does “struck off the register” mean?

Being struck off (the regulator calls this "erasure") removes the practitioner from the register. They are no longer permitted to practise this profession in the UK. Erasure can be reviewed after a minimum of five years, but is otherwise indefinite.

Concerning Caroline Seabrook, nurse (Nursing and Midwifery Council 14I2282E).

Decision date: 13 April 2026 · Hearing started 9 April 2026 and ended 13 April 2026

In plain English

The NMC's Fitness to Practise Committee found that Caroline Seabrook, a Band 7 mental health nurse, formed an inappropriate relationship with a 16-year-old child service user, gave him lifts and drugs, drove under the influence with him in the car, and continued contact after her employer told her to stop. She was twice convicted of drink and drug driving. The panel found her fitness to practise impaired and ordered her to be struck off the register, with an 18-month interim suspension order.

Charges

While employed as a Band 7 Team Manager in NHS mental health services and not on shift, between 14 July and 2 August 2021, Ms Seabrook engaged in communication with a 16-year-old child service user (Child Service User A); met him in person; gave him lifts in her car; invited him to her home; provided and/or permitted him to take cocaine in her presence; and drove under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs with him in the car. She continued contact after being told not to by her employer on 27 July 2021 and failed to maintain records of her interactions. She was convicted on 30 September 2021 for driving whilst intoxicated and on 21 September 2021 for driving whilst under the influence of cocaine. The panel found these actions formed an inappropriate relationship and breached professional boundaries.

Findings

The panel found Charges 1 (in respect of one limb), 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e (in respect of cocaine), 2f, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 proved, and Charge 1 (in respect of another limb) and 2e (in respect of alcohol) not proved. It found Ms Seabrook's actions amounted to misconduct, breaching multiple provisions of the Code, and that her conduct exposed a particularly vulnerable child to serious harm and brought the profession into disrepute. With no engagement, insight, remorse or remediation evidenced, the panel concluded there remained a real risk of repetition. Her fitness to practise was found currently impaired by reason of misconduct and her two convictions, on grounds of public protection and the wider public interest.

Mitigating factors

Ms Seabrook's personal circumstances during the relevant period.

Aggravating factors

Abuse of a position of trust; misconduct involved a particularly vulnerable child; actual harm caused to Child Service User A; pattern of misconduct over a period of time rather than an isolated incident; failure to engage in the Fitness to Practise process; absence of insight; no remorse; no remediation; two serious convictions, the second of which took place two days after the first offence.

Source

All facts on this page are drawn from the publicly published Nursing and Midwifery Council determination linked below. MedicWatch does not editorialise the regulator’s findings.

Spot something incorrect?

If a fact on this page is wrong, or you believe the page should not be published, please submit a correction or takedown request.