Law limits restitution payments in another theft case
Jul. 16—SALEM — A former nanny and special education teacher who admitted last year to stealing nearly $160,000 from a Manchester couple while caring for their children was ordered Wednesday to begin paying $325 a month in restitution.
Even if Rebecca "Becki" Carson, 38, of Gloucester, pays that amount for each of the 36 months she's set to be on probation, however, it will come to just a fraction of the amount she took — a situation a Lawrence Superior Court judge acknowledged during the restitution hearing.
Judge Jeff Karp told the victims' attorney, John Prendergast, that he understands the couple's sense of being victimized and that Carson destroyed their trust, and shared their view she "should really repay every single dollar she stole."
"I'm just constrained by what I can do because the Supreme Judicial Court in the Henry case, and other cases, has ruled that payment of restitution can't ... make it so she can't pay for human necessities," Karp said. "I'm trying to basically balance Ms. Carson's responsibility to her family and her responsibility to the Rosses and follow the law."
That case law was established nearly a decade ago in the case of a woman named Kim Henry, who worked at the Salem Walmart until she was caught not charging friends for some of the items in their carts at the checkout. Henry, in her 50s, was unable to find new work after being released from jail, and spent years on probation because she could not afford restitution payments to the retailer.
The ruling addressed circumstances that led to low-income defendants being on probation for years longer than more well-off people. But it has also led to situations in which people convicted in large-scale embezzlement and theft are frequently absolved of making full restitution, often to small-business owners or individuals.
In the Carson case, the victims, Mark and Cynthia Ross, have also obtained a $124,000 civil judgment against Carson.
During Wednesday's hearing, Prendergast pressed the judge to inquire as to Carson's sources of income and access to funds. But that drew objections from Carson's attorney, Edward McNaught, who accused the civil attorney of trying to use the hearing as a backdoor means of trying to collect on that civil judgment.
McNaught said both Carson and her husband, who are parents of a 1-year-old born shortly before Carson went to jail, have been on unemployment. Carson is rebuilding her independent businesses as a "virtual assistant" and selling "Young Living" oils, a multi-level marketing sales business.
"I know plaintiff's counsel believes there is some money stashed away somewhere," McNaught told the judge.
He said that while his client does have some income left at the end of the month, she is also facing a tax bill soon as a self-employed person. But Prendergast interjected that Carson hadn't paid taxes on the money she took from his clients.
That's when Karp acknowledged the victims' frustration, but explained the limits of the law.
Karp said he set the monthly payments at $325 a month based on what he saw on a financial form he had requested and an estimated discretionary income of around $455 a month. He left the door open for either the probation department or Carson's attorney to return to court if her financial circumstances change "either way."
Courts reporter Julie Manganis can be reached at 978-338-2521, by email at jmanganis@salemnews.com or on Twitter at @SNJulieManganis.
