|
MALTREATMENT INVESTIGATION MEMORANDUM Minnesota Statutes, section 626.557, subdivision 1 states, “The legislature declares that the public policy of this state is to protect adults who, because of physical or mental disability or dependency on institutional services, are particularly vulnerable to maltreatment.”
License Number and Program Type: 1069241-H_CRS (Home and Community-Based Services-Community Residential Setting) Investigator(s): Anna Parkin Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that a staff person (SP) had sexual contact with a vulnerable adult (VA). Date of Incident(s): April 10, 2022 Nature of Alleged Maltreatment Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 626.557, subdivision 9c, paragraph (b), and Minnesota Statutes, section 626.5572, subdivision 15, and subdivision 2, paragraph (c): Any sexual contact or penetration between a facility staff person or a person providing services in the facility and a resident, patient, or client of that facility. Sexual contact is defined by Minnesota Statutes, section 609.341, as the intentional touching of the intimate parts with sexual or aggressive intent. 'Intimate parts' includes the primary genital area, groin, inner thigh, buttocks, and breast. Summary of Findings: Pertinent information was obtained during a site visit conducted on May 12, 2022; from documentation at the facility and law enforcement records; and through four interviews conducted with a supervisory staff person (P), the SP, the VA’s guardian (G), and the VA’s case manager (CM). The VA was not interviewed for this report because she had been interviewed by law enforcement and that information is included below. The VA was diagnosed with autism and post-traumatic stress disorder. According to the VA’s Individual Abuse Prevention Plan (IAPP), the VA had a history that included being a victim of sexual abuse as recent as 2021. Staff persons were aware of the VA’s needs and activities, were within visual or auditory range of the VA, and responded to situations. Staff persons verbally encouraged the VA to advocate for herself and encouraged her to report any abuse “accurately.” If the VA was in a sexually abusive situation, staff persons intervened “as necessary” to protect the VA’s health and safety. Staff persons redirected the VA to a safe area and reported any sexual abuse allegations according to the lead agency requirements. The VA provided the following information to a law enforcement officer (LEO): · Approximately one month prior to the conversation with the LEO, the VA and the SP found a stray dog. They drove around in the facility vehicle to locate the owner and during that time, they had sexual intercourse. · The VA did not want the SP to get in trouble and stated it was “not [the SP’s] fault.” The VA asked for an attorney and did not provide any additional information. The G provided the following information: · On April 11, 2022, the VA called the G crying and said that the day prior, the VA and a staff person (the VA did not say a name) had sexual intercourse. The VA asked the G to come pick her up at the facility and the G refused. Shortly after, the VA called the G and said she had lied about the allegations and that she did not want to lose her chance to move to another facility location. The G then called the P about the allegations, who said they would look into it. · On April 26, 2022, the VA called the G and said she was concerned that she was possibly pregnant. The VA would not tell the G who possibly got her pregnant. The G brought the VA to a medical appointment and a pregnancy test came back negative. · On April 30, 2022, the VA called the G and said she felt “guilty” about the incident and told the G that it was the SP who she had sexual intercourse with but she did not want to get the SP in trouble. The VA said that on April 10, 2022, the SP and the VA found a stray dog outside the facility and they decided to drive around and find the owner. While driving around, the SP and the VA engaged in sexual intercourse in a vehicle. · The VA had the ability to provide accurate information but also could be “very manipulative.” The P stated on an unknown date, the G called the P about the allegations. The same day, the P received an email from the CM saying that the VA said she had sexual intercourse with the SP but then later said she lied about it. There was a client (C) who also resided at the facility that the VA wanted a relationship with and was trying to make jealous so the VA told the C that she had sexual intercourse with the SP. The VA could have possibly recanted because she wanted to move to another facility location and did not want to slow the move. The VA was able to provide accurate information but also fabricated stories, including ones about the C. The CM stated on April 11, 2022, the VA called the CM and said she “messed up” because she lied to the C and told the C that while driving around with the SP with the stray dog, the VA and the SP had sexual intercourse in the facility vehicle. The VA told the C about the incident to get him/her “mad” but then was “worried” that the SP would get terminated from his/her position. The VA was “adamant” that she did not have sexual intercourse with the SP. The CM encouraged the VA to write a letter to the SP as a way of being “accountable” and the VA agreed. The CM then notified the P and the G via email. The VA had a history of “manipulating” other persons and “engage[d] in impulsive decision making.” The VA also “bend[ed] the truth.” The SP stated on the date of the incident, at approximately 6 p.m., the VA found a stray dog at the facility. For approximately a half hour, the SP and the VA drove around in the facility vehicle with the dog trying to locate the owner. They went to “two or three” houses near the facility to ask if anyone knew the dog and stopped at a gas station to purchase something to drink. They then returned to the facility, the SP gave the VA and other clients their medication, and left for the night. The SP denied having sexual intercourse or any physical contact with the VA. The facility’s personnel files and training records documented that staff persons interviewed for this investigation, including the SP, were each trained on the VA’s plans and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Vulnerable Adults Act prior to the incident.
Conclusion: The VA provided information to the LEO and the G that on April 10, 2022, while in the facility vehicle with a stray dog, the VA and the SP had sexual intercourse. On April 26, 2022, the VA went to the doctor because she thought she was possibly pregnant but the test results were negative. The VA told the CM that she lied about having sexual intercourse with the SP but later told the G that they had and she did not want the allegations to slow down moving to another facility. The SP provided consistent information that they drove around in the facility vehicle with a stray dog but the SP denied sexual intercourse. Given that the VA provided conflicting information, that the SP denied the allegations, and that there was no additional information to support or refute the VA’s information about the incident, there was not a preponderance of the evidence whether the VA and the SP had sexual intercourse. It was not determined whether sexual abuse occurred (Any sexual contact or penetration between a facility staff person or a person providing services in the facility and a resident, patient, or client of that facility. Sexual contact is defined by Minnesota Statutes, section 609.341, as the intentional touching of the intimate parts with sexual or aggressive intent. 'Intimate parts' includes the primary genital area, groin, inner thigh, buttocks, and breast). Action Taken by Facility: The facility completed an internal review and determined that policies and procedures were adequate and followed. The SP no longer worked at the facility. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: No further action taken at this time.
|
