|
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: 1089816-SUD (Substance Use Disorder) Investigator(s): Sarah Schumacher/Kyle Youker Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that a staff person (SP) had sexual contact with a vulnerable adult (VA) at the facility. Date of Incident(s): Unknown dates in 2020 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 : 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 October 6, 2022; from documentation at the facility; and through three interviews conducted with a facility supervisor (P), the SP, and a community person (CP). Additionally, attempts were made via U.S. Mail and telephone to contact and interview the VA but the attempts were not successful. However, the VA provided information to the CP so that information was included below. The facility was a single story residential substance use disorder treatment facility located on a lake in a rural setting. The facility included multiple long hallways, common areas, and staff person offices. One hallway was used to access all portions of the facility and was a high traffic area. All clients were assigned two-person rooms that were roughly 12’ x 12’ with twin beds and wall lockers. Facility documentation showed that on September 11, 2020, the VA was admitted to the facility and received substance use disorder treatment until October 19, 2020, when s/he was discharged. The VA was diagnosed with opioid dependence, major depressive disorder, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder. The VA was not subject to guardianship. The VA’s strengths were determination and intelligence. The VA’s goals were to remain abstinent from all mood altering substances and to build structure in his/her life. The CP provided the following information: · On September 23, 2022, the VA told the CP that s/he and the SP had sexual intercourse at least once in the VA’s room while the VA was a client at the facility. The sexual intercourse caused the VA to feel “uncomfortable” around individuals of the opposite gender and hindered the inability to have “normal relationships.” · The VA told the CP that the SP also had sexual contact with another facility client but did not provide a name or further details. (Note: Because this investigator was not able to contact and interview the VA, the identity of the other client remained unknown so no further information was available). · The VA did not tell the CP if the VA told anyone else, including anyone at the facility, about the SP. The P provided the following information: · The SP was “very good” at completing his/her assigned tasks. · The P stated that the SP “never has crossed a boundary with a client.” The P was unaware of any “inappropriate comments” or sexual contact by the SP involving any clients. There had been no previous reports of the SP having any relationship with clients or former clients. The SP provided the following information: · The SP’s primary duties included checking clients in and out of the facility and conducting rounds throughout the day to ensure clients were accounted for if they did not attend various treatment sessions. These rounds included occasional checks in the rooms of clients. · The process of checking on clients in their rooms involved knocking on the door and verbalizing “staff person entering” prior to entering the room. The doors to the rooms auto-closed and there was not a requirement to keep the doors open. · The SP stated that if s/he were to be uncomfortable entering a client’s room alone, s/he could request a second staff person to accompany him/her. · The SP recalled the VA being a client at the facility approximately two years prior, though s/he could not remember the exact date. The SP could not recall any specific interactions with the VA, including any that would lead someone to think there was any type of sexual relationship between him/her and the VA. The SP did not recall any times in which s/he was alone with the VA. · The SP denied sexual contact with the VA or any other client. The SP also denied sexual contact with any client outside the facility. The SP said “it’s disgusting” that someone would say that s/he had sexual contact with a client. · The facility had a no-communication policy with former clients that lasted for two years. During that two years, staff persons were not allowed to initiate any contact with former clients whatsoever other than incidental contact in the community. The SP denied any contact with the VA outside the facility. Facility documentation showed that the SP and the P were each trained on facility policies and procedures, the VA’s plans, and on the Reporting of Maltreatment of Vulnerable Adult’s Act. Conclusion: Although the CP said that the VA told him/her that the SP had sexual intercourse with the VA, the VA did not respond to this investigator's attempts for an interview and no other additional information was provided. The P stated that the SP “never crossed a boundary with a client,” and that there were no previous reports of the SP having a sexual relationship with any facility clients. Given that the SP denied the allegations and there was no further information to either corroborate or refute the allegations, there was not a preponderance of the evidence whether the SP had sexual contact with the VA. 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 conducted an internal review and determined that policies and procedures were adequate and followed. There was no retraining given to staff. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: No further action taken.
|
