|
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: 1071790-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) and vulnerable adult (VA) had sexual intercourse on multiple occasions for four years. Date of Incident(s): unknown 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 October 20, 2022; from documentation at the facility; and through seven interviews conducted with two supervisory staff persons (P1 and P2), three facility staff persons (P3, P4, and the SP), the VA, and the VA’s case manager (CM). Attempts were made via phone and mail to contact and interview a staff person (P5), but P5 did not respond. The facility had two staff persons working overnights, one was awake and the other was asleep but assisted the awake staff person if needed. The SP mainly worked the awake overnight shift and P3 and P4 mainly worked the overnight asleep shift. The overnight asleep staff person slept in the staff bedroom, which was located on the main level next to the VA’s bedroom. The VA was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and was not subject to guardianship. The VA had a significant other (SO) and spent the majority of Thursdays to Mondays at the SO’s residence. The VA also worked a full time job. According to the VA’s Risk Assessment Detail, the VA did not present a risk to defend him/herself against abuse; to report abuse to the appropriate persons; to engage in safe sex practices; and for behaviors which provoked abuse by other persons. The VA was allowed up to eight hours unsupervised time at the community and up to eight hours unsupervised time at the facility. According to the VA’s Team Meeting Minutes dated September 21, 2022, the VA wanted to live independently and the VA’s team agreed that the VA was allowed to not stay at the facility on the weekends. The VA had a driver’s license and own his/her own vehicle but staff persons provided transportation to the VA if needed. The VA provided the following information: · On a previous date, approximately four years prior to this investigation, the SP gave the VA a ride to the VA’s employer. While in the facility vehicle, the SP rubbed the VA’s leg. After that, on approximately three or four previous occasions while the SP worked at the facility, the SP drove the VA to a hotel and they had sexual intercourse. The SP paid for the hotel room. On approximately three other occasions, the VA and the SP had sexual intercourse in the facility vehicle. · On approximately ten other previous occasions, the VA and the SP had sexual intercourse at the facility, including in the living room, in the basement, and in the VA’s bedroom. The other overnight staff person was asleep in the staff bedroom and no other staff person was aware of the sexual intercourse between the VA and the SP. The last time the VA and the SP had sexual intercourse was approximately seven months prior to this investigation. · The SP “promised” the VA money in exchange for sexual intercourse. The VA estimated that the SP paid the VA approximately 17 times after sexual intercourse by giving the VA cash or allowing the VA to use the SP’s personal credit card. The VA did not have verification of these purchases. The most recent time was approximately two months prior to this investigation and over the course of the four years the VA estimated that the SP paid him/her approximately $3,000. · The SP gave the VA a vehicle in approximately the summer of 2021. One or two months later, the VA sold it to a family member for $800. When this investigator asked the VA if any staff persons at the facility knew about the vehicle, the VA stated, “No, I don’t know.” The VA stated that staff persons were controlling and s/he wanted to move out of the facility. The CM stated on October 5, 2022, the VA called the CM and left three voicemails during the night. The voicemails included the VA saying that the SP had sexual intercourse with the VA and that the SP paid the VA for sexual intercourse. Later that day, the CM called the VA back and the VA said the sexual intercourse had been going on for approximately four years but ended ten months prior. The SP had also given the VA a vehicle. The CM asked the VA why s/he was telling him/her about that at that time, and the VA responded that s/he did not want to hold in a secret any longer. The VA was “accurate” and “reliable” with providing information. P3 and P4 generally worked the asleep overnight shift but P3 also worked some afternoon shifts with the SP. P3 and P4 did not have concerns with the SP’s interactions with clients, including the VA. P1 and P2 provided the following information: · P1 and P2 each stated they were not aware of the allegations prior to this investigation. P1 said that a few days prior to the interview, the VA discussed not paying rent and moving to another location. The VA did not discuss the allegations with P1. P2 stated that the VA had been recently having issues with staff persons in general, including calling staff persons names and demanding his/her medication. · P1 and P2 did not have concerns with the SP’s interactions with clients. P1 could not think of a time when s/he saw the SP and the VA interact because the VA was often at his/her employment or the SO’s house when the SP worked. · P1 and P2 were not aware that the SP gave the VA a vehicle. P2 stated that the VA had his/her own vehicle so s/he did not rely on staff persons to drive him/her places. P1 and P2 were not aware that the SP gave the VA money and P2 stated that the VA “begged” all staff persons for cash. P2 stated that the VA was not able to provide accurate information as s/he cannot stay on one topic and discussed multiple things at one time. The SP stated that prior to the VA purchasing a vehicle, when the SP worked, s/he drove the VA to and from his/her employer but the rest of his/her interactions were limited because the VA was “independent.” The SP denied giving the VA a vehicle, denied having sexual intercourse with the VA, and denied giving the VA money or allowing the VA to use the SP’s personal credit card. The SP also denied bringing the VA to a hotel. 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 stated that on multiple occasions over the previous four years, the VA and the SP had sexual intercourse at a hotel, at the facility, and in the facility vehicle. In exchange, the SP gave the VA cash or allowed the VA to use the SP’s personal credit card totaling approximately $3,000. The SP also gave the VA a vehicle. The SP denied sexual intercourse with the VA, denied giving the VA cash and his/her personal credit card to use, and denied giving the VA a vehicle. Although the CM stated that the VA was an “accurate” and “reliable” with providing information, P2 stated that the VA was not able to provide accurate information as s/he cannot stay on one topic and discussed multiple things at one time. In addition, the VA stated that the SP gave the VA money for sexual contact, but also said that the last time they had sexual contact was seven months prior to the investigation and that the SP gave the VA money two months prior to the investigation. Given the conflicting information regarding the VA’s accuracy of information, that P1-P4 did not have concerns with the SP’s interactions with the VA; that P1 and P2 were not aware of the SP giving the VA a vehicle or cash; and that there was no additional information to support or refute the VA’s claims; there was not a preponderance of the evidence whether the SP and the VA had sexual contact. 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 was moved to another facility location. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: No further action taken at this time.
|
