|
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: 1076492-CRF (Children’s Residential Facility) Investigator(s): Kimberly Anderson/Kyle Youker Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that a staff person (SP) embraced a vulnerable adult (VA) in a tight hug and rubbed the VA’s genitals. The next day the SP touched the VA inappropriately again and kissed the VA on the lips. Date of Incident(s): August 5 and August 6, 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 for this investigation was obtained during a site visit conducted on August 31, 2022; documentation from the facility and law enforcement records; and through three interviews conducted with the VA, the supervisory staff person (P), and the SP. The facility provided shelter and housing options for youth between the ages of sixteen and twenty-four who were experiencing homelessness. Facility documentation showed that on July 28, 2022, the VA was admitted to the facility. The VA provided information at that time that s/he was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, anxiety, and depression. The VA’s strengths were staying positive, discussing healthy coping mechanisms, and living his/her “truth.” The VA’s goals included having better eating habits, making friends, and being consistent with his/her therapy. The VA was not subject to guardianship. The VA provided the following information: · The VA described the SP as someone who worked “mostly” on the weekends cooking, cleaning, and providing supervision to the residents. The SP consistently asked the VA about what the VA liked and did not like which made the VA feel “suspicious.” The VA said that s/he frequently visited with the SP alone in the office to “have someone to talk to” because s/he felt the SP “favored me.” The VA described being favored by the SP as the SP “seemed to like me.” · At an unknown time, on the evening of August 5, 2022, the VA was in his/her bedroom while the SP was doing room checks. The SP knocked on the VA’s door and asked if the VA was “okay.” The VA did not initially respond, so the SP asked a second time. The SP then entered the VA’s bedroom and asked the VA, “What’s going on?” The SP then told the VA, “Come here,” and the SP hugged the VA for about one and a half minutes. · The VA stated that at one point during the hug the SP “grazed” the VA’s genitals and made a facial expression as if it was an accident. The SP then asked the VA if s/he was hungry, and the VA said, “Yes.” The SP then drove to and purchased McDonald’s. The SP then told the VA that s/he “really liked me.” · On August 6, 2022, at approximately 6 a.m. the VA awoke from having a “surreal nightmare” and began screaming. The SP entered the VA’s room and asked if the VA was “okay.” The VA went with the SP to the staff office where the SP closed the door and “came in for a hug again.” · The VA said that the SP told the VA, “Don’t tell anyone.” The SP then took a mask the VA was wearing off the VA and put it into the VA’s hooded sweatshirt. The SP kissed the VA on lips once and touched the VA’s “upper body.” The SP attempted to kiss the VA a second time but the VA turned his/her head to avoid the kiss. The VA stated that the SP “got the sign I am not interested” and the VA left the staff office and went into the facility kitchen. The VA could not tell if the SP’s touching was sexual in nature. All of the touching by the SP was done over the VA’s clothing. At some point, the VA told his/her sibling about the incident and the sibling told the VA that the VA should tell someone at the facility. The VA then told the P about the incidents. The Critical Incident Reporting Form written by the P stated that on August 5, 2022, the VA reported an interaction between the SP and the VA made the VA “feel unsafe.” The SP was doing room checks and SP hugged the VA “grazed” the VA’s genitals. On August 6, 2022, the VA had a nightmare so the SP invited the VA to the staff office where at some point kissed the VA on the lips once. The SP attempted to kiss the VA a second time but the VA moved his/her head away to avoid the second kiss. The VA then left the staff office and went to the kitchen. While in the kitchen, the VA heard the SP coming so the VA went into his/her bedroom and locked the door. The P said that when s/he learned of the incident, s/he went to the facility and checked the cameras. There was a camera in the staff office, however the location in which the incident occurred was out of frame of the camera. At some point the P, talked to the SP and when the topic of the incident between the SP and the VA was brought up the SP “seemed confused, but not shocked.” An interview with the SP provided the following information: · The SP did not have much interaction with the VA other than occasionally making him/her food. The SP stated that s/he was only in the VA’s bedroom on one occasion when the window was broken and the SP attempted to fix it. The SP denied hugging the VA, touching the VA’s leg, and/or removing the mask from the VA and kissing the VA on the lips. · Later in the interview the SP provided conflicting information saying that s/he hugged the VA in the staff office after the VA had a “bad dream.” The SP then stated that s/he massaged the hand of the VA because the VA had a “muscle cramp.” The SP also massaged the shoulders of the VA because the VA “looked tired.” The SP denied massaging the VA’s leg or genital area. The SP and the VA were in the staff office between 10 to 15 minutes before the VA left the office. The SP denied that s/he had sexual intent regarding massaging the VA. The SP interviewed with law enforcement in the presence of his/her significant other. The SP provided information to law enforcement that was consistent with the information that s/he provided to this investigator. The SP “insisted the allegations against him/her were false” and denied kissing the VA. Facility documentation shows that all staff persons interviewed, including the SP, were trained on the facility’s policies and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Vulnerable Adults Abuse Act. Facility documentation shows the SP was last trained on June 18, 2021, which was a violation of Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.65, subdivision 3; and Minnesota Rules, part 2960.0100, subpart 3, item A which states in part that the license holder shall ensure that mandated reporters receive annual training on the reporting of maltreatment requirements. Conclusion: The VA stated that the SP hugged the VA, grazed the VA’s genitals, kissed the VA one time, and touched the VA’s “upper body”. The VA also stated that when the SP grazed the VA’s genitals, the SP made a facial expression as if it was an accident and that s/he could not tell if the SP’s touching was sexual in nature. The SP provided conflicting information regarding hugging the VA. The SP initially denied hugging the VA but then stated that s/he did hug the VA. The SP also said that s/he massaged the VA’s hand and shoulders because the VA was stressed and had “muscle cramps” but denied that it was done with sexual intent and denied kissing the VA. Given the conflicting information provided between the VA and the SP, that there was no information to support or refute either account, there was not a preponderance of the evidence whether the SP’s actions were intentional or done with sexual or aggressive intent. It was not determined whether sexual abuse occurred (sexual contact is defined as 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 the SP touched the VA both with a back massage and a hand massage. The facility determined that all policies and procedures were adequate and followed, and there was no need to retrain staff persons. The SP no longer worked at the facility. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: On January 25, 2023 the facility was issued a Correction Order for the violation outlined in this report.
|
