|
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: 1101848- SUD (Substance Use Disorder) Investigator(s): Jason Pehler/ Anna Parkin 651-431-6225 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that a staff person (SP) had a romantic relationship with a vulnerable adult (VA). Date of Incident(s): On or around November 3, 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 remotely, including documentation from the facility and law enforcement records; and through three interviews conducted with three facility staff persons (P1, P2, and the SP). This investigator spoke to the VA via phone, but the VA declined to provide any additional information other than saying “nothing happened.” The VA was diagnosed with severe substance use disorder. The VA attended the facility from September 7 to November 11, 2022. According to the VA’s Individual Abuse Prevention Plan (IAPP), the VA was not susceptible to sexual abuse. The facility had two wings and each wing had a staff office and an adjacent locker room where each client had an assigned locker to store his/her personal belongings, including snacks. Staff persons, including the SP, assisted the client with accessing the locker room and unlocking the lockers for the client. The SP worked the afternoon shift that overlapped with the day and evening shifts. Generally, P1 and P2 worked the day shift and staffing for the evening shift consisted of the SP, another staff person, and a supervisory staff person who oversaw both wings. P1, P2, and the internal review provided the following information: · On November 3, 2022, a client (C) told P2 that the SP and the VA were in a “romantic relationship” and the VA had “love letters” and photographs from the SP in his/her wallet. The SP and the VA also went to the locker room to “make out.” · Later that afternoon, P2 met with the VA in P2’s office and asked if there was an inappropriate relationship between the VA and the SP. The VA denied an inappropriate relationship and denied any physical contact with the SP. P2 asked about love letters and photographs in the VA’s wallet and the VA denied having a wallet. · P2 requested to search the VA, who initially refused but then gave consent. The VA placed his/her cell phone and wallet on P2’s desk. P2 opened the VA’s wallet and inside were three photographs, two “love letters,” and two notes from the SP. P2 again asked the VA about a physical relationship and the VA denied physical contact occurred between the VA and the SP. Letters and photographs obtained by the facility showed the following: · Three photographs of the SP’s head and shoulders. On the back of each photograph the SP wrote messages including “lover,” “you make my heart happy,” and “I love you.” · A note that had the SP’s phone number and social media names and another note that said, “You jump, I jump. I was also informed you are by far the hottest [person] I have landed [sic] do with that information what you will.” · A letter from the SP to the VA that said, “Your arms around me makes everything quiet. Your kisses are a complete brain reboot. Being around you and the way you smell have a way of calming like aromatherapy.” · A second letter from the SP to the VA that said, “I won’t lie, the first time you kissed me I was very surprised,” and “If I could stay with you in the locker room for my whole shift I would.” (Note: There was no reference to a dream.) According to the law enforcement report, a law enforcement officer (LEO) interviewed the VA. The LEO told the VA that the LEO had letters and photographs that were given to the VA by the SP. The LEO asked the VA if there was a relationship between the SP and the VA and the VA denied any “unprofessional” relationship. The VA denied kissing the SP at the facility and denied any other physical contact between them. The LEO then called the SP, who denied a romantic relationship with the VA and said s/he “made things up in the letters” in reference to the kissing. The LEO closed the case. The SP stated that s/he had a “dream” about the VA and did not feel it was appropriate to talk to the VA so s/he wrote the letters and gave them to the VA. The SP stated s/he wrote about kissing the VA and how his/her brain shut off but it “never actually happened.” The SP also gave the VA some old social media pictures of the SP. When this investigator asked if it was clear in the letter that it was about the SP’s dream, the SP stated s/he did not know if s/he made that clear or not. The SP stated giving the VA photographs was “a lapse in judgement” and that s/he knew it was “not an okay thing to do.” The SP did not recall giving the VA two small notes. On an unknown date, the SP gave the VA his/her phone number and they have texted since the VA left the facility. The SP denied being alone with the VA and denied any physical or sexual contact between the SP and the VA. According to the facility’s incident report: · On November 14, 2022, P2 reviewed security video footage from a previous date when the VA and the SP were the only two persons at the facility (the other staff persons and clients were on an outing). The video footage showed that the SP and the VA spent “some” time together inside the tech office. There was no video footage available from inside the tech office to show what occurred. · On November 17, 2022, P1 reviewed security video footage showed thirteen times between October 20 and November 1, 2022, where the VA and the SP were in the hall and went inside the locker room without anyone else. These incidents lasted between 23 and 150 seconds. There was no video footage from inside the locker room. According to the facility’s policies, staff persons did not engage in any sexual behavior with clients including: sexual contact, physical, verbal, or act that was reasonably interpreted to have been sexually seductive while at the facility or within the following two years. The facility’s personnel files and training records documented that staff persons interviewed for this investigation were each trained on the VA’s plans, facility’s policies and procedures, and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Vulnerable Adults Act prior to the incident. Conclusion: Consistent information was provided that on unknown dates, the SP gave the VA two “love letters,” two notes, and three pictures of him/herself, which was inconsistent with the standards of a professional caregiver in a facility licensed by the Department of Human Services. The letters included information about the SP and the VA kissing. Although the SP told this investigator it was a “dream” and denied any physical contact with the VA, the SP had reason to minimize his/her actions for fear of repercussions. However, given that the VA and the SP each denied any sexual contact to this investigator and the LEO, and there was no additional information to support or refute P2’s information, there was not a preponderance of the evidence that 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 but not followed. The vulnerable adult reporting policy was reviewed at a staff meeting on November 14, 2022. 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.
|
