|
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: 1104284-H_CRS (Home and Community-Based Services-Community Residential Setting) Investigator(s): Tessa Ripka 651-431-6612 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that a staff person (SP) allowed a vulnerable adult (VA) to touch the SP inappropriately on multiple occasions. Date of Incident(s): Prior to January 2023, and ongoing 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 17, paragraph (a): The failure or omission by a caregiver to supply a vulnerable adult with care or services, including but not limited to food, clothing, shelter, health care, or supervision which is reasonable and necessary to obtain or maintain the vulnerable adult's physical or mental health or safety, considering the physical and mental capacity or dysfunction of the vulnerable adult and which is not the result of an accident or therapeutic conduct. Summary of Findings: Pertinent information was obtained during a site visit conducted on January 12, 2023; from documentation at the facility; and through eight interviews conducted with six facility staff persons (SP, P1, P2, P3, P4, P5), the VA’s guardian, and the VA. The VA was diagnosed with developmental disabilities, fetal alcohol, effect, and personality disorder. The VA enjoyed fishing. The Coordinated Service and Support Plan Addendum indicated that the VA had a “flirty” personality which could be perceived as inappropriate or make people feel uncomfortable. At times, the VA was intrusive and touched others without asking or permission. The touch was not always sexual in nature and could include touching someone on the shoulder. The Self-Management Assessment indicated that while the VA did not have a diagnosed sensory disorder, s/he did present as having a need for personal/human touch and at times had difficulty managing these boundaries with people of the opposite gender, often young and newer staff persons. The VA said that the staff persons at the home were “ok” and helped him/her out if needed. The VA did not have a favorite staff person and did not have any concerns with staff persons. P5 said that when the SP worked with the VA, the VA often placed his/her hand on the small of the SP’s back and rubbed the SP’s belly. At times, the VA then moved his/her hand to the SP’s intimate areas. Although this did not happen every time, it happened “more often than not.” At times, the VA did not let the SP through the front door of the facility unless the SP gave the VA a hug. On one occasion, the VA hugged the SP for a long period and then started rubbing the SP’s butt. The SP did not stop or correct the VA’s behavior. P1-P4 provided the following information: · The VA sometimes touched staff persons, usually ones that were the opposite gender. Typical touches might include: coming up behind the staff person and tapping his/her arms, bumping elbows, touching toes, and touching on the back. Staff persons told the VA to stop, stepped away, or put up a hand. The VA might need to be told to stop more than once. The behavior was not aggressive just more joking or playful. · P1 had seen the VA pat the belly of a staff person. The VA and the staff person had done that for many years and the VA joked and said, “here’s a baby.” P1 had not seen any inappropriate touches and felt staff persons held good boundaries with the VA. · P2 said that the VA occasionally touched staff persons. Each staff person had a different comfort level with the VA’s touching. P2 had not seen the VA touch any staff person in any intimate areas and did not have concerns with any of the staff person’s boundaries with the VA. · P3 said that if the VA touched staff persons too much, staff persons reminded the VA about personal space and the VA would stop. P3 had not seen the VA touch any staff person in any intimate areas and felt staff persons had appropriate boundaries with the VA. · A staff person told P4 that the VA was touching the SP in appropriate areas. P4 had seen the VA hug the SP but nothing more. P4 had no previous concerns with the SP. The SP provided the following information: · The VA sometimes touched people in a way that made them uncomfortable or nervous. If the VA made someone uncomfortable, staff persons told the VA not to touch them. If the VA continued to touch staff persons, it was noted in the VA’s documentation. · The SP and the VA had a “running joke” where the VA would touch the SP’s stomach and say “Who is the mom?” The VA had poked the SP’s stomach and hugged the SP. If the VA hugged or touched the SP’s stomach continually, the SP turned to the side and said, “that is enough” or “we need to be done now.” · The VA had never touched the SP’s intimate parts. The G said the VA had a history of touching people and may get angry if told to stop which could intimidate staff persons. The G had no prior concerns with staff persons or the facility. All staff persons interviewed were trained on the Reporting of Maltreatment of Vulnerable Adults Act and the VA’s program plan. Conclusion: P5 said the VA often touched the SP’s stomach, back, and intimate areas. The SP did not stop or correct the VA’s behavior. P1-P4 each reported that they had not observed the VA touch the SP in any intimate areas and had no concerns with any staff person’s boundaries with the VA. The SP said s/he had a running joke with the VA where the VA would touch the SP’s stomach and make comments. The VA at times also hugged the SP. If the hugging or touching continued, the SP told the VA that was enough or that, the VA needed to be done. The VA had never touched the SP’s intimate parts. Although P5 said that the SP allowed the VA to touch the SP’s intimate parts, given that P1-P4 each stated that they had never observed the VA touching the SP inappropriately, that the SP denied that the VA touched the SP’s intimate parts, and without any further information to confirm or refute the allegations, there was not a preponderance of the evidence whether the SP engaged in conduct that met the statutory definition of neglect. It was not determined whether neglect occurred (the failure or omission by a caregiver to supply a vulnerable adult with care or services, including but not limited to food, clothing, shelter, health care, or supervision which is reasonable and necessary to obtain or maintain the vulnerable adult's physical or mental health or safety, considering the physical and mental capacity or dysfunction of the vulnerable adult and which is not the result of an accident or therapeutic conduct). Action Taken by Facility: The facility completed an internal review and determined that policies and procedures were adequate and followed. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: No further action taken.
|
