|
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: 801093-SUD (Substance Use Disorder) Investigator(s): Kyle Youker/ Anna Parkin 651-431-4056 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was alleged that a staff person (SP) had a personal relationship, including sexual contact, with a vulnerable adult (VA) at the facility. Date of Incident(s): October 11 to December 27, 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 was obtained during a site visit conducted on January 24, 2022; from documentation at the facility; and through five interviews conducted with the VA, the SP, a supervisory staff person (P1), a staff person (P2), and a client (C) who also received services at the facility. The facility had two stories. . On the first floor was a kitchen that had a door to a parking lot, a large communal office with windows facing the hallway known as the “RA office,” and secondary offices next to and across from the RA office. The SP’s office was across from the RA’s office. The second floor was accessed by stairs or an elevator and had long hallways, with the resident rooms. Consistent information was provided that the VA gave the SP a drawing that had the VA’s cell phone number on it and the SP hung up the drawing in his/her office. Facility documentation showed that on October 11, 2022, the VA was admitted to the facility and received substance use disorder treatment until December 27, 2022. The VA was diagnosed with stimulant addiction and adjustment disorder. The VA’s goal was to remain sober and get off probation. The VA was not subject to guardianship. The C stated that s/he met the VA met while at the facility. The VA and SP “talk[ed] a lot” and the SP picked the VA up from the facility and drove the VA in the SP’s personal vehicle. The VA left through the kitchen door at these times. The VA and SP texted two or three times per week. On December 21, 2022, the SP texted the VA to erase the text messages. The C stated that the VA’s and the SP’s relationship “seemed like more than a friendship.” The VA provided the following information: · The VA initially denied but later said that s/he sent text messages to the SP but the messages were “never inappropriate.” The VA got the SP’s phone number by seeing it in the open, in the RA office and the VA texted the SP first. The text messages were “basically, just that I was doing well.” The VA initially stated s/he deleted the text messages because “it seemed like something you weren’t supposed to do”, but later acknowledged that the SP told him/her to delete the messages. The VA initially denied, then acknowledged that after leaving the facility, s/he sent a video of his/her new apartment to the SP. · In early November 2022, the VA gave the SP a drawing with his/her phone number as a joke and the VA told the SP, “I’m shooting my shot” by giving the SP his/her phone number. · The VA talked to the SP in the SP’s office, but “never in private.” The VA estimated that s/he spent 15-20 minutes talking to the SP in his/her office each time. The VA denied placing his/her hand on the SP’s thigh, denied being in the SP’s personal vehicle, and denied having sexual contact with the SP. P2 provided the following information: · The VA “always” spent time in the SP’s office and they were “very friendly.” On an unknown date, P2 walked past the SP’s office and saw the VA and the SP sitting next to each other and the VA’s hand was on the SP’s thigh “intimate.” P2 continued to walk past the office and did not say anything at that time. · The SP “always” came back after his/her shift to pick up the VA from drug court. P2 said that was not necessary since P2 or another staff person were able to but the SP “always” wanted to do it when there was no other clients. The SP then drove the VA back in his/her personal vehicle rather than the facility vehicle. · On December 25, 2022, P2 received a notification on his/her cell phone that the SP was typing a message to him/her on Snapchat but the SP did not send the message. (Snapchat is a messaging application for smart phones. Messages are automatically deleted after being read by the recipient. When the sender is typing a message the recipient receives a notification that the sender is typing a message). P2 was standing next to the C at this time, and heard P2 say, “Why [the SP] texting me?” The C then went and told the VA that the SP texted P2. · Later on that day, the SP texted the P2 to tell the VA to “delete the messages off of [the VA] phone.” P2 stated s/he was “gullible and naïve” and “didn’t think [the SP] would do anything like this.” P2 went and told the VA to delete the messages from the SP and the VA got “flushed in the face.” · On December 26, 2022, the C told P2 that the VA and the SP were “hanging out in [the SP’s] own vehicle” and that “[the VA] said that they had been sleeping together.” P2 later went and told P1 the above information. P1 stated part of the SP’s job duties was to bring clients, including the VA, to the courthouse for drug court. There were times when staff persons came back to the facility and drove clients to and from drug court if there were not enough staff persons working. Clients were allowed to have personal cell phones while at the facility. P1 did not have concerns about the SP’s behavior prior to this allegation. The SP provided the following information: · The VA gave the SP a drawing with his/her phone number on it and the SP kept it and hung it up in his/her office. The SP considered the VA’s drawing “a pickup line.” The SP stated s/he texted with the VA and the messages were similar to “Merry Christmas” and “Happy New Year.” The SP acknowledged the VA sent a video of the VA’s apartment after the VA was discharged from the facility. The SP said s/he deleted the text messages with the VA so staff persons would not “knowing we are talking outside of work.” When asked about texting with the VA, the SP stated, “I shouldn’t have done that.” · The SP previously told the VA and P2 to delete the text messages because s/he did not want other staff persons “knowing we were talking outside of work.” The SP denied the text messages contained anything “sexual in nature.” The SP stated that s/he was not supposed to text persons served by the program including the VA. · The SP denied picking up the VA outside of work hours, denied driving the VA in his/her personal vehicle and denied having sexual contact with the VA, including the VA’s hand on the SP’s thigh. The facility Client Log showed that while the VA was at the facility, the SP transported the VA to various locations a total of 14 times, approximately two hours each time. The SP was clocked-in each time according to facility Timesheets. The Personal Involvement with Client and Client Abuse policy stated, “Staff must maintain professional boundaries with [the facility] clients,” and “All staff are strictly prohibited from fraternizing with [the facility] clients.” Facility documentation shows the SP was trained on the Personal Involvement with Client and Client Abuse policy and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Vulnerable Adults Act. Conclusion: Consistent information was provided that the VA and the SP texted while at the facility, which was a violation of the facility’s Personal Involvement with Client and Client Abuse policy and was inconsistent with the standards of a professional caregiver in a facility licensed by the Department of Human Services. Although there was a concern that the VA and the SP were more than friends and that P2 provided information that on a previous occasion, s/he saw the VA’s hand on the SP’s thigh; given that the VA and the SP each denied any sexual contact and there was no additional information to support or refute any account, 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 the policies and procedures were adequate but not followed by the SP. The facility did not determine re-training was needed by staff persons. 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.
|
