|
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: 1093740-SUD (Substance Use Disorder) Investigator(s): Thomas Nixon/Deb Neubauer-Hoffman 651-431-2155 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported a staff person (SP) had an inappropriate relationship with a vulnerable adult (VA). Date of Incident(s): Ongoing prior to January 27, 2023 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); and subdivision 17, paragraph (a): 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. 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 for this investigation was obtained remotely, including documentation from the facility and through (four) interviews conducted with the staff person (SP), two supervisory staff persons (P1 and P2), a community person (CP) who attended the same church as the VA. Attempts were made via phone, text, and mail to contact and interview the VA, however, the VA did not respond to the requests. The VA’s diagnoses included cannabis use disorder and alcohol use disorder. The VA was motivated to make changes, enjoyed listening and making music, and going snowboarding and skateboarding. The VA attended the program from November 9, 2021, to January 4, 2022, and again from January 11 to January 27, 2022. The SP worked at the facility from October 28, 2020, to April 21, 2022. The CP reported the following information: · The CP and the SP attended the same church. In the early months of 2022, the VA attended church with the SP and while there the CP met the VA. The CP learned the SP and the VA met at the facility where the SP worked when the VA was a client there. The VA and the SP sent video messages of the two together at the SP’s home to the CP. · In late March 2022, the CP received a Snapchat from the VA that said while at the facility the SP did “little grooming things” to the VA. While there the SP asked the VA personal questions and conversations became sexual in nature. The SP asked about the VA’s sexual orientation and sexual preferences. The VA told the CP that s/he was abused in the past by others and “much worse [had] happened to [the VA]” than this. · In April 2022, the VA messaged the CP that when s/he was at the SP’s home s/he had sexual contact with the SP. That day the CP phoned the SP and asked about the sexual contact. The SP initially denied anything occurred and “tried to make it seem like [the VA] was crazy.” Then the SP admitted “we did have encounters, but it was consensual.” The CP did not know if the VA and the SP had sexual contact at the facility. The CP told a family member who called the facility and told them of the situation. P1 and P2, and facility documentation provided the following information: · At times, P2 saw the SP’s interactions with the VA and did not have any concerns. The SP was “very relational” and “good at talking with clients, connecting with [clients].” The SP needed to be reminded s/he was not a mental health professional and if a client talked about past issues the SP was to refer the client to their mental health professional. On January 27, 2022, the VA’s services were ended and s/he “didn’t fully successfully complete the program.” · On March 31, 2022, the SP told P2 that s/he spent time with the VA after the VA left the facility. P2 reviewed with the SP about the facility’s Staff/Client Relationship Policy and Social Media Policy. P2 told the SP that s/he should not have done that and should not spend time with former clients without approval from a supervisor. · On April 18, 2022, the VA’s mental health clinic phoned the facility and said the SP was in contact with the VA, the VA went to the SP’s home “seven or more times”, and the SP sold the VA a cellphone. That day P2 met with the SP about the information. The SP acknowledged that the VA came to the SP’s home where they played video games and that s/he sold the VA an extra cellphone. The SP denied any other interactions with the VA. The SP also acknowledged that s/he was told on March 31, 2022, not to have contact with the VA, but did so. On April 21, 2022, the SP stopped working with at the facility · P1 and P2 were not aware of inappropriate interactions between the VA and the SP while the VA was at the facility. The SP provided the following information: · While the VA resided at the facility, the VA and the SP talked and the VA provided the SP with personal sexual information. The SP believed s/he told the information to the VA’s facility mental health professional so they could follow up with the VA. The SP denied asking the VA sexual information, denied having a relationship with the VA while the VA was at the facility, and denied having sexual contact with the VA while at the facility. · The SP continued to work at the facility disregarded the Staff/Clients Relationships policy “for about a month” and kept in contact with the VA after the VA was no longer received services. The SP “did not take [the training] seriously”, “didn’t think anything negative would happen,” and there were “some [staff persons] that still had minimal contact with clients in different circles.” The SP viewed his/her relationship with the VA as “friends mentor relationship.” The VA visited the SP’s home, stayed overnight “a few times,” and used the SP’s shower. The SP also drove the VA, and they attended church together. The SP denied that the VA stayed at his/her home while the VA was receiving services from the facility. · After the VA left the facility, while the SP spent time with the VA socially, the VA asked the SP to be his/her “sponsor.” The SP talked with his/her mentors and considered the advice of P1 and P2 about the continued contact with the VA to be an inappropriate relationship “especially after [the SP’s] termination.” The SP decided that with his/her history of as a facility staff and the advice given by other s/he could not be the VA’s sponsor and the relationship was inappropriate. The SP told the VA this and “cut off all communication.” · The SP denied having any sexual interest in the VA, denied that s/he had a sexual relationship with the VA at any time, denied there was conversations with the VA about a relationship beyond friendship or sponsorship, and denied that s/he continued contact with the VA since March or April of 2022. The facility Staff/Clients Relationships policy stated, “Staff members will not date, interact socially, or in any way pursue a ‘dual relationship’ with clients for two years after the client stops receiving services from any [facility] program or legal entity.” Facility documentation showed the SP was trained on the Reporting of Maltreatment of Vulnerable Adults Act and Staff/Clients Relationships policy. Conclusion: The CP stated that in early 2022 (March/April 2022), the VA told him/her that s/he developed a relationship with the VA while the VA was at the facility and that s/he had sexual contact with the SP after the VA was no longer at the facility. The CP also stated that the SP confirmed a consensual sexual relationship with the VA after the VA left the facility. However, the VA did provide information for this report. P1 and P2 each stated that they did not observe any interactions between the SP and the VA that caused them concern. Given that there was approximately one year between the allegations and the Department’s knowledge and subsequent investigations, the Department’s ability to obtain information likely was hindered. This in combination with the SP’s denial that anything occurred while the VA was receiving services at the facility, and without any additional information, there is not a preponderance of the evidence whether the SP and the VA had sexual contact or a relationship while the VA received services from the facility. It was not determined whether sexual abuse or neglect 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. 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 their policies and procedures were adequate and were followed. The facility determined that there was not a need for additional training or corrective action. The SP no longer worked at the facility. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: No further action taken.
|
