|
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: 1055132-SUD (Substance Use Disorder) Investigator(s): Deb Neubauer-Hoffman 651-431-6567 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that a staff person (SP) was in a relationship with a vulnerable adult (VA) while the VA received services. At some point the relationship became sexual. It was also reported that another staff person (P1) knew about the relationship and assisted with keeping it a secret. Date of Incident(s): December 2022 to March 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 three interviews conducted with facility staff persons (the SP, P2 and P3). At the time of the investigation, no address was known for the VA and multiple attempts were made to contact the VA via telephone and messages were left; however, the VA did not respond. The VA received services at the facility from August 22, 2022, through January 5, 2023. Facility information showed that the VA successfully completed the program. The VA’s diagnoses included opioid use disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and depression. Information showed that while the SP was employed at the facility, s/he was responsible for the supervision of the children of the clients who received services while they attended programming. Facility information showed the following information: · On March 18, 2023, (after the VA was discharged from the facility) a facility staff person (P1) received an email from a former client (C) stating that the C saw a photo on social media of the VA and the SP kissing. · The C believed the relationship started when the VA was at the facility because the VA “had a crush on [the SP].” The C also believed that the SP and the VA were texting back and forth while the VA was a client. · A supervisory person (P3) documented that after hearing the C’s information, P3 learned that on one occasion the VA and the VA’s child went to the SP’s home. There was conflicting information regarding whether or not P2 brought the VA to the SP’s home or if the SP asked P2 to “cover” for the SP by saying P2 brought the VA and the child to the SP’s home. Regardless, a “pull-up” (diaper) was left in the garbage and found by the SP’s housemate (P1). (P1 determined this occurred on the “first weekend in February” 2023.) · The facility’s Internal Review stated that P2 was “aware of the relationship, and had assisted in keeping the relationship a secret from leadership and clinical staff [persons].” However, P2 said that s/he was not aware of the relationship while the VA received services but did play a role in connecting the VA and SP within a few days after the VA’s discharge. P2 stated that while the VA was receiving services at the facility, P2 was “thrown into the middle of a situation” concerning the VA and SP; however, P2 did not say anything because “I did not have proof at the time and did not feel I should report without proof.” P2 said that s/he was “suspicious” about a relationship between the SP and VA because the VA was “a little clingy but not physically.” P2 did not observe “hand holding or evidence of a relationship.” In addition, P2 said that opposite gender staff persons were not allowed to take clients on “store runs;” however, P3 “allowed” the SP and VA to do this so P2 believed P3 “should have paid more attention” to the interactions between the SP and VA. P3 had no additional information outside of what was in this report. In April 2023, when this investigator interviewed the SP, s/he admitted s/he was in a relationship with the VA. The SP said that although s/he and the VA were texting after the VA was discharged from the facility, they were “friends” at that time, and their relationship as well as sexual contact did not begin until after the VA was no longer receiving services. The facility’s Code of Ethics and Employee Handbook stated that staff persons were not to “engage in any activity that could be construed as exploitation of clients for personal gain, be it sexual, financial, social, or otherwise,” and understand that a therapeutic relationship does not end when a client no longer receives services. Staff persons were to have no personal, business, sexual or social relationship with a client or former client within a minimum of two years after termination of all services to the client. Information showed that staff persons were trained regarding the facility’s policies and procedures as well as the Reporting of Maltreatment of Vulnerable Adults Act. Conclusion: Regarding sexual abuse: Given that the VA did not provide information for this investigation and that the SP denied sexual contact occurred until after the VA no longer resided at the facility there was not a preponderance of the evidence whether the SP engaged in a sexual relationship with the VA while the VA was a client at the facility. 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). Regarding neglect:
The C and P2 each provided information that it was likely that a relationship between the VA and SP began prior to the VA’s discharge from the facility, and the facility’s policy prohibited any relationship with a client or former client within a minimum of two years after the client’s termination. However, given that the VA did not provide any information, that the SP stated their relationship began after the VA was discharged, and that the social media accounts of the VA and SP each showed they acknowledged their relationship several weeks after the VA was discharged from the facility, there was not a preponderance of the evidence whether the SP failed to provide the VA with reasonable and necessary care and services. 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 but were not followed when the SP began a relationship with the VA. The SP no longer worked at the facility. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: No further action taken.
|
