|
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: 1098637-SUD (Substance Use Disorder) Investigator(s): Anna Parkin 651-431-6225 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that a staff person (SP) had sexual intercourse with three vulnerable adults (VA1-VA3). Date of Incident(s): unknown 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 June 30, 2023; from documentation at the facility and law enforcement records; and through two interviews conducted with a supervisory staff person (P1) and a facility staff person (the SP). VA1-VA3 and P2 were interviewed by law enforcement and that information was included below. This investigator contacted VA1-VA3 via telephone and mail, and VA1-VA3 each did not respond. VA1 was diagnosed with a substance use disorder and resided at the facility from March 13 to April 12, 2023. According to VA1’s Individual Abuse Prevention Plan (IAPP), VA1 was not suspectable to sexual abuse. VA2 was diagnosed with a substance use disorder and resided at the facility from April 3 to 27, 2023. According to VA2’s Individual Abuse Prevention Plan (IAPP), VA2 was not suspectable to sexual abuse. VA3 was diagnosed with a substance use disorder and resided at the facility from March 23 to April 6, 2023. According to VA3’s Individual Abuse Prevention Plan (IAPP), VA3 was not suspectable to sexual abuse. The facility had three floors that were similar in lay out. Each floor had client bedrooms and a tech office that had a storage closet attached to it. Each floor generally had one staff person assigned to work during the overnight shift and the SP worked the overnight shift (11 p.m. to 7 a.m.) at that facility. P1 and emails provided by P1 provided the following information: · On April 12, 2023, P2 emailed P1 saying that earlier that day, VA1 told P2 that the SP messaged VA1 through social media. Some of the messages included information about “making out” with VA1 in a storage closet. Later on April 12, 2023, P2 emailed P1 saying that another client (C) told P2 that the SP had sexual intercourse with VA1-VA3. · P1 spoke to VA1 and asked about the messages with the SP. VA1 showed P1 the messages and P1 took pictures of them. (See information further in this report.) VA1 denied having sexual intercourse with the SP. P1 did not talk to VA2 or VA3 about the allegations. · Clients were not allowed to have their personal cell phones on them while at the facility and staff persons were not supposed to allow them to have them. P1 also verified on video footage that the SP left the facility without authorization during work time so the SP no longer worked at the facility. According to the law enforcement report: · On May 8, 2023, a law enforcement officer (LEO) called and spoke to VA2, who said s/he knew the SP through a mutual friend prior to residing at the facility. VA2 stated s/he had “no issue” with the SP and denied any sexual contact with the SP. · Later that day, the LEO called and spoke to VA3. VA3 said s/he had a significant other and denied sexual contact with the SP. VA3 previously saw the SP and VA2 talking and laughing at the facility but did not see anything “inappropriate” between them. · The LEO then called and spoke to the SP. On a previous occasion, VA1 took the SP’s personal cell phone, found the SP’s Facebook account information, and contacted the SP through his/her Facebook account. VA1 messaged the SP asking him/her to come into his/her bedroom and kiss VA1 on the cheek. The SP eventually blocked VA1 on social media and told an unknown staff person about the comments. The SP remembered VA3 making “many sexually suggestive comments" to the SP. One of the comments involved asking the SP to take his/her pants off so that VA3 could see the SP’s tattoo. The SP denied any sexual contact with VA1-VA3. · On May 11, 2023, the LEO spoke to P2 who said the SP had “bad boundaries” with clients. P2 previously saw other clients into the tech office with the SP. The SP took VA2’s cell phone out of the storage closet and allowed VA2 to use it. After the SP no longer worked at the facility, VA1 told P2 and said s/he had a “relationship” with the SP and that the SP texted VA1 and asked him/her to go to the storage closet to “make out.” On a later date, the C also came to P2 and said that the SP had a “sexual relationship” with VA1-VA3. · On May 11, 2023, the LEO spoke to P1 about obtaining video camera footage from the facility. P1 reviewed video footage and told the LEO that “no camera footage was found that substantiated the allegations.” · On May 16 and 18, 2023, the LEO spoke to the C who said that VA1 “jokingly” discussed with P2 having a relationship with the SP and had text messages from the SP. The C did not witness any interactions between the SP and VA1. When the LEO asked about a relationship between the SP and VA2 and VA3, the C denied telling anyone that. · On May 25, 2023, the LEO spoke to VA1 who said s/he “flirt[ed]” with and messaged the SP. VA1 denied any sexual contact with the SP. Messages between the SP and VA1 provided by the facility and law enforcement showed the following: · On February 3, 2023, VA1 texted the SP that s/he was “thinking about” the SP. The SP responded that s/he “already kn[ew]” and that VA1 “better be careful.” · On an unknown date, VA1 texted that VA1 and the SP could go into the storage closet. The SP responded that there was a client sleeping in the living room that kept waking up. VA1 messaged the SP, “oh but you know….. get me some clothes.” The SP responded that clothes were on the third floor and asked how they would “cover that upppp [sic]” and that the SP “would’ve taken third if I knew fr [sic].” VA1 then asked if they could reschedule the appointment. The SP did not respond. · From February 11 to 17, 2023, VA1 asked the SP about working and the SP responded that the following day, s/he was working the overnight shift. VA1 responded asking if the SP was able to come into his/her room and wake VA1 with a kiss on the cheek. VA1 also requested that after s/he left the facility, the SP meet VA1’s family member and act like the SP and VA1 were in a relationship. The SP asked when that would be and VA1 responded after s/he left the facility. The SP provided the following additional information to this investigator: · On a previous occasion, VA3 made inappropriate comments to the SP and the SP told an unknown staff person about the comments. That staff person then went and discussed the comments with VA3. The SP felt like s/he was “thrown under the bus” which made his/her job “harder.” The SP did not recall the staff person’s name and did not tell any supervisory staff persons because s/he was “not taken seriously.” The SP denied any sexual contact with VA3. · On a previous occasion, when the SP was in the tech office, VA1 came in, took the SP’s cell phone, and VA1 put his/her phone number into the SP’s cell phone. VA1 also complimented the SP’s physical appearance. The SP also told the unknown staff person about VA1’s comments. That unknown staff person discussed it with VA1 and the compliments ended for a while. VA1 told other clients that s/he had a “crush” on the SP and found the SP on social media. · VA1 messaged the SP about going to the storage closet to have sexual contact. The SP responded and tried to “dodge” VA1. VA1 later messaged the SP emojis that indicated that VA1 wanted to have sexual contact with the SP and the SP responded, “No.” After VA1 messaged the SP about kissing on the cheek, the SP blocked VA1 on social media. The SP was aware that messaging with clients was not allowed and had told the unknown staff person about it. The SP could not remember if s/he told any supervisory staff persons about VA1. The SP denied any sexual contact with VA1 and VA2. According to Staff Expectations, inappropriate interactions with clients included sexual contact, discussion, innuendos, or behavior was not tolerated and included possible termination. According to Client Expectations, the use of personal electronic devices including cell phones that could record, transmit, or make images of another client were “forbidden” at the facility. Facility documentation showed that staff persons, including the SP, were trained on Staff Expectations, Client Expectations, and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Vulnerable Adults Act prior to the incident. Conclusion: P2 provided information that VA1 told P2 that s/he had a “relationship” with the SP and that the SP texted VA1 and asked him/her to go to the storage closet and “make out.” On a later date, the C told P2 that the SP had a “sexual relationship” with VA1-VA3. Consistent information was provided that the SP and VA1 texted each other while VA1 was at the facility and that all of the texts likely were not therapeutic, which was inconsistent with the standards of a professional caregiver in a facility licensed by the Department of Human Services and a violation of the facility’s policies and procedures. Although it was concerning that the SP messaged VA1 while at the facility, given that VA1-VA3 each denied sexual contact with the SP and the SP denied having sexual contact with VA1-VA3, there was not a preponderance of the evidence whether the SP had sexual contact with VA1-VA3. 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 facility provided all staff persons with additional mandated reporting and boundaries trainings, increased staffing during the overnight shift, and updated their camera system. 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.
|
