|
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: 1115117-HCBS (Home and Community-Based Services) Investigator(s): Jason Pehler 651-431-4830 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported a staff person (SP) had sexual intercourse with a vulnerable adult (VA). Date of Incident(s): May 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): 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 July 26, 2023; from documentation at the facility; and through five interviews conducted with the VA, a facility staff person (P), the VA’s case manager (CM), law enforcement (LE), and the SP. Facility documentation showed the VA was a good cook, and kept his/her household in order. The VA was described as having a big heart, and was quick to help people. The VA’s integrated community supports (ICS) services were provided by the facility at the VA’s apartment. ICS services provided support and training/habilitation in community living service categories to adults who resided in their own residence. The facility could provide the VA with up to six hours of in person services with ICS staff persons, as well as two hours of remote ICS services. Facility documentation showed the VA was “focused on looking for a new place to live.” The VA was not subject to guardianship and staff persons supported the VA’s “community engagement, independence and skill building.” The VA’s Individual Abuse Prevention Plan showed s/he was not susceptible to sexual abuse. LE was contacted during the investigation; however, LE told this investigator that the VA had not responded to LE’s attempts to contact the VA. LE stated if the VA did not provide any further information the case would be closed. The CM provided the following information: · On or around May 31, 2023, the VA told the CM that the SP and the VA had sex two weeks ago. The VA told the CM the SP’s bodily fluid was on the VA’s bed, and the VA attempted to clean it up. · The CM said the VA had a history of sexual abuse but was not an inaccurate reporter of information. The VA’s time processing was “not linear,” and s/he would say something happened two minutes ago, but the incident may have occurred 15 years ago. · Prior to the alleged incident the CM interacted with the SP at the facility and “nothing seemed off” or “inappropriate” between the VA and SP. · The VA had expressed a desire to move from the facility, however the VA had recently had hallucinations, and the VA said s/he was “accused of killing a niece.” A crisis team was contacted as the VA was potentially having symptoms of psychosis. The CM was unsure if the increased mental health symptoms were related to the alleged sexual abuse, or if the symptoms started before or after the alleged sexual contact with the SP. · The CM said during the past three years there were multiple reports involving alleged sexual contact/abuse. Those alleged sexual incidents were previously reported to Minnesota Adult Abuse Reporting Center, and/or LE. The previous reports did not involve the SP. The VA provided the following information: · The VA said on the day of the alleged sexual contact s/he was watching television and the SP came into his/her apartment, took the VA’s clothing off, and started to have sex with him/her. The VA said the SP had his/her clothes off and during the sexual contact the VA had his/her eyes closed. · The VA also said prior to the alleged incident the SP was sitting in a chair in the VA’s bedroom talking with the VA, and then engaged in the alleged sexual contact. · The VA said during the sexual contact the SP wanted to have a child with the VA, but also said the SP and VA used a contraceptive while having sex. Additionally, the VA said the SP left bodily fluid on the VA’s mattress, and the VA cleaned the area. · The VA said that something similar happened with a family member, but did not press charges due to concerns with retaliation from a family member. · The VA said s/he did not complete a doctor exam after the incident. The SP provided the following information: · The SP adamantly denied having any sexual contact with the VA, and said the VA previously made allegations against other persons in the VA’s life. Additionally, the SP said s/he was not in Minnesota during the time the VA claimed the incident occurred. · The SP said prior to the allegation s/he was one of the VA’s favorite staff persons. However, the VA became upset with the SP after the SP informed a facility supervisor that person(s) related or acquainted with the VA had come to the building and sold the VA drugs. The SP shared the information with the facility in late April, or early May 2023, and thereafter the VA alleged that the SP and the VA had sexual contact. · The SP was “the most difficult person” to provide care and services to do to his/her behaviors, and did not get along with anyone in the building. The VA got upset when the SP worked with other persons receiving services. · The SP had previous boundaries issues with the VA as the SP tried to help the VA when s/he did not have money for laundry or something s/he needed to buy. The facility completed an Internal Review which provided the following information: · The SP said issues started occurring with the VA after the SP would not purchase items for the VA. The VA told the SP, “I have a plan for you, I will get you back.” Shortly thereafter the VA alleged s/he had sexual contact with the SP. · Additionally, the SP said the VA was also upset with him/her when the SP informed the facility supervisor about the VA using drugs in the apartment. · The SP said s/he was not in Minnesota during the time frame in which the VA alleged that sexual contact occurred. · The SP was removed as a staff person who provided services to the VA, but remained an employee. The P provided the following information: · The P did not witness any sexual contact between the VA and the SP, but was informed of the alleged incident. The VA had previously talked to the P about multiple sexual encounters the VA had with his/her relatives’ significant other(s). The P was unsure if the VA was an accurate reporter of information. · The P described the VA as a “tough” person to support, and the VA engaged in negative behaviors while the P attempted to provide care and services. · The P’s only “concern” with the SP’s work performance was going “above and beyond” to assist the persons receiving services. The P said the SP was provided training on creating “healthy boundaries” related to not assisting the individuals by giving them food or clothing.
· The P did not have concerns with the SP and did not think the SP engaged in a sexual contact with the VA. · After the alleged sexual contact was reported the VA wanted to continue to work with the SP, but the facility discontinued the SP from providing care and services for the VA. The P and the SP completed training on the Reporting of Maltreatment of Vulnerable Adults Act, the facility’s policy and procedures, and on the VA’s client specific programming. Conclusion: It was reported the SP and the VA had sexual intercourse. On May 31, 2023, the CM talked with the VA, who said the incident occurred approximately two weeks ago, however the CM also stated the VA’s time processing was “not linear,” and the VA had a history of sexual abuse. The VA said the SP had sex with him/her in the VA’s apartment, however the VA provided different details when talking about the incident. The VA stated that the sexual contact occurred when the SP entered the VA’s apartment and then said the sexual contact occurred after the SP was sitting in a chair in the VA’s bedroom. The VA said the SP had bodily fluid on the mattress, the SP told the VA s/he wanted to have a child with the VA, but also said they used a contraceptive during sex. The SP denied having sexual contact with the VA, and furthermore said s/he was not in Minnesota when the alleged incident took place. There were no other persons present during the alleged incident. Multiple persons interviewed described the VA’s ability to report information, however each was unsure if the VA was a reliable reporter of information and stated the VA had mental health symptoms that could affect the VA’s ability. Based on the information obtained, the SP’s had boundary issues with the VA related to giving the VA money when the VA needed it, however there was no previous information the SP and VA engaged in inappropriate boundaries in a sexual manner. Although the VA stated that the SP and the VA had sexual contact, given that the SP denied sexual contact, that the SP stated s/he was not in Minnesota when the VA said the sexual contact occurred, that there were no witnesses so no information to confirm or dispute either account, and that it was not determined if the VA was able to provide accurate information given his/her diagnoses and history, there was not a preponderance of the evidence whether the SP had sexual contact with the VA. 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 and were followed. However, the SP was provided additional training regarding boundaries, but no further no corrective action was completed to protect the persons that received services. The SP no longer provided services to the VA. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: No further action at this time.
|
