|
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:
Investigator(s): Christine Henne 651-431-3444 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that a staff person (SP) had a sexual relationship with a vulnerable adult (VA). Date of Incident(s): unknown prior to July 7, 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 9, paragraph (b), clause (1): 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. In the absence of legal authority a person willfully uses, withholds, or disposes of funds or property of a vulnerable adult. Summary of Findings: Pertinent information was obtained during a site visit conducted on July 17, 2023; from documentation at the facility; and through six interviews conducted with three administrative facility persons (P1, P2, and P3), the VA’s case manager (CM), the VA, and the SP. This investigator had a follow up interview scheduled with the VA, but the VA declined to provide additional information. Law enforcement was contacted regarding this investigation, but they did not investigate this report. The VA’s file stated that s/he enjoyed shopping, going out to eat, listening to music, watching TV shows, and attending church activities. The VA’s Admission Form and Data Sheet was dated February 1, 2023. The VA lived in an apartment and liked having his/her own space and furniture as well as the group activities offered in the building. The VA was diagnosed with anxiety, ADHD, bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, depression schizoaffective disorder, and antisocial personality disorder. The VA had a history of substance use and an “inability” to “manage funds” that may result in negative consequences. However, in the VA’s MnCHOICES Assessment from January 3, 2022, stated that the VA did not need assistance with finances, but staff were available to assist with budgeting and paying bills as needed. The assessment said that the VA said that s/he managed his/her own finances. In the VA’s assessment, the VA stated s/he had a history of trauma that was sexual in nature. It also said that the VA was “easily triggered” due to past trauma and was hypervigilant. The VA had difficulty with awareness, judgment, memory, and perception due to his/her diagnoses. The VA struggled with regulating his/her emotions, impulsivity, and had difficulty reading social cues. The VA received in-person support from a facility staff person one to two times per week with additional phone support. According to the VA’s Coordinated Services and Supports Plan, the VA had assessed needs for support with bathing, grooming, dressing, med management, meal prep, transportation, housework, laundry, shopping, planning, problem-solving, socialization support, and positive behavior support. The VA was at risk for exploitation in all areas including financial and sexual. The VA was not subject to guardianship. The facility was a multi-level facility with several apartments and some of the apartments were for individuals who received services from the facility. The main level of the building had multiple staff offices. According to the facility’s job description for the staff person who worked with the VA, they provided mental health rehabilitative services to support the VA in the form of instruction, support, and skill coaching. The goals of the services were to increase psychiatric stability, promote social competencies, facilitate persona and emotional adjustment, and maintain independent living in the community. The staff person provided culturally responsive mental health services in four areas: basic living and social skills, community intervention, medication education, and transitioning to community living. According to facility documentation, the SP started working at the facility the week of February 13, 2023. On February 13, 2023, the SP toured the facility and did a “meet and greet” with “perspective clients.” (Note: Those clients names were not listed.) According to the SP’s progress notes, the SP worked with the VA during the months of May and June 2023. The SP documented that s/he worked with the VA on the following dates: May 30 and 31; June 1, 5, 7, and 8, 2023. Facility documentation stated the SP’s last day working at the facility was June 14, 2023. The VA provided the following information: · The VA said s/he was a “friendly person” who told “all [his/her] business.” The VA was “vulnerable” with people and “very trustworthy” and “caring” and was “easy to take advantage of.” The VA did not remember when the below incidents took place and said that it was because s/he “[took] a lot of medication” that made him/her “forget a little bit.” · At some point when the SP worked at the facility, the VA and the SP would “wave and flirt.” One day the VA talked to the SP in the SP’s office at the facility and the SP told the VA s/he was an ARMHS worker, and the VA told the SP s/he already had an ARMHS worker. The SP “spill[ed] [his/her] spiel” about how the SP could make the VA’s life different including telling the VA that s/he “could get a non-profit organization,” get a house, a car, and the dental care that s/he wanted and said all the things to “draw [the VA] in.” After the SP said the aforementioned information to the VA, the VA “fired” his/her other ARMHS worker and hired the SP. The VA felt as though s/he was “targeted” by the SP since the one unknown date s/he went into the SP’s office at the facility. · When the SP first started working with the VA, they were together for two hours each time. At some point, the VA said that s/he needed “more hours” with the SP so they could get the “non-profit off the ground.” However, the SP said that the two hours was enough time and that they needed to “get to know each other first.” The VA did not know why the SP said that. · The VA said that “it started out slowly” and one day the SP saw the VA “Door-Dashing” and the SP said, “What did you buy me?” and the VA asked if the SP was hungry. During their time together they would go out to eat and the SP would tell the VA s/he forgot his/her wallet and the VA would pay for the SP’s food “all the time” or give the SP cash to get his/her own food because the SP said s/he did not have money. The SP also asked the VA for money. At some point they went to Dollar Tree and the SP put his/her items at the top of the cart and by the time they got to the cash register the VA said s/he paid for the SP’s items and the SP said s/he would pay the VA back. The VA said the SP did that “every time” they went to the store. The VA asked the SP for the money and on the “third time” the VA asked the SP, the SP did not respond to the VA until the next day when the SP called the VA and asked if the VA was at his/her apartment. The SP went to the VA’s apartment, and they had sex once. A week later, they had sex again. In between the two times they had sex, the VA and the SP went to Walmart, Dollar Tree, and out to eat. During one of the above outings, when they were in a vehicle together, the SP put his/her hand on the VA’s leg. The VA moved the SP’s hand off of him/her and told the SP to “stop” because the VA felt like s/he was “being used” because within that week the SP asked the VA for money for his/her children and said that s/he did not want to be a “bad [parent].” During that time, the SP picked up $350 in cash from the VA and told the VA that s/he would pay the VA back. The SP owed the VA a total of $1200. However, the only money the SP paid the VA was $60 via “Cash App.” · The VA showed this investigator his/her phone that showed a “Cash App” transaction dated “May 5” at 11:19 a.m. for $60 that the SP sent the VA. The transaction said, “congratulations again!” Text messages on the VA’s phone between the VA and the SP were dated March, May, and June (there was no year documented). There was no information in the text messages regarding money or a sexual relationship. The text messages referenced food and the VA’s health. · The SP was a “very good manipulator” and “play[ed] very well put together” in front of people so the VA could not tell there was a “different side” to the SP. At some point the SP “made a comment” that s/he felt the VA was going to “tell on [the SP]” because the VA kept asking for the money. “At the end” the VA wanted to stop seeing the SP and two weeks prior to July 19, 2023, the VA told P1 that s/he wanted to talk to her about something and said that s/he wanted to talk to P1 “a long time ago.” The VA told P1 the information regarding the SP not paying the VA back and the sexual relationship they had. P1 provided and facility documentation the following information: · The SP worked with the VA 1:1 a couple of hours each day. The VA decided when those hours were used, was in charge of his/her own schedule with the SP, and directly contacted the SP. Sometimes they went shopping or stayed in. If the VA needed additional assistance outside of the SP, there was an office at the facility s/he could go to. · At some point, around the end of March 2023, when SP started working with the VA, the SP told P1 that the VA “asked [the SP] out” but the SP “turned it down” and told the VA their relationship was “strictly work.” The VA told the SP that s/he wanted the SP to be “more than just a staff” and wanted to pursue some sort of relationship with the SP. The SP said that the VA “pretended” that s/he and the SP were a “couple” when they went out shopping in the community. The SP told P1 that s/he talked to the VA about it and that s/he told the VA that they could “only work together.” P1 did not tell anyone what the SP told him/her. About a month later P1 asked the SP how it was going with the VA because the VA was cancelling some of his/her “sessions” with the SP. The SP said everything was “good” and “going well” and that the VA was not “ask[ing]” the SP “out” anymore and that the reason for the VA cancelling with the SP was because the VA said s/he had something else going on. · Sometime in mid-April 2023 (P1 did not have record of the date), the facility threw a party for the VA. The VA wanted to get his/her nails done and the SP asked P1 if the facility could cover the cost of the VA’s nails. The facility was unable to pay for the VA’s nails but said they would cover the cost of the party. The SP helped the VA pay for the nails and told P1 that s/he sent the VA $60 via CashApp. · On April 28, 2023, the VA made an appointment to talk to P1. The VA asked P1 if “hypothetically” the VA told P1 something, if P1 would have to report it. P1 told the VA it depended on what the information was. The VA decided not to proceed telling P1 the information. P1 provided his/her log notes for the above information and the notes stated that the VA called P1 in the morning and said s/he would like to speak to P1 about something and would come to P1’s office. The VA went to P1’s office and P1 asked what the VA wanted to talk about. The VA asked P1 if s/he was a “mandated reporter” and P1 said that s/he was. The VA then said s/he was “not ready to talk and took off.” · On an unknown date, the SP told P1 that s/he went to the VA’s apartment to move a couch the VA had found/wanted. · On July 7, 2023, the VA visited P1 in P1’s office. The VA told P1 that s/he had “sexual relations” with the SP and that they “slept together” twice in the VA’s apartment while the SP was on shift, but the VA did not remember the dates. The VA also told P1 that the SP was borrowing money in cash from him/her. According to P1’s log notes for that date, the VA told P1 that s/he was involved in a “sexual relationship” with the SP and borrowed the SP approximately $1,000 over a period of time and wanted the SP to pay him/her back. The VA showed P1 his/her CashApp on his/her phone and said that the SP paid some of the money back. The CashApp transaction was for $60 from the SP, but P1 knew that money was for the VA’s nails back in April and reminded the VA of that. The VA then said s/he forgot it was from that. P1 saw other CashApp transactions on the VA’s phone, but none of the other transactions were from the SP. At the time the VA told P1 the above information, the SP no longer worked at the facility with the VA. The VA was a “little sad” when the SP no longer worked with him/her and was not sure if that was the reason that “pushed” the VA to make the allegation. P1 wrote in the log notes that s/he made “several attempts” that day to talk to the SP but they were unsuccessful. · P1 did not know if the above information the VA told P1 on July 7, 2023, was related to what the VA wanted to talk to P1 about on April 28, 2023. · The VA was able to report accurate information but had some difficulty with his/her memory and was sometimes forgetful and some of the details or times might not be correct. P1 did not know if the VA had a history of inaccurate reporting but heard that the CM mentioned some past incidents. · P1 did not have any concerns with the SP and said that the SP worked with other clients and there were never any accusations of him/her borrowing money from them or having a relationship with them. The CM provided the following information: · The CM knew the VA for about two years. At some point near the end of July 2023, the VA called the CM and told the CM that the SP borrowed money from the VA, that they had a “consensual” sexual relationship, and that the VA knew the SP was not supposed to have that kind of relationship with him/her. The VA did not tell the CM when the sexual relationship started but said that it “recently ended.” The VA also said that s/he and the SP had a “falling out.” The VA did not tell the CM why the SP borrowed money but said that s/he was behind on rent. The VA had a history of not paying his/her rent and used the money to purchase drugs instead. The VA would not want to admit s/he was using drugs and would “come up” with “some big elaborate” story about what happened to the money so no one would suspect what the money was used for. · Due to the VA’s diagnoses, it was hard to know what was true and what was not, but often there was a “kernel of truth.” Sometimes the VA did not accurately report information and had a history of making allegations against staff persons that s/he later retracted and then made the same word for word accusations against another staff person. Some of those accusations were that persons were stealing things from his/her room at another facility or that staff persons were yelling at the VA. However, the CM was not aware of the VA ever making false allegations that were sexual in nature. P3 said that on July 7, 2023, s/he saw the VA sitting next to P1 in P1’s office. The door was open and P3 saw the VA crying so P3 went inside the office. P1 told P3 information that was consistent with the information P1 provided during his/her interview. P3 did not know if the VA was able to report accurate information because s/he did not directly work with the VA. P2 said that on July 10, 2023, or July 11, P3 told him/her what the VA told P1 regarding sexual contact with the SP and the SP borrowing money from the VA. During the time the SP worked with the VA, the SP worked 1:1, twice a week, for one to two hours a shift, and worked with the VA a total of 17 times. The SP helped the VA with his/her goals or took the VA shopping. At some point, (P2 was not sure of the date but thought maybe sometime around the beginning of June 2023), the VA requested “more time” with the SP but P2 was not the person to approve that and told the VA s/he would have to talk to the CM or the SP’s supervisor. P3 was not aware of the VA making any past false reports against staff persons. P2 had no concerns with the SP and said that s/he was “very professional” and “knew” what s/he was “doing.” The SP provided the following information: · The SP worked at the facility for about four months but did not start working with the VA right away. The SP had an office on the main floor of the facility and saw the VA daily when the VA came down from his/her apartment. The VA waved at the SP and the SP waved back. At some point, about a month after the SP started working at the facility, the VA inquired with the SP about who the SP was and about another month later, the VA said s/he wanted to receive staffing services from the SP. Prior to the SP working with the VA, the VA was receiving services from a different organization and wanted to switch. After the VA was assessed for services at the facility, the SP and the VA created a “treatment plan” for the VA. The SP started working with the VA and the SP’s shifts were 1:1 with the VA for two-hour sessions once a week. At some point, the VA wanted more sessions with the SP, and it was approved to increase the sessions to three to four times a week. When the SP worked with the VA it was either in the SP’s office or in the community. The SP assisted the VA with many things including helping the VA get reintegrated in the community, re-enroll in college, start a non-profit company, assist with grocery needs, find employment, and provided transportation. · During the time the SP worked with the VA, the SP went to the VA’s apartment three times for “maybe” ten minutes each time. Once to help the VA move furniture into his/her apartment, another to check on the VA when s/he did not show up for an appointment, and another time when the VA wanted to show the SP that s/he had cleaned his/her apartment because that was a goal of the VA’s. · At some point, the VA “expressed interest” in the SP. The SP said s/he “understood” his/her “boundaries and training” and that she had a “professional” client to staff relationship with the VA. The SP “clearly expressed” to the VA that s/he was not interested and reminded the VA of the professional boundaries they had to maintain. The VA told the SP, “I know the system, so don’t you worry about that.” The SP “maintained [his/her] stance.” One on occasion the VA asked the SP if s/he would be interested in a picture of the VA’s genitals and the SP told the VA, “No,” and that if the VA continued, the VA would have to find another staff person. The SP thought that the VA’s interest in the SP was the reason s/he wanted the SP to work with him/her and switched staff persons. · Most of the time the SP worked with the VA, the VA was under the influence of something or distracted and the SP had to “constantly redirect” the VA. On one occasion when the VA asked the SP to take him/her to Walmart, the VA was “incoherent” and “stuttering” and the SP asked the VA if s/he was okay. The VA “got mad” at the SP for “accusing” the VA of not being “all there.” There were other times when the VA smelled of alcohol, had watery eyes, and was “spaced out.” · At some point after the SP no longer worked at the facility, the SP heard from an unnamed former staff person that the VA said the SP took money from the VA and that they had sexual contact. The SP denied taking money from the VA and denied giving the VA any “exchange of money.” However, the SP said that s/he gave the VA about $50 via CashApp so the VA could get his/her nails done. The money was given to the VA to congratulate the VA for an achievement and because the facility would not cover the funds to do so, and the SP wanted to “build rapport” with the VA. SP denied having a sexual relationship or contact with the VA and said that there was nothing that could have been skewed to make it look that there was. The SP was “perplexed” as to why the VA would accuse him of the above allegations. The SP said the only thing s/he may be “guilty” of was not saying goodbye when s/he no longer worked at the facility. The SP was trained on the VA’s plans and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Vulnerable Adult’s Act. Conclusion: Regarding Financial Exploitation: Although the VA stated that the SP owed him/her $1200, the VA was not subject to guardianship, had the authority to lend money to persons whom s/he chose, and the VA provided inaccurate information regarding the CashApp transaction. The SP’s account of the money paid to the VA via CashApp was consistent with what P1 provided. In addition, the SP denied taking/borrowing any money from the VA and there was no information provided that the SP took money without the VA’s permission or knowledge. Therefore, there was a preponderance of the evidence that the SP did not take money from the VA in the absence of legal authority. It was determined financial exploitation did not occur (in the absence of legal authority a person willfully uses, withholds, or disposes of funds or property of a vulnerable adult.) Regarding Sexual Abuse: Although the VA stated that s/he had sexual contact with the SP, the SP denied the allegation and there was no information provided that corroborated either account. There were some credibility concerns regarding the VA as stated above and the VA had at times provided inaccurate information. However, the SP had reason to minimize his/her actions for fear of repercussions. Given that there was no other information to corroborate either account, that the VA’s information lacked significant details including dates and times, that the VA declined to provide further information to this investigator, and that the SP denied the allegations, 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 stated that their policies and procedures were adequate and followed. The SP no longer worked at the facility. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: No further action taken.
|
