|
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: 1070897-H_CRS (Home and Community-Based Services-Community Residential Setting) Investigator(s): Danielle Morrison 651-431-5647 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that a staff person (SP) touched a vulnerable adult’s (VA’s) hair and continued to do so after the VA asked the SP to stop. It was also alleged that while the VA was doing laundry the SP was in the same area and touched the VA’s hands and breasts. Date of Incident(s): January 26 and 29, 2024 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 February 15, 2024; from documentation at the facility, law enforcement records; and through six interviews conducted with a supervisory staff person (P1), three facility staff persons (the SP, P2, and P3), and the VA’s guardians (G1 and G2). The facility was a single-family home. The main level had a living area, a kitchen, a dining area, an office, and four bedrooms. The office was open to the dining area and kitchen. The lower level had a living area, the VA’s bedroom, a laundry room, and a bathroom. The VA’s diagnoses included major depressive affective disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and a developmental delay. The VA’s Individual Abuse Prevention Plan (IAPP) stated that the VA was not susceptible to sexual abuse, however, the VA had a history of being physically and sexually abused in his/her childhood. This investigator reached out to the VA, but s/he did not want to provide additional information to the information s/he provided to law enforcement. The Law Enforcement Report provided the following information: · On February 1, 2024, at 1 p.m., a law enforcement officer (LEO) met with the VA and P1. The VA stated that on January 26, 2024, s/he was in the living room when the SP came over and sat by the VA on the couch and started stroking/playing with the VA’s hair. The VA stated s/he looked at the SP and “froze.” · The SP then started to touch the VA’s breast. The VA stated another staff person was heard coming that way, so the SP stopped, and the VA got up and walked away. The VA went downstairs to his/her bedroom and did not say anything to anyone until s/he saw G2 the next day. The VA said s/he did not tell G2 specifics, and G2 did not say much about it. · On Monday, January 29, 2024, the VA said s/he told an afternoon staff person what happened. The VA said the SP worked that morning. The VA told the LEO that the SP had touched his/her breast over the VA’s clothes about five times in the past, shortly after the VA moved into the facility (November 2022), and the VA told an unknown staff person one time about it. · On February 1, 2024, at 2:27 p.m., the LEO spoke with G2 about what the VA had told him/her and G2 stated that last weekend when G2 was with the VA, the VA said a staff person touched the VA’s hair and breast area and it made the VA “uncomfortable.” G2 thought the VA told G2 that the VA had told another staff person right away so G2 figured it was being handled. · The LEO had a meeting scheduled with the SP on February 6, 2024, at noon. The SP did not show up, so the LEO called the SP at 12:20 p.m. and the SP told the LEO that s/he was going to the facility headquarters that day at 3 p.m. and would not be coming in to speak with the LEO. · On February 13, 2024, the LEO followed up with G2 and G2 stated that the VA did not want the SP going to jail and did not want to pursue any criminal charges. P2 stated that on January 26, 2024, the SP was working with the VA when P2 and P3 arrived. P2 said the SP was talkative, and the VA was upstairs and came into the dining room when P2 was there and talked to the staff persons present a little bit. P2 thought P1 was there for a little bit too. P2 said nothing seemed “out of the ordinary” at that time and it was not until “a couple hours” later that the VA said something. The VA approached P2 downstairs and said the SP touched the VA “inappropriately” starting with the VA’s hair and then his/her “chest area.” The VA told P2 that it made him/her “uncomfortable.” P2 reached out to P1 who told P2 to have P3 help him/her send a message through s-comm (a secure communication used to communicate with selected users). P2 stated that in the past when the VA told P2 s/he was uncomfortable about something it “had some ground” to the statement. P2 said s/he had no experience with the VA lying. P2 stated that the VA had not expressed concerns about the SP before. P3 stated that on January 26, 2024, s/he arrived at the facility around 7 a.m. and the SP was sitting at the dining room table with the VA talking, and P2 was in the office. P3 stated that when P1 arrived, the SP left for another facility. That afternoon, the VA stopped P2 and told P2 that the SP played with the VA’s hair and breast. P1 was not at the facility anymore, so P3 told P2 to let P1 know. P1 told P2 to create a general event report through s-comm. P3 stated that s/he did not work on Monday, January 29, 2024, but the next time s/he worked with the VA, the VA told P3 that the SP was not coming back to the facility and that the VA had talked to law enforcement. P3 stated that the VA did not provide any details to him/her. The SP provided the following information to this investigator and during the facility’s internal review: · The SP usually worked at another location but picked up a shift at the facility on January 26, 2024. The SP arrived around 8 a.m. and worked with two other staff persons. When the SP arrived, the VA was eating breakfast and the VA expressed that s/he was “excited” that the SP was working there again. · The SP helped another resident with breakfast and then watched television in the living room with that client and the VA until P1 arrived. When P1 arrived, the SP left around 9 a.m. to finish a shift at another location as they needed assistance. · On January 29, 2024, the SP arrived for his/her shift at the facility and the VA was eating breakfast. The VA asked where everyone else was at. The SP said the other residents were sleeping and the SP stated that no other staff person came until 11 a.m. · The SP stated that s/he talked with the VA for a little bit and then the VA went downstairs to take a shower. About 30 minutes later, the VA came back upstairs, and his/her hair was dripping water onto his/her back and shoulders. The SP asked if the VA wanted to change clothes and the VA said, “No.” · The SP lifted the VA’s hair off of his/her clothes and shook the VA’s hair in an attempt to prevent the water from dripping on the VA’s shirt. The SP asked the VA if the VA wanted the SP to do his/her hair and the VA said, “No.” The SP told the VA that s/he should change his/her shirt. The SP stated the VA did not tell the SP to stop. The SP then went to the other resident’s rooms to wake them up. · The other residents came out and they watched television in the living room and the VA went back downstairs. Later the VA came back upstairs and had changed his/her shirt. The VA had yogurt in the living room with the SP and the other residents. · At one point during the day, the VA asked the SP to tell one of the other residents to take his/her laundry out. The SP said that s/he would tell that resident when that resident woke up. The SP stated s/he never went downstairs. · The SP stated that s/he did not like people touching him/her in a way that s/he did not like, so the SP “never” even gave the VA a hug. The SP denied touching the VA’s breast.
G2 stated that s/he saw the VA every weekend and the VA brought up “something” but did not go into details with G2. When G2 heard about the incident from P1, G2 talked to the VA more about the situation, the VA stated that s/he did not want the SP to go to jail, and the VA told G2 that s/he did not want to press charges. G2 stated that the SP worked with the VA about a year ago when the SP worked at the facility through a temporary agency. The VA told G2 that s/he “complained” about the SP at that time. When the VA mentioned to G2 that s/he had complained about the SP in the past, G2 talked to P1 and was told that there was no complaint at that time, but it was recommended that the SP get additional training from the temporary agency. The SP was now working for the facility, and the VA was “uncomfortable” with the SP. G2 stated that the VA had misrepresented things in the past by “stretching” the truth but had not made allegations like this before. P1 stated that the VA told P2 on Monday, January 29, 2024, that the incident occurred on Friday, January 26, 2024. P1 did not see the s-comm message until January 31, 2024. The VA told G2 over the weekend that the SP made the VA “uncomfortable,” and that the VA told a staff person. When P1 spoke with the VA, the VA told P1 that the VA and the SP were at the table and the SP touched the VA’s hair and then started playing with the VA’s hair. The VA then went downstairs to do laundry and the SP followed the VA. The VA told P1 that s/he had a laundry basket and then the SP touched the VA’s breast. The VA also said that the SP worked at the facility before and made the VA “uncomfortable.” This was before P1 worked at the facility, but s/he was not able to find any record of it and checked with the temporary agency that the SP was working for during that time and was told that there was “never any complaints” made. P1 was not aware of the VA making statements like this previously. G1 stated that the VA told him/her that a staff person touched the VA on the breast, and it made the VA feel “awful.” G1 said the VA did not like people touching him/her. The VA had not made statements like that before and G1 felt the VA would accurately state events. G1 had no prior concerns with the facility. The s-comm from P2 to P1 dated January 26, 2024, at 2:03 p.m., stated that on January 26, 2024, around 11:15 a.m., the VA asked to speak with P2 privately regarding a personal matter. The VA told P2 that the SP “inappropriately” touched the VA on the VA’s hair and “chest area.” The SP was present earlier in the day. The VA stated this was triggering due to past trauma. The cameras in the facility were not working at the time of the incident. The facility’s policy regarding Employee Professionalism and Conflicts of Interest stated that staff persons were to treat persons served with dignity and respect. Facility records showed the SP, P1, P2, and P3 were each trained on the Reporting of Vulnerable Adults Act. Law enforcement investigated and took no further action. Conclusion: On January 26, 2024, the VA stated that the VA touched his/her hair and breast area while sitting on the couch. P2 stated that around 11:15 a.m., the VA asked to speak with P2, and the VA told P2 that the SP touched the VA “inappropriately” on the hair and breast and it made the VA “uncomfortable.” P2 sent an s-comm to P1 on January 26, 2024, at 2:03 p.m. The VA was with G2 that weekend and mentioned to G2 that something happened, but G2 stated that the VA said s/he had already told a staff person about it, so G2 thought it was being handled. P1 said s/he did not see the s-comm until January 31, 2024, and then s/he spoke with the VA who stated that the SP touched his/her hair while the VA was at the dining room table, and then the VA went downstairs to do laundry and that was when the SP touched the VA’s breast. The VA also told P1 that the SP had done this the year previously when the SP was working for a temporary agency at the facility. P1 reached out to the temporary agency and there were no complaints made. The SP stated that s/he worked for about an hour on January 26, 2024, and then went to another facility location that needed assistance. The SP stated that on January 29, 2024, s/he worked at the facility and talked with the VA at the table. The VA then went downstairs and took a shower. Around 30 minutes later the VA came upstairs, and his/her hair was dripping onto his/her shirt. The SP lifted the VA’s hair in an attempt to help dry the VA’s hair. The SP asked the VA if s/he wanted the SP to do his/her hair, but the VA said, “No.” The SP told the VA that s/he should change his/her shirt. The SP went about the rest of his/her day with the other residents and stated that the VA came upstairs at one point with a new shirt on. The SP denied going downstairs and denied touching the VA’s breast area. Although the VA stated that the SP touched his/her hair and breast “inappropriately,” and said the SP had also done this in the past, and it made the VA “uncomfortable, given that there was no information or complaints regarding the past incident, that the VA told P1 and LEO different versions of where the incidents took place and there was varying information regarding the VA’s accuracy with information, and that while the SP stated s/he did touch the VA’s hair to stop in from dripping on his/her shirt, the SP denied touching the VA’s breast, 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 found their policies and procedures adequate and there was no need for additional training. The SP no longer worked at that location. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: On May 1, 2024, the facility was issued a Correction Order for failure to maintain training records.
|
