|
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: 1073297-HCBS (Home and Community-Based Services) Investigator(s): Tessa Ripka 651-431-6612 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that a staff person (SP) displayed grooming behaviors toward a vulnerable adult (VA) including touching the VA’s arm inappropriately, asking the VA out on a date, watching sexually explicit television with the VA, and asking the VA if s/he would like to watch “real porn” with the SP. Date of Incident(s): May 2023 and prior 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 (b), clause (2): Conduct which is not an accident or therapeutic conduct which produces or could reasonably be expected to produce physical pain or injury or emotional distress including, but not limited to: the use of repeated or malicious oral, written or gestured language toward a vulnerable adult or the treatment of a vulnerable adult which would be considered by a reasonable person to be disparaging, derogatory, humiliating, harassing, or threatening. Summary of Findings: Pertinent information for this investigation was obtained remotely, including documentation from the facility; and through five interviews conducted with one facility staff person (SP), the VA’s mental health provider (MH), the VA’s case manager (CM), the VA’s guardian (G), and the VA. The VA enjoyed art and was diagnosed with mild intellectual disabilities and autism. The VA received 10 hours of individual home supports per week. The Individual Abuse Prevention Plan stated that the VA did not fully understand sexuality or relationships. Generally, when the VA felt unsafe s/he called the G and the G talked with the VA about relationships. The VA did not go out into the community without supervision due to safety issues regarding interactions with others. The VA provided the following information: · The VA said that s/he liked the SP at first but then the SP was “really creepy.” The SP rubbed the VA’s arm and/or shoulder and gave the VA a “weird look.” This made the VA feel uncomfortable. The VA told the SP to stop doing that, but the SP kept doing it. · On one occasion, the SP and the VA were going to the library, but the SP kept forgetting things and having to go to the SP’s house. The SP asked if the VA wanted to watch “adult films” with the SP. The VA said “What?” and the SP did not say anything further. · On multiple occasions, the SP asked the VA, if s/he liked to watch adult films and the VA said, “No.” On multiple occasions, the SP bought something for the VA and then asked the VA if s/he wanted to “go out” with the SP. · The VA recently found out that the SP was working with an individual that the VA knew and was “worried” for the individual as the individual was younger and more vulnerable. The G provided the following information: · On one occasion, the G and the VA went to the SP’s apartment. The SP put on a television show with an explicit sex scene in it. The SP paused the show and said they should talk about it. The G declined and they left the SP’s apartment. · The VA was moving out of his/her apartment and the SP kept “pressuring” the G to let the VA live with the SP. The G said that was not going to happen, but the SP kept bringing it up. · At some point, after the SP was not working with the VA anymore, the VA saw a photograph of the SP and another person that the VA knew. The VA said that s/he was worried about the person because the SP used to rub the VA’s arm in a way that made the VA uncomfortable. Later when the MHcame to talk with the VA, the VA said that the SP offered to watch pornography with the VA. The VA also said that the SP asked the VA out. The MH said that during a visit with the VA, the MH asked the VA if anyone had touched him/her inappropriately. The VA said no but that the SP had some “boundary issues.” When asked for more information, the VA said that the SP asked the VA out and asked the VA to watch pornography with the SP. The CM said that during a team meeting in May 2023, it was noted that the SP had started to “break boundaries” which included saying that the VA could move in with the SP. The SP also started to purchase things for the VA. The SP provided the following information: · Several times a week, the SP took the VA out on outings often to the VA’s vocational program, the YMCA, and to the library. The SP may have touched the VA’s arm on occasion, but never patted or held the VA’s arm. · The SP said that s/he never spoke with the VA about pornography or asked the VA if s/he wanted to watch pornography. The SP never talked about anything sexual with the VA and never asked the VA to live with him/her. The VA and SP usually talked about art or music, but the SP “may” have asked the VA about a girl/boyfriend or “special” friend. · The SP had on occasion paid for the VA’s lunch and sometimes the G paid. The SP said s/he never asked the VA out on a date. · On one occasion, the VA and the G were at the SP’s apartment and the SP put on a show that s/he thought the G would enjoy. The SP forgot there was a scene in the show which showed characters having sexual intercourse. The SP switched to a different episode and apologized as s/he did not mean to be “disrespectful.” The SP was trained on the Reporting of Maltreatment of Vulnerable Adults Act and the VA’s plans prior to the incident. Relevant Rules and/or Statutes: Minnesota Statutes section 245D.04, subdivision 3, paragraph (a), clause (6) states that a person’s protection related rights include the right to be treated with courtesy and respect. Conclusion: The VA provided consistent information to the G, the MH, and this investigator that the SP used some inappropriate actions and/or comments including that the SP rubbed the VA’s shoulder/arm making the VA feel uncomfortable, asked the VA out, and asked the VA if s/he wanted to watch pornography. The G said that on one occasion, the SP played an explicit sex scene for the VA and the G while they were at the SP’s apartment. The SP “pressured” the G to have the VA come live with the SP. The SP denied asking the VA out, asking the VA to watch pornography, asking the VA to live with him/her, and/or discussing anything sexual with the VA. Given that the VA provided consistent information to the G, the MH, and to this investigator at different points in time that the SP asked the VA out on a date, touched the VA in a way that made him/her feel uncomfortable, and asked the VA to watch pornography and that the SP had reason to minimize his/her actions it was likely that the SP made some inappropriate comments to the VA which was inconsistent with the role of a professional caregiver in a facility licensed by the Minnesota Department of Human Services; and a violation of Minnesota Statutes section 245D.04, subdivision 3, paragraph (a), clause (6). However there was a preponderance of the evidence that the use of inappropriate language by the SP did not constitute repeated or malicious language that could reasonably be expected to produce emotional distress. It was not determined whether emotional abuse occurred (conduct which is not an accident or therapeutic conduct which produces or could reasonably be expected to produce physical pain or injury or emotional distress including, but not limited to: the use of repeated or malicious oral, written or gestured language toward a vulnerable adult or the treatment of a vulnerable adult which would be considered by a reasonable person to be disparaging, derogatory, humiliating, harassing, or threatening). Action Taken by Facility: The facility completed an internal review and determined that policies and procedures were adequate. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: On May 22, 2024, the facility was issued a correction order for the violation in this report and for not meeting the requirements for program coordination, evaluation, and oversight.
|
