|
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: 1081553-H_CRS (Home and Community-Based Services-Community Residential Setting) Investigator(s): Carla Harvieux carla.harvieux@state.mn.us Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that a staff person (SP) had contact with a vulnerable adult (VA) outside work hours and “groomed” the VA for a possible sexual relationship. The SP stopped coming to his/her scheduled shifts at the facility and the VA’s behavior became aggressive, and s/he said that the SP had sexual intercourse with him/her. Date of Incident(s): Prior to March 6, 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); and subdivision 17, paragraph (a): 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. The failure or omission by a caregiver to supply a vulnerable adult with care or services, including but not limited to food, clothing, shelter, health care, or supervision which is reasonable and necessary to obtain or maintain the vulnerable adult's physical or mental health or safety, considering the physical and mental capacity or dysfunction of the vulnerable adult and which is not the result of an accident or therapeutic conduct. Summary of Findings: Pertinent information was obtained during a site visit conducted on March 28, 2024, and an interview completed on April 23, 2024; from documentation at the facility and law enforcement records; and through interviews conducted with facility staff persons (P1, P2, and the SP), and the VA. This investigator attempted to contact additional staff persons (P3 and P4), but they did not respond to requests for an interview. Facility documentation showed that the VA’s diagnoses included an intellectual disability, conduct disorder, schizophrenia, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. The VA might be impulsive, had no unsupervised time in the community, and might misread social cues or be unable to identify potentially dangerous persons or situations. However, the VA “placed a premium on engaging in adult or grown[up] activities” including going to restaurant bars, casinos, or buying lottery tickets. The facility provided the VA safe opportunities to engage in those activities in a responsible manner. The VA had poor boundaries and might touch others without their permission or lack the skills to appropriately respond to aggressive persons. It was unknown how the VA would interpret or respond to a sexually abusive situation, and staff persons were to monitor the VA and intervene if s/he was in danger. Difficulty regulating his/her emotions/behaviors was an issue for the VA and s/he became easily frustrated, but s/he wanted to live as independently as possible and wanted others to recognize that s/he was an adult. Facility documentation, records from the law enforcement agency, and information provided by the VA, P1, P2, and the SP in interviews with this investigator and/or a law enforcement officer (LEO), and the facility’s Internal Review, provided the following: · P1 (a supervisory staff person) had worked with the VA for several years and knew him/her well. In early March of 2024, P2, P3, and P4 approached P1 with concerns regarding interactions they observed between the SP and the VA or statements the VA made to them about his/her relationship with the SP. The SP often took the VA on community outings that lasted for most of his/her shift and staff persons thought that the SP had texted and called the VA multiple times and used a phone application (app) to videochat with the VA. P1 talked with the VA about his/her relationship with the SP and learned that the SP was going to bring alcohol for the VA and put it in the facility mailbox for the VA to retrieve. P1 was concerned for the VA’s safety and thought that the SP might be “grooming” the VA, but the VA enjoyed the attention that s/he got from the SP and went along with the interactions. The VA later told P1 that s/he had sexual intercourse with the SP, and P1 thought that the VA was being truthful. When the facility asked the SP to meet about the concerns, the SP did not respond or work his/her scheduled shifts. · P2 said that when s/he worked with the VA, the SP was no longer employed there and on a date s/he could not recall, s/he saw the VA videochatting with someone whom the VA identified as the SP. The person the VA was chatting with was lying on a couch dressed in undergarments during the chat, but P2 could not describe the SP or the couch on which s/he laid during the videochat. · In an interview with this investigator and the LEO, the VA said that s/he and the SP were friends and talked on the phone but could not recall what they talked about. The SP took the VA to his/her apartment when the SP was moving and went on walks in the community with the VA. The SP and the VA went grocery shopping together and the VA and enjoyed food that the SP prepared. The VA declined to answer most of the questions during the interview, stated that s/he did not remember, and declined to show his/her history of contacts with the SP on his/her phone to this investigator or the LEO. The VA denied that s/he kissed the SP or had sexual intercourse with him/her. · P1 and General Event Reports provided consistent information that at 2:30 p.m., on March 12, 2024, the VA was upset because the SP promised to bring the VA alcohol but did not and did not answer the VA’s phone calls. The VA broke a television at the facility, hit a wall, hit a staff person’s arm, threatened to punch P1 in the face, and told staff persons that the VA’s family member would come to the facility to kill them. Staff persons attempted to de-escalate the VA but were unable to and called 9-1-1. The VA calmed, and staff persons completed a Behavior Intervention Reporting Form regarding the incident. · On the evening of March 13, 2024, the VA touched a staff person’s (P5’s) hair then became irritated when P5 asked the VA not to touch him/her. The VA called P5 a “bitch,” threatened to knock P5’s “ass” out and told P5 to call his/her “bitch ass” significant other. Other unspecified staff persons intervened, and the VA threatened to break a window, threw a facility laptop on the floor (which broke the laptop), threw a soda at staff persons, and threw an unspecified staff person’s backpack. Staff persons redirected the VA. At the time these incidents occurred, the SP no longer worked at the facility. · On March 14, 2024, the VA and his/her team met in response to the above incidents and developed a plan to provide the VA with additional preferred activities. The VA agreed to have no further contact with the SP and a Rights Restriction was put in place for him/her that limited his/her ability to associate with persons of his/her choice (the SP) and authorized staff persons to check the VA’s phone to ensure that there were no calls/texts between the VA and the SP. P1 pointed out that the VA had the SP’s phone number stored in his/her cell phone, but did not have the other staff persons’ phone numbers in the phone and that there were no concerns regarding others’ boundaries with the VA. According to P1, the VA had an excellent memory, always remembered names, and did not forget details. P1 thought that the VA said that s/he did not remember and declined to answer questions regarding his/her interactions with the SP because the VA did not want to get the SP “in trouble.” · When the SP was interviewed by this investigator and the LEO, the SP showed a history of text messages between him/herself and the VA on the SP’s phone. Between February 25 and March 6, 2024, the VA sent multiple text messages (sometimes several each day) to the SP asking the SP to call or videochat with him/her. The SP did not usually respond to the VA’s texts, but at 3:20 p.m., on February 25, 2024, the SP agreed to videochat with the VA. However, it was unknown whether the video chat occurred, and the SP did not provide a history of his/her contacts with the VA prior to February 25, 2024. On March 6, 2024, the last text message from the SP to the VA asked the VA to stop contacting the SP, expressed that the SP had tried to be a mentor to the VA and “be nice,” that the SP did not “like” the VA, and redirected the VA to talk with other staff persons regarding any issues s/he had. The SP said that s/he did not have a romantic relationship with the VA and did not have sexual intercourse with him/her. Records from a law enforcement agency showed that the agency was investigating the allegations in this report but had not concluded its investigation at the time this report was written. The facility’s personnel and training records showed that staff persons interviewed for this report were trained on the Reporting of Maltreatment of Vulnerable Adults Act prior to the incident. Conclusion: P1 said that P2, P3, and P4 expressed their concerns to him/her that the SP spent time with the VA outside working hours. It was thought that the SP might have been grooming the VA to have a sexual relationship with him/her. When asked about his/her relationship with the SP, the VA told P1 that s/he had sexual intercourse with the SP. Facility supervisory staff persons asked the SP to meet with them to discuss the matter, but s/he did not and stopped coming for his/her shifts at the facility. In addition, P2 said that s/he saw the VA and a person that the VA said was the SP, video chatting while the SP was wearing undergarments and lying on a couch, but s/he was unable to describe the SP. The VA said that s/he and the SP were friends and talked via phone, but s/he could not recall what they talked about. The SP took the VA to his/her apartment, took walks with him/her in the community, and took the VA grocery shopping, but the VA declined to show his/her history of contacts with the SP on his/her phone to this investigator and the LEO. The VA denied that s/he had a sexual relationship with the SP. Information was consistent that the VA was upset and had aggressive behavior in early March of 2024. The VA’s team met to address the VA’s behaviors, and put a Rights Restriction in place to prevent him/her from having further contact with the SP. P1 said that the VA told him/her that s/he had sexual intercourse with the SP and P2 stated that the VA told him/her that the person wearing undergarments in a video chat with the VA was the SP. However, given that P2 could not describe the SP, that the VA placed importance on “adult” activities and might misread social cues, and that information on the SP’s phone showed that s/he did not respond to the VA’s texts, there was not a preponderance of the evidence whether there was sexual contact between the SP and the VA or whether there was a failure to provide the VA with care and supervision that was reasonable or necessary to obtain or maintain the VA’s health and safety. It was not determined whether sexual abuse or neglect 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 and/or the failure or omission by a caregiver to supply a vulnerable adult with care or services, including but not limited to food, clothing, shelter, health care, or supervision which is reasonable and necessary to obtain or maintain the vulnerable adult's physical or mental health or safety, considering the physical and mental capacity or dysfunction of the vulnerable adult and which is not the result of an accident or therapeutic conduct). Action Taken by Facility: The facility completed an Internal Review which determined that its policies and procedures were adequate and were followed. The facility put a plan in place that prevented the VA from having additional contact with the SP and s/he was no longer employed at the facility when this report was written. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: No further action at this time. However, the Minnesota Department of Human Services will review the information provided by the LEO when the LE investigation is completed, and take any necessary action at that time.
|
