|
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: 810338-Intensive Residential Treatment Services/Residential Crisis Stabilization Investigator(s): Scott Brandt 651-431-6556 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that a staff person (SP) put his/her legs on a vulnerable adult (VA) and touched the VA’s waist, and that the VA lived with the SP. Date of Incident(s): prior to August 1, 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 for this investigation was obtained remotely, including documentation from the facility and through six interviews conducted with the VA, the SP, the VA’s family member (FM), a facility management staff person (P1), and two facility staff persons (P2 and P3). The facility provided short-term residential services to several clients with various mental health concerns. Information from the investigation showed that the SP was employed at the facility between May 2020 and August 2023. The VA resided at and received services from the facility from January to March 2022. The VA’s Discharge Summary stated that the “reason for initiation of services” was to “stabilize mental health, maintain sobriety and practice skills in the community.” The document also stated that the VA “had a positive response to treatment and has been able to manage mental health symptoms and maintain sobriety.” P1 stated that in August 2024, s/he received written correspondence from the VA about some concerns the VA had with the SP so P1 called the VA. The VA told P1 that when the VA was admitted to the facility, the VA and the SP had an “inappropriate relationship” when the SP began putting his/her legs on the VA and “touching” the VA’s “waist” in a nonsexual manner. The VA also stated that at some point in 2023, the SP reached out to the VA, which led to the VA living with the SP around October 2023 through February 2024. Prior to this, P1 was not aware of any concerns between the SP and the VA. The VA provided information to this investigator that was like the information provided to P1. The VA provided the following additional information to this investigator: · When the VA began receiving services at the facility in January 2022, the VA and the SP began a “flirtatious” relationship,” which meant that the SP and the VA touched each other’s “sides.” At some point, the SP told the VA that s/he “cared” about the VA. The VA did not tell anyone about what was happening between the VA and the SP. · At some point in March 2022, the VA began having “feelings” for the SP, but “set boundaries” with the SP because the VA did not think it was “appropriate.” Even though the VA set boundaries with the SP, the SP came to the VA’s place of employment the following day. When the VA got done working, the SP gave the VA a ride back to the facility and the VA again told the SP, “I don’t think we should be talking as much,” because the VA was “developing feelings” for the SP, but the SP said that s/he wanted “to keep talking.” After the discussion, the SP and the VA “continued on like nothing happened.” While the VA was at the facility, the VA and the SP did not communicate through text messages. The VA left the facility in March 2022 and during the time that the VA was at the program, the VA and the SP did not engage in a sexual relationship. · In September 2023, the SP sent two Facebook messages to the VA, but then deleted them before the VA could read them. After that, the VA sent a message to the SP asking if s/he was okay and “we started talking again.” The SP told the VA that s/he “broke up” with his/her significant other.
· In October 2023, the VA went to see the SP at his/her home and the VA “stayed” there “on and off” until late January or early February 2024. While the VA lived with the SP, they engaged in a sexual relationship. The FM stated that although s/he did not remember specific dates, the VA told the FM that there was “something” going on between the SP and the VA, but “nothing happened” when the VA was at the facility. The VA told the FM that the VA “liked” the SP and that they were “flirting basically at first.” The VA also told the FM that after the VA left the facility, the VA and the SP became “intimate” with one another and that the VA “stayed with” the SP. At some point, the SP called, and text messaged the FM because the SP wanted to find out where the VA was, but the FM was “vague” in his/her responses to the SP. The FM told the SP that “they needed to be apart,” but the FM did not remember how the SP responded to that. P2 stated that a staff person told P2 that the VA and the SP might have engaged in a sexual relationship at some point, but P2 did not remember who told him/her that. P2 stated that the SP was “super friendly” with the VA and had discussions with the VA that were not “relevant,” such as discussing movies or music. P2 did not bring any concerns forward to management because P2 thought the interactions were “harmless.” P3 stated that s/he did not observe any interactions between the VA and a staff person that were concerning and stated that the VA had not expressed any feelings toward a staff person to P3. The SP provided the following information: · When the VA was at the facility, the SP and the VA talked about “Christianity.” The SP denied any physical contact with the VA or “inappropriate conversations” with the VA. While the VA was receiving services at the facility, the VA and the SP did not send text messages to one another. · A couple months after the VA left the facility, the VA sent a message to the SP, but then “unsent” the message so the SP was not able to read the message and the SP did not respond to the VA. · About two years after the VA discharged from the facility, the VA sent a message to the SP, but then “unsent” the message because the SP “wasn’t sure about being in contact” with the VA and the SP “didn’t want to make the wrong decision.” The VA sent a message to the SP asking if s/he was okay. The SP responded, “Yes.” · At some point between October and December 2023, the SP “let” the VA “stay” with the SP “on and off” and they began a sexual relationship that ended in January 2024. Part of the reason that the relationship ended was because the VA began sending “nasty messages” to the SP and that the SP believed that the VA lied to the SP. The SP gave an example in which the VA told the SP that the VA had been in contact with his/her probation officer, but the SP later learned that was not true. The facility’s training records showed that all staff persons interviewed for this investigation were trained on the Reporting of Maltreatment of Vulnerable Adults Act and the VA’s specific care plans prior to August 1, 2024. Conclusion: In August 2024, the VA told P1 that while the VA received services at the facility, the VA and the SP engaged in an “inappropriate relationship,” which entailed the SP putting his/her legs on the VA and “touching” the VA’s “waist” in a nonsexual manner. The VA provided similar information to this investigator, the SP denied the allegations, and P1-P3 did not have knowledge of any concerns related to boundaries between the VA and the SP. Also, there was no information provided that showed that the SP and the VA communicated via text message when the VA was receiving services at the facility. The VA, who left the facility in March 2022, and the SP, who left the facility in August 2023, each acknowledged that they engaged in a sexual relationship in late 2023 to early 2024 and information showed that the VA told the FM about the sexual relationship. Although the SP’s actions were inconsistent with the standards of a professional caregiver in a program licensed by the Minnesota Department of Human Services, given that the VA and the SP each stated they did not have a sexual relationship while the VA was receiving services and that the VA and the SP did not communicate outside of the facility until the VA was not receiving services, there was not a preponderance of the evidence whether the SP had sexual contact with the VA or whether the SP failed to provide the VA with reasonable and necessary care and services. 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 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 for Vulnerable Adult Incidents and determined that policies and procedures were adequate, followed, and that no additional training was needed. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: No action taken at this time.
|
