|
MALTREATMENT INVESTIGATION MEMORANDUM Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.01, paragraph (a), “The legislature hereby declares that the public policy of this state is to protect children whose health or welfare may be jeopardized through maltreatment.” 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: 1084386-CRF (Children’s Residential Facility) Investigator(s): Carla Harvieux 651-431-6616 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that a staff person (SP) smoked marijuana with three alleged victims (AV1, AV2, AV3), and a vulnerable adult (VA) on and off facility grounds and did not intervene when the AVs/VA smoked it at the facility. Date of Incident(s): Prior to August 2, 2024 Nature of Alleged Maltreatment Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.03, subdivision 15, paragraph (a), clauses (1) and (2): Failure by a person responsible for a child's care to supply a child with necessary food, clothing, shelter, health, medical, or other care required for the child's physical or mental health when reasonably able to do so. Failure to protect a child from conditions or actions that seriously endanger the child's physical or mental health when reasonably able to do so. 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 17, paragraph (a): 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 August 21, 2024; from documentation at the facility; and through interviews conducted with facility staff persons (the P and the SP), and with AV1, AV2, and AV3. The VA no longer resided at the facility when the site visit was made and was not interviewed for this report. However, the VA provided information in the facility’s Internal Review, and it was included below. The facility was a transitional residential program that specialized in working with youth who were at risk and worked to build the youths’ independent living skills to prepare them for young adulthood. Youths received services tailored to their needs including daily independent living skills focused groups, one-on-one skills coaching, recreation and leisure opportunities, household management practice, vocational opportunities, and community outings. Community services available to the youths included mental health counseling, psychiatric medication management, chemical dependency services, advocacy, spiritual and cultural resources, and medical and dental care. Off-site education services were provided to the youths by a school district. Facility documentation showed that AV1 was diagnosed with anxiety and thought that s/he had post-traumatic stress disorder. AV1 was kind and smart but might have difficulty trusting others. No written plans showed whether AV1 had a history of providing inaccurate information, but s/he previously used vaping devices at the facility. AV2 preferred to spend time in his/her bedroom at the facility and enjoyed one-on-one time with staff persons. AV2 was vulnerable to maltreatment, had difficulty sleeping, was impulsive, and might have verbal aggression toward others, but had no documented history of substance use or providing inaccurate information. AV2 wanted to live as independently as possible. AV3 was diagnosed with anxiety, was impulsive, was vulnerable to maltreatment, and had a history of substance use. AV3 was outgoing and motivated to build relationships with others, but s/he might struggle with peer interactions, and worked to develop effective communication/conflict resolution skills. AV3 had no documented history of providing inaccurate information. The VA was diagnosed with anxiety, but s/he was resilient and adaptable, and enjoyed making plans for his/her future. No written documentation showed whether the VA had a history of substance use or a history of providing inaccurate information. Interviews with this investigator, facility documentation, and the facility’s Internal Review, provided the following: · The AVs/VA provided generally consistent information that on July 27, 2024, they went on a community outing with the SP in the facility van. After the outing, the SP stopped at a restaurant to get something to eat, and when the AVs, the VA, and SP walked to and from the van and the restaurant, they saw a marijuana cigarette (a blunt) in the restaurant parking lot. The SP told the AVs/VA to pick up the blunt and bring it with them back to the facility. At the facility, the SP smoked the blunt with the AVs/VA, and AV2 stated that s/he saw the SP “hit the blunt” twice. · The P, a supervisory staff person, said that in early August of 2024, s/he became aware of talk and discussion among the AVs/VA that they used marijuana with the SP on July 27 and 28, 2024. There were some inconsistencies in the information the AVs/VA provided to the P, but the core of their stories was that the SP took them on a community outing in the facility van on July 27, 2024, and they stopped at a community park and a restaurant. At the restaurant, the SP, the AVs, and the VA saw a blunt on the sidewalk at the restaurant, and did not pick it up initially, but instead began driving back to the facility. However, before reaching the facility, the SP drove back to the restaurant and instructed AV1 to pick up the blunt. AV1 did, and when the AVs, the VA, and the SP returned to the facility, they smoked the blunt in a vacant facility bedroom. The SP gave AV1 the blunt to keep overnight so the SP would not get in trouble and told the AVs/VA not to say anything about using marijuana because the SP might lose his/her job. The next day, the SP took the AVs and the VA on a community outing to a park and smoked the blunt with them again. · On August 1, 2024, the P asked the AVs and the VA to complete urinalysis (UA) tests and they agreed. AV1’s and AV2’s UAs were positive for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) which was the substance in marijuana that caused one to feel high. AV3’s and the VA’s UAs were negative for THC and AV3 said that s/he drank water to “flush” marijuana out of his/her system. According to the P, the AVs and the VA had histories of providing inaccurate information, but “not to that magnitude.” Prior to these incidents, there were no concerns regarding the SP’s work at the facility. · The SP said that when the P called him/her with concerns regarding marijuana use at the facility, the SP was “distraught,” but the P did not give the SP a chance to respond to the concerns. According to the SP, the P said that five youths, including the AVs and the VA, tested positive for marijuana. The SP was very upset and did not recall much of what the P told him/her after that, but on the date of the incident, the SP took the AVs and the VA to get something to eat because there was very little food at the facility and s/he had worked 40 hours in three days and was so hungry and tired that s/he was “about to pass out.” There was enough food for the youths to eat for supper that evening but not enough for the youths to have a second helping if they were still hungry. · According to the SP, the P told him/her that there were rumors that an unspecified youth picked up a marijuana cigarette at the restaurant parking lot and the SP, the AVs, and the VA returned to the facility, then smoked the marijuana cigarette. The SP told the P that s/he did not know anything about smoking marijuana and denied that s/he smoked it with the AVs/VA. The SP said s/he did not see marijuana at the restaurant or tell a youth to pick it up, denied that used marijuana with the AVs/VA on the community outing to the park, and denied that s/he smoked marijuana at the facility, or smoked it anywhere with the AVs/VA. · The SP thought that the AVs/VA made up the concerns in this report and relayed them to the P because they called the SP a “bitch,’ said, “Oh fuck, [the SP] is coming” when the SP was scheduled to work, were angry with the SP because the SP told them to go to bed/sleep at 11 p.m., and because s/he followed the facility’s rules when providing care to them. The AVs/VA made comments to the SP and other staff persons that they were going to get the SP “fired.” · The SP thought that the AVs/VA attempted to obtain marijuana when they were in the community and felt that s/he was being treated unfairly by the facility. In the community, it was difficult to keep constant eyes on the AVs/VA because they interacted with other youths in the parks or might use community bathrooms without direct eyes on supervision. The AVs/VA moved around quickly and were usually in motion. In addition, the AVs/VA went on unsupervised visits with family members during which time they might use marijuana. The SP was unsure whether the AVs/VA had recently visited family members, but they regularly had vaping devices and hid them at school and in the facility van because their belongings were checked when they returned from school, and staff persons took any vaping devices the youths brought to the facility. One of the youths in this report whose identity the SP could not recall, worked in the community, and was not supervised by staff persons at his/her job. The SP thought that the facility’s administrative and supervisory staff persons wanted to get rid of him/her because s/he raised concerns when s/he had them regarding the facility and the way things were done there. A single instance of marijuana use might cause THC to remain in the urine of a person who had used marijuana for about three days, for approximately four instances of use in one week, THC might remain in the urine for about five days, and if used daily, THC would probably be found in urine for about ten days. If a person used marijuana heavily/chronically, THC might be in urine for 30 days after its last use. The facility’s personnel and training records showed that staff persons who provided information for this report were trained on the Maltreatment of Minors Act, the Reporting of Maltreatment of Vulnerable Adults Act, and the facility’s policies and procedures prior to the incident. Conclusion: The AVs/VA provided generally consistent information that on July 27, 2024, the AVs, the VA, and the SP found a blunt at a restaurant in the community, and then smoked the blunt together at the facility later that day and smoked more of it in a park on July 28, 2024. The SP asked the AVs/VA not to tell anyone about the marijuana because s/he did not want to get in trouble or lose his/her job. According to the P, on August 1, 2024, the AVs/VA completed UAs which showed that AV1 and AV2 were positive for marijuana, but AV3 and the VA were negative. The SP said that s/he was upset when s/he learned of the AVs’/VA’s statements and felt that the P did not give him/her a chance to respond. The SP said that s/he did know anything about smoking marijuana, denied that s/he saw marijuana at the restaurant, denied that s/he told a youth to pick it up, and denied that s/he smoked marijuana with the AVs/VA at any time. The SP thought that the AVs/VA might make up things about him/her because s/he followed the facility’s policies and procedures, were upset when the SP was scheduled to work at the facility, planned to get the SP fired, and referred to the SP as a “bitch.” The P said that the AVs/VA had a history of providing inaccurate information, but not to this extent and prior to this incident, there were no concerns with the SP’s work at the facility. After a single instance of marijuana use, THC might remain in urine for about three days, after approximately four uses in a week, THC might remain in urine for about five days, and if used daily, THC would probably be in urine for about ten days. After heavy/chronic use, THC might be in urine for 30 days after its last use. Regarding the AVs: The AVs/VA said they used marijuana with the SP at the facility and in the community and AV1 and AV2 tested positive for marijuana on the fourth day after their last marijuana use. However, the AVs/VA had a history of providing inaccurate information, AV3 and the VA each tested negative for marijuana, and the SP denied that s/he used marijuana with the youths. Given this, and that there were no other witnesses to the incidents, there was not a preponderance of the evidence that there was a failure to provide the AVs with care or a failure to protect the AVs. It was not determined that neglect occurred (failure by a person responsible for a child's care to supply a child with necessary food, clothing, shelter, health, medical, or other care required for the child's physical or mental health when reasonably able to do so; or failure to protect a child from conditions or actions that seriously endanger the child's physical or mental health when reasonably able to do so). Regarding the VA: The AVs/VA said they used marijuana with the SP at the facility and in the community and AV1 and AV2 tested positive for marijuana on the fourth day after their last marijuana use. However, the AVs/VA had a history of providing inaccurate information, AV3 and the VA each tested negative for marijuana, and the SP denied that s/he used marijuana with the youths. Given this, and that there were no other witnesses to the incidents, there was not a preponderance of the evidence whether there was a failure to provide the VA with reasonable and necessary care and services. It was not determined whether neglect occurred (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). Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.35, subdivision 6, paragraph (b), the investigative data in this report will be maintained by the Department of Human Services for a period of five years. Action Taken by Facility: The facility completed an Internal Review which determined that their policies and procedures were adequate but were not followed. There were no similar past incidents. The facility thought that the SP “allegedly allowed marijuana to be brought into the agency vehicle and the program/house,” and allegedly smoked marijuana with youths and asked a youth to keep a marijuana blunt in his/her possession. The SP was trained on the facility’s Professional Boundaries policy on January 29, 2023, and January 31, 2024. At the time this report was written, the SP was no longer employed at the facility. The facility reviewed professional boundary expectations with all staff persons. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: No further action taken. Certification: The information collection procedures followed in this investigation were pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.30, subdivision 6, paragraph (c). All individuals that are subjects of data in this investigation have the right to obtain private data on themselves which was collected, created, or maintained by the Department of Human Services.
|
