|
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: 1068649-H_CRS (Home and Community-Based Services-Community Residential Setting) Investigator(s): Scout Peterson 651-431-6578 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that a staff person (SP) had sexual contact with a vulnerable adult (VA) more than one time that included putting his/her hand down the VA’s pants and inside his/her pants and underwear. Date of Incident(s): Unknown 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 August 20, 2024; from documentation at the facility and law enforcement records; and through three interviews conducted with two facility supervisory staff persons (P1 and P2), and the SP. This investigator met the VA, but due to the nature of the allegations, did not re-interview the VA because the VA had provided information to law enforcement that is included below. The VA’s guardian (G) provided information to law enforcement that was included below but did not have additional information to provide to this investigator when contacted. The VA was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, mild intellectual disabilities with psychotic reactions, and recurrent major depressive disorder. The VA enjoyed playing sports, dancing and doing puzzles. The VA’s Individual Abuse Prevention Plan stated that the VA was susceptible to sexual abuse due to his/her lack of understanding of sexuality, likeliness to seek out or cooperate in an abusive situation, and inability to be assertive. The VA’s Coordinated Services and Support Plan stated that the VA had a history of “inaccurate reporting” and made allegations of abuse perpetrated against him/her that were not substantiated. Additionally, the VA has a history of misinterpreting events or conversations and then making inaccurate reports of them. The VA provided the following information to law enforcement: · “About a week ago,” the SP placed his/her hands on the VA’s butt underneath the VA’s pants and underwear and said, “That’s a good [girl/boy].” The VA was unable to provide information regarding where this incident took place or additional details. · The VA stated that “a couple [of] days ago,” the SP took him/her to “a house” and brought the VA inside. [Note: The VA was unable to provide information as to where the house was located or how far away the house was from the facility]. The SP turned on the living room tv and put a music video on. The VA went to a bedroom followed by the SP. The SP “lay [the VA] down” on a bed in the bedroom, put his/her hands around the VA’s neck, and then put his/her other hand down the back of the VA’s pants underneath the VA’s underwear and grabbed the VA’s butt. The SP told the VA not to tell anybody and told the VA that s/he would stop touching the VA if the VA wanted him/her to. The VA told the SP to stop and the SP stopped. The VA and SP then left the house, drove around in the facility van, and then returned to the facility. The G provided the following information to law enforcement: · On August 9, 2024, the VA told the G and another family member that s/he was sexually assaulted by a staff person at the facility. The VA went to stay at the G’s house because s/he “didn’t want to be at the facility anymore.” On August 10, 2024, the G called another family member and told him/her about the incidents and the next day, the G called P2 to inform him/her what the VA said. · The G was present for the VA’s interview with law enforcement. After the interview, the G told law enforcement that s/he believed the VA. The VA “had a history of embellishing things,” however, when the VA embellished things s/he “backed down from them when [s/he] is confronted” and the VA has not “backed down at all” regarding the incidents. The G stated that the VA’s account of the incidents to the law enforcement officer was consistent with what the VA told the G. P1 provided the following information: · The weekend of August 9, 2024, the G sent P1 a text message asking P1 to call him/her and also received a text message from another administrative staff person stating that s/he was “taking care of the situation that occurred” at the facility. On Monday August 12, 2024, P1 received a call from another administrative staff person who provided an update on what had occurred and informed P1 that the SP was taken off the schedule. · P1 never spoke to the SP about the allegations. P1 stated that there was a report made in the “spring or summer” from another client that was sexual in nature and was investigated and unfounded so the SP returned to work. P1 did not recall details of that report. P2 provided the following information during his/her interview and to law enforcement: · On August 10, 2024, P2 received a call from the G who told P2 that the VA told a family member and the G that s/he had been “sexually assaulted” by the SP. P2 immediately went to the facility and when s/he arrived, s/he found that the SP was on an outing with another consumer. P2 called the SP and told him/her to return to the facility. When the SP returned to the facility, P2 sent the SP home “due to a vulnerable adult report,” but P2 did not disclose the nature of the report or the allegations made. · P2 called 9-1-1 to notify law enforcement. A few minutes later, law enforcement arrived at the facility and the VA returned to the facility with the G. Law enforcement, the G, and the VA then went into a private place to talk. · Afterwards, the G provided information to P2 that was consistent with the information the VA provided during his/her interview with the LEO. · P2 stated that the VA “might not understand the situations” and “may embellish” or “misremember things” if s/he became “emotional” or “experienced a behavioral crisis.” The SP provided the following consistent information to law enforcement and in a separate interview with this investigator: · The SP worked the day shift typically from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. on Mondays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, and every other weekend. · On August 10, 2024, the SP was working at the facility when P2 approached him/her and told him/her that there was “a report with allegations,” but did not tell the SP what the allegations were. P2 then sent the SP home. · The SP told this investigator that the first-time s/he heard what the allegation was about was when law enforcement contacted him/her on a later unknown date and stated that the VA made allegations that the SP touched the VA “inappropriately” and that the SP took the VA to a house where the “inappropriate touching” occurred. · The SP stated that s/he did not have “much interaction” with the VA because the VA usually slept until 1 p.m. and the SP’s shift ended at 3 p.m. The SP was “rarely” alone with the VA and because the VA spent most of his/her free time alone in his/her bedroom, the VA was “rarely” alone with any staff persons. The SP stated that s/he spent most of his/her time at the facility in the basement, where the VA did not typically go. · The SP went on outings with the VA, another resident of the facility, and another facility staff person “once or twice a week.” Their outings consisted of getting soda or going to the zoo. The SP “could not recall” the last time s/he gave the VA a ride anywhere other than to a local gas station to buy soda. · The SP stated that s/he never touched the VA “physically or sexually” nor did s/he ever “do anything sexual” with the VA. The SP added that s/he remembered a time when the VA reported an incident with another staff person that was later determined to be “false.” The SP could not recall the details of the incident or what the allegation was. Law enforcement submitted the report to the county attorney who declined to press charges. Facility documentation showed that the SP was trained on the Reporting of Maltreatment of Vulnerable Adults Act and the VA’s plans. Conclusion: The VA provided consistent information that on two occasions, the SP put the SP’s hand down the VA’s pants and touched the VA’s buttocks. The SP stated that s/he did not have “much interaction” with the VA and was “rarely” alone with the VA. The SP also stated that s/he never touched the VA sexually and never did anything sexual with the VA. Although the VA provided consistent information, given the conflicting information provided by the SP and the VA; that the VA could not provide a specific timeline, location, or details of the incidents; and that there was no additional information to support or refute either the VA or the SP’s accounts, there was not a preponderance of the evidence whether the SP engage in 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). Action Taken by Facility: The facility completed an Internal Review and determined that policies and procedures were adequate, however the facility also determined “it is unknown if [the SP] followed policies as [the facility] was unable to interview [the SP] per police investigation.” The Internal Review also stated, “It is unknown what actions we will take with [the SP] as we have not been able to interview [him/her] per police investigation.” Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: No further action taken.
|
