|
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: 1110927-H_CRS (Home and Community-Based Services-Community Residential Setting) Investigator(s): Lindsay Arth/Elisa Montgomery Minnesota Department of Human Services 651-431-6537 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that a staff person (SP) had sexual contact with a vulnerable adult (VA) on multiple occasions. Date of Incident(s): Prior to April 30, 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): 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 May 24, 2024; from documentation at the facility and law enforcement records; and through five interviews conducted with the VA, two facility supervisory staff persons (the SP and P1), and the VA’s case managers (CM1 and CM2). Additionally, a staff person (P2) and this investigator communicated via email and that information was included below. The VA’s Coordinated Services and Supports Plan said that the VA had a good sense of humor, was kind and polite, liked to hike, and enjoyed spending time with others that were important to him/her. The VA’s diagnoses included borderline personality disorder, oppositional defiance disorder, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder. According to the VA’s Individual Abuse Prevention Plan, the VA was susceptible to sexual abuse due to his/her lack of understanding of sexuality and would be likely to seek or cooperate in an abusive situation. Facility staff persons were to be made aware of these susceptibilities and discuss with the VA the steps on how to report abuse. The VA was not subject to guardianship. The VA’s Support Plan Addendum showed that the VA had a “24-hour plan of care” but did not require supervision at all times. However, there was someone identified/assigned that was responsible and accessible in case of emergency. The VA typically had a staff person working with him/her four to eight hours per day. The facility was a split-level home with bedroom, kitchen, bathroom, and living area on each floor. The VA resided on the upper level and another resident resided in the lower level (Note: Per information from the facility, this resident was not able to provide information for this investigation due to his/her diagnoses). The lower level also contained a laundry area and an office for staff persons with a bed in the staff office. CM1 providing the following information: · On April 30, 2024, CM1 and P1 went to the facility to meet with the VA to let the VA know that the SP would no longer be working with the VA because of the VA’s “attachment” to the SP. This included that the VA had increased anxiety regarding the SP, made frequent calls asking where the SP was, and asked for the SP to come to the facility when s/he was not scheduled to work. The VA was “very upset” after learning that the SP would no longer be working with him/her. The VA then told CM1 and P1 that the SP “might lose [his/her] job” because s/he and the SP had been having sexual intercourse for about one year. The VA said that the sexual contact occurred at the facility when “no one else was around.” CM1 “stressed the importance of telling truth,” and the VA was “very adamant it happened.” CM1 had only worked with the VA for a few months but was not aware of the VA having a history of providing inaccurate information. · The VA had a history of boundary concerns with others in the past and could become “fixated” or “obsessed” with those who worked with the VA. This included that the VA had a history of calling CM1 multiple times per day. In the past, if the SP was not “available,” the VA would go into a “mental health spiral,” including one time where the VA needed a “wellness check.” CM1 worried that the VA was “fixating” on the SP and had increased anxiety when the SP was not working with the VA. CM1 had met the SP and did not have any concerns with his/her interactions with the VA. P1 and [The VA] Meeting at the Nanticoke House with [CM1] written by P1 provided the following information: · On April 30, 2024, around 9 a.m., P1 and CM1 went to the facility to meet with the VA to let him/her know that the SP would no longer be working with the VA. This was due to the VA having increased anxiety regarding the SP, frequent calls to the facility office asking where the SP was and asking for the SP to come to the facility. P1 said that at times, the VA called the office a “dozen times” within a few hours span. P1 and CM1 told the VA that the SP would no longer be working with the VA because of the VA’s “unhealthy obsession” or “infatuation” with the SP, including when the SP was not at the facility. The VA then told CM1 and P1, “I hate you for taking [the SP] away from me.” Approximately one or two minutes later, the VA told P1 and CM1 that s/he had been having sexual intercourse with the SP for about one year. The VA said that the sexual contact occurred while at the facility, including in the living room and the VA’s bedroom, when no other staff persons or the other resident were there. The VA did not know how many times the sexual contact occurred but said that at times, the sexual contact occurred during the overnight shifts. However, P1 looked at the schedule and saw that the SP had not worked an overnight shift in approximately one year. The VA told P1 that s/he never said anything prior because s/he did not want the SP to be “fired.” · P1 then spoke to staff persons who worked with the VA and the SP who were “baffled at the allegations.” A staff person (P5) told P1 that s/he had “no idea” about a sexual relationship between the VA and the SP. However, staff persons told P1 that they were “uncomfortable” with the VA’s “demeanor” when the SP was around. This included the VA following the SP around the facility and telling the SP that s/he had “beautiful features.” Staff persons also had concerns that the SP was not “objecting” when the VA did those things. However, some facility staff persons, including P5, did not like the SP, due to the SP’s “communication style” with staff persons in general. · P1 thought that the VA would have told staff persons prior if s/he and the SP had sexual contact. However, there was no information that the VA told anyone about the sexual contact aside from P1 and CM1. · P1 also spoke to the SP who “denied” that s/he had sexual contact with the VA and said that the “most contact” s/he had with the VA was a “side hug” because s/he felt that the VA would “get the wrong impression” if the SP did anything else. Additionally, at some point prior, the SP began wearing gloves when administering the VA’s ear drops because the VA told a staff person that s/he “liked” when the SP touched his/her ears while administering the drops. · Prior to the concerns, the SP and P1 spoke about how the VA was “excessive” with the SP, including calling the facility emergency cell phone “nonstop” when the SP was on call. The SP never “complained” about this but P1 said that may have been the SP’s “personality” because the SP was not “assertive.” · Once the SP stopped working with the VA, P1 began working with the VA and said the VA began “flirting” with him/her, including asking P1 personal questions. The VA also began calling P1 at the office multiple times per day, similar to what the VA had done with the SP. · The SP was the first staff person of the opposite gender of the VA that worked with the VA. P1 did not have prior concerns with the SP working with the VA. The VA said that s/he had a sexual relationship with the SP, including oral sex, but was not able to provide dates or times that the sexual contact had occurred. The VA said that the sexual relationship had lasted for approximately one year. The VA “did not like” that the SP no longer worked with him/her. The law enforcement records provided the following information: · On May 23, 2024, law enforcement met with the VA regarding the sexual contact. The VA was not able to recall exact dates and times that the VA and SP engaged in sexual intercourse. However, the VA said that s/he had a sexual relationship with the SP for at least one year and that the SP had been working with the VA at the facility for at least one year. The sexual contact occurred approximately 13 times, including 12 times at the facility and once on a nature hike. · On May 30, 2024, law enforcement spoke with P1. P1 told law enforcement that the SP worked with the VA for at least one year. P1 did not have prior concerns with the SP’s interactions with the VA. Once the SP stopped working at the facility, P1 began working with the VA but the VA also began displaying “aggressive attention” toward P1 so P1 also stopped working with the VA. · Law enforcement also spoke to P5 who said that s/he had seen “favoritism” from the SP toward the VA. This included that the SP would do “expedited house requests” that would typically take “much longer” for the SP to do with the resident in the lower level of the facility. The SP also allowed the VA to make purchases at the grocery store for things the VA wanted despite a “tight [facility] budget.” The SP had a “problem setting boundaries” with the VA and “seemed to enjoy the extra attention” from the VA. The VA also wrote the SP a “love letter” approximately one year prior and the SP did not set a “firm boundary” with the VA when that occurred. P5 told law enforcement that s/he spoke to the VA about trying to “distance” him/herself from the SP but the VA “fought” P5 on this and said that the SP would be “good” for the VA. P5 never saw any physical or sexual contact between the VA and the SP. · Law enforcement also spoke to a person (CP2) from the VA’s prior residential facility who had known the VA for “most of [his/her] life.” CP2 had not known the VA to “lie” but “could see how this allegation could be manufactured” because the VA had a history of “obsessive behavior” toward staff persons at prior facilities the VA resided at. · The SP denied receiving a “love letter” and having boundary concerns with the VA and told law enforcement that s/he was aware of the VA’s “obsessive nature” with the SP and others in the past. The SP was “shocked” to hear about the allegation and denied ever having a sexual relationship with the VA. · Law enforcement said that there was “no probable cause to charge [the SP] with criminal sexual contact.” Law enforcement “closed” the report until any further information or “evidence comes forward.” P2 said that on May 6, 2024, the VA told a staff person (P4), who told P2, that s/he had “slept” with the SP. The VA did not say when this occurred. P2 worked with the SP but said it was only during shift changes so did not see the VA and the SP interact. However, the VA was “always” asking about the SP, including where the SP was and trying to call the SP on the emergency cell phone when the SP was not working. The VA did not have a history of providing inaccurate information. P2 said that the VA may say the sexual contact occurred if it was not true because the VA may have been “misinterpreting [the SP’s] words or actions” to be “something else.” The VA also did not have a history of “healthy relationships” so the “attachment” s/he had to the SP may have been “confusing” to him/her. The VA only had staff persons four to eight hours per day and during that time, the VA was “alone with staff for the entirety of the shift.” However, the resident in the lower level always had staff persons with him/her unless s/he was with his/her family member. A staff person (P3) provided information for this investigation but did not respond to phone or email attempts from this investigator for additional information. P3 said that at some point in July 2024, law enforcement went to the facility to talk to the VA about the concerns and the VA named the SP as “one of the people” s/he was having sexual contact with. After law enforcement left, the VA spoke to someone on the phone in the facility bathroom and following the phone call, the VA said that that s/he needed to throw away his/her sheets. It was “believed” that the VA spoke to the SP and that the SP asked the VA to dispose of his/her cell phone. P3 said that an unknown staff person took the VA to “dispose” of his/her phone at a local store.
A community person (CP1) provided information for this investigation but did not respond to phone or email attempts from this investigator for additional information. CP1 said that on May 30, 2024, the VA told him/her that during the past year, the VA and the SP had “consensual sexual contact.” The VA was “nervous” that the SP may be “put in jail” because of the sexual contact and because of that, the VA cut his/her arm (Note: There was no further information regarding this, including if the VA needed medical attention).
The SP was aware that the VA had a history of boundary concerns including that the VA would call the office numerous times to speak with the SP. The VA made attempts to contact the SP via Facebook, but the SP had declined the friend request. The VA obtained the SP’s personal cell phone number and upon the SP’s knowledge of this, the SP blocked the VA’s number. The SP had not given his/her phone number to the VA. However, at some point, the SP called the facility to speak with the VA’s staff person who was working and called from his/her personal cell phone number. The VA used the phone’s caller ID system to obtain the SP’s phone number. The SP informed P1 of this when it had occurred. The SP denied having a sexual relationship/intercourse with the VA. CM2 said that VA had a history of boundary concerns and would “focus in on one person.” The VA had a history of becoming “jealous” if that person “paid attention to anyone else.” When the VA first moved to the facility, the VA was “clingy” with a staff person of the same gender, so the facility had a staff person of the opposite gender (the SP) work with the VA instead because the VA typically had “more firm boundaries” with staff persons of the opposite gender. CM2 did not have any concerns with the SP’s interactions with the VA. CM2 thought that the VA would have told him/her if s/he was in a relationship, but the VA did not do so. However, the VA “valued” relationships so if someone told the VA not to say something, the VA “may keep it a secret.” The VA was typically “fairly accurate” but could also “manipulate situations” with staff persons to “get what [s/he] wants.” Facility documentation showed that P1, P3, and the SP received training on the VA’s plans and on the Reporting of Maltreatment of Vulnerable Adults Act, prior to the incident. Conclusion: P1 and CM1 provided consistent information that on April 30, 2024, CM1 and P1 went to the facility to tell the VA that the SP would no longer be working with the VA due to boundary concerns with the VA’s interactions with the SP. Upon this information being presented to the VA, the VA told CM1 and P1 that s/he had a sexual relationship with the SP. The VA did not provide further details other than that this had occurred for a year and that some of the incidents occurred during the overnight shift. Additionally, information obtained by LE did not provide further information from the VA, the SP, P1, or CM1 regarding a sexual relationship between the SP and the VA. No person had any additional details regarding the incidents of sexual intercourse between the VA and the SP and the SP had not worked an overnight shift in the past year. CM1, CM2, and P1 provided consistent information regarding the VA’s history of boundary concerns and varying information regarding the VA’s credibility. CM2 noted that the VA was typically “fairly accurate” but could also “manipulate situations” with staff persons to “get what [s/he] wants.” CM1 worried that the VA was “fixating” on the SP and had increased anxiety when the SP was not working with the VA. Once the SP stopped working with the VA, P1 began working with the VA and said the VA began “flirting” with him/her, including asking P1 personal questions. The VA also began calling P1 at the office multiple times per day, similar to what the VA had done with the SP. Although the VA stated that the SP and the VA had sexual contact, given that there was varying information regarding the VA’s credibility, that the SP denied sexual contact with the VA, and that there was no further information to confirm or dispute the VA’s or the SP’s information, there was not a preponderance of evidence whether the SP engaged in sexual contact with the VA. It was not determined whether sexual abuse occurred (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 the policies and procedures were adequate and followed. There was no need for additional staff training since prior to the report of sexual abuse, the SP had been removed from providing services to the VA. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: No further action taken.
|
