|
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: 1120670-H_CRS (Home and Community-Based Services-Community Residential Setting) Investigator(s): Scott Brandt 651-431-6556 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that a staff person (SP) attempted to kiss a vulnerable adult (VA) and then touched the VA’s legs and buttocks over the clothing. Date of Incident(s): August 26, 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 September 3, 2024; from documentation at the facility; and through six interviews conducted with the SP, a facility staff person (P1), two facility management staff persons (P2 and P3) and the VA’s guardians (G1 and G2). Although this investigator met the VA and attempted to conduct an interview with the VA, the VA was unable to provide information due to his/her disability. The VA was the only client who resided at the facility. The VA’s Annual Plan showed that the VA enjoyed spending time with his/her family and “would like to work and travel” with his/her family members and “will utilize visual cue cards to assist with communication.” The VA was provided with supervision of two staff persons during waking hours due to behavioral incidents. The VA was diagnosed with a moderate intellectual disability, conduct disorder, epilepsy, and autism. The VA’s Individual Abuse Prevention Plan showed that the VA “may be unable to recognize and/or defend [him/herself] against sexual abuse,” and that if staff persons “ever observe sexual abuse occurring, they will tell the perpetrator to stop, verbally redirect [him/her] away from the situation and explain to [him/her] why [s/he] is being redirected and call 9-1-1 if the situation becomes unsafe for both [the VA] and staff.” The VA’s Self-Management Assessment showed that the VA had “limited verbal skills but is able to communicate some needs and wants with spoken words.” A review of the VA’s plans did not show a history of the VA seeking out sexual situations. P1 provided the following information: · On the afternoon shift on August 26, 2024, the SP and P1 were working at the facility with the VA. At about 5 p.m. that day, the SP, who was supposed to be awake for his/her shift, was sleeping on a couch in the living room and the VA was sitting on another couch. · When the VA got up and walked in front of the SP, the SP, who remained on the couch, woke up and put both of his/her hands around the VA’s waist. The SP then picked up the VA and placed the VA on the SP’s lap, so they were in a “face to face” position. Then, the SP attempted to kiss the VA, but the VA moved his/her head away from the SP. · The SP then assisted the VA to move positions, so the VA was laying, face down, on the SP’s lap. When that happened, the SP began to “rub” his/her hands on the VA’s buttocks and genital area while P1 “repeatedly” told the SP to “stop.” At some point, P1 told the VA to get up and move and then the VA moved. After that, the SP went back to sleep again. · At 9:30 p.m., the SP “fully” woke up and when P1 discussed the incident with the SP, the SP told P1 that the SP came to work “drunk,” but P1 did not see anything that showed that the SP was under the influence of alcohol. P1 called P2 at about 10:30 p.m. and told him/her about what happened. P2 told P1 to call law enforcement. P1 called law enforcement at about 11 p.m. and an officer came to the facility at about 11:10 or 11:15 p.m. The officer talked to the VA, but the officer was not able to obtain information from the VA and the SP had left the program by the time the officer arrived at the facility. P2 stated that s/he was told about the incident at about 10:35 p.m. the night of the incident when P1 called P2. P2 did not have concerns related to the SP’s care for the VA but stated that the SP previously was talked to regarding sleeping on the job. The SP provided the following information: · Between 5:30 and 6 p.m. on August 26, 2024, the SP, who was supposed to be awake, fell asleep on a “love seat” in the living room. Between that time and 8:45 p.m., the SP “periodically” woke up. · At about 9:10 or 9:15 p.m., P1 told the SP, “You tried to harm the client,” and “that I tried to grab” the VA and that when P1 tried to interact with the SP, the SP did not respond to P1. The SP denied trying to kiss the VA or touching the VA’s buttocks. In addition, the SP denied drinking alcohol prior to, or during, his/her shift that day. · Prior to August 26, 2024, P1 “started flirting” with the SP. Over time, P1’s comments became “a lot more sexual.” The SP had “multiple conversations” with P1 about P1’s conduct and to stop, but the conduct continued. At the time, the SP did not tell anyone at the facility about P1’s actions. The law enforcement report provided information that was mostly consistent with the information P1, and the SP provided to this investigator. The report contained the following additional information: · At 12:07 a.m. on August 27, 2024, P1 called law enforcement and said that after the SP inappropriately touched and “groped” the VA’s genitals and “buttocks area.” The SP “grabbed” the VA and “sat [him/her] down on [the SP’s] lap” and “attempted to kiss” the VA, but the VA “pulled away.” · The SP then “laid” the VA “face down” on the SP’s lap and “began to feel [the VA’s] buttocks and moved [his/her] hand into [his/her] crotch area.” · P1 “was in shock” and “eventually yelled” at the SP, who did not say any words during the “assault,” about five times to “stop be [sic] [s/he] did not.” P1 then “yelled” at the VA and the VA “stood up” and left the area. The report said that P1 “had to do reports internally before calling 911 causing the delay.” · After that, P1 talked to the SP “about what had just happened” and the SP “apologized and said [s/he] was drunk and doesn’t remember what had occurred.” The SP left the facility at about 10 p.m. on August 26, 2024. Law enforcement attempted to talk to the VA, but the VA “did not say anything.” · The SP stated that s/he “never touched” the VA, that the SP “took a nap” while working, and “had not been drinking or doing drugs.” The facility’s Investigation Report and Summary provided information that was mostly consistent with the information provided by P1 and the SP to this investigator and provided the following additional information: · P1 told P2 that at some point when the SP woke up, the SP was “out of it” and was “talking jibberish [sic].” P1 stated that the VA “initiated” sitting on the SP’s lap and that the SP “rubbed and squeezed” the VA’s buttocks. P1 stated that s/he did not smell alcohol, and that the SP did not “seem drunk” that day, but P1 told P2 that the SP “vomited three times, once in the house and then outside.” P1 was told by P2 that s/he “should have called” P2 or 9-1-1 earlier. · When the “night staff” person came in, the SP and P1 left the facility, but “went back and forth” outside about whether the SP “had done” what P1 “observed.” Instead of leaving, P1 went back inside and called P2 at about 10:45 p.m. and “could not really provide a reason why [P1] didn’t call [P2] sooner.” · When the SP was interviewed by management, the SP stated that P1 had been “hitting” on the SP and that there was an instance when P1 showed the SP his/her “butt hole.” The SP also stated that there was a time when P1 pulled his/her pants down and shimmied around.” When management asked the SP why the SP had not previously said anything about that, the SP stated that s/he “thought [s/he] could handle it.” The SP denied drinking alcohol and was “not under the influence of anything,” but had some health issues. The SP also stated that on one occasion, P1 asked the SP to send him/her pictures of the SP’s genitals, but the SP declined to do that. The SP thought that P1 “might be lying” because the SP “threatened [the SP] because [P1] likes to flirt with me.” · P2 stated that both P1 and the SP “have been good staff” and that there were no previous reports of P1 “acting inappropriately” and only one prior report earlier in the year of the SP sleeping while working at a different program. · P2 stated that P1 called him/her at about 10:45 p.m., but P2 was sleeping and did not answer the call. P1 called another couple times and sent a text message to P2 that stated, “Emergency sexual assault.” P2 called P1 back at an unspecified time. During that conversation, P1 told P2 that about one hour earlier, the SP “pulled” the VA onto his/her lap, tried to kiss the VA and when the VA laid “stomach down” on the SP’s lap, the SP “rubbed” the VA’s buttocks and genital area. P2 told P1 to complete an incident report and to notify law enforcement. The following day, P2 assisted P1 with writing the incident report and learned that the incident happened at about 5 p.m. and “not an hour” before P1 called P2. P1 denied that s/he made sexual advances toward the SP.
P3 stated that P1 received disciplinary action because the incident allegedly happened around 5 p.m. but P1 did not tell P2 about the incident until about 10 p.m. that evening. A review of the SP’s personnel file showed that on January 19, 2024, the SP received an Employee Counseling Report due to “sleeping” while working. G1 and G2 did not have concerns regarding the VA’s care at the facility. Law enforcement did not pursue criminal charges toward the SP. 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 care plans prior to August 26, 2024. Conclusion: Information showed that on August 26, 2024, the SP and P1 were working the afternoon shift. The SP fell asleep in the living room. P1 told this investigator that at some point the SP woke up and as the VA walked by, the SP picked the VA up and placed the VA on the SP’s lap, so they were facing one another. P1 stated in the facility’s Investigation Report and Summary that the VA “initiated this.” Then, the SP tried to kiss the VA, but the VA moved his/her head away from the SP. P1 stated that then the SP repositioned the VA, so the VA laid, face down, on the SP’s lap and the SP touched the VA’s legs, buttocks and genitals. P1 stated that s/he told the SP to “stop” and then told the VA to move away from the SP and the VA did so. P1 called P2 after 10 p.m. Law enforcement was also called at 12:07 a.m. the following day. P2 said that when s/he talked to P1 on the night of the incident, P1 stated that the incident occurred about an hour earlier, but when P2 assisted P1 with writing an incident report the following day, P1 told P2 that the incident happened about 5 p.m. The SP acknowledged that although s/he was supposed to be awake for the shift, the SP slept periodically throughout the shift, but the SP denied drinking alcohol prior to or during his/her shift and denied trying to kiss the VA or touch the VA’s legs and buttocks. The SP stated that prior to August 26, 2024, P1 made sexual advances toward the SP, but P1 denied that, and the SP did not report that to anyone at the facility at the time. Although the SP had reason to minimize his/her actions for fear of the consequences, the SP stated that there were interpersonal conflicts between the SP and P1. Given that there were no other witnesses to confirm or dispute either account, it was not able to be determined if the SP or P1 was more credible. Therefore, there was not a preponderance of the evidence whether the SP had 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. 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). Action Taken by Facility: The facility’s Vulnerable Adult Internal Review Addendum stated that although policies and procedures were adequate, the SP did not follow the VA’s “supervision requirements” when the SP slept and left the facility to get food and that P1 did not follow the VA’s plans when P1 “failed to remove” the VA from the “alleged sexual assault and did not notify 9-1-1 in a timely manner.” The facility provided additional training, and the SP was no longer employed by the facility. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: No action taken at this time.
|
