|
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: 1092522-H_CRS (Home and Community-Based Services-Community Residential Setting) Investigator(s): Gessner Rivas/Alice Percy 651-431-3970 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that a staff person (SP) and a vulnerable adult (VA) had a sexual relationship while the SP worked at the facility. Date of Incident(s): Ongoing, prior to July 21, 2023 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 was obtained during a site visit conducted on August 29, 2023; from documentation at the facility and law enforcement records; and through five interviews conducted with a facility administrative staff person (P1), the SP, the VA, a community person (CP), and the VA’s guardian (G). The VA enjoyed spending time outside, watching television, singing, doing puzzles, and spending time with friends and family members. The VA’s diagnoses included fetal alcohol syndrome, generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, eating disorders, and pituitary dwarfism. The VA attended a day program each workday. According to the VA’s Self-Management Assessment and Plan, each day the VA had a half hour of unsupervised time at the facility. The VA was “trusting” of others and might be coerced into going somewhere with someone s/he did not know. The VA might not be aware that a situation was possibly dangerous. According to the VA’s Individual Abuse Prevention Plan (IAPP), the VA was at risk for sexual abuse and had a lack of understanding of sexuality. The VA might have a hard time saying no and may not want to say no. The VA might comply with some types of sexual advances and then not be able to stop the situation once things “have gone too far.” Staff persons were trained to intervene and to redirect the VA or remove him/her from situations that put the VA at risk. The facility’s internal review was completed by an administrative staff person (P2) and provided the following information: · On February 27, 2023, P2 learned that a “friendship” between the VA and the SP was becoming a “possible pursuing of a romantic relationship.” The VA had told the staff persons that s/he possibly liked the SP as “more than a friend” and that s/he had a “crush” on the SP. · P1 met with the G to discuss what type of contact s/he believed would be appropriate between the VA and the SP, given that the VA wanted to have a friendship with the SP. The G did not believe that a right’s restriction would be appropriate and felt that the VA was setting boundaries. It was agreed that staff persons would continue to support the VA. · P1 met with the VA, who told P1 that s/he met the SP at the VA’s job site while the SP was shopping. The SP gave his/her telephone number to the VA. The VA and the SP then spoke on the telephone several times each day. At one point, the VA asked the G to remove the SP’s telephone number from the VA’s telephone because their conversations made the VA “uncomfortable.” The VA did not provide any details of their conversations to the G. · After that, the VA saw the SP in the community and again decided to be friends with the SP. The VA wanted to remain friends, but the SP wanted a romantic relationship and wanted the VA to meet somewhere so that they could kiss. The VA then wanted the relationship to end and staff persons told the VA that they would let the SP know that the VA wanted to end contact with the SP. On March 3, 2023, P2 met with the SP and told him/her that the VA did not want to have further contact with the SP. The facility was not aware of any further contact between the VA and the SP. On March 28, 2023, the SP quit his/her job. P2 provided information that the SP worked at the facility from February 15 to March 28, 2023. The VA stated that s/he was “easily manipulated and taken advantage of” and did not always know what to do in some situations. The VA met the SP in February 2023 at his/her work program. At the time, the SP was looking for a job and did not work for the facility. The VA and the SP talked to each other and exchanged telephone numbers. The SP initially asked the VA to meet the SP “around the block” from the facility because s/he “wanted to get physical without staff seeing it.” The VA initially agreed to meet the SP, but when s/he finished the telephone conversation with the SP, the VA became “sick to [his/her] stomach” and told a staff person (P3) about the conversation. At the time the VA was to meet the SP, P3 drove up to the SP and the SP left. The SP then began working for the facility’s license holder in a different residential program. The SP and the VA met at church and sat at the back of the church, where the SP would “get handsy” and used the VA to get his/her “own physical pleasure.” The VA told some staff persons about the SP and they told the VA to “be careful and get to know [the SP] better.” During the summer, the SP met with the VA at the facility for supervised visits of 15 to 30 minutes. The SP and the VA continued to exchange messages until approximately July 2023. When asked if the SP tried to meet up with the VA while the SP worked at the facility, the VA said, “Not that I can remember.” P1 provided the following information: · P1 stated that the SP did not work at the facility but worked at another residential program operated by the license holder. On March 28, 2023, the SP quit his/her job. The SP and the VA met at the VA’s job site, which was a local business. The SP was shopping at the business when s/he met the VA. After meeting, the VA and the SP “spent a lot of time on the phone.” P1 believed that the VA and the SP had conversations, but that there was no “relationship” between the two of them until after the SP quit his/her job. At some point, the VA told P1 that the SP was his/her boy/girlfriend. On August 2, 2023, the SP telephoned the VA and told him/her that s/he wanted to date other people, which upset the VA. · P1 stated that the VA told the G that there was physical contact between the VA and the SP at the VA’s church, but P1 was uncertain how any physical contact could occur between the VA and the SP without being seen by others, given that it was a small church and there were many people who attended the services. The SP provided the following information: · In 2023, the SP began to work at a residential program operated by the license holder. The SP worked there until February or March 2023. · The SP met the VA at his/her job site. After meeting, the VA and the SP frequently talked on the telephone. The SP stated that the facility’s staff persons were aware of those conversations. Around the time that s/he quit his/her job, the SP had a conversation with his/her supervisor about dating the residents and was told that it was not allowed. The SP stated that while s/he had conversations with the VA for several weeks after they met, the SP did not begin dating the VA until after s/he no longer worked at the facility. · The VA and the SP sometimes saw each other when they went to church. At those times, they sometimes kissed and hugged. They spent some time together at the park. The SP did not recall any time where s/he waited outside the facility to see the VA and drove away when a staff person approached the SP. The SP stated that s/he did not have a sexual relationship with the VA. · The SP dated the VA for approximately two or three months before they “broke up” during the summer of 2023. While they were dating, the SP gave a promise ring to the VA and they talked on the telephone “non-stop” for several hours each day. The facility then “made a rule” that the SP could not telephone the VA or go to the facility to see the VA. Then the SP was allowed to see the VA at the facility once every few weeks. The SP stated that the lack of contact with the VA contributed to their breaking up. The SP stated that s/he and the VA no longer had feelings for each other and s/he did not want to have any further contact with the VA. The CP stated that s/he worked at another residential program operated by the license holder. During a community event at a local park, the VA introduced the SP to the CP as his/her boy/girlfriend. The CP was told that the VA did not begin dating the SP until after the SP no longer worked at the facility/license holder. The CP contacted an administrative staff person and told him/her about the relationship between the VA and the SP. The FM stated that the facility informed him/her about the relationship between the VA and the SP. In the past, the VA had provided inaccurate information about staff persons, including those s/he had romantic feelings for. According to an email sent from the VA’s social worker (SW) to P1, P1 told the SW that the VA and the SP met on February 4, 2023. On March 28, 2023, the SP quit his/her job. On February 25, 2023, the VA and the SP were both at a community event for their “first date.” On July 23, 2023, the VA and the SP went to a church service together. On July 29, 2023, the VA and the SP were at the county fair together. Staff persons were present when the VA and the SP went to community events and to church. On August 2, 2023, the VA and the SP broke up. According to the facility’s Standards of Conduct policy, the staff persons were to maintain professionalism and boundaries with the residents. Personal issues and information were not to be shared with the residents.
Facility documentation showed that the SP and P1 each received training on the Reporting of Maltreatment of Vulnerable Adults Act, on the facility’s policies, and on the VA’s plans prior to the incident. Conclusion: In 2023, the SP worked at a residential program operated by the license holder and continued to work there until March 28, 2023. The SP did not work at the facility. In February 2023, the SP met the VA at the VA’s work program. They developed a friendship and spoke on the telephone several times each day. The VA told staff persons that s/he possibly liked the SP as “more than a friend” and that s/he had a “crush” on the SP. The VA stated that during the summer, the SP met with the VA at the facility for supervised visits of 15 to 30 minutes. The VA also stated that s/he and the SP met at church and sat at the back of the church, where the SP would “get handsy” and used the VA to get his/her “own physical pleasure.” According to the SW’s email, on July 23, 2023, the VA and the SP went to a church service together. On July 29, 2023, the VA and the SP were at the county fair together. Staff persons were present when the VA and the SP went to community events and to church. The SP stated that s/he dated the VA for approximately two or three months before they “broke up” during the summer of 2023. During that time, s/he and the VA occasionally saw each other when they went to church. At those times, they sometimes kissed and hugged. They also spent some time together at the park. The SP stated that s/he did not have a sexual relationship with the VA. Although it was reported that the SP had a sexual relationship with the VA, the VA and the SP provided inconsistent information about when the VA and the SP began to have a relationship beyond friendship and what physical contact occurred between them. Consistent information was provided that the SP did not work at the facility with the VA at any time and that a staff person was present when the VA met the SP in the community and when the SP visited the VA at the facility. Given that the SP did not work with the VA at any time and that it was unclear what physical contact occurred between them, there was not a preponderance of the evidence as to whether any sexual contact between the VA and the SP occurred or whether there was a failure to provide care or supervision to the VA which was reasonable and necessary to maintain the VA’s physical and mental health and safety. 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). 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). Action Taken by Facility: The facility completed an internal review and determined that the facility’s policies were adequate and were followed by the staff persons. The SP no longer worked at the facility. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: No further action taken.
|
