|
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: 1104338-SUD (Substance Use Disorder) Investigator(s): Scott Brandt scott.j.brandt@state.mn.us Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that a staff person (SP) had a sexual relationship with a vulnerable adult (VA) while the VA received services from the facility and that the SP and the VA continued a relationship after the VA discharged from the facility. Date of Incident(s): Prior to May 20, 2025 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 June 4, 2025, from documentation at the facility, and through eight interviews conducted with the VA, the SP, a management staff person (P1), two facility staff persons (P2 and P3), a community person (CP) who worked at a program the VA received services from after leaving the facility, a law enforcement officer (LEO), and a facility client (C). Although this investigator contacted the VA’s probation officer (PO), the PO did not respond to requests to be interviewed. The VA was not subject to guardianship. Facility documentation showed that the VA received services from the facility from March 7 through April 25, 2025. Some of the VA’s diagnoses included post-traumatic stress disorder and schizophrenia. Documentation showed that the VA enjoyed fishing, reading, and “being outdoors.” Although the PO did not respond to requests to be interviewed, the PO provided the following written information: · On an unspecified date, the VA told the PO that s/he and the SP entered a “relationship” that “continued” after the VA discharged from the facility. · On an unspecified date, the PO talked to the SP, who stated that s/he developed a “special relationship” with the VA while the VA received services from the facility because the VA “needed someone to talk to.” The SP also told the PO that s/he ended his/her employment at the facility in May 2025 so the SP “can officially” be the VA’s significant other even though the SP “knows that there is a 2 or 3 year policy there that states [s/he] is not to enter into a relationship with a client,” and that it “just happened and [s/he] just wants to be with” the VA. · On May 10, 2025 (after the VA’s discharge from the facility), the PO went to a family member’s (FM’s) home and the VA was “sleeping” with someone. The VA was “elusive” as to who the person was, but that it was “suspected” that the person was the SP because the SP told the PO, on an unknown date, that s/he had been to the FM’s home and was “upstairs in the bedroom.” The VA provided the following information to this investigator: · When the VA was asked whether there was any staff person at the facility that showed poor boundaries with the VA, the VA said, “Staff didn’t have boundary issues with me.” The VA said that s/he spent time near where the SP worked at the facility because the SP “listened” if the VA had a “bad day,” but the SP’s interactions with the VA were no different than any other staff person. · On an unknown date, after the VA discharged from the facility, the SP gave the VA a ride. On unspecified occasions, the VA had “inappropriate conversations” with other clients and when that happened, the SP told the VA that those types of conversations were “inappropriate.” The SP “set the boundaries real clear” and the SP “never crossed that.” · The FM “knows” the SP and the SP was at the FM’s home on at least one occasion, after the VA discharged from the facility, because the SP was “helping” the FM. The VA was not at the FM’s home when the SP was there. The VA and the SP did not exchange contact information and did not communicate outside the facility with one another when the SP worked at the facility. · The VA declined to provide the name and phone number for the FM. The VA denied ever having a sexual relationship with the SP. The CP provided the following information to this investigator: · On an unspecified date, the CP heard the VA say that s/he was “bumping” the SP while the VA received services from the facility. The CP heard other clients say that the VA told them that s/he “connected” with the SP while the VA received services from the facility, but the CP did not remember who those clients were. The VA told the CP that bumping was a “slang term” for talking to a person. · On an unspecified date, the CP talked to the VA and asked him/her to be “perfectly honest.” The CP asked the VA who the SP was and “what happened.” The VA responded by saying that s/he and the SP had “sexual relations” on at least two occasions while the VA received services from the facility, but at some point, the VA realized “it’s not a good idea” so the VA “stopped seeing” the SP. The VA did not provide detailed information regarding dates or where the sexual contact occurred. During that conversation, the VA told the CP that the term bumping meant “sexual contact.” · On three occasions, the SP went to the program where the CP worked and remained in his/her vehicle. The VA went outside and sometimes they just “talked” and other times they left in the SP’s vehicle for “roughly” two hours each time. The CP did not know where they went or what happened when they were gone. The SP and the VA were “never” in the program together where the CP worked. When the CP was asked to provide information in terms of the VA’s credibility, the CP said that s/he “believe[d] [the VA] to be perfectly honest.” The LEO stated that on an unspecified date, s/he talked to the VA and the VA stated that while s/he received services from the facility, the VA and the SP talked, but that sexual contact did not occur. The LEO did not remember if the VA said anything about the SP and the VA being in a sexual relationship after the VA discharged from the facility. The LEO also talked to the SP, who “denied everything.” The LEO felt that the SP was “lying” because the SP asked the LEO if the SP could have a “relationship now” with the VA and because the SP was concerned that the LEO was going to talk to the SP’s significant other (someone other than the VA). The LEO stated that a police report was not written because “all parties advise no knowledge of sexual relations during [the VA’s] time at [the facility],” and the LEO was “unable to establish anything criminal at this time.” The C, who received services from the facility between March 21 and May 14, 2025, and was one of the VA’s roommates, stated that s/he did not think the VA had a relationship with anyone when the VA received services from the facility. The C did not see or hear anything of concern to the C. The C did not have concerns related to the SP. P1 provided the following information to this investigator: · On May 26, 2025, P1 received a call from the CP, who provided information to P1 that was like the information the CP provided to this investigator. · As a result of the CP’s call, P1 talked to the SP on the phone and the SP “denied a sexual relationship and sexual contact.” · P1 did not see or hear any interactions between the SP and the VA, or other clients, that were concerning, and that the SP was “by the book” in terms of his/her interactions with the clients. P2 was not aware of any sexual contact between staff and clients at the facility and did not have concerns about boundary issues between staff and clients at the facility. P3 said that s/he also received a call from the CP and that the content of the conversation was like the information that the CP provided to this investigator. P3 said there was a concern that the SP shared personal information, such as the medications the SP took, with clients. When P3 was asked to provide information in terms of any possible changes s/he saw related to the VA, P3 said that initially the VA had “a lot of anger issues,” but that the VA “seems to be working through things” before the VA discharged from the facility. P3 did not work many shifts with the SP, so could not provide information in terms of the SP’s interactions with the clients, but no staff person brought concerns forward to P3. The facility had a policy which stated that “personal involvement” or “sexual contact” was not allowed. The SP provided the following information to this investigator: · The SP did not remember the date, but on one occasion, the SP gave the VA a ride to one of the VA’s friends’ houses, even though the SP knew that s/he “shouldn’t” have done that because of the facility’s policy about staff interacting with clients outside of the workplace. Aside from that, the SP and the VA did not communicate with one another outside the facility. The SP described his/her relationship with the VA as being “friends.” · The SP acknowledged that s/he helped “elderly” people, but did not know the relationship between the VA and one of those persons and that the VA was not present when the SP helped those persons. The SP denied being in a bedroom with the VA. · The SP denied having ever being in a sexual relationship or having sexual contact with the VA. · On unknown dates, the SP visited the VA at the program where the CP worked, but the SP did not go into that program. On at least one occasion, while the VA was at the CP’s program, the SP took the VA shopping. The SP described his/her interactions with the VA as being the same as the interactions the SP had with other clients. The SP did not remember talking to the PO. 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 June 4, 2025, and that the SP received training on “maintaining professional boundaries” on May 8, 2024. Conclusion: The VA received services from the facility from March 7 through April 25, 2025. When the VA discharged from the facility, the VA received services from a program where the CP worked. The PO, who did not respond to requests to be interviewed, provided written documentation that stated that the VA told him/her that the VA and the SP had a “relationship” that “continued” after the VA discharged from the facility that was “special” while the VA received services from the facility. The PO documented that when s/he talked to the SP, the SP told the PO that s/he ended his/her employment at the facility in May 2025 so the SP “can officially” be the VA’s significant other and that it “just happened and [s/he] just wants to be with” the VA. The SP told this investigator that s/he did not remember that conversation. The PO also documented that when s/he went to the FM’s home, after the VA discharged from the facility, the VA was sleeping with someone that was the opposite gender as the VA. The VA was “elusive” about that person’s identity, but the PO suspected it was the SP because the SP told the PO, on an unknown date, that s/he had been to the FM’s home and was “upstairs in the bedroom.” The CP said that the SP began going to the CP’s program to see the VA. When the CP talked to the VA, the VA said that s/he and the SP had “sexual relations” on at least two occasions while the VA received services from the facility, but that the relationship ended at some point. Specific information and dates were not provided. The C, who was the VA’s roommate at the facility for part of the VA’s stay, stated that s/he did not think the VA had a relationship with anyone when the VA was at the facility and that the C did not see or hear anything of concern. Although P1 and P2 did not have concerns related to the SP’s interactions with the VA, or other clients, P3 stated that the SP shared personal information with clients. When the LEO talked to the VA, the VA stated that while the VA was at the facility, the VA and the SP talked, but sexual contact did not occur. When the LEO talked to the SP, the SP “denied everything,” but the LEO felt that the SP was “lying” because the SP asked the LEO if s/he could have a “relationship now (after the VA discharged from the facility)” with the VA and because the SP was concerned that the LEO was going to talk to the SP’s significant other (someone other than the VA). The LEO determined there was no criminal activity. The VA provided information to this investigator that was like the information the VA provided to the LEO but added that the SP set “clear” boundaries with the VA when s/he talked inappropriately to other clients. The SP said there was one instance when s/he gave the VA a ride, but did not remember when that happened. The SP also acknowledged going to see the VA at the CP’s program and taking the VA shopping, but the SP denied communicating with the VA, aside from the ride, while the VA was at the facility and denied sexual contact with the VA at any point. Although the VA told the SP that s/he had sexual contact with the SP while receiving services at the facility, given that the VA and the SP each provided conflicting information and each denied sexual contact with each other to this investigator and the LEO, that the PO did not provide further information, that the C and staff persons did not have concerns about the SP and the VA, there was not a preponderance of the evidence whether the SP failed to provide reasonable and necessary care to the VA to maintain his/her physical health or mental health or safety or whether the SP engaged in sexual contact with the VA. It was not determined whether sexual abuse or neglect 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 or 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 a Report and Internal Review which stated that policies and procedures were followed and adequate. The document also stated that “We feel additional training is always important.” The SP was no longer employed by the facility. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: No action taken.
|
