|
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: 1071837 -H_CRS (Home and Community-Based Services-Community Residential Setting) Investigator(s): Elisa Montgomery 651-431-6474 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that a staff person (SP1) told a vulnerable adult (VA) that s/he could not talk about homosexuality and another staff person (SP2) told the VA that transgender people should not exist. Date of Incident(s): Unknown, Multiple Dates 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 (b), clause (2): Conduct which is not an accident or therapeutic conduct which produces or could reasonably be expected to produce physical pain or injury or emotional distress including, but not limited to: the use of repeated or malicious oral, written or gestured language toward a vulnerable adult or the treatment of a vulnerable adult which would be considered by a reasonable person to be disparaging, derogatory, humiliating, harassing, or threatening. Summary of Findings: Pertinent information was obtained during a site visit conducted on July 23, 2025; from documentation at the facility; and through four interviews conducted with facility staff persons (SP1, SP2), a supervisory staff person (P1), and the VA. The VA enjoyed being active in his/her community, going shopping, and talking with friends and family. The VA was diagnosed with bipolar II disorder, schizoaffective disorder, and anxiety. The VA worked part-time (about 20 hours a week) and was independent in getting to and from work. According to the VA’s Individual Abuse Prevention Plan, the VA was vulnerable to emotional and verbal abuse. The VA had a history of struggling to set or maintain boundaries and would agree to do things s/he was not comfortable with. The VA would not “defend” him/herself against verbal or emotional abuse if those situations were to occur. Staff would “check in” with the VA and would ask if the VA had any concerns or needed staff person guidance. Regarding SP1 telling the VA that s/he could not talk about homosexuality: The VA provided the following information: · On an unknown date, the VA and his/her housemate were doing a Bible study together. During the Bible study, the VA and his/her housemate were discussing the topic of homosexuality and what the Bible says about it. · At some point during the VA’s and his/her housemate’s discussion, SP1 told the VA that s/he could not discuss homosexuality in the facility. The VA became upset and walked out of the room. · After the incident occurred, on June 27,2025, the VA, SP1, P1, and a supervisory staff person from the facility met to discuss the incident. During the discussion, it was determined that miscommunication between the VA and SP1 had occurred. · SP1 told the VA that s/he was observing the conversation between the VA and his/her housemate and the VA’s housemate was becoming upset unbeknownst to the VA. SP1 interrupted the conversation between the VA and his/her housemate to prevent a physical altercation between the VA and the VA’s housemate. · The VA was not aware that his/her housemate was becoming upset during the conversation and acknowledged that a miscommunication had occurred. · At times, the VA could take comments out of context and interpret them in ways that were not helpful to the situation and become upset. SP1 provided the following information: · On an unknown date, SP1 was working at the facility with the VA. The VA and his/her housemate were having a conversation regarding what the Bible says about homosexuality. · At one point, the VA’s housemate approached SP1 and asked SP1 if they could tell the VA that s/he did not want to discuss the topic of homosexuality any further. SP1 went to the VA and asked the VA to change the topic of the discussion, and the VA walked away. · The VA’s housemate began yelling that s/he did not want to discuss homosexuality with the VA at all. SP1 was able to de-escalate the VA’s housemate. The VA did not approach SP1 or discuss the incident with SP1 any further. · On June 27, 2025, SP1, the VA, P1, and another supervisory staff person met to discuss the incident. The VA acknowledged that SP1 was a “good staff” and that s/he appreciated SP1. · During the discussion, SP1 told the VA that s/he would never tell the VA that the VA could not discuss homosexuality but should not discuss it with his/her housemate because it made the VA’s housemate upset/angry. The VA acknowledged that s/he had misinterpreted SP1. · SP1 received training regarding how to discuss sensitive topics with clients and that when clients discuss sensitive topics, SP1 “just listens” and should not discuss his/her own beliefs with clients. P1 provided the following information: · P1 was aware of the incident that occurred on an unknown date in June 2025 but had limited details of the incident. · During a Bible study between the VA and his/her housemate, a discussion regarding what the Bible says about homosexuality was occurring and that at some point during the discussion, SP1 had told the VA that s/he “wasn’t allowed” to talk about that topic. · On June 27, 2025, P1, the VA, SP1, and another supervisory facility staff person met to discuss the incident that occurred. P1 expressed that they had asked the VA to stop discussing the topic because the VA’s housemate was getting “visibly upset” and that SP1 was more worried about the VA’s safety due to the VA’s housemate’s history of engaging in physical altercations when upset. P1 did not tell the VA that s/he could never discuss the topic again. · P1 did not have concerns regarding SP1 working with the VA or his/her housemates and that the miscommunication between the VA and SP1 could have been due to a “language barrier”. Regarding SP2 telling the VA that transgender people should not exist: The VA provided the following information: · In the summer of 2024, the VA asked SP2 what his/her opinions were regarding homosexuality. SP2 went on his/her phone and began quoting scripture from the Bible and told the VA that homosexuality did not align with religious values while shaking his/her finger in the VA’s face. · The VA did not discuss this incident until June 2025 after the incident with SP1 occurred as the VA felt that s/he was not able to express him/herself. · On an unknown date, SP2 was driving the VA to a coffee shop. The VA had shared with SP2 that the VA’s family member was transgender and SP2 said, “We don’t need any more transgender people.” The VA became quiet and did not talk to SP2 the rest of the way to the coffee shop. · After both incidents had occurred, the VA no longer wanted to live at the facility but after some time, the VA and SP2 were able to “work through differences” and did not think that SP2 meant what s/he had said. SP2 provided the following information: · On an unknown date, SP2 was in the basement of the facility where the VA resided. The VA shared some Bible verses with SP2 and asked SP2 about being homosexual. SP2 said to the VA, “I don’t have information about that” and shortly after went back upstairs. · On another unknown date, SP2 was taking the VA to a coffee shop. On the way there, the VA began to talk about homosexuality and asked SP2 what his/her opinions were on it. SP2 declined to share his/her opinions on the topic and the VA continued to ask SP2 but SP2 did not respond to the VA. · The VA could misinterpret things that were said that may be harmless or meaningless to be hurtful or untrue. The VA had a history of attempting to discuss topics like what the Bible says about homosexuality and making sure that staff accept all persons regardless of sexual orientation. · Sharing personal opinions and beliefs went against the training that SP2 received. SP2 denied telling the VA that transgendered persons should not exist, or the world does not need any more transgendered people. P1 provided the following information: · The VA has a history of bringing up incidents or situations months after the incident or situation occurred. The VA might also misinterpret things that were said to him/her. · P1 did not have concerns with SP2 and stated that SP2 took the VA on multiple outings per week and was always willing to take the VA s/he wanted to go (stores, coffee shops, parks, etc.). All staff person’s interviewed were training on the Reporting of Maltreatment of Vulnerable Adults Act and the facility’s Code of Conduct for Employees. Conclusion: Regarding SP1 telling the VA that s/he could not talk about homosexuality: Consistent information showed that on an unknown date, the VA and his/her housemate were doing a Bible study together. During the Bible study, the VA and his/her housemate were discussing the topic of homosexuality and what the Bible says about it. The VA said at some point during the VA’s and his/her housemate’s discussion, SP1 told the VA that s/he could not discuss homosexuality in the facility. SP1 said that the VA’s housemate approached SP1 and asked SP1 if they could tell the VA that s/he did not want to discuss the topic of homosexuality any further. SP1 went to the VA and asked the VA to change the topic of the discussion, and the VA walked away. On June 27, 2025, VA, SP1, P1, and a supervisory staff person from the facility met to discuss the incident. During the discussion, it was determined that miscommunication between the VA and SP1 had occurred. Given that SP1 was attempting to redirect the conversation because the VA’s housemate was becoming upset, and that the VA acknowledged that a miscommunication occurred, there was a preponderance of the evidence that SP1 did not engages in conduct that could reasonable be expected to produce emotional distress. It was determined that emotional abuse did not occur (conduct which is not an accident or therapeutic conduct which produces or could reasonably be expected to produce physical pain or injury or emotional distress including, but not limited to: the use of repeated or malicious oral, written or gestured language toward a vulnerable adult or the treatment of a vulnerable adult which would be considered by a reasonable person to be disparaging, derogatory, humiliating, harassing, or threatening). Regarding SP2 telling the VA that transgender people should not exist: The VA stated that in the summer of 2024, the VA asked SP2 what his/her opinions were regarding homosexuality. SP2 went on his/her phone and began quoting scripture from the Bible and told the VA that homosexuality did not align with religious values while shaking his/her finger in the VA’s face. SP2 denied the allegation because the incident did not occur in that manner but instead SP2 was in the basement of the facility where the VA resided. The VA had shared some Bible verses with SP2 and asked SP2 about being gay. SP2 said to the VA “I don’t have information about that” and shortly after went back upstairs. The VA also stated that on another unknown date, the VA had shared with SP2 that the VA’s family member was transgender and SP2 said, “We don’t need any more transgender people.” The VA became quiet and did not talk to SP2 the rest of the way to the coffee shop. SP2 denied the allegation because the incident did not occur in that manner but instead, SP2 was taking the VA to a coffee shop. On the way there, the VA began to talk about homosexuality and asked SP2 what his/her opinions were on it. SP2 declined to share his/her opinions on the topic and the VA continued to ask SP2 but SP2 did not respond to the VA. Although the VA stated SP2 made those comments, given that SP2 denied doing so, and that there was no other information to confirm or dispute either account, therefore, there was not a preponderance of the evidence whether SP2 make comments about transgender people. It was not determined whether emotional abuse occurred (conduct which is not an accident or therapeutic conduct which produces or could reasonably be expected to produce physical pain or injury or emotional distress including, but not limited to: the use of repeated or malicious oral, written or gestured language toward a vulnerable adult or the treatment of a vulnerable adult which would be considered by a reasonable person to be disparaging, derogatory, humiliating, harassing, or threatening). Action Taken by Facility: The facility completed an internal review and determined that their policies and procedures were adequate and were followed. All staff persons at the facility received retraining regarding respecting individuals’ sexuality and validation. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: No further action taken.
|
