|
June 18, 2026 Debra and Matthew Hellwege 2077 Copper Lane Eagan, MN 55122 License Number: 1078723 (AFC) ORDER OF CONDITIONAL LICENSE RECONSIDERATION DECISION Dear Debra and Matthew Hellwege: On November 20, 2025, the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS), Division of Licensing, issued an Order of Conditional License to Hellwege AFC, which placed the adult foster care and home and community-based licenses on conditional status for a period of two years. (See attached Exhibit A). On December 9, 2025, DHS received the license holder’s request for reconsideration. In its request for reconsideration, the license holders requested that DHS reconsider citations 1-3, 5, 7-20, and 22, and requested that DHS reconsider the decision to place its licenses on conditional status. DHS affirmed the Conditional License and all of the citations in the request for reconsideration, except DHS rescinded part of citation 8. The license holder’s arguments and DHS decision on the request for reconsideration are addressed below. A. RECONSIDERATION OF THE CITATIONS IDENTIFIED IN THE ORDER OF CONDITIONAL LICENSE Citation 1: Dakota County determined that you did not provide primary care to the residents in your adult foster home based on interviews, medication records, and time sheets. Statute or Rule Violated: Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.02, subdivision 6f. Your request for reconsideration: You state you are the primary caregivers. You contend you did not think keeping the same staff would be an issue. You indicate you are present doing home maintenance when staff are present. You argue the medication records showing staff administered medications most of the time does not mean you were not present. You state one staff person stays overnight because they live 45 minutes away. DHS’ response: The definition of “family adult foster care home,” requires the license holder to be the primary caregiver. There is a preponderance of evidence that you were not the primary caregivers for the two residents who are served by your program as you did not provide care to the residents the majority of the time. This determination is based on evidence that was collected by Dakota County during its investigation into your program. The evidence includes Medication Administration Records (“MARS”), which show staff administered medications to the residents the majority of most of the time. In addition, staff timecards show staff provided care to the residents the majority of the time. For example, in June of 2023, a staffing pattern you provided to county licensors showed staff provided care to the two residents for 54 hours a week, however staff timecards from July to December showed staff provided care for 158 hours per week to the two residents. Similarly, the staffing patterns that you provided to Dakota County in July 2024 showed 56 hours of staff care per week. However, there were approximately 5,698 hours of paid care in 2024 that was not provided by either of you, which averages out to 109 hours per week. Although that is an average, it is significantly higher than the number of hours of staffing that you provided to the county in your staffing pattern. In your reconsideration request, you acknowledged that staff stay overnight at the AFC home on a regular basis. In addition, during Dakota County’s investigation, you told Dakota County that Mr. Hellwege was not comfortable performing some personal cares for one of the persons served, which limited his ability to support that resident, and that Mr. Hellwege worked a full-time job. Dakota County also reviewed the MARS for September and December 2024 and determined that Mr. Hellwege did not administer any medications for those two months. During Dakota County’s licensing investigation and in your reconsideration request, you stated that both persons served have high needs and require a lot of staff to care for them. During the investigation, you did not dispute that records indicated that you were not providing the majority of direct care to one of the residents. Finally, the evidence shows that you, a married couple, have two homes in the same county. The vulnerable adults live in one home, which is the licensed AFC. You stated in your reconsideration request that you both live in the other home, but you plan to move back to the family AFC home. You stated in your reconsideration request that you take one person served to the home that is not licensed as the AFC on the weekends and that staff will care for the other person in the AFC home the entire weekend. Your statement appears to acknowledge that you are not providing a majority of the care to the residents of your family AFC program. The evidence, taken together, shows that you were not the primary caregivers of the residents served by your family AFC program, as required. Therefore, Citation 1 is affirmed. Citation #2: This citation was issued because the Designated Coordinator and Designated Manager did not meet the requirements for program management and oversight, in violation of Minnesota Statutes, section 245D.081, subdivision 2 and 3. Statute or Rule Violated: Minnesota Statutes, section 245D.081, subdivision 2 and 3. Repeat violation. Your request for reconsideration: You did not state any written argument or evidence disputing this citation. DHS’ response: Since you did not dispute citation 2, it is affirmed. Citation #3: The License Holder did not meet the requirements for funds and property when they did not ensure the separation of funds of persons served from the funds of the license holder, the program, or staff. Statute or Rule Violated: Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.04, subdivision 13. Your request for reconsideration: You state you do separate funds, as both persons served have separate funds. DHS’ response: Although you state the two persons served funds were not co-mingled with the other person’s funds, the citation was not issued for that reason. The citation was issued because the two persons served’s funds were not separated from the license holder, program and staff funds, as required by Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.04, subdivision 13(b). Citation 3 is affirmed. Citation #5: The license holder did not develop and review abuse prevention plans, as required. a) The license holder did not review the Individual Abuse Prevention Plan (“IAPP”) for P1 annually in 2023 and 2024. b) The license holder assessed P1 and P2 to be susceptible to sexual abuse, physical abuse, self-abuse, and financial exploitation, but did not list specific measures to minimize the risk of abuse in each area. Statute or Rule Violated: Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.65, subdivision 2. Repeat violation. Your request for reconsideration: You state you had these items. DHS’ response: Although you state you had these items you did not provide them with your reconsideration request. You also did not provide any evidence at the licensing review to show you reviewed the IAPPs for P1 and P2 in 2023 and 2024. You did not include specific measures to minimize the risk of abuse in P1 and P2’s IAPPs for 2022. In P1’s IAPP, in the section where you would include the risk of abuse, you stated, P1 “will be with a care provider at all times” and then for the rest of the areas it says, “see above.” In P2’s IAPP you stated, “see above” in some of the areas where you were to document the specific measures to minimize abuse, but you did not have any specific measures listed in any of the responses above. You did not include specific measures to minimize the risk of abuse for P1 or P2. Citation 5 is affirmed. Citation #7: This citation was issued because for two persons whose records were reviewed, P1 and P2, you did not maintain documentation on how the persons health needs would be met, as required. Statute or Rule Violated: Minnesota Statutes, 245D.05, subdivision 1. Your request for reconsideration: You did not state any written argument or evidence disputing this citation. DHS’ response: Since you did not dispute citation 7, it is affirmed. Citation #8: This citation was issued because you did not maintain MARs for P1 and P2 as required: a) the license holder did not document the following in P1 and P2s MARs: information on the risks and side effects; possible consequences if the medication or treatment is not taken as directed; and information on when and to whom to report if a dose or treatment is not administered or treatment performed as prescribed; and the occurrence of possible adverse reactions; and b) P2 was prescribed a medication to be taken twice daily for seven consecutive days during January 2025. The license holder did not document a notation on P2’s MAR as to when this medication was started or discontinued. Statute or Rule Violated: Minnesota Statutes, section 245D.05, subdivision 2, paragraph (c). Repeat violation. Your request for reconsideration: Regarding part (a) of the citation you contend that you did list the side effects for each medication. You indicate that information on when and who to report to when a dose or treatment was not administered as prescribed was in the MAR. Regarding part (b) of the citation, you state that the MAR shows a medication for P2 was started on January 1st at 8:00 pm and discontinued on the morning of January 8th. You state you were still administering the medication on January 6th when the licensor reviewed the record. DHS’ response: Regarding part (a) of the citation, you stated the side effects for some of the medications but the side effects are missing for two medications. You also did not document when and to whom to report a missing dose. Part (a) of citation 8 is affirmed. Regarding part (b) of the citation, Minnesota Statutes, section 245D.05, subdivision 2, paragraph (c)(6), requires that license holders include a notation of when a medication or treatment is started, administered, changed, or discontinued. You indicated when the medication was started by putting initials on date the first dose was given. You also noted on the MAR that the medication was to be administered by noting, “twice daily for 7 days.” You did not include the date it was discontinued, but the licensing review took place on January 6, 2025, before the seven-day period was complete. Part (b) of citation 8 is rescinded. Citation #9: The License Holder did not meet the requirements for safekeeping of funds for P1 and P2. Statute or Rule Violated: Minnesota Statutes, section 245D.06, subdivision 4. Your request for reconsideration: You did not state any written argument or submit evidence disputing this citation. DHS’ response: Since you did not dispute citation 9, it is affirmed. Citation #10: The License Holder implemented a prohibited procedure. The License Holder did not prohibit the use of mechanical restraints for P2. Documentation indicated that staff were to duct tape a sock or oven mitt to P2’s hands if P2 engaged in self-injurious behaviors during the day and to duct tape a sock or oven mitt to P2’s hands at night. Statute or Rule Violated: Minnesota Statutes, section 245D.06, subdivision 5. Your request for reconsideration: You state the manual restraint was used to prevent the person from poking an eye out. You contend you asked your DHS licensor for help but none was given. You state that during the licensing review one licensor gave you the 245D hotline to call for assistance. DHS’ response: Compliance with licensing laws and rules the license holder’s responsibility. You acknowledge you implemented a prohibited procedure in documentation dated, December 27, 2025, and in your request for reconsideration. Citation 10 is affirmed. Citation #11: The License Holder did not complete and review assessments for an intensive service for 2023 and 2024, for P1 and P2. Statute or Rule Violated: Minnesota Statutes, section 245D.071, subdivision 3, paragraph (b). Repeat violation. Your request for reconsideration: You did not state any written argument or submit evidence disputing this citation. DHS’ response: Since you did not dispute Citation 11, it is affirmed. Citation #12: The License Holder did not meet initial service planning requirements for an intensive service: a) The License Holder did not hold initial service planning meetings for P1 and P2 with the person’s case manager and other support team members as identified by the person within 45 days of providing services; and b) The License Holder also did not hold a discussion about how technology might be used to meet P1 and P2’s desired outcomes as a part of their initial planning meetings. The license holder was to document a summary of this discussion in the person support plan that included required information. Statute or Rule Violated: Minnesota Statutes, section 245D.071, subdivision 3, paragraphs (c) and (d). Repeat violation. Your request for reconsideration: You state you had 45-day meetings. Regarding (a), you state one meeting for P1 had to be put out further due to the case worker’s schedule. Regarding (b), you state, “these are addressed. Will provide information.” You did not submit any supporting documentation. DHS’ response: At the licensing review you did not provide documentation showing you held 45-day meetings for P1 and P2. You also did not provide this documentation with your reconsideration request. Citation 12 is affirmed. Citation #13: The License Holder did not develop service outcomes and supports, as required. Statute or Rule Violated: Minnesota Statutes, section 245D.081, subdivision 4, paragraphs (a) and (b). Repeat violation. Your request for reconsideration: You state these are addressed and will review. You did not state any written argument or submit evidence disputing this citation. DHS’ response: Since you did not dispute citation 13, it is affirmed. Citation #14: The License Holder did not summarize progress toward achieving identified outcomes, which should have been completed at least once per year for P1 and P2. Statute or Rule Violated: Minnesota Statutes, section 245D.071, subdivision 5, paragraph (g). Your request for reconsideration: You did not state any written argument or submit evidence disputing this citation. DHS’ response: Since you did not dispute Citation 14, it is affirmed. Citation #15: The License Holder did not maintain an admission and discharge register as required. Statute or Rule Violated: Minnesota Statutes, section 245D.095, subdivision 2. Your request for reconsideration: You stated, “we have this, it wasn’t requested during the meeting.” However, you did not submit supporting documentation. DHS’ response: Licensor notes taken at the licensing review states that the licensor asked for the admission and discharge register at the licensing review, but you were unable to produce them. The notes indicate you did not maintain documentation to show when P1 was discharged or readmitted to the program. Since you did not have this required documentation, citation 15 is affirmed. Citation #16: The License Holder did not maintain progress or daily notes for P1. Statute or Rule Violated: Minnesota Statutes, section 245D.095, subdivision 3. Repeat violation. Your request for reconsideration: You state, “Daily notes have not been requested.” DHS’ response: During the licensing review, the licensor requested progress or daily notes. At the time of the review you provided notes for P1 that were virtually blank and you did not submit any documentation upon reconsideration. You did not maintain progress or daily notes for P1. Citation 16 is affirmed. Citation #17: The License Holder did not provide written or electronic copies of policies and procedures. The License Holder did not inform P2 and P2’s case manager of polices and procedures that affect the persons served rights and provide copies within five working days for the following policies and procedures: grievance, service suspension and termination, emergency use of manual restraints, and data privacy. Statute or Rule Violated: Minnesota Statutes, section 245D.10, subdivision 4, paragraph (b). Repeat violation. Your request for reconsideration: You did not state any written argument or submit evidence disputing this citation. DHS’ response: Since you did not dispute Citation 17, it is affirmed. Citation #18: The License Holder did not incorporate and evaluate positive support strategies for P1 and P2. Statute or Rule Violated: Minnesota Rules, part 9544.0030, subpart 1. Your request for reconsideration: You did not state any written argument or submit evidence disputing this citation. DHS’ response: Since you did not dispute Citation 18, it is affirmed. Citation #19: The License Holder did not provide an annual review of the program abuse prevention plan (“PAPP”) for SP2 for 2022 and 2023 and for SP3 for 2022, 2023, and 2024. Statute or Rule Violated: Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.65, subdivision 3. Your request for reconsideration: You state SP3 has signed this plan each year. DHS’ response: Training records for SP3 were provided at the site review but there was no documentation indicating an annual review for SP3, nor was this provided on reconsideration. Citation 19 is affirmed. Citation #20: The License Holder did not provide orientation training to SP1 within 60 days of hire. Statute or Rule Violated: Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.09, subdivision 4. Your request for reconsideration: You state you completed the orientation training for P1 on the following: the job description, service recipient rights and staff responsibilities to ensure the exercise of those rights, the safe and correct use of the emergency use of manual restraints, and strategies to minimize sexual violence. You did not state P1 had training on basic first aid. DHS’ response: You did not provide documentation to show you completed orientation training for SP1 within 60 days of hire. SP3’s date of hire was June 13, 2024, so the training should have been completed by August 13, 2024. You did not have the training complete, at the January 6, 2025, licensing review, four months after the training was to be completed. The training documentation you provided was from 2023, when SP3 worked at a different program. You did not provide documentation at the licensing review or on reconsideration to show you trained SP3 was training on the required topics. Citation 20 is affirmed. Citation #22: The License Holder did not maintain a personnel record for SP1 that included the date of training, number of hours per subject area, and the name of the instructor for the trainings. Statute or Rule Violated: Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.095, subdivision 5. Your request for reconsideration: You state you have this record. DHS’ response: You did not provide the training documentation for SP1 at the licensing review or on reconsideration. Citation 22 is affirmed B. RECONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL LICENSE Nature, chronicity, severity, and effect on health, safety, and rights The Commissioner considered the nature, chronicity, and severity of the licensing violations and the effect of the violations on the health, safety, or rights of persons served by the program, as required by Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.06, subdivision 1, and has determined that a conditional license is warranted. The nature of the citations directly relate to the health and safety of the persons served. Regarding your family adult foster care license, Dakota County determined that you are not the primary caregiver for the persons served by the program, which is required by law for a family AFC license holder. Despite several discussions with DHS and Dakota County about the requirements of being the primary caregiver for persons served by the program, you continued to not meet the requirements. Regarding your HCBS license, the Individual Abuse Prevention Plans (“IAPPs”) for P1 and P2 were incomplete. An IAPP is critical to the safety of the persons served because it is an individualized assessment of the person’s risk of abuse and the specific measures that will be taken to keep them safe,. P1 and P2’s abuse prevention plans stated they were susceptible to sexual abuse, physical abuse, and financial exploitation, yet you did not document specific measures to minimize the risks. You put persons served at risk of neglect and abuse when you did not provide P2 an orientation to the internal and external maltreatment reporting procedures and when you did not train staff on maltreatment. You allowed SP3 to work for at least six months, without any training on your program and the persons served, even though the training was required to be completed within 60 days. Regarding severity, you had few records on the persons served or staff training, and the records you did have were not organized, making it difficult for you or staff to use them as resources. Further, you implemented a prohibited procedure, by restricting the use of P2’s hands. Regarding chronicity, in addition to the Conditional License, DHS issued two correction orders and the County issued one correction order to you since 2017. The Conditional License contained 23 violations, 9 of which were repeat violations from the March 14, 2025, Correction order, showing you did not take corrective measures for those violations. In addition, there were concerns about you not being the primary caregiver since April of 2023. The County and DHS discussed this with you on many occasions including on April 28, 2023, the summer of 2024, December 2024, and January 22, 2025. However, you continue to not be the primary caregivers for the persons served by the program. Based on the consideration of these factors, the conditional license is warranted. Commissioner’s Evaluation In determining whether a conditional license is warranted, DHS evaluated the facts, conditions, and circumstances concerning your program’s operation. This includes consideration of the program’s operation, the well-being of persons served, available evaluations of the program by persons receiving services, information about the qualifications of staff persons that are working in your program, and the license holder’s ability to demonstrate competent knowledge of the applicable requirements of statutes and rules. DHS determined that it was appropriate to place your license on conditional status based on the violations identified above and the program evaluation. The effect of the violations on the well-being of person’s served is addressed above. In addition, your lack of service planning and documentation of the needs of P1 and P2 put them at risk. Regarding the program’s operation and the demonstration of competent knowledge of statutes and rules, your program did not meet the definition of a family adult foster care home, under Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.02, subdivision 6f, because you were not the primary caregivers. As stated above, licensors have discussed this issue with you repeatedly since April of 2023. DHS and the County have issued three correction orders since 2017. In addition, your knowledge of and ability to follow the law is at issue because 9 of the 23 violations cited in the Conditional Order were repeat violations. Regarding staff qualifications, you had five violations regarding staffing standards. At the licensing review, which took place six months after SP1 was hired, you did not have any documentation that SP1 was trained on the job description, service recipient rights, EUMRs, prohibited procedures, basic first aid, or strategies to minimize abuse. Further, you did not hire a qualified and competent Designated Coordinator and Designated Manager, as demonstrated by the 23 citations described in the Conditional Order. Based on this recent history of significant noncompliance and on the number and serious nature of the violations in the conditional order, and that you demonstrated a lack of understanding of the law, the Commissioner believes the program can benefit from additional oversight to ensure it can gain and continue compliance with licensing regulations. C. TERMS OF THE CONDITIONAL LICENSE In addition to complying with all licensing rules and statutes for family adult foster care and home and community-based services, you are required to comply with the following terms: 1. Within 15 days of receiving this reconsideration decision, you must notify current persons receiving services, all parties who refer persons to the program, and all payer sources of the conditional status of your licenses. The notification must be approved by DHS Licensing prior to being sent to persons receiving services and all other parties. Therefore, the draft notice must be submitted to DHS Licensing for approval within 10 days of receiving this order. The notification must specify: · the length of time of the conditional status of your license; · the reasons your license was made conditional; and · include either a copy of the Order of Conditional License or an offer to provide a copy of the order upon request. While the licenses are on conditional status, you must notify new persons receiving services, referral sources, and payer sources that the license is on conditional status before they begin receiving services. The notification to new persons receiving services must specify the length of time of the conditional status of the licenses, the reasons the licenses were made conditional, and it must include either a copy of the Order of Conditional License or an offer to provide a copy of the order upon request. Within 30 days of receiving this reconsideration decision, you must submit to the DHS Licensing a list of the individuals and parties that received the notice. 2. Within 30 days of receiving this reconsideration decision, you must: · designate a staff person, other than SP4, who is responsible for delivery and evaluation of HCBS services provided by the license holder; · designate a managerial staff person, other than SP4, to provide program management and oversight of the HCBS services provided by the license holder; and · submit the names and qualifications for the person(s) who will fulfill the duties and responsibilities of your designated coordinator and designated manager to DHS HCBS Licensing for review and approval. It is your responsibility to ensure that these persons meet the necessary qualifications. · you must maintain documentation of your designated coordinator and designated manager’s qualifications in their personnel records and a signed job description. Changes to these positions may not be made without prior notification and approval by DHS. The same person may perform both functions if the work and education requirements outlined in section 245D.081, subdivisions 2 and 3 are met. 3. Within 60 days of receiving this reconsideration decision, you must: · submit a written plan to DHS Licensing detailing how you will ensure the corrective action ordered in the conditional license order is completed. The written plan must detail the roles and responsibilities that your designated coordinator and designated manager will have in completing corrective action and auditing all persons served records; · complete an audit of all participant and personnel records according to your written plan; · submit the results of the audit to your DHS licensor. The results must include the name of the staff person that audited each person served and personnel record; and · based on results the audit and the corrective action ordered in the violations detailed above, you must bring all records into compliance. 4. During the duration of the conditional license, you must receive approval from your Dakota County licensor before admitting any new service recipients to the home. You must submit information about the prospective service recipient and their care needs, the funding source, and completed 6790 documents, when applicable, to the Dakota County licensor and receive written approval from the Dakota County licensor before admitting any new service recipient. Once you receive written approval from Dakota County, you must notify your DHS licensor that you are admitting a new service recipient. The notification to your DHS licensor must include the name of the person served, the name and contact information for the person’s case manager, the person’s anticipated service initiation date for each service, and documentation of compliance with term 1 of your conditional license.
5. You may not add additional services to your HCBS license for the duration of the conditional license. 6. You may not apply for other DHS-issued licenses without prior approval from DHS for the duration of this conditional license. 7. You will not be granted any variances for your AFC or HCBS licenses for the duration of the conditional license. 8. You must submit a current staffing pattern to your Dakota County licensor quarterly by the first day of the month (January, April, July, and October). You must also submit a staffing pattern to your Dakota County licensor prior to any proposed staffing changes outside of minor adjustments not totaling more than a 2-hour change per week. You must submit timesheets to your Dakota County licensor within 48 hours upon request from your licensor. Submissions Submissions required as part of corrective action ordered must be sent to your DHS licensor at: 1. By secure email at kate.spenger@state.mn.us ; or 2. If you are unable to submit corrective action ordered securely through email, you can fax 651-431-7673 or mail using the information below: Commissioner, Department of Human Services ATTN: Kate Spenger Licensing Division PO Box 64242 St. Paul, MN 55164-0242 Submissions required as part of corrective action ordered must be sent to your Dakota County licensor at: 1. By secure email at deb.suek@co.dakota.mn.us ; or 2. If you are unable to submit corrective action ordered securely through email, you can fax 651-554-6339 or mail using the information below: Dakota County Human Services ATTN: Deb Suek 1 Mendota Road West, Suite 300 West St. Paul, MN 55118 Your licensor will monitor your compliance with all applicable laws and rules. Verification of compliance may include unannounced visits. Failure to comply with the requirements in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 245A (Human Services Licensing Act), Minnesota Statutes, chapter 245C (Human Services Background Study Act), Minnesota Statutes, chapter 245D, Minnesota Statutes, section 626.557, and with the terms of your conditional license may result in further licensing action, including revocation of your license. D. RIGHT TO APPEAL TO THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS This is a final agency decision and is subject to further review only by the Minnesota Court of Appeals. Please note that there are time limits for seeking review by the Minnesota Court of Appeals. See Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 606 and Minnesota Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, Rule 115. If you have any questions regarding the Order of Conditional License, please contact Christala Culhane, Unit Supervisor, at 651-431-6541. Sincerely,
Kofi Montzka, Attorney Legal Counsel’s Office Office of Inspector General
|
