|
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: 1075986-H_CRS (Home and Community-Based Services-Community Residential Setting) 1070738-HCBS (Home and Community-Based Services) Investigator(s): Jason Pehler 651-431-4830 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported a staff person (SP) had sex with a vulnerable adult (VA). Date of Incident(s): May 26, 2026 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), clauses (1) and (2): Any contact with the vulnerable adult that is not therapeutic conduct and a reasonable person would consider a sexual act or any nonconsensual sexual interaction with the vulnerable adult, including but not limited to: · making, viewing, or sharing sexual images or videos with or of the vulnerable adult; and · using oral, written, gestured, or electronic communication that is sexually harassing, including but not limited to unwelcome sexual advances or requests for sexual favors. Summary of Findings: Pertinent information was obtained during a site visit conducted on June 17, 2026; from documentation at the facility and law enforcement records; and through five interviews conducted with the VA, facility supervisors (P1-P2), a community person (CP), and the SP. Facility documentation showed the VA enjoyed playing video games and playing sports. The VA spent time listening to music, liked drawing, and wanted to travel to Jamacia to experience the food. The VA had held employment in the community in the past but was not currently employed. The VA was diagnosed with autism, disruptive mood dysregulation disorder, and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. The VA was able to be unsupervised in the community for two hours and could reset the two hours and continue to be in the community unsupervised for up to four total hours before a visual check was required. The VA’s Individual Abuse Prevention Plan (IAPP) provided the following information: · The VA had a history of abuse, but was not considered at risk for sexual abuse. · The VA could become impulsive and have difficulty managing his/her emotions, which could increase the risk of inappropriate or aggressive behavior during times of frustration or stress. During these times the VA was at risk of retaliating and making poor choices. The VA also had a history of destroying other persons property, and self-injurious behaviors. · The VA had a history of making “false allegations” of abuse against other persons. The VA’s Self-Management Assessment showed the VA could be triggered by the tone of voice, misunderstanding a person’s intention, and could lead to a negative interaction. The VA could use verbal aggression/physical aggression when s/he was scared, unhappy, and/or angry. The facility schedule showed the SP worked on May 26, 2026, from 7:30 a.m., to 3:30 p.m. The VA provided the following information: · The VA said the alleged incident occurred on a Tuesday, but was not sure of the exact time of the SP and the VA met in the community, but it was after the SP was done working. The VA said they met at a local restaurant, and the SP then drove them to a local disc golf course. The VA said s/he and the SP engaged in sex in the parking lot of the disc golf course. The VA said a condom was used while the VA and the SP had sex, and later clarified that the sexual contact was oral sex. · The VA said the SP suggested going to the disc golf course, and the VA was not sure who suggested they engage in the sexual act, but the conversation about having sex was “blunt.” The VA added that s/he “forgot a lot,” about the incident as it “messed with” the VA mentality. · The VA said prior to the alleged incident s/he sent a request to be friends with the SP on a social media application to which the SP accepted. The SP and the VA exchanged “flirting” messages, and the SP said the VA was “cute.” The VA said the messages did not include any other sexual statements, but the SP sent a nude picture of him/herself to the VA a couple days after they had sexual contact. The VA said s/he was unable to remember if the SP had any distinct markings on his/her body, and did not save the nude picture the SP. The VA said all of the communication s/he had with the SP was via the social media app, and they exchanged approximately 30 messages. The VA added that at some point after the alleged sexual contact the SP blocked the VA on the social media app. · The VA said s/he did not have access to any of the social media messages that were exchanged between him/her and the SP. The facility’s completed two General Event Reports (GER) for incidents occurring on May 28, 2026, and June 1, 2026. The GERs provided the following information: · On May 28, 2026, “someone” contacted LE and asked for a welfare check on the VA. The VA was angry, yelling, and throwing items in his/her bedroom prior to LE arriving at the facility. LE completed a welfare check, discussed the VA’s current mental health symptoms, and the VA declined s/he needed any additional assistance and declined an as needed medication. · On June 1, 2026, at 11:10 a.m., the SP called the facility to inform someone that s/he had contacted LE to complete a welfare check on the VA due to social media messages that the VA had sent to the SP. The social media messages included the VA threatening self-injurious behaviors. · On June 1, 2026, at 1:12 p.m., the VA spoke with P2 and said s/he had sexual contact with the SP on May 26, 2026. The VA said s/he had “developed a crush” on the SP, and the SP and the VA had been communicating on social media. The VA said that on or around May 26, 2026, s/he met the SP at a restaurant in Hibbing, Minnesota, and discussed pursuing a relationship. The VA added that the SP transported him to the Hibbing Disc Golf Course, and they engaged in a consensual sexual encounter and that they used “protection.” · The VA said s/he did not want the SP to return to the facility and that his/her frustration was not related to the welfare check, but rather the sexual contact the VA and the SP had on May 26, 2026. · The VA said during the SP’s next work shift, the SP said the relationship could not continue and blocked the VA on social media. o Based on the facility schedule the SP’s next scheduled working day was May 28, 2026. The SP also was scheduled to work May 29, 2026. The facility completed an Internal Review (IR), and Investigation Summary which provided the following information: · The SP said the VA added him/her on social media and initiated the messaging. The messages included the VA being in distress and referencing using drugs. The SP said s/he tried providing supportive responses, and contacted a co-worker and the facility due to LE being contacted. · The SP provided the messages that were exchanged on social media, and stated that communication was the only communication s/he had with the VA outside of work. The SP also said s/he had never met the VA in the community, and denied having any sexual contact with the VA. · The SP said on one other occasion s/he was in the VA’s bedroom listening to music with the VA and no other staff person was in the bedroom. P1-P2 provided the following information: · P1-P2 said there were a couple incidents in which the SP had boundary issues while providing care and services to the VA. The issues included the VA sitting closer than normal to the SP, and the SP being in the VA’s room with the door closed. However, there was no information that sexual contact or other maltreatment occurred during those boundary issues. Additionally, P1-P2 said the SP communicating with the VA on social media was an additional boundary concern. · The remainder of the information provided by P1-P2 was consistent with information provided within the GER, IR, and information from the VA and the SP. The SP provided the following information: · The SP denied having any sexual contact with the VA, and when informed the sexual act was oral sex, the SP said s/he did not engage in that type of sexual contact with any persons. The SP denied sending the VA any nude pictures of him/herself, and stated s/he was uncomfortable with his/her own body. · The SP denied meeting the VA in the community, or transporting the VA. The SP said s/he was with the CP during the time the incident was alleged to have occurred. · The SP said the VA added him/her as a friend on a social media application, and the SP engaged in messaging with the VA. The SP said the VA initiated the messaging, and the SP said s/he was concerned with the VA’s messages, and tried to be helpful to the VA. Due to the statements the VA made within the messages the SP contacted 9-1-1 to complete a welfare check, and then called the facility to let staff know LE had been contacted to complete a welfare check on the VA. · The SP shared the social media messages that were exchanged. The CP stated the SP was with the CP on May 26, 2026, after the SP was done working, and was not with the VA during the time of the alleged incident. The social media messages exchange between the VA and the SP included general questions and answers prior to the VA stating s/he was “planning” something bad. The SP responded by stating the VA meant, “A lot,” to the SP, and asked the VA to not to, “do anything stupid.” The SP also stated the VA was, “kind and caring,” and did not like “seeing people hurt.” During the message exchange there were no comments of a sexual relationship between the VA and the SP. LE was contacted regarding the allegation, but did not complete a criminal investigation. P1, P2, and the SP were each trained on the VA’s plans, the facility’s policies and procedures, and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Vulnerable Adults Act prior to the incident. Conclusion: The VA stated that on May 26, 2026, the VA and the SP met in the community and had sexual contact. The VA provided consistent information to facility personnel and this investigator. The VA stated the SP and the VA engaged in oral sex, and protection was used during the incident. The SP denied any sexual contact occurred, and said s/he was with the CP during the alleged incident. The CP confirmed the SP was with him/her at the time of the alleged incident. The SP provided the social media message exchange s/he had with the VA. The messages did not include any information that would be reasonably interpreted as sexual in nature. Although the VA provided consistent information related to the alleged incident, and the SP had reason to minimize his/her actions, given the SP provided consistent information that s/he did not have sexual contact with the VA and that the messages were not sexual in nature, that the CP confirmed the SP was with the CP when the incident was alleged to have occurred, that the VA had a history of not providing accurate information, and that there was no further information to further confirm or dispute either account, there was not a preponderance of evidence as to whether any of the SP’s actions were non therapeutic conduct that would be considered a sexual act with the VA. It was not determined whether sexual abuse occurred (any contact with the vulnerable adult that is not therapeutic conduct and a reasonable person would consider a sexual act or any nonconsensual sexual interaction with the vulnerable adult, including but not limited to: making, viewing, or sharing sexual images or videos with or of the vulnerable adult; and using oral, written, gestured, or electronic communication that is sexually harassing, including but not limited to unwelcome sexual advances or requests for sexual favors). Action Taken by Facility: The facility completed an internal review determined that the policies and procedures were adequate and followed. The incident was not similar to past events, and the SP was required to complete additional training related to boundaries and the facility’s Maltreatment Policy. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: No further action was taken.
|
