|
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: 802845-SUD (Substance Use Disorder) Investigator(s): Anna Parkin Suspected Maltreatment Reported: Allegation One: It was reported that a staff person (SP) and a vulnerable adult (VA) had sexual contact. Allegation Two: It was also reported that the SP also vaped Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and using ecstasy while working. Allegation Three: It was also reported that the VA bought the SP jewelry. Allegation Four: The SP provided a former staff person (P2) some heart burn medication that the SP took from the facility. Date of Incident(s): Multiple unknown 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 (c); and subdivision 9, paragraph (b), clause (1); 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. In the absence of legal authority a person willfully uses, withholds, or disposes of funds or property of a vulnerable adult. 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 8, 2022; from documentation at the facility; and through five interviews conducted with a supervisory staff person (P1), a staff person who no longer worked at the facility (P2), and three facility staff persons (P3-P5). Attempts were made via telephone and mail to contact and interview a client (C), the VA and the SP respectively, but none responded to the requests. The VA was diagnosed with an alcohol use disorder and mental health disorders. The VA began treatment at the facility on February 7, 2022, and was discharged on May 6, 2022, when s/he left the program prior to graduation. According to the VA’s Individual Abuse Prevention Plan, the VA was not susceptible to sexual abuse or financial exploitation. The facility was a residential treatment facility that was split by gender into two buildings that were separated by an alleyway. Consistent information was provided that the SP generally worked with vulnerable adults the opposite gender as the VA. According to the facility’s Employee Code of Ethics, staff persons were expected to maintain the “highest degree of professionalism” at and away from the facility. Staff persons maintained “an objective, non-possessive relationship” with all clients “at all times.” Staff persons did not exploit clients sexually, financially, or emotionally and were prohibited from engaging in social or sexual contact with clients during their treatment or two years following treatment. The facility’s personnel files and training records documented that staff persons interviewed for this investigation, including the SP, were each trained on the Employee Code of Ethics, the VA’s plans, and Reporting of Maltreatment of Vulnerable Adults Act prior to the incident. Allegation One: It was reported that the SP and the VA had sexual contact. P2 provided the following information: · Approximately two years prior to this investigation, P2 worked at the facility. From approximately October 2022 until shortly before this investigation, P2 and the SP were acquaintances and resided together. · On multiple previous occasions, the SP asked P2 to pick up the VA from the facility and drive him/her to different places, including the SP’s and P2’s residence and a store. On May 2, 2022, the SP texted P2 and said the VA was going to walk from the facility to the SP’s and P2’s residence and asked P2 to drive the VA to look at an apartment to rent which P2 did. · On another occasion, the SP told P2 s/he was having a “bad day” and that s/he wanted to go to the facility and kiss the VA. · On another occasion, when at the SP’s and P2’s residence, P2 asked the SP’s family member where the SP was. The family member responded that the SP was in his/her bedroom with the VA. P2 knocked on the SP’s bedroom door and the SP stated that s/he was “busy” and could not come to the door. · Around the time that the VA moved out of the facility, P2 saw a folder with the VA’s name written on the front inside the SP’s personal vehicle. · The SP denied having sexual contact with the VA while the VA lived at the facility but after the VA moved into his/her own apartment, the SP told P2 that s/he had sexual contact with the VA. P2 was unsure if the SP had sexual contact with the VA while s/he resided at the facility. P2 provided text messages to this investigator dated May 2, 2022, from a person with the same first name as the VA. P2 asked what “the address” was and where s/he was supposed to pick up the person. The person responded with an address and said s/he will walk there at 11:30. P3 stated on May 12, 2022, s/he received a message on Facebook from P2 saying that P2 was concerned because the SP was “seeing” the VA. P2 also said s/he saw the VA’s folder inside the SP’s car and that the SP stayed at the VA’s apartment in the past. P3 stated that P2 had previously been disqualified from working at a program licensed by the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) for being in a relationship with a previous client so P2 “might not be the most credible person.” Around the time the VA lived at the facility, the SP told P3 that s/he was “seeing someone” but did not provide any additional information to P3. P3 was unaware if the SP had sexual contact with the VA. P1 provided the following information: · On May 12, 2022, P3 told P1 that P2 contacted P1 and said the SP was possibly dating the VA. P1 then spoke to P2, who confirmed the information. Later that day, a family member of the owner of the facility drove past the VA’s residence and saw the SP’s vehicle parked outside. P1 was not able to provide this investigator with that address. P2 had previously been fired from the facility because of possible sexual contact with two clients. · A few days later, P1 spoke to the SP and asked the SP if s/he was “hanging out” with a client. The SP was “upset” and responded, “No.” A few hours later, the SP told P1 that s/he could not take the “pressure” of the allegations and ended his/her employment at the facility. · P1 was aware that P2 and the SP resided together. The SP had previous allegations against him/her investigated by the Minnesota Department of Human Services that were not substantiated and P1 did not have concerns with the SP’s interactions with clients. P4 stated after P1 had a conversation with the SP about the allegations, the SP called P4 crying. The SP told P4 that s/he had given the VA a ride to and from the facility but did not provide any other information. P4 did not have any knowledge about a relationship between the SP and the VA prior to that. A few days later, the SP called P4 and said that the VA had been to the SP’s residence “hanging out” but denied sexual contact. The SP did not specify if it was before or after the VA moved out of the facility. This investigator reviewed the DHS computer system and verified that P2 had been disqualified from working in a licensed program for having a sexual relationship with two vulnerable adults. The SP had a previous investigation regarding a sexual relationship with a vulnerable adult at the facility that was inconclusive. P5 stated on June 6, 2022, at approximately 3 a.m., s/he received a voicemail on his/her cell phone from the C stating that s/he knew there was “a lot” going on at the facility including the SP and the VA having sexual intercourse. The C did not provide any additional information about the allegations and P5 did not call the C back. P5 was not aware if the VA had sexual contact with the SP. Conclusion Allegation One: Although it was concerning that the SP made comments about wanting to kiss the VA while s/he lived at the facility, given that P2’s credibility was diminished and that there was no additional information to support or refute whether they had sexual contact while the SP was a caregiver for the VA, there was not a preponderance of the evidence whether the SP and the VA had sexual contact while the VA resided at the facility. 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). Allegation Two: It was also reported that the SP vaped THC and using ecstasy while working. P2 stated approximately every other week, P2 and the SP went to a tobacco store and purchased THC vapes to use while at the facility. The SP sat outside with another staff person (P2 could not recall the staff person’s name) and vaped together. On previous occasions, the SP showed P2 ecstasy pills and said s/he used ecstasy to “get by” while working at the facility. P2 did not recall any other information about the SP’s ecstasy use. P3 stated that P2 messaged him/her that the SP had been “using” THC vaps. P2 did not provide any additional information about the SP using ecstasy. P3 was not aware that the SP used THC or ecstasy while at the facility. P1 stated P2 told him/her that the SP had vaped THC while at the facility. P1 was aware that the SP vaped but thought it was tobacco. P1 denied that P2 had told him/her that the SP used ecstasy while at the facility but thought s/he heard about it from “somewhere” but could not provide any additional information about it. P1 did not have concerns with the SP using illegal drugs while working at the facility. Conclusion Allegation Two: P2 provided information that the SP vaped THC and used ecstasy while at the facility, however, given P2’s diminished credibility, that P1 and P3 denied knowledge that the SP used THC or ecstasy while working, that there was no additional information to support or refute the allegation, there was not a preponderance of the evidence whether the SP used THC or ecstasy while working at the facility. 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). Allegation Three: It was also reported that the VA bought the SP jewelry. P2 stated on unknown dates while the VA lived at the facility, the SP told P2 that the VA called the SP and asked him/her what type of jewelry s/he liked. Later on, the VA purchased jewelry and gave it to the SP who then wore them home. P1 and P3 were not aware that the VA gave the SP money and purchased items for the SP. Conclusion Allegation Three: Although P2 provided information that the VA bought jewelry for the SP, given that P1 and P3 were not aware the VA bought items for the SP, that there was no additional information to support or refute the allegation, and that the VA was responsible for his/her own finances, there was not a preponderance of the evidence whether the SP accepted jewelry from the VA. It was not determined whether financial exploitation occurred (In the absence of legal authority a person willfully uses, withholds, or disposes of funds or property of a vulnerable adult). Allegation Four: The SP provided P2 some heart burn medication that the SP took from the facility. Medication for clients at the facility was provided by a pharmacy and stored in a locked medication cart that staff persons, including the SP, had access to. Heart burn medication was stored in a bubble pack. When the pharmacy delivered medication, the medication was counted and documented on a medication form. On an unknown date, P2 and the SP discussed P2 having heart burn. The SP came home from working at the facility and gave P2 a plastic bag with four heart burns pill inside. P2 asked the SP where s/he got the pills and the SP said from the facility. The SP did not tell P2 any other information about the pills. P3 stated that the P2 messaged P3 that the SP brought heart burn medication to P2 that was taken from the facility. P3 was not aware of these allegations prior to P2 telling him/her. P1 stated that P2 texted P1 a picture of pills inside a plastic bag with P2’s name written on it. P1 stated there was no medication missing from the facility and they do not have plastic bags there. Conclusion Allegation Four: Although P2 provided information that the SP brought P2 heart burn medication from the facility, given that P1 stated there was no medication missing from the facility, that P3 was not aware of the allegations, and that there was no additional information to support or refute the allegation, there was not a preponderance of the evidence whether the SP took medication from a vulnerable adult at the facility. It was not determined whether financial exploitation occurred (In the absence of legal authority a person willfully uses, withholds, or disposes of funds or property of a vulnerable adult). Action Taken by Facility: The facility completed an internal review and determined that policies and procedures were adequate and followed. The SP no longer at the facility. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: No further actions taken at this time.
|
