|
MALTREATMENT INVESTIGATION MEMORANDUM Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.01, paragraph (a), “The legislature hereby declares that the public policy of this state is to protect children whose health or welfare may be jeopardized through maltreatment.”
License Number and Program Type: 1036942-CRF (Children’s Residential Facility) Investigator(s): Gessner Rivas 651-431-3970 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that a staff person (SP) exchanged sexually explicit letters and was suspected of engaging in sexual activity with an alleged victim (AV) at the facility. Date of Incident(s): June 21, 2024 Nature of Alleged Maltreatment Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.03, subdivision 15, paragraph (a), clauses (1) and (2); and subdivision 20: Failure by a person responsible for a child's care to supply a child with necessary food, clothing, shelter, health, medical, or other care required for the child's physical or mental health when reasonably able to do so. Failure to protect a child from conditions or actions that seriously endanger the child's physical or mental health when reasonably able to do so. "Sexual abuse" means the subjection of a child by a person responsible for the child's care, by a person who has a significant relationship to the child, or by a person in a current or recent position of authority to any act that constitutes a violation of section 609.342 (criminal sexual conduct in the first degree), 609.343 (criminal sexual conduct in the second degree), 609.344 (criminal sexual conduct in the third degree), 609.345 (criminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree), or 609.3451 (criminal sexual conduct in the fifth degree). Sexual abuse includes threatened sexual abuse. Summary of Findings: Pertinent information was obtained during a site visit conducted on July 9, 2024; documentation from the facility, video security footage from the facility, and through four interviews conducted with a facility supervisor (P1), a facility staff person (P2), the AV’s family member (FM), and the AV. This investigator contacted the SP to request an interview, but the SP did not respond. The facility was a 24-hour detention facility for youth up to the age of 18 waiting for an initial hearing, trial, court disposition, or placement. Residents at the facility slept in living units called pods which had individual rooms for residents. Residents were able to participate in a variety of programming during their stay including health services and schooling. At the time of this report the AV was 17 years old and residing at the facility awaiting certification for adult court. The facility’s Personal Associations with Offenders policy required that staff persons maintained professional associations with and a personal detachment from [residents] at all times. Staff persons were not allowed to give or accept special favors to/from residents. The policy stated that sexual misconduct was an egregious violation of professional standards of behaviors between staff persons and residents. P2 provided the following information: · On June 21, 2024, P2 witnessed on security cameras, the AV slid a note under the door of the AV’s room which the SP picked up. P2 brought that to the attention of a supervisor. The supervisor reviewed the security footage, and the SP later received a coaching for the note passing. · P2 noticed that the SP was spending a lot of time in the AV’s pod having lengthy conversations with the AV. The SP would take her/his lunch break in the AV’s pod, the AV would specifically call for the SP, the SP would bring snacks and food for the AV. The AV would refer to the SP and her/his “boo, bae” P2 would ask the AV about that, and the AV would say s/he was just playing. · P2 confronted both the SP and the AV about some “weird” behavior that P2 had noticed between them; they both told P2 that s/he was mistaken. On June 28, 2024, the AV’s room was searched, and notes between the SP and the AV were found in the AV’s room. P1 provided the following information: · The SP was aware of the facility’s policy on professional boundaries. The SP had previously received a coaching due to passing notes with the AV on or about June 21, 2024. P1 noted that no other videos of the SP and AV passing notes were located. · Staff persons at the facility routinely checked residents’ rooms once per shift. Numerous staff persons had reported that the SP was spending a lot of time in the AV’s pod when s/he was not assigned to work in the pod. Staff persons found 13 double-sided pages of notes that had been passed between the SP and the AV. Both the names of the SP and AV were mentioned in the notes. P1 stated that the notes were turned over to law enforcement (LE). LE did not follow up with the facility about the notes. · The facility reviewed security footage to determine if there was any sexual contact between the AV and the SP but was not able to find any evidence that the SP and the AV had engaged in sexual activity. Whenever P1 spoke with the AV, the AV only mentioned that s/he wanted the notes back, likely because they described a serious crime that the AV allegedly committed. · When P1 informed the SP that her/his employment was terminated, the SP asked why. P1 mentioned the notes and the SP asked what was in the notes and then denied any knowledge of notes. The AV provided the following information: · The AV first met the SP when the SP was in training, and thought the SP was a cool person because s/he played games with the residents and did not try to “power us.” · The AV did not recall who was the first to pass a note to the other but stated that s/he wrote letters that were written to someone other than the SP, that were taken out of the AV’s room. The AV did not recall the SP passing any note to him/her. · The AV stated that the SP did not provide her/him with special treatment that the SP would not provide to other residents at the facility. The AV had no recollection of meeting the SP in any room at the facility. The AV recalled that s/he and the SP would spend time talking about the AV’s future plans. The AV did not want to discuss anything related to having an inappropriate relationship with the SP. The FM stated that the AV called him/her toward the end of July, 2024, and told the FM that a staff person had passed the AV letters but did not want to say if there was physical contact. The following information was obtained from facility records, security camera footage, and a copy of the notes passed between the AV and the SP: · On June 21, 2024, the SP was seen on video in the AV’s pod approaching the AV’s room which at the time was locked. The AV slid a note under the door and the SP put the note in her/his pocket. The SP pulled out her/his phone and appeared to type something while talking to the AV. · The following day a supervisory staff person delivered a coaching to the SP due to the video from the previous day. The SP apologized for having a phone on the pod, stated that s/he typed a note on the phone because the AV wanted some gum. The SP was reminded not to bring in items for residents. · On June 28, 2024, two staff persons can be seen entering the AV’s room to conduct a search, shortly thereafter staff persons walked out with documents that turned out to be the notes passed between the AV and the SP. The notes passed between the AV and the SP were not dated. Even though security footage only caught the passing of notes on June 21, 2024, it is likely that note(s) were passed on other dates. The notes contained comments written by both the SP and the AV outlining their future lives together and explicit sexual fantasies, and affections for one another. · The facility reviewed other video footage where the SP may have interacted with the AV but found no other inappropriate behavior between the SP and the AV prior to the letters being discovered in the AV’s room. Based on the content of the letters, the facility determined that the SP was grooming the AV and acted inappropriate in her/his position which violated facility policy and Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) standards. The facility’s records showed the SP was trained on the Maltreatment of Minors Act and related policies prior to the incident.
Conclusion: A. Maltreatment: Information obtained was consistent that the SP and the AV passed notes to one another. In the notes, the SP and the AV wrote to one another about their future plans with one another, their love for one another, and their explicit sexual fantasies with one another. In addition, the SP gave the AV preferential treatment when s/he brought the AV snacks and spent an unusual amount of time socializing with the AV. The AV stated that the SP treated all the residents at the facility the same. According to the AV, s/he and the SP did not pass notes to one another or have any private meetings with one another. The AV acknowledged that the SP and the AV would talk about the AV’s future after the facility. The SP’s actions did not follow the facility’s policies and procedures in her/his interactions with the AV by failing to maintain a professional relationship on which the SP had been trained. P1 noted that that staff persons had raised concerns about the SP spending a lot of time in the AV’s pod when not assigned to work there. Security video footage caught the AV passing a note to the SP. When the notes were found, it was discovered that the SP had also passed notes to the AV. The notes contained clear evidence of an unprofessional relationship with the AV which the facility’s PREA Investigator found was grooming the AV. The AV, who was 17 years old when the incident(s) occurred, thought s/he would have future social interaction with the SP, who was older than the AV, after the AV left the facility, so it was likely that the AV’s ability to have a consistent understanding of the parameters of a therapeutic relationship which could interfere with other attempts to provide him/her with therapeutic services, now and in the future, were hindered. Therefore, there was a preponderance of the evidence the SP’s interactions with the AV were detrimental to the AV’s ongoing mental health and safety which was a failure to supply the AV with necessary care and a failure to protect the AV from conditions or actions that seriously endanger the AV’s physical or mental health when reasonably able to do so. It was determined that neglect occurred (failure by a person responsible for a child’s care to supply a child with necessary food, clothing, shelter, health, medical, or other care required for the child’s physical or mental health when reasonably able to do so. Failure to protect a child from conditions or actions that seriously endanger the child’s physical or mental health when reasonably able to do so). Although there were concerns that the SP had engaged in sexual activity with the AV at the facility because of the nature of the notes, given that the facility investigated this concern but found no evidence to support that the SP had sexual contact with the AV, and the AV did not provide any information on the nature of the her/his relationship with the SP or that the SP and the AV had sexual contact, there was not a preponderance of the evidence that the SP had sexual contact with the AV. It was not determined that sexual abuse occurred ("sexual abuse" means the subjection of a child by a person responsible for the child's care, by a person who has a significant relationship to the child, as defined in section 609.341, or by a person in a position of authority, as defined in section 609.341, subdivision 10, to any act which constitutes a violation of section 609.342 (criminal sexual conduct in the first degree), 609.343 (criminal sexual conduct in the second degree), 609.344 (criminal sexual conduct in the third degree), 609.345 (criminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree), or 609.3451 (criminal sexual conduct in the fifth degree). Sexual abuse includes threatened sexual abuse.) B. Responsibility pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.30, subdivision 4, paragraph (a), clauses (1) and (2): When determining whether the facility or individual is the responsible party, or whether both the facility and the individual are responsible for determined maltreatment in a facility, the investigating agency shall consider at least the following mitigating factors: (1) whether the actions of the facility or the individual caregivers were according to, and followed the terms of, an erroneous physician order, prescription, individual care plan, or directive; however, this is not a mitigating factor when the facility or caregiver was responsible for the issuance of the erroneous order, prescription, individual care plan, or directive or knew or should have known of the errors and took no reasonable measures to correct the defect before administering care; (2) comparative responsibility between the facility, other caregivers, and requirements placed upon an employee, including the facility’s compliance with related regulatory standards and the adequacy of facility policies and procedures, facility training, an individual’s participation in the training, the caregiver’s supervision, and facility staffing levels and the scope of the individual employee’s authority and discretion; and (3) whether the facility or individual followed professional standards in exercising professional judgment. The SP was trained on the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act and the facilities policies and procedures. The SP was responsible for maltreatment of the AV. C. Recurring and/or Serious Maltreatment: The Office of Inspector General is required to evaluate whether substantiated maltreatment by an individual meets the statutory criteria to be determined as “recurring or serious.” Individuals determined to be responsible for recurring or serious maltreatment are disqualified from providing direct contact services. Minnesota Statutes, section 245C.02, subdivision 16, states: “Recurring maltreatment” means more than one incident of maltreatment for which there is a preponderance of evidence that maltreatment occurred and that the subject was responsible for the maltreatment. Minnesota Statutes, section 245C.02, subdivision 18, states: “Serious maltreatment” means sexual abuse, maltreatment resulting in death, neglect resulting in serious injury which reasonably requires the care of a physician whether or not the care of a physician was sought, or abuse resulting in serious injury. For purposes of this definition, “care of a physician” is treatment received or ordered by a physician, physician assistant, or nurse practitioner, but does not include diagnostic testing, assessment, or observation; the application of, recommendation to use, or prescription solely for a remedy that is available over the counter without a prescription; or a prescription solely for a topical antibiotic to treat burns when there is no follow-up appointment. For purposes of this definition, “abuse resulting in serious injury” means: bruises, bites, skin laceration, or tissue damage; fractures; dislocations; evidence of internal injuries; head injuries with loss of consciousness; extensive second-degree or third-degree burns and other burns for which complications are present; extensive second-degree or third-degree frostbite and other frostbite for which complications are present; irreversible mobility or avulsion of teeth; injuries to the eyes; ingestion of foreign substances and objects that are harmful; near drowning; and heat exhaustion or sunstroke. Serious maltreatment includes neglect when it results in criminal sexual conduct against a child or vulnerable adult. It was determined that the substantiated neglect for which the SP was responsible did not meet statutory criteria to be determined as recurring because the SP’s pattern of behavior was considered a single incident. The maltreatment for which the SP was responsible was not serious because the AV did not sustain a serious injury as defined by statute from the maltreatment. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.35, subdivision 6, paragraph © all investigative data maintained in this report will be kept by the Department of Human Services for at least ten years after the date of the final entry in the report. Action Taken by Facility: The facility was licensed by the Department of Corrections and was not required to complete an Internal Review. On June 28, 2024, the SP’s employment at the facility ended. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: The SP was not disqualified from providing direct care services as a result of the maltreatment determination in this report. However, the SP was notified by the Office of Inspector General that any further substantiated act of maltreatment, whether or not the act meets the criteria for “serious,” will automatically meet the criteria for “recurring” and will result in the disqualification of the SP. The determination that the SP was responsible for maltreatment is subject to appeal. Because this facility was licensed by the Minnesota Department of Corrections, a copy of this report was sent to them to address any policy violations identified in this report. Certification: The information collection procedures followed in this investigation were pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.30, subdivision 6, paragraph (c). All individuals that are subjects of data in this investigation have the right to obtain private data on themselves which was collected, created, or maintained by the Department of Human Services.
|
