|
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: 1068573-HCBS (245D-Home and Community-Based Services) Investigator(s): Beth Virden Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that more than once, a staff person (SP) rubbed a vulnerable adult’s (VA) genitalia. In addition, during this investigation, it was also reported that the SP threw the VA’s property away and stole the VA’s money. Date of Incident(s): Unknown dates between 2020 and 2023 and received by the Department of Human Services in December 2025. 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): 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. Summary of Findings: Pertinent information was obtained during a site visit conducted on January 27, 2026; from documentation at the facility, medical records, and law enforcement records; and through three interviews conducted with the VA’s guardian (G) who was also the VA’s family member, a facility staff person (SP), and a supervisory staff person (P1). The VA was interviewed by a professional who specialized in interviewing vulnerable adults who were alleged victims of sexual abuse and that information was included in this report. Attempts by telephone were made to contact and interview the VA’s case manager (CM) and a staff person (S) who worked with the VA at a different program operated by a different license holder; however, the CM and the S did not respond by completion of this investigation. [Note: This investigation was conducted jointly with law enforcement.] The VA’s support plans, including Individual Abuse Prevention Plan, stated the following: · In 2020, the VA began receiving in-home support services from the facility. The facility provided a staff person during certain hours of the day who helped the VA inside his/her home and in the community. The staff person supported the VA’s preferences and daily needs and activities and ensured the VA attended appointments and took his/her medications. The VA was independent with most aspects of his/her self-care; however, might need periodic assistance from staff. The VA independently showered, regulated water temperatures, and dressed. · The VA was susceptible to abuse and financial exploitation from others. The VA might not recognize abuse or financial exploitation, might lack the ability to be assertive, and might not report concerns accurately. Staff were to intervene, and report concerns on the VA’s behalf. · The VA’s diagnoses included mild intellectual disabilities. · In 2023, the VA stopped receiving services from the facility and began receiving in-home support services through a different program operated by a different license holder. [Note: The S worked with the VA via the new program starting at an unknown time in 2023 or later.] The VA lived in his/her own home with one or two of his/her family members, who also received in-home support services through the facility between 2020 and 2023. The facility provided separate staff for each family member. A forensic interview report stated the following: · The VA told the S and the forensic interviewer, each, that the SP used his/her hand to rub up and down on the VA’s genitalia, and that this happened more than once. · The VA told the forensic interviewer that s/he defined “rape” as the act of someone pulling down another person’s pants, and that the SP “raped” the VA. [Note: The forensic interview report did not state if the VA provided information about the timeframe, location, or circumstance of the incident(s).] · The S provided background information as part of the VA’s forensic interview and said that the VA might need help washing his/her back and buttocks in the shower, but not his/her genitalia. More than once, the VA told the S that the SP touched the VA’s genitalia and demonstrated the SP’s actions to the S by moving the VA’s hand up and down. The S said that the VA did not disclose further details about this conduct. The VA also told the S that the SP threw the VA’s property away, including a coffee pot, and that the SP stole money from the VA. One time, the VA’s family member overheard and interrupted the VA stating that the SP threw the coffee pot away because it was broken. The G said that the VA did not say anything to him/her about the allegations. The G believed the VA was an “honest” person. P1 said that s/he was “shocked” to hear the allegations. The SP had worked with the VA prior to 2020, and then at the facility between 2020 and 2023. P1 was never informed of prior concerns with the SP’s conduct, and between 2023 and 2025, when the SP no longer worked with the VA, there were also no reported concerns until the current allegations were made in late 2025. When the SP was working, s/he was to help with the VA’s activities of daily living. If the VA was incontinent, the SP might help the VA shower to get clean, but this was not one of the SP’s “primary duties” and there was often another staff person (P2) at the house helping the VA’s family member, and P2 was typically the one to help the VA in the shower if needed. P2 was the same gender as the VA, and the SP was not the same gender. P1 said that the SP also picked the VA up from work or brought him/her to shops or community activities. A few times, the SP and the VA stopped at the SP’s house while they were out. P1 said that during that timeframe, 2020 to 2023, the facility did not have a rule against taking a client to the staff’s house and so the conduct was not against policy. P1 believed the VA was an accurate reporter of information and did not have a history of intentionally providing inaccurate information. The SP provided the following information: · Over an approximate 20-year span, the SP worked with the VA through various programs operated by different license holders, some which were closed or relocated, but the SP continued to stay on and work with the VA and other clients. Between 2020 and 2023, the SP worked with the VA through the facility providing in-home support and ensuring the VA ate a balanced diet, exercised, and shopped when needed. The SP had not worked with the VA since 2023. · The VA showered independently and if s/he needed help in the shower, P2 was typically available to help. P2 worked at the VA’s home with the VA’s family member but also helped the VA if needed. Approximately five times over the course of the SP’s time working with the VA, the SP helped the VA in the shower. During those times, the SP did not touch the VA but instead verbally prompted him/her if s/he missed an area of his/her body. The SP “always” kept the bathroom door open and was “never” inside any room with the VA with the door closed. The VA could dry him/herself after a shower and dress independently. The SP said that s/he “never” touched the VA’s genitalia. · A few times, the SP brought the VA to the SP’s house while they were out running errands. One time, the facility’s waterline was frozen, and so the VA’s laundry was not washed, and the VA was unable to shower. The SP brought the VA and his/her laundry to the SP’s house where the SP laundered the VA’s clothing while the VA showered. The VA was in the SP’s bathroom alone and did not ask for any help from the SP. · The SP did not know why the allegations were made but said that the VA could be “persuaded” to make untrue statements if prompted to do so by someone else. There was staff conflict at the facility and the SP wondered if the VA’s statements were in response to someone telling him/her what to say. The VA had a history of “making things up” about what staff said. · “A long time ago,” prior to 2020, the VA told the SP that a staff person, who the SP did not know, touched the VA’s genitalia. The SP could not remember that staff’s name or what the VA said about the contact. The SP believed s/he told a supervisor about the VA’s statement but did not remember what happened after. · The SP said that s/he did not take any of the VA’s money. At the time of this report, the law enforcement investigation was still open. Facility documentation stated that the SP received training on the VA’s support plans and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Vulnerable Adults Act. Conclusion: Regarding sexual abuse: In late 2025, the VA told the S and the forensic interviewer, each, that more than once the SP rubbed his/her hand up and down on the VA’s genitalia. The SP had worked with the VA for about 20 years prior to working with him/her via the facility between 2020 and 2023. The SP denied the allegations and said that the VA was not always an accurate reporter of information and could be persuaded to make untrue statements if prompted to do so by someone else. P1 and the G each stated that the VA was a reliable reporter of information. P1 said that s/he had no prior concerns with the SP’s conduct and was “shocked” by the allegations. The timeframe between when the incidents were alleged to have occurred and when the allegations were made was over two years which hindered the Department’s ability to obtain credible information. Therefore, without additional information or witnesses to state when or where the incidents occurred or the surrounding circumstances, there was not a preponderance of the evidence whether the SP had sexual contact with the VA. 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). Regarding financial exploitation: The S said that the VA told him/her that the SP thew the VA’s property away, including a coffee pot, and stole the VA’s money. One time, the VA’s family member overheard and interrupted the VA stating that the SP threw the coffee pot away because it was broken. The SP denied taking any money from the VA. The timeframe between when the incidents were alleged to have occurred and when the allegations were made was over two years which hindered the Department’s ability to obtain credible information. Therefore, without additional information or witnesses, there was not a preponderance of the evidence whether the SP’s conduct included willfully using or disposing of the VA’s funds or property without the legal authority to do so. 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 and that there was not a need for additional training or corrective action. The SP and/or the VA did not have a history of similar incidents. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: No further action at this time. However, the Department of Human Services will review the information provided by law enforcement when their investigation is complete and take any necessary action at that time.
|
