1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32 | [Cont. from LIC 9099]
It is alleged that the facility is following orders from R1's Power of Attorney (POA), to isolate R1's son from visiting R1. Interviews with staff revealed that R1’s daughter, who is the POA and the primary contact, is very involved in R1’s care and visits daily. Staff reported that R1's daughter and son are estranged from each other, and staff have never met or heard from the son. R1's daughter expressed concerns about the son potentially visiting due to family conflict and safety worries, and staff advised them that the facility cannot restrict visits without legal documentation. It was revealed that APS also spoke with the daughter and advised her of the option to obtain a restraining order. Staff reported that no attempts by the son to visit have been made yet.
An interview with an outside source(OS1) indicated that the family is aware of ongoing conflict between R1's daughter and son, who has reportedly contacted various agencies regarding the family estate. OS1 confirmed that R1's son has not visited the facility and stated that R1 would not want a visit from him due to their strained relationship.
Records review of the facility visitor log history for the full month of September 2026, revealed that R1's daughter visits almost daily, however, no visits from R1's son were in the review. Review of R1's emergency contact information did not contain any contact for R1's son.
Based on interviews, and records review, the preponderance of evidence standard has not been met, therefore the above allegation is found to be unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted with Executive Director Mark Ranno and a copy of this report, along with Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC 9058 01/16), were provided. Their signature confirms receipts of these documents.
|