C1’s mother, who is also the responsible party, was interviewed by phone. She stated that she and C1 contacted disability rights advocates because the administrator had yelled at C1 and acted in an irate manner. She said she did not want C1 returning to the home because she feared more negative interactions. She also stated that C1 is staying with her due to these concerns.

The administrator was interviewed and denied ever speaking aggressively, meanly, or confrontationally to C1. They stated they had been attempting to support C1’s transition into the home and were flexible with C1’s requests, including allowing extended visits to C1’s mother. The administrator expressed that C1 had only recently moved into the home and believed C1’s mother may be influencing C1’s reluctance to stay.

An outside source who works directly with C1’s case and placement was also interviewed. They explained that C1 is under a court order requiring them to live in a licensed home and that failure to comply could lead to prison time. The outside source stated that C1 and the responsible party made a complaint against the administrator on the same day C1 was scheduled to move into the home. The outside source believed that both C1 and the responsible party were attempting to avoid the court‑ordered placement and were not being truthful. They expressed concern that C1 is now violating the court order, which will need to be reported to the court and may result in several years of incarceration.

After reviewing all interviews and information gathered, there was not enough evidence to confirm that staff spoke inappropriately to C1. The statements provided were conflicting, and no other clients witnessed or experienced inappropriate communication from staff. Therefore, the allegation is unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted with Administrator Joshua Robinson and a copy of this report and Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC 9058) were provided to Administrator Joshua Robinson whose signature below confirms receipt of documents.