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 | (continued from LIC809C)
A review of C2’s facility file revealed the Cottonwood facility Admission’s Agreement, dated and signed 02/03/2021. C2’s Physician’s Report, dated 07/31/2018, noted C2’s diagnosis as Schizophrenia, Paranoid type, alcohol, and cannabis dependence. C2’s Appraisal/Needs and Services Plan, dated 12/06/2017, noted C2 as diagnosed with Schizophrenia, has a history of substance abuse, but is currently in an extensive history of hospital admissions to Ventura County Medical Center. C2 presents catatonia when experiencing symptoms of C2’s diagnosis.
Information obtained during the Department’s investigation revealed that C1 maintained that C1 was “raped” while in care but declined to provide relevant details surrounding the incident. C1 reported that the assault happened in C1’s bedroom, the evening of 03/20/24 and/or early morning hours of 03/21/24. Interviews with staff that worked the evening of 03/20/24 to 03/21/24, revealed they did not witness or hear any suspicious activity in C1’s bedroom. However, they recalled that C1 presented aggressive behavior by slamming doors, pacing the hallway, and even refusing medication during that time. During the investigator’s interview with C1, C1 disclosed that C1 was raped by C1’s former roommates, C2 and C3. However, interviews with facility staff, TCRC SC, and I1 denied having knowledge that C3 sexually assaulted C1 as they were not informed by C1. When asked for more information, C1 stated, “I don’t want to talk about the incident anymore”. C1’s Individual Program Plan (IPP) and medical assessment revealed that C1 is a Level 2, high-functioning individual and did not require constant supervision. In addition, C1 did not disclose any history of sexual assault allegedly committed by C2 and C3 to facility staff while in their care. Per facility staff and C2’s VCBH case manager, C2 did not have any history of sexually assaulting others. In addition, C3 also did not have a history of sexually assaulting clients at the facility, that staff were aware of. Both C2 and C3 denied that they committed sexual assault toward C1. Interviews with other residents did not express feeling unsafe or threatened around C2 or C3 and denied being sexually abused while in care. The evidence obtained from interviews and records suggests that there was no corroborating evidence to prove that C1 was sexually abused by C2 while in care.
Exit interview and copy of report provided.
|