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 | C1 stated that this was the first time C2 attempted such an action and has never made any other sexual advancements towards C1. When the incident occurred, C1 stated that all clients were sleeping, and the staff were busy cleaning or preparing breakfast, so no one witnessed the incident and C1 never told anyone.
Also, on 2/6/20, the Department interviewed ADM who stated that C1 and C2 were roommates during the month of November 2019 and part of December 2019. ADM stated that C2 likes to hug people, that when ADM would see C2 at the facility, C2 would hug ADM but that C2’s hugs were not sexual. ADM also stated that ADM has never seen C2 hug, kiss or inappropriately touch C1 or the other clients. Per ADM, C1 and C2 got along fine and would often smoke cigarettes in the backyard together. ADM denied any arguments or disagreements between C1 and C2. ADM also denied knowing anything about C2 touching or attempting to touch C1 in a sexual way. ADM stated that C1 never mentioned anything to ADM or the staff about the allegation until 1/24/20 when a San Jose Police officer showed up at the facility looking for C1. It was then C1 disclosed to ADM what happened.
Based on interviews, although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is Unsubstantiated.
No deficiencies cited during today's tele-visit. Report was discussed with and a copy sent to Kiros Woldegiorgis to sign and mail back to CCL. Appeal Rights provided. |