Complaint Investigation Report

Their response did not coincide with the documents that were provided by the facility. R1 was asked about the alleged sexual abuse. R1 had an inconsistency about who they had sex with. R1 was unable to articulate or clarify the details of the sexual abuse incident. R1 mentioned several names but contradicted themselves when asked who the perpetrator was. R1 had multiple inconsistencies with their statements of what had occurred.

Outside Source 1 (OS1) was interviewed and stated that R1 provided different statements of the alleged incident and who the perpetrator was. OS1 stated that R1 described sexual abuse as someone touching R1 inappropriately and bouncing on someone’s leg. OS1 stated R1 was moved to the memory care unit due to their cognitive decline. OS1 stated R1 was showing schizophrenia behaviors, for example, bouts of delusions, where they saw things that were not visible. R1 stated in the past to OS1 that they had a relationship when they were young, and the relationship ended, which caused R1 to become very depressed.

Outside Source 2 (OS2) stated R1 was living at the memory care unit at the facility where they lived due to their diagnosis of dementia. OS2 was not aware of any history of R1 being sexually assaulted. OS2 was not informed by R1 of any sexual assault. OS2 stated R1 was on psychotropic medication due to hearing voices from the graveyard to scratch themselves.

Outside Source 3 (OS3) was interviewed, and R1 reported that the sexual assault did not occur. OS3 stated R1’s statements did not make sense and determined that no crime occurred.

Outside Source 4 (OS4) was interviewed and stated that when R1 was in their exercise class, they were mouthing words but without sound. OS4 asked R1 what they were saying, and R1 stated that it was private. Later, R1 disclosed to OS4 that someone at the facility wanted to give R1 a disease and was bouncing on her, which is why R1 is the way they are. R1 did not go into further detail when asked by OS4.