RE: Vulnerable Adults? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

velvetears -> RE: Vulnerable Adults? (3/16/2007 5:35:01 PM)

If you are a mandatory reporter and you do not report abuse - you can loose your license. i don't blame those people.... i wouldn't risk it.



tempest1961 -> RE: Vulnerable Adults? (3/16/2007 7:43:55 PM)

I hate to be the one to say this (but nobody else has)...

Go find a lawyer, get an answer from him/her/it. That's reallly thin ice you guys are skating on.




BlackWomanSubNJ -> RE: Vulnerable Adults? (3/16/2007 7:56:20 PM)

I'd steer very, very clear.  I think that if you have to think about it this hard, then the answer is no, he should not be allowed. Plus, the whole group is affected and it seems not positively.  The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.  All those people shouldn't have to miss the events because of one person.  And some of the people that did attend would be concentrating on making him feel comfortable and thus taking away from their own pleasures.



brightspot -> RE: Vulnerable Adults? (3/16/2007 10:44:49 PM)

Thank you all so much for your informative replie's and personal thought's on this subject matter.
I find it is a very difficult one and one not easily solved.
I hear all of you from expressions of boot Jesse out, to what really proves what falls under the status "Vulerable Adult" but more important as to how it can be described, proven and/or used against someone in a legal sense; in a Court Room.
Also how this effects person who must mandatorily report.
 
I know someone here at CM that knows some people who are involved in this delemia and have referred her to this thread, I hope she can pass on some of this info to them and a resolution can be found. If anyone else has something they would like to add, please do.
 
Missy.
 
 P.S. LuckyA, not sure if there are waivers used or not, although I haven't attended play-parties locally, I have attended a few in Chicago and there were never any waivers so I was not aware of that possibility. Thanks for suggesting that.




SkyPilot -> RE: Vulnerable Adults? (3/17/2007 1:23:22 AM)

brightspot, I wouldn't put too much faith in a waiver. As mentioned above, a Vulnerable Adult is not considered capable of caring for themselves. It isn't much of a jump from that to not being able to give informed consent. Also, a waiver is only good for actions in "good faith". For example, a waiver would not cover abuse or any action/inaction that would be considered negligence.

I echo tempest1961, consult a lawyer.

Good Luck.



brightspot -> RE: Vulnerable Adults? (3/17/2007 9:38:49 AM)

Yes, I hear you SkyPilot, I've had thoughts too that the waiver wouldn't mean anything if Jesse was considered incompetent to sign the the waiver in the first place. I would assume lawyers would have a field day in court with this one.
Thanks for your imput.
 
Missy.



DommeChains -> RE: Vulnerable Adults? (3/17/2007 10:07:51 AM)

I think you have received some valuable advice.  I, too, work with individuals with a wide range of disabilities and have for many years. They are human with all the need for emotional connections and sexual urges as folks without disabilities.  I have advocated for my clients to be able to date and to learn how to use condoms, use oral contraceptives, etc. However, to date none of my clients has ever shown an interest in BDSM that I am aware of anyway.

I personally have a high degree of uncomfortableness with the idea of someone who is cognitively or emotionally impaired enough to require either a guardian or chronic assistance with daily living participating in the BDSM scene.  The activities we engage in can be problematic for those who don't have an impairment.  I have seen how vulnerable someone can be when an emotional land mine is hit during play.  How could I live with myself if a sub/bottom I was playing was impaired and that happened?  Because there is tendency for these individuals to place extraordinary trust in their caregivers the pain would probably be increased and the sense of betrayal overwhelming.  I would feel like a monster.

Add in the factor of these individuals to maintain confidentiality if allowed to participate in munches or public events or parties.  I am not saying all clients with mental impairments are gossips or lack discretion entirely but if caught up in the spirit of enthusiasm their ability to use appropriate judgment can be lacking.

I believe that BDSM is not for everyone.  It might not be politically correct to say that an entire category of people should not be allowed to participate but we emphasis consent as one of our tenets.  Can they truly give informed consent to what it is that we do?



FelinePersuasion -> RE: Vulnerable Adults? (3/17/2007 10:16:06 AM)

Someone who is unable to make informed descions should not be allowed to attend bdsm events. If they are so mentally deficient as not to make choices for them self based on saftey and what's their best choice.  I personally wouldn't want to be in the groups position of deciding to allow them there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: brightspot

a vunerable adult and ergo to wit unable to make informed desicions?
 
This community is struggling with this. I would be intersted in knowing what your thoughts are.
 
Thanks, Missy.



QuietlySeeking -> RE: Vulnerable Adults? (3/17/2007 10:46:47 AM)

Think about the possible repercussions for custody of unmentionables for divorced attendees whose ex-spouse isn't kink-friendly. (I know...a very specific example, but...) Attending an event and witnessing what is later considered abuse could become a Pandora's box and I don't think that the lawyers on the other side of the aisle are going to care one bit about the "I didn't know he was a Vulnerable Adult" defense.



MissSCD -> RE: Vulnerable Adults? (3/17/2007 10:48:22 AM)

I will answer the question like this.  I am not qualified to Dom a person of this nature.
Attending munches is one thing, but particpating in other events could be damanging.
There are no gaurantees legally in this.  It would be a limit set by the Dom/me I think.  My limit would probably be no. I would have to interview them first.

Regards,

MissSCD



Emperor1956 -> RE: Vulnerable Adults? (3/17/2007 10:55:27 AM)

People, People:

The OP neglected to tell any of you that "Vulnerable Adult" is a LEGAL status that exists only in certain U.S. states (the State of Minnesota, notably.  Also North Dakota and I think Washington State.  I didn't do an exhaustive legal review.)  Also, the concept exists in British law.

So this isn't a question of "touchy-feely", but a question of legal interpretation:  Does the admission of a self-identified "Vulnerable Adult" into a kink group expose other members of the group to risks?   The answer is unquestionably "yes" under the Minnesota law.

The first question posed in addressing this topic is "Is this even an issue in the jurisdiction where I attend play parties?"   For most of us, the answer is "NO".  Most US States prohibit "Elder abuse" and many prohibit abuse of certain classes of impaired adults, but few go so far as the Minnesota law.  Second, the definition of "Vulnerable Adult" in the jurisdictions which do have the concept differs widely, so you have to identify specifically what regulation you are acting under (or which one you are in violation of).  The OP is in Minnesota, and more important, the Minnesota law is the "model" in the USA for this sort of statute (and has been roundly criticized as overbroad, a view to which I subscribe, in case my bias is not yet clear).  So I'll talk about the question in light of the Minnesota law.

That said, the concept of "Vulnerable Adult" is that an otherwise adult person is by reason of mental or physical defect "vulnerable" as if they were a child.  If you don't play with children (and I would of course assume none of you do) then you cannot justify playing with a person with this legal status.

Here is the definition of "Vulnerable Adult" from the Minnesota statute.  I submit that a large number of CM members and many reading this post could have at some time been classified as a "Vulnerable Adult" under this definition.  It is a classic example of bad legislation--we all know what they thought they were getting at, and generally I think we all support protection of certain classes of people who are of majority age, but are still vulnerable to abuse.  but apply the following definition strictly and what do you have?

quote:

Subd. 21. Vulnerable adult. "Vulnerable adult" means any person 18 years of age or older
who:

(1) is a resident or inpatient of a facility;

(2) receives services at or from a facility required to be licensed to serve adults under sections 245A.01 to 245A.15, except that a person receiving outpatient services for treatment of chemical dependency or mental illness, or one who is committed as a sexual psychopathic personality or as a sexually dangerous person under chapter 253B, is not considered a vulnerable adult unless the person meets the requirements of clause (4);

(3) receives services from a home care provider required to be licensed under section 144A.46; or from a person or organization that exclusively offers, provides, or arranges for personal care assistant services under the medical assistance program as authorized under sections 256B.04, subdivision 16, 256B.0625, subdivision 19a, 256B.0651, and 256B.0653 to 256B.0656; or

(4) regardless of residence or whether any type of service is received, possesses a physical or mental infirmity or other physical, mental, or emotional dysfunction:

(i) that impairs the individual's ability to provide adequately for the individual's own care without assistance, including the provision of food, shelter, clothing, health care, or supervision;
and

(ii) because of the dysfunction or infirmity and the need for assistance, the individual has an impaired ability to protect the individual from maltreatment.

History: 1995 c 229 art 1 s 22; 2000 c 319 s 3; 1Sp2001 c 9 art 14 s 32; 2002 c 252 s 23,24;
2002 c 379 art 1 s 113; 2004 c 146 art 3 s 46; 2006 c 212 art 3 s 41


The issue of danger to "mandatory reporters" is VERY real:  If I were a kinky person who was also licensed in Minnesota as a health care provider, and I was aware that my "group" was allowing a person who is a "vulnerable adult" to play, I could lose my livelihood if I failed to report any suspected abuse.  In that case, I would high-tail it out of there and probably never return to such an irresponsible group. 

If I were NOT directly affected by this circumstance, I'd still leave the group because I'd know that some members of my group are under a legal compulsion to report activities in the group, which could well lead to disclosure of my personal information.  If I valued my privacy, I'd be gone.

I do get frustrated when significant legal issues raised on CM are reduced to a "well here's how I feel" with no knowledge of the subject matter posts.  Then again, its a free forum.  FYI:  Here is the Minnesota Statute in its entirety.  Before some of you spout, maybe you should read?  Then again, that wouldn't be the CollarMe way, would it?

Just a thought...

E.

EDITED TO ADD:   Because I came a bit late to the party:

On waivers:   Those BDSM Party waivers are probably worthless when signed by competent adults with knowledge of the risks.  They are almost certainly worthless as a defense to "vulnerable adult" status.

What status does "Vulnerable adult Jesse" claim that makes him/her a legally identified "Vulnerable Adult"?   Last I checked, they usually don't let you out of the Home for play parties...

OH, and remember.  Nothing in my posts is legal advice upon which you should act.  I'm not your lawyer.  I'm a fiction of your fevered imagination and if I did go to law school it was probably in the "Other World Kingdom" and my virtual degree doesn't allow me to give legal advice in online fora.  And I'm under the influence of Lapsang Souchong and lust, and probably would qualify as a "Vulnerable Lawyer" under appropriate regulation.  OK?  Legal advice here?  Don't even think about it.

E.



NightWindWhisper -> RE: Vulnerable Adults? (3/17/2007 11:56:14 AM)

A lot of good stuff here...and an interesting post and question!

Actually the vulnerable adult status is in more than the few states.  But that is not the issue and the answer relates only to Minnesota, since that is the law you are required to obey.

From brightspot:
I hear all of you from expressions of boot Jesse out, to what really proves what falls under the status "Vulerable Adult" but more important as to how it can be described, proven and/or used against someone in a legal sense; in a Court Room.

I'd suggest that it is not important as to how it can be described, proven and/or used against someone in a legal sence. Why?  Because all it will take is the person himself or someone who he has spoken to that reports the incident.  At that time there will be a (probably) medical team investigation.  If that team (bound by stringent nursing/MD rules) finds that there may even be "a chance" that he has been harmed, it will notch up.  We almost have to decide (as opined earlier) that the person has declared himself as a vulnerable adult by way of mental illness.  I think it's far too likely that the investigation will result in criminal investigation of every person involved with your club that was even around him after he id'd himself as a Vulnerable Adult.

So now you have ten or twenty or thirty people publicly involved in a criminal investigation.  Think of the embarrasment, think of the need that people will have to find an attorney to "refute" charges.  And this is even before a trial.  It is wise to consider that this sort of case would never make it to a trial via some sort of "plea bargaining."   So everyone of you might walk away with simply a misdemeanor conviction and a thousand dollar fine.  Fight it?  Sure, at $1500 a day for legal counsel, and believe me the process is intentionally slow.  At best, at the end you get no conviction and only put out 20-40,000!

The person is self-identified as a Vulnerable adult.  The person is interested the sort of kink that we do.  I believe that you said he was a male-sub.  Think he'd be interesed in any of the following:


hitting, slapping, kicking, pinching, biting, or corporal punishment,use of repeated or malicious oral, written, or gestured language, disparaging, derogatory, humiliating, harassing, or threatening; use of any aversive or deprivation procedure, unreasonable confinement, Well, in MN every one of these are violations--see the law excerpts at the end.

My God, by letting this fellow into your group, the risk that you assume is enormous.  It is not a matter of personal opinion, or feeling, it is a fact that there are those who, in a second, would go after the group of you, and succeed in an investigation as required by Minnesota statute.  Worse it is a highly emotional and highly nightmare.  Does anyone remember Paddleboro?  This was a club in Attleboro, MA that was raided.  Nobody was allowed to dress if they were undressed.  They were paraded around this way.  Eeach person was charged.  The legal outcome I think is unknown.  Why--likely there were plea bargains.  If I were a member of your group I would send by certified mail a withdrawal request in an instant. 

I suggest explaining to the person verbally why you cannot allow him, under statute to attend.  I would follow that up with a Certified letter.  If he returned I would immediately seek a Court Order against trespass.

I agree with Emperor1956, especially waivers.  Though he has listed some statute the following is the parts that I found interesting:

Minnesota law excerpts:   626.557 REPORTING OF MALTREATMENT OF VULNERABLE ADULTS.
     Subdivision 1. Public policy. The legislature declares that the public policy of this state is to protect adults who, because of physical or mental disability or dependency on institutional services, are particularly vulnerable to maltreatment; to assist in providing safe environments for vulnerable adults; and to provide safe institutional or residential services, community-based services, or living environments for vulnerable adults who have been maltreated.
In addition, it is the policy of this state to require the reporting of suspected maltreatment of vulnerable adults, to provide for the voluntary reporting of maltreatment of vulnerable adults, to require the investigation of the reports, and to provide protective and counseling services in appropriate cases.   609.3451 CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT IN THE FIFTH DEGREE.
    Subdivision 1. Crime defined. A person is guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the fifth
degree:
(1) if the person engages in nonconsensual sexual contact; or
(2) see law, not applicable to this discussion
effected by the actor, if the action is performed with sexual or aggressive intent.
    Subd. 2. Penalty. A person convicted under subdivision 1 may be sentenced to imprisonment
for not more than one year or to a payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both   A violation includes any action that meets the elements of the crime, regardless of whether there is a criminal proceeding or conviction. (b) Conduct which is not an accident or therapeutic conduct as defined in this section, which produces or could reasonably be expected to produce physical pain or injury or emotional distress including, but not limited to, the following:
(1) hitting, slapping, kicking, pinching, biting, or corporal punishment of a vulnerable adult; (2) use of repeated or malicious oral, written, or gestured language toward a vulnerable adult or the treatment of a vulnerable adult which would be considered by a reasonable person to be disparaging, derogatory, humiliating, harassing, or threatening;
(3) use of any aversive or deprivation procedure, unreasonable confinement, or involuntary seclusion, including the forced separation of the vulnerable adult from other persons against the will of the vulnerable adult or the legal representative of the vulnerable adult; and
(4) use of any aversive or deprivation procedures for persons with developmental disabilities
or related conditions not authorized under section 245.825.





hereyesruponyou -> RE: Vulnerable Adults? (3/17/2007 12:49:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Emperor1956

(4) regardless of residence or whether any type of service is received, possesses a physical or mental infirmity or other physical, mental, or emotional dysfunction:




Ok, how many of us fit in THAT category!!!



domiguy -> RE: Vulnerable Adults? (3/17/2007 1:16:51 PM)

I'm a vulnerable adult just because I love and I trust too damn hard.....help me.



mnottertail -> RE: Vulnerable Adults? (3/17/2007 1:18:56 PM)

awwwwwwwwwwwwww, you are stupid ain't that sweet? come here domi and I will give you heavy ladened lads some rest.

Jesus H. Christ



FelinePersuasion -> RE: Vulnerable Adults? (3/17/2007 2:27:32 PM)

I do.
quote:

ORIGINAL: hereyesruponyou

quote:

ORIGINAL: Emperor1956

(4) regardless of residence or whether any type of service is received, possesses a physical or mental infirmity or other physical, mental, or emotional dysfunction:




Ok, how many of us fit in THAT category!!!



NightWindWhisper -> RE: Vulnerable Adults? (3/17/2007 2:53:05 PM)

I think that the big problem is that the person has identified himself as a Vulnerable Adult, which is like going down a road one day at 45mph, and then ignoring the new 25mph speed limit sign.  Before = maybe a warning, after = ticket and $$

There is one possibility that I use on occasion.  In my career I often must decide if a person might need extraordinary protection against loud noise (regulated by OSHA), or whether a Firefighter is able to safely perfom while wearing a SCUBA respirator.  In cases where it is not clearcut I cease action, and refer to a MD.  The MD decides.

We don't exactly know this person's status.  If it is some physical issue, then a script from an MD, NP, PsychD, or Psychiatrist might well help -- a lot. 

What we do here is no longer a medical "illness," though that was not too many years ago. (DMS-3 classifed sadism and masochism as medical diagnoses, the newer DSMV-4 no longer does.   If the Vulnerable Adult status, in fact, does not relate to mental issues, it may be easy to get such a note specifically allowing this person to attend such functions.  If I believe that a worker cannot do keyboarding at all because I feel that it will lead to worsening of a condition like Carpal Tunnel Syndrome and that any keyboarding will damage the person I, with their permission, contact their MD, explain the reason and voila (it's never failed) I get a work restriction script.  On the other hand I have repeatedly gone to doctor's and have said these restrictions are neither desired by the employee, and are excessive, usually the MD will work with me and I get a script documenting it.  So the concept of approching the person's provider, with him and or with written permission may work.  Though I confess, unless a close friend, I wouldn't want to go there as we are in too represive a state of society.

Still, it's an idea that might be worth considering.  If I were a DA you had best believe that I would not want to prosecute you with even a single professional document allowing said activity and I would expect that such a case would be dropped or never initiated.  Only another practitioner can offset a medical provider in court, and any attempt to do so would be an attach on the provider that wrote the note.  No-one in politics want to face the backlash of that.

Just thoughts...good luck.

Btw, I'm a Vulnerable Adult because I want to do all those things that you guys do and since I learned it from here, I feel it obligatory to report myself to the authorites.  Since I've learned everything here from submissives, please write me and I'll see if we can arrange to keep you off the list.  Hehe....



MasterGarghoul -> RE: Vulnerable Adults? (3/17/2007 4:10:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NightWindWhisper

A lot of good stuff here...and an interesting post and question!

Actually the vulnerable adult status is in more than the few states.  But that is not the issue and the answer relates only to Minnesota, since that is the law you are required to obey.


The origintal post relates only to Minnesota - but I think there is a broader issue that can be addresssed, no matter where you are.

The basic situation - a person with problematic mental issues wanting to participate in BDSM - can happen to any group, anywhere. And is probably a legal nightmare anywhere in America.

And what if it's not a group, but an individual? i.e. what if you become involved with someone and then learn that they are not their own gaurdian? Is the only legally safe response "Sorry, hope you have a nice life, don't call me again?"

And if you want to consider morality as well as legality, it can only get even more complicated.

We need more lawyers in this lifestyle.




brightspot -> RE: Vulnerable Adults? (3/19/2007 10:30:50 AM)

Wanted to thank everyone again who participated in this thread.
There was some very helpful replies here[;)].
 
The issue has a least for now been resolved, as Jesse has left the group
and odds are ( I say that because it wasn't spoken out-right)will not be
allowed to attend munches, any event and most definately never a play-party.
 
My own opinion? It's tough because I think most people have issues and it is hard
to know where one draws the line. But for me personally it would be once someone
self acknowledged themselves to be a Vulnerable Adult I would see this person 
just as I would someone under 18/21 and cease any contact especially concerning WIITWD.
 
Peace out to everyone, Missy.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125