KEY POINTS:
A caregiver who played sex games with his intellectually disabled teenage charge has been found by the Health and Disability Commission (HDC) to have breached professional and ethical standards.
The case will now go to the Human Rights Review Tribunal which can determine compensation, the award of damages, and costs.
The commission was alerted to the case when the disability services provider which employed the man laid a complaint.
Both the young man (Mr B) and the caregiver (Mr H) have name suppression to protect their identities.
Mr B had an autism-like disorder, with poor social skills and learning ability. At the age of 16 in 2005, he was assessed as having the mental age of a 10-year-old.
In 2006 the teen moved into a flat, with Mr H employed as one of his caregivers. They already knew each other through church.
The teenager told the inquiry that Mr H had acted and talked inappropriately almost as soon as he became his caregiver.
Mr B's girlfriend said that when she came to stay with Mr B, Mr H pulled down her blouse, and fondled her breasts and buttocks.
Mr B said that his caregiver exposed himself and masturbated in front of him. He also said the man asked to touch his penis and offered him money if he took part in sexual acts.
This escalated to "dare" games which involved inappropriate sexual behaviour, and included Mr B's reluctant girlfriend.
She said that Mr H would walk into Mr B's flat at any time and one day walked in on them having sex.
Mr H denied the allegations, saying that Mr B was lying. He said that as time wore on, Mr B became more abusive and violent towards him.
He said the games they played were agreed by the three of them and occurred outside work hours.
In findings released today, Deputy Health and Disability Commissioner Tania Thomas ruled that Mr H used the caregiver-client relationship to sexually exploit Mr B.
"Mr H's statements that Mr B participated in the games willingly and that the games occurred `after hours' and were not part of his caregiver role do not wash," she said.
Ms Thomas found that Mr H breached the commission's code of conduct relating to Mr B's right to freedom from harassment and exploitation, and his right to dignity and independence.
Ms Thomas ruled that Mr H's employer had not breached the code and had taken all reasonable actions in the circumstances.
The provider launched a full inquiry into the allegations which ultimately led to the man's dismissal.
- NZPA
