|
July 27, 2022 Michelle Kay Kraus, Authorized Agent Ladybug No. 2, LLC (DBA Ladybug Child Care Center) 306 Lake Hazeltine Dr Chaska, MN 55318 License Number: 1094113 (Child Care Center) Program Location: 859 Vista Blvd, Waconia, MN 55387 Dear Michelle Kay Kraus: The Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS), Division of Licensing, received your request for reconsideration of the ten citations from the Correction Order issued to you by the Department of Human Services on May 26, 2020. SUMMARY OF CITATIONS AND RECONSIDERATION DETERMINATION: Citation 1. A child's hands were not washed with soap and water before eating. (Toddler A) The DHS licensor observed toddler children return from the playground and go directly to the table to eat snack.
Your Response. You state that all staff received training on handwashing and were reminded of this training. Applicable Law. Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0140, subpart 13 states (in part) that [a] child's hands must be washed with soap and water after a diaper change, after use of a toilet or toilet training chair, and before eating a meal or snack. Staff must monitor hand washing and assist a child who needs help.
Reconsideration Determination. You do not deny that the incident occurred. The record supports this citation, and it is affirmed. Citation 2. Staff did not wash tables used for meals with soap and water as required. Toddler A (Toddler classroom). The tables were not washed before the children sat to eat snack. Your Response. The staff received training on cleaning and sanitizing of surfaces used for food services and were reminded of their training. Applicable Law. Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0145, subpart 3 states (in part) that “[t]ables and highchair trays used for meals must be washed with soap and water before and after each use.”
Reconsideration Determination. You do not deny that staff failed to wash tables before the children sat to eat crackers. The record supports this citation, and it is affirmed. Citation 3. The required crib safety inspections were not completed on a monthly basis. Playroom (8 months-16 months) (Infant classroom) Crib safety inspections were not completed in February of 2020. Your Response. You state that staff were reminded to conduct monthly crib inspections. Applicable Law. Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.146, subdivision 4 requires a license holder to perform monthly safety inspections of every crib or portable crib.
Reconsideration Determination. You do not deny that crib inspections were not completed in February 2020. The record supports this citation, and it is affirmed. Citation 4. The program did not comply with the reporting requirements for abuse and neglect. Three of five staff persons were not aware of the reporting requirements for abuse and neglect. Your Response. You state that staff persons were trained on reporting requirements and answered the licensor correctly. Staff persons report to a manager/administrator of their choice and the manager/administrator will help them make their reports. Applicable Law. Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0130, subpart 1 states that “[t]the license holder must comply with the reporting requirements for abuse and neglect specified in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 260E.” Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.06 subdivision 1 states that [a] person who knows or has reason to believe a child is being maltreated, as defined in section 260E.03, or has been maltreated within the preceding three years shall immediately report the information to the local welfare agency, agency responsible for assessing or investigating the report, police department, county sheriff, tribal social services agency, or tribal police department if the person is: (1) a professional or professional's delegate who is engaged in the practice of … child care.
Reconsideration Determination. A staff person who reports suspected maltreatment to a manager/administrator instead of immediately reporting to the statutorily specified entities does not comply with the reporting requirements in Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.06, subdivision 1. The record supports this citation, and it is affirmed. Citation 5. The program did not comply with child maltreatment reporting policy and procedure requirements. The policies and procedures used by the program were not the policies and procedures developed by DHS in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 626.556 and provided to parents of all children at the time of enrollment in the child care program. Your Response. You state that Ladybug uses the policies and procedures developed by DHS and gives them to all parents at time of enrollment. Applicable Law. : Minnesota Statutes 245A.145, subdivision 1 states that: (1) Commissioner must develop policies and procedures for reporting suspected child maltreatment; (2) provide the policies and procedures to all licensed child care provider; (3) the policies and procedures provided to the license holders must be provided to the parents of all children at the time of enrollment; and (4) be made available on request.
Reconsideration Determination. According to the licensor, the policy that Ladybug provides to parents at enrollment is not the complete version on the required DHS form. Further, her compliance monitoring notes are contemporaneous documentation of what she directly observed. You did not provide a copy the policy that you contend is on the required DHS form. The record supports this citation, and it is affirmed. Citation 6. The program did not comply with requirements for an allergy-related Individual Child Care Program Plan (ICCPP). There was no documentation available to show that 4 of 4 (SP10, SP11, SP12 and SP13) staff persons had reviewed an allergy-related ICCPP for a child within his/her care Your Response. You state that: (1) the staff person responsible for the child’s allergy knew about the allergen; and (2) you now required staff persons sign-off on children’s ICCPPs. Applicable Law. Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.41, subdivision 1, paragraph (b) states that ‘[t]he license holder must ensure that each staff person who is responsible for carrying out the individual child care program plan review and follow the plan. Documentation of a staff person's review must be kept on site.
Reconsideration Determination. You do not deny that Ladybug failed to document that staff persons had reviewed the ICCPPs for children within their care. The record supports this citation, and it is affirmed. Citation 7. The program did not develop an Individual Child Care Program Plan for a child with a known allergy (C2). Your Response. You state that the known allergy is amoxicillin and that staff persons do not administer amoxicillin at Ladybug. Applicable Law. Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.41, subdivision 1, paragraph (a) states that [i]f a child has a known allergy, the license holder must maintain current information about the allergy in the child's record and develop an individual child care program plan as specified in Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0065, subpart 3. The individual child care program plan must include but not be limited to a description of the allergy, specific triggers, avoidance techniques, symptoms of an allergic reaction, and procedures for responding to an allergic reaction, including medication, dosages, and a doctor's contact information. Reconsideration Determination. Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.41, subdivision 1 requires the license holder to develop an ICCPP for any known allergy. You do not deny that Ladybug failed to develop an ICCPP for C2 who has a known allergy. The record supports this citation, and it is affirmed. Citation 8. The ICCPP for a child with known allergies did not contain specific triggers and avoidance techniques. Your Response. You state that: (1) the allergy is eggs; (2) the trigger is eggs; and (3) the avoidance techniques is to avoid eggs. Applicable Law. Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.41, subdivision 1, paragraph (a) requires the licensor holder to develop a ICCPP that includes (but is not limited to) a description of the allergy, specific triggers, and avoidance techniques.
Reconsideration Determination. You do not deny that the ICCPP for a child with a known allergy failed to contain the specific triggers and avoidance techniques. The record supports this citation, and it is affirmed.
Citation 9. The relocation site and evacuation route was not posted in a visible place as a part of the written procedures for emergencies and accidents in Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0140, subpart 21. Your Response. You state that the relocation site and evacuation route are posted in black classroom binders in all classrooms and always kept with the children. Applicable Law. Minnesota Statute, section 245A.41, subdivision 3, paragraph (f) states that “[t]he license holder must ensure that written procedures for emergencies and accidents are posted in a visible place.”
Reconsideration Determination. Information kept in a binder is not “posted in a visible place.” The record supports this citation, and it is affirmed. Citation 10. The DHS Licensor was not given access to documents and records, including records maintained in electronic format; and staff and personnel records of current and former staff. Your Response. You state that: (1) the licensor was given access to both staff and children’s records during the licensing review on March 10, 2022; (2) Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.04, subdivision 4 states that licensors cannot issue a correction for violations that were not discussed during an exit interview, unless the provider did not participate in or complete the exit interview; (3) Ladybug participated in the exit interview but the licensor did not discuss any issues regarding access and records; and (4) therefore, DHS cannot issue a correction order for this alleged violation. Applicable Law. Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.04, subdivision 5 states (in part) that When the commissioner is exercising the powers conferred by this chapter, the commissioner must be given access to: … (2) documents and records, including records maintained in an electronic format; [and] … (4) staff and personnel records of current and former staff whenever the program is in operation and the information is relevant to inspections or investigations conducted by the commissioner.
Reconsideration Determination. The licensor’s notes show that: (1) the licensor conducted a licensing inspection and exit interview on March 10, 2020; (2) on March 10, 2020, the licensor requested access to program and staff records; (3) staff persons denied access to the records by physically blocking the entrance to the filing room and stated that “per their lawyer” the licensor was not allowed to touch or grab any of the files; (4) staff persons stated that they would not allow the licensor in the record room; (5) you were in Colorado at the time, so, on March 10, 2020, the licensor emailed a copy of the Commissioner’s Access Memo to you; (7) you then called the licensor on March 10, 2020, stating that you had received the Commissioner’s Access Memo and stood behind the decision not to let the licensor directly access the records; (8) the licensor told you that she would issue a citation for not allowing access; (9) you replied that you would request reconsideration when you received the correction order; and (10) the licensor conducted the remainder of the exit interview with the onsite staff persons. Further, the record contains a timestamp image of the Commissioner’s Access Memo, showing that the licensor sent you the Commissioner’s Access Memo on March 10, 2020. In addition, the compliance monitoring checklist (which is a contemporaneous documentation of the incident) includes a summary of this violation. Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.04, subdivision 4 (c), [b]efore completing a licensing inspection in a family child care program or child care center, the licensing agency must offer the license holder an exit interview to discuss violations or potential violations of law or rule observed during the inspection and offer technical assistance on how to comply with applicable laws and rules. The commissioner shall not issue a correction order or negative licensing action for violations of law or rule not discussed in an exit interview, unless a license holder chooses not to participate in an exit interview or not to complete the exit interview. Ladybug is the license holder. You acknowledge that Ladybug participated in the exit interview. An exit interview can occur anytime between the commencement of the licensing visit and prior to issuance of the correction order. You and onsite staff represented Ladybug on March 10, 2020, during the licensing inspection and exit interview. The licensor conducted part of the exit interview in person with the onsite staff and part of the exit interview with you by telephone. The record reflects that the licensor discussed the access violation with you on March 10, 2020, as part of the exit interview and that you knew that the licensor would issue a correction order for this violation. The Commissioner’s access means that the licensor have unrestricted, direct access to the physical plant and records. By not allowing the licensor to directly look at the records as they were stored in the filing cabinets, the licensor is unable to assess the program’s compliance. The record supports this citation, and it is affirmed. Disposition: The Commissioner has reviewed the relevant laws and all of the information you submitted in response to the Correction Order. The citations are supported by the record and are affirmed. This is a final agency decision. The Commissioner appreciates your response and encourages you to continue to work cooperatively with your licensor to ensure the safety and well-being of the children you serve. Sincerely,
Jill Johnson Sholts, Attorney Legal Counsel’s Office Office of Inspector General
|
