MALTREATMENT INVESTIGATION MEMORANDUM
Office of Inspector General, Licensing Division
Public Information

Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.01, paragraph (a), “The legislature hereby declares that the public policy of this state is to protect children whose health or welfare may be jeopardized through maltreatment.”

1088402-CCC (Child Care Center)

Investigator(s):

Rebecca Mesto
Minnesota Department of Human Services
Office of Inspector General
Licensing Division
PO Box 64242
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55164-0242
651-431-6558

Suspected Maltreatment Reported:

Allegation one: It was reported that a staff person (SP) slapped an alleged victim (AV1) across the face. During the investigation it was also reported that the SP hit two other alleged victims (AV2 and AV3).

Allegation two: During the investigation, it was also reported that another alleged victim (AV4) had been left on the playground.

Date of Incident(s): Various dates prior to September 23, 2022.

Nature of Alleged Maltreatment Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.03, subdivision 15, paragraph (a), clauses (1) and (2); subdivision 18, paragraph (a); and subdivision 23, paragraph (a):

Failure by a person responsible for a child's care to supply a child with necessary food, clothing, shelter, health, medical, or other care required for the child's physical or mental health when reasonably able to do so.

Failure to protect a child from conditions or actions that seriously endanger the child's physical or mental health when reasonably able to do so.

"Physical abuse" means any physical injury, mental injury, or threatened injury, inflicted by a person responsible for the child's care on a child other than by accidental means. "Threatened injury" means a statement, overt act, condition, or status that represents a substantial risk of physical or sexual abuse or mental injury.

Summary of Findings:

Pertinent information was obtained during a site visit conducted on October 4, 2022; from documentation at the facility; and through ten interviews conducted with six facility staff persons (P1-P6), three administrative staff persons (P7-P9), a family member (FM1) of AV1 and a family member (FM3) of AV3. This investigator attempted to contact family members of AV2 and AV4 by phone and mail. This investigator also attempted to interview two other staff persons, but was unable to reach them by phone and/or email

Allegation one: It was reported that the SP slapped AV1 across the face. During the investigation it was also reported that the SP hit AV2 and AV3.

AV1 was approximately 25 months old; AV2 was approximately 30 months old; and AV3 was approximately 26 months old. Each was enrolled in the older toddler room.

P1 provided the following information:

· On August 16, 2022, shortly before 11 a.m., in the older toddler room, a group of toddlers were involved in free choice play. P1 was sitting on the circle time carpet, and the SP was sitting in a chair. P1 saw the SP stand up, and “grab” AV1. Then the SP held AV1 while s/he sat down about a foot from P1. P1 was playing with other children but saw the SP lift her hand up and then P1 heard a “slapping” sound. P1 then looked at AV1 and saw a red mark on AV1’s cheek. P1 asked the SP, “Did you really just do that?” and the SP laughed and said it was a “playful hit” and “not that big of deal.” The red mark on AV1’s cheek lasted for one or two hours and AV1 cried for 10 to 15 minutes after the incident. A few days later, P1 reported the incident to P7 and then talked with P8 sometime after.

· P1 was not aware of what led up to the SP’s actions, but stated that the SP was a “very angry teacher.” On prior occasions, the SP “grab[bed]” children, sometimes leaving red marks, and “scream[ed]” in their faces. The SP had “threatened” to hit a child with objects like brooms, toys, and books. The SP pushed a child, causing them to fall. P1 said that these prior incidents were reported to supervisors.

· P1 stated that some other staff persons stopped working at the facility because administrative staff persons did not reprimand the SP for his/her actions.

P2 provided the following information:

· The first few weeks of working with the SP went well, but when the SP became “more comfortable” with P2, the SP started to be verbally “harsh” with the children. The SP got “angry” with the children and yelled at them if they made a “tiny mistake.” The SP yelled at children when they did things they were not supposed to do, like talking or laughing “too loud” at lunchtime. The SP got “frustrated easy” and

“singled” out a few of the older children. Some of the children were “scared” of getting assistance in the restroom from the SP because the SP made the children “feel bad” when they had a diaper accident.

· One unknown day prior to the beginning of July 2022, AV2 climbed onto a piece of play equipment in the older toddler room and the SP looked at P2 and said that s/he was not going to hurt AV2. Then the SP picked up AV2 by the ankles and “flip[ped]” him/her upside down and held him/her upside down for five to ten seconds, until AV2 cried. After the SP set AV2 down, AV2 came towards P2 and the SP “yelled” at AV2 and said that P2 was not going to “snuggle” him/her, so AV2 went to the couch area. After this incident, P2 told P8 and asked to be moved into a different classroom.

· On another day, AV2 looked like s/he was going to hit another child, so P2 put his/her hand out to stop AV2 from hitting and the SP came from across the room and “grabbed” AV2 by the arm. Then when P2 was not looking, P2 heard a slapping noise. P2 looked to where the SP and AV2 were and the SP was talking to AV2 and said something to the effect of, “How does that make you feel?” and then slapped AV2 in the wrist area. The SP was not aware P2 saw what happened, but then P2 left the room and told P8, who made a note of the incident. After that incident, supervisors came into the older toddler room more frequently.

· One day, the SP said s/he was going to make AV3 cry because that was the only way the SP could “get through” to him/her. On another occasion, when the AV3 had a sticker, the SP placed the sticker on AV3’s chest (on his/her shirt) “kind of roughly” and told him/her that s/he had to keep the sticker on.

· If a child took their shoes off, the SP sometimes hit them on the top of their head with their shoe or the SP threw the child’s shoe across the room.

· Other staff persons refused to work with the SP because of the SP’s interactions with children.

P3 provided the following information:

· AV1 was a “happy” child who went through a stage where s/he played in his/her diaper, which was “developmentally appropriate.” The SP “yelled” at AV1, even after other staff persons already addressed situations with AV1. Sometimes the SP was “super loud,” in AV1’s face, “kind of like demeaning” towards him/her, which made AV1 cry and run away from the SP. The SP sometimes yelled at other children as well, but the SP “target[ed]” AV1. Staff persons, including P3, told the SP to stop yelling at AV1.

· The SP had personality conflicts with some of the other staff persons, and tried to “one up” them. But no one “dislike[d]” the SP to the point of being “dishonest” about the SP’s actions.

· P3 went to P7 and P8 regarding his/her concerns about the SP.

P4 provided the following information:

· The SP “scream[ed]” at children “all the time.” The only time the SP did not scream at the children was when there was “someone else” around. At times, the children cried after the SP got “mad” at them.

· On an unknown date in the middle or end of September 2022, P1, P4, P5, and the SP were outside on the playground with two groups of toddler aged children. AV3 was sitting approximately six feet from P4 and saw the SP come over to AV3 and “yell” at AV3 for not having his/her shoes on. The SP told AV3 that s/he had already told him/her not to take his/her shoes off and with an open hand, the SP slapped AV3’s ankle. The SP’s slap was loud enough for P4 to hear. AV3did not get upset but walked away from the SP. P4 told the SP that his/her actions were “not appropriate” but the SP did not reply.

· P4 stated that s/he and other staff persons “tried” to get along with the SP but P4 could not “look past” some of the SP’s interactions with children.

P5 stated that the SP yelled at children. On one afternoon, the SP was sweeping the floor and P5 was cleaning the tables. P5 had his/her back to the SP but heard the SP tell an unknown child that if they did not stop what they were doing, s/he was going to “whip” them with the broom, making the child cry. P5 told P7 and P8 about that the SP had threatened a child with a broom, but s/he was unaware if they talked to the SP or not. P5 had not seen the SP be physically inappropriate with any child. Staff persons did not get along with the SP and the SP was “really hard to work with” because s/he would “just sit around.”

P6 stated that s/he had concerns with the SP’s tone of voice. The SP was “very quick” to react and yell when children were having disagreements or to get them to stop what they were doing. Children were “intimidated” by the SP’s tone of voice and were “fearful” of him/her. P6 had never witnessed the SP being physically inappropriate with children, but had been informed by other staff persons that the SP slapped children’s hands, slapped one child’s face, and squeezed children’s faces. Prior to the SP working in the older toddler room, staff persons got along with the SP, but then staff persons were “uncomfortable” with the way the SP managed the classroom and spoke to the children.

P7 provided the following information:

· On August 16, 2022, s/he was at a local restaurant at lunchtime and saw P1. P1 told him/her that s/he felt “uncomfortable” when s/he was working with the SP the prior week and s/he heard the SP slap AV1. After returning to the facility, P7 told P8 about P1’s concerns and P8 and one of the facility’s owners talked to the SP.

· In the past, P7 and P8 addressed concerns that the SP was “a little loud” when talking to the children, but they did not have any other concerns regarding the SP’s interactions with children. P7 was not aware of the SP grabbing any child in a rough manner or threatening to harm a child or pushing a child.

· The SP “rub[bed]” other staff persons “the wrong way” at times. The SP sometimes asked the same questions over and over and there were issues with the SP following the schedule.

P8 provided the following information:

· On August 16, 2022, P7 told P8 about P1’s concerns. P1 told P8 that s/he heard the SP slap AV1 one week prior. On an unknown later date, P8 and one of the owners of the facility talked to the SP. The SP denied slapping AV1 and said that s/he may have turned AV1’s head to get his/her attention.

· There were interpersonal conflicts amongst staff persons, including P1 and the SP. When the SP and P1 started working together, they got along “really well.” Then, when the SP was out of the facility for a week, P3 and P6 began telling P1 “things” about the SP, and P1 “joined” their “gang up squad.”

· P8 had concerns that P1 did not report the slapping incident of AV1 to management until one week after the alleged incident occurred. P8 stated that staff persons had come to him/her about concerns regarding the SP’s tone of voice and that issue was addressed. After being made aware of possible tone of voice concerns, P8 sat outside of the SP’s classroom door but did not hear anything concerning. Staff persons did not come to P8 with any other concerns about the SP being physically inappropriate with children, besides P1 saying that the SP slapped AV1.

P9 did not typically get involved with specific issues regarding staff persons, but was informed of the allegations. P9 stated that P1 brought up concerns about the SP to administrative staff persons, but not in a timely manner, which was concerning to P9 because if the SP’s actions were “serious,” P1 should have addressed it earlier instead of waiting a week. There were some staff persons in the facility who did not get along with the SP and attempted to get the SP “in trouble” by taking “small things” the SP did and making them a issue. After hearing a concern that the SP slapped a child’s face, the SP said that s/he only touched the child’s face. The SP was directed not to touch a child’s face unless washing or wiping it. P9 was not aware of any other concerns regarding the SP.

Unsigned and undated notes entitled Investigation on [the SP], stated that during the facility’s investigation, administrative staff persons conducted “quiet observations” of the SP and P1, but nothing “alarming” was observed. P1 did not report his/her concern to administrative staff persons until one week after the incident. P1 did not like the SP and wanted him/her fired. P1 gave inconsistent information regarding his/her concern, telling P7 that s/he “heard a slap,” but did not see a slap. The note said that P1 also said s/he saw the SP slap the AV, but the note did not specify who P1 said that to.

The SP provided the following information:

· AV1 was the SP’s “buddy,” and was a “very, very sweet” child. AV1 sometimes struggled with kicking and previously had bitten other children. One day, in the older toddler room, s/he and P1 were with a group of children at the circle time rug and AV1 kicked another child. The SP verbally tried to get AV1’s attention and when s/he did not respond, the SP “guided” AV1’s face to look at him/her, by bringing his/her hand to the side of AV1’s chin or cheek and “lightly” pulling AV1’s head up to look at him/her. After the SP told AV1 that his/her actions hurt his/her friends, AV1 continued with the activity s/he had

been engaged in. The SP denied slapping or hitting AV1’s face.

· When asked if s/he slapped AV2 on the arm/hand or picked him/her up and held him/her upside down, the SP said, “Not that I can remember.”

· The SP stated that s/he was typically “really soft spoken,” but to get the children’s attention, s/he had to sometimes raise his/her voice over the volume of the room. The SP denied telling a child s/he was going to make them cry. In the past, administrative staff persons talked to the SP about his/her tone of voice and different ways to redirect children’s behaviors.

· When a child took their socks or shoes off, the SP sat down with the child and talked to them about keeping their feet safe and put their shoes back on. When asked if the SP ever threw a child’s shoe or hit any child on the head with their shoe, the SP said, “Not that I can remember.”

· The SP denied grabbing any child in a rough manner or threatening any child. The SP also denied pushing a child. The SP denied slapping AV3 on the ankle after AV3 took his/her shoes off outside.

· The SP stated that s/he got along with staff persons at the facility.

FM1 stated that s/he did not have any concerns with the care AV1 received at the facility.

FM3 did not have any concerns with the care AV3 received at the facility.

The facility’s Job Description – Teacher stated that staff persons were responsible for the overall supervision and daily class functions of a group of children. Staff persons were provide verbal recognition and acceptance to the children.

The facility’s Policy: Discipline/Positive Guidance stated that staff persons were to only use positive methods of discipline and guidance that encouraged self-esteem, self-control, and self-direction. Staff persons were not to use “harsh, cruel, or unusual treatment of any child.” Staff persons were prohibited in subjecting a child to corporal punishment, including rough handling and slapping.

Facility information showed that all staff persons interviewed for this investigation received training on the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act and the facility’s policies.

Relevant Rules and/or Statutes:

Minnesota Rules 9503.0055, subpart 3, item A, states that the license holder must have and enforce a policy that prohibits subjection of a child to corporal punishment. Corporal punishment includes, but is not limited to, rough handling, shoving, hair pulling, ear pulling, shaking, slapping, kicking, biting, pinching, hitting, and spanking.

Conclusion for Allegation One:

A. Maltreatment:

P1-P5 provided information that each observed physical interactions the SP had with children that caused them concern. P1 stated that the SP slapped AV1, causing a red mark on his/her cheek. P2 stated that the SP picked up AV2 by his/her ankles and held him/her upside down for five to ten seconds, making him/her cry. P2 also said that s/he saw the SP slap AV2’s wrist and hit children on the tops of their heads if they took their shoes off. P4 saw the SP hit AV4’s ankle after s/he took his/her shoes off. P5 stated that the SP told a child s/he was going to “whip” them with a broom. P6 and P7 each had not seen the SP handle any child in an inappropriate manner.

The SP stated that s/he “guided” AV1’s head up to look at him/her, but denied slapping AV1. The SP was unable to recall if s/he slapped AV2 or held him/her upside down. The SP could not remember if s/he ever hit a child on the head with a shoe. The SP denied grabbing any child in a rough manner, pushing a child, or slapping AV3 on the ankle.

P1-P5 also had concerns regarding either the SP’s tone of voice and/or verbal interactions with children. P1, P2, P3, P4 and P5 each stated that the SP either “screamed” or “yelled” at the children. P2 stated that the SP got “angry” with children and made children “feel bad” if they had an accident. P3 stated that the SP was “demeaning” toward AV1. P5 stated that the SP told a child s/he was going to “whip” them with a broom, making them cry. P6 had concerns with the SP’s tone of voice. P7, P8, and P9 stated that concerns regarding the SP’s yelling/tone of voice had been addressed with the SP.

The SP denied threatening any child and that because s/he was “really soft spoken” s/he sometimes had to raise his/her voice over the volume of the room. The SP stated that administrative staff persons talked to him/her about his/her tone of voice and how to redirect behaviors. The SP denied telling a child s/he was going to make them cry.

P1 stated that some staff persons quit working at the facility because they were “not comfortable” when administrative staff persons did not reprimand the SP for his/her actions. P2 stated that other staff persons refused to work with the SP because of the SP’s interactions with children. P3 stated that the SP had personality conflicts with staff persons, but staff persons did not “dislike” the SP to the point of being “dishonest” about the SP’s actions. P5 stated that staff persons did not get along with the SP and that the SP was “very hard to work with” because s/he would “just sit around.” P6 stated that staff persons were “uncomfortable” with how the SP managed the classroom and spoke to the children. P7 stated that the SP “rub[bed]” other staff persons “the wrong way.” P8 stated that there were interpersonal conflicts amongst other staff persons and the SP. P9 stated that some staff persons did not get along with the SP and tried to get the SP “in trouble.”

Although P7-P9 each did not witness any concerns regarding the SP’s interactions with children, P7-P9 did not watch the SP’s entire work day or work directly with the SP in the classroom for any extended length of time. Therefore, it was reasonable that P7-P9 may not see any concerning interactions.

The SP either denied the allegations and/or stated s/he did not remember engaging in the interactions as described by P1-P5. However, the SP had reason to minimize his/her interactions for fear of repercussion and stated that s/he got along with other staff persons. Given that P1, P2, P3, P4, and P5 each worked with the SP on different occasions, it was reasonable that only a single staff person witnessed any single incident. In addition, the descriptions of the SP’s physical and verbal interactions with the children, including AV1, AV2, AV3, and AV4 were similar in nature. The SP’s verbal and physical interactions with toddlers was inconsistent with the standards of a professional caregiver in a facility licensed by the Department of Human Services and violations of Minnesota Rules 9503.0055, subpart 3, item A, and there was a preponderance of the evidence that the SP’s repeated actions of grabbing children, slapping children, holding a child upside down, screaming/yelling at children, threatening a child, pushing a child, and hitting children on tops of their heads with their shoes, were not accidental and were a failure to supply each child with reasonable and necessary care, a failure to protect each child from conditions or actions which seriously endangered their physical or mental health, threatened injury to each child, and inflicted physical injury on AV1.

It was determined that neglect occurred (failure by a person responsible for a child's care to supply a child with necessary food, clothing, shelter, health, medical, or other care required for the child's physical or mental health when reasonably able to do so. Failure to protect a child from conditions or actions that seriously endanger the child's physical or mental health when reasonably able to do so).

It was determined that physical abuse occurred ("physical abuse" means any physical injury, mental injury, or threatened injury, inflicted by a person responsible for the child's care on a child other than by accidental means. "Threatened injury" means a statement, overt act, condition, or status that represents a substantial risk of physical or sexual abuse or mental injury).

B. Responsibility pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.30, subdivision 4, paragraph (a), clauses (1) and (2):

When determining whether the facility or individual is the responsible party, or whether both the facility and the individual are responsible for determined maltreatment in a facility, the investigating agency shall consider at least the following mitigating factors:

(1) whether the actions of the facility or the individual caregivers were according to, and followed the terms of, an erroneous physician order, prescription, individual care plan, or directive; however, this is not a mitigating factor when the facility or caregiver was responsible for the issuance of the erroneous order, prescription, individual care plan, or directive or knew or should have known of the errors and took no reasonable measures to correct the defect before administering care;

(2) comparative responsibility between the facility, other caregivers, and requirements placed upon an employee, including the facility’s compliance with related regulatory standards and the adequacy of facility policies and procedures, facility training, an individual’s participation in the training, the caregiver’s supervision, and facility staffing levels and the scope of the individual employee’s authority and discretion; and

(3) whether the facility or individual followed professional standards in exercising professional judgment.

The SP received training on the facility’s policies and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act prior to the incidents. The SP was responsible for maltreatment of children including AV1, AV2, AV3 and AV4.

C. Recurring and/or Serious Maltreatment:

The Office of Inspector General is required to evaluate whether substantiated maltreatment by an individual meets the statutory criteria to be determined as “recurring or serious.” Individuals determined to be responsible for recurring or serious maltreatment are disqualified from providing direct contact services. Minnesota Statutes, section 245C.02, subdivision 16, states:

“Recurring maltreatment” means more than one incident of maltreatment for which there is a preponderance of evidence that maltreatment occurred and that the subject was responsible for the maltreatment.

Minnesota Statutes, section 245C.02, subdivision 18, states:

"Serious maltreatment" means sexual abuse, maltreatment resulting in death, neglect resulting in serious injury which reasonably requires the care of a physician whether or not the care of a physician was sought, or abuse resulting in serious injury. For purposes of this definition, "care of a physician" is treatment received or ordered by a physician, physician assistant, or nurse practitioner, but does not include diagnostic testing, assessment, or observation; the application of, recommendation to use, or prescription solely for a remedy that is available over the counter without a prescription; or a prescription solely for a topical antibiotic to treat burns when there is no follow-up appointment. For purposes of this definition, "abuse resulting in serious injury" means: bruises, bites, skin laceration, or tissue damage; fractures; dislocations; evidence of internal injuries; head injuries with loss of consciousness; extensive second-degree or third-degree burns and other burns for which complications are present; extensive second-degree or third-degree frostbite and other frostbite for which complications are present; irreversible mobility or avulsion of teeth; injuries to the eyes; ingestion of foreign substances and objects that are harmful; near drowning; and heat exhaustion or sunstroke. Serious maltreatment includes neglect when it results in criminal sexual conduct against a child or vulnerable adult.

It was determined that the substantiated physical abuse and neglect for which the SP was responsible was recurring maltreatment but was not serious maltreatment. The SP was responsible for the neglect and physical abuse of more than one child, including AV1, AV2, AV3 and AV4. However, there was no information that any child sustain a serious injury or an injury that reasonably required the care of a physician. The SP’s actions caused a red mark on AV1’s face but it was transitory in nature and was therefore did not meet the definition of serious physical abuse.

The SP was disqualified from providing direct contact services.

Allegation two: During the investigation, it was also reported that AV4 had been left on the playground.

AV4 was two years old at the time of the incident.

The facility consisted of various classrooms connected by hallways. The hallway door to the older toddler room was near an exit door that led directly onto an infant playground, which had age appropriate equipment and toys. Upon entering the infant playground, there was a gate to the left which led to a toddler playground. The playgrounds were separated and enclosed by chain-link fences.

P3 stated that on the day of the incident (July 8, 2022), s/he was outside on the toddler playground and saw that the SP and P2 left AV4 on the infant playground after they brought the remaining children inside. P3 brought AV4 into the older toddler room to the SP and P2.

P4 stated that on the day of the incident, when s/he and other staff persons and children were outside on the toddler playground, P4 had just returned from the restroom when s/he heard another unknown staff person say, “You forgot [AV4],” to P2 and the SP. However, P2 and the SP had already gone inside and shut the door. P4 saw that AV4 was running on the infant playground. P3 then brought AV4 inside.

P2 stated that on the day of the incident, s/he and the SP were on the playground with a group of 14 toddlers and other staff persons were also on the toddler playground with their groups of children. Shortly before lunchtime, P2 and the SP gathered their children to go inside. They exited the first gate and entered the infant playground. P2 was holding water and held the door open for the children to go inside. P2 counted the children as they entered and recalled being “certain” all 14 went inside. P2 was not certain how AV4 was able to remain outside. The SP was at the end of the line and then assisted children to enter the building. P2 “kind of scanned” the playground before they all went inside, but the SP obstructed his/her view. P2 stated that the SP typically conducted name to face attendance, but that day s/he did not. Two minutes later, P3 came into the older toddler room with AV4, and told them that AV4 had been left on the infant playground. AV4 was “fine.”

The SP stated that on the day of the incident, s/he and P2 were outside on the playground and as they were going inside, P2 completed name to face attendance at the gate and counted the children when going inside the door. The SP was at the back of the line and thought all of the children entered the building, so they went inside and closed the door.

P8 stated that after s/he was made aware of the incident, s/he talked to staff persons. P2 and the SP were retrained on the name to face procedures and were given verbal warnings regarding the incident. AV4 was not out of sight or hearing of the other staff persons who were on the playground at the time of the incident.

The SP’s Counseling Report stated that on July 8, 2022, a child (AV4) was left outside and was brought into the classroom by another staff person who was also outside. AV4 was within sight and sound of other staff persons.

The facility’s Risk Reduction Plan stated that staff persons were to maintain an accurate list of children in their supervision. Name to face attendance was to be taken when children transitioned from one location to another. Playgrounds were fenced in.

Relevant Rules and/or Statutes:

Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A, states that children are required to have supervision at all times. Minnesota Statute section 245A.02, subdivision 18, states that supervision means when a program staff person is within sight and hearing of a child at all times so that the program staff person can intervene to protect the health and safety of the child.

Conclusion for Allegation Two:

Consistent information was provided by staff persons that on July 8, 2022, P2 and the SP brought a group of children from the toddler playground to the toddler two classroom. P3 saw P2 and the SP go inside and leave AV4 on the infant playground. P3 immediately yelled to P2 and the SP that they left a child on the playground and went and got AV4 and brought AV4 to P2.

P2 stated that s/he was at the front of the line and counted the children and “scanned” the infant playground as they entered the building. The SP was at the back of the line and thought all of the children were accounted for.

Although P2 and the SP left AV4 on the infant playground, given that the playground was enclosed and was filled with only age appropriate equipment, and that P3 was immediately aware and maintained supervision AV4 prior to returning AV4 to P2 and the SP, there was not preponderance of the evidence that there was a failure to supply AV4 with necessary care or a failure to protect AV4 from conditions or actions that seriously endangered AV4’s physical or mental health.

It was not determined that neglect occurred (failure by a person responsible for a child's care to supply a child with necessary food, clothing, shelter, health, medical, or other care required for the child's physical or mental health when reasonably able to do so. Failure to protect a child from conditions or actions that seriously endanger the child's physical or mental health when reasonably able to do so).

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.35, subdivision 6, paragraph (c) all investigative data maintained in this report will be kept by the Department of Human Services for at least ten years after the date of the final entry in the report.

Action Taken by Facility:

The facility completed internal reviews regarding the allegations.

Regarding allegation one: The facility determined that their policies and procedures were adequate and followed. The facility was aware of concerns with the SP’s tone of voice and the SP had been previously “coached” on lowering his/her tone of voice. The facility was not aware of any rough handling. The SP was “coached” on when it was appropriate to touch children’s faces. Management conducted observations in classrooms at various times throughout multiple days.

Regarding allegation two: The facility determined that their policies and procedures were adequate but not followed when staff persons did not follow the name to face procedure. AV1 was within sight and sound of other staff persons on the playground. Disciplinary action was taken with staff persons and they received additional coaching.

Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General:

The SP was disqualified from a position allowing direct contact with, or access to, persons receiving services from programs, organizations, and/or agencies that are required to have individuals complete a background study by the Department of Human Services as listed in Minnesota Statutes, section 245C.03. The determination that the SP was responsible for maltreatment and the disqualification of the SP are each subject to appeal.

On December 2, 2022, the facility was issued a Correction Order for the violation outlined in this report.

In addition, it was determined that facility mandated reporters had knowledge of the alleged incident and did not report the incident as required. The license holder was ordered to forfeit a fine of $200 for failure to report maltreatment. The Order to Forfeit a Fine is subject to appeal.

Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.06, subdivision 1, requires mandated reporters at a facility to immediately report suspected maltreatment. The investigation determined that four individuals failed to report suspected maltreatment as required. A letter from DHS was sent to each of these individuals regarding their failure to report the suspected maltreatment and potential consequences for future such failures.

Certification:

The information collection procedures followed in this investigation were pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.30, subdivision 6, paragraph (c). All individuals that are subjects of data in this investigation have the right to obtain private data on themselves which was collected, created, or maintained by the Department of Human Services.

PO Box 64242 • Saint Paul, Minnesota • 55164-0242 • An Equal Opportunity and Veteran Friendly Employer
https://mn.gov/dhs/general-public/licensing/