|
MALTREATMENT INVESTIGATION MEMORANDUM 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.”
License Number and Program Type: 1111830-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Lindsay Arth Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that a staff person (SP) released an alleged victim (AV) to a person who was not authorized to pick him/her up. Date of Incident(s): September 19, 2022 Nature of Alleged Maltreatment Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.03, subdivision 15, paragraph (a), clauses (1) and (2): 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. Summary of Findings: Pertinent information was obtained during a site visit conducted on October 11, 2022; from documentation at the facility; and through five interviews conducted with a facility supervisory staff person (P1), two staff persons (the SP and P2), and two family members (FM2 and FM4) of another child (C). Attempts were made via phone, email, and U.S. mail to contact and interview the AV’s family members (FM1 and FM3) but the attempts were not successful. The facility had two infant classrooms, one for younger infants and one for older infants. The two rooms were connected by a baby gate. The AV and the C were each approximately five months old at the time of the incident and enrolled in the younger infant classroom. FM2 and FM4 were listed as an “authorized contact” to pick up the C. FM1 and FM3 were listed as an “authorized contact” to pick up the AV. P2 provided the following information: · On September 19, 2022, it was a “normal Monday” and P2 was working in the infant classroom with the SP. At some point, there were three children left in the classroom, including the AV, the C, and another child. The SP told P2 that “all these babies look[ed] similar” and the SP asked P2, “Who was who again?” P2 said that this was “kind of odd” as the SP was typically the closing staff person in the infant classroom and had been so for two to three weeks. P2 told the SP that the C was in a black shirt with a pink heart, that the AV was in a purple onesie that zipped, and that P2 was feeding the other child. The SP said, “Okay,” but then continued stating that the children were “all so similar.” P2 told this investigator that they were similar but all had “different traits.” This included that the AV had a thick patch of hair down the center of his/her head and the C had strawberry blonde hair and “big” cheeks. · Because there were only three children remaining in the room, P2 began cleaning the adjacent infant room to begin his/her closing duties while the SP remained with the three children. Around 5:30 p.m., P2 was vacuuming the adjacent infant classroom when FM2 arrived to pick up the C. During this time, P2 was “focused on vacuuming” and was “facing the opposite way.” When P2 was done vacuuming, s/he saw FM2 leave the classroom. P2 did not know which child FM2 had but assumed it was the C. · Shortly after FM2 left the room, FM1 arrived to pick up the AV. P2 was “facing” the SP’s classroom and saw the SP “hand” the C to FM1. At the “exact same time,” FM1 and P2 both stated, “wrong baby.” The SP also stated, “Oh goodness. I think [FM2’s] got the wrong baby.” The SP and FM1 then both “fl[ew]” out the facility to the parking lot. P2 saw from the classroom windows that FM1 and FM2 did a “baby swap” in the parking lot. · FM1 then came inside with the AV and put the AV in his/her car seat. P2 apologized to FM1 and was “very embarrassed.” FM1 “kind of gigl[ed]” and said that it was “all good.” FM1 also said that it had “kind of happened before” regarding the children getting “switched up here and there” which P2 found “odd” and was not aware of prior. · The SP then returned to the classroom and was “trying to blame” P2 by stating that P2 told him/her that the children were in the wrong outfits, which P2 said was not true. P2 said that s/he “very much” knew who each child was and if P2 would have seen the SP hand FM2 the “wrong baby,” P2 would have “been able to stop it” because P2 knew who each child was.
· P2 thought that the AV was with FM2 for approximately two minutes. P2 said this because as FM2 was leaving the facility, FM1 was “walking in.” · P2 did not know why FM2 did not realize that the SP gave him/her the wrong child. There was nothing covering the children’s faces, including hats or other items. However, P2 “heard” that both the AV’s and the C’s families “agreed” that the AV and the C looked “very much alike.” · P2 did not have any other concerns with the SP’s supervision of children. The SP typically ensured that staff persons checked the ID’s of the person picking up if they were not familiar with them (Note: All information showed that the SP was familiar with FM2, who had picked up on prior occasions). FM2 provided the following information: · On the date of the incident, when FM2 arrived to the facility to pick up the C, s/he “grabbed” the C’s car seat, which was kept in the entrance of the facility, and then went to the infant room. When FM2 got to the room, the SP was present. The SP then gave FM2 what FM2 “thought was [the C]” and went outside to put the child in his/her car. FM2 said that “something did not feel right” so s/he remained in the facility parking lot. During this time, FM1 ran out of the facility and told FM2, “I think you have my [child].” FM2 then realized that s/he had the AV and not the C. FM2 gave FM1 the AV and the SP came out of the facility with the C. The SP was “really nervous” but was “trying to joke it off.” FM2 then left with the C.
· FM2 had picked up the C on prior occasions and there were no similar prior incidents. FM2 had seen the SP before so the SP “knew” who FM2 was. · FM2 had been sick prior so had not seen the C for a “couple weeks.” The C and the AV looked “very similar.” · The AV was having a “grand old time” when s/he was with FM2. The AV was with FM2 for “not more than a minute or two.” · FM2 did not have any other concerns with the facility and said that “everything else was good.” P1 provided the following information: · P1 was not at the facility at the time of the incident. However, P2 told P1 about the incident (which was consistent with what P2 told this investigator). Additionally, at some point, the SP sent P1 a text message and said that s/he was “so sorry.” · On September 20, 2022, P1 spoke to FM3 about the incident, who stated that s/he had “No words.” Aside from the incident, FM3 also had concerns that the SP may have given the AV the wrong bottle, since the SP thought that the AV was the C. According to P1, one of the children was formula fed and the other received breast milk (Note: P1 did not provide information regarding which child received which milk). However, “no one could verify” that occurred. · The C’s family did not have any concerns regarding the incident and the following day, they “jokingly” sent the C in a shirt that had his/her name. The C’s family also “teased” FM2 regarding picking up the wrong child. · The SP worked in the infant classroom approximately three to four months. The AV and the C were both “recent” enrollments. The AV had been at the facility since August 15, 2022, and the C had been at the facility since July 11, 2022. The SP typically worked from 2 to 6 p.m. and had worked with the AV and the C “multiple times before.” · When parents (or other approved persons) arrived to the facility to pick up the children in the younger infant room (where the SP, the C, and the AV were at the time of the incident), the parents were to go to the classroom and “meet” the staff person at the baby gate. The staff person was to then bring the child to the parent. The staff person could also “chat” with the parent about the child’s day. The parent would then leave the facility with their child. · FM2 was approved to pick up the C and had done so prior, so at the time of the incident, the SP did not need to ask FM2 for identification. FM2 typically picked up the C one to two nights a week so it was “not a new process.” However, the AV and the C both looked “very similar” and had the “same” birthday. Staff persons “joked” that the AV and the C were “twins.” The SP had a “lot on [his/her] plate” and P1 thought that the SP was “overwhelmed [and] tired and just grabbed the wrong baby.” · P1 was not aware of any similar concerns with the SP. However, FM1 told P1 following the incident that it was “not the first time” that the SP “tried to give me the wrong baby.” The SP provided the following information: · The SP said that on September 20, 2022 (Note: All other information showed that the incident occurred on September 19, 2022), the SP was working with the older infants and P2 was with the younger infants, including the AV and the C. Around 5:25 p.m., the SP only had one child in his/her classroom and P2 had three, including the AV and the C, so P2 asked the SP to bring his/her three children to the younger infant room so that the classrooms could combine and the SP did so. · The SP did not typically work with both the AV and the C at the “same time” and when s/he did, there was always another staff person present. The AV and the C both looked an “awful lot alike” so the SP asked P2 which child was “which.” P2 told the SP that the AV was in a “pink” outfit and that the C was in a black outfit.” The SP told P2 that s/he “got it.” · P2 then left the classroom to clean and around that time, FM2 arrived to pick up the C. The SP “knew that [FM2] belonged to [the C]” and the SP thought that the C was in a black outfit so the SP handed the child in the black outfit to FM2. FM2 then buckled the child into his/her car seat and left the facility. The SP did not think that anything was “off” during that time. · Approximately two to three minutes later, FM1 arrived to pick up the AV. The SP handed who s/he thought was the AV to FM1 and FM1 stated that it was “not [his/her] child.” P2 also “came around the corner” and told the SP that s/he gave FM2 the “wrong baby.” FM1 told the SP that s/he “passed” FM2 in the hallway but did not see what child FM2 had. FM1 was “very calm” and the SP apologized to FM1 “over and over.” · FM1 then left the classroom and went to the parking lot to tell FM2 that s/he had the AV instead of the C. The SP also went outside and brought the C to FM2. FM2 stated to the SP, “Oh my gosh. I had a long day” and “did not realize this wasn’t the right baby.” · There were no similar prior incidents. The SP felt “really terrible” about the incident and said that it “never should have happened.” The SP thought that P2 gave him/her the “wrong information” regarding which child was which. · The AV was unsupervised approximately two minutes. The AV was not injured. However, risks to the AV could have included the AV going home with FM2 or given the wrong baby food. On the date of the incident, the SP did not feed the children bottles and was only with them for approximately 10 minutes. · When the SP worked with new children, s/he learned who the new children were from other staff persons or their photo on a classroom app. However, the photos on the app were “super tiny” so the SP “did not rely on that.” FM4 provided the following information: · FM2 told FM4 about the incident. FM4 said that s/he “kind of had to laugh it off” and that it “could have been worse.” There were no injuries to the C. FM2 typically picked up the C on Monday’s and Wednesday’s but had not picked up a couple weeks prior to the incident due to “illnesses.”
· FM2 told FM4 that the AV and the C looked “pretty similar” which FM4 understood as FM2 only saw the C at pickup. However, the SP should have had “zero chance” that s/he did not know which child was which. · There were no similar prior incidents. The facility was “fantastic” and FM4 was “shocked” that the incident occurred. The Creative Kids Academy Employee Handbook 2021 said that all children were to be supervised by sight and sound while in the care of staff so that staff could intervene to protect the health and safety of the child. A child was not to be released to an unauthorized person. The Creative Kids Academy Parent Guide 2022 said that face to face contact was very important during drop off and pick up. Only a parent or authorized adult was allowed to pick up. If staff persons did not know the authorized person, they were to show photo identification. Facility documentation showed that the SP, P1, and P2 each received training on the facility’s policies, including the Risk Reduction Plan and on the Maltreatment of Minor’s Act prior to the incident. Conclusion: Information was consistent that on September 19, 2022, FM2 arrived to the facility to pick up the C but instead the SP gave FM2 the AV. FM2 did not realize it was the AV so s/he took the AV to his/her car. Around this time, FM1 arrived to the facility to pick up the AV but the SP gave FM1 the C, which FM1 said was not his/her child. FM1 then ran out of the facility and told FM2, who was still in the parking lot with the AV, that s/he had the wrong child. The AV was in FM2’s car and there were no injuries to the AV. FM2 said that the AV was having a “grand old time.” The AV was with FM2 for approximately two minutes. Although the SP had worked with the AV and the C prior and was aware of their respective authorized pick up persons, information was consistent that the AV and the C looked alike and were described as “twins.” On the date of the incident, the SP asked P2 which child was which but felt that s/he got the “wrong information” from P2, which P2 denied. Minnesota Statutes, section 626.556, subdivision 2, paragraph (h) states, a nonmaltreatment mistake means: (1) At the time of the incident, the individual was performing duties identified in the center’s child care program plan required under Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045; (2) The individual has not been determined responsible for a similar incident that resulted in a finding of maltreatment for at least seven years; (3) The individual has not been determined to have committed a similar nonmaltreatment mistake under this paragraph for at least four years; (4) Any injury to a child resulting from the incident, if treated, is treated only with remedies that are available over the counter, whether ordered by a medical professional or not; and (5) Except for the period when the incident occurred, the facility and the individual providing services were both in compliance with all licensing requirements relevant to the incident. Although it was concerning that FM2 was able to leave the facility with the AV, who s/he was not authorized to pick up, given that the AV and the C were described as “twins” and that the SP had only worked with them between a few weeks and a couple months and said that s/he did not often work with both of them at the same time; that when the SP realized FM2 took the wrong child out of the classroom, s/he immediately ran out of the classroom to the parking lot where FM2 was; and that the AV was returned to FM1 within a couple minutes, the SP’s action or conduct was determined to be a nonmaltreatment mistake for the following reasons: · At the time of the incident, the SP was performing job-related duties, as required by the facility’s policies; · The SP had not been determined responsible for any previous incident that resulted in a finding of maltreatment; · The SP had not been determined to have committed a nonmaltreatment mistake under this paragraph; · The AV did not receive an injury and did not require any medical care; and · The facility and the SP were both in compliance with all licensing requirements relevant to the incident except for the period when the incident occurred. The nonmaltreatment mistake by the SP was not neglect (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 (b), the investigative data in this report will be maintained by the Department of Human Services for a period of five years. Action Taken by Facility: The facility completed an internal review and determined that policies and procedures were adequate and followed. The incident was not similar to prior incidents. There was no additional training. The SP no longer worked at the facility. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: No further action taken. 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.
|
