|
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: 802157-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Kim Anderson/Danielle Morrison Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that an alleged victim (AV) was left outside without the knowledge of two staff persons (SP1 and SP2) for approximately five-seven minutes and was found by a parent of another child. Date of Incident(s): August 1, 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 August 12, 2022; from documentation at the facility; and through three interviews conducted with one supervisory staff person (P1) and two staff persons (SP1 and SP2). This investigator called the AV’s family member (FM), but the FM did not respond to the message. The AV was four years old at the time of the incident and enrolled in the preschool-age program. The facility was on an approximately 15 acre lot that included the building, playgrounds, hills, and grass. The outside area used by the classrooms was fenced in by a chain link fence and not immediately adjacent to any roads or sidewalks. However, there was a 30 mile per hour, two-lane road that the facility was located on. There was a mowed “butterfly garden trail” with wild flowers and tall grass on either side throughout the lot, and included a path from the playground to the facility up a hill. This path was approximately 350 feet from the facility. A long driveway to the facility was accessed via the two lane road. About hallway up the driveway, there was a small gravel lot that parents used while waiting to pick up children. The playground was visible from the driveway when approaching the school and to the cars/persons in the gravel lot. P1, SP1, and SP2 provided consistent information that the preschool classroom was coming inside from the playground when the AV was left unattended. P1 and the Internal Review provided the following information: · On August 1, 2022, at approximately 11:48 a.m., an office staff person (P2) received a telephone call from a parent. The parent told P2 that she was parked in the small gravel areas off of the driveway and saw a child (later determined to be the AV) poke his/her head out of the slide on the playground and that the AV on the playground alone. P2 went to the playground and found the AV inside of the round slide facing away from the building. The AV was in “good spirits” and said, “You found me! I had a really good hiding spot.” P2 and the AV walked back to the facility and the AV told P2 that s/he did not want to go in with the others, but wanted to hide. P2 brought the AV back in the classroom, and said SP1 was “shocked” to see the AV walk in with P2. P2 left the classroom as SP1 talked to the AV about what happened. P2 then notified P1. · Because it was about ten minutes before pick-up time (noon), P1 waited at the door to speak with the AV’s family member (FM), when s/he came to pick-up the AV. When the FM arrived, P1 told the FM about the incident and assured the FM that the AV was “okay and not afraid,” and the FM was “understanding.” · P1 said SP1 and SP2 were both “very shaken up” when s/he spoke with them. SP1 and SP2 each provided information to P1 that was consistent with the information each provided during their interviews and outlined below. P1 also stated that the classroom had 21 children at the time of the incident. SP1 provided the following information: · SP1 said that on the day of the incident, the classroom was going to go inside from the playground. Because the AV was “squabbling” with another child, the AV was at the front of the line. SP1 counted 21 children and turned to lead the group back to the building via the “butterfly trail.” SP1 said that when s/he turned his/her back to lead the group back to the facility, it was possible that the AV “jumped” into the long tall grass or weeds to hide, and if SP2 was talking to another child s/he also would not have seen the AV do that. · On the way back to the building, another child had a bathroom accident, so when SP1 arrived back into the classroom, s/he assisted in getting clothes for that child so did not count the children. SP1 “assumed” that SP2 counted when s/he arrived back into the classroom. · While SP1 was getting clothes for the other child, another staff person (P2) brought the AV back into the classroom. SP1 was not aware that the AV was left outside until then. The AV was giggling about what happened. SP1 told the AV that s/he scared SP1 and that the AV needed to stay with the group. SP1 thought the AV was outside approximately five to seven minutes by him/herself. SP2 provided the following information: · When it was time to go inside from the playground, the children put the outside toys away in the shed. SP1 asked the children line up behind the shed when they were done cleaning up. SP2 closed and locked the shed. After SP2 locked the shed, s/he looked at the playground but did not see any children. When SP2 got to the end of the line, SP2 believed SP1 had completed the count of children. · SP1 “usually” jogged up through the trail and most of the children ran with him/her. SP2 stayed at the end of the line for the few children who did not run and were “stragglers.” SP2 did not see any children run into the weeds or grass including the AV. · When SP2 got to the top of the hill, SP1 was already inside the facility. SP2 said that SP1 counts the children when SP1 gets inside so s/he knows how many need to return inside with SP2. SP1 did not mention anything to SP2 about doing the count, so SP2 “assumed” that SP1 had already done it. · Once inside, SP2 started doing “normal classroom stuff” and a few minutes later P2 brought the AV to the back door and said a parent saw the AV on the playground. SP1 talked with the AV about staying with the group and the AV said, “My hiding spot was really good. You did not find me.” SP2 said the AV was not hurt or distressed about what happened, but seemed “bummed” because s/he thought it was a game. SP2 was not aware the AV was still on the playground and thought s/he was outside no longer than five minutes by him/herself. The Facility’s Risk Reduction Plan stated “staff are responsible for knowing the whereabouts of children at all times” and “staff must constantly count children and be aware of which children are under their supervision.” According to Weather Underground (Rochester, MN Weather History | Weather Underground (wunderground.com), on August 1, 2022, the temperature at 11:54 a.m. was 74 degrees Fahrenheit and conditions were fair. P1, SP1, and SP2 were trained on the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act and the facility’s Risk Reduction Plan. Relevant Rules and/or Statutes: Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.02, subdivision 18, and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A, states that a child must have supervision at all times and that supervision is defined as occurring 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. Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0040, subpart 1, states that the preschool age is a 1:10 staff person to child ratio.
Conclusion: A. Maltreatment: Information was consistent that on August 1, 2022, the AV was left outside on the playground without the supervision or knowledge of staff persons for approximately five to seven minutes, which was a violation of Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.02, subdivision 18, and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A. Given the AV’s age, being outside unsupervised without the knowledge or supervision of staff persons on a 15-acre lot for five to seven minutes and found by another parent exposed the AV to dangers. Therefore, there was a preponderance of the evidence that there was a failure to supply the AV with necessary care and a failure to protect the AV from conditions that seriously endangered his/her physical or mental health when reasonable able to do so. 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; and /or 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). 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 classroom had 21 children at the time of the incident, which was a violation of Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0040, subpart 1. However, one additional child likely would not impede SP1’s and/or SP2’s ability to provide supervision as required. SP1 and SP2 were trained on the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act and the facility’s Risk Reduction Plan. SP1 and SP2 were responsible for the care and supervision of the AV when they left the AV unsupervised on the playground. Therefore, SP1 and SP2 were responsible for maltreatment of the AV. 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 neglect for which SP1 and SP2 were responsible did not meet statutory criteria to be determined as recurring or serious. It was a single incident and the AV did not sustain any injury or require the care of a physician. 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 an Internal Review and found their policies adequate, but due to the natural challenges that are presented with a nature campus, they will provide additional training to staff persons; including that staff persons are to remain in sight of one another and have an additional checkpoint to count children during the transition. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: SP1 and SP2 were not disqualified from providing direct care services as a result of the maltreatment determination in this report. However, SP1 and SP2 were notified by the Office of Inspector General that any further substantiated act of maltreatment, whether or not the act meets the criteria for “serious,” will automatically meet the criteria for “recurring” and will result in the disqualification of SP1 and SP2. The determination that SP1 and SP2 were responsible for maltreatment is subject to appeal. On January 6, 2023, the facility was issued a Correction Order for the violations outlined in this report. 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.
|
