|
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: 830937-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Alice Percy 651-431-6569 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that an administrative staff person (SP) left an alleged victim (AV) unsupervised in a classroom for approximately 20 minutes. Date of Incident(s): November 14, 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 November 21, 2022; from documentation at the facility; and through four interviews conducted with two facility staff persons (P1 and P2), the SP, and the AV’s family member (FM). The AV was three years old and enrolled in the preschool classroom at the time of the incident. The facility was a two story building with classrooms on both levels. A parking lot was located in front of the building and a sidewalk ran along the front of the building. The facility’s main entrance was located near one end of the building. A glass door opened into a small vestibule and a second glass door provided access to the facility’s entryway, which included seating and shelving. A short flight of stairs led to the upper level, where the staff office area and several classrooms were located. A longer flight of stairs led to the lower level. At the bottom of the stairs was a small reading area and a hallway leading to the toddler classroom, the Beforecare classroom, and an extra unused classroom. The door to the Beforecare classroom was across from the bottom of the stairs. A set of wooden cubbies was placed along the front of the Beforecare classroom. The wall along the front of the Beforecare classroom consisted of ceiling to floor windows. The Beforecare classroom was a large square room with several low shelving units placed along the perimeter of the classroom and in the center of the classroom. Several tables and chairs were set up around the classroom. A small tent was located along the back wall. A room divider ran along one side of the classroom, separating it from an extra unused classroom space on the far side of the divider. A stairway went from the main classroom to a small play space in the area above the classroom, but was closed off by a gate when not in use. The SP, P1, and P2, and the facility’s documentation provided the following information: · On November 14, 2022, the SP and P1 worked in the facility’s Beforecare classroom, which is where the children from several classrooms combined in the morning prior to when all of the classrooms were staffed. Several staff persons were not at work that day due to the weather and illness. The children typically were taken to their classrooms at 8:15 a.m., but on that day, the SP was running a few minutes late and it was 8:20 a.m. when the SP had the children go to the cubbies outside the Beforecare classroom prior to going to their classrooms. P1 did not recall seeing the AV in the classroom because s/he was concentrating on the toddler children. Prior to the SP taking the preschool children from the Beforecare classroom, P1 took the two toddler children to the toddler classroom, leaving the SP with seven children, including the AV. P1 stated that s/he did not leave the toddler classroom after that and had no reason to return to the Beforecare classroom. · The SP had the preschool children stop at the cubbies located outside of the Beforecare classroom and collect their backpacks and outerwear. The SP stated that while s/he waited for the children to collect their items, s/he looked back into the Beforecare classroom and did not see any children left in the classroom. The SP did not count the children and believed that s/he had all seven children. The SP led the group of children up the stairs, where the staff persons from their respective classrooms met them and took them to their classrooms. The SP then went outside the main entrance doors to meet the children who were being dropped off outside. · Between 8:30 and 8:40 a.m., P2 entered the Beforecare classroom and heard a child crying. The door to the Beforecare classroom was open. The AV was sitting at a table in the classroom and told P2 that s/he did not want to go to his/her classroom earlier, so s/he hid in the reading tent when the other children left the Beforecare classroom. The AV then “got scared” when everyone left the classroom. P2 comforted the AV and then took him/her to the preschool classroom. P2 later told the SP that s/he found the AV in the Beforecare classroom. The SP telephoned the FM to tell him/her about the incident. The SP did not talk to the AV about the incident because the AV did not know the SP well and the SP did not want to further upset the AV. The FM stated that s/he had no concerns about the care the AV received at the facility and that s/he had good experiences with the facility and the staff persons. According to the facility’s Risk Reduction Plan, the staff persons were not to leave children unattended at any time. The staff persons were expected to count the children frequently. After transitions, the staff persons were to take attendance and ensure that all the children were accounted for. Facility documentation showed that the SP, P1, and P2 each received training on the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act and on the facility’s policies prior to the incident. Relevant Rules and/or Statutes: Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.02, subdivision 18, and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A, state 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. Conclusion: A. Maltreatment: Consistent information was provided that on November 14, 2022, the AV was left in a classroom without the knowledge or supervision of a staff person for between 10 to 20 minutes, which was a violation of Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.02, subdivision 18, and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A. The SP was not aware that the AV remained in the classroom when s/he took the other children to their classrooms, which was inconsistent with the standards of a professional caregiver in a facility licensed by the Department of Human Services and a violation of the facility’s policies and procedures. Although the classroom was designed for the use of preschool children, the AV was unsupervised in the classroom for an extended period of time with no staff person available to intervene if the AV had attempted to do something dangerous, had injured him/herself, or in the event of an emergency. 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 or actions that seriously endangered the AV’s physical or mental health when reasonably 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. Facility documentation showed that the SP received training on the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act and the facility’s policies prior to the incident. After P1 left the classroom with the toddler children, the SP was responsible for the care and supervision of the seven preschool children, which included the AV. The SP stated that while s/he waited for the children to collect their items, s/he looked back into the Beforecare classroom and did not see any children left in the classroom. The SP did not count the children and believed that s/he had all seven children. However, the AV remained in the classroom. Therefore, the SP was 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 the SP was responsible did not meet statutory criteria to be determined as recurring or serious because it was a single incident and the AV did not sustain an injury that required 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 determined that the facility’s policies were adequate, but were not followed by the SP. The staff persons were retrained on regularly taking accurate counts of the children. The tent was removed from the Beforecare classroom. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: The SP was not disqualified from providing direct care services as a result of the maltreatment determination in this report. However, the SP was 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 the SP. The determination that the SP was responsible for maltreatment is subject to appeal. On January 20, 2023, the facility was issued a Correction Order for the violation 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.
|
