|
AMENDED 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.” NOTICE: This Amended Maltreatment Investigation Memorandum supersedes a version dated February 8, 2023, which should be destroyed. The original version contained an incorrect date of incident on page one, and an incorrect citation for failure to report maltreatment. Pages one and five were updated to reflect the correct information, and the citation for failure to report maltreatment was rescinded.
License Number and Program Type: 1083770-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Lindsay Arth/Rebecca Mesto Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that an alleged victim (AV) was left on the facility’s playground, unsupervised, for approximately four minutes. Date of Incident(s): November 2, 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 remotely and also during a site visit conducted on December 9, 2022; from documentation at the facility; and through four interviews conducted with two facility staff persons (SP1 and SP2), an administrative staff person (P), and a family member (FM) of the AV. The AV was not at the facility at the time of the site visit and was not interviewed. The AV was three years old and was enrolled in the facility’s preschool room. The facility consisted of six classrooms, including the preschool room. There was a playground, which was enclosed by a six-foot tall chain link fence that was accessed directly from the building. The playground was separated into two areas – a bike area and a play area. From the preschool room, children exited their classroom and walked down a hallway to a door which led directly outside to the bike area. The bike area was separated from the play area by a gate, which was held closed by a latch. There was a gate on the bike area’s fence which led to the parking lot. The gate was closed with a latch. Adjacent to the building, there were several bushes planted a few feet from the building. The area surrounding the facility consisted mainly of businesses, and an elementary school. The playground was visible to passersby. The facility’s Incident Report stated that on November 2, 2022, at 11:40 a.m., while the preschool classroom was on the playground, lining up to come inside, SP1 and SP2 did not notice that the AV was not in line. SP1 and SP2 took the children inside, leaving the AV outside in the bike area. A few minutes later, an administrative staff person (P) saw the AV outside and brought him/her into the preschool classroom. The AV did not sustain any injuries. The facility’s CKA Head Count Tracking – AM showed that on November 2, 2022, at 10:40 a.m., there were 15 children in the preschool room and at 10:43 a.m., 15 children were counted on the playground. There was another section of the form which showed that at 11:35 a.m., there were 15 children on the playground and then again, 15 children in the preschool room, but there was also a notation stating that the information was filled out after the AV was returned to the classroom. The P provided the following information: · On the day of the incident, the P was in the infant room, and as s/he was leaving the infant room, s/he looked out the window and saw that the AV was on the playground, in the bike area, standing by the door. The P had just seen the rest of the preschool children come inside, so s/he let the AV inside and brought him/her into the preschool room. The AV was a “little teary.” In the preschool room, SP1 was getting lunch ready at the tables and SP2 was helping children take their coats off. Neither SP1 nor SP2 were aware that the AV had been left outside. · The P estimated that the AV had been outside, alone, for approximately four minutes. When the P opened the door, the AV asked the P to wash his/her hands for lunch. The AV was wearing a coat, hat, and gloves, and was dressed adequately for the weather. · Staff persons were trained to count the children after they were in line and conduct a name to face attendance before they left an area. As the children moved through the door, staff persons were to count the children. Each classroom has a name to face (attendance) sheet where they tracked children’s attendance during transitions. The P stated that SP1 and SP2 typically conducted name to face and counted the children, but were running late for lunch and may have been in a hurry to get inside, and did not complete the name to face documentation. · The AV had a history of hiding from staff persons, but had never been unsupervised prior. The AV would not have been able to open the gate that led to the parking lot, but an adult would have been able to. SP1 and SP2 provided the following information: · On the day of the incident, SP1 and SP2 were outside, in the bike area, with 15 preschool aged children, including the AV. When it was time to go inside, at approximately 11:30 or 11:40 a.m., the children lined up by the door. SP1 was in the front of the line and SP2 was in the back of the line.
· SP1 stated that a “couple” of the children were “handfuls,” and s/he and SP2 were trying to get the children in line before any of them ran away from the line. Before going inside, SP1 scanned the playground and saw one other child (not the AV) was still on a bike and made sure s/he was in line before going inside. Typically, SP1 and any other staff person working with the preschoolers counted the children out loud and documented that on their head count sheet, but that day was the “one day” that SP1 did not count the children. When they got inside the classroom, it was “chaos,” trying to ensure all of the children washed their hands for lunch and took their outdoor clothing off. SP1 typically counted the children again once the children were sitting at the tables, but before the children sat down, the P came in with the AV and said s/he had been left outside. SP1 felt “bad” about the incident and stated that if they had counted the children in line outside, the incident could have been avoided. · SP2 stated that s/he and SP1 were getting the children in line in the bike area and there was another child who was “straggling” behind and SP2 had to give him/her “several” verbal warnings to line up. SP2 was subbing in the room and had been in the room one or two other times. SP1 had the attendance clipboard and SP2 thought that SP1 had taken attendance and when the children were lined up, they went inside to the preschool room. In the classroom, SP1 and SP2 were assisting the children with washing hands, going to the restroom, and getting lunch ready when the P came in with the AV. SP1 and SP2 were “shocked” and felt “bad” that neither of them were aware that the AV did not come inside with the group. SP2 stated that either s/he or SP1 should have conducted a name to face attendance to ensure all of the children were accounted for. · SP2 stated that when s/he first began subbing at the facility, counting children during transitions was “hit and miss” and it was “disorganized and chaotic,” but had been getting better. · SP1 stated that sometimes the AV tried to hide outside when it was time to come inside, but on prior days, SP1 was able to see him/her and made sure s/he came inside. SP2 was not aware if the AV had a history of hiding from staff persons, but the AV did not listen to directions at times. · SP2 stated that the bike area had some bushes by the windows that the AV may have hidden behind. According to Weather Underground, (“St Cloud Regional Airport Station, MN”), on November 2, 2022, at 11:53 a.m., the temperature was 73 degrees Fahrenheit and the wind was 22 miles per hour. The FM stated that the AV did not tell him/her about the incident. The FM did not have any concerns about the care the AV received at the facility. The facility’s Employee Handbook stated that children were to be supervised by sight and sound at all times. Headcounts were to be conducted before and after transitions from one area to another. The facility’s Risk Reduction Plan stated that while supervising children on the playground, staff persons were to ensure children were “properly supervised.” Staff persons were to use “headcount sheets” and count children at each transition. Facility documentation showed that SP1 and SP2 each received training on the facility’s policies and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minor’s Act. 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 a program staff person can intervene to protect the health and safety of the child. Conclusion: On November 2, 2022, SP1 and SP2 brought 15 children, including the AV, outside onto the playground, in the bike area. At approximately 11:40 a.m., the children lined up to go inside and when SP1 and SP2 thought all of the children were in line, they brought the children into the preschool room, but left the AV outside unsupervised in the bike area, which was a violation of Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A and Minnesota Statute section 245A.02, subdivision 18. The AV, who was three years old remained in the bike area for approximately four minutes, until the P saw him/her outside, waiting by the door. At the time of the incident, it was 73 degrees outside and the AV was uninjured.
Minnesota Statutes 626.556, subdivision 2, paragraph (r), clause (1-5) states that 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. Consistent information was provided that when SP1 and SP2 brought the children inside, they were each assisting various children to get their outdoor clothing off and getting them ready for lunch during the four minutes that the AV was outside alone. SP1’s and SP2’s actions or conduct was determined to be a nonmaltreatment mistake for the following reasons: · At the time of the incident, SP1 and SP2 were each performing job-related duties, as required by the facility’s policies; · Neither SP1 nor SP2 had been determined responsible for any previous incident that resulted in a finding of maltreatment; · Neither SP1 nor SP2 had been determined to have committed a nonmaltreatment mistake under this paragraph; · The AV was uninjured and did not require medical care after the incident; and · Except for the period when the incident occurred, the facility, SP1, and SP2 were each in compliance with all licensing requirements relevant to the incident. The nonmaltreatment mistake to the AV by SP1 and SP2 was not maltreatment. 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 (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 their policies and procedures were adequate but not followed when staff persons did not conduct “face to name” upon leaving the playground or entering the classroom. Staff persons were retrained on the facility’s “head count sheets” and “face to name policies.” Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: SP1 and SP2 were not determined as perpetrators of maltreatment of the AV because the Department of Human Services found that the incident for which each was responsible met the criteria to be determined a nonmaltreatment mistake. SP1 and SP2 were each notified by the Office of Inspector General that any future incident of possible neglect of an alleged victim for which each is responsible might not be considered a nonmaltreatment mistake. On February 8, 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.
|
