|
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: 1106057-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Alice Percy 651-431-6569 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that an alleged victim (AV) was left outside unsupervised for approximately two minutes by a staff person (SP). The AV was found by a guardian (G) of another child enrolled in the facility and brought into the facility. Date of Incident(s): December 29, 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 January 18, 2023; from documentation at the facility; and through four interviews conducted with a facility staff person (P1), an administrative staff person (P2), the SP, and the AV’s family member (FM). The AV was two years old and enrolled in the preschool classroom at the facility. The facility was located in a residential neighborhood. A long driveway was located in front of the facility and cars were permitted to park along the driveway. The facility’s preschool playground was located next to the driveway a short distance from the facility’s main entrance and was enclosed by a chain link fence. The main entrance to the facility was located in a recessed area of the wall. Two solid doors with small vertical windows on the top half provided access to a large vestibule area. Several long windows were next to the two doors. On the other side of the vestibule were two wood doors with small vertical windows that extended along most of the height of the doors. The vestibule doors provided access to a large muscle room that had several tables and chairs placed around the room. On the far side of the large muscle room was a short hallway that led to the two preschool classrooms. An area immediately outside the SP’s classroom held the cubbies for the children in that classroom. A review of a video recording of what occurred inside the main entrance doors of the facility on December 29, 2022, showed the following occurring between 9:49 a.m. and 9:51 a.m.: · At the video’s time stamp of 9:49 a.m., the children, P1, and the SP enter the facility, walk across the large muscle room toward the video camera. · At 9:50 a.m., the children and the staff persons walk out of view of the camera and part of the classroom door is seen opening and closing. · At 9:50:40 a.m., part of the classroom door opens and the G walks across the large muscle room and out the vestibule doors. · At 9:51:21 a.m., the G re-enters the facility with the AV and walks out of view of the camera to the classroom. P1, P2, and the SP, and the facility’s documentation provided the following information: · On December 29, 2022, the SP worked in the AV’s classroom. P1 worked in another preschool classroom. At approximately 9:15 a.m., P1 and the SP took the two groups of preschool children to the facility’s playground. P1 had 10 children in his/her group and the SP had five children in his/her group. At approximately 9:45 a.m., they lined up the children at the playground gate, did a head count, and then walked to the door of the facility, where they did another head count. All of the children were accounted for at that time and both P1 and the SP recalled seeing the AV in the line of children. P1 then opened the facility’s outer door, leaned back against the door, and held the door open as the SP led the line of children into the facility and through the second entrance door. P1 followed the children into the facility and let the outer door close behind him/her. P1 stated that s/he looked back at the playground before s/he entered the facility to ensure there were no children left on the playground. · P1 led his/her group of children to his/her classroom. The children entered the classroom and P1 counted the children and assisted them with taking off their outerwear. The SP took his/her children to the area immediately outside his/her classroom and assisted the children with taking off their outerwear, since their cubbies were located in the hallway outside the classroom. While the SP and the children were still in the hallway, the G brought the AV to the SP and told the SP that s/he found the AV standing outside the facility’s main entrance door. The AV was not crying and did not appear to be upset. · The G told P2 that s/he found the AV unsupervised outside the facility’s door. P2 talked to P1 and the SP about the incident. After the incident, P2 retrained the staff persons on using name-to-face counting and asked them to use a walking rope when taking the children from one area to another. P2 also viewed the video showing what occurred. · The SP stated that at the time the G brought the AV to him/her s/he had not yet counted the children because they had not yet entered the classroom. The SP was not aware that the AV was not with the group until the G brought the AV to him/her. P1 and the SP each stated that the AV was outside without supervision for approximately two minutes. The SP and P1 each believed that the AV stood behind the facility’s door when the other children entered the facility and because the door was solid wood, neither of the staff persons saw the AV remain outside when the other children entered the facility. The AV did not sustain any injury while s/he was unsupervised outside the facility. · Consistent information was provided that the staff persons each had a computer app that they used to track which children were in their classrooms. The SP did not have his/her iPad with him/her when s/he went outside that day and did a head count instead of a name-to-face count when counting the children. The FM stated that prior to the incident, s/he had no concerns about the care that the AV received at the facility. According to the facility’s Employee Handbook, the staff persons were required to be within sight and sound of the children at all times and the staff persons were to never leave a child unsupervised. When taking children outside and inside the facility, the staff persons were to count the children as they left or entered the facility to ensure all children were accounted for. Facility documentation showed that P1, P2, and the SP each received training on the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act and on the facility’s policies prior to the incident.
Relevant Rules and Statutes: Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.02, subdivision 18 and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A, state that “supervision” means 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; and that children are required to be supervised at all times. Conclusion: Consistent information was provided that on December 29, 2022, the SP took five children to the playground and P1 took ten children to the playground. At approximately 9:45 a.m., they lined up the children at the playground gate, did a head count, and then walked to the door of the facility, where they did another head count. The SP and P1 saw the AV with the group at that time. P1 then held open the facility’s outer door and the SP led the line of children into the facility and through the second entrance door. P1 followed the children into the facility and took his/her group of children to his/her classroom, where s/he counted them. The SP took his/her group of children to the area outside his/her classroom door and assisted them with removing their outerwear. Before the SP and the children entered the classroom, the G found the AV outside the facility’s main entrance door and brought the AV to his/her classroom. The AV was unsupervised for approximately two minutes which was a violation of Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.02, subdivision 18 and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A. Minnesota Statutes 260E.30, subdivision 3, states that rather than making a determination of substantiated maltreatment by the individual, the commissioner of human services shall determine that a nonmaltreatment mistake was made by the individual. A nonmaltreatment mistake occurs when: (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 the AV was left outside by the front door unsupervised by the SP for approximately two minutes, the SP’s actions 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 child care program plan; · The SP had not been determined responsible for any 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 sustained no injury during the incident; and · Except for the period when the incident occurred, the facility and the SP were both in compliance with all licensing requirements relevant to the incident. The nonmaltreatment mistake regarding the AV by the SP was not maltreatment. 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 the facility’s policies were not adequate. After the incident, the facility included protocols to their policies that required the staff persons to do a name-to-face count of the children each time they went through a door. All of the staff persons were also required to use walking ropes when taking groups of children from one area to another. After the incident, all of the staff persons received training on using a name-to-face count of the children. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: The SP was not determined as a perpetrator of maltreatment of the AV because the Department of Human Services found that the incident for which the SP was responsible met the criteria to be determined a nonmaltreatment mistake. The SP was notified by the Office of Inspector General that any future incident of possible neglect of an alleged victim for which the SP is responsible might not be considered a nonmaltreatment mistake. On February 24, 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.
|
